# Andrew Garfield Suggests Michael B. Jordan as Spider-Man's ? Boyfriend?



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 11, 2013)

> By now it's pretty well known that "The Amazing Spider-Man" star Andrew Garfield is something of an expert on his superhero alter ego. In fact, the 29-year-old actor feels so secure in his Spidey knowledge that he is now proposing to take the comic character ? and his sexuality ? in a whole new direction. And he wants "Fruitvale Station" star Michael B. Jordan to partake in his new vision.
> 
> Garfield has been a Spider-fan since he was a kid ... and perhaps now even more of one as an adult, as he surprised San Diego Comic-Con attendees in 2011 by showing up to ask a "fan question" of the "Spider-Man" panel wearing a makeshift Spidey costume that was about one step up from Underoos.
> 
> ...





Thoughts?


----------



## Blue (Jul 11, 2013)

> News


----------



## Bishop (Jul 11, 2013)

Fuck this guy, stick to the comic and make sure Mary Jane has a fat ass.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 11, 2013)

Spiderman's gay? LOL.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 11, 2013)

Not exactly on topic but he fucking sucked as Spiderman and the movie sucked. He shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion. 

That said...I have no problem with gay people but as an SM fan, a heterosexual and a "manly" man it would vastly take away from my enjoyment of SM if he was kissing dudes and shit.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 11, 2013)

I like how the whole article has this anti-homo undertone.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jul 11, 2013)

MAXIMUM SPIDER


----------



## martryn (Jul 11, 2013)

What a faggoty idea.

Don't fuck too much with canon.  That's a big fucking change.  If the comic strip wants to make Spidey gay, fine, he can be gay in a movie.  If you want to explore sexuality in a Marvel character, though, use someone like Rictor in an X-Factor movie, or, since it is Spider-Man, just introduce Max Modell.


----------



## happiholic (Jul 12, 2013)

This actually happening would be the only way I would go and see any of the new Spider-Man movies.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 12, 2013)

Then he could cum spider webs all over his black lover!


----------



## Buskuv (Jul 12, 2013)

>star in the Spiderman movie Sony made to avoid having the rights revert back to Marvel

>guys, I know EVERYTHING

No, fuck you, and fuck Sony for making another lackluster Spiderman movie so he can't be in the Avengers.  Fuck Fox, too, while we're at it.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Jul 12, 2013)

marvel master race


----------



## TSC (Jul 12, 2013)

For a moment I almost thought spidey gay lover was going be the nba player Micheal Jordan from freading the title. LOL


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 12, 2013)

No thank you.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 12, 2013)

Yeah, dumb as shit. DC and Marvel seem to be trying to one-up the other in who can pander more to the gay demographic to show how "progressive" they are. Marvel makes Hulkling/Wiccan gay, DC makes Green Lantern gay, Marvel has a gay wedding between two D-list characters. 

Making established superheroes we've known for decades gay out of the blue is dumb as fuck and a slap in the face to fans. If you want gay superheroes, introduce new ones who are well written and entertaining and watch me not give a damn that they're gay.

Or just make Ultimates Spider-man gay. They already made him black. Nobody gives a fuck about Ultimates.


----------



## PureWIN (Jul 12, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, dumb as shit. DC and Marvel seem to be trying to one-up the other in who can pander more to the gay demographic to show how "progressive" they are. Marvel makes Hulkling/Wiccan gay, DC makes Green Lantern gay, Marvel has a gay wedding between two D-list characters.
> 
> Making established superheroes we've known for decades gay out of the blue is dumb as fuck and a slap in the face to fans. If you want gay superheroes, introduce new ones who are well written and entertaining and watch me not give a damn that they're gay.
> 
> Or just make Ultimates Spider-man gay. They already made him black. Nobody gives a fuck about Ultimates.



This.

I'm okay with characters with unconfirmed sexualities or new characters being made gay, but changing a character such as a Spiderman who is well known to be in love with a girl named MJW is just idiotic.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Jesus fuck, if they want a gay Spider-Man then just kill off Peter in the third film or so and replace him with the new black gay Spider-Man from the Ultimate line and let him get his ghetto prostate tickled by whoever the fuck his love interest is. They need to stop messing with canon just to make minorities happy.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Jesus fuck, if they want a gay Spider-Man then just kill off Peter in the third film or so and replace him with the new black gay Spider-Man from the Ultimate line and let him get his ghetto prostate tickled by whoever the fuck his love interest is. They need to stop messing with canon just to make minorities happy.



Are you Ichliebe's brother?


----------



## Chibason (Jul 12, 2013)




----------



## Enclave (Jul 12, 2013)

Parker is well established as heterosexual, don't fuck with canon.

If that dude wants a movie Spider-Man who's gay then he should convince Sony to make a Ultimate Spider-Man movie.  I can buy Miles being potentially gay.  He's young enough that his relationship with Gwen can easily be explained by him not having discovered his sexuality yet.

Peter Parker though?  I just couldn't buy that.  It would be a massive change.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Are you Ichliebe's brother?



Boyfriend is the more appropriate term here.


----------



## Patchouli (Jul 12, 2013)




----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Jesus fuck, if they want a gay Spider-Man then just kill off Peter in the third film or so and replace him with the new black gay Spider-Man from the Ultimate line and let him get his ghetto prostate tickled by whoever the fuck his love interest is. They need to stop messing with canon just to make minorities happy.



They could have him played by Jaden Smith.


[YOUTUBE]FDxpOsnTPkw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jul 12, 2013)

I'd be okay if it was one of Parker's clones but Spider-Man shouldn't be changed so much just to pander

How about this DC and marvel why not make an AU where all the heros are gay if you're going to do this?


----------



## Patchouli (Jul 12, 2013)

If anything, I'm offended that it has to be Spiderman.

Couldn't even have it be one of the Avengers?


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Im more irritated that they edited out MJ than i am about his comments


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

In a few years, the craze will be to criticize all of these "groundbreaking" authors for implying that homosexuals are mutants and freaks.

A _straight_ superhero will be introduced amid storms of controversy, those wanting to conserve the old order will be outraged, those wanting to take a liberal step forward will be enthralled, we will all still be spending a lot of our time thinking about people who don't exist.


----------



## Orochimaru (Jul 12, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Parker is well established as heterosexual, don't fuck with canon.



Bitch, no heterosexual would go out in public in those tights; stop fooling yourself. 

And Andrew Garfield is mad gay; poor Emma Stone. :/


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 12, 2013)

Despite the fact he's a Jewbro, I can't forgive Andrew Garfield for being in that terrible Lion's For Lambs movie. The hell was that elitist bullshit?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Despite the fact he's a Jewbro, I can't forgive Andrew Garfield for being in that terrible Lion's For Lambs movie. The hell was that elitist bullshit?



Fuck, why did you have to remind me. That was one of the most ridiculous bullshit pieces of liberal propaganda I've ever seen. I mean it would have been one thing if it was a good movie, but not only was it just a bunch of laughable bullshit, it was an incredibly shitty movie as well.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 12, 2013)

*NO!
NO!
NO!!
NO!!!
NO!!!!
FUCK OFF, ANDREW GARFIELD!!!!!
FUCKING CANON IS A BIG NO NO!!!!!!*


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 12, 2013)

Anyone who disagrees with this is a homophobe.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Jul 12, 2013)

Fuckin homosexuals, when will they stop


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 12, 2013)

Goova said:


> Fuckin homosexuals, when will they stop



Either until we're homosexual with them or when the heterosexuals feel ashamed for being heterosexual.

:sanji


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> That said...I have no problem with gay people but as an SM fan, a heterosexual and a "manly" man it would vastly take away from my enjoyment of SM if he was kissing dudes and shit.



>Implying gay people can't be manly.
>Implying you can't be okay with this if you're a heterosexual.

Oh, Cyphon. Someday you'll learn.



Toroxus said:


> I like how the whole article has this anti-homo undertone.



What? I didn't get that at all. 


My personal feelings: This would just be a pointless attention-grabber. It doesn't really affect the story in any way. Also, Mary Jane is kind of a fixture of the Spiderman universe; getting rid of such an integral character that has been around for so long and replacing her with someone completely new who fills the exact same role just seems totally redundant and stupid.


----------



## santanico (Jul 12, 2013)

errr ummm, that would be cool, if I cared about this movie at all


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 12, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Are you Ichliebe's brother?



Hilarious.



Ayanli said:


> Anyone who disagrees with this is a homophobe.



Well, not necessarily.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

This isn't 616. It's an adaptation.


----------



## Krory (Jul 12, 2013)

>Complaining about fucking with canon
>IN A MOVIE THAT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT FUCK WITH THE CANON


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

krory said:


> >Complaining about fucking with canon
> >IN A MOVIE THAT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT FUCK WITH THE CANON



Well I still haven't seen the movie (I like comics, and cartoons based on comics, but usually not comic book movies since they all tend to suck), but from what I've heard the only real canon change they made was turning Peter's parents into secret agents or some retarded shit like shit. However changing the fucking main characters sexual orientation out of the blue, and changing his main love interests gender, race, and sexual orientation is beyond fucking with canon.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Jesus fuck, if they want a gay Spider-Man then just kill off Peter in the third film or so and replace him with the new black gay Spider-Man from the Ultimate line and let him get his ghetto prostate tickled by whoever the fuck his love interest is. They need to stop messing with canon just to make minorities happy.



Wow, so somebody had their panties in such a bunch that they gave me a 2000 point neg drop simply for not being a fan of the complete butchering of canon.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 12, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Anyone who disagrees with this is a homophobe.



Not necessarily. I'm not even a fan of heterosexual romance. 

Yuri/Lesbian or bust.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jul 12, 2013)

Spiderman will start to wax his eyebrows, rock matching spandex outfits with his broz and utter catch phrases like..  "he looks rough" and "super!" whilst pummelling teh bad guyz.

Then he wakes up one day realizing the last 5 years of his gay lyfe were part of a nazi eugenics experiment testing a gay bomb designed to upset the sexual orientation equilibrium of soldiers, with the emotional and psychological induced trauma driving him to become a deranged psychopath vigilante named 'Magneto'.

Why not...  why not.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Spiderman will start to wax his eyebrows, rock matching spandex outfits with his broz and utter catch phrases like..  "he looks rough" and "super!" whilst pummelling teh bad guyz.
> 
> Then he wakes up one day realizing the last 5 years of his gay lyfe were part of a nazi eugenics experiment testing a gay bomb designed to upset the sexual orientation equilibrium of soldiers, with the emotional and psychological induced trauma driving him to become a deranged psychopath vigilante named 'Magneto'.
> 
> Why not...  why not.



Don't forget the 3-way with him, Wolverine, and Cable.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Don't forget the 3-way with him, Wolverine, and Cable.



Boom Pulitzer.

They could make a movie with Toby Maguire or whoever the eff is spiderman now where he plays a homosexual character.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Well I still haven't seen the movie (I like comics, and cartoons based on comics, but usually not comic book movies since they all tend to suck), but from what I've heard the only real canon change they made was turning Peter's parents into secret agents or some retarded shit like shit. However changing the fucking main characters sexual orientation out of the blue, and changing his main love interests gender, race, and sexual orientation is beyond fucking with canon.



This isn't canon. Canon is Earth-616. This is the movie Spider-Man universe. They're different.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Wow, so somebody had their panties in such a bunch that they gave me a 2000 point neg drop simply for not being a fan of the complete butchering of canon.



I wonder who could have done that


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> This isn't canon. Canon is Earth-616. This is the movie Spider-Man universe. They're different.



They still need to maintain some respect for the canon. How would you feel if in the next Batman movie they turn Bruce Wayne in Bianca Wayne, an street smart African American female whose parents were shot to death by corrupt white racist cops, the Joker becomes a psychotic white supremacist, and Catwoman becomes the incredibly flamboyant Catman.

The uber far left needs to stop trying to "fix" everything that doesn't fucking need to be fixed. If they want to have Superheroes that fit into their agenda then they should just make new ones, not completely retcon and change already existing ones.

Now, I'm a pretty socially moderate guy, but the far left in America is just becoming absolutely fucking insane. Even other countries make fun our bizarre sense of "Political Correctness".


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Now, *I'm a pretty socially moderate guy*, but the far left in America is just becoming absolutely fucking insane. Even other countries make fun our bizarre sense of "Political Correctness".



You are just trolling now. 

You consider anyone that smokes marijuana a drug dealer. 

You have repeatedly made homophobic/racist/sexist remarks to other members of this forum and have been banned for it on a few occasions. 

You are not even close to being a moderate.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> You are just trolling now.
> 
> You consider anyone that smokes marijuana a drug dealer.
> 
> ...




I usually have your posts blocked, but chose to view what you posted just this once to see what you posted in obvious response to me due to your bizarre obsession with me.

First, I don't consider anybody who smokes marijuana a drug dealer unless there is reason to do so. There is proven evidence (Trayvon's emails, Facebook messages, and Twitter posts) that Trayvon was a drug dealer. Just because you want to ignore this doesn't make it true.

Secondly, I'm not homophobic in the slightest, in fact I am a closeted transgender (and thus a lesbian), my best friend is gay, and I don't even use the word "gay" as a substitute for dumb like many do because I find it incredibly offensive and even get onto people in public when they do, it would make zero sense for me to be homophobic. I just don't think that it is a good thing to fundamentally retcon the way characters have been for decades just to fit into some ridiculous agenda.

Third, I'm not going to respond to the racism comment because nothing I say will make any difference. 

Fourth, I'm not sexist. Just because I hate your guts does not make me sexist.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Then he wakes up one day realizing the last 5 years of his gay lyfe were part of a nazi eugenics experiment testing a gay bomb designed to upset the sexual orientation equilibrium of soldiers, with the emotional and psychological induced trauma driving him to become a deranged psychopath vigilante named 'Magneto'.
> 
> Why not...  why not.



Rep this. ^


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> They still need to maintain some respect for the canon. How would you feel if in the next Batman movie they turn Bruce Wayne in *Bianca Wayne*, an street smart African American *female* whose parents were shot to death by corrupt white racist cops, the Joker becomes a psychotic white supremacist, and Catwoman becomes the incredibly flamboyant Catman.



Then that's not really Batman, now is it? So if in the comics, the day before the movie come out they reveal that Peter Parker is Bisexual, you'll be okay with it?



> The uber far left needs to stop trying to "fix" everything that doesn't fucking need to be fixed. If they want to have Superheroes that fit into their agenda then they should just make new ones, not completely *retcon* and change already existing ones.



Not a retcon. Adaptation.



> Now, I'm a pretty socially moderate guy, but the far left in America is just becoming absolutely fucking insane. Even other countries make fun our bizarre sense of "Political Correctness".



No. Comment.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Then that's not really Batman, now is it? So if in the comics, the day before the movie come out they reveal that Peter Parker is Bisexual, you'll be okay with it



No, I would not be okay with that and neither would comic readers. You can't just retcon something that has been canon for decades. 

And it isn't just that Garfield wants to change Peter's sexual orientation, but they also want to change his primary love interests's; gender, skin color, and sexual orientation, and probably name as well. It's just fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Except its not a retcon. 

Its an *adaptation* 

If the Joker were to be killed (which has been before on many an occasion)

That does not mean the Joker is dead forever and can never appear again.

 It means that he died in that adaptation.

Just like if in an adaptation Spiderman was Gay it wouldnt make every version of him before this gay and it wouldnt make every version after him gay. 

He would only be gay in that adaptations universe or medium. 

Retcon =/= Adaptation


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> No, I would not be okay with that and neither would comic readers. You can't just retcon something that has been canon for decades.
> 
> And it isn't just that Garfield wants to change Peter's sexual orientation, but they also want to change his primary love interests's; gender, skin color, and sexual orientation, and probably name as well. It's just fucking ridiculous.



1. Panel where Peter Parker says that he's not gay? Unless he's specifically said that it wouldn't be a retcon. And even if he did, they can always make him change his mind and be open to a homosexual relationship. So if they did that, and it was canon to the story... would you be okay with it?

2. Wait. He's changing Gwen stacy's race, gender, sexual orientation and name? Then that's just an entirely new character isn't it?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> 1. Panel where Peter Parker says that he's not gay? Unless he's specifically said that it wouldn't be a retcon. And even if he did, they can always make him change his mind and be open to a homosexual relationship. So if they did that, and it was canon to the story... would you be okay with it?
> 
> 2. Wait. He's changing Gwen stacy's race, gender, sexual orientation and name? Then that's just an entirely new character isn't it?



Mary Jane is his main love interest. Gwen Stacy may have been his first, but not his main. The article clearly talks about a black, gay, male Mary Jane. 

And Jesus Fuck, there is no point in debating this with you. When are you going to tell me to check my privilege?


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 12, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Anyone who disagrees with this is a homophobe.



Nope. Pretty sure most One Piece fans don't care that this guy is gay.


*Spoiler*: __ 








However, if one chapter comes out depicting Luffy and Zoro smexing, they will be furious.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 12, 2013)

I don't know if that would work with the young male demographic who like to "relate" to the superheroes, and who are predominantly not gay. Or the canon purists. Or the homophobes. Or the anti-pc crowd. Doesn't sound worth it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 12, 2013)

Or people that would just rather a unique character be made rather than change up a well-established character for no reason other than to appear progressive.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> They still need to maintain some respect for the canon. How would you feel if in the next Batman movie they turn Bruce Wayne in Bianca Wayne, an street smart African American female whose parents were shot to death by corrupt white racist cops, the Joker becomes a psychotic white supremacist, and Catwoman becomes the incredibly flamboyant Catman.
> 
> The uber far left needs to stop trying to "fix" everything that doesn't fucking need to be fixed. If they want to have Superheroes that fit into their agenda then they should just make new ones, not completely retcon and change already existing ones.
> 
> Now, I'm a pretty socially moderate guy, but the far left in America is just becoming absolutely fucking insane. Even other countries make fun our bizarre sense of "Political Correctness".




There is no far left in the US, just people obsessed with pointless political correctness. Real communists tend not to care whether a fictional character is gay or not, they're interested in things like income inequality , which the American "left" tends to avoid as they prefer to focus on pointless social issues that are seen as no-brainers in other countries, such as same-sex marriage. 

Just think about it, there's only one elected official in the US who considers themselves to be a socialist, and a social democrat at that rather than a communist of some form.


----------



## Agmaster (Jul 12, 2013)

Hey, who cares if the story told is good?  Could even be touching.  Granted, straights and canon freaks will feel alienated, but a good creative person/crew can bring elements that do not clash with this 'canon break' and make a good, all around, story.  Sure the one saying it is dumb, but as a half n half comic fan, I am sick and tired of 'canon or bust' entitled mindset of fans.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 12, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, dumb as shit. DC and Marvel seem to be trying to one-up the other in who can pander more to the gay demographic to show how "progressive" they are. Marvel makes Hulkling/Wiccan gay, DC makes Green Lantern gay, Marvel has a gay wedding between two D-list characters.
> 
> Making established superheroes we've known for decades gay out of the blue is dumb as fuck and a slap in the face to fans. If you want gay superheroes, introduce new ones who are well written and entertaining and watch me not give a damn that they're gay.
> 
> Or just make Ultimates Spider-man gay. They already made him black. Nobody gives a fuck about Ultimates.



Why is Green Lantern gay?


----------



## Velocity (Jul 12, 2013)

I want it to happen just so I can drink the delicious tears of all the people on NF that'd have a breakdown.


----------



## E (Jul 12, 2013)

that's what happens when you give an american's role to a yuro poof


----------



## Almesiva Moonshadow (Jul 12, 2013)

Khris said:


> Spiderman's gay? LOL.



*Well, he DOES wear a red, thight spandex suit. *


----------



## PrimalRage (Jul 12, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, dumb as shit. DC and Marvel seem to be trying to one-up the other in who can pander more to the gay demographic to show how "progressive" they are. *Marvel makes Hulkling/Wiccan gay*, DC makes Green Lantern gay, Marvel has a gay wedding between two D-list characters.
> 
> Making established superheroes we've known for decades gay out of the blue is dumb as fuck and a slap in the face to fans. If you want gay superheroes, introduce new ones who are well written and entertaining and watch me not give a damn that they're gay.
> 
> Or just make Ultimates Spider-man gay. They already made him black. Nobody gives a fuck about Ultimates.



I think Wiccan and Hulking were planned gay and there's nothing wrong with a wedding. Cyclops and Jean had one, Storm and BP had one, why not Northstar and... whateverhisnameis?

I'm fine with a little pandering. 

Comics have had straight, white male characters to enjoy in comics for 30+ years before Storm rose to prominence or Northstar first came out. And fair treatment for race, gender and sexual orientation is still not all that good.

Now I'm not saying I wouldn't understand some fans getting angry if Marvel decided to make a prominent character like Spider-Man gay when that character has too much history and books exploring his personal thoughts to believe he'd suddenly come out. And I agree with you that making new characters and making sure they're well-developed and interesting and receive some good panel time is a better option to fullfill demographic representation complaints. 

*But* there are some "decades old" characters were it's ambiguous enough to work to reveal that they're bi or gay. Not Spider-Man, obviously, but D-list and C-list characters without much development or panel time like Rictor (who to be fair, did have that weird relationship with Shatterstar long before PAD) or even some A-listers like Storm (Claremont's famous for ambiguous borderline lesbian subtext among his female characters and Storm had some of the most obvious with Yukio) are not as left field as some people think.



Agmaster said:


> Hey, who cares if the story told is good?  Could even be touching.  Granted, straights and canon freaks will feel alienated, but a good creative person/crew can bring elements that do not clash with this 'canon break' and make a good, all around, story.  Sure the one saying it is dumb, but as a half n half comic fan, I am sick and tired of 'canon or bust' entitled mindset of fans.



Obviously not all the canon can get into the big screen, sacrifices have to made for the medium it's being brought to. 

But I don't see the point of changing some core aspects of the character to the point that it's not recognizable as the same character. Now is being straight a big part of Peter's character.... yeah, sort of. His relationship with MJ would be altered, his relationships to Gwen Stacy and his other girlfriends too. You could fill in male doppelganger for MJ and Gwen, but then you'd have to ignore the very real issues of how gay romance is different from hetero in some ways; socially and culturally. 

imo, too big of a change to a well-explored character.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 12, 2013)

It _would_ explain how it is geeky Peter Parker keeps hooking up with ultra-hot women like MJ and Gwen.  Gay guys get all the chicks.

Of course it wouldn't explain _why_ he does, unless they're going for ultra-closeted Peter.


----------



## Patchouli (Jul 12, 2013)

You guys are still arguing about this? Who even cares about the movie adaptions? They're complete shit. 

Besides, this isn't the first time Spiderman has had a gay adaption before. Let me just draw your attention to this.



also, radioactive semen


----------



## Gino (Jul 12, 2013)

Velocity said:


> I want it to happen just so I can drink the delicious tears of all the people on NF that'd have a breakdown.



Why would you wish the pain of DmC on teh marvel fanbase.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Mary Jane is his main love interest. Gwen Stacy may have been his first, but not his main. The article clearly talks about a black, gay, male Mary Jane.
> 
> And Jesus Fuck, there is no point in debating this with you. When are you going to tell me to check my privilege?



What privilege?

And you know what. You're right. In fact, let's take it even further. Andrew Garfield is British! He can't be Spider-Man, because Spider-Man is American.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 12, 2013)

Khris said:


> Nope. Pretty sure most One Piece fans don't care that this guy is gay.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



I guess you guys are all homophobes.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jul 12, 2013)

It honestly wouldn't matter that much. As long as the story is good. I would still watch it. However if they come with a piss poor version simply of the sake of bieng progressive. I wouldn't watch it like any other movie I dislike.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jul 12, 2013)

Screw a male MJ I will only ship this​


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 12, 2013)

Khris said:


> Nope. Pretty sure most One Piece fans don't care that this guy is gay.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



I thought he was a hermaphrodite?


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

I'm pretty sure Spider-Man isn't going to be gay in the movie, but the fan backlash is fun to watch.



> Originally Posted by Khris  View Post
> Nope. Pretty sure most One Piece fans don't care that this guy is gay.
> 
> Spoiler:
> ...



Have you ever heard of a little something called Yaoi?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> and Catwoman becomes the incredibly flamboyant Catman.



Oddly enough, there actually is a Catman in DC and he's bisexual. 



MegaultraHay said:


> Why is Green Lantern gay?



Before the reboot, Alan Scott had a gay son. The New 52 made him too young to have adult children, so his son (Obsidian) and daughter (Jade) were retconned out of existence. Presumbaly, DC made him gay because their reboot had retconned a gay character. It's silly, but whatevs.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> I guess you guys are all homophobes.



Oh, you must be homophobophobic. One of _those_, eh?

Well... _I_ won't judge you for it, maybe you had a rough upbringing or something.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jul 12, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Oh, you must be homophobophobic. One of _those_, eh?
> 
> Well... _I_ won't judge you for it, maybe you had a rough upbringing or something.



What the....?


----------



## Enclave (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> They still need to maintain some respect for the canon. How would you feel if in the next Batman movie they turn Bruce Wayne in Bianca Wayne, an street smart African American female whose parents were shot to death by corrupt white racist cops, the Joker becomes a psychotic white supremacist, and Catwoman becomes the incredibly flamboyant Catman.
> 
> The uber far left needs to stop trying to "fix" everything that doesn't fucking need to be fixed. If they want to have Superheroes that fit into their agenda then they should just make new ones, not completely retcon and change already existing ones.
> 
> Now, I'm a pretty socially moderate guy, but the far left in America is just becoming absolutely fucking insane. Even other countries make fun our bizarre sense of "Political Correctness".



Hell, it's not even a far left thing in general.  I am INSANELY liberal (I identify myself politically as a Socialist even), thing is?  I'm also a huge comic fan and HATE when movies fuck with canon to that kind of degree.



Khris said:


> Nope. Pretty sure most One Piece fans don't care that this guy is gay.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



I can attest to this post.  Bon-chan needs to join the damn crew! 



Patchouli said:


> You guys are still arguing about this? Who even cares about the movie adaptions? They're complete shit.
> 
> Besides, this isn't the first time Spiderman has had a gay adaption before. Let me just draw your attention to this.
> 
> ...



Because Marvel has a tendency to change the comics to suit the movie before the movies release.  See Parker getting organic webbing shortly before the first Spider-Man movie.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 12, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Oh, you must be homophobophobic. One of _those_, eh?
> 
> Well... _I_ won't judge you for it, maybe you had a rough upbringing or something.



Well... as a young, gay, black man, I had spend most of my life on the down-low. Usually I'd be bottom, but the guys that use to fuck me tended to remind me what a sack of shit I was for being gay and how they would they kill me if I ever told anyone what we were doing. They use to remind me this as they kissed me on on my back and drilled me with their 13 inch anaconda's. Eventually I developed a fear of all homophobes, but I can "outrun" them now considering all that pounding has left me wheelchair-bound.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

Those weren't homophobes, those were homosexuals. The fact that they were having gay sex with you is quite the tell-tale sign, to those with keen eyes.

You should actually just be homophobic, like everyone else on NF, rather than homophobophobic.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 12, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Those weren't homophobes, those were homosexuals. The fact that they were having gay sex with you is quite the tell-tale sign, to those with keen eyes.
> 
> You should actually just be homophobic, like everyone else on NF, rather than homophobophobic.



No he was tearing up my ass, while at the same time hating me for taking a dick like a champ. That would make them homosexual and homophobic.

I'd rather be homophobophobic, makes me look edgy.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 12, 2013)

Still better than Kirsten Dunst.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

They need to just fucking cast Christina Hendricks as Mary Jane.

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> No he was tearing up my ass, while at the same time hating me for taking a dick like a champ. That would make them homosexual and homophobic.
> 
> I'd rather be homophobophobic, makes me look edgy.



Homophobophobia is currently far too politically correct to be considered edgy, if what Seto Kaiba's training taught me about edginess was true.

But really, they can't be homophobes if they're having sex with you. That's like the movie Arachnaphobia being an interspecies spider porno. I think that you're actually just a latent homophobe, and it frightens you.

Come out of the closet, there's nothing to fear out here, except homosexuality.


----------



## martryn (Jul 12, 2013)

Why do the rest of us have to make concessions to pander to what is likely only 2-4% of the American population?  Fuck, might as well make him a Muslim, or give him a genetic disorder, or change his sex.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

Wow, gay muslim spidergirl.

They could write such an epic feminist tale about her taking off her mask, and the shroud of webs completely covering everything but her homosexually liberated eyes.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Hell, it's not even a far left thing in general.  I am INSANELY liberal (I identify myself politically as a Socialist even), thing is?  I'm also a huge comic fan and HATE when movies fuck with canon to that kind of degree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The movies aren't canon.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> The movies aren't canon.



Dont bother. 

I already tried.


----------



## Dolohov27 (Jul 12, 2013)

Dude should just shut up and stay in his lane. Making a well established heterosexual character gay just because is beyond retarded.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 12, 2013)

I find it interesting that he would pitch that idea, as if they would seriously consider it.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 12, 2013)

Nikushimi said:


> >Implying gay people can't be manly.



If you are a guy kissing a dude all manliness goes out the window. 



> >Implying you can't be okay with this if you're a heterosexual.



I am implying I personally can't be okay with it. Well that isn't true. I am okay with it (not like I would protest and shit) but it would be a huge stretch to think I might actually enjoy it.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> If you are a guy kissing a dude all manliness goes out the window.



That is extremely retarded.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> That is extremely retarded.



And your post is just dripping with intellect.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> If you are a guy kissing a dude all manliness goes out the window.



What about Spartans? A lot of them were pretty homosexual.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 12, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> What about Spartans? A lot of them were pretty homosexual.



It is simple. They can be doing manly shit up until that point but then when they kiss it would just be jarring and they lose the former quality.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> And you post is just dripping with intellect.



Yes because your post went into great detail right? 

Why is being gay means you give up all right to be manly? 

Thats just homophobic bullshit.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> It is simple. They can be doing manly shit up until that point but then when they kiss it would just be jarring and they lose the former quality.



Thats some logic ya got there.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Yes because your post went into great detail right?



What does detail have to do with anything? I was giving my opinion/responding to someone and you decided to insult me because you had nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.



> Why is being gay means you give up all right to be manly?


Who said that? You must don't read good.



ImperatorMortis said:


> Thats some logic ya got there.



Agreed. It is sound. 

Although I am curious by the attitudes  towards my response. This is just my personal feeling or enjoyment when  watching it. As I said, I am fine if they make it that way and people  want to enjoy it, I would just find it harder to enjoy. 

You act like I am going headhunting for gays.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> It is simple. They can be doing manly shit up until that point but then when they kiss it would just be jarring and they lose the former quality.



The level of intellect and logic involved in this statement is absolutely jarring. 

Im serious. 

I had no idea someone could be this ignorant.


----------



## Krory (Jul 12, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> It is simple. *They can be doing manly shit up* until that point but then when they kiss it would just be jarring and *they lose the former quality*.





Cyphon said:


> Who said that? You must don't read good.



If you're going to deny the posts that make you sound like a closed-minded, stereotyping and generalizing bigot you might want to at least edit or delete them before hand so you don't get called on your shit... then you won't have to inanely fumble around with trying to cover up and make feeble denials as everyone points out the obvious flaws of your fledgling points.

Just a thought. Just trying to help.

No homo, just in case you might NOT LOOK MANLY ENOUGH


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> The level of intellect and logic involved in this statement is absolutely jarring.



I too am surprised when I actually see good posts in the Cafe. There is a lot of crap posted here so it is rare for someone like me to grace this section. In time you will get used to it though. 



> I had no idea someone could be this ignorant.


First we should make sure you understand the definition of the words you choose to employ. You used the word ignorant which typically implies a lack of knowledge about a subject. I am curious what subject we are discussing that requires some kind of knowledge and if there is one, where am I showing a lack of?

Do you think I don't know about gay people? Do you think I don't know about what I personally enjoy?



krory said:


> If you're going to deny the posts



Stopped here since I already see something wrong with what you said and I  am assuming that it continues to spiral downhill from here.

What did I deny?


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

You are saying that just because a man lives a certain lifestyle that he inherently loses the right to be classified as manly. 

But im sure you have no problem classifying a girl as being Feminine if she kisses another girl if she was good looking. 

Sorry but that makes you a bigot in my book. 

I dont care what your reasoning is.

You say we are lucky to have you? 

I say go back to whatever section you came from. 

We already have enough intolerant bigots here.


----------



## Krory (Jul 12, 2013)

Get 'dem 'dere ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) outta my manly shit.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Why is being gay means you give up all right to be manly?
> 
> Thats just homophobic bullshit.



Because the official definition of masculinity (that used by men, to define being a man) excludes it. Being homophobic is also masculine in this sense, whether you like it or not.

You're confusing your own approval of something, with its suitability for being accepted into absolutely any given category. Your approval of homosexuality doesn't make it masculine.

"But you guys are mean for not letting the gays into your man club!"

Yes, being mean and inconsiderate is also commonly considered to be a masculine trait. Again, your approval or disapproval, and what you consider to be "fair", are not the criteria by which masculinity is judged. 

You're really just a misandrist.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> But im sure you have no problem classifying a girl as being *beautiful* if she kisses another girl if she was good looking.



I think you meant "feminine".


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 12, 2013)

Fiona said:


> You are saying that just because a man lives a certain lifestyle that he inherently loses the right to be classified as manly.





It is almost like you aren't even from this planet. I am having so much trouble understanding where you are coming up with this stuff.

1. There is no "right" to being manly. Especially since there really isn't even a set definition to the word. Everybody defines it a different way. Well, I assume there is a set definition but you get what I mean.

2. If it was a right I am not saying they should be stripped of it. I am saying I don't view their actions as manly. 



> But im sure you have no problem classifying a girl as being beautiful if she kisses another girl if she was good looking.



False. I would say that is hot. Beautiful is reserved for features beyond looks. 



> Sorry but that makes you a bigot in my book.
> 
> *I dont care what your reasoning is.*



The bold is the heart of the problem. Not only do you not care, you don't even seem to understand what you are talking about.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

I love how liberals only argument to anything is "IF YOU DON'T AGREE THEN YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBIC, RACIST, CIS WHITE MALE SCUM, MISOGYNISTIC MENTAL RAPIST WHO NEEDS TO CHECK HIS PRIVELAGE!". They claim to be people of tolerance, and understanding when they are the exact opposite of that. If you say anything they even slightly disagree with, no matter how logical or stooped in fact it may be, they will just put their fingers in their ears and shout "NANANANANNA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> I think you meant "feminine".



I did actually thank you


----------



## blackbird (Jul 12, 2013)

Some C-list pansy thinking aloud on a slow news day and suddenly all hell breaks loose...


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

blackbird said:


> Some C-list pansy thinking aloud on a slow news day and suddenly all hell breaks loose...



C-list? He's been in several very very big movies. He may be a retard, but he isn't C-list.


----------



## Enclave (Jul 12, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> The movies aren't canon.



Read my whole post before responding please.  You make yourself look a fool if you respond without reading everything.


----------



## blackbird (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> C-list? He's been in several very very big movies. He may be a retard, but he isn't C-list.


Alright, I'll admit I don't know exactly the different lists cross over but, what, he was a rehashed Spiderman and in that facebook movie?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

blackbird said:


> Alright, I'll admit I don't know exactly the different lists cross over but, what, he was a rehashed Spiderman and in that facebook movie?



Just because the new Spider-Man movie wasn't very good (I'm assuming, I haven't seen it because most all Superhero movies suck) doesn't mean it wasn't a major movie that made a shit ton of money and being involved in that pushed him to huge stardom. He may not be super A-List yet, but he is definitely not C-List.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Read my whole post before responding please.  You make yourself look a fool if you respond without reading everything.



I did and I don't care. The movies aren't canon and they can do what they want. It doesn't mean that their changes will be good. They might even be terrible, but it won't effect canon whatsoever. Deal with it.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 12, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I did and I don't care. The movies aren't canon and they can do what they want. It doesn't mean that their changes will be good. They might even be terrible, but it won't effect canon whatsoever. Deal with it.



Don't bother responding to him, he is an admitted socialist so his opinion is irrelevant. The only thing I can't stand more than somebody having a wrong opinion, is socialists. 

I still disagree entirely with you though.


----------



## Kanga (Jul 12, 2013)

I honestly can say that I won't have a problem with this if it came to pass. Comics and movies often reinvent superhero characters to accommodate or fit changing societal attitudes.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 12, 2013)

Kanga said:


> I honestly can say that I won't have a problem with this if it came to pass. Comics and movies often reinvent superhero characters to accommodate or fit changing societal attitudes.



I agree with this.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 12, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Don't bother responding to him, he is an admitted socialist so his opinion is irrelevant. The only thing I can't stand more than somebody having a wrong opinion, is socialists.
> 
> I still disagree entirely with you though.



No you don't. I don't want him to be homosexual in the movie either and I'm pretty sure he won't be. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Although if they did change his sexual orientation, I wouldn't be that upset about it.


----------



## Nightblade (Jul 13, 2013)

who is this Garfield dude and why do people care about his gay Spider-Man X rule 63 Mary Jane homoerotic fantasy?

anyway, don't really care. Peter is shit anyway. Miles Morales = best Spider-Man.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jul 13, 2013)

You'd think that everyone here only reads/watches Spiderman for the romance.

If you're all such "manly men", shouldn't you be more concerned about the explosions than who the hero happens to be crushing on?


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> You'd think that everyone here only reads/watches Spiderman for the romance.
> 
> If you're all such "manly men", shouldn't you be more concerned about the explosions than who the hero happens to be crushing on?



*throws tables*

SHUT UP

YOU'RE RUINING THE CANON

THE PRECIOUS CANON THAT GETS RETCONNED SIX TIMES EVERY YEAR AND STILL AMOUNTS TO EQUIVALENT WRITING OF THE LAST SEASON OF LOST.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 13, 2013)

The only thing that's really important to Spiderman is his personality and the fact that he's smart. Everything else is details and splitting hairs that the large majority of us don't care about.


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2013)

Gnome said:


> ...fact that he's smart.



Which is why the main important thing is that they included his web-shooters that they were too fucking lazy to accommodate into the first shit-heap of a movie series.


----------



## Big Mom (Jul 13, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Not exactly on topic but he fucking sucked as Spiderman and the movie sucked. He shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion.
> 
> That said...I have no problem with gay people but as an SM fan, a heterosexual and a "manly" man it would vastly take away from my enjoyment of SM if he was kissing dudes and shit.



A person can be gay and manly. You are stereotyping. He could be the same old Spider-Man but oh hey look he has a crush on a guy.

If you live your entire life only believing stereotypes it will be a sad life.


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2013)

I think what's most hilarious is Spider-Man is easily one of the _least_ manly superheroes around.

Northstar is more manly than him by a long shot.

And while I'm on the topic, so is Longshot and dude debuted with a fucking mullet.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 13, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> You'd think that everyone here only reads/watches Spiderman for the romance.
> 
> If you're all such "manly men", shouldn't you be more concerned about the explosions than who the hero happens to be crushing on?



I tried to read this post, but the testosterone in my eyes punched all of the photons that entered them, right in their fickle little wavey particle faces. This caused them to FUCKING EXPLODE and send off even more light, in every direction, including back into my eyes.

This went on for a while, cyclically, and I still see nothing but the gnarled silhouette of my beard and hair, encircling my vision like so much black barbed wire, with naught but an eternal void at its centre, forever calling out to be penetrated and filled with my self.


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2013)

I remember the days when Smiley fought for just causes instead of just being a replacement troll.

I miss you, Old Smiley.


----------



## Plague (Jul 13, 2013)

I wonder if we'll get a Muslim Captain America next hahaha XD


----------



## Smiley (Jul 13, 2013)

Come now, emphasizing my incalculable levels of internet masculinity can hardly be considered an attempt at trolling, unless you're trying to suggest that I'm being insincere.


----------



## martryn (Jul 13, 2013)

> The only thing that's really important to Spiderman is his personality and the fact that he's smart. Everything else is details and splitting hairs that the large majority of us don't care about.



Unfortunately, all the gay guys I've known personally, and I admit it's been only a handful, have had their personalities defined by the fact that they were gay.  That's why it's so easy to tell if a guy is gay, even if he's not batting his eyes at men and sticking things up his butt.  Gay guys inevitably talk softer and develop lisps and start dressing weird and acting flamboyant.  That's why it's easy to tell who the gay guys on NF are despite the fact we can't judge them based on anything but their posts and sets.  Being gay isn't just about sexuality any longer.  It's an entire lifestyle, like being a hippie or becoming a stoner.  Spiderman's personality would be affected if he were gay, and if it's not, then why make him gay in the first place, as it'd be a gross misrepresentation of just about every gay guy _I've_ ever known.


----------



## Null (Jul 13, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Fuck this guy, stick to the comic and make sure Mary Jane* has a fat ass*.


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Jul 13, 2013)

Lol at the Amazing Spider-Man, the emo Peter scene from the third movie >>>>> Amazing Spider-Man



krory said:


> *throws tables*
> 
> SHUT UP
> 
> ...



True true, I agree that we shouldn't be slaves to cannon and a little retconing is needed to keep everything sane and repair what in hindsight were mistakes.

The thing is you're using a no limit fallacy, if we're on the subject this is the same fallacy homophobes are using with the "well if we legalize gay marriage we have to legalize bestiality" idiocy, that because it's okey to retcon certain parts of character's backstory it's ok to retcon anything. 

MJ and Gwen, who was Spidey's original love interest, are pretty important parts of his story when they launched Ultimate Spiderman and they were clear that they would modernize everything they could they still introduced MJ in the first issue she's that important to the story.

Now not to say that I'm a die-hard defender of Peter/MJ for example in the comics Peter and MJ broke up, yeah it's more complicated I know, for a while now but I'm ok with some down time some different stories but inevitably Peter and MJ will get back together.

Except if Peter were gay then MJ,Gwen,Felicia,Carol every love interest he's had will not be option for him in stories.

To give a DC example, Lex Luthor has been retconned a bunch of times, he's been:
1) a mad scientist during the cold war when people feared atomic bombs and other products of science
2) a business man, after the cold war when it was clear money hungry capitalist would work us to death for a few extra bucks.
3) a politician, when it was clear the government has sold outand wasn't protecting us

Now obviously he has been retconed a bunch of times with the core of his character a evil intelligent man remaining the same, the type of retcon this guy is asking for is "let's make Luthor a complete good guy".


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2013)

Hero of Shadows said:


> the type of retcon this guy is asking for is "let's make Luthor a complete good guy".



You had me up until this where you just legitimately raped any semblance of a point you had.

Shame... you were doing so good.

Well, not really, but you know... you tried. That's what counts.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't know... If we look at it a little more closely, the analogy seems to place heterosexuals as evil, and anyone who's been to one of Toroxus' seminars about _breeders_ should have a fair enough grasp of the scientific evidence to understand that yes, in fact, heterosexuals _are_ very much evil.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 13, 2013)

martryn said:


> Unfortunately, all the gay guys I've known personally, and I admit it's been only a handful, have had their personalities defined by the fact that they were gay.  That's why it's so easy to tell if a guy is gay, even if he's not batting his eyes at men and sticking things up his butt.  Gay guys inevitably talk softer and develop lisps and start dressing weird and acting flamboyant.  That's why it's easy to tell who the gay guys on NF are despite the fact we can't judge them based on anything but their posts and sets.  Being gay isn't just about sexuality any longer.  It's an entire lifestyle, like being a hippie or becoming a stoner.  Spiderman's personality would be affected if he were gay, and if it's not, then why make him gay in the first place, as it'd be a gross misrepresentation of just about every gay guy _I've_ ever known.



That truly is the worst. The attitude of _don't judge me on this_ (being gay). Yet these same people seem to go so far out of their way to self identify and define themselves solely by their gayness, at least outwardly, they don't leave a whole lot left over. And it's not like I can personally get to know every. single. person, nobody has that kind of time.

And it's instinctually human for people to _judge _others, if not only to help yourself identify who they are. Those who aren't _judged_ by you are simply nothing to you.


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Jul 13, 2013)

krory said:


> You had me up until this where you just legitimately raped any semblance of a point you had.
> 
> Shame... you were doing so good.
> 
> Well, not really, but you know... you tried. That's what counts.



ok then let's say retconing spidey's sexuality is the same as retconing Luthor's intellect so he's still evil but he's a big dumb brute with super stregth.

You could for example make Captain America gay he hasn't had a iconic relationship which would be invalidated by the change.

Or you could make Tony (Stark) bisexual play up his party guy/seducer aspect even more, by adding potential love interests as opposed to Peter where you loose some and have to recreate others from scratch, except Misterio(wasn't it a meme he was gay for Spidey).


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 13, 2013)

Hiruzen Sarutobi said:


> A person can be gay and manly.




I am not sure I ever said they couldn't by the definition of the word. I am saying I wouldn't see them as manly. Gay guys are typically very feminine in a lot of their actions anyway. So I don't really see what you are on about right now. 



> If you live your entire life only believing stereotypes it will be a sad life.



That isn't true at all for a couple of reasons.

1. A lot of stereotypes are pretty accurate. You can never represent an _entire_ group of people by one thing or another but you can make some good guesses based on "stereotypes". There is no sense denying the truth of it. 

2. Stereotypes can be pretty fun/funny when they are used in a lighthearted manner. In fact, comedians use them all of the time in their jokes. 

So yeah, it wouldn't be a sad life at all. 

Try again young one.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 13, 2013)

This thread has given me some good lulz. 5 star.  

I already know guys that told me that they wont even see the movie.  



Lee-Sensei said:


> I'm pretty sure Spider-Man isn't going to be gay in the movie, but the fan backlash is fun to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of a little something called Yaoi?



I did, your point? 



Hand Banana said:


> I thought he was a hermaphrodite?



Well yeah, kinda(because of his ability). But normally he's just referred to as Okama.




Ayanli said:


> I guess you guys are all homophobes.


----------



## Shiftiness (Jul 13, 2013)

This is one problem with reusing the same characters over and over. When someone suggests that maybe we could do something progressive with a character, everyone starts whining about the canon.


----------



## Plague (Jul 13, 2013)

Why not just make some new super heroes? Or reinvent the most neglected ones? I think that wouldn't be so bad.


----------



## Big Mom (Jul 13, 2013)

martryn said:


> Unfortunately, all the gay guys I've known personally, and I admit it's been only a handful, have had their personalities defined by the fact that they were gay.  That's why it's so easy to tell if a guy is gay, even if he's not batting his eyes at men and sticking things up his butt.  Gay guys inevitably talk softer and develop lisps and start dressing weird and acting flamboyant.  That's why it's easy to tell who the gay guys on NF are despite the fact we can't judge them based on anything but their posts and sets.  Being gay isn't just about sexuality any longer.  It's an entire lifestyle, like being a hippie or becoming a stoner.  Spiderman's personality would be affected if he were gay, and if it's not, then why make him gay in the first place, as it'd be a gross misrepresentation of just about every gay guy _I've_ ever known.



Once again this is a stereotype.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 13, 2013)

Hiruzen Sarutobi said:


> Once again this is a stereotype.



And once again, it is accurate.


----------



## Vice (Jul 13, 2013)

Uh, no. Andrew Garfield can go suck a dick.


----------



## Ae (Jul 13, 2013)

You guys get uptight over petty shit


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 13, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> And once again, it is accurate.



Well, yes, to a point. But there are a very large number of exceptions and even within those who could be said to fit the stereotype, there can be a question of degree. For instance, Andrew Garfield plays a character in a lot of movies who I could very much see having his sexuality questioned.

And btw, the moment you move on to bisexual men, the gay man stereotype a whole lot less accurate.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 13, 2013)

Vice said:


> Uh, no. Andrew Garfield can go suck a dick.



I think that's kind of the point of this thread.


----------



## Cyphon (Jul 13, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> Well, yes, to a point. But there are a very large number of exceptions and even within those who could be said to fit the stereotype, there can be a question of degree. For instance, Andrew Garfield plays a character in a lot of movies who I could very much see having his sexuality questioned.
> 
> And btw, the moment you move on to bisexual men, the gay man stereotype a whole lot less accurate.



Agreed. But you wouldn't apply the gay stereotypes to bi's necessarily. And as I said, no stereotype can or will completely encompass a group. 

But I bet if you took say a white guy and black guy and sat them down and then asked a third party (no specific race) to guess as accurately as possible things about those men they would revert straight to stereotypes because that is the best chance at accuracy a lot of times.


----------



## Big Mom (Jul 13, 2013)

You are speaking as if gay men have to fit the stereotype. They don't


----------



## Greedy master (Jul 13, 2013)

wtf?! marry jane a man?  oh god no! , amazing spiderman sucked major balls    , the only good part of that movie was ema stone.

Dont make it even worse than what already is.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 13, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> But I bet if you took say a white guy and black guy and sat them down and then asked a third party (no specific race) to guess as accurately as possible things about those men they would revert straight to stereotypes because that is the best chance at accuracy a lot of times.



It depends on how provincial your sample participants were. While stereotyping serves a cognitively expedient purpose, the further diversified the society, the less accurate those evolved brain functions become because of course we didn't involve in large, complex societies. If you got a white guy, a black guy, and a third...I don't know, hispanic participant to judge, and they all were from the same region of the same state, you might get fairly accurate stereotyping. Accurate in a relative sense. That is, compared to other methods of guessing. However, the more geographically spread out your drawing pool was, the less accurate it would become. Eventually, and surprisingly quickly, you would get a more accurate measure from creating a list of possible traits and randomly assigning them to those being judged.


----------



## kluang (Jul 13, 2013)

Vice said:


> Uh, no. Andrew Garfield can go suck a dick.



From the sound of it he wants to suck a black dude dick.


----------



## Byrd (Jul 13, 2013)

Why does his idea sounds like a bad gay porno movie


----------



## Greedy master (Jul 13, 2013)

cant they make a movie without a modern propaganda into it?  i know gay rights and all that stuff but there has to be a limit.


----------



## Blunt (Jul 13, 2013)

i'd support this if the guy kept the name "mary jane"

lols would be had


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 13, 2013)

This idea is bad and you should feel bad for supporting it.


----------



## Enclave (Jul 13, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I did and I don't care. The movies aren't canon and they can do what they want. It doesn't mean that their changes will be good. They might even be terrible, but it won't effect canon whatsoever. Deal with it.



I honestly don't think you did read my whole post.  I specifically mentioned that Marvel tends to modify the comics to accomodate what the movie is doing.



Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Don't bother responding to him, he is an admitted socialist so his opinion is irrelevant. The only thing I can't stand more than somebody having a wrong opinion, is socialists.
> 
> I still disagree entirely with you though.



Oh please, the word socialism isn't a dirty word.  Honestly, the American government has done a fantastic job of making people terrified of socialism.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2013)

Shiftiness said:


> This is one problem with reusing the same characters over and over. When someone suggests that maybe we could do something progressive with a character, everyone starts whining about the canon.



Because it's not progressive.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 13, 2013)

krory said:


> *throws tables*
> 
> SHUT UP
> 
> ...



Nice straw man there lady.


----------



## rac585 (Jul 13, 2013)

won't happen. spiderman franchise is a huge moneymaker. they'd be fools to cut their audience down from all male kids to just the gay ones. but who knows. maybe they'd pickup a larger slashfic female audience.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> You'd think that everyone here only reads/watches Spiderman for the romance.
> 
> If you're all such "manly men", shouldn't you be more concerned about the explosions than who the hero happens to be crushing on?



I guess creative integrity isn't a thing now? Some people can be pretty damn stupid. The women in his life are a pretty huge part of his character, especially Gwen and Mary; a large reason why the whole "One More Day" crap wasn't received well. 

This is all going on some moronic strawman, and a predictable assumption of homophobia just because people find it absolutely pointless to make a character gay for some false display of progressiveness.


----------



## Tony Stark (Jul 13, 2013)

If anyone remembers Spiderman TAS, the episode where Peter reveals his identity and asks Mary Jane to marry him.

She proceeds to jump of the rooftop 

That's probably what happened between Garfield and Emma, so he gave up on woman


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 13, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I honestly don't think you did read my whole post.  I specifically mentioned that Marvel tends to modify the comics to accomodate what the movie is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, the word socialism isn't a dirty word.  Honestly, the American government has done a fantastic job of making people terrified of socialism.



"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
-Margaret Thatcher

I also hate you.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 13, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> I am not sure I ever said they couldn't by the definition of the word. I am saying I wouldn't see them as manly. Gay guys are typically very feminine in a lot of their actions anyway. So I don't really see what you are on about right now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm going to PARTIALLY agree with this. Stereotypes didn't just pop up out of nowhere and are there for a reason.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 13, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
> -Margaret Thatcher


"The great thing about capitalism is that you never run out of other people's money."
-Thargaret Matcher


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 13, 2013)

afgpride said:


> "The great thing about capitalism is that you never run out of other people's money."
> -Thargaret Matcher



You can't just make up a quote like that buddy. But a Free Market Capitalist economy encourages fiscal responsibility and allowing people to be grown-ups, not forcing a doctor and a gardener to get the same wages, and allowing everybody to just refuse to work so the government can flower them with stolen tax dollars called welfare.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 13, 2013)

Michael B. Jordan is probably not going to come close to andrew without a ten feet pole from now on


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 13, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> You can't just make up a quote like that buddy. But a Free Market Capitalist economy encourages fiscal responsibility and allowing people to be grown-ups, not forcing a doctor and a gardener to get the same wages, and allowing everybody to just refuse to work so the government can flower them with stolen tax dollars called welfare.



Who said anything about forcing a doctor and a gardener to work at the same wage? The vast majority of people on the left support a form of market economy, where a doctor would earn more than your average garderner. Having a welfare state doesn't mean you have to become the Soviet Union, you know? People have to work in a mixed economy as well, the government just helps people to help themselves, such as through education, health care and social services.

 A pure free market capitalist economy which you are advocating is a fantasy, just as how a pure utopian socialist society is a fantasy, due to the innate flaws of humanity and the unust nature of the world, government intervention is necessary in the lives of people to improve their standard of living.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 13, 2013)

Xyloxi said:


> Who said anything about forcing a doctor and a gardener to work at the same wage? The vast majority of people on the left support a form of market economy, where a doctor would earn more than your average garderner. Having a welfare state doesn't mean you have to become the Soviet Union, you know? People have to work in a mixed economy as well, the government just helps people to help themselves, such as through education, health care and social services.
> 
> A pure free market capitalist economy which you are advocating is a fantasy, just as how a pure utopian socialist society is a fantasy, due to the innate flaws of humanity and the unust nature of the world, government intervention is necessary in the lives of people to improve their standard of living.



Welfare
Is
Evil
And 
Theft
And
Promotes
Laziness
And
Unwarranted
Feelings
Of
Entitlement


----------



## Elias (Jul 13, 2013)

all_these_straight_tears.gif


----------



## Fiona (Jul 13, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Welfare
> Is
> Evil
> And
> ...



Nensense just shut up.

Nobody cares.


----------



## Krory (Jul 13, 2013)

elias said:


> all_these_straight_tears.gif



So delicious, eriasu.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 13, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Welfare
> Is
> Evil
> And
> ...



Please explain why the welfare state is evil? It gives me medicine I need to survive, a cheaper education which won't put me into a ridiculous amount of debt. As well as the social safety net it provides gives money to people to help them get back on their feet so they can find a new source of employment. 

Taxes do take money from people, but the welfare state uses revenue to bridge income inequality or at least prevent the increasing gap. Having no safety net would likely cause crime rates to increase, as if people don't have any money, they're more likely to resort to crime to feed their family. 

I don't see why people can't feel entitled to certain things like health care and education, they're necessary for an individual to survive, brb taking my free medicine.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 13, 2013)

krory said:


> So delicious, eriasu.



...


----------



## Funta (Jul 13, 2013)

So what? How would Spider-Man being gay ruin people's lives? He would still be a hero. He would still be a funny guy. He would still save people. If they made Spider-Man act like the punisher now that would be a problem.


----------



## TSC (Jul 13, 2013)

Why are we talking about socialism and welfare in a thread about a gay spiderman movie (beside the fact this is fucking nenesense we're talking about)?? I'm I missing something here?







(Didn't bother reading the previous 5 pages.)


----------



## Bioness (Jul 13, 2013)

Funta said:


> So what? How would Spider-Man being gay ruin people's lives? He would still be a hero. He would still be a funny guy. He would still save people. If they made Spider-Man act like the punisher now that would be a problem.



It wouldn't.




elias said:


> all_these_straight_tears.gif



This is essentially what is happening. At least this thread is tamed compared to the comments on the news sites themselves. Reading the comments on MSN made me wonder how LGBT rights even got this far.

As many others have pointed out in this thread, comic book characters get redone every few years, there are also literally hundreds of versions of the more popular ones. Did you know there is a reality where Mr. Fantastic and the Human Torch are homosexual and married? Or how about Batgirl is not only no longer paralyze but has completely different parents in the New 52.

Point being relationships are hardly the focus of comics, so if they are gay, WHO THE FUCK CARES. If you are actually reading superhero comics for the romance or sex you should kill yourself now.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 13, 2013)

TSC said:


> Why are we talking about socialism and welfare in a thread about a gay spiderman movie (beside the fact this is fucking nenesense we're talking about)?? I'm I missing something here?
> 
> 
> 
> (Didn't bother reading the previous 5 pages.)



Because Toshiro Higashi aka Nensense came into the thread. 

The moment he enters a thread all logic and reason get thrown out the window.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 13, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Because Toshiro Higashi aka Nensense came into the thread.
> 
> The moment he enters a thread all logic and reason get thrown out the window.



Only because the herd works itself into a mindless feeding frenzy.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 13, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I like how the whole article has this anti-homo undertone.



That's because it is a blog source.



This is _slightly_ better, although the comments sure as hell aren't.



Megaharrison said:


> Yeah, dumb as shit. DC and Marvel seem to be trying to one-up the other in who can pander more to the gay demographic to show how "progressive" they are. Marvel makes Hulkling/Wiccan gay, DC makes Green Lantern gay, Marvel has a gay wedding between two D-list characters.
> 
> Making established superheroes we've known for decades gay out of the blue is dumb as fuck and a slap in the face to fans. If you want gay superheroes, introduce new ones who are well written and entertaining and watch me not give a damn that they're gay.
> 
> Or just make Ultimates Spider-man gay. They already made him black. Nobody gives a fuck about Ultimates.



Hulking and Wiccan being gay when their sexual was NEVER mention is not worth bringing up. Also..



> Hulkling was originally planned to be a female character. According to Tom Brevoort, "Originally, Allan pitched Hulkling as a female character using her shape-changing abilities to pose as a man. I suspect this was as close as Allan felt he could get to depicting an openly gay relationship in a Marvel comic. But as we got underway... he started to have second thoughts and approached me about maintaining Hulkling and Wiccan as two involved male characters."[1]



DC also didn't make Green Lantern gay, they made A SINGLE Green Lantern out of literally thousands gay, again your points are terrible.

They aren't being "progressive" they are changing minor details, because being gay in a fucking super hero comic book is MINOR, read that MINOR, as in NOT IMPORTANT or RELEVANT to 98% of that character's person.

If you were actually knew anything about comics you would know they aren't changing characters in the same continuity. When they have an Infinite Crisis or reordering of the multiverse or characters in a different universe, YES things are suppose to be different. 

So stop your bitching about gay comic book characters because your points are VERY weak and only serve to expose your own person bias.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2013)

Bioness said:


> It wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is completely pointless to make him gay if you think that then. The only thing it would be is a moronic false idea of progressivism as I stated, and you people acting like tbis is exactly why others react with such hostility. It's simply not enough to accept homosexuality and acknowledge their rights is it?  The only reason the change would occur would be to define him by that aspect vs a core part of his character and yes, the women he loves is a huge part of Spider-Man's character. It's analogous to Clark's character and Lois or Lana. Yet clearly a lot of people don't even know that.


----------



## WraithX959 (Jul 13, 2013)

When did Garfield come out?


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 13, 2013)

Enclave said:


> I honestly don't think you did read my whole post.  I specifically mentioned that Marvel tends to modify the comics to accomodate what the movie is doing.



I did read it. It still doesn't matter.

1) Marvel isn't going to make 616 Spider-Man gay.

2) The movies probably aren't going to make Spider-Man gay.

3) Even if they did, would it change the quality of his stories?


----------



## Bioness (Jul 13, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It is completely pointless to make him gay if you think that then. The only thing it would be is a moronic false idea of progressivism as I stated, and you people acting like tbis is exactly why others react with such hostility. It's simply not enough to accept homosexuality and acknowledge their rights is it?  The only reason the change would occur would be to define him by that aspect vs a core part of his character and yes, the women he loves is a huge part of Spider-Man's character. It's analogous to Clark's character and Lois or Lana. Yet clearly a lot of people don't even know that.



Except this isn't a fully established Spider-Man, he exists in a single movie. Spider-Man's spider sense is also a core attribute, yet he has lost it how many times? There is also Proffessor Xavier who has been crippled, able to walk, and dead more times than countable on your digits.

My point is that these are not solid characters, they change A LOT over the years. So why does it make a difference if this Spider-man is gay when there are 246 other Spider-Mans who are either dead, powerless, straight, evil, gods, etc.

That number is real by the way 247 Spider-Mans, under the name Peter Parker, with at least 80 more that are different people but still "Spider-Man".


----------



## Fiona (Jul 13, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> 1) Marvel isn't going to make 616 Spider-Man gay.
> 
> 2) The movies probably aren't going to make Spider-Man gay.
> 
> 3) Even if they did, would it change the quality of his stories?



/                         Thread


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 13, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Except this isn't a fully established Spider-Man, he exists in a single movie. Spider-Man's spider sense is also a core attribute, yet he has lost it how many times? There is also Proffessor Xavier who has been crippled, able to walk, and dead more times than countable on your digits.



It's a retelling of Peter Parker, the original, and he is an established character whom is recognized and associated with core traits, one big point of which is his relationship with Gwen and Mary Jane. Your example is ridiculous, as Charles disability and the conflict is part of his character and death and revival isn't changing core traits of the character. Even changes like him going evil are temporary and he goes back ultimately to what he is recognized as. 



> My point is that these are not solid characters, they change over the years.



Which is a point of massive ignorance as they are, and popular adaptations retain the core traits of these characters so they remain recognizable and relateable to their original incarnations. 



> So why does it make a difference if this Spider-man is gay when there are 246 other Spider-Mans who are either dead, powerless, straight, evil, gods, etc.



Because one, you're talking about niche, often hypothetical incarnations not all of which are Peter and none of which he is popularly recognized for. It's a  dumb argument to me because what is the point in making him gay if you think nothing would change? The only point of it all would be publicity and to define him by that trait. 



> That number is real by the way 247 Spider-Mans, under the name Peter Parker, with at least 80 more that are different people but still "Spider-Man".



I'm aware of the many different universes but refer to my previous point. Popular adaptations retain the core traits of the characters because it is derived from the original mainstream incarnations of the characters. Particularly with major ones like Peter. For some of you to seriously say that his first gf and his wife made a negligible part of his character speak from a massive stanpoint of ignorance, and the strawman of reading it for romance, moronic. It gets really obnoxious, especially the swipes and accusations towards those that disapprove. It's not even making an argument on why the change is even necessary to begin with.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 13, 2013)

I say it is not a big deal because changing the gender of the love interests SHOULDN'T change the story much. Peter would still fear for their safety, they would still be kidnapped, they would still get married...only this time not in a dress.

But maybe that is just me speaking from an ideal scenario where the only differences between males and females should be their bodies and nothing else. Sadly this is not the case which is why I feel people are reacting so aggressively towards a hypothetical desire of the actor of the most recent Spider-Man movie. Because that's all this story is, hypothetical.

Although hypothetically speaking, if you were an avid Spider-Man fan would making a gay version of him for the movies prevent you from seeing it?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't have a problem with a gay superhero but Peter Parker is established as being straight. His love interests have been Gwen, Mary Jane and even Felicia Hardy.

EDIT To put it in a better way Superman is established as weak to kryptonite in most versions if not almost all, audiences and people in general would know this as it's been that for almost a century. Now if they made a movie where he's not weak to Kryptonite simply because it's an alternate continuity from the other adaptations including mainstream DC universe, it's going to be jarring to the audience who are more used to seeing him weak to it. Yes it could work for some alternate universe Superman in the DC multiverse but for mainstream audiences?

Similarly Parker is straight to the many people growing up with him across the world, been that way for decades in all adaptations including Newspaper comic strips. Mainstream audience would associate him with being straight and generally with Mary Jane. Mary Jane is just more famous and used as a love interest like how Lois Lane being Superman's even though he's been paired with Wonder Woman.

I would'nt care much if they did this however, not just because I'm not much into Sony's new Spiderman but because it would'nt make much difference outside whom he loves, many would see it as blatant pandering however and would have a point there. 

Doing it for the sake of pandering would be stupid.



> Marvel makes Hulkling/Wiccan gay



Nothing really contradicts this to my knowledge. Both are relatively new characters compared to others in MU and introduced in the Young Avengers series. Now if they were established as straight but turned gay, it would be a point.



> Making established superheroes we've known for decades gay out of the blue is dumb as fuck and a slap in the face to fans. If you want gay superheroes, introduce new ones who are well written and entertaining and watch me not give a damn that they're gay



Basically this, just create a new superhero who is gay.


----------



## Gino (Jul 13, 2013)

There is absolutely no point in making a hero that has been established as straight gay for no reason at all and before anyone tries to jump on my nuts I would also feel the same way about a character that was established as gay/bi or transgendered if you wanna do shit like that make a new character. 



Hiruzen Sarutobi said:


> Once again this is a stereotype.


why are you typing in this ugly as fuck font color?


Funta said:


> So what? How would Spider-Man being gay ruin people's lives? He would still be a hero. He would still be a funny guy. He would still save people. If they made Spider-Man act like the punisher now that would be a problem.


because it's always that simple huh?......


----------



## eHav (Jul 13, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I say it is not a big deal because changing the gender of the love interests SHOULDN'T change the story much. Peter would still fear for their safety, they would still be kidnapped, they would still get married...only this time not in a dress.
> 
> But maybe that is just me speaking from an ideal scenario where the only differences between males and females should be their bodies and nothing else. Sadly this is not the case which is why I feel people are reacting so aggressively towards a hypothetical desire of the actor of the most recent Spider-Man movie. Because that's all this story is, hypothetical.
> 
> Although hypothetically speaking, if you were an avid Spider-Man fan would making a gay version of him for the movies prevent you from seeing it?



if its not a big deal, if it would change very very little about spider man like you said, then why do it? whats the point?


----------



## The Weeknd (Jul 14, 2013)

NO.

FUCK.

NO.

HOLY SHIT THE YAOI FANS HERE WOULD FUCKING GO BESERK.

PLEASE NO.


----------



## All The Good Names Are Taken (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Banhammer (Jul 14, 2013)

it's really dumb to compare hulkling and wiccan's relationship with the gay lantern, no offense


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Jul 14, 2013)

Oh hell no. Peter Parker has always been straight. No point in changing that at all.


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 14, 2013)

Wolverine & Hercules


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jul 14, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Just because the new Spider-Man movie wasn't very good (*I'm assuming, I haven't seen it because most all Superhero movies suck*) doesn't mean it wasn't a major movie that made a shit ton of money and being involved in that pushed him to huge stardom. He may not be super A-List yet, but he is definitely not C-List.



Most just do what they're supposed to do, which is to entertain, not every film has to be game changer or a masterpiece. Amazing Spider-man was nothing special, but not really bad either, the best part was definitelly Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 14, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Wolverine & Hercules



Dat leg lift.


----------



## Buskuv (Jul 15, 2013)

200 posts, huh?


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 15, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Wolverine & Hercules



I knew this would be posted. It's an alternate universe.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 15, 2013)

Hercules is bisexual in the 616 comics, greek gods in myth were known to go both ways e.g Apollo, Hercules, Zeus so no surprise the comics went that way too.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 15, 2013)

comics is canon that hercules liked to smack on a piece of man

Also, wolverine and him had a thing


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 15, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I knew this would be posted. It's an alternate universe.



I think you mean awesome universe


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 15, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I knew this would be posted. It's an alternate universe.



That's the point.


----------



## Enclave (Jul 15, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I knew this would be posted. It's an alternate universe.



Exactly, which is why, other than homophobes, nobody has a problem with that.

Now before somebody brings up that the movies are also alternate universes?  As I said earlier in the topic, Marvel has a tendency to modify their movies to reflect the changes happening in the movies before the movies come out.


----------



## Keile (Jul 15, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Fuck this guy, stick to the comic and make sure Mary Jane has a fat ass.





Her ass been flat.

In other news, this Andrew Garfield character is gay as hell (good for him!).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 15, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Exactly, which is why, other than homophobes, nobody has a problem with that.
> 
> Now before somebody brings up that the movies are also alternate universes?  As I said earlier in the topic, Marvel has a tendency to modify their movies to reflect the changes happening in the movies before the movies come out.



That's a moronic accusation.

The movies are based off the mainstream universes, because it's the characterization of the mainstream universes that the general audience is most familiar with and DC and Marvel alike try to market to the audience. It's really a stupid argument because you could just make any of these Marvel movies just another zombie flick since there's a Zombieverse too. There are loads of alternate realities, but that doesn't mean all of them were received well and it's a really, really dumb argument because there's clearly one that is the root of all major adaptations and that is the 616-verse for Marvel.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 15, 2013)

> The movies are based off the mainstream universes


lol, as if that means anything

Black Nick Fury
Black Heimdall
Alien asgardians
Physicist Jane Foster
Hunky Sexy Bucky
Brain Juiced Leader
American soldier Abomination
Greg Coulson
Snarky Tony Stark
J.A.R.V.I.S.
Tesseract
Chitauri 
Bifrost Machine

And these are the ones that actually are OWNED by the company that makes them, let alone Spider-Man, Ghost Rider, the Fantastic Four or jesus christ, the motherfucking X-Men
Need I go on?


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 15, 2013)

Hell, in FOX land, Galactus is a smoke monster,  the first class does not have a single Founder Five in them and mistique is xavier's adoptive sister


I'll take a thousand gay peter parkers rather than having to sit through one more wolverine movie


----------



## Gino (Jul 15, 2013)

All these arguments yet spidey is still gonna be straight at the end of the day.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 15, 2013)

tell that to jenny olsen and to black nick fury


----------



## Gino (Jul 15, 2013)

Oh it's you.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 15, 2013)

Try to girdle that raging lust woman


----------



## navy (Jul 15, 2013)

He was trolling.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 15, 2013)

If they're going to change anything about his sexuality, make him linger around female spiders and fantasize about them eating him alive, dick first. At least that would make sense.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 15, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> lol, as if that means anything
> 
> Black Nick Fury
> Black Heimdall
> ...



A moronic comparison because you're talking about the side characters of larger titles or characters that are mainly associated with the larger titles. Nick Fury is based on Ultimate Nick Fury, a universe which is probably the 2nd best-known universe aside from the mainstream 616-verse. Furthermore your argument completely falls apart when you consider Parker himself, Stark, Thor, Banner, they still retain the traits that their main universe counterparts are recognized for. Hell, even many of the derivative comic universes retain those traits with a slight twist of course.



Banhammer said:


> Hell, in FOX land, Galactus is a smoke monster,  the first class does not have a single Founder Five in them and mistique is xavier's adoptive sister



A depiction of Galactus which was poorly received. Magneto was still a Jewish Holocaust survivor with electromagnetic powers was he not? Xavier was still the telepath with the same personality and ideals that he's most popularly known for isn't he? You're seriously starting to diverge from the argument here. The more well-known characters still retain what they are most recognized for.


----------



## 민찬영 (Jul 16, 2013)

So he's a homo.


----------



## Danzio (Jul 16, 2013)

What's next, Superman or Batman?

Pass. 

A bearded  love interest called Louis Lane had be funny,for a minute, but I couldn't take it is seriously.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> A moronic comparison because you're talking about the side characters of larger titles or characters that are mainly associated with the larger titles.


Thanks for the "moronic" touch there, but puting my fragile feelings aside, that is a moronic reasoning, (shit now I did it) because it fails to adress the actual issue of what you said, which was that movies have to adhere to 616 continuity which is just patently not true, hell, impracticable since so many of these guys were made in the sixties, and the fact that no matter how removed they may be from the main character itself, it proves nothing as to how being the main character is some sort of ( phylat, fuck it, I forgot how to spell it) horcrux against change
Peter Parker started out as a skinny white glasses wearing nerd, then he moved on to whatever the fuck Tobey Maguire was, then he moved onto hipster skater Andrew Garfield
All comic book movie characters are like the doctor. They can change just fine with each iteration.

Hell, aren't you ignoring the big mandarin elephant in the room? Or are you going to throw down some "oh the main villain and arch-enemy isn't important enough" type of excuse


> Nick Fury is based on Ultimate Nick Fury, a universe which is probably the 2nd best-known universe aside from the mainstream 616-verse.


Lol, yes, because Nick Fury had always been a contemporary icon of modern americana, so his black counterpart is really just a shift in legacy
But I accept your concession that no, it wasn't based on the main universe continuity
While I'm at it, I'm also going to pre-emptively accept the concession that Hawkeye and Black Widow aren't founding avengers, on any universe


> Furthermore your argument completely falls apart when you consider Parker himself,


Yes, andrew garfield was the true peter parker,  as a moody totally a nerd-chique pretty boy that threw himself at gwen stacy with a gusto, and curt connors a childless mad scientist who was best friends forever with his parents


> Stark,


Stark was actually universally reviled by the fan base, specially on account of his actions in civil war until the movie cam out, and then he became like RDJ, not the other way around 
Till then he was very much different from what you see in the movies


> Thor,


You at best, get a "meh" for that one
And that's because I'm generous enough to not hit you over the head with the words "Donald Blake"


> Banner, they still retain the traits that their main universe counterparts are recognized for.



Actually, not really for this one either.
Modern depictions of the hulk show how the really scary monster is actually banner, not the giant



> Hell, even many of the derivative comic universes retain those traits with a slight twist of course.


I resent the fact that you imply making peter bi would somehow translate into a massive paradigm shift of his character



> A depiction of Galactus which was poorly received.


Quality of the rendition does not invalidate the precedent


> Magneto was still a Jewish Holocaust survivor with electromagnetic powers was he not?Xavier was still the telepath with the same personality and ideals that he's most popularly known for isn't he? You're seriously starting to diverge from the argument here. The more well-known characters still retain what they are most recognized for.



And if you seriously think the xavier lensherr depiction wasn't lousy with homoerotic undertones, then I recommend you watch first class again (where they completely re-hauled the main characters themselves, which could not possibly be a stronger argument in my favor)
But you fall into another trapping again
Magneto was actually an insane terrorist killer monster who only sometimes had a point until sir Ian McKellen came along
Then they actually shifted and retconed a lot of stuff away to make canon Erik more into the guy in the movies


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 16, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Hercules is bisexual in the 616 comics, greek gods in myth were known to go both ways e.g Apollo, Hercules, Zeus so no surprise the comics went that way too.



He's an implied bisexual. I doubt Pak could actually have him come out. That's why he had an alternate version of the character be out and out gay.

In the myths he was bisexual as were many men in ancient Greece. But in Earth 616 he's heterosexual.

Wonder Woman's also an implied bisexual, but they haven't had her come out.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2013)

No, I remember it being canon in incredible hercules that he walked down the rainbow lane with his man patroculous or whatever was his name

It was a point of short lived awkwardness for his sidekick Amadeus Cho



As a three thousand year  old  vagina wrecking notoriously horny greek god, he merely laughed at the idea of man boning being something to make any sort of deal about


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 16, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> No, I remember it being canon in incredible hercules that he walked down the rainbow lane with his man patroculous or whatever was his name
> 
> It was a point of short lived awkwardness for his sidekick Amadeus Cho
> 
> ...



No. Him being gay was implied (With Northstar) at certain points, but never actually stated.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm telling you, they had some ancient greek cheek telling amadeus cho that hercules had a thing with patrocles or whatever he as called


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2013)

His "Eromenos" is what they call it


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 16, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> His "Eromenos" is what they call it



Yup. They called Amadeus his eronemos. Then Aamdeus would say that 'I'm not his eronemos'. That doesn't mean that 616 Hercules is bi. It's all implied.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 17, 2013)

No but they confirmed his cousin's history and the commonplace of it for greek gods


----------



## NanashiSilver (Jul 17, 2013)

I wouldn't care about Peter Parker being gay, but why change MJ to a dude when she's one of the more awesome (non super) female characters on Marvel's roster? There's plenty of homoerotic subtext between Pete and , Tony Stark, Flash Thompson or, of course, Harry Osborn.


----------

