World Andrew Garfield wants Spider-Man to be Gay?

[spideyboy_1111]

Id really rather not. Its one thing to come across a wreck its another thing to go out looking for them

 

[blalex620]

No, actually I'm just agreeing with Thundercrack that ANY movie featuring two guys making out will bring in a **** load of chicks.

You put Channing Tatum in a gay film with another dude and chances are you're looking at a lot of money. Brokeback made 100 mil in the states inflated, and other than 'The Vow' and 'Magic Mike' (a male stripper movie) its higher than Tatum's other romantic pics. And according to an article below - a lot of what made Brokeback successful was surprisingly the women buying tickets.

http://metro.co.uk/2008/10/14/women-who-like-to-watch-gay-porn-30888/
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-05-13/columns/girls-love-gay-male-porn/full/

Also, to phrase it better do I think a Young Avengers film (which has a gay relationship at its core) would/will be successful? Yes.

Think about it this way, if a gay movie would be so successful and make major bucks why have they not tried it in the most staple female geared genre: romcom? Why? Because women love to see hot men make a girl fall in love with them because it makes them feel like they could have that happy love story one day. Watching a man make another man fall in love with them is different because they don't get that feeling of this could happen to them.

And seriously, you're evidence that women love male gay porn is an erotic novelist? Of course more women are going to be into the book because women love reading erotic fiction more than men, Period. Want to know why women would choice an erotic book over watching porn? It's because women love to create their own fantasies instead of watching someone elses. I know plenty of women who've said watching gay porn is weird and disgusting.
Men love watching lesbian porn because we don't care about fantasizing and all that, unlike women. We just want to see action.

Brokeback Mountain made less than 200 WW and the majority of the people who went and saw it where women. The lowest grossing superhero film recently has been X-Men: FC at 353 WW. Now take into account the number of parents who won't take their families to see a superhero film about a gay superhero especially if it's PG-13 meaning their will be some romantic action in it. Add to that that the combination of men and children still make up the bulk of superhero films box office. Put all that into perspective and what do you get: a movie that's likely to do between Brokeback Mountain and FC numbers. The gay community that will support this film will likely boost the sales of the movie but not likely past FC numbers.

So no, the amount of women who would go see a gay superhero film aren't enough to warrant changing an established character from straight to gay because the hit from the kiddy market is too big. Plus you forget, these companies make the bulk of their money off toys and the like. So if parents won't support the movie they won't support the toy either which means they just took double the hit.

 

[Atharun]

This whole thing seems to have gotten out of control. While I personally don't agree with homosexuality I truly have no problem with gay individuals. What they do with their life is simply their choice. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone and they pay their taxes, who are we to judge. We can have our beliefs and opinions but that does not make them fact. As,o because someone does not agree with the lifestyle does not mean they are homophobic. I myself worked with several gay people and they are quite pleasant to work with. That being said, changing an established character to make a change it ridiculous. I will give examples.

Changing Ironhide from red to black in the TF movies. The proposed change to make the TMNT aliens. Making Pete gay. Change for the sake of change is pointless IMO. Stick to the source material. I have always been a firm believer that if you want to make a character, whether gay or black or whatever, do so so that it stands on its own merit and thus make a new character. This is why I dislike Miles Morales, they made him half black half latin and it comes across as trying to hard (as a Latin their aunt nothing Latin about him except his last name). Nothing wrong with being "insert adjective" but dont use it to stir controversy or just because. If you want to portray a gay hero why not play Northstar or whomever to which it actually has a meaning to that character. Just my .02.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This whole thing seems to have gotten out of control. While I personally don't agree with homosexuality I truly have no problem with gay individuals.

How can you not agree with homosexuality? I mean, I get not "going for it", but this statement requires explanation.

 

[Atharun]

It is simply my view and belief. T does not require further explanation. If you're looking for confrontation look elsewhere. Not everyone has to agree with everything everyone else does. Regardless of my feelings towards it I don't judge people nor should anyone.

 

[Doctor Who]

My $.02....Peter Parker/Spider-Man has always been portrayed as straight and should continue to be. Suddenly making him LGBT would feel like a stunt, and the "message" the filmmakers were trying to send would be overshadowed by the controversy about the movie.

Also Sony wouldn't go for it.

Also, I believe Garfield was being half-serious as in being serious about expressing his support for gay rights in a humorous manner, not half-serious as in actually expecting this to happen.

But to the people who are fans of someone because he "likes chicks" and not fans of someone because he doesn't...I'm glad I'm not friends with someone as shallow as you, and I'm pretty sure you're in fact too shallow to truly have meaningful friendships with anyone.

Too many homophobic remarks have already been deleted in this thread. Keep it to yourself on this site. We do not tolerate that BS here.

Basically pulling a Dumbledore just to make more money from the gay community. I agree.

 

[ericadawn16]

As long as MJ has red hair, I suppose I'm good with MJ being a man, woman and/or someone of a different ethnicity.

 

[blalex620]

How can you not agree with homosexuality? I mean, I get not "going for it", but this statement requires explanation.

I personally don't agree with it not because there is something inherently wrong with it but instead because of the fact that I personally don't understand it. I don't agree with someone having sex with a 100 different people because I wouldn't do it not because I think it's wrong.

I think it's wrong to assume people are homophobic because they say "I don't have a problem with gay people." People say it because they know having a different opinion will automatically make them seem homophobic. There are many people who accept and understand homosexuality but don't necessarily agree with it. They have every right to feel this way.

As long as MJ has red hair, I suppose I'm good with MJ being a man, woman and/or someone of a different ethnicity.

Seriously, that's MJ's one defining quality. That she has red hair

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Duplicate post

 

[Thundercrack85]

It sounds very strange. I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

Saying you "don't agree with homosexuality", and then liking it to... someone having sex with a hundred people just makes you sound exactly like what you say you're not.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Saying you're against something because you don't understand it is what doesn't make sense to me.... I don't understand most Japanese fads but i don't disagree with those who want to do it or are Japanese lol. Its just not for me and i move on.....

 

[Ultimatehero]

Saying you're against something because you don't understand it is what doesn't make sense to me.... I don't understand most Japanese fads but i don't disagree with those who want to do it or are Japanese lol. Its just not for me and i move on.....

Exactly. It's a line that homophobic people have used to hide behind since a long long time ago. What is to be agreed upon? Those who say 'agree' to me still seems like those people believe people choose to be LGBT. They do not choose it, they are born with it and either must learn to come to terms with it and accept it with the knowledge that people might be against you for something entirely out of your control or to lead a miserable life filled with denial. And for those who say it is in their control - that is really really sickening to me. Because basically that's like saying you want to prevent them because you don't like to see it. Imagine being a straight dude and never being able to get intimate with a girl. It's the same thing. While I have come to embrace being a bi dude, it took me from the time I was 7 to the time I was 23/24 to come out of the closet to myself because sad to say I didn't want to be - I just wanted to view myself as a weird straight guy more than I did a bi guy. People do not choose to be something where you can lose your friends, family, and people in your just for the way you are. Nobody chooses to be ridiculed for wanting to hold hands with another guy. Nobody chooses to be something where, especially before, people were telling you there was something to be inherently ashamed of. People do not choose that. So really - it is exactly just as 'agreeable' as straight people because the attraction acts the same way. For those who can't see this, imagine being straight in a gay world where being straight is seen as the not agreeable thing and ask yourself if you would understand what was so disagreeable about being straight.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Exactly. It's a line that homophobic people have used to hide behind since a long long time ago. What is to be agreed upon? Those who say 'agree' to me still seems like those people believe people choose to be LGBT. They do not choose it, they are born with it and either must learn to come to terms with it and accept it with the knowledge that people might be against you for something entirely out of your control or to lead a miserable life filled with denial. And for those who say it is in their control - that is really really sickening to me. Because basically that's like saying you want to prevent them because you don't like to see it. Imagine being a straight dude and never being able to get intimate with a girl. It's the same thing. While I have come to embrace being a bi dude, it took me from the time I was 7 to the time I was 23/24 to come out of the closet to myself because sad to say I didn't want to be - I just wanted to view myself as a weird straight guy more than I did a bi guy. People do not choose to be something where you can lose your friends, family, and people in your just for the way you are. Nobody chooses to be ridiculed for wanting to hold hands with another guy. Nobody chooses to be something where, especially before, people were telling you there was something to be inherently ashamed of. People do not choose that. So really - it is exactly just as 'agreeable' as straight people because the attraction acts the same way. For those who can't see this, imagine being straight in a gay world where being straight is seen as the not agreeable thing and ask yourself if you would understand what was so disagreeable about being straight.

Well said

 

[blalex620]

Saying you're against something because you don't understand it is what doesn't make sense to me.... I don't understand most Japanese fads but i don't disagree with those who want to do it or are Japanese lol. Its just not for me and i move on.....

Okay maybe "agree with" is not the correct phrase then. More of indifference to it is better. I have nothing against it, I don't necessarily think it's wrong either.

Who's to say if people choice to be gay or if they are born that way. The human brain is the most complex piece of engineering we know of in the universe so it's reasonable to say we don't know how everything we do and feel works. Personally I know some gay people who've always felt they were gay and then I know people who like the same sex because it's what everyone else is doing. So really who truly knows.

Do I think it's weird? Yes I do. But like everything in this world people are going to think things they don't understand are weird and there's nothing wrong with that. I think females who spend a thousand dollars on a purse are weird and guys who's life revolves around sports that they don't play are weird. It's not because I think it's wrong, it's just something I do not understand because I am not in that situation.

I just think it's wrong to label everyone with differing opinions on the subject as homophobic. It's in no way, shape or form wrong to want Peter Parker to remain a straight male. It has nothing to do with not wanting a gay hero. It boils down to people wanting Peter Parker to remain the character who he has been since his inception. People hate the Civil War storyline because they feel the characters weren't acting the way they always acted.

I'm an African American comic lover who hates the idea of a black Johnny Storm. Does that mean I have a phobia of my race? No. It just means I don't see the point in changing an established character's race, gender, or sexuality for no other reason than to seem "politically correct." I think Wiccan and Hulking are great characters and love them in Young Avengers. I wouldn't mind a different gay Spider-Man, just not a gay Peter Parker or a black male MJ.

Edit: changing an established character only applies to main characters who are important to the story. Supporting characters could be turned into blue skinned aliens for all I care.

 

[Green Goblin]

He's joking. I'm all for equality but turning straight characters into gay ones is something I don't approve of. I'd be fine with a new gay character in the spidey world.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Garfield: "What if Spider-man were a woman."

fanboys: "wow, how progressive"

Garfield: "What if Spider-man were Asian?"

fanboys: "wow, how progressive"

Garfield: "What if Spider-man were gay?"

fanboys: "WHAT??? TOTAL DISRESPECT TOWARDS THE CHARACTER!!!!"