Spiderman - no, a new one
Honestly, this should be even bigger news. Not just because of Spidey.
Two major corporations got together and agreed to share a property with no money changing hands. Has this ever happened before?
I think Marvel does have a bit of an ulterior motive here too. They're currently in talks with FOX about a possible X-Men TV show, and there's a LOT of bad blood between the companies.
Maybe Marvel is hoping this will pave the way for them to get back the rights to their mutants or just specific ones, like Wolverine for the next Avengers movie?
That bad blood article is interesting because the Fantastic Four are indeed ending with no return planned, Wolverine is dead with no return planned, the X-Men are ridiculously stagnant and arguably the top writer in the company is leaving them (Brian Michael Bendis), and Deadpool is going to be dying soon as well.
Two major corporations got together and agreed to share a property with no money changing hands. Has this ever happened before?
I think Marvel does have a bit of an ulterior motive here too. They're currently in talks with FOX about a possible X-Men TV show, and there's a LOT of bad blood between the companies.
Maybe Marvel is hoping this will pave the way for them to get back the rights to their mutants or just specific ones, like Wolverine for the next Avengers movie?
That bad blood article is interesting because the Fantastic Four are indeed ending with no return planned, Wolverine is dead with no return planned, the X-Men are ridiculously stagnant and arguably the top writer in the company is leaving them (Brian Michael Bendis), and Deadpool is going to be dying soon as well.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Stan Lee agrees with me on not changing characters just to change them.
EXACTLY!
Marvel also agrees, but Gawker doesn't.
Let's make everyone happy. Let's cast a white, straight kid who identifies as black and gay!
“I wouldn’t mind, if Peter Parker had originally been black, a Latino, an Indian or anything else, that he stay that way,” Lee said. “But we originally made him white. I don’t see any reason to change that.”
“It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that,” Lee said. “Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it’s so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. Hell, I’ll do it myself.”
EXACTLY!
Marvel also agrees, but Gawker doesn't.
Let's make everyone happy. Let's cast a white, straight kid who identifies as black and gay!
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Leisher wrote:Stan Lee agrees with me on not changing characters just to change them.
“I wouldn’t mind, if Peter Parker had originally been black, a Latino, an Indian or anything else, that he stay that way,” Lee said. “But we originally made him white. I don’t see any reason to change that.”
There's no middle ground? Like change for a valid reason? I'll grant you for every one decent idea in this vein, there are ten billion shitty ones, but saying, "He was created that way and will be thus until the end of time," is equally insane, even if it's a character you helped create.
Edited By Malcolm on 1435081502
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Equally as insane as not simply creating new characters?Malcolm wrote:There's no middle ground? Like change for a valid reason? I'll grant you for every one decent idea in this vein, there are ten billion shitty ones, but saying, "He was created that way and will be thus until the end of time," is equally insane, even if it's a character you helped create.Leisher wrote:Stan Lee agrees with me on not changing characters just to change them.
“I wouldn’t mind, if Peter Parker had originally been black, a Latino, an Indian or anything else, that he stay that way,” Lee said. “But we originally made him white. I don’t see any reason to change that.”
Are there ever legit reasons to change a character's sex, race, or sexual preference? Sure. Most of these characters were created in a much whiter society, so when creating a movie about them, particularly in a group, it can make sense to add some diversity.
Aside from simply trying to appeal to a broader audience, I can't think of another legit reason at the moment. Can you? Seriously, I'm blanking.
End of the day, these folks are making movies about established properties, and the primary audience is going to be the folks who made those properties successful. Changing details, no matter how big or small (as proven in other threads, this isn't a race thing...although admittedly, it is for some), is going to piss those people off. If that doesn't matter to the film makers, then why the fuck did they buy the rights to that property instead of making their own?
And as Stan Lee and Marvel point out, there are alternate universe versions of all these characters. If you want a black Spider-Man make him Miles Morales. If you want a female you've got several options there. And so on and so on.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Aside from simply trying to appeal to a broader audience, I can't think of another legit reason at the moment. Can you? Seriously, I'm blanking.
Making Guy Gardner black for a few issues would have been interesting. Making Black Panther white would be hilarious.
And as Stan Lee and Marvel point out, there are alternate universe versions of all these characters.
Seems legit. But if Jessica Drew isn't the super-powered spider heroine you want, then I've got no problem with an attempt at another. Someone at DC was thinking, "Well hell, why I don't work up a newer, more interesting sidekick for the Joker?" That dude happened to be working on a kid's cartoon, but the character took off. Fuck, DC's cartoon crew also came up with a new Batman that did respectably.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Making Guy Gardner black for a few issues would have been interesting.
They've got Jon Stewart (black) and the new Muslim Green Lantern. How does turning an existing white one black make him interesting? Hell, I'd argue that black people would be pissed if they turned that flawed character racist. I mean, wouldn't he become the stereotypical angry black guy at that point?
Making Black Panther white would be hilarious.
That would be funny. Hell, I think someone should green light a white version of Shaft just to see what the reaction is from progressives.
But if Jessica Drew isn't the super-powered spider heroine you want, then I've got no problem with an attempt at another.
Then go with May Parker or Gwen Stacy or Silk. (All actual characters.)
Someone at DC was thinking, "Well hell, why I don't work up a newer, more interesting sidekick for the Joker?" That dude happened to be working on a kid's cartoon, but the character took off.
You're proving my point here. That was a new character, not an existing character changing just because.
Fuck, DC's cartoon crew also came up with a new Batman that did respectably.
Batman 2000 or whatever it is? It did, yes, but that's because they created an alternative version of him. Further backing up what Stan says about using alternative characters to add diversity.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Further backing up what Stan says about using alternative characters to add diversity.
Alright, is Daniel Craig an alternate version of James Bond? A recast? A totally different one?
They've got Jon Stewart (black) and the new Muslim Green Lantern. How does turning an existing white one black make him interesting?
K, maybe not black. But considering he was retooled to be
a jingoistic parody of an ultra-macho "red-blooded American male."
... I honestly believe that making him bisexual, if only for one or two stories, would have been interesting. But only if he changes back and learns almost nothing, otherwise it's not Guy Gardner being a dick.
Edited By Malcolm on 1435087680
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Alright, is Daniel Craig an alternate version of James Bond? A recast? A totally different one?
You're not being fair in your comparison, and even if you were, it's a bad one.
Batman Beyond is set in the future and Bruce Wayne is the new Batman's mentor. (Thus, this Batman is an alternate version.)
So if Daniel Craig's Bond films were set in the future, and Sean Connery was mentoring him, yes.
... I honestly believe that making him bisexual, if only for one or two stories, would have been interesting. But only if he changes back and learns almost nothing, otherwise it's not Guy Gardner being a dick.
All I'm getting from that is you want Guy Gardner to get a dick in his mouth because he's a dick.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Andrew Garfield wants a pansexual Spider-Man.
One question: Why?
And "why not" isn't a legitimate answer. There's writing an interesting story, and there's doing things in a story to push a political agenda. Guess which one this will be?
Unless this moron really believes there's such a HUGE percentage of people who are pansexual or who are clamoring for a pansexual Spider-Man.
Nothing against pansexuals, but the world doesn't need Spider-Man to be pansexual.
Why is being straight "bad"?
One question: Why?
And "why not" isn't a legitimate answer. There's writing an interesting story, and there's doing things in a story to push a political agenda. Guess which one this will be?
Unless this moron really believes there's such a HUGE percentage of people who are pansexual or who are clamoring for a pansexual Spider-Man.
Nothing against pansexuals, but the world doesn't need Spider-Man to be pansexual.
Why is being straight "bad"?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Why is being straight "bad"?
1) It's perceived as boring.
2) It looks like you're "shaking things up" and rocking the boat.
3) It's an easy ways for hacks to look like they have an idea.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."