New Spider-man Movie

[Tomato]

So apparently some photos of Emma Stone have recently come out with her wearing an outfit that's taken almost directly from the comics. Or rather, a very specific moment from the comics.

[captmorgan72]

Some more good photos of the new Spidey suit. Definitely the best Spiderman costume in all of the Spidey movies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2331917/Andrew-Garfield-bonds-young-Spidey-star-buddy-Jorge-Vegas-set-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[bat1987]

Couldn't agree more, love it! Andrew seems like a really cool guy too.
Really curious how Rhino will end up looking btw.

[thalaw2]

In the future, if Andrew gets his way, MJ will be a man. Gay Spiderman in Spiderman 3?

[spydermann93]

In the future, if Andrew gets his way, MJ will be a man. Gay Spiderman in Spiderman 3?

Heard about that. Nothing against gay people, but why on Stan Lee's green earth would Spider-Man be gay?

Who is he, Alan Scott?  It's not fitting to the character at all, and it only seems like change for change's sake.

[Tomato]

Err... I read that article, and it wasn't "spiderman should be gay, for serious" it was more andrew spouting things off the top of his head. He even admitted he was half joking about the whole thing, and Webb shot the whole thing down pretty quick.

Trust me, this isn't nearly as bad as when a certain airheaded actress suggested that Peter Parker should be a deadbeat dad to mutant spider babies.

[spydermann93]

Trust me, this isn't nearly as bad as when a certain airheaded actress suggested that Peter Parker should be a deadbeat dad to mutant spider babies.

What!? That's news to me, and pretty hilarious!

[stumpy]

Trust me, this isn't nearly as bad as when a certain airheaded actress suggested that Peter Parker should be a deadbeat dad to mutant spider babies.

What!? That's news to me, and pretty hilarious!

LOL. That was a pretty silly comment by Kirsten Dunst. Though, I think that the question she actually proposed was along the lines of "Why doesn't the superhero ever die?" She thought that it would be interesting if Spider-Man died and the focus shifted to a pregnant Mary Jane dealing with the birth of a spider baby and moving on with her life. I don't really expect there is that much of a market for superhero movies with no superhero in them. Superman Returns was criticized for having a very similar plot, and there at least the hero had actually come back and was in the movie.

Maybe the more relevant question for Ms Dunst might be "What happens when an actress falls of the edge of the Earth?" ;-) 

(Yes, yes, she's been very successful in lesser-known independent films, blah, blah, blah...)

[oldmanwinters]

Oh, Garfield...

[BentonGrey]

Yeah, a joke or not, that is an incredibly stupid thing to say with the internet being what it is.

[Tomato]

Er... guys, I'm not trying to justify his statement in any way (because it's a pointless change and it goes against a core tennant of the character) but I think the reason he said what he said was specifically BECAUSE people still react this way to this sort of statement. Be honest, if he said MJ should be a black chick or Asian, there would not have been NEARLY the outcry against this that there has been.

I mean, really, read the reactions just in this thread. Several of you might as well be saying "Spiderman gay? Ewwwww gross"

[BentonGrey]

Ha, as far as I'm concerned, you don't have much of a point, 'Mato. 

But really, I'd think any of those changes along the lines of those you mention would be unacceptable.  It isn't who the characters are.

[oldmanwinters]

Change for the sake of change is usually just an excuse for a stale creative mind.

I think not killing off Gwen Stacey would be a sufficiently surprising change to the mythos that might actually lead to some interesting story potential.

Seriously, the girl's legacy is defined by the fact that she died infamously back in the 70s (and Spider-man already had Uncle Ben's death as a foundaiton, so he relaly didn't need another "martyr").  Greg Wiesman worked hard to develop her character into something that rose above that legacy in the Spectacular Spider-Man show.  Maybe the Amazing film series can challenge the mainstream's public mind that Spider-Man's one-true love has to be Mary Jane Watson.

[Tomato]

Except we're not talking about Mark Webb, the screenwriter, or one of the studio execs, we're talking about Andrew Garfield making a joke that everyone's upset about. The only reason he's repeating it and has talked about it in interviews was because there was such a negative reaction to the statement. This isn't the same as Dunst talking about making a movie with her and mutant spider babies in one interview and never speaking about it again, because Garfield has gone out of his way to talk about it since there is a certain amount of blatant homophobia mixed into the criticism.

Yes, it's a stupid change and it will never ever happen. But it's one actor spouting his mouth off, there should not be this type of reaction.

[BentonGrey]

The internet being what it is, I have little doubt that there HAS been homophobia mixed in with the more general rejections of such a stupid idea, but 'Mato, objecting to turning a character into what it is not is pretty valid.  What's more, objecting to a character you like going from hetero to homosexual is also pretty valid, homophobia aside.  There's more to such a situation than 'eww gay.'  But, considering that such a conversation would trespass into territory that really isn't the domain of these forums, I think that I'll just say I disagree, in part, with your approach to the issue in question (reactions to a stupid statement) and leave it at that.

[oldmanwinters]

Well...

I'm all for keeping Gwen Stacey in the picture as long as possible. 

[stumpy]

I mean, really, read the reactions just in this thread. Several of you might as well be saying "Spiderman gay? Ewwwww gross"

Where? Was this earlier on in this thread? I didn't re-read the whole ten-page thread, but I did re-read every post from reply #273 to reply #280 and I didn't see any comment for which that was an fair characterization.

[detourne_me]

I don't see what the problem is with it.   It's not like there aren't already 50 years of comic book history, over ten years of cartoons, 3 other movies, multiple video games and ongoing comics and cartoons where he isn't gay. 
When there's a new interpretation of a fictional character I don't enjoy, I just ignore it.  Simple as that.  Any poor reactions do tend to look homophobic as a result, in my opinion.

[BentonGrey]

You know what I like, DM?  I like superhero movies.  I like going to see them.  I like collecting them.  I like following news about them.  There are a finite number of films and a finite number of chances for any given character to get a movie, so I like to see those movies be as good as possible, because I want to go watch and enjoy them.  Taking a character I care about, and turning him into a different character (which is what altering any foundational aspect of their personality/makeup would do) that I DON'T care about, and then wasting one of those finite chances at film on said new creation would bother me quite a bit.  It isn't a matter of just ignoring interpretations you don't like.  I do that with comics, because there are lots of other comics that I like which I can read.  I still resent it, because I'd rather be reading good stories than seeing opportunities wasted *looks at Justice League*.  Movies are a somewhat rarer resource, so wasted opportunities gall me all the more.  I hardly think that's unreasonable.  It goes back to the old idea.  If you want to tell your own story, make your own character.  If you want to tell a story about a gay superhero, some exist, go use one of them.  Don't radically alter something that already exists, because what's the point?

As for it seeming homophobic to you, that seems close minded of you.   After all, close mindedness means not considering or being open to others' points of view, right?

[Tomato]

OK, I want to apologize for reacting negatively here about thia whole thing... I'm not going to try and excuse my actions, but I've been up the last two nights with some kind of bug(just finished vomiting in the bathroom... fun times.) So my judgement is not the best ATM.

That said, I did feel very uncomfortable about the direction this discussion was going. Everyone here was acting as if this were the worst thing that could ever possibly happen to the character and I get that's mostly nerd rage about changing a character in general (Hawkeye's mask, ugh) but at the same time, there was a lot more derisiveness toward this one half-joking remark than was warrented. It's never gonna happen, so everyone need to chill out and stop letting the sick forum member rile you up because he can't keep his thoughts straight.

[detourne_me]

Benton, I like you man, and I completely respect your opinions. I understand how you feel. I just take issue with a few things.

To be fair, I never said I wasn't close-minded, in fact, I'm quite close-minded.  I regularly make judgement calls on things like this that do tend to fall on the lefty side of things.
Frankly, I find it ridiculous that there are people on that side of the political spectrum that such have a superiority complex and call themselves open-minded.
As a student of semantics and semiotics I find the idea of "unbiased objectivity" hilariously appalling. That being said, it is literally homophobic to be against the representation of a fictional character when that character becomes gay.
Of course though, this was all started and propagated by an actor as a joke. It's escalated way too quickly.... which leads me into my next point.

This 'ownership' that fandoms concoct over fictional characters is also ridiculous and stinks to high-heaven of entitlement issues. The only ownership is that of the copyright holder, which in the case of characters like Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman is that of a corporate entity. Not even the original creators have ownership of the characters anymore.  We could start another discussion about these characters as cultural icons though.... and I think it would be fascinating to discuss concepts of ownership and representation in that context. Especially considering recent trends of recent editorial and corporate decisions to distance their characters from the traditional representations of the characters.

When it comes to the cultural value of movies, I see your point that they are rarer. However, the studios are not obligated to create the movies that fans want to see. Ultimately, they are obligated to make money, and if by some focus testing voodoo they find their changes to the characters justifiable, well, thats their choice.
There is definitely room for conversations on obligations, marketability, entitlement, and so on. I tend to not become so emotionally involved in these things... I'm not sure if it's because of optimism or apathy.

Sorry for the lengthy post everyone.

TL;DR - We don't own the characters, if companies make bad decisions it's their prerogative, and it's a prickly issue that does deserve to be talked about. 

PS - Get well soon Tomato.... although I would love to see you ranting hopped up on NyQuil!

[deano_ue]

I think not killing off Gwen Stacey would be a sufficiently surprising change to the mythos that might actually lead to some interesting story potential.

nope nope nope nope no no no no

blonde needs to take a dive, end of


this views brought to you by a person who has never ever cared for the gwen character and always found her boring and over played within the muthos

[BentonGrey]

Thanks 'Mato, I appreciate your apology.  I hope you get some rest and feel better soon, man!

:EDIT: Okay, DM and I talked, and we're cool.

DM, you brought up some really interesting points about the "rights" of fans and non-creators to works of fiction and their creators, and there are some fascinating ideas here.  I disagree with you to a degree, but I think, as you said, there is a good conversation somewhere in here:

This 'ownership' that fandoms concoct over fictional characters is also ridiculous and stinks to high-heaven of entitlement issues. The only ownership is that of the copyright holder, which in the case of characters like Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman is that of a corporate entity. Not even the original creators have ownership of the characters anymore.  We could start another discussion about these characters as cultural icons though.... and I think it would be fascinating to discuss concepts of ownership and representation in that context. Especially considering recent trends of recent editorial and corporate decisions to distance their characters from the traditional representations of the characters.

Legally, you're entirely correct, but I would certainly argue that, philosophically, you're off the mark.  There's a lot of theory and entirely too many pretentious publications behind this, but the rights/responsibilities of the author have been discussed quite a bit in literary circles.  The same is true, in the more modern period, of the rights and responsibilities of the readers.  Now, I think there are a few important points to make here.  First, the rights of the author to their work are pretty obviously sacrosanct.  In fact, the creative product and ownership of ideas is so important to our culture that we've enshrined the protection of such in our laws.  An author has the right, even the responsibility, to tell the types of stories they want to tell. 

However, I would argue that this situation is a bit different when you're dealing with serialized fictional characters that outlive their creators.  There are occasionally direct lines of authorial descent, i.e., Edgar Rice Burroughs hands the reins to John Carter of Mars to his son, but this is far from the case with entities like Superman and Batman.  These characters took on a life of their own relatively quickly, entirely independent of their creator's intent and vision.  In fact, issues of ownership and rights to such creations were so murky that we're still dealing with the aftermath of struggles over their rights today, struggles that began over sixty years ago.    Yes, DC owns Batman.  It owns Superman.  Yet, these characters are much more than the sum of their copyrights. 

They are the product of innumerable authors, but also generations of fans.  They have, quite literally, been shaped by their readers.  Superman originally leaped tall buildings in a single bound.  He was quite unable to fly, but he was really good a jumping.  The Fleischers, when they created their seminal cartoon, found that animating super leaping was ridiculously difficult, so they just asked DC if they could make Superman fly.  DC answered, 'yes.'  Soon an entire generation of fans had been introduced to Superman through the Fleischer cartoons, and they started reading the comics.  Letters poured into the DC offices, demanding to know why their favorite hero didn't fly, like he was supposed to.  DC quickly had the Man of Steel flying high in the comic pages.

That's just one example, but I imagine that all of us at all familiar with comic history, even recent history, can likely think of others.  These characters have, quite literally, become the mythic inheritance of our culture, if not the world at large.  They have been shaped by the fans, they have been sustained by the fans, and they have been driven by the fans.  It's fine to say that the fans have no right to be outraged at the treatment of characters that they don't own, but the truth is, they do own them, and they have for a very long time held sway over the creative destinies of heroes and villains.  I would argue that this phenomenon extends beyond fact and into the realm of collaborative creative ownership on a cultural level, conscious or unconscious.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were scenes around campfires in Greece during the Heroic Age where young men berated the bard because they felt he wasn't treating Achilles "right."  I know that this type of thing happened with the Arthur myths in the 19th Century.

In addition to the fact that the voice of fandom has shaped the careers of fictional characters, I will add that I am an archetypalist and a bit of a neoplatonist, so I believe that there are certain concepts, characters, and interpretations that are closer to "Truth" in an objective sense.  I don't believe that the existence of characters like Batman and Superman are accidents, nor entirely attributable to cultural whims and fashions.  There are ideas that all fiction strives towards, some efforts getting closer than others, and superheros are a remarkably pure strain of this, tapping into concepts of heroism, which invariably reflect that which we most value as a culture.  That, however, is a separate conversation.

On a more conventional note, I would push my point about collaborative ownership of fictional characters even further.  I would say that, not only is this true for serialized characters that outlast their creators, it is true of single-author creations as well, though to a much lesser extent.  When we create something and garner an audience, there is, I would argue, at least a slight responsibility on the part of the author to honor the core of their creation in regards to works for that existing audience.  This also exists in fact, even if you don't accept the philosophical imperative.  Look at Arthur Conan Doyle.  He grew weary of his masterpiece, the great detective Sherlock Holmes.  Doyle killed his hero off, having him plunge over the precipice of Riechenbach Falls, locked in bitter struggle with his nemesis, Professor Moriarty.  The response, back in the 1800s, was so strong that nothing else Doyle did meet with any success, and finally he bowed to the pressure of his fans, bringing the great detective back from the dead for another series of adventures. 

Our creations are more than simply the products of our imaginations.  They are inheritors of all the majesty of humanity's creative efforts.  The weight of the stories that came before bear down on our fictional constructions, if only with the lightest of touches.  Writing is important, storytelling is important, and the stories we tell are incredibly important.  They are what define us, they are the clay from which we create culture, and in turn from which they themselves are created.  Yes, individual stories or characters may be of minimal value or importance, but to paraphrase Browning, 'our literature means, and means good.'

DM, for all of your intentional detachment from interpretations and fictional works, I am sure that if we thought about it long enough and hard enough, we could find some artifact of pop culture or literature, a re-imagining of which would propel you into epileptic fits.  All of us have things we hold precious, some of them may be worth more than others, but just because you don't feel the connections to these particular cultural artifacts does not mean that such connections do not exist or have no value or justification.

[BWPS]

So, as much as I'd love to throw fuel on this fire, I'll just say I really like Gwen Stacy ever since Spectacular, and I'm going to cry in the theater when they have Electro kill her instead of Green Goblin.

[Talavar]

I hope they don't follow the comics in the case of Gwen Stacey.  Emma Stone was one of the best parts of the reboot.

[deano_ue]

I hope they don't follow the comics in the case of Gwen Stacey.  Emma Stone was one of the best parts of the reboot.

as great as stone is (she's the only one to make me like the character) she has to die. the whole point of gwen now is to simply bite the big one and become the ultimate martyr in the spider-man universe

as much as i feel the whole thing has been run into the ground the character now in no matter what medium will have this hanging over her head. its only a matter of time.

if they bring in the goblin and dont kill her off then its a huge missed opportunity.

[Deaths Jester]

News Flash: FR Argumentations take on whole new level over Spiderman and DJ had nothing to do with it!  More at 11! 

(Sorry guys, couldn't help it but somebody needed to break the ice and get some laughter going here.)

[oldmanwinters]

I hope they don't follow the comics in the case of Gwen Stacey.  Emma Stone was one of the best parts of the reboot.

as great as stone is (she's the only one to make me like the character) she has to die. the whole point of gwen now is to simply bite the big one and become the ultimate martyr in the spider-man universe

as much as i feel the whole thing has been run into the ground the character now in no matter what medium will have this hanging over her head. its only a matter of time.

if they bring in the goblin and dont kill her off then its a huge missed opportunity.

But that's why I think the bolder choice is to resist the urge to kill her off.  Uncle Ben will always be the ultimate martyr in Spider-man's backstory.  Killing off Gwen is gratuitous unless it has some meaning to it.  In the original comics, the creative minds used Gwen's death as a metaphor for the supposed loss of innocence that comic books were undergoing in the 1970s.  There's really no point in trying to recapture that same effect in the 2010s when it seems like everybody likes their super hero movies to be dark, moody, and epic.

I suppose it could be used to cement the Goblin's status as Spider-man's ultimate foe, and maybe they'll develop that over a series of movies.  But if it only happens to either clear the way for Mary Jane to score the rebound or to remind Peter Parker that his loved ones suffer because of who he is, then I think that's not enough of a reason to follow the trope of Gwen Stacey as the "Women-in-Refrigerators" prototype.

[deano_ue]

how about its simply to get rid of the boring blonde bimbo and bring back the one true partner for peter MARY JANE WATSON. who should be now in the comics and married for a while

NO I'M NOT STILL PO'ED ABOUT ONE MORE DAY WHY DO YOU ASK THAT, CARLY COOPER CAN SUCK IT

[Deaths Jester]

*sneaks in, looks around.*

You guys are still going at it even after I told you to calm down some?!?!?  Jeez...

*sneaks back out because nobody ever sees him here anyways.*