Quote:Gavia Baker-Whitelaw lamented how the movie depictions of Spider-Man and other superheroes are all "straight, white men" in a Tuesday item on Salon.com titled "America deserves better superheroes: Why a straight, white Spider-Man is no longer a real underdog." Baker-Whitelaw, a "fandom and Internet culture" reporter for the website The Daily Dot, zeroed in on the supposed "ramifications of having eternal underdog Peter Parker remain a straight, white man."

The writer also complimented Andrew Garfield, the actor who plays the title character in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, for wondering why the superhero "can't...be into boys," and contended that Sony, the studio releasing the upcoming movie, "might benefit from listening to...Garfield's comments on the potential hypocrisy of portraying Peter Parker as being marginalized by society." She later hoped that superhero movies would catch up with the "reasonably progressive and diverse representation of real-life America" in present-day comic books:

...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....none of those movies have starred anyone other than a straight, white man in the lead role. The Avengers franchise has managed a handful of female characters in non-romantic roles, plus Falcon and Nick Fury in the supporting cast, but the mere concept of an openly LGBT character still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream. Meanwhile in Marvel comics, Northstar came out in 1992, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other LGBT heroes....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-bal...-white-men

Quote:...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....

They have gays in mainstream comics now?

Meh, let the free market decide. If they want to make a movie about a gay, non-white superhero then go for it... but, don't come crying if it does not perform well at the box office.

(04-30-2014 08:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Meh, let the free market decide. If they want to make a movie about a gay, non-white superhero then go for it... but, don't come crying if it does not perform well at the box office.

I agree. Those movies are more geared toward adults anyway. Pretty sad that I have to worry about buying my son a gay comic book, however.

(04-30-2014 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....

They have gays in mainstream comics now?

When they want a title to fail they do.

Sandman wasn't a superhero comic per se, and it was completely LBGQT. It also sucked.

(04-30-2014 08:05 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 08:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Meh, let the free market decide. If they want to make a movie about a gay, non-white superhero then go for it... but, don't come crying if it does not perform well at the box office.

I agree. Those movies are more geared toward adults anyway. Pretty sad that I have to worry about buying my son a gay comic book, however.

This.

Marvel is running a business and outside of the first 2 Superman movies and Tim Burton's versions of Batman, most comic book movies were abject failures prior to the turn of the 21st Century.

Northstar not appearing in a movie isn't b/c of his sexual orientation, but because you have to be a hardcore comic book nerd to even know who that character IS.

Wonder Woman (which if they get the right script would be a huge success) reason for not being seen on the silver screen has nothing to do with sexism, but everything to do with Warner Brother's general incompetence.

Quote:"America deserves better superheroes:

And:

Quote:wondering why the superhero "can't...be into boys,"

I guess I'm simply not quite "progressive" enough, but how does one square these two things?

Into boys? Really? Id like to have this idgits definition of "boys". I guess that's next.

Once we forcefully normalize the abnormal in one area, they'll simply move on to the next one. I mean, heck, who's to judge anything nowadays?

Societal norms be damned! Right, progs?

It's hard not to normalize the abnormal when Un-holywood pushes their agenda every chance they get. Remember that the Media is the Devils Playground and it's proven day in and out with what they spew.

(05-02-2014 09:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....

They have gays in mainstream comics now?

When they want a title to fail they do.

Sandman wasn't a superhero comic per se, and it was completely LBGQT. It also sucked.

That's the second time you've talked bad about Sandman this week. I also don't know if it could be considered LBGQT, except for his evil brother/sister Desire.

The rest was...well...weird. I liked the story in A Doll's House where the Corinthian was at that serial killer convention, but characters like Fiddler's Green were just weird and pointless.

(04-30-2014 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....

They have gays in mainstream comics now?

Marvel is in some sort of alternate universe phase right now called Ultimate. I think Spiderman is Hispanic in that universe. There was speculation that the writers were also going to make him gay, but that hasn't come up since 2011.

Why the f*ck would any kid want to watch a movie with a superhomo? Unfuckingbelievable.

Also, Storm is movie superhero. Black Panther would make a good movie, but it probably wouldn't make a lot of money because it's a very esoteric story. Spawn is black and had a movie. One of the Green Lanterns is black. Blade is also.

Now a gay superhero will be a hard sell to men and boys as a movie, would struggle for investors, and end up in development hell.

(05-02-2014 01:52 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Also, Storm is movie superhero. Black Panther would make a good movie, but it probably wouldn't make a lot of money because it's a very esoteric story. Spawn is black and had a movie. One of the Green Lanterns is black. Blade is also.

Now a gay superhero will be a hard sell to men and boys as a movie, would struggle for investors, and end up in development hell.

And homofauxbics would get the blame.

(05-02-2014 01:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 09:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....

They have gays in mainstream comics now?

When they want a title to fail they do.

Sandman wasn't a superhero comic per se, and it was completely LBGQT. It also sucked.

That's the second time you've talked bad about Sandman this week. I also don't know if it could be considered LBGQT, except for his evil brother/sister Desire.

A significant (perhaps majority) of the mortals that were in those stories were LBGQT. Look back and see for yourself.

Someone gave them to me digitally, so I read almost the entire collection. I just kept waiting for them to get better. They were certainly groundbreaking for the late 80s.

I did like the finale, although I was cheering for Cronus. I still feel bad for Lyta Hall losing her son.

Quote:The rest was...well...weird. I liked the story in A Doll's House where the Corinthian was at that serial killer convention, but characters like Fiddler's Green were just weird and pointless.

Just now searching a few details I believe early on there are connections w/ older Sandman stories. Connections I don't fully get, despite being a long-time DC fan.

Anyway, Corinthian was just one more evil character...at least he was stopped. Fiddler's Green was interesting, but it would have been nice to see him developed more. I suppose the odd characters interposed here and there fit w/ the whole dream concept.

Going back to the top, the whole storyline was based on abuse and resulting sexual deviancy. I was left unimpressed.

Oh one more thing. Shortly after reading them I was at a lecture and heard about and saw works by Gustav Klimt. I immediately thought of Sandman covers. I mentioned it to the guy who gave the series to me. He had never heard of Klimt.

(05-02-2014 01:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Marvel is in some sort of alternate universe phase right now called Ultimate. I think Spiderman is Hispanic in that universe. There was speculation that the writers were also going to make him gay, but that hasn't come up since 2011.

I've mentioned Ultimate Spider Man before. Great title for 10 years. Undoubtedly greatest 10 year run I've ever read.

Then they switched to Miles Morales as gay, hispanic Spider Man. Sales plummeted, and it was finally cancelled. Although I read they announced bringing him back this year.

(05-02-2014 02:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:36 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 09:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-30-2014 07:56 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....

They have gays in mainstream comics now?

When they want a title to fail they do.

Sandman wasn't a superhero comic per se, and it was completely LBGQT. It also sucked.

That's the second time you've talked bad about Sandman this week. I also don't know if it could be considered LBGQT, except for his evil brother/sister Desire.

A significant (perhaps majority) of the mortals that were in those stories were LBGQT. Look back and see for yourself.

Someone gave them to me digitally, so I read almost the entire collection. I just kept waiting for them to get better. They were certainly groundbreaking for the late 80s.

I did like the finale, although I was cheering for Cronus. I still feel bad for Lyta Hall losing her son.

Quote:The rest was...well...weird. I liked the story in A Doll's House where the Corinthian was at that serial killer convention, but characters like Fiddler's Green were just weird and pointless.

Just now searching a few details I believe early on there are connections w/ older Sandman stories. Connections I don't fully get, despite being a long-time DC fan.

Anyway, Corinthian was just one more evil character...at least he was stopped. Fiddler's Green was interesting, but it would have been nice to see him developed more. I suppose the odd characters interposed here and there fit w/ the whole dream concept.

Going back to the top, the whole storyline was based on abuse and resulting sexual deviancy. I was left unimpressed.

Oh one more thing. Shortly after reading them I was at a lecture and heard about and saw works by Gustav Klimt. I immediately thought of Sandman covers. I mentioned it to the guy who gave the series to me. He had never heard of Klimt.

To be honest with you. I had trouble getting past book three of the anthology.

Have you given Transmetropolitan a look?

After thinking about this, I just realized that MOST superheroes are straight, white men and they can't get in the movies either.

Nobody cries for Aquaman's cause.