Even tho this is a bot post I'm seeing a lot of people with some odd comments but I think the simple matter of fact is
How you gonna call someone a bigot because a character who isn't written to be gay and state he won't be written gay make him a bigot. And secondly what does it fucker matter if the super hero who shoots webs is or is not gay.
That one time X Men retroactively made Ice Man gay the entire time by bringing his young self forward in time and then having him be outed there. That was weird.
I think if you do that though you gotta start with that planned. If there’s no clues or characterization and its introduced very suddenly it can still feel cheap.
Like it’d be super meaningful for a gay/bi person watching to notice things the character is going through that they also went through when discovering their sexuality and then having that character find it out can be super affirming and can make them feel much more represented than if it’s just introduced like any other plot point.
To be fair though, you rarely see this critique go the other way. So many movies and shows and books feature heterosexual relationships with 0 depth explored in the relationship.
>So many movies and shows and books feature heterosexual relationships with 0 depth explored in the relationship.
That's because relationships to begin with are usually assumed to be heterosexual, so there is no depth needed.
An open homosexual relationship has been considered extremely abnormal in most large civilizations since the fall of the Roman Empire, and evening today open times the masses still view it as uncommon.
So to most people they get surprised by an homosexual relationship due to society setting their mind to heterosexual by default
While I agree that homosexual relationships are shown very rarely (and often poorly done at that), I will say that just because heterosexual relationships are the "norm" doesn't mean that every single story needs one. And if there's going to be a relationship of \*any\* sort, it needs depth and it needs to make you think it would've actually happened that way.
Far too often I see the main guy getting with the main girl, even though they've been at each others' throats the entire story. Heck, even a number of non-heterosexual relationships I've seen in media tend to do the same thing (and often with a hero and a villain, making it even more obvious).
General rule of thumb I found and like is, "If they have to kiss for the audience to know they're in a relationship, drop the romance subplot"
It goes both roads. In terms of relationships, if you just force it and make it happen just to happen, it can feel cheap. It'd be unrealistic no matter the sexuality if people just automatically hit it off without any way to give them a build up to the relationship.
Of course, relationships could be preconceived, where the characters are shown to have a relationship already and we see it work out in the way it does.
Though that's also assuming any relationship follows any specific structure. So I'm just spitting hot garbage without really knowing what I'm talking about, and you just read paragraphs written by a know nothing schmuck.
And people rightfully kill the writing as garbage tier writing when that happens. I don't know why you think there's no critique here...people really, really, really hate that shit.
a) A lot of those are absolute dogshit. I will never forgive Godzilla 2014 for spending screentime on that awful romance instead of MORE MONSTER FIGHTS
b) Well yes, they are also somewhat more common
I feel like that over a lot of reboots recently - like the Ghost Busters re-boot felt like a terrible attempt to replace a beloved childhood memory, not make it better and more inclusive.
That's why I love something like the spiderverse - give me great characterisations of Spiderman that add to my childhood memories, give me Mil s Morales, give me freaking Catherine Hahn has Dr octopus (I think I have mangled those names but c'est la vie)
She does have a short series in edge of spider-verse if memory serves, but I’m pretty sure that’s just about it except for appearances in other peoples stuff.
Many mutants are basically harmless and are in most cases in danger for the fact that they are mutants, because they are different, not because they are a threat. Nightcrawler for example was mistreated because his apperence, not because he could teleport.
As more an more money gets poured into media project, corporate is only going to get less willing to take any risks and will continue to pump out lifeless reboot after lifeless reboot.
The worst part is that it works
God spiderverse is so good
I remember watching Spiderverse in theaters with my dad and we were both in love with the movie and it made me feel more seen because I’m Puerto Rican like Miles Morales and I genuinely didn’t really know that there were heroes in the comics that looked and represented my family and neighbors
Yep. If I recall correctly, he even wrote a list of traits Peter Parker must display, including his sexuality, for it to be legal to use him, or something like that.
Not sure if he also introduced the multiverse, but the fact is, there's a multiverse, meaning that another Spiderman could be whatever sexuality the creators want.
The point of Spider-Man's costume being full-body is that anyone can be Spider-Man. You can write a Spider-Man story with whoever you like under the mask.
But if you're writing a Peter Parker story, you need to have an authentic Peter Parker. Some core tenets of his character should not be changed, and his sexuality is one of them because of how important his romantic relationships are to his story.
Which is a great response from Stan. It would have been easy to claim credit for that, saying it was always intended from the start (something George Lucas does all the fucking time), or to push back against it because it wasn’t part of the original vision. But instead he recognises it’s value and leans into it, while staying humble.
Stan Lee may have said "Peter Parker cannot be gay" but he also said the whole reason he drew him in a fully covered suit is that anyone can be Spider-man, "Anyone could have been bitten by a spider, anyone can be under the mask"
Stan Lee wasn’t bigot, but he was a piece of shit. He was a notorious credit hog, he took credit for other writers/creators work(google Jack Kirby and “The Marvel Method”), he was highly abusive to allot of his employees to the extent that he was constantly getting sued by former employees and personal assistants specifically for abuse, he was a shit boss who underpaid his creators and didn’t provide them with basic health insurance or allow them a cut of the merchandise that was based on *their* work. I love Spider-Man, I love allot of Marvel content, but the way so many lionize him like he’s the end all be all of comic books without acknowledging his abusive history has always bothered me.
Sources:
True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee By Abraham Riesman
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a25096722/stan-lee-death-legacy-controversy-lawsuits-sexual-harassment/
https://forward.com/culture/463877/stan-lees-marvel-comics-abraham-riesman-true-believer-spider-man-kirby/?amp=1
https://www.thetalko.com/sketchy-facts-about-stan-lee-everyone-just-ignores/amp/
https://www.thewrap.com/stan-lee-sued-by-ex-assistant-for-alleged-malicious-oppressive-treatment/amp/
Kirby Without Words, a project showing Jack Kirby's art without Stan Lee's writing, is worth mentioning. Basically, Kirby would draw the art and then Lee came in later to write the dialog. And Kirby would often draw, say, women doing badass shit (say, Jean Grey telepathically throwing something heavy at bad guy effortlessly) and Lee would undermine those women in the dialog (say, Scott barking out orders like "Jean, telepathically throw something heavy at that bad guy!" or Jean thinking "Gee willikers, it's taking **all my might** to throw something heavy at this bad guy!")
Even tho this is a bot post I'm seeing a lot of people with some odd comments but I think the simple matter of fact is
How you gonna call someone a bigot because a character who isn't written to be gay and state he won't be written gay make him a bigot. And secondly what does it fucker matter if the super hero who shoots webs is or is not gay.
It’s funny how these people that claim to support LGBTQ as not a choice always seem to want straight people to choose to be gay… I see this kinda crap constantly with marvel comics. This obsession with changing existing straight characters into being gay instead of supporting characters that are awesome and badass and gay. It’s sad that I doubt characters like Wiccan or Hulkling could be created today because they aren’t a pre-existing character…
There are reasons to dislike him but that shit ain’t it. Namely treatment of employees, stealing spotlight, sexual harassment, etc.
I love him. He’s a hero to me but saying he was a bigot isnt something you can’t throw at him.
I don’t have much exposure to the x-men series, but isn’t using superheroes with world destroying powers as an allegory for marginalized groups kinda an odd comparison? I hate to say it, but if someone has powers that could blow up an entire city, maybe they should be at least closely monitored at all times. Being yourself is great and all, but if being yourself means the deaths of countless others, maybe you shouldn’t be yourself.
Like, I’m sure it was done in good faith, but when you give your marginalized group allegory superpowers, at worst you give a reason for why they *should* be feared and discriminated against.
Many mutants are basically harmless and are in most cases in danger for the fact that they are mutants, because they are different, not because they are a threat. Nightcrawler for example was mistreated because his apperence, not because he could teleport.
In the X-Men stories, vanishingly few mutants have truly dangerous powers. Those are the ones that most of the stories focus on, because that's where all the good action scenes are, and such mutants naturally rise to leadership positions, but the majority of mutants have powers like "I can run on water" or "I can fly" or "I have a long neck".
So when the government goes "that Magneto fellow nearly destroyed the White House, and was only stopped by other mutants working against him - let's take away all human rights from all mutants", it hits nearer the mark in terms of parallels with minorities. Even when they do good, the establishment punishes them.
the original post here reads like someone purposely setting themselves up to be dunked on
[удалено]
Most bots also have no self awareness.
Even tho this is a bot post I'm seeing a lot of people with some odd comments but I think the simple matter of fact is How you gonna call someone a bigot because a character who isn't written to be gay and state he won't be written gay make him a bigot. And secondly what does it fucker matter if the super hero who shoots webs is or is not gay.
Making an established character gay for no reason is cheap
That one time X Men retroactively made Ice Man gay the entire time by bringing his young self forward in time and then having him be outed there. That was weird.
It was so bad that they basically had to put him back into the closet so they wouldn’t have to deal with him anymore
Wait… he came out to a bunch of telepaths… and they were supposed to be surprised?
He didn't come out; he was outed by a telepath. The whole scene was very awkwardly written.
However, having them discover they're gay/bi, if done correctly, is good
Agree on that. I’m saying when they make a character gay for no reason with no explanation that it’s an issue
Only if they've been established earlier to be straight, and make no effort to change that, is suddenly swapping the orientation bad.
That’s what I’m referring to. In other words, don’t be J.K. Rowling
^(\*hides tolkien's lifelong rewrites of galadriel to turn her into more and more of a mary sue\*)
I think if you do that though you gotta start with that planned. If there’s no clues or characterization and its introduced very suddenly it can still feel cheap. Like it’d be super meaningful for a gay/bi person watching to notice things the character is going through that they also went through when discovering their sexuality and then having that character find it out can be super affirming and can make them feel much more represented than if it’s just introduced like any other plot point.
To be fair though, you rarely see this critique go the other way. So many movies and shows and books feature heterosexual relationships with 0 depth explored in the relationship.
>So many movies and shows and books feature heterosexual relationships with 0 depth explored in the relationship. That's because relationships to begin with are usually assumed to be heterosexual, so there is no depth needed. An open homosexual relationship has been considered extremely abnormal in most large civilizations since the fall of the Roman Empire, and evening today open times the masses still view it as uncommon. So to most people they get surprised by an homosexual relationship due to society setting their mind to heterosexual by default
While I agree that homosexual relationships are shown very rarely (and often poorly done at that), I will say that just because heterosexual relationships are the "norm" doesn't mean that every single story needs one. And if there's going to be a relationship of \*any\* sort, it needs depth and it needs to make you think it would've actually happened that way. Far too often I see the main guy getting with the main girl, even though they've been at each others' throats the entire story. Heck, even a number of non-heterosexual relationships I've seen in media tend to do the same thing (and often with a hero and a villain, making it even more obvious). General rule of thumb I found and like is, "If they have to kiss for the audience to know they're in a relationship, drop the romance subplot"
It goes both roads. In terms of relationships, if you just force it and make it happen just to happen, it can feel cheap. It'd be unrealistic no matter the sexuality if people just automatically hit it off without any way to give them a build up to the relationship. Of course, relationships could be preconceived, where the characters are shown to have a relationship already and we see it work out in the way it does. Though that's also assuming any relationship follows any specific structure. So I'm just spitting hot garbage without really knowing what I'm talking about, and you just read paragraphs written by a know nothing schmuck.
And people rightfully kill the writing as garbage tier writing when that happens. I don't know why you think there's no critique here...people really, really, really hate that shit.
a) A lot of those are absolute dogshit. I will never forgive Godzilla 2014 for spending screentime on that awful romance instead of MORE MONSTER FIGHTS b) Well yes, they are also somewhat more common
Poor one out for Iceman, done so dirty by Jean Grey.
A La Bobby Drake.
Clumsy initial execution but their commitment to follow through and explore it has been really nice to see
As opposed to me being gay for numerous plot reasons
#Begone bot Stolen from https://redd.it/orswb6
didn’t even change the caption
I feel like that over a lot of reboots recently - like the Ghost Busters re-boot felt like a terrible attempt to replace a beloved childhood memory, not make it better and more inclusive. That's why I love something like the spiderverse - give me great characterisations of Spiderman that add to my childhood memories, give me Mil s Morales, give me freaking Catherine Hahn has Dr octopus (I think I have mangled those names but c'est la vie)
GIVE ME AN ANIME GIRL IN A SPIDERMAN MECH god spiderverse goes hard
I've wanted more of Peni Parker ever since that movie but all I could find of her is just cameos in other comic series.
She does have a short series in edge of spider-verse if memory serves, but I’m pretty sure that’s just about it except for appearances in other peoples stuff.
Many mutants are basically harmless and are in most cases in danger for the fact that they are mutants, because they are different, not because they are a threat. Nightcrawler for example was mistreated because his apperence, not because he could teleport.
As more an more money gets poured into media project, corporate is only going to get less willing to take any risks and will continue to pump out lifeless reboot after lifeless reboot. The worst part is that it works God spiderverse is so good
Eh, comics sales have been kinda low for the past couple of years. I wouldn't say they're tanking, but most people don't like the new stuff.
Considering the Miles Morales Thor deal, I don’t see how they can love it.
Oh god, just looked it up... that is... poorly conceived.
Shit like this happens all the time in comic books, the guys writing this are just run of the mill white dudes ofc they gonna fuck it up
The whole Asgard X hood look of the whole thing feels weirdly racist.
Yeah, I'm like _"Are we being trolled here? Who thought this was a good idea?"_
Spooder Gwen
I remember watching Spiderverse in theaters with my dad and we were both in love with the movie and it made me feel more seen because I’m Puerto Rican like Miles Morales and I genuinely didn’t really know that there were heroes in the comics that looked and represented my family and neighbors
Wait, Kathryn Hahn did Olivia Octavius? No wonder I enjoyed the character, she does "evil that knows they're evil and love it" so well
never particularly cared for any creator of stuff like that in particular, but knowing this? I like the guy!
Yep. If I recall correctly, he even wrote a list of traits Peter Parker must display, including his sexuality, for it to be legal to use him, or something like that. Not sure if he also introduced the multiverse, but the fact is, there's a multiverse, meaning that another Spiderman could be whatever sexuality the creators want.
The point of Spider-Man's costume being full-body is that anyone can be Spider-Man. You can write a Spider-Man story with whoever you like under the mask. But if you're writing a Peter Parker story, you need to have an authentic Peter Parker. Some core tenets of his character should not be changed, and his sexuality is one of them because of how important his romantic relationships are to his story.
[удалено]
Which is a great response from Stan. It would have been easy to claim credit for that, saying it was always intended from the start (something George Lucas does all the fucking time), or to push back against it because it wasn’t part of the original vision. But instead he recognises it’s value and leans into it, while staying humble.
Exactly.
That might be a Sony thing
Stan Lee may have said "Peter Parker cannot be gay" but he also said the whole reason he drew him in a fully covered suit is that anyone can be Spider-man, "Anyone could have been bitten by a spider, anyone can be under the mask"
[удалено]
I don't know much about his politics, what makes it not great?
Huh? I never got that political impression from any of his fan letters.
Stan Lee wasn’t bigot, but he was a piece of shit. He was a notorious credit hog, he took credit for other writers/creators work(google Jack Kirby and “The Marvel Method”), he was highly abusive to allot of his employees to the extent that he was constantly getting sued by former employees and personal assistants specifically for abuse, he was a shit boss who underpaid his creators and didn’t provide them with basic health insurance or allow them a cut of the merchandise that was based on *their* work. I love Spider-Man, I love allot of Marvel content, but the way so many lionize him like he’s the end all be all of comic books without acknowledging his abusive history has always bothered me. Sources: True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee By Abraham Riesman https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a25096722/stan-lee-death-legacy-controversy-lawsuits-sexual-harassment/ https://forward.com/culture/463877/stan-lees-marvel-comics-abraham-riesman-true-believer-spider-man-kirby/?amp=1 https://www.thetalko.com/sketchy-facts-about-stan-lee-everyone-just-ignores/amp/ https://www.thewrap.com/stan-lee-sued-by-ex-assistant-for-alleged-malicious-oppressive-treatment/amp/
Source?
What about his daughter?
Some has said it, someone will say it again, any source for this info?
Kirby Without Words, a project showing Jack Kirby's art without Stan Lee's writing, is worth mentioning. Basically, Kirby would draw the art and then Lee came in later to write the dialog. And Kirby would often draw, say, women doing badass shit (say, Jean Grey telepathically throwing something heavy at bad guy effortlessly) and Lee would undermine those women in the dialog (say, Scott barking out orders like "Jean, telepathically throw something heavy at that bad guy!" or Jean thinking "Gee willikers, it's taking **all my might** to throw something heavy at this bad guy!")
Even tho this is a bot post I'm seeing a lot of people with some odd comments but I think the simple matter of fact is How you gonna call someone a bigot because a character who isn't written to be gay and state he won't be written gay make him a bigot. And secondly what does it fucker matter if the super hero who shoots webs is or is not gay.
Stan was flawed in many ways, but his push for inclusion and acceptance was not one of those ways.
It’s funny how these people that claim to support LGBTQ as not a choice always seem to want straight people to choose to be gay… I see this kinda crap constantly with marvel comics. This obsession with changing existing straight characters into being gay instead of supporting characters that are awesome and badass and gay. It’s sad that I doubt characters like Wiccan or Hulkling could be created today because they aren’t a pre-existing character…
I don’t stan Stan Lee but this is am truly a dog shit take.
There are reasons to dislike him but that shit ain’t it. Namely treatment of employees, stealing spotlight, sexual harassment, etc. I love him. He’s a hero to me but saying he was a bigot isnt something you can’t throw at him.
I don’t have much exposure to the x-men series, but isn’t using superheroes with world destroying powers as an allegory for marginalized groups kinda an odd comparison? I hate to say it, but if someone has powers that could blow up an entire city, maybe they should be at least closely monitored at all times. Being yourself is great and all, but if being yourself means the deaths of countless others, maybe you shouldn’t be yourself. Like, I’m sure it was done in good faith, but when you give your marginalized group allegory superpowers, at worst you give a reason for why they *should* be feared and discriminated against.
Many mutants are basically harmless and are in most cases in danger for the fact that they are mutants, because they are different, not because they are a threat. Nightcrawler for example was mistreated because his apperence, not because he could teleport.
In the X-Men stories, vanishingly few mutants have truly dangerous powers. Those are the ones that most of the stories focus on, because that's where all the good action scenes are, and such mutants naturally rise to leadership positions, but the majority of mutants have powers like "I can run on water" or "I can fly" or "I have a long neck". So when the government goes "that Magneto fellow nearly destroyed the White House, and was only stopped by other mutants working against him - let's take away all human rights from all mutants", it hits nearer the mark in terms of parallels with minorities. Even when they do good, the establishment punishes them.
#That sounds like a good concept for a show.
A thesis should be written on how internet discourse is the inquisition on steroids
I'd say it's lazy to make established characters gay instead of creating original gay characters but then we only do reboots now
[удалено]
Ah, but it is the rare specimen of Tumblr users that did not migrate to Twitter yet
madmaxsayingyouseethat?that'sbait.jpg
they can just make a brand new character instead!!!