This isn’t about money or fame. It’s not about “selling out”. It’s about survival, ladies. The fleeting chance to keep doing what we love is right here in our hands.
So no. I don’t care why she really wants us here. All I know is that she’s giving us an inch, and we’re gonna take a mile.
Now that you’ve got the rights back to Spider-Man and are making another film about him, you may wish to put Harry Osborn in it! Here is a quick guide for you regarding some important characteristics of the Green Goblin’s son:
1) He’s mentally ill
2) It’s not the ‘cute’ kind of mentally ill*
*Whatever that is
3) He also has addiction issues, which he tries hard to overcome
I see a lot of people reblogging a post that links to this Gawker article, which has the headline “Spider-Man Can’t Be Gay or Black”, and includes a snippet from a Marvel/Sony licensing agreement that appeared via the Sony e-mail hack leaks.
Funny, though – Gawker only provided a teeny snippet of that agreement, and didn’t provide a link to the full document. Also, their own conclusions are false even based on the snippet they provided. Here are the parts they included in the article:
Read that again. Nothing in there says that Spider-Man can’t be homosexual, it says that Sony cannot portray whichever Spider-Man character they choose to utilize as homosexual unless Marvel wrote him that way. Basically, it’s Marvel reserving the right to choose the sexuality of any particular Spider-Man alter ego for themselves, instead of leaving it up to Sony.
Note that this section is specific to the character Peter Parker. Peter has his own backstory, his own traits, that Marvel wants to keep consistent. There is nothing in this section that says Spider-Man can’t be a POC – only that if Sony is using the Peter Parker alter-ego, he is Caucasian. The earlier section above specifically references Sony using “Peter Parker or an alternative Spider-Man character” – they’re not in any way limited to using white-boy Peter.
So what did Gawker choose not to include? The next section of the contract is called “Alternative Versions of Spider-Man Character”, and specifies that any non-Peter versions basically should stay with the same general time period, location, costume, origin story, and powers. That’s it.
Moreover, the lists Gawker pictured are taken from the summaries included in the body of the agreement – the “Schedules” attached to the contract go into far more detail. (This is typical with contracts.) For instance:
“He is not homosexual unless the Spider-Man Character portrayed in the Production is an Alternative Spider-Man Character that is portrayed as homosexual in New Authorized Works.”
“The name of the Alternative Version’s civilian alter ego (e.g., Miguel O’Hara), if any, must be used.”
It goes on to list more than twenty alternative Spider-Man characters Sony may use, including Miles Morales, Miguel O’Hara, and Peter Prabhakar.
Italics mine, but it’s clear from these portions that Marvel was open to Sony using non-white versions of Spider-Man. Marvel also left themselves the option of creating new Spider-Man alter egos after this contract was in effect in 2011 who, if portrayed by Marvel as homosexual, could then be portrayed by Sony the same way.
Furthermore – this agreement is from 2011. Well before the new deal was negotiated that allows Spidey to appear in the MCU and reboots Sony’s entire Spider-Man franchise. We have no idea what that new contract includes. For Gawker to post these snippets out of context in 2015 as though they might apply to the current casting situation – and then, to mischaracterize the wording in their headline – is just irresponsible.
The great thing about MJ is when you look in her eyes and she’s looking back in yours everything feels not quite normal. Because you feel stronger and weaker at the same time. You feel excited and at the same time, terrified. The truth is you don’t know what you feel except you know what kind of man you want to be. It’s as if you’ve reached the unreachable and you weren’t ready for it.
The words used to describe Mary Jane range from vaguely sexist to downright derogatory. She is shallow, selfish, bitchy, winey, and, yes, the old time favourite, she’s a slut. If you need a feminist translation, Mary Jane is independent, opinionated, caring, confident, self-sufficient, and has been in a relationship with more than one person (the latter should not be relevant, but until slut-shaming dies a fiery death, it sadly is). Mary Jane and Gwen are so firmly trapped in the virgin/whore dichotomy, that it should be no surprise that one character is currently experiencing a renaissance, while the other is either written out of character to serve a plot, or not written at all. Mary Jane is just a little bit too loud. A little bit too messy. A little bit too…non compliant (a little bit too on the nose? I apologize).
I keep thinking how much more powerful the Spiderman origin story would be if Peter Parker was an African American kid, whose Uncle Ben was shot by police while being arrested for a minor parking infraction. There is no formal investigation, and Peter decides to put himself on the line to prevent it happening again. He tackles the white crimes that go unpunished, punishes POC criminals fairly. He is the leveler, always fighting to be without bias, to be just. To protect people like his uncle.
This not only mirrors so much of what’s happening in America, but feeds right into the complex relationship between Spiderman, the authorities and the media.
Peter Parker is a brilliant student, awkward, a nerd, but is branded a thug, a gang member, a criminal, because of his appearance. The media latch on to that and misrepresent him totally.
The police, humilitated by the fact that he refuses to work with them and often punishes cops themselves for brutalizing innocent people, or guilty people who still deserve better treatment than they get, attempt to hunt him down.
