This makes me so happy! Garfield's been on my "don't miss anything this person ever does" list ever since I stumbled across him in "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974".
This is a dangerous precedent. If they decide to imply Peter Parker is exploring his sexuality for the next Amazing Spider-Man film, they might inadvertently create a somewhat interesting character, and American audiences might find they have a reason to finally take an interest in these films.
I think he should hatch a hundred babies and carry them around on his back like a brown recluse. It's about time we movie this franchise into a new demo.
@ 16 How does someone tell sarcasm over the internet when there is no tone?, I am a native speaker just when one on is on their smart phone hard to type a lot.
I could tell it was sarcasm. Probably because of the dissonance of Knat starting off with something negative ("a dangerous precedent") and then identifying the negative development as something that most people would consider positive (flocking to see a film because of interesting characters).
I would pay hard cash to watch Andrew Garfield kiss a boy in a movie. If Spiderman won't do it, somebody else please give him a good script for a different bi character.
Yeah, I was having some fun with you because of your grammar. Admittedly I might have been a little harsh. I forget what modern phones are capable of nowadays (even though I possess one), and by extension the inherent limitations that come with them.
Die hard Spider-Man fan here and I'd have no problem with it. Peter's sexual orientation is not a defining aspect of his character itself, (but it is to the mythos, just because the many young women in his life cause him so much grief) and he has historically portrayed as kinda weirdly monastic when it comes to actual sexual relations. Excepting the story where his radioactive semen made Mary Jane die of cancer.
I don't want them to make MJ male, because decent parts for women in these movies are sparse enough. But if Peter has feelings for Harry Osborn or whoever, cool.
It's a really cool idea (hope I live to see the day). But you know there would be Christian fundamentalist groups threatening to burn down theaters and everything Spiderman related...
God, on the one hand, I LOVE this idea. Why wouldn't Peter Parker be bisexual? It would be so fascinating and Marvel is quite famous for supporting gay rights. (Gay marriage in X-Men, for example!) I just wish it didn't have to be MJ. She was always a weak character - always having to be rescued, for example - and was never as awesome as Gwen, but I hate to see one of the very few female characters go. However, i will be VERY excited if they do this! I might even see the second movie. (I didn't like the first. Peter was so damn whiny!)
DOCTOR STRANGE ALREADY.
Also, Peter Parker seems more asexual than bisexual.
* and they have.
That was sarcasm. As you continue to learn English, you'll learn to identify it. (Hopefully. Even some native speakers never master that.)
I could tell it was sarcasm. Probably because of the dissonance of Knat starting off with something negative ("a dangerous precedent") and then identifying the negative development as something that most people would consider positive (flocking to see a film because of interesting characters).
*swoon*
Yeah, I was having some fun with you because of your grammar. Admittedly I might have been a little harsh. I forget what modern phones are capable of nowadays (even though I possess one), and by extension the inherent limitations that come with them.
He's not as bi as Tony Stark, though.