| LurkerJ said: To summarize: They don't, but they should. Because when I go to see a Spider-man movie, I want to see the stories I read adapted to the big screen. That's the whole point of using the license. Changes HAVE to be made to source material, cause you're adapting years of comics to a movie, and certain things make sense in one that don't make sense in the other. But, any change should have a purpose to it, and nobody has explained why this change would be beneficial to the actual story. What's wrong is that it's changing the character. It's not objectively or morally wrong, it's just going to make me less interested as a fan. 3.Spider-man is not Stan's Lee property. I am pretty sure he didn't like all of the changes that were inflicted to his characters even if they were received warmly by the critics. I agree that Stan Lee's opinion doesn't matter. But, there is nothing in the comics to support him being pansexual either. 4.The human torch used to be a white guy. Now he is black. Why is this OK and pansexuality isn't? It's just sex in a popcorn flick, get over it. Because skin color and sexuality are a different thing. Obviously there are some differences growing up black vs white, but there is no real reason Johnny Storm couldn't have had pretty much the same life experiences as a black guy as he did as a white (although I am upset that Sue was white. They're supposed to be full blooded siblings). If Spider-man were gay or bisexual, that would have big ramifications on his lovelife, which is a big part of the Spider-man lore. |







