Spider-Rivals Donald Glover And Andrew Garfield ‘Talked It Out’

Months after Community co-star Donald Glover spearheaded a not-entirely-serious, and not-at-all-successful, campaign to be cast as Spider-Man, he’s ended his imaginary rivalry with the guy who’ll wear the red-and-blue tights in the Columbia Pictures reboot. On Friday Glover tweeted the above photo of himself with Spider-Man star Andrew Garfield, along with the words, “We talked it out.”

Glover launched his online campaign in late May — a month before Garfield was cast — following an article that asked why the new Peter Parker couldn’t be black or Hispanic. “How does that invalidate who Peter Parker is?” Marc Bernardin wrote at io9.com. “Iā€™m not saying that the producers need to force the issue; that they need to cast a minority just for the sake of it ā€” but in the face of such underwhelming options like Billy Elliot and the kid who played young Voldemort, why not broaden the search?”

That mere suggestion sparked a heated debate among comics fans, or, in the words of Community creator Dan Harmon, a “curious eruption of a previously unknown demographic of racist comic-book readers.”

There’s been no word as to whether Glover will get a role, even if it’s not the lead, in the Marc Webb-directed Spider-Man. But if he doesn’t rate at least a cameo, I’ll be terribly disappointed.

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • Challenger_15

    Honestly, I’m glad Glover isn’t Peter Parker, but I’m not really thrilled about the British kid either. The more I hear about this movie, the less I really want to see it. This is absolutely one of the properties that Marvel needs to reclaim and do themselves. Actually, at this point I think Marvel just needs to do what they can to get back all of their properties.

  • Kevin Brettauer

    As soon as I saw NEVER LET ME GO, I understood completely why Andrew Garfield was chosen. He’ll do wonders with the role.

    That said, Donald Glover deserves to be a huge star. He’s fantastic.

  • Joseph

    I am sure Marvel would like nothing more than to reclaim the rights, but it’s not going to happen

  • JohnLees

    I’d say if someone doubts the talent of Andrew Garfield, it’s because they haven’t seen him act. He’s been flooring British audiences ever since he was a teenager, with his amazing performance in the astounding drama “Boy A”.

  • Cfosmooooooov

    See Social Network. Garfield totally has the acting chops to give us a way more interesting Peter Parker than Maguire.

  • http://twitter.com/DKandCo Chris Wallis

    Someone needs to inform Dan Harmon that its not racism to want the character to remain white or any characteristic from the comic when translated to the big screen. There are plenty of black prominent characters in comics, specifically Marvel, that need to be showcased. If anything, the Luke Cage movie thats been on the back burner for years should be greenlit. Although if it were, would it be acceptable to put a white actor up for the role? No, it would probably be scoffed at- Same here.

    The argument was that Peter being white wasnt important to the story. OF COURSE IT IS!. Peter is a direct representative of the poor white middle/LOWER class of America. His job struggles have been a very important part of the comic for years. From working at the DB to working for Stark and catching a break to whats going on now in the BIG TIME arc. His skin color, his social status, all of it are important to who he is. He’s far from being just a masked person swinging on a web. This is why comic adaptations usually get it wrong.

    Just because comic readers want their heroes to remain with the same attitudes (tobey missed the quirkiness of Parker completely) or skin color, does not mean they’re sticklers or racist. Thats a feeble attempt to feed this false accusatory mindset of this country. Although i did watch a recent episode of Community where they threw in racism at the end for no reason, so i guess Mr. Harmons just trying to invoke it when its not actually present on any platform he can.

  • Chris B.

    How about Flash Thompson? Just make sure to let him ad lib. Dude is hilarious.

  • stealthwise

    The reason it’s not racist to ask for a black Peter Parker while it’s racist to have a Luke Cage are two-fold:

    a) Peter Parker, despite what you’ve just posted, is not inherently white. Hell, there’s not much going there in way of his ethnic or religious background, especially in the context that we’re discussing, which is in terms of the films and mainstream identifiability. How often did Peter’s ethnicity come in the three films prior? On the tv series? There’s nothing that specifically says Peter can’t be black, hispanic or asian, because they would hopefully avoid ridiculous stereotypes and write him the same.

    2) Luke Cage’s story and character IS inherently tied to his race (for better and for worse, as Cage was a pretty large stereotype in part during his inception), so changing him to white is not only pointless but completely insane, given the context of the character, who existed for years as “angry black man.” Making him white would be completely odd and ill-informed for that reason. Now Blade could be made white without any question or worry, or at least could have before the Wesley Snipes incarnation of the character.

    Basically, race and ethnicity, hell in some cases even gender (not talking about Spider-Man specifically, but a lesser known character like Speedball or Nova, the latter of which has been female at one point) are not important unless you use those characteristics in your story.

  • Anonymous

    “There’s nothing that specifically says Peter can’t be black, hispanic or asian” {sic}. Right, nothing, except for the fact that he’s been depicted as a white guy since 1962. It’s absolutely true that Spider-Man isn’t about race – unless you make it about race by changing his race. This is not an arbitrary change, but a specific statement you’re using Spider-Man to make. I prefer Spider-Man to be about Spider-Man, not this argument about the cultural significance of pigment.

  • Beow101

    Donald Glover for Harry Osborn!

  • Beow101

    Agreed and Seconded.

  • Beow101

    Wait wait wait! Peter Parker’s not an Israeli kid from Queens?! CRAP! I’ve been reading the comics all wrong. I’ll have to start over now.

  • http://twitter.com/drunkjack00 Jack Derunk

    He has also been drawn in pen and ink. Why can’t the movie be in pen and ink! BLASPHEMERS!

    Seriously, he was created white in 1962 because a black Peter Parker would not have sold at all. You’re asking everyone to define the character by the racial politics of 1962. It’s almost 50 years later. If we went by your standard, there could not ever be a black man as President, because there was always a white man as President.

    Nothing about Peter Parker, as a person, is inherently white. His race is a product of the time he was created, not a conscious choice. Period.

  • http://twitter.com/mmeans68 mmeans68

    It’s funny that almost everytime a ‘reboot’ or ‘re-imagining’ of a movie comes up, there’s always an outcry when the main character isn’t considered to be of ‘another race’. Honestly…..do we really need “diversity” when it comes to movie casting, just so we can show the world just how ‘enlightened’ we’ve become as a country? If so, I’ll remember this when they remake “The Jeffersons” and look to cast Brad Pitt as George…..

  • Anonymous

    “He was created white in 1962 because a black Peter Parker would not have sold at all.” That’s not the whole truth. Now it’s true that Stan Lee made the conscious decision to make Peter Parker an everyman, and he couldn’t have been that had he been depicted as black in America in 1962: a black Peter Parker back then would have made race an issue front-and-center in the comic, and that’s not what the comic is about. It’s about an everyman. The fact that he’s white isn’t a deficiency in his depiction, because we unfortunately live in a society in which his depiction as a non-white would have canceled out his everyman status, even possibly among non-whites. We have a black president, and that’s great: but his race is an issue with everyone, both his supporters and his detractors, no matter how they deny it, though I agree that it shouldn’t be. (Your presidential analogy is ridiculous to begin with. Better to say I would consider it an odd choice if they hired a black guy to play Howard Taft). Peter Parker is an everyman, and his story isn’t about race. Choosing a black actor to play him makes a statement: “a black man can be an everyman because we’re more enlightened now than we were in 1962.” And that’s great. But you’re using Spider-Man to make that statement. And I’d prefer you used Spider-Man to just tell a Spider-Man story.

    If Peter Parker retires and hands the mantle over to a new Spider-Man who happens to be black, that’s fine. (Unless, of course, they decide to call him “Black Spider-Man,” like “Black Goliath” back in the day.) But unless Peter Parker gets bitten by a radioactive African-American, I’d prefer continuity to be maintained.