Andrew Garfield: Spidey Suit De-Sexed


Entertainment Weekly takes a closer look at Andrew Garfield's spandex Spidey suit:

When asked if there were long conversations about whether to err on the side of being too Ken-doll androgynous vs. too bulbously revealing (especially since the film is in 3-D!), Garfield laughed and blushed some more.

“Um, yeah, there are long discussions about this stuff,” he said. “There has to be because it’s got to be handled with sensitivity. It has to be non-offensive, which takes some tools.” His words, not mine. We assume he’s talking about tools of the costume-design variety.

Ever since the nippled Batsuit brouhaha of the ’90s, the makers of superhero movies have to be careful not to offend audience’s delicate sensibilities when it comes to their crimefighter’s naughty bits. They should be more focused on Thor’s hammer than… Thor’s hammer. Garfield says he and Webb were cautious about this. ”I don’t think it should be the main attraction of the costume.” he said. “I don’t think it should be what people are focusing on.” In other words, keep it classy.

Garfield's 'crouch' is another story.

And Deadline reports that Garfield is headed to Broadway in a Mike Nichols revival of the Arthur Miller play Death of a Salesman:

Oscar-winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman will play the traveling salesman Willy Loman; Linda Emond will play his wife, Linda; and Garfield will play Loman's underachieving son, Biff. Scott Rudin will produce the revival, which will open next March at the Barrymore Theatre.


  1. Eric says

    Funny, I’ve never heard of any movie producers photoshopping women’s boobs down for the sake of “sensitivity.” What is so different about a man’s bulge?

  2. Ron says

    I completely agree with @Eric! Why are people so sensitive about the visual of the male appendage? Or is it just puritanical American audiences that have an issue?

  3. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    No different really that the HUGE brouhaha by the Catholic League and others over Robin and his costume for the 60’s TV “Batman”. Endless agitation over Burt Ward’s briefs, how many layers of jocks and such, and his “Aunt Harriet Cooper”.

  4. Gregv says

    Good point, Eric. Wonder Woman never had to have her breasts strapped down be androgenously flat. Judd Apatow has vowed to try to have a penis in every movie until Hollywood gets over this absurd fear of any hint that a male actor has one.
    In the most progressive countries, people already understand that nobody is psychologically harmed by the understanding that men don’t have vaginas and women do have mammary glands.

  5. Daniel says

    @Eric: I’m pretty sure Lindsay Lohan’s boobs did in fact get photoshopped in Herbie: Fully Loaded because they were too big for a family movie. But still, it seems a little ridiculous.

  6. paul says

    About the double standard charge about male genitalia in movies:

    Movies have never shown wide open female genitalia splayed on screen. They just show pubic hair. So it’s not a double standard, there are plenty of male nipples and asses in Hollywood films. And comparing Wonder Woman’s breast to Spiderman’s bulge is not the same thing. You would have to compare his bulge to her cameltoe.

  7. Randy says

    Paul makes a facetious argument. The parts of women that protrude have been emphasized to the extreme in movies and television, while the parts of men that protrude have been minimized and even erased altogether.

  8. Bryan says

    America’s penis phobia never ceases to amuse. The most grotesque recent example was the medical scan seem from “Green Lantern,” where the extraordinary effort to display a body with bones, muscles, and organs visible while somehow suppressing genitals created a truly cringe-worthy ripping-it-off effect.

    One Nation under shame. (In which I include gay men who wear knee-length polyester skirts to exercise and swim.)

  9. Evil says

    The American thought goes this way: sex is evil; nude is evil; close to nude is evil; close to close to nude is evil too; genitalia is evil; penis is evil plus 10; gays are eeeeeeeviiiiiiilllll; pleasure is evil; love –unless is for God or inside consecrated marriage- is evil; too much knowing real things is evil; anatomy is evil –unless is to know where to shoot for a good kill-; man is evil, unless brainwashed by Christianity; city dwellers are evil; outside religion everything is kinda evil.

  10. Evil says

    @Erick26 Who cares about your amount of shame, your body, your preference and you altogether? Let me guess… the London riots were protesting your demureness?

  11. Eric26 says

    A good number of people, actually.
    I was offering an opinion in response to someone because I had something to say, but you typed some words without actually saying anything. To each his own.

  12. Evil says

    @ERIC26 Actually, I was showing that the question wasn’t about personal preferences as the line to judge others or impose ludicrous censorships. The thing is, are you uncomfortable with human anatomy beyond you being yourself clad with a burqa? Does human nudity troubles you, makes you uneasy, cause fear or disgust? If so, you can work on it with your therapist. He will take care.

  13. billmiller says

    Mens bulges are not allowed to be seen on American TV or movies, look how they treat swim competitions, track meets, and cycling events, the camera stays above the waist. Women on the other hand…

  14. Marcwolf says

    America is a strange country. Wall to wall violence, blood, torture is fine. But show them one penis and they curl up with horror. Could it be that Americans feel threatened that seeing another man’s ‘parts’ will affect their sexuality.
    I remember the Watchmen with Dr Manhatten. The fuss over the fact that he had a penis was quiet laughable and show really how immature the US is.

Leave A Reply