The problem with Iron Man being Spider-Man's mentor in the MCU

[B]Note:[/B] I actually posted much of this in a different topic, the "MCU arch-nemesis" one, but felt like it could hold its own and hoped it would inspire discussion.

I enjoy the MCU Spider-Man movies but I have gripes with them, gripes that I've seen expressed elsewhere, in that the shared universe, and Tony Stark in particular, dominates Spidey's own narrative. I'll explain the issue with this in great detail.

They essentially decided to make Peter into a legacy character for Tony. The main issue with that is that it's completely antithetical to Spider-Man as a character. Stan Lee designed Spider-Man as a counterpoint against the idea of kid sidekicks, against the "juniors" of any team, who had to be guided by an older and wiser hero. Peter wasn't someone who was supposed to have an adult mentor to walk him through everything. He was a self-made man, in his essence.

The MCU counterpart's motivation is impressing "Mr. Stark", vying for his approval, gaining a seat on the Avengers for the prestige, and living up to his legacy. Everything from his suit, gadgets, connection to the world, and his villains, all came directly from Iron Man. Sure, he was officially Spider-Man before then, but without any real gadgets. He was stopping cars and rescuing old ladies from the street, and that's all he'd ever amount to if Tony didn't come along to make him into a "real" hero. It stands in direct opposition to Spider-Man as a character.

In fact, the final fight with Vulture was embarrassing to watch, mainly because he got his ass beat and only lucked out when Vulture's suit malfunctioned, ie Vulture had to take himself out. People have said "If he had his suit, it would be different!", and to that I say "Doesn't that just prove he needs Tony to begin with?".

Spider-Man is a solo player, because he likes it best that way. He envies teams like the Avengers and the Fantastic Four because of their stability, their fancy homes, and the fame, but he couldn't be part of that because he believes himself to be his own man. Likewise, he's also on good terms with the X-Men, bonding over their sense of being heroic outcasts, but he's also not in the business of joining them. They're an organization of mutants, fighting for mutantkind, and thus he isn't part of that culture. While they've had some non-mutants among their ranks like Longshot, those are the big exceptions. Besides, can you imagine Spidey as a teacher there for anything more than a fun little miniseries? Something tells me the everyday commute to Westchester alone would be too much of a pain for him, and what could he teach mutant kids about life with himself as a non-mutant, that the X-Men couldn't teach? Yeah.

Any time he's on a team, in most cases, he's either an associate, a reserve member, or it's very short-term. Being on the Avengers for a long period only highlighted this, mainly for being the "funny guy" that the others rag on and make him feel unimportant. That only reinforces the idea of Spider-Man being best as a solo hero rather than a team player, especially since that was his purpose. Many characters in Marvel are designed for teams in mind, but not Spidey. He can bounce off people in interactions, but it feels like a disservice to have Spidey as just the comic relief in a team story.

Another main issue with Iron Man being Spider-Man's mentor, father figure and role model, is that it has little basis in the canon itself, and going before 2005, none at all. Before the New Avengers run by Bendis, Iron Man and Spider-Man had practically nothing to do with each other. At best, they've teamed up on several occasions to fight bad guys, such as in Marvel Team-Up, Spidey guesting on the Avengers, or some event where numerous heroes joined forces. At best, you could say they had a "professional" relationship, in that they can work together as superheroes for a task, but outside of it they weren't friends at all. Why would they be? Tony's a wealthy billionaire industrialist bankrolling the Avengers, and Peter is a working class individual who remains a solo hero associated with, but rarely actually a part of, any team he works with.

Granted, I did say [I]before[/I] 2005, which yes Bendis, and JMS since he obliged to Bendis' wish to have him in New Avengers, gave more to the idea of Tony and Peter being close partners and friends, with Peter moving alongside Aunt May and MJ to Avengers Tower and Spidey initially fighting for Iron Man's side in the Civil War. So yes, on a very technical level, Tony being a mentor to Peter has some level of basis. But the funny thing is that it did not end amicably, at all. Spidey turned on Iron Man in the Civil War when he learned of the Negative Zone, leading to a brawl and Spidey switching sides. That was the end of that. That was also seen as a high point of an otherwise very divisive event, so in other words Tony and Peter's most iconic interaction was them at each other's throats. Just look and see for yourself.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/RlOd9Id.jpg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/rRVk6aH.jpg[/img]
This kind of contrasts the whole "Mr. Stark" attitude of the MCU Spider-Man if you ask me.

Overall, it's very random to do, and only serves in the favor of the established MCU rather than Spider-Man. Imagine when they introduce Ms. Marvel, what with Kamala being like a modern, gender-inverted Spidey archetype, but they have her be guided by Black Panther of all people, and that's the defining part of her characterization, to the point where she's cleaning up his messes and fighting villains somehow connected to him and Wakanda. T'Challa and Kamala have nothing to do with each other, and about as much as Tony and Peter in most cases.

Which brings me the point where Tony as Peter's mentor just makes no sense and almost seems fanfictiony, had it not been for the fact that Tony was the crown jewel of the MCU. Iron Man's place in the Spider-Man movies was just off, and I felt uncomfortable with how Tony both talked down on him and Peter just quietly accepted it. We never had a scene where Peter calls him out, and optionally, kicks him through a wall when Tony takes it too far. MCU Peter would never do that.

Also consider that David Michelinie, the definitive Iron Man writer who essentially made Iron Man what we know, eventually wrote Spider-Man for a very good run of his own. He could've easily introduced Iron Man as a major character in his Spider-Man run, like how many writers bring back elements of their past work, and probably do so more organically. He [I]didn't[/I]. The reason why is simple: Tony and Peter have nothing to do with each other, and he knew it.

It's both antithetical to Spider-Man as we know, covered in detail above, and that it just has little to no basis in the canon of Marvel itself. Before 2005, how many times did Tony and Peter have any meaningful interactions? Probably not many. Even the basis it does have was brief overall, and not seen as a high point for either of them, apart from Spidey calling Iron Man out for a being a fascist of course (which doesn't really support the MCU version). So I doubt that had much to do with it, but was just something created whole cloth.

At the end of the day, Tony as Peter's mentor, father figure and role model was more likely done out of brand reasons first and foremost. As in, Iron Man is what started the MCU and is their signature IP, so Spidey taking after him so much in his narrative was to help to further reinforce that idea. It feels a bit ridiculous when we have two major villains, two iconic Spider-Man villains with Vulture and Mysterio, that were rewritten to have been connected to Stark. It makes Spidey look like someone cleaning up his messes he left behind, a janitor. Spider-Man's villains are not just iconic, but they're his own. Sure there are examples of Spidey fighting other people's villains and taking in outside elements, but those are the exception, and furthermore, are done more organically than here.

Not only that but his rogues are so iconic, that other heroes often fight them because of the recognition. Think like Sandman to the FF, Rhino to Hulk, Kingpin to Daredevil, Beetle to Iron Man, Kraven to Black Panther, recently Shocker to Kamala Khan, and Norman Osborn for everyone. The bottom line is that it's rather funny to see Spidey's rogues tied to Iron Man, with their beef mainly with them and Spidey just being in the way, when in the comics it's more the reverse if such a thing happened, as many heroes often pull from Spidey's rogues because many of them are just so much fun to watch and interesting. All the while, Iron Man's rogues are infamously lackluster, apart from a few exceptions, yet they tie many things to him at the expense of others, which is especially true for Spider-Man.

That's my take.

Spidey living under the shadow of another hero sucks.

Uncle Ben should have been MCU Mar-Vell.

So you're complaining that MCU Tony Stark wasn't an authoritarian jackass who locked people up in the Negative Zone without trial?

[QUOTE=Agent Z;4896793]So you're complaining that MCU Tony Stark wasn't an authoritarian jackass who locked people up in the Negative Zone without trial?[/QUOTE]

No?

I'm complaining about MCU Tony Stark completely overshadowing the narrative of Spider-Man.

[QUOTE=Hybrid;4896845]No?[/QUOTE]

Then what was the point of bringing up the Civil War comic? Tony in the movies doesn't go down the same path as his comic counterpart.

[QUOTE]I'm complaining about MCU Tony Stark completely overshadowing the narrative of Spider-Man.[/QUOTE]

He hasn't. He's barely in Homecoming and is completely absent in Far From Home. You might as well claim Captain America was overshadowing Bruce Banner's narrative because the Hulk was created due to an attempt to revive the Super Soldier program.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;4896859]Then what was the point of bringing up the Civil War comic?



He hasn't. He's barely in Homecoming and is completely absent in Far From Home. You might as well claim Captain America was overshadowing Bruce Banner's narrative because the Hulk was created due to an attempt to revive the Super Soldier program.[/QUOTE]

To show that Peter wouldn't just take crap from Tony when Tony took it too far. There's never a scene like that in the MCU, where Peter calls Tony out on his actions. Before you bring up what happened in the Civil War comic, I'm referring to the general idea, regardless of context.

Also, there's more to the character than just being physically there. He casts a shadow over the entirety of Spider-Man in the MCU. My best, most charitable guess, is that Spider-Man in this incarnation is truer to the comics in the respect that he exists in an established superhero world, rather than being the only superhero of his setting. They wanted to emphasize that, but went way too far, kinda like the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series.

That and he completely takes the place of Uncle Ben as the most important figure in his life. Yes, I know Ben likely existed in the setting and he went through process of losing him, but they did a terrible job at portraying it. Peter and Aunt May do not act like individuals who just lost the most important person in their lives recently. And yes, I know they didn't want to repeat the Uncle Ben origin story, that's well and good. They could at least [I]acknowledge[/I] it better and establish the events as having happened to begin with.

As for the shared universe aspect, a real and organic way to do it would be like Spider-Man PS4. He's in a shared world where other superheroes exist, and it's pretty implicit he's had adventures with them. There was Avengers Tower, Alias Investigations, a Wakanda embassy, Nelson & Murdock, the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Raft, Roxxon, Damage Control, a statue of Lockjaw, and of course Taskmaster makes a welcome appearance where he mentions going toe-to-toe with the Avengers in the past.

Yet it's still focused on his own lore first and foremost, and makes the mythos feel relevant. Even if the sequel features more characters outside the Spider-Man lore, it will have felt earned because his own was properly developed. If they decide to have Phil Coulson, Human Torch, Daredevil, and yes, even Iron Man, appear in the sequel, it'll all be well and good because it's not intrusive to his setting.

In other words, I wouldn't mind having the shared universe aspect of Spider-Man in the MCU, if the basics of his own lore had been properly represented. Get what I mean?

[QUOTE=Hybrid;4896870]To show that Peter wouldn't just take crap from Tony when Tony took it too far.[/QUOTE]

Key words being, "took it too far". Between this and the Gail Simone tweet, I feel like people's issues with MCU Peter is that they don't like the Avengers and feel Peter should be as hostile to them as they are.

[QUOTE]There's never a scene like that in the MCU, where Peter calls Tony out on his actions.[/QUOTE]

Everybody and their mother has done this to Tony in the MCU. Peter doing would be nothing special.

[QUOTE] Before you bring up what happened in the Civil War comic, I'm referring to the general idea, regardless of context.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I figured that much. The problem is that unless there actually is a reason for Peter to get in Tony's face, it isn't necessary for him to do that.

[QUOTE]That and he completely takes the place of Uncle Ben as the most important figure in his life. Yes, I know Ben likely existed in the setting and he went through process of losing him, but they did a terrible job at portraying it. Peter and Aunt May do not act like individuals who just lost the most important person in their lives recently. And yes, I know they didn't want to repeat the Uncle Ben origin story, that's well and good. They could at least [I]acknowledge[/I] it better and establish the events as having happened to begin with.[/QUOTE]

People mocked BvS for showing the Waynes getting shot yet again. After two movie series and four different animated series that dealt with it, aren't you just a little bit tired of hearing about Ben Parker?

[QUOTE]As for the shared universe aspect, a real and organic way to do it would be like Spider-Man PS4. He's in a shared world where other superheroes exist, and it's pretty implicit he's had adventures with them. There was Avengers Tower, Alias Investigations, a Wakanda embassy, Nelson & Murdock, the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Raft, Roxxon, Damage Control, a statue of Lockjaw, and of course Taskmaster makes a welcome appearance where he mentions going toe-to-toe with the Avengers in the past.

Yet it's still focused on his own lore first and foremost, and makes the mythos feel relevant. Even if the sequel features more characters outside the Spider-Man lore, it will have felt earned because his own was properly developed. If they decide to have Phil Coulson, Human Torch, Daredevil, and yes, even Iron Man, appear in the sequel, it'll all be well and good because it's not intrusive to his setting.

In other words, I wouldn't mind having the shared universe aspect of Spider-Man in the MCU, if the basics of his own lore had been properly represented. Get what I mean?[/QUOTE]

You're talking as if Peter was fighting Crimson Dynamo and Madame Masque. He's dealt with his own villains for every Spider-Man focused MCU movie.

[QUOTE=Hugo Strange;4896771]Spidey living under the shadow of another hero sucks.[/QUOTE]

100% agree. I think the OP put it very well as well. This is why I was pretty disappointed to hear the news that Spider-Man 3 is going to be in the MCU again - I have nothing against Tom Holland, but I think Feige and co. have no idea what makes Spider-Man tick (either that, or they just don't care).

Ultimately this is all for the benefit of Iron Man and at the expense of Spider-Man, that's really what irritates me. In the same sense that for instance that Superman being beaten up by Batman via "prep time" or Kryptonite irritates me because again it's at the detriment of one character for the benefit of another. This also applied originally in the comics at the time as well. [B][I][U]When Spider-Man moved to Avengers tower, was that a bright new chapter for Peter Parker, or was it a bright new chapter for the Avengers and Tony Stark? I think the answer is that it was for the benefit of Stark at the expense of Peter.[/U][/I][/B]

It adds value to Iron Man that he is the mentor of Spider-Man but it subtracts value from Spider-Man to be the sidekick of a character who has historically been a mediocre seller and who has very few classic solo stories to his credit. I mean if you compare Iron Man with Captain America and with The Mighty Thor, you will find that the latter two have far more important and vital solo stories each, than Anthony Edward Stark can ever claim to. Heck Doctor Strange, a character who has had a far smaller time as a solo character than Tony has far many great stories than Tony Stark does. Iron Man was always a character with a very mediocre publishing history, and a character of little impact and influence on creators and artists working in the Marvel Universe and wider comics' business. [B][I][U]Iron Man worming his way into Peter's life is how a majority of readers first learned of the character back in 2004. Tying Spider-Man to Iron Man made him more prominent in storylines like CIVIL WAR (which entered the front page of media coverage and brought in civilians when Spider-Man unmasked, not for anything Iron Man did in that story)[/U][/I][/B]

Basically, when I heard that Spider-Man was coming to the MCU:
My Expectations
-- Peter hangs out with all the heroes. He interacts with Iron Man yes, but he also interacts equally with Thor, he bonds with Captain America, and hangs out with Doctor Stange, and he also bonds with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner who he sees as a kindred spirit and a relatable guy. [B][I][U]I mean Spider-Man's very earliest interaction with The Avengers in the comics (ASM Annual #3) is when they basically give him a street gang initiation to join the club, by going out and hunting the Hulk, and Peter decides that the Avengers aren't worth it when he realizes how poor and oppressed Banner is.[/U][/I][/B] Likewise, Hulk was also the first founding Avenger to appear in ASM, in #14.
-- Each new movie is going to part ASM, and part Marvel Team-Up. So one movie might have had Peter dealing with Iron Man, but the second one could have Peter hanging out with Hulk (like Part 2), and Part 3 will be Dr. Strange or who knows.
-- Now that the Fox buyout happens, we can see Spider-Man/Human Torch on Disney Plus, or alternatively Spider-Man fights the Juggernaut (which is the major shared universe in Spidey history).

Reality
-- Peter hangs out all the time with Iron Man and barely exchanges more than a few sentences with any other hero.
-- Not only does Spider-Man hang out with Tony, Tony's supporting cast merges with Peter.
-- Tony's supporting cast has a bigger role and impact than Peter's supporting cast does. So Happy Hogan has more lines of dialogue and bigger role in plot than Aunt May does, even if Aunt May is played by Marisa Tomei, a far better performer than Jon Favreau, and an Oscar winner to boot.
-- Spider-Man is so low that Nick Fury appoints a Skrull-double to look over him, refusing to interact with him personally.
-- Spider-Man is so tied to "next Tony Stark" that Tom Holland as an actor isn't allowed to stand on his own and carry a movie entirely by himself.
-- MCU Spider-Man is more mascot than character.

Worse than that was the toxicity that this has bred among fans who defend this.
-- Billionaire daddies are right, they can abuse and f--k the poor and can never be called out. Toomes and Beck are worthless a--holes undeserving of dignity and respect and Tony has no responsibility over the former losing his honest livelihood and stealing credit for the latter's invention. They are evil people and Tony is right just like Stan Lee was right to screw over Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko.
-- Peasants like Parker cannot invent anything. They must wait for rich people like Tony Stark or the Walt Disney Corporation to give them two s--ts, and so no Peter cannot sew on his own. Doesn't matter that sewing and other DIY stuff is something low-income people are more likely to do than rich dudes who can 3D Print everything in their microwave, the point is that poor people must be denied agency, and representation.

Essentially the subtext of the MCU Spider-Man movies is More Randian than Ditko. [B][I][U]Now I don't think this was intentional. I think the producers behind this made the movies unthinkingly, out of compromises, and back-and-forth on how much or how little they want Spider-Man to tie in to the MCU, and the result is what we get[/U][/I][/B]. Feige doesn't treat other characters this way, nor do Sony treat Spider-Man this way in their movies. So this must be a result of restrictions people face on both sides.

[QUOTE=Hugo Strange;4896771]Spidey living under the shadow of another hero sucks.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this

The problem also lies in how essentially unsatisfying it all is.

Peter is shown as sidekick because he's "training" and will one day get better. Five movies in, he's still not there, so the answer seems to be he won't get better. Which sucks, because they aren't interested in telling actual Spider-Man stories, i.e. the character from the comics. They are interesting in telling the story of Tom Holland Peter, fanboy of the Avengers living in the MCU.

I'm not a big fan of it really either but the MCU is pretty much its own continuity. I like a lot of the references it makes to the comics but it really is its own thing with its own history. Spider-Man may be the biggest comic book hero of all time but Tony Stark was the main character of the Infinity Saga in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. At the end of the day, the MCU is the house that Iron Man pretty much built so it makes sense for things to shoot out of him in this particular continuity (Spidey, Ultron, etc..)

Once I view as another interpretation of a character that I have mixed feelings about, I'm ok with taking and enjoying the parts of it I like. It's not like every other version of Spider-Man is close to Stark. It's just the Holland one. And there's a lot about MCU Spidey I love so I enjoy him even though he's not my favorite version of the character

[QUOTE=The Kid;4897324]I'm not a big fan of it really either but the MCU is pretty much its own continuity. I like a lot of the references it makes to the comics but it really is its own thing with its own history. Spider-Man may be the biggest comic book hero of all time but Tony Stark was the main character of the Infinity Saga in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. At the end of the day, the MCU is the house that Iron Man pretty much built so it makes sense for things to shoot out of him in this particular continuity (Spidey, Ultron, etc..)

Once I view as another interpretation of a character that I have mixed feelings about, I'm ok with taking and enjoying the parts of it I like. It's not like every other version of Spider-Man is close to Stark. It's just the Holland one. And there's a lot about MCU Spidey I love so I enjoy him even though he's not my favorite version of the character[/QUOTE]

Well that's a good point. As long as you accept Holland "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man, you can accept it at a point.

On the cinematic aspect, Spider-Man was the third reboot in a very short timeframe (the same generation has seen the 3 versions). This one had something that the others did not, it was set in the MCU, and I guess they overacted it to make very clear, more than what a mere cameo or reference may do (note that it's not just Tony, we have references to the Avengers and Captain America as well). And even then, my wife (who knows nothing about comics, and has just a casual knowledge of films) keeps asking what happened with Mary Jane, still thinking that it's the same characters of the Raimi trilogy.

As for canon, this idea was lifted from Ultimate Spider-Man, except that there it was with Nick Fury. But that was a long-runner. We saw Spider-Man start and have his first adventures, cast and enemies on his own. And even when this plot started, it was raised just every now and then, with Peter still keeping his autonomy for the most part. A film, on the other hand, is just 2 hours long, 3 at most. Trying to condense that plot arc in a film changes the way it is seen, and turns into the story of a sidekick.

[QUOTE=Ultimate Captain America;4897457]This one had something that the others did not, it was set in the MCU, and I guess they overacted[/quote]

Actually they didn't overact. That's my point.

Overacting would be Spider-Man appears in every MCU movie after CIVIL WAR. He pops up in the background of Dr. Strange, and Thor Ragnarok while Thor mutters, "Who is that creature?", you have gratuitous cameos and references in Black Panther, and also in Ant-Man and the Wasp. Instead, they basically used Spider-Man to do Iron Man stories without doing a 4th or 5th Iron Man. Peter Parker hardly interacts with any other member of the MCU other than Tony Stark. And even in Infinity War, Dr. Strange sneeringly refers to him, as "your ward" when he meets Spider-Man. These are two Ditko-bros, who have the same hand gesture, and instead of a scene paying silent homage to their creator, we have Spider-Man referred to as an accessory to a palaver who was far and away a footnote in the golden marvel era.

I wanted the over-reaction.

[quote]And even then, my wife (who knows nothing about comics, and has just a casual knowledge of films) keeps asking what happened with Mary Jane, still thinking that it's the same characters of the Raimi trilogy. [/quote]

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1 still holds the record for highest US box-office gross, being the only one to gross $400mn domestic (domestic grosses always constitute the majority of any Hollywood movie's profitability). And that movie is built on the Peter-MJ love story so it will continue to be a defining movie...and indeed forever will be, because thanks to the imminent death of movie theaters in the wake of the current crisis, that record will stand unbeaten.

Some good points raised. I would like to add that having Iron Man completely dominate his narrative comes at the expense of shared universe aspects that [I]would[/I] be to his benefit. The whole Spidey/Strange thing was brought up, and that's an example. Another example is how I mentioned that while Spidey isn't a permanent team member, he's a guy who's good at bouncing off of other heroes in team-ups and guest appearances. We could've seen how he interacts with the other heroes in the Avengers besides Iron Man, but it's really not there apart from a token interaction here and there. It becomes odd when everything ties to Iron Man in Spidey's corner. Admittedly, this happens outside of Spider-Man, such as Ultron being made by him, or the origins of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch being because of him, or creating the Vision out of JARVIS. It's just really, really noticeable here.

Bringing me to the next point...

I get that at the time Spidey was introduced, they didn't have the FF/X-Men film rights, and I think that's a damn shame because some of the best stuff involving Spider-Man's shared universe and crossover aspects involved stuff from these two. Spider-Man's "Fifth Beatle" relationship to the FF and friendship with the Human Torch, his shared bond with the X-Men and mutants as heroic outcasts, being part of the "young superhero trinity" with Human Torch and Iceman, Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends (Iceman and Firestar), being pals with Beast, Wolverine (something I liked in the New Avengers), mentoring Nate Grey, and who could forget one of the best relationships forged by the Ultimate line: Spider-Man and Kitty Pryde. Of course, the fights such as against Juggernaut, against Magneto, Doctor Doom crossing over several times, the crossover with the X-Factor where Spidey was thought a mutant, and so on. There are many great stories to tell and draw from when it comes to the Fantastic Four and the X-Men, and not as much with the Avengers, but sadly the timing meant we couldn't actually see that.

I know about the rumors that they plan a second trilogy focusing on college. I hope that if they do, they let the Iron Man thing be in the past, and going forward his shared universe aspects relate more to the above, him being close to the FF and the mutant population because some of the best stuff comes from that.

[QUOTE=The Kid;4897324]I'm not a big fan of it really either but the MCU is pretty much its own continuity. I like a lot of the references it makes to the comics but it really is its own thing with its own history. Spider-Man may be the biggest comic book hero of all time but Tony Stark was the main character of the Infinity Saga in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. At the end of the day, the MCU is the house that Iron Man pretty much built so it makes sense for things to shoot out of him in this particular continuity (Spidey, Ultron, etc..)

Once I view as another interpretation of a character that I have mixed feelings about, I'm ok with taking and enjoying the parts of it I like. It's not like every other version of Spider-Man is close to Stark. It's just the Holland one. And there's a lot about MCU Spidey I love so I enjoy him even though he's not my favorite version of the character[/QUOTE]

Main issue is that the MCU is seen as the be-all-end-all portrayal of the Marvel Universe, more legit than other sources including the comics themselves, and being in the MCU some kind of rite of passage to being recognized as a "real" character. In any other adaptation, such as animation and video games, if you make a wishlist that includes lesser-known heroes (relatively speaking) that weren't featured in the movies, you'll be called "unrealistic" for wanting a "fringe character". A prominent example of this being Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite. Unfortunately, Marvel has done nothing to combat this perception and indeed has even added to it themselves, what with the animated series just being MCU ads, and the aforementioned MvCI being horrible because it's just an MCU plug.

Now, if we're being perfectly fair, this problem exists in other spaces. The FoX-Men for example focused so much on Wolverine, then Magneto and Xavier, that the numerous other characters in the X-Men lore got shafted. As a result, when making a wishlist for a hypothetical Marvel vs. Capcom 4, I included both Kitty Pryde and Magik on my wishlist, and got crap for choosing "random and obscure X-Men" characters over others, primarily MCU ones even if they would've added little to the game itself. That's also why many are excited for MCU X-Men, mainly that we'll actually [I]see[/I] other parts of the mythos and get focus on other characters. Hopefully.

Likewise, the horrible Fox FF movies are the reason why people have this idea that the FF are as lame as you can get, because that's all they've been exposed to. The concept can not only work, but work very, very well. I mean, The Incredibles was basically FF in spirit, and everyone loves that movie.

It shouldn't be that way, and it is. As a result, for something that is the be-all-end-all, I feel the characters' portrayal in that universe matters. Spider-Man's portrayal in the MCU is going to take precedence, and that sends a bad message. Spider-Man in the MCU should be perfect opportunity to promote his own lore, not someone else's.

The problem here is literally that Tony Stark is the exact opposite of Uncle Ben. Stark is an arrogant and selfish son of a (*censored*) with an ego no one can handle. While Uncle Ben is the father figure that teach you to be part of a world that tends to ignore "regular common" people.

so is this "WEB of Spider-Man" based in the 616 world or the MCU world?

[QUOTE=Hypestyle;4897783]so is this "WEB of Spider-Man" based in the 616 world or the MCU world?[/QUOTE]

Neither. It's based on the upcoming attraction in Disney Parks' Avengers Campus where you get to design and/or upgrade Spider-Man's gear and use it yourself to really feel like Spider-Man.

My only real issue was all the Stark Tech that Peter was using. It overshadowed Peter as a genius in his own right.

Honestly, it's a little weird that this happened to Spider-Man, when they already had a headlining character they've could've connected to Tony Stark and it wouldn't be out of place:

[B]Ant-Man[/B]

Scott Lang in the comics was a supporting character to Tony, and the Avengers, and they were pretty good friends. They were close enough that Cassie even thought of him as a surrogate uncle before she became a superhero herself. Hell, in the early issues of Young Avengers, set after Disassembled where Scott died, they both grieved and bonded together over Scott, while Tony tried to convince Cassie not to be a superhero because he doesn't want to deal with the pain of losing her too.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/E17vCFT.jpg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/i60J3iM.jpg[/img]
So, did they just totally miss the potential this could've had for the MCU? They had the perfect connection right there, and it would've made sense. Plus, I think having Tony be a mentor to Scott, while both were grown men, would be better than the surrogate father that had Tony become for Peter. Scott could've been a good foil to Tony, both of them having similarities (tech-based heroes with a checkered past, and a snarky demeanor) but differences for contrast (Tony's rich while Scott is working class, Tony doesn't have kids while Scott looks after his daughter, Tony is a leading figure while Scott is a support). Then in Endgame when Tony and Pepper have Morgan after Scott's apparent demise, they could've had Cassie be a surrogate sister for the girl and looking up to "Uncle Tony". That would set the stage perfectly for Cassie to become a hero of her own as Stature, because she grew up around them.

Man, this stuff writes itself.

But do you agree that in the MCU context, having Tony play heavily into Scott's arc would've made a lot more sense than Peter's?

Haven't we heard some variation of this same argument ever since "Captain America: Civil War"? I mean, the people who agree didn't change their minds, and the people who disagree are still going to disagree. What good does it do to bring this up again? Just to be like "MCU Spidey sucks" or "I wish Sony made the movies again" or even "I hate Tony Stark." Really, what good will this bring?

[QUOTE=WebSlingWonder;4898626]Haven't we heard some variation of this same argument ever since "Captain America: Civil War"? I mean, the people who agree didn't change their minds, and the people who disagree are still going to disagree. What good does it do to bring this up again? Just to be like "MCU Spidey sucks" or "I wish Sony made the movies again" or even "I hate Tony Stark." Really, what good will this bring?[/QUOTE]

To thoroughly explain why it makes no sense and comes at Spidey's own detriment as a character.

[QUOTE=Hybrid;4897718]Main issue is that the MCU is seen as the be-all-end-all portrayal of the Marvel Universe, more legit than other sources including the comics themselves, and being in the MCU some kind of rite of passage to being recognized as a "real" character. In any other adaptation, such as animation and video games, if you make a wishlist that includes lesser-known heroes (relatively speaking) that weren't featured in the movies, you'll be called "unrealistic" for wanting a "fringe character". A prominent example of this being Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite. Unfortunately, Marvel has done nothing to combat this perception and indeed has even added to it themselves, what with the animated series just being MCU ads, and the aforementioned MvCI being horrible because it's just an MCU plug.

Now, if we're being perfectly fair, this problem exists in other spaces. The FoX-Men for example focused so much on Wolverine, then Magneto and Xavier, that the numerous other characters in the X-Men lore got shafted. As a result, when making a wishlist for a hypothetical Marvel vs. Capcom 4, I included both Kitty Pryde and Magik on my wishlist, and got crap for choosing "random and obscure X-Men" characters over others, primarily MCU ones even if they would've added little to the game itself. That's also why many are excited for MCU X-Men, mainly that we'll actually [I]see[/I] other parts of the mythos and get focus on other characters. Hopefully.

Likewise, the horrible Fox FF movies are the reason why people have this idea that the FF are as lame as you can get, because that's all they've been exposed to. The concept can not only work, but work very, very well. I mean, The Incredibles was basically FF in spirit, and everyone loves that movie.

It shouldn't be that way, and it is. As a result, for something that is the be-all-end-all, I feel the characters' portrayal in that universe matters. Spider-Man's portrayal in the MCU is going to take precedence, and that sends a bad message. Spider-Man in the MCU should be perfect opportunity to promote his own lore, not someone else's.[/QUOTE]

I mean it's not really promoting Iron Man's lore lol. Him being a Stark fanboy as a teenager and the 10 min of screentime IM has in Homecoming doesn't change that we're looking at classic Spider-Man villains with supporting characters being either original or revamped versions of comic Spidey versions (Liz, MJ, Flash etc..)

However bothered we may or may not be about kid sidekick Spidey ultimately we cannot do much about it except for writing angry crayon letters to Disney or Marvel Studios. :p

[QUOTE=The Kid;4899627]I mean it's not really promoting Iron Man's lore lol. Him being a Stark fanboy as a teenager and the 10 min of screentime IM has in Homecoming doesn't change that we're looking at classic Spider-Man villains with supporting characters being either original or revamped versions of comic Spidey versions (Liz, MJ, Flash etc..)[/QUOTE]
MCU Spidey's supporting cast is horrible. Let's look at what we got:
[LIST][*]Aunt May, looking a lot younger than she should be, but excusable seeing as how Tomei is talented and does the job well.[*]"Ned Leeds", aka Ganke, who is called that because he's Ganke Lee with the name of a classic Spider-Man character. He really should've been completely original, like Phil Coulson, or just call him Ganke, sure he was Miles' friend but transplanting him to Peter would be less radical than taking one character and making him another, completely unrelated one.[*]Flash Thompson, as a Latino nerd. I get the "diversity" reasons and all, but Flash has a distinct appearance in the comics that's hard for me to imagine as anything else, so sorry if it sounds offensive but he should've been white. That and he has a role as Peter's bully turned friend, and eventually became Agent Venom. I can't see that ever happening even if Sony wasn't making Venom movies.[*]Michelle Jones, the reimagined Mary Jane Watson. I honestly don't get what's the point of this character. She's not MJ technically, she's a completely original creation, and it feels half-assed. She's just snide and sarcastic, and contrasts MJ's timeless portrayal. They should've used MJ, but unlike Raimi made her more like the comics: proactive and useful, not a damsel.[*]Betty Brant, who looks more like Gwen Stacy and just has the tag. Wouldn't it make more sense if she, rather than Liz, was Peter's first girlfriend?[*]Happy Hogan, a character who has no business being part of Spider-Man's cast. For one, he's an Iron Man supporting character who has nothing to do with Peter (and he's been dead since 2007), and he's the most prominent adult friend. Oh, and he's dating Aunt May and will become his uncle. Wtf?[*]Nick Fury, this is something I'll admit has a basis due to Ultimate. However, like others, it's mishandled what with Fury thinking so low of Spidey that he sends a Skrull to take his place to deal with him rather than be a personal mentor.[*]J. Jonah Jameson, a crackpot conspiracy theorist who outs Spider-Man for a cameo. I was happy to see J.K. Simmons, but they should've done it better. They should've had him be an enemy of Spidey from afar, but eventually becomes his friend and confidant.[/LIST]

Also, there's the matter of Vulture and Mysterio. Yeah, they're Spider-Man villains, but in the MCU they're portrayed as not being [I]his[/I] villains. Their beef is with Tony Stark, with Vulture out to steal from him, and Mysterio out to tarnish his legacy. Spider-Man is just the guy getting in the way. I keep hearing Kraven the Hunter is the most likely MCU Spider-Man 3 villain, and I wonder "How are they gonna connect him to Stark?". At this rate, if they cover Uncle Ben at all, they'll reveal that the freaking robber who shot him was a former Stark employee.

It also pales compared to the Spider-Man PS4 cast, which I know I keep referencing, but I feel that's what MCU Spider-Man should've been. The cast draws from classic characters from the days of Lee-Ditko, to later runs, recent additions, and Ultimate.

For contrast:
[LIST][*]Aunt May, who is much closer to her comic counterpart, and even better in someways because she's not the cause of OMD.[*]Mary Jane Watson, who is actually MJ and is proactive and useful just like in the comics.[*]Miles Morales, portrayed as being part of the same universe from the start, and forms a brotherly bond with Peter the feels right.[*]Yuri Watanabe, the friend of the force and always a good time with the snark talk.[*]Otto Octavius, the mentor of Peter, in a reimagined, but organic, portrayal that works, making it all the sadder when he becomes Doc Ock.[*]J. Jonah Jameson, runs a podcast now, but otherwise his portrayal is completely on point. In fact the podcast angle makes sense nowadays.[/LIST]

And the villains are indisputably Spidey's, even with reimagined backstories, they never connect to Stark. This being in a world where other superheroes exist.

See why people are griping?

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4897260]Ultimately this is all for the benefit of Iron Man and at the expense of Spider-Man[/QUOTE]
Iron Man started the MCU. He doesn’t need Spider-Man.
[QUOTE]
It adds value to Iron Man that he is the mentor of Spider-Man but it subtracts value from Spider-Man to be the sidekick of a character who has historically been a mediocre seller and who has very few classic solo stories to his credit. I mean if you compare Iron Man with Captain America and with The Mighty Thor, you will find that the latter two have far more important and vital solo stories each, than Anthony Edward Stark can ever claim to. Heck Doctor Strange, a character who has had a far smaller time as a solo character than Tony has far many great stories than Tony Stark does. Iron Man was always a character with a very mediocre publishing history, and a character of little impact and influence on creators and artists working in the Marvel Universe and wider comics' business. [/QUOTE]

All I’m seeing is that you don’t like Iron Man and think he taints Spider-Man by association. If we were to go by your logic, Spider-Man shouldn’t interact with any Marvel character aside from maybe the X-Men.



[QUOTE]Reality
-- Peter hangs out all the time with Iron Man and barely exchanges more than a few sentences with any other hero.[/QUOTE]
Aren’t those heroes unworthy of Spider-Man in your eyes?
[QUOTE]-- Not only does Spider-Man hang out with Tony, Tony's supporting cast merges with Peter.[/QUOTE]
Happy dates Aunt May. That’s it.
[QUOTE]-- Tony's supporting cast has a bigger role and impact than Peter's supporting cast does.[/QUOTE]
Now you’re just making things up. Again, the extent of Tony’s supporting cast in the MCU Spider-Man movies is Happy dating Aunt May.
Did you complain about Black Widow having more of a role in Winter Soldier than Falcon and Sharon Carter who actually are supporting cast members to Steve in the comics? Hell, look at Hulk’s supporting cast in the MCU: Only three of them appeared in the movies and only one (General Ross) appeared in more than one film.

[QUOTE]-- Spider-Man is so low that Nick Fury appoints a Skrull-double to look over him, refusing to interact with him personally. [/QUOTE]
Nick Fury being a bit of a jackass to a superhero? Must be a day than ends in “y”. I think you have a rose-tinted view of what Spider-Man’s in-universe reputation among other characters.

[QUOTE]-- Spider-Man is so tied to "next Tony Stark" that Tom Holland as an actor isn't allowed to stand on his own and carry a movie entirely by himself.[/QUOTE]
Far From Home was entirely about how Peter does not and should not be the next Tony. Also, Tony completely absent from Far From Home.

[QUOTE]
Worse than that was the toxicity that this has bred among fans who defend this.[/QUOTE]
You’re using the word toxicity wrong. On the other hand, banging on and on about this topic and accusing people who don’t agree with you of being classicist is certainly more deserving of that label.

Agent Z, I think you have the wrong idea about Jack's view of the Marvel Universe outside Spider-Man. He does not hate Marvel's characters as a whole apart from Spider-Man and X-Men like you think he does. I don't know him personally, but I do interact with him a lot here, and this is what I've gathered from it:
[LIST][*]His favorite supervillain is Doctor Doom, having praised him for being so complex, multifaceted and versatile.[*]He also likes the Fantastic Four as a whole, having praised their dynamics, relationship with others, and considers them better than the Avengers. He said Hickman's Avengers was great for being a stealth FF story.[*]Doctor Strange is another hero he likes, due to his cosmic adventures and unique stance in the MU. That, and he's the "Ditko Bro" with Spidey.[*]I've seen him praise Captain America, due to him being such an upstanding guy and having a great lore of his own.[*]Daredevil is another one, due to his dark stories with noir tones, and connection to Spidey, even lamenting how Kingpin has been used as a Spidey villain in media when he should be DD's foe. He's said that Born Again is one of the best stories ever.[*]The Avengers, he's stated, has had good runs like under Roger Stern. The main appeal, one that I agree with, is that they're at their best as the home for lesser heroes to find their footing, as opposed to being "Marvel's Justice League". That's where a lot of the issues began.[*]He's even praised David Michelinie's defining run on Iron Man, yes really. I remember him saying that was the best he was written.[*]The main issue he's had with the shared universe is when it comes at the cost of one character in favor of another, at the expense of storytelling.[/LIST]
Now, if Revolutionary_Jack would like to set the record straight, by all means. But what I've seen shows that he's far from someone who hates everything MU besides Spider-Man like you claim he does. It's more that he has issue with the way they handle things.

MCU Spiderman is poorly written and a poorly re-imagined version of the classic character. He was Tony Stark's stepchild in the movies. The movies felt like an instalment deeply embedded in MCU rather than a stand alone Spider-man movie. MCU Spiderman is a blatant waste, His stories feels like something Sam Raimi would have been bored by and skipped over.

[QUOTE=Hybrid;4899821]Agent Z, I think you have the wrong idea about Jack's view of the Marvel Universe outside Spider-Man. He does not hate Marvel's characters as a whole apart from Spider-Man and X-Men like you think he does. I don't know him personally, but I do interact with him a lot here, and this is what I've gathered from it:
[LIST][*]His favorite supervillain is Doctor Doom, having praised him for being so complex, multifaceted and versatile.[*]He also likes the Fantastic Four as a whole, having praised their dynamics, relationship with others, and considers them better than the Avengers. He said Hickman's Avengers was great for being a stealth FF story.[*]Doctor Strange is another hero he likes, due to his cosmic adventures and unique stance in the MU. That, and he's the "Ditko Bro" with Spidey.[*]I've seen him praise Captain America, due to him being such an upstanding guy and having a great lore of his own.[*]Daredevil is another one, due to his dark stories with noir tones, and connection to Spidey, even lamenting how Kingpin has been used as a Spidey villain in media when he should be DD's foe. He's said that Born Again is one of the best stories ever.[*]The Avengers, he's stated, has had good runs like under Roger Stern. The main appeal, one that I agree with, is that they're at their best as the home for lesser heroes to find their footing, as opposed to being "Marvel's Justice League". That's where a lot of the issues began.[*]He's even praised David Michelinie's defining run on Iron Man, yes really. I remember him saying that was the best he was written.[*]The main issue he's had with the shared universe is when it comes at the cost of one character in favor of another, at the expense of storytelling.[/LIST]
Now, if Revolutionary_Jack would like to set the record straight, by all means. But what I've seen shows that he's far from someone who hates everything MU besides Spider-Man like you claim he does. It's more that he has issue with the way they handle things.[/QUOTE]

My name is Revolutionary_Jack and I approve this message. You got what the Germans would call my [I]weltanschauung[/I] right and put it together more concisely than I would have been able to.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;4899797]You’re using the word toxicity wrong. [/QUOTE]

Toxicity is accusing a poster with a critical view of "hating Iron Man" rather than debating their actual point. That's what's called an [I]ad-hominem attack[/I], where you attack the poster by undermining their right to debate rather than their actual argument. BTW, if someone hates Spider-Man and that is their grounds for not liking MCU Spider-Man, [B][I][U]that is still a valid reason, end of story[/U][/I][/B]. So quit trying to use that line as some kind of comeback. Saying stuff like "Peter can't make his suit and upgrades because he's a peasant" an argument I have seen on many message boards and so on, is definitely toxic in the real world sense. Arguments like that are why He-Who-Is-Far-Too-Lame is in the white house. As for myself, I do not dislike RDJ's version of Iron Man, or have issues with his performance, and I indeed like Iron Man 3 very much, I do have issues with the changes and turns in the story from Age of Ultron onwards though.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4900484]My name is Revolutionary_Jack and I approve this message. You got what the Germans would call my [I]weltanschauung[/I] right and put it together more concisely than I would have been able to.



Toxicity is accusing a poster with a critical view of "hating Iron Man" rather than debating their actual point. That's what's called an [I]ad-hominem attack[/I], where you attack the poster by undermining their right to debate rather than their actual argument. BTW, if someone hates Spider-Man and that is their grounds for not liking MCU Spider-Man, [B][I][U]that is still a valid reason, end of story[/U][/I][/B]. So quit trying to use that line as some kind of comeback. Saying stuff like "Peter can't make his suit and upgrades because he's a peasant" an argument I have seen on many message boards and so on, is definitely toxic in the real world sense. Arguments like that are why He-Who-Is-Far-Too-Lame is in the white house. As for myself, I do not dislike RDJ's version of Iron Man, or have issues with his performance, and I indeed like Iron Man 3 very much, I do have issues with the changes and turns in the story from Age of Ultron onwards though.[/QUOTE]

How about you quit bringing up the properted lack of good Iron Man stories or accusing people who defend the MCU version of classicism? I've seen more people [I]talking[/I] about this supposed classicism among MCU Spider-Man defenders than any actual evidence of such. If you don't like something done to you don't do it to others.

You are perfectly free to dislike MCU Spider-Man. It doesn't mean people can't point out the hyperbole and lack of objectivity in your arguments.

And I did debate your points, which you ignored.

To me part of the issue is the rights issue, a lot of people said they wouldn't do Iron Man if they had F4, Spidey and X-Men but here is the thing for me there is nothing wrong with Iron Man being a mentor if they showed Peter as being a genius now a lot of that could be there choice in cast, the only thing that I think they missed out on is that they decided they had to do a high school peter with a Tony who was in his forties but that's rights again.

For me Peter joining the MCU should have been at least 19 and been operating with the classic suit for about 4 years, they should have been a bit of tug of war before Peter worked as Tony's intern and proved his worth rather than just being given things because why not.

But its Feige and the MCU we can only see what happens going forward

[QUOTE=Agent Z;4901249]How about you quit bringing up the properted lack of good Iron Man stories [/quote]

How would you feel if suddenly Adam Strange was treated as the big thing in DC movies and cartoons, and Superman was shown as intern to Adam Strange and so on? It wouldn't feel right, would it?

It's perfectly right to bring up Iron Man's considerably low prestige to contest his elevation over Spider-Man. Because it's quite natural to feel this way whenever one character is being put down in favor of another...i.e. jobbing and so on.

[quote]or accusing people who defend the MCU version of classicism? [/quote]

Firstly, pedant that I am, I need to remind you that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism"]Classicism[/URL] is a specific and actual thing quite different from what you mean.

I think you mean "classism" (which is not really a word, not yet anyway) and what is meant by that is what used to be called snobbery, or actually "elitism" ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism[/url]).

[quote][quote]Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with an intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.[/quote] - [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism[/url] [/quote]

That is actually Iron Man's real attitude in the MCU. He is an elitist. And throughout Homecoming, he comes across as an actual class snob. And he's not called out for it once in that movie.

[QUOTE=Hybrid;4897718][B]Main issue is that the MCU is seen as the be-all-end-all portrayal of the Marvel Universe, more legit than other sources including the comics themselves[/B], and being in the MCU some kind of rite of passage to being recognized as a "real" character.[/QUOTE]

No one actually thinks this. And if they do, they're wrong.

People tend to be wrong about a lot of things. It can't be helped.

Luckily this involves an ultimately trivial matter so it's not something to actually be concerned about.

While the MCU is surely how most of the general public knows these characters, it does not make it more legit than the comics.

They just represent one interpretation of these characters.

They are subject to endless variations of them as time goes on but the comics will always remain the defining text.

[QUOTE=Hybrid;4897718]It shouldn't be that way, and it is. As a result, for something that is the be-all-end-all, I feel the characters' portrayal in that universe matters. Spider-Man's portrayal in the MCU is going to take precedence, and that sends a bad message. Spider-Man in the MCU should be perfect opportunity to promote his own lore, not someone else's.[/QUOTE]

Every time someone complains about the Sony/Marvel Spider-Man films not isolating Spider-Man and not giving him his own space, I feel like it's like having to patiently explain reality over and over again.

If Sony wanted to keep making Spider-Man movies where Spider-Man is on his own and no other characters are vying for screen time and his mythology is utterly and completely self-contained, they wouldn't be collaborating with Marvel. They could just be doing their own thing, as they were with the Raimi trilogy and the Garfield films.

But, for various reasons, both creative and economical, they didn't want to do that. They wanted to take advantage of having Spider-Man occupy a shared universe. And Marvel wanted the opportunity to include Spider-Man in their sandbox.

The entire point of the deal is to embed Spider-Man in the MCU. So of course his films will have his stories intertwined with that larger universe.

It's supposed to be, you know, fun. We had five films prior where Spider-Man was strictly a solo act. With the Tom Holland films, we get to see him bouncing off other heroes and living in a full-fledged Marvel Universe.

Had Marvel outright owned the rights to Spider-Man, would he have been introduced to the MCU in a different way, would he have been allowed to have his own space more than he does now? I would think so. But that isn't the situation here. The situation is that he's on loan from Sony to Marvel. That means they have to maximize the benefits of that collaboration. If Sony allowed Marvel to use Spider-Man but Marvel ended up making a movie whose connection to the MCU was tangential at best, Sony would rightly wonder why they were bothering to team up with Marvel at all.

The fact that the MCU was already well under way when this deal happened means that Spider-Man had to be interwoven into the MCU at a point where the universe was already well established, where storylines were far down the line, and characters were already several movies deep into their development. You can't undo or stop all of that just to accommodate this one character. You have to find a way to bring them in without undoing the larger framework. Having Tony function as Peter's "in" to the MCU makes sense in the context of the MCU. Not only does it make sense from a story point of view but, from a real world standpoint, it makes sense to take advantage of the genuine chemistry that Downey Jr. and Holland have. That's a relationship that just works on screen. To not lean into that would have been ridiculous.

And the complaints about Peter's relationship to Tony in the MCU are always absurd.

One, Peter is [I]not [/I]Tony's sidekick. This is a flat-out false assertion. He is not the Robin to Tony's Batman. We never see Tony and Peter out on patrol together. We never see them together in Stark Labs collaborating and hashing out their plans with Tony tutoring Peter in the ways of crimefighting. Tony is never that hands-on with Peter. He mentors him from afar, at best, really only stepping in when a screw-up can't ignore happens. Peter wants to be involved more in bigger Avengers business but that's because he wants to be helpful. He wants to live up to his mantra of great power and great responsibility. But the whole point of Homecoming is that he learns that he can do that just fine as a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. And no, having him get involved in Infinity War/Endgame does not undo that. If a bigger problem lands right in front of Peter, of course he's going to get involved rather than say "no, this isn't my beat." In the comics, Spidey gets pulled into bigger conflicts all the time and then he goes right back to webbing up purse snatchers to lampposts. It's no different here.

And two, Peter is not reliant on Stark Tech to be Spider-Man. Tony comes to Peter after Peter has already been operating as Spider-Man. Peter had already invented his web shooters and web fluid and made his own costume. He [I]was[/I] Spider-Man. Tony comes to him after Peter's career was already in medias res. That he gives him a tricked out new costume doesn't mean that Spider-Man didn't begin until Tony gave him the suit. As for Tony being able to give Peter a suit that improved on what Peter was able to do on his own, well, duh.

Peter can certainly make his own Spider suit. We see it in the films. But his homemade outfit reflects what a teenager with limited means - not to mention limited skills as a designer - can pull together. Tony's suit is what a billionaire can do. To anyone who says "But Peter should do it on his own!", I say it doesn't matter. We don't need to establish that Peter is an expert costume designer in order to validate him as Spider-Man. The fact that Peter already established his Spider-Man identity on his own prior to Tony coming in is what matters. Tony giving Peter a suit with its own AI is just a way to have fun in a new way that the movies had not previously been able to exploit. It doesn't diminish who Peter is.

This is what I mean when I say the MCU Spider-Man movies promote elitism and snobbery.

[QUOTE=Prof. Warren;4901512]Peter can certainly make his own Spider suit. We see it in the films. But his homemade outfit reflects what a teenager with limited means - not to mention limited skills as a designer - can pull together.[/quote]

The assumption here is that a "teenager with limited means" cannot create the classic Ditko spider-suit. That somehow it's become believable for a subset of the audience that this kind of thing needs rich people to do more effectively.

--It's not like we live in the age of YouTube and hours of DIY videos online, both amateur and professional (like Skillshare), by which anyone has access to the knowledge to do homemade stuff.
--It's not like the high expenses in America practically demand that homeowners and low-income households learn very early how to fix and manage their equipment and stuff themselves since it's too expensive, prohibitively, to get professionals to do it.

Maybe it's because people who make the MCU movies and other fans have no contact with people on the skids, or no knowledge of the lives of people with low-income. But the notion, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" just isn't true. People can be intelligent across the income spectrum and people of low means have always been far more individually resourceful than those with multi-figure salaries.

Again, I refer to Spider-Man PS4. It is set in a world where it's established that the other superheroes of the MU exist.

[QUOTE]As for the shared universe aspect, a real and organic way to do it would be like Spider-Man PS4. He's in a shared world where other superheroes exist, and it's pretty implicit he's had adventures with them. There was Avengers Tower, Alias Investigations, a Wakanda embassy, Nelson & Murdock, the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Raft, Roxxon, Damage Control, a statue of Lockjaw, and of course Taskmaster makes a welcome appearance where he mentions going toe-to-toe with the Avengers in the past.[/QUOTE]
See, Spider-Man PS4 was not set in an isolated universe where Spider-Man was the only hero. You saw all these different Marvel landmarks and world elements, you [I]know[/I] there's more out there, yet at the same time, it's focused on developing Spider-Man's story using his lore first and foremost. It draws from different aspects of the Spider-Man mythos, and other takes of it, to create a unique world for Spider-Man that still feels like his own. I even said the sequels can feature more characters from the General MU, citing Phil Coulson, Human Torch, Daredevil and even Iron Man as examples, because it wouldn't be intrusive after his own story was developed.

In general, I really like the way they adapt the 616 comics, and distill it with elements of various media, update the source, and have their own spin on things. It's just so... natural. It's like what BTAS did to the Batman lore. To wit:
[LIST][*]Spidey is based largely on his 616 counterpart: Bitten by the spider at age 15, has moved out of Aunt May's house and into his own apartment, is friends with Harry and dated MJ, and takes after his current post-graduate status. However, the aspect of him, MJ and Harry being a trio take after the Raimi Trilogy and Ultimate Spider-Man series, in that they've known each other since middle school.[*]Peter and MJ have an on-again and off-again relationship much like their relationship during the Wolfman-Stern-Defalco era, the Ultimate comics, and the Raimi films. As always, May supports their relationship, and MJ's interest in journalism is also from Ultimate but taken to the logical step of being a reporter.[*]May is an activist helping out the poor, bringing to mind Noir of all things.[*]Spider-Man exists in a world with other superheroes, as mentioned. He's a part of a setting, and doesn't need to constantly meet the other heroes to rub it in.[*]Norman Osborn being mayor of NYC brings to mind him being the head of H.A.M.M.E.R. and the Thunderbolts during the '00s, where he became a prominent politician in the MU. It's also another case of distillation and alteration, as he hasn't yet become the Green Goblin but it's implied he will, his son Harry is the host of the Venom Symbiote (like in the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series), and he's the one responsible for Miles Morales' spider-bite (again, bringing to mind Peter's origin to Oscorp in Ultimate).[*]Miles Morales exists in this game as part of the same universe as Peter, and the way Peter takes him under his wing makes sense. It ties the origins together in a way that isn't convoluted. On that note, it welds more elements of Ultimate Marvel by default.[*]Other villains combine different elements. Rhino manages to take after 616 (being big and bulky) and Ultimate (with cybernetic armor), Vulture uses a modernized suit like in Homecoming yet leans more heavily into his normal 616 portrayal etc.[*]Spidey's supporting cast also varies. There's the classic Mary Jane, May, Harry, and J.J, the Ultimate transplant of Miles, Jefferson and Rio, and there's also Yuri Watanabe who serves as an ally of Spider-Man. Her being more recent and obscure is left-field, but still makes perfect sense.[*]Overall, the setting is an amalgamation of different Spidey portrayals, and also a modernization. It's very much set in today's world without time-scaling, with Peter being a millennial from the start. He has his own webpage with 15 million likes, J.J. now runs a podcast because paper media has fallen, and the public reaction is more mixed-positive because they don't just blindly follow news sources like they used to in the internet age.[*]That should be enough to illustrate the point. That point being: Spider-Man PS4 took heavily from the best elements of Spider-Man in different forms, remixed them, and updated it, to give us the best portrayal they could give. That's why it far outshines the MCU portrayal, where everything goes back to Stark and far too little of his own lore got to make their presence in the MCU felt.[/LIST]
See, [I]that[/I] is how MCU Spider-Man could've been done. You could've had the movies as being unambiguously set in the MCU, and show that there's more that exists, while the story is still focused on his lore. Then, you can add more outside elements later. Like, you could have the first movie focused on himself, then add more in the sequels, but still focused mainly on him. Then you can make full use of Spider-Man in crossovers, like have him play off of others. No one had an issue with Spider-Man in a shared universe, what they have issue with is that the shared universe dominates his narrative.

In regards to Spider-Man lore versus Marvel Universe between the PS4 and MCU, this picture sums it up:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/oMCDb6V.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4901496]How would you feel if suddenly Adam Strange was treated as the big thing in DC movies and cartoons, and Superman was shown as intern to Adam Strange and so on? It wouldn't feel right, would it?[/QUOTE]

I've been exposed to universes were Superman wasn't even the first superhero and frankly I can't even say this would be the most undignified thing DC would have done with Superman after decades of him playing second banana to Batman. I care more about how well the story is handled than some arbitrary pecking order that fans ascribe to.

[QUOTE]It's perfectly right to bring up Iron Man's considerably low prestige to contest his elevation over Spider-Man.[/QUOTE]

And yet, I don't see you or anyone else complaining when Steve Rogers is depicted as Spider-Man's senior and superior in the MU frequently. Stories should not be determined by a character's out-of-universe popularity. This is what gets us nonsense like Batgod or the Deathstroke vs Justice League fight in Identity Crisis.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4901535]This is what I mean when I say the MCU Spider-Man movies promote elitism and snobbery.



The assumption here is that a "teenager with limited means" cannot create the classic Ditko spider-suit. That somehow it's become believable for a subset of the audience that this kind of thing needs rich people to do more effectively.

--It's not like we live in the age of YouTube and hours of DIY videos online, both amateur and professional (like Skillshare), by which anyone has access to the knowledge to do homemade stuff.
--It's not like the high expenses in America practically demand that homeowners and low-income households learn very early how to fix and manage their equipment and stuff themselves since it's too expensive, prohibitively, to get professionals to do it.

Maybe it's because people who make the MCU movies and other fans have no contact with people on the skids, or no knowledge of the lives of people with low-income. But the notion, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" just isn't true. People can be intelligent across the income spectrum and people of low means have always been far more individually resourceful than those with multi-figure salaries.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is very much the definition of an ad hominem attack. "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" is not an argument Prof. Warren or anyone else here as used at any point.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4901535]The assumption here is that a "teenager with limited means" cannot create the classic Ditko spider-suit. That somehow it's become believable for a subset of the audience that this kind of thing needs rich people to do more effectively.[/QUOTE]

That's not the assumption.

If it was just about making a suit that looks like the classic Ditko design, you could always do it in a way where audiences could buy it.

We've already seen it in the live action Nicholas Hammond series and in the Raimi and Webb films.

The Amazing Spider-Man was the most successful of the bunch in this regard, showing Garfield's Peter working with (I believe) silk screening techniques, and Raimi just not even bothering and just making the jump from Peter drawing a costume to suddenly being in it.

At the end of the day, no one really cares that much about [I]how[/I] Peter gets into his costume. They just want him in it and for him to look like he does in the comics.

Having Tony supply Peter with a costume in the movies is simply a means to an end.

And having it tricked out with Stark Tech is a way to add a fun wrinkle to Peter's journey as a hero.

It adds amusing complications to various situations and, with the Karen AI, it gives Peter someone to talk to and any opportunity to have Holland's Peter nervously jabber is a good one.

It is not a statement on class in America. It isn't a dig at Peter's income or means to say that Tony can come up with a more high tech suit. Of course he can. He's Tony Stark.

One could make the argument that Spider-Man's DIY approach is part of his appeal. I would say that the MCU films acknowledge that aspect of the character but that it doesn't let it stand in the way of having fun with the new, unique opportunities that having Peter in the MCU presents.

Down the line, when many other Spider-Man films have been made and fans can see that the Tom Holland, MCU era was one of many in a never-ending line of film adaptations of the character, I think that people will be better able to enjoy it on its own terms once they see that it was only one interpretation and not the be-all, end-all incarnation of the character.