What do Iron Man fans think of his involvement in recent Spider-Man history?

[Bor]

The armor was patterned after Stark (well technically Otto wore armour...actually technically Spidey wore armor long before he became close to Stark in Web #100) but nothing else was.

Tony totally betrayed Peter. He was monitoring him against his consent, he threatened him, as soon as Peter merely said he had made a mistake and was going to leave (i.e. before he'd broken any laws at all) Tony immediately attacked him.

As for unmasking himself in Civil War Tony might not have held a gun to Peter's head but he gave him few options.

Unmask or else you are a criminal. The option of registering but not unmasking publically was never ever presented or framed to him at all. It was just unmask or you and your family go down. That was it.

Which is placing Peter in a near untenable situation and yes that was Tony's fault to an extent, he was pressuring Peter to do it. Don't get me wrong absolutely that was still Peter's decision but he wouldn't have been in that position to be forced into making that decision if not for Stark and the relationship that had occurred between them.

Just because something happened on the page doesn't mean we just have to hold our hands up if it was OOC. Like I've noticed A LOT of people do that on these boards, they're weirdly complacent about that stuff even though fixes for major OOC writing has happened multiple times before. Grant fixed Punisher being OOC uner Bill Mantlo in the 1980s. Hell Busieck fixed Iron Man being OOC during the Crossing.


So why wouldn't we fix Iron Man being toxically OOC in Civil War? Yeah he lost a lot but that doesn't forgive him for what he did. Bill Foster's blood is on his and Reed's hands and just because Thor beat him up over that doesn't make things square.

Just because a story was years ago, if it was bad OOC and an elephant in the room it needs to be addressed. All it means is that that elephant has been there for a long time. See Barbra Gordon and Cassie Cain fans who are still rightfully ticked off over the former not being disabled anymore and the latter still not being a bat person properly.

There isn't this magic finite window of time you have to address a problem, it's always okay to do so. Heck DC addressed the problems of the new 52 5 whole years later and unreboted Superman over it.

And yeah there has been a second Civil War (where once again everyone was OOC, esp Carol) but if a second Civil War has happened bringing up the BS fromt he first if anything that renders the first one relevant AGAIN.




a) I don't understand this part "Nomthe handfull of poster you keep on writing with". As In i literally do not grammatically understand the words

b) There is plenty of evidence to suggest what I said

c) Remember when I qualified that I said most fans IN MY OBSERVATION. Which ISN'T me stating that 100% most fans feel this way but most of them in MY OBSERVATION have meaning I am qualifying that I am not 100% certain about this but why don't you both continue to character assassinate me by goddam lying and pretending that is what I said

A) Phone trouble. Even then if you cant figure out what it says you are really not even trying.

B) That most fans think that? Thats just wrong. Present that evidence please.

C) Remember that MOST fans is more then your limited experince. And get over yourself we are not “character assassinating” you. We are pointing out that your argument is flawed. We are not lying about anything here.

[Ana]

See I dunno about that. I mean loving science and being socially awkward was not irregular in the 1960s.[...]

1- Yes, probably was a thing in 60's, but some things need to be update because generations change. I think personality is linked to concepts in some extent. Maybe the independence is not a pivotal point like once was.
I ask you the same question, at end of the day it really break Spidey's relatability or is a tremendous disrespect to the character if Peter is a Avengers/IM fan? In my opinion no.

2- I don't know if I understand your question completely. I'm sorry about that. But I think the place of heroes in-universe is the way the company wants to the audience to see them for marketing purpose. Marvel Studios seems to want new faces for the Avengers franchise. So far it's possible that Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Dr. Strange and Black Panther are these first new faces. We are seen in the movies something like this between BP and Steve. Dr. Strange was a huge part of the new movie. It's normal in this context for an older character validates the new one.


3- I'm not trying to discuss with you about personality. I can't do this because you're obviously someone who has a great knowledge about the character and older comics. I wasn't even born when Peter and MJ married for exemple. I understand that this may sounds like a huge change for long time fans. But for me, as a Spider fan ( that was first introduced to him via cartoons) this works fine and makes perfect sense because speaks with me better. They adapated in a way that migth be new, but is speaking with this audience. We can take as an example some reception in the social media and critics, this Spider- Man is fitting really fine.

4- I disagree. If we think about larger audiences, like Batman and Supes, Spider-Man is a pop culture long time icon. People have some conceptions about him and are not familiar with all his histories in the comics. I always think about Spider as a talented boy, who has a strong sense of responsibility even if that ends up hurt him, thinks first in his Aunt May and in the little ones. I saw exactly that in the movies. Being Tony's son and benefits IM character was just a pleasant new plus. I like all the current cartoons. I think they are fine.

5- I think about Peter as a character made to be able to forgive and move on. Like the forgiviness to Gwen. And Spider-Man knows what is make mistakes and then regreats and then tries to be better. So I can see him forgiving Tony.
In comics is better Iron Big Brother for sure. It's cute a pushing 40's (or 50's in movies) father figure for 15 year old. But not for a pushing 30's.

6- Sure. Science is just an aspect. A lot's of things can be explored between this two characters. Like in the movies/cartoons, they explore a father figure/responsability angle. Can be a tons of things in comics.

7- Marvel can go for a more street level in Spider own movies and a more tech worldwilde in the Avengers movies. It's fine.

[Ana]

Like I said before, I'm a new reader so I don't argue with older fans about things like personality and in character actions. These people are really devoted to their beloved characters. I respect that a lot. Sometimes seems the fans are talking about real persons that they love a lot. It's great to see this and for me seems stronger with Batman, Spider-Man and Superman fan bases. In a sense of dealing with changes
But I think it's a matter of adapt to the new. Of course some things are completely absurd. Like when I discover what is OMD and why people just can't seem to move on from a retcon. Was Spider making a deal with the devil. Ok. Absurd. The long time fans are totally right. The same if Spider starts to kill or to benefit from other people tragedy.

But for other changes, like minor aspects as this Iron Man relationship, the best way to deal is an open mind and enjoy the ride. Everyone, into comics or just into movies and cartoons, deserves a chance to love and experience the feeling of have a super hero that they can love and relate since a young age like Spider. If the character need some minor different situations, ok.

About comics, I learned that let go from storylines is the best way. Like this relationship between Tony and the Wasp for example. Never heard about this, never imagine, that was never mentioned in nothing that I read before, they always seems like normal just friends to me not past lovers with an unresolved feeling. I'm ready in case of like this, to never see it again when Slott leaves. And life goes on. I will always have this plot and will be able to read it again.

It's best move on from from bad storylines like both Civil Wars. Us, the characters and Marvel.

[Ana]

A lot of what is stated here is how I look at Tony and Peters relationship. Well stated. Tony helped Peter step his science game up and Peter was showing Tony how with great power comes great responsibility. They both rubbed off on each other.

Thank you. I love thi relationship and hope that Marvel uses a lot in all medias.

[Spidercide]

I have a feeling you';re only paying attention to the people that agree with you and writting off everybody that doesn't.

Then go see Xavier because you mutant empath powers seem to be off genius if you are getting that feeling genius.

I never wrote off Ana for example.

You said yourself that Peter was written like Stark lite and now your saying it was just the armor?! Lol. OK. Again nobody told Peter he had to unmask himself to the public. That was his choice. Like you even Peter tried to put what happened at Stark's feet. I guess with great power comes ducking great responsibility. Bill's blood is on Tony's hands and he would tell you that himself. It's something that he will always have to deal with. All the stuff Tony has gone through Civil War isn't enough for you. So you want blood from a stone basically is what your saying. Yes Tony was monitoring in case Peter would go over to the other side and guess what. That's exactly what Peter did. Why go back and fix Civil War? It's done. Why should Marvel go back when they and the characters have moved on. Since you speak for MOST Spider-Man fans by your observations. You and them will just have to come to terms with that.

Maybe i miscommunicated.

You asserted Peter got these things from Stark. My point is he got the armour from him and all the other stuff was done by Otto.


As in it originated from stuff not connected to Peter or Stark. But Peter was Stark-lite upon having that stuff you see what I mean?


Like Volume 4 Peter was Stark lite but he didn’t get to that point because of Tony but because Otto had made the company happen.


Er...Tony totally told him he had to unmask to the public. He literally said that in ASM #532. Tony is not nobody.

It was his choice but the choice was that or break the law and become a fugitive whilst endangering his family.

Which...isn’t really a choice at all.


I never asserted it was all Tony’s fault. Mostly it was Peter’s for being OOC (and the writers for forcing BS through into publication).

Also isn’t it a little rich to talk about ducking responsibility from the guy who did numerous unethical things during and after Civil War but kind of got a free pass due to amnesia? Jut saying.

No. Jesus Christ absolutely no all the stuff post-CW for Tony isn’t enough. He did really, really, really bad things, never went to court over them and most of the superhero community just trusted him again. Hell he doesn’t even remember what happened last i checked.

It was to a massive extent swept under the rug after Siege. I mean how many people even talked about Bill Foster afterwards?


I don’t want blood from a stone. I want an explanation for why Tony was acting hardcore OOC that exonerates him much as we got in the Crossing.

Yeah dude monitoring Peter without his permission is an invasion of his privacy and super duper unethical. Although this didn’t make sense in continuity in the context of the story Tony was monitoring Peter to the point where he was aware of the spider sense. Tony was betraying Peter’s trust and that contributed to Peter turning on him...after he’d contributed to the death of Bill Foster, unethically monitored people and withheld people without their rights in another dimension.

You cannot spin this on ‘Boy Tony was justified in invading Peter’s privacy that way because he did switch sides’. Tony’s actions directly pushed Peter to switching sides because Tony was doing villainous things IN Civil War itself.


Because in a continuous narrative where things lead form one to another stories aren’t just done and over and don’t matter if they have ramifications that can be felt to this day.


You are literally saying Marvel shouldn’t go back to fix OMD because it’s over even though it makes the hero you know....totally unheroic and led to where we are now. Civil War in that sense was the devil deal for Tony. An OOC action that was absolutely unheroic that has never been addressed. You are essentially advocating that after the Crossing if adult Tony came back and acted like he normally did and no one talked about it we should have never addressed how or why that happened and wasn’t he a villain in the Crossing itself?

Tony’s actions didn’t make sense.

Tony’s actions seriously undermined him as a hero.

It still happened it’s still part of his history it’s part of what led us to the present.

So yeah we should fix it.

It’s like saying sure chapter 5 made no sense and character assassinated everyone but it doesn’t matter cos we are on chapter 10 now.

I never goddam said I speak for most Spider-Man fans.


I expressed how I felt and how most of the people i’d observed seemed to feel.

[Spidercide]

A) Phone trouble. Even then if you cant figure out what it says you are really not even trying.

B) That most fans think that? Thats just wrong. Present that evidence please.

C) Remember that MOST fans is more then your limited experince. And get over yourself we are not “character assassinating” you. We are pointing out that your argument is flawed. We are not lying about anything here.

a) Ever consider it's easier for you to figure out what it said because you knew since you wrote it and some people might be dyslexic you judgemental jerk

b) Okay cool. My evidence is every single person on here, other boards, reddit, tumblr, youtube, comicvine and everywhere else you look who are Spider-Man comic book fans who when you add them up and then count which ones feel along the lines I said amount to over half the total number. If you are going to talk to Spider-Man comic fans and looking at what they say and more are feeling one way than the other that = most. Doesn't that account for all of them? No. Hence I said it suggests that to be the case.

b.5) Now how about you try presenting evidence to prove I was wrong

c) Remember I said IN MY OBSERVATION genius. HENCE I was specifying that the majority WITHIN my experience and I can only goddam SPEAK to my experience.

Why should I get over myself?

You are literally character assassinating me.

You are literally guilty of the accusation I've thrown at you by virtue of continuously ignoring the words I said and then lying that I said or implied otherwise

I said most in my obsersation. You treated it like I was definitely saying most.

That = lying, therefore character assassination

[Spidercide]

1- Yes, probably was a thing in 60's, but some things need to be update because generations change. I think personality is linked to concepts in some extent. Maybe the independence is not a pivotal point like once was.
I ask you the same question, at end of the day it really break Spidey's relatability or is a tremendous disrespect to the character if Peter is a Avengers/IM fan? In my opinion no.

2- I don't know if I understand your question completely. I'm sorry about that. But I think the place of heroes in-universe is the way the company wants to the audience to see them for marketing purpose. Marvel Studios seems to want new faces for the Avengers franchise. So far it's possible that Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Dr. Strange and Black Panther are these first new faces. We are seen in the movies something like this between BP and Steve. Dr. Strange was a huge part of the new movie. It's normal in this context for an older character validates the new one.


3- I'm not trying to discuss with you about personality. I can't do this because you're obviously someone who has a great knowledge about the character and older comics. I wasn't even born when Peter and MJ married for exemple. I understand that this may sounds like a huge change for long time fans. But for me, as a Spider fan ( that was first introduced to him via cartoons) this works fine and makes perfect sense because speaks with me better. They adapated in a way that migth be new, but is speaking with this audience. We can take as an example some reception in the social media and critics, this Spider- Man is fitting really fine.

4- I disagree. If we think about larger audiences, like Batman and Supes, Spider-Man is a pop culture long time icon. People have some conceptions about him and are not familiar with all his histories in the comics. I always think about Spider as a talented boy, who has a strong sense of responsibility even if that ends up hurt him, thinks first in his Aunt May and in the little ones. I saw exactly that in the movies. Being Tony's son and benefits IM character was just a pleasant new plus. I like all the current cartoons. I think they are fine.

5- I think about Peter as a character made to be able to forgive and move on. Like the forgiviness to Gwen. And Spider-Man knows what is make mistakes and then regreats and then tries to be better. So I can see him forgiving Tony.
In comics is better Iron Big Brother for sure. It's cute a pushing 40's (or 50's in movies) father figure for 15 year old. But not for a pushing 30's.

6- Sure. Science is just an aspect. A lot's of things can be explored between this two characters. Like in the movies/cartoons, they explore a father figure/responsability angle. Can be a tons of things in comics.

7- Marvel can go for a more street level in Spider own movies and a more tech worldwilde in the Avengers movies. It's fine.

1) I agree some things need to be updated but I just don’t see why being a socially awkward teen science nerd is one of them? Is that not after all teen Spidey’s personality.

I have to hardcore disagree with his independence not being as big of a deal. Teenagers near universally desire independence as an inherent part of growing up.

More poignantly Spider-Man created the archetype of the modern teen hero. Without him you would never have Kamala Khan or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Surely if he is the originator of that archetype that’s still being followed today it isn’t less relevant?

Well...to be honest imo it really absolutely does disrespect the character if he is.


I don’t think it makes him less relatable to be an Avengers fanboy but in the MCU his motivation and character literally revolves around them (Holland even stated that before Homecoming) and that really does compromise the character’s core concept.


I’m not saying they needed to do it again or dwell on it much but shouldn’t fundamentally Spider-Man’s motivation always be the Uncle Ben thing?

I mean in Homecoming they literally too one of the most iconic Spider-Man moments of all time that involved Uncle Ben poignant and replaced him with Stark.

Spider-Man’s actualization as a hero in Homecoming was hinged upon...Iron Man. Not this thing innate to his own character or his own mythology


2) I’m not saying it’s wrong for older characters to validate the newer ones. I get that totally. I’m saying why does Spider-Man’s character need to revolve around Stark and the Avengers instead of...being Spider-Man who is affiliated with them. E.g. Black Panther was first and foremost the comic book character. He is affiliated with the Avengers but he is nevertheless the comic character. Why couldn’t Spider-Man be that instead of being...Iron Man’s son...

3) Well I don’t think many people ever were introduced to married Spider-Man via cartoons. I wasn’t. I was introduced via the 1994 cartoon and 1970s TV show then jumped into the comics where I was hit with 90s and 60s stories all at the same time.

Could it not be possible for the character to have fitted fine whilst being more the established character though?


4) I think what you said abut his personality s accurate but there is more to him than that and it’s within those things that I find newer material in toons and movies misstep. E.g. in USM season 1 he was a lot less intelligent than he is usually portrayed and in Homecoming he was clumsier and bumbling around more than he’s been shown to be at that point in his career or even in Civil War and Infinity War. If you look at most of Homecoming he kind of causes more problems than he solves and I don’t think it’s a good message to float the idea that everyone would be better off if Spider-Man didn’t act

5) It depends. I find the idea that he’d forgive Gwen for Sins Past believable, but the idea that he’d forgive Otto for Superior or Norman for killing Gwen or the Clone Saga totally unrealistic. The thing with Tony is that Tony never did anything to earn back Peter’s forgivness beyond paying for May’s bills and at the end of the day he still did things that caused tremendous harm to Peter, his family and the superhero community. And if Peter was going to forgive Tony at least have an issue where we SEE him address those feelings.

6) –

7) I agree but that’s why I’m saying him having a high tech suit and Tony showing up in his solo movies isn’t a good idea

Like I said before, I'm a new reader so I don't argue with older fans about things like personality and in character actions. These people are really devoted to their beloved characters. I respect that a lot. Sometimes seems the fans are talking about real persons that they love a lot. It's great to see this and for me seems stronger with Batman, Spider-Man and Superman fan bases. In a sense of dealing with changes
But I think it's a matter of adapt to the new. Of course some things are completely absurd. Like when I discover what is OMD and why people just can't seem to move on from a retcon. Was Spider making a deal with the devil. Ok. Absurd. The long time fans are totally right. The same if Spider starts to kill or to benefit from other people tragedy.

But for other changes, like minor aspects as this Iron Man relationship, the best way to deal is an open mind and enjoy the ride. Everyone, into comics or just into movies and cartoons, deserves a chance to love and experience the feeling of have a super hero that they can love and relate since a young age like Spider. If the character need some minor different situations, ok.

About comics, I learned that let go from storylines is the best way. Like this relationship between Tony and the Wasp for example. Never heard about this, never imagine, that was never mentioned in nothing that I read before, they always seems like normal just friends to me not past lovers with an unresolved feeling. I'm ready in case of like this, to never see it again when Slott leaves. And life goes on. I will always have this plot and will be able to read it again.

It's best move on from from bad storylines like both Civil Wars. Us, the characters and Marvel.

I had an open mind back in 2005. I don’t think the stories worked and were ultimately reductive. I don’t believe in just sitting back and letting the chips fall, criticism of stories is important after all.

And in serialized storytelling the previous stories should hold consequences for the present and future ones, like chapter 1 affecting chapter 10.

I know nothing of TonyxWasp so I can’t comment on that but if it is true and that’s never addressed then that’s really bad writing and unacceptable given what we pay.

Like one of the things I appreciated from Spencer’s ASm #1 was his having Spider-Man go to MJ and confront his feelings for her. Putting aside how I like that relationship it’s more the fact that Spider-Man if he’d ever acted in character prior to then should have done that a long time ago. Similarly it’s a problem that he doesn’t confront Aunt May with his secret identity since she used to know and he’s lying to her for no reason.

[okiedokiewo]

I know nothing of TonyxWasp so I can’t comment on that but if it is true and that’s never addressed then that’s really bad writing and unacceptable given what we pay.

They dated in 1982. The story line is mentioned in the announcements about the upcoming comic.

[Tony Stark]

Maybe i miscommunicated.

You asserted Peter got these things from Stark. My point is he got the armour from him and all the other stuff was done by Otto.


As in it originated from stuff not connected to Peter or Stark. But Peter was Stark-lite upon having that stuff you see what I mean?


Like Volume 4 Peter was Stark lite but he didn’t get to that point because of Tony but because Otto had made the company happen.


Er...Tony totally told him he had to unmask to the public. He literally said that in ASM #532. Tony is not nobody.

It was his choice but the choice was that or break the law and become a fugitive whilst endangering his family.

Which...isn’t really a choice at all.


I never asserted it was all Tony’s fault. Mostly it was Peter’s for being OOC (and the writers for forcing BS through into publication).

Also isn’t it a little rich to talk about ducking responsibility from the guy who did numerous unethical things during and after Civil War but kind of got a free pass due to amnesia? Jut saying.

No. Jesus Christ absolutely no all the stuff post-CW for Tony isn’t enough. He did really, really, really bad things, never went to court over them and most of the superhero community just trusted him again. Hell he doesn’t even remember what happened last i checked.

It was to a massive extent swept under the rug after Siege. I mean how many people even talked about Bill Foster afterwards?


I don’t want blood from a stone. I want an explanation for why Tony was acting hardcore OOC that exonerates him much as we got in the Crossing.

Yeah dude monitoring Peter without his permission is an invasion of his privacy and super duper unethical. Although this didn’t make sense in continuity in the context of the story Tony was monitoring Peter to the point where he was aware of the spider sense. Tony was betraying Peter’s trust and that contributed to Peter turning on him...after he’d contributed to the death of Bill Foster, unethically monitored people and withheld people without their rights in another dimension.

You cannot spin this on ‘Boy Tony was justified in invading Peter’s privacy that way because he did switch sides’. Tony’s actions directly pushed Peter to switching sides because Tony was doing villainous things IN Civil War itself.


Because in a continuous narrative where things lead form one to another stories aren’t just done and over and don’t matter if they have ramifications that can be felt to this day.


You are literally saying Marvel shouldn’t go back to fix OMD because it’s over even though it makes the hero you know....totally unheroic and led to where we are now. Civil War in that sense was the devil deal for Tony. An OOC action that was absolutely unheroic that has never been addressed. You are essentially advocating that after the Crossing if adult Tony came back and acted like he normally did and no one talked about it we should have never addressed how or why that happened and wasn’t he a villain in the Crossing itself?

Tony’s actions didn’t make sense.

Tony’s actions seriously undermined him as a hero.

It still happened it’s still part of his history it’s part of what led us to the present.

So yeah we should fix it.

It’s like saying sure chapter 5 made no sense and character assassinated everyone but it doesn’t matter cos we are on chapter 10 now.

I never goddam said I speak for most Spider-Man fans.


I expressed how I felt and how most of the people i’d observed seemed to feel.

I said you said most of the fans you observed. And that is what you said. According to you Tony and Peter were written OOC. So why do they have to go back and retcon it. Just see that like you stated it was a story when characters were OOC. Again Peter chose unmask in the public. I have Amazing Spider-Man #532 and it doesn't show Tony forcing Peter to unmask.


But this is my bad because I trapped my self into another thread that is pretty much like older threads. A lets attack Tony Stark because of Civil War thread. You are upset because it involved your hero. So please don't act like you are morally outraged by Tony's actions, because if you were why didn't you make a thread about Reed Richards. Who didn't lose anything from Civil War. He got a complete pass and was right there with Tony step for step. And how can you saw that I didn't want Avengers Forever to retcon Tony's deeds?1 No way that I said anything like that.

[Ana]

1) I agree some things need to be updated but I just don’t see why being a socially awkward teen science nerd is one of them? Is that not after all teen Spidey’s personality [...].

It's a big of a deal. I said in terms of not being the only way. He help
ed to creat Buffy and Kamala and now this Spider will help to creat another new teen types.
It was possible for sure. But Marvel tried another way and was also a sucess.

I still can't picture all this Stark dependence. Uncle Ben is always there. Spider is a newbie, he is going to mess up, but learn from his mistakes. I saw TonyXPeter more like Peter wanting a validation from society a support to be a better super hero for the world and maybe a way to cope with Uncle Ben's death.
I think it's just a first introduction. He will grown up and develop from this in MCU until an adult and competent Peter.

I think fits for Peter more than to BP, because one is a 15 year old and the other is an seasoned hero, a king full of responsabilities.

I can't remember this 94 cartoon. My first was the 2008 one.

I was just giving an exemple with TonyxWasp of how is impossible to adress in a wildspread way every aspect ( the minor things spec) and be too resistent to some changes because this example is fresh in my mind.
That can apply for other exemples too.

I understand you and don't think that you are written off my point of view.
But I feel sorry for long time fans sometimes, because of course some storylines and situations are hurtfull and let it go is hard.
But at the end of the day, maybe is important to think that dispite some little changes here and there at least more people will be able to fall in love with your hero and all that it represents is going to live forever.

[Ana]

I said you said most of the fans you observed. And that is what you said. According to you Tony and Peter were written OOC. So why do they have to go back and retcon it. Just see that like you stated it was a story when characters were OOC. Again Peter chose unmask in the public. I have Amazing Spider-Man #532 and it doesn't show Tony forcing Peter to unmask.


But this is my bad because I trapped my self into another thread that is pretty much like older threads. A less attack Tony Stark because of Civil War thread. You are upset because it involved your hero. So please don't act like you are morally outraged by Tony's actions. Because it you were why didn't you make a thread about Reed Richards. Who didn't lose anything from Civil War. He got a complete pass. And how can you saw that I didn't want Avengers Forever to retcon Tony's deeds?1 No way that I said anything like that.

That's why Marvel should think a lot about these events of heroes being too imoral. What's the point to hurt characters like Iron Man or Captain Marvel in the eyes of fans?

What is this The Crossing event by the way?

[Tony Stark]

That's why Marvel should think a lot about these events of heroes being too imoral. What's the point to hurt characters like Iron Man or Captain Marvel in the eyes of fans?

What is this The Crossing event by the way?

The Crossing event was a event were Tony went evil and started killing innocent people and Tony dies saving the heroes, but he was replaced for a time traveling teen age version of himself. Yeah. I know.

[Bor]

a) Ever consider it's easier for you to figure out what it said because you knew since you wrote it and some people might be dyslexic you judgemental jerk

b) Okay cool. My evidence is every single person on here, other boards, reddit, tumblr, youtube, comicvine and everywhere else you look who are Spider-Man comic book fans who when you add them up and then count which ones feel along the lines I said amount to over half the total number. If you are going to talk to Spider-Man comic fans and looking at what they say and more are feeling one way than the other that = most. Doesn't that account for all of them? No. Hence I said it suggests that to be the case.

b.5) Now how about you try presenting evidence to prove I was wrong

c) Remember I said IN MY OBSERVATION genius. HENCE I was specifying that the majority WITHIN my experience and I can only goddam SPEAK to my experience.

Why should I get over myself?

You are literally character assassinating me.

You are literally guilty of the accusation I've thrown at you by virtue of continuously ignoring the words I said and then lying that I said or implied otherwise

I said most in my obsersation. You treated it like I was definitely saying most.

That = lying, therefore character assassination

A) Ever considering of actling like a grown up and not resort to childish namecalling for every half of your post? I dont know if you are dyslexic but you seem to be unable to response without being extremely rude.

B) Thats not even close to evidence. Saying “My evidence is people all over” is not evidence.

b.5) How can I present evidence against a claim that is “It is this way because I say so”?

C) Again name calling.

You should get over yourself you act like a child that has been called out on a flawed argument and then has nothing better to offer then calling names and acting like a victim. I am not lying in any way here. I said you had no evidence to support what you were saying and your counter was name calling and evidence in the form of “because I say so”.

You= Rude and thowing around words you clearly dont understand. I repeat: Get over yourself. If you cant even adress others without name calling then that is even more reason why noone should take you seriously.

[comicscollector]

I have been more of a Spider-Man comics reader that i have been a Iron Man comics reader.
And the only time i felt the Iron Man participation in the Spider-Man stories was contrived was when Spider-Man unmasked during Civil War.
That stood to me as something that is not consistent with Spider-Man characterisation,but it´s not something i mind because the Spider-Man identity got to be a secret again not so long after Civil War.
Other than that i have been enjoying the Spidey stories with Iron Man,one of my favorites Marvel Team Up story arcs is MTU:48-51 and in that story arc,Iron Man and Spider-Man are a sound duo in the majority of this story arc.
More recently i think the parallelism that could be made with the Spider-Man stories to the Iron Man stories as the Parker Industries and Spider-Man making new vehicles are not that contrived considerating the mutual interest both Tony Stark and Peter Parker have for Science.

[Spidercide]

I said you said most of the fans you observed. And that is what you said. According to you Tony and Peter were written OOC. So why do they have to go back and retcon it. Just see that like you stated it was a story when characters were OOC. Again Peter chose unmask in the public. I have Amazing Spider-Man #532 and it doesn't show Tony forcing Peter to unmask.


But this is my bad because I trapped my self into another thread that is pretty much like older threads. A lets attack Tony Stark because of Civil War thread. You are upset because it involved your hero. So please don't act like you are morally outraged by Tony's actions, because if you were why didn't you make a thread about Reed Richards. Who didn't lose anything from Civil War. He got a complete pass and was right there with Tony step for step. And how can you saw that I didn't want Avengers Forever to retcon Tony's deeds?1 No way that I said anything like that.

I said you said most of the fans you observed. And that is what you said. According to you Tony and Peter were written OOC. So why do they have to go back and retcon it. Just see that like you stated it was a story when characters were OOC. Again Peter chose unmask in the public. I have Amazing Spider-Man #532 and it doesn’t show Tony forcing Peter to unmask.


But this is my bad because I trapped my self into another thread that is pretty much like older threads. A lets attack Tony Stark because of Civil War thread. You are upset because it involved your hero. So please don’t act like you are morally outraged by Tony’s actions, because if you were why didn’t you make a thread about Reed Richards. Who didn’t lose anything from Civil War. He got a complete pass and was right there with Tony step for step. And how can you saw that I didn’t want Avengers Forever to retcon Tony’s deeds?1 No way that I said anything like that.[/QUOTE]


Fair enough. I misinterpreted what you wrote.


Why do they have to go back and retcon it?


I dunno because

a) Writing the lead characters OOC is bad
b) Writing the lead characters OOC is like one of the worst storytelling sins you can commit since the characters are the entire reason we are reading, are emotionally invested in and pay money for this stuff
c) It’s especially worse when it’s massive storylines for said characters (let alone the MU more broadly) that wouldn’t have happened if they were in OOC.

Civil War isn’t like a one off self-contained story. It’s a story with MASSIVE ramifications for both characters and many others all reliant upon the characters taking certain courses of actions they should NOT have taken if they were to have been allowed to act in character.

Like why should it matter? Bro Bill Foster a character who’d been around since Avengers #32 or something has been DEAD since 2006 because of this story where Tony didn’t act like Tony; and he died in a pretty racist way let’s be real but that’s another discussion.


Aunt May getting shot? The **** during and after OMD? Like NONE of these events should from a logical story progression POV have/still be happening because they are reliant upon the characters being OOC.

In a continuity stories are supposed to build upon one another relatively organically but here is this whole event RELIANT (and Brevoort IIRC admitted this back in the day) upon everyone NOT acting as who they are.

It’s not a self contained thing we can write and off and things just go back to normal it defined a massive chunk of Marvel history and directly led to where the characters are now.


Like in the histories of these characters (because it’s all 1 big story) thats a huge chunk of nonsense that undermines everything building upon it.

So yeah we SHOULD go back and have it make sense. Like real talk you’ve mentioned how people still bring this up. Like…why would you NOT want this? Why would you NOT want Tony’s character basically fixed as he was after the Crossing?


If you have ASm #532 and cannot see the scene where Tony tells Peter by the tree and then in the car about the situation then what kind of misprinted version do you have.


Understand this. Forcing Peter to unmask doesn’t = holds a gun to his head or MJ’s or rips his mask off.

Tony presents Peter with an unwinnable scenario. Unmask publically or else he can’t ‘guarantee’ his and his family’s protection. Basically unmask or else you will be a criminal and you will be hunted down.

“It’s not me asking Peter. If you don’t unmask, you’ll be just like the other powers who defy the law. Wanted criminals. Hunted. Jailed. Not just you, but MJ and your aunt, because they’d be considered accomplices. If you turn against the law, I can’t have you with me. I won’t be able to protect you…or your family.”


THAT is forcing him to unmask. That is presenting him with a binary choice. Reveal who you are to the whole world OR you and your family are going to be hunted down and jailed.

He didn’t offer Peter the chance to leave the country and set up a safe house for him which would’ve been ENTIRELY legal at the time. He didn’t present Peter the option of registering but not unmasking publically. He didn’t do any of the things he could have done to help Peter if he really cared and wasn’t manipulating him.

But of course…he was. He’d been doing that since the prior arc when he invinted Peter to Washington and engineered an attack, when he’d been secretly monitoring Peter so he knew about the spider sense.

Tony put Peter in a corner. Unmask or go to jail.


That. Isn’t. A. Choice.

That’s like saying to someone “Either you agree to paint a target on yourself or you go to jail. HEY I’m not forcing you to do anything!”


YES YOU ARE THAT IS 100% FORCING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING!


You didn’t trap yourself into anything. Let’s look at our history here shall we.

I never attacked Tony Stark, nor did i do it over Civil War. I was saying most Spidey fans in my observation feel this way.


I said that for pure context to just let people get that POV and then I was asking how Iron Fans whom I do not know about felt about the subjects. I was asking about Peter/Tony’s relationship then YOU and other people started talking about…Peter’s characetrization.


Okay but that’s literally got nothing to do with the question being asked like at all.


As for being morally outraged by Tony’s actions, like it’s a comic book so unless it’s getting into some gross Identity Crisis territory I am not going to be morally outraged by it.

But am I saying what Tony did was bad and unethical and unheroic and OOC and as a reader who likes these characters do I hate that?


Yes.


And bro I felt that way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2006 when I was a teenager. And it had jack to do with Spider-Man back then because I didn’t even know about his and Spidey’s relationship back then. I just looked at the Civil War event and was like “This is the single most asinine story Marvel could ever do that’s going to **** up the suspension of disbelief for their universe long term’…and I was right. There was a reason people back then talked about how maybe Marvel would reboot after Civil War. It was because nobody knew HOW they went back to normal afterwards. And nobody knew that because they could see no believable way of it happening. Because there wasn’t one. And so we got it all swept under the rug after Siege.


As for why I didn’t make this thread about Reed Richards it was because genius this thread wasn’t about Tony’s moral actions in Civil War as I already stated it was about his relationship with Spider-Man within media in general and how they’ve been tied together in recent years.


Reed was irrelevant to the conversation.

I COULD make a thread about Reed though since he’s almost as guilty as Tony. But he wasn’t there with Tony step by step. He didn’t betray Peter by monitoring him. he didn’t stage super villain attacks. He didn’t immediately attack Peter in his home. He didn’t back Peter into a corner and tell him you either unmask or you and your family WILL go to prison and he wasn’t spearheading the whole registration thing either. Not to mention HE wasn’t the ******* who decided to keep Thor’s DNA and had minds towards cloning him. He did the physical act which was reprehensible yes but he didn’t initiate the idea like Tony did.


You didn’’t literally say you didn’t want Avengers Forever to retcoon the Crossing but your statements amounted to saying that because you don’t want Civil War to be retconned which is comparable to the Crossing in terms of effing up Tony’s character. Its like if I said I don’t want OMD to be fixed and then someone said “so you didn’t want the clone saga and mackie’s run to be fixed either” The latter two scenarios are very comparable to the former.