Feige's Promotion and the impact on Spider-Man

[Agent Z]

.

From a character perspective it is important. If you want to communicate that Spider-Man is a hero with his own mind who can think for himself and will question authority and so on...then you need him to do it. Bendis' Spider-Man did that in the Ultimate Comics as did JMS Spider-Man and across the history of the comics. Especially if MCU Spider-Man is supposed to represent contemporary teenagers (which aside from Zendaya's MJ they don't). The teens who protested at Parkland didn't wait for some billionaire sugar daddy to give them joyrides to Europe before taking to the streets.

1) Not all teenagers are the same.
2) Peter siding with Tony does not mean he cannot think for himself and we clearly see this when he ignores Tony’s orders to keep his distance from the fight in the airport. For all the complaining about Peter just being a yes man for Tony he repeatedly shows he does not always listen to him.
This feels less like a criticism of MCU Peter or MCU Civil War and more of a gripe that the story doesn’t go out of its way to **** on a character you hate.

We could have had that awesome moment in JMS' Thor run where real Thor calls ou Tony for that...so?

Case in point.

[Prof. Warren]

From a character perspective it is important. If you want to communicate that Spider-Man is a hero with his own mind who can think for himself and will question authority and so on...then you need him to do it. Bendis' Spider-Man did that in the Ultimate Comics as did JMS Spider-Man and across the history of the comics. Especially if MCU Spider-Man is supposed to represent contemporary teenagers (which aside from Zendaya's MJ they don't). The teens who protested at Parkland didn't wait for some billionaire sugar daddy to give them joyrides to Europe before taking to the streets.

I know it's been brought to your attention before and I guess you have a hard time seeing past your weird Tony Stark obsession/antipathy to comprehend it but what you think "sugar daddy" means and what it actually means are two different things.

Again, for the sake of your own dignity, stop using "sugar daddy" in this manner.

Or don't. Because it's hilarious that someone so out of touch would also want to talk about today's teenagers as though that's something they're very clued into.

Well that might make one ask why adapt Civil War in the first place? They could have done ACTS OF VENGEANCE which was a nice crossover story that brought characters together but didn't compromise anyone with the issue of registration.

I think if you adapt Civil War you should be faithful to the general trajectory. Spider-Man was the moral voice in that story and someone whose internal doubts and independence was crucial. IF you remove that, then I think it's fair to cast doubts especially if the price of that is seeing MCU Peter as a Tony fanboy and nothing else.

He isn't a "Tony fanboy" in CW. He's recruited by Tony and does his best to help in regards to what he thinks is right.

The Peter of the movie CW is a complete novice at the hero game, as opposed to the seasoned hero of the comics. Of course their function in each story will be different.

You could take Peter out of the comic book CW and the movie CW and still tell those stories. Peter is not the "moral voice" of either. He has a part to play but his role and that of many other characters is ultimately extraneous to the core conflict between Tony and Steve. In both the comics and the movies, it's their story.

It's that conflict that remains intact from the journey from the comics to the movies and that's where the drive to adapt it comes from, even as many of the details necessarily change from one telling to the other.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

1) Not all teenagers are the same.

Except nothing in the MCU suggests that Peter Parker outside of being Spider-Man is unusual or distinct from other teens. In the case of the Lee-Ditko era, AF#15 clearly spells that Peter is an outsider and loner, so if you had been faithful to that, you could make that handwave work.

MCU Peter from what we see goes to a school where he's well-treated, he has a best friend/sidekick, little sense of money issues, so for the most part MCU Peter basically is a typical ordinary teen...and mostly a MCU projection of their fanbase than a character in his own right.

Peter siding with Tony does not mean he cannot think for himself and we clearly see this when he ignores Tony’s orders to keep his distance from the fight in the airport.

It's not so much he ignores as he has no choice. Bit hard to do that when a giant dude and others rumble in your direction and Tony's explicit command was that Spider-Man take Cap's shield. I mean did they expect Cap to let his Shield yanked by bug-kid?

For all the complaining about Peter just being a yes man for Tony he repeatedly shows he does not always listen to him.

On the order of the eager underling wanting to prove to his hero that he's up to snuff. It's comparable to Mad Love where Harley Quinn tries to win Joker's approval by using his traps to catch Batman. I mean you can only disobey someone who you are beholden to...if Spider-Man disobeys Tony then that means Tony is in a position of authority/command, and Peter accepts that. That means he's not actually independent of Tony.

This feels less like a criticism of MCU Peter or MCU Civil War and more of a gripe that the story doesn’t go out of its way to **** on a character you hate.

And this is, not feels likes but actually is, an attempt to get away from arguing the point by attacking the poster.

I know it's been brought to your attention before and I guess you have a hard time seeing past your weird Tony Stark obsession/antipathy to comprehend it but what you think "sugar daddy" means and what it actually means are two different things.

I actually do know what it means, and again the connotation of using that to describe a hero/sidekick thing has been inherent to comics and comics' media since the days of Frederick Wertham. So it's not some new thing.

Or don't. Because it's hilarious that someone so out of touch would also want to talk about today's teenagers as though that's something they're very clued into.

People use that as a metaphor these days...after all, making Peter fixated on Tony, doesn't exactly gel with "wealth and fame, he's ignored" so it's apt to ask exactly why Peter likes Tony. If it's because Tony gives him nice shiny expensive gifts and toys and resourceful friends...well the boot fits.

[Lukmendes]

I mean JMS' run, his tie-in issues with CIVIL WAR is all about Peter realizing that Tony Stark isn't a cool guy and even then JMS always showed that Tony had a shady side and a heroic side. Like that scene in Washington DC where Tony stages an attack by Titanium Man and so on.

Well, JMS himself somewhat soured me on this Peter and Tony's relationship too, there's that thing of me thinking he shouldn't be anyone's mentor for long, on top of Spidey actually being his senior as a hero, so it's just weird to have Tony being his mentor just because.

Like, imagine if Avengers were to start to mentor the Fantastic Four on how to be a super team, just isn't fitting, doesn't make much sense, and is somewhat belittling one to make the other look better.

So for me, in 616 comics you don't even need Civil War to make the idea of Tony mentoring Peter to be questionable, that's just throwing crap in an already burned cake.

MCU works better since Iron Man is a super hero for like, 10 years I guess? Probably more, and Peter started out recently, so him being mentored by Tony makes actual sense, I just don't care about him because he was too dependent on Tony, I care little about characters like that, and Spider-Man having this trait really doesn't do it for me.

As for star politics, I guess it makes sense, and if that's really going on, too bad it caused Peter to be like that, but hey, whatever.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I just don't care about him because he was too dependent on Tony, I care little about characters like that, and Spider-Man having this trait really doesn't do it for me.

With MCU Spider-Man it really goes beyond all reason. Like compare that to any other MCU movie. When Black Panther came out there was not one mention of Tony Stark or Cap for the entirety of the movie until the post-credits. Doctor Strange was established as a figure of dignity and independence, and allowed to talk down to Tony (and then eventually sacrifice his life for the greater good) mostly because they got Benedict Cumberbatch, a name actor and Oscar nominee (and so having a good agent) to play him.

And ultimately Black Panther made more money than any of the two Spider-Man movies, so it's not like tying Spider-Man, his supporting cast, and his rogues to Tony makes commercial sense.

[Agent Z]

Except nothing in the MCU suggests that Peter Parker outside of being Spider-Man is unusual or distinct from other teens. In the case of the Lee-Ditko era, AF#15 clearly spells that Peter is an outsider and loner, so if you had been faithful to that, you could make that handwave work.

This is not the 1960s anymore and the writers clearly were not interested in making Peter a loner because they found the guy actually having friends he can talk to a lot more interesting.

On the order of the eager underling wanting to prove to his hero that he's up to snuff. It's comparable to Mad Love where Harley Quinn tries to win Joker's approval by using his traps to catch Batman. I mean you can only disobey someone who you are beholden to...if Spider-Man disobeys Tony then that means Tony is in a position of authority/command, and Peter accepts that. That means he's not actually independent of Tony.

He was a superhero before he even met Tony.



And this is, not feels likes but actually is, an attempt to get away from arguing the point by attacking the poster.

I actually do know what it means, and again the connotation of using that to describe a hero/sidekick thing has been inherent to comics and comics' media since the days of Frederick Wertham. So it's not some new thing.

Wertham has long since been revealed to have been full of ****. Not only is the context in which you are using that term inappropriate but your defense for why you’re using it is equally ridiculous.

People use that as a metaphor these days...after all, making Peter fixated on Tony, doesn't exactly gel with "wealth and fame, he's ignored" so it's apt to ask exactly why Peter likes Tony. If it's because Tony gives him nice shiny expensive gifts and toys and resourceful friends...well the boot fits.

Tony is a superhero and a scientist. The movies could not be more obvious as to why Peter likes him.

With MCU Spider-Man it really goes beyond all reason. Like compare that to any other MCU movie. When Black Panther came out there was not one mention of Tony Stark or Cap for the entirety of the movie until the post-credits. Doctor Strange was established as a figure of dignity and independence, and allowed to talk down to Tony (and then eventually sacrifice his life for the greater good) mostly because they got Benedict Cumberbatch, a name actor and Oscar nominee (and so having a good agent) to play him.

None of those characters you mentioned are teenagers.

And ultimately Black Panther made more money than any of the two Spider-Man movies, so it's not like tying Spider-Man, his supporting cast, and his rogues to Tony makes commercial sense.

Maybe making Tony a mentor figure had nothing to do with commercial reasons.

[Bloxer]

.

The core element i.e. the Avengers fighting each other over the issue of registration and this splitting characters into factions is common across both. Spider-Man in the original comic was he one who started with Tony and then went over to Cap's side. So there are good reasons for him to do that here. Or alternatively be "both sides can go hang" (which Ditko Spidey and even Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man would obviously do) and only get tangentially involved here and there.



From a character perspective it is important. If you want to communicate that Spider-Man is a hero with his own mind who can think for himself and will question authority and so on...then you need him to do it. Bendis' Spider-Man did that in the Ultimate Comics as did JMS Spider-Man and across the history of the comics. Especially if MCU Spider-Man is supposed to represent contemporary teenagers (which aside from Zendaya's MJ they don't). The teens who protested at Parkland didn't wait for some billionaire sugar daddy to give them joyrides to Europe before taking to the streets.



If you commit enough there's room enough to make it work but again the issue of how much you can make RDJ Iron Man look like a bad guy, and whether some up and coming actor can square off against a big star actor on screen and get people to buy it, will counter that. If you had Tobey's Peter it would have been easier to do that.



Well that might make one ask why adapt Civil War in the first place? They could have done ACTS OF VENGEANCE which was a nice crossover story that brought characters together but didn't compromise anyone with the issue of registration.

I think if you adapt Civil War you should be faithful to the general trajectory. Spider-Man was the moral voice in that story and someone whose internal doubts and independence was crucial. IF you remove that, then I think it's fair to cast doubts especially if the price of that is seeing MCU Peter as a Tony fanboy and nothing else.



We could have had that awesome moment in JMS' Thor run where real Thor calls ou Tony for that...so?

Fact is that Captain America Civil War has enough stuff to make Peter turn on Iron Man as it is.

All I'm hearing is that the only point of doing Civil War is to perform character assassination on Iron Man and make it cool for other characters to beat him up and go against him, which is stupid.
Especially since you're trying to claim it's star politics they gave Spider-Man a small part in a film that was going to made with or without him and was focusing on characters and relationships that were introduced into continuity before he was.

[Bloxer]

On the order of the eager underling wanting to prove to his hero that he's up to snuff. It's comparable to Mad Love where Harley Quinn tries to win Joker's approval by using his traps to catch Batman.

See the fact you want to compare Peter wanting to prove himself as a hero is at the same as Harley Quinn's relationship with Joker already makes it clear where your agenda lays and that you are not willing to have a discussion in good faith.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

All I'm hearing is that the only point of doing Civil War is to perform character assassination on Iron Man and make it cool for other characters to beat him up and go against him, which is stupid.

Having superheroes fight each other and having both of them start and end as heroes will always be stupid and hard to impossible to achieve at least in a mainstream superhero story. And as it is Captain America Civil War didn't do a good enough job to establish that. If you see the movie it sort of works in isolation on strength of individual scenes but overall it doesn't work.

Acts of Vengeance was a story that dealt with registration and it didn't involve heroes fighting each other...and Tony was against it there. So there was a better alternative.

Especially since you're trying to claim it's star politics they gave Spider-Man a small part in a film that was going to made with or without him and was focusing on characters and relationships that were introduced into continuity before he was.

Spider-Man's role in CIVIL War which also set the course for the direction of his later films (i.e. Iron Man sub-franchise) could have been done any number of ways. The one they chose, tying it to Robert Downey Jr. is obviously a reflection of his great star power.

BTW, Robert Downey Jr. was almost not in Civil War either. His contract had finished and was negotiating an update and Perlmutter wanted to fire him because he was asking for pay. This was one of the reasons why Feige got autonomy and so his current promotion. So that's an example of how important RDJ was that ultimately the suits decided to fence Perlmutter in rather than drive him away.

Had RDJ not come in then the Russos would have adapted Jack Kirby's Madbomb as Captain America Part 3. Spider-Man would have still shown up since the Sony/Marvel deal isn't conditioned on RDJ but if he's out of the picture, then I think Spider-Man would have been more of his own character.

[WebSlingWonder]

Having superheroes fight each other and having both of them start and end as heroes will always be stupid and hard to impossible to achieve at least in a mainstream superhero story. And as it is Captain America Civil War didn't do a good enough job to establish that. If you see the movie it sort of works in isolation on strength of individual scenes but overall it doesn't work.

Acts of Vengeance was a story that dealt with registration and it didn't involve heroes fighting each other...and Tony was against it there. So there was a better alternative.



Spider-Man's role in CIVIL War which also set the course for the direction of his later films (i.e. Iron Man sub-franchise) could have been done any number of ways. The one they chose, tying it to Robert Downey Jr. is obviously a reflection of his great star power.

BTW, Robert Downey Jr. was almost not in Civil War either. His contract had finished and was negotiating an update and Perlmutter wanted to fire him because he was asking for pay. This was one of the reasons why Feige got autonomy and so his current promotion. So that's an example of how important RDJ was that ultimately the suits decided to fence Perlmutter in rather than drive him away.

Had RDJ not come in then the Russos would have adapted Jack Kirby's Madbomb as Captain America Part 3. Spider-Man would have still shown up since the Sony/Marvel deal isn't conditioned on RDJ but if he's out of the picture, then I think Spider-Man would have been more of his own character.

Let me ask you this: do you dislike Iron Man? The Avengers? The MCU? I'm curious because every time we've had this conversation, it's been like this.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Let me ask you this: do you dislike Iron Man? The Avengers? The MCU? I'm curious because every time we've had this conversation, it's been like this.

I don't want to be in a situation where my liking for them comes at the expense of established characters that I care far more about. Whether it's the X-Men or Spider-Man. I mean I like Wolverine but I have always disliked Owsley's Spider-Man V. Wolverine #1 because it's a story that start-to-finish has Spider-Man being humiliated at Wolverine's expense and doesn't say anything aside from that. I know Wolverine's a badass and so on...I also know he's a runt who was mostly tolerated with clenched teeth for a lot of the X-Men run and not perfect. I think a team-up where both of them bring their mutual strengths and weaknesses in the tradition of average buddy-cop movie is expected from any team-up.

The Avengers and for that matter Tony was fine and entertaining enough when it was them being a bunch of second-stringers coming together (the Roger Stern run), or Tony was a screwup (Michelinie run, Shane Black's Iron Man 3) but when you introduce Spider-Man as an uncritical Iron Man fanboy and repeat bromides that work well for Tony but is total nonsense for Peter ("nothing without the suit"...so happy to know that a spider didn't give Peter any powers and there's an actual switch he can turn on/off)...and passed with a straight face, then it sours my overall enjoyment. RDJ's Tony doesn't need this shilling nor does Spider-Man.

Not to mention having to put up with defenses of Tony giving Peter his classic suit with the explanation from sundry fans, "Of course poor people can't create stuff". I mean I have literally seen that. I think there is an unhealthy message being communicated there, unintended subtext about class and so on.

[WebSlingWonder]

I don't want to be in a situation where my liking for them comes at the expense of established characters that I care far more about. Whether it's the X-Men or Spider-Man. I mean I like Wolverine but I have always disliked Owsley's Spider-Man V. Wolverine #1 because it's a story that start-to-finish has Spider-Man being humiliated at Wolverine's expense and doesn't say anything aside from that. I know Wolverine's a badass and so on...I also know he's a runt who was mostly tolerated with clenched teeth for a lot of the X-Men run and not perfect. I think a team-up where both of them bring their mutual strengths and weaknesses in the tradition of average buddy-cop movie is expected from any team-up.

The Avengers and for that matter Tony was fine and entertaining enough when it was them being a bunch of second-stringers coming together (the Roger Stern run), or Tony was a screwup (Michelinie run, Shane Black's Iron Man 3) but when you introduce Spider-Man as an uncritical Iron Man fanboy and repeat bromides that work well for Tony but is total nonsense for Peter ("nothing without the suit"...so happy to know that a spider didn't give Peter any powers and there's an actual switch he can turn on/off)...and passed with a straight face, then it sours my overall enjoyment. RDJ's Tony doesn't need this shilling nor does Spider-Man.

Not to mention having to put up with defenses of Tony giving Peter his classic suit with the explanation from sundry fans, "Of course poor people can't create stuff". I mean I have literally seen that. I think there is an unhealthy message being communicated there, unintended subtext about class and so on.

See, I was kind of agreeing with you up until the last part with the unintended messages and whatnot. But for the most part, it's an understandable view.

[Ana]

This is not the 1960s anymore and the writers clearly were not interested in making Peter a loner because they found the guy actually having friends he can talk to a lot more interesting.



He was a superhero before he even met Tony.



And this is, not feels likes but actually is, an attempt to get away from arguing the point by attacking the poster.




Wertham has long since been revealed to have been full of ****. Not only is the context in which you are using that term inappropriate but your defense for why you’re using it is equally ridiculous.




Tony is a superhero and a scientist. The movies could not be more obvious as to why Peter likes him.



None of those characters you mentioned are teenagers.



Maybe making Tony a mentor figure had nothing to do with commercial reasons.

I'm here in silence agreeing with you, Prof. Warren and all others about the Tony-Peter bond.
I just desagree with you in the last part because I think it was for commercial ressons. Marvel finally had their biggest super hero in the MCU, seems like they decided to tie him with they're biggest star in movies to make Peter relevant to the plot. And it did work. Aside from the original 6, Peter is the most proeminent character in the MCU now due to his bond to Tony.

I know that this is probably hard for fans that still stuck in the 60's Spidey and don't accept changes, but movies are made for a larger audience and it is them that will need to adapt. So it's totally diferent setting from comics and makes no sense expect or read the two situations as the same. I do understand why fans feels this way, but in the end of the day every generation deserves Spider Man to relate to and to love.
I firmily belive that this new Spider movies were aiming towards an audience of teenage girls too. That's the key point and since the choice of the actor and their choice with MJ this seemes to be the case. In the end, Marvel nailed this take on teen Peter to new audiences.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

See, I was kind of agreeing with you up until the last part with the unintended messages and whatnot. But for the most part, it's an understandable view.

It's the issue with Batman. Sure he's a great character, great villains and great stories (a little overexposed but let's leave that aside)...but at the same time, I don't like seeing stories where the Justice League and everyone else are chumps who bask in his giant cape-extended silhouette. I don't like the Batgod. I don't think it does it service. Likewise, stories where Batman insults Robin or his partners and so on. I mean if the story is communicating that Batman is being an ******* (like Waid's Tower of Babel) then it's fine but usually it's passed as a straight face. The MCU Tony and Spidey thing feels like the Irongod, you know the sidekick can't talk back and so on. And it gets annoying to see and it feels anti-democratic somehow.

I prefer the JLU cartoons where Batman is treated as equal to the rest of the JL and they to him. Some times other characters get the last word, sometimes some minor guy saves the day...whereas in the MCU, it always seems to be Iron Man who's the center of everything and that just sucks.

I do in fact think that Spider-Man is a better character than Iron Man, on both a literary level and a moral level. And I am not wrong to think. I don't think it's uncontroversial to claim that there are far more great stories in the comics with Spider-Man than Iron Man, and that you can find 100 great stories (as in as good as the best of superhero comics) with Spider-Man and a much smaller number (maybe less than 25, less than 50 if you want to be charitable) with Iron Man. And I think that people have a right to expect the on-screen versions reflect that reality.

[Ana]

It's still funny to me how some people need to take Spider-Man having a relationship with Tony Stark as some kind of personal insult.

Cause I think it is personal because the comics being like something holy.

For me was totally relatable have someone older to admire, being insecure and accept help sometimes. I saw MCU Peter as a totally fine teen. Not like a puppy at all.