Feige's Promotion and the impact on Spider-Man

[boots]

Saying Feige doesn't care about the Inhumans sounds a lot like projection, since there are reports of the Inhumans being cast for the Disney plus Ms. Marvel series.
Like I know its cool to hate Inhumans now because the IvX stuff but people should really not assume that's how Feige feels about them.

it's a fan's god-given right to put words in the mouths of creatives

[Cmbmool]

I think Feige is smart enough to know that the numbers who buy comics aren't remotely as big as the numbers who buy movies. So synergy doesn't mean anything there. He also knows that it's not good for the MCU to cannibalize itself...i.e. if MCU bases itself on comics, and comics start becoming more like the MCU...then eventually the MCU will be adapting itself and that won't be good.

So I think he will be mostly hands-off.

His real problem is that with such a big name being allowed a say in Marvel...pay disputes and other stuff dealing with writers/artists working for Marvel will be a bigger problem. Apparently Hickman had issues with the Black Order showing up in the Avengers movies and becoming super-profitable without any of that coming to him...and Starlin had his own issues with Tom Brevoort and Marvel publishing and openly said he preferred dealing with Marvel Studios.

Feige's whole shtick is being a nice guy and popular with fans...artists/writers working at Marvel can use that as leverage to negotiate higher pay and ask Feige to step in. As is it the comics industry doesn't have unions anything like in Hollywood (WGA, SAG, and others) and Feige is a Hollywood guy. So that might be something to consider.

I am surprised that Hickman had problems with the Black Order appearance in Avengers Infinity war and Endgame.

[Cmbmool]

As long as we don't get MCU Spider-Man: The Animated Series, I'll be happy.

I second this because of they pulled this off then they might as well rename it Iron Man Jr. adventures.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I am surprised that Hickman had problems with the Black Order appearance in Avengers Infinity war and Endgame.

It's the issue of Marvel creators having their characters being appropriated for a movie with a billion dollar gross and them getting little to nothing for that. Hickman announced when he launched his X-Men run that he was insistent on working with pre-existing characters and telling everyone to work in the sandbox of established characters rather than creating new ones.

This has been common with Marvel since the 70s...where the rights issues and so on meant that even Jim Shooter (who did more to institute royalties payment for creators than any EIC before or after) told upcoming writers to work with pre-established characters. This didn't mean everyone followed Shooter's advice...but it was something people were quite conscious of. And that's part of the reason why you don't have too many new characters come in since then.

[Bloxer]

I second this because of they pulled this off then they might as well rename it Iron Man Jr. adventures.

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.

[Lukmendes]

I think that's better showcased by showing him outstmarting his villains or coming up with clever ideas on the fly then coming up with a new gadget of the week, in my opinion.

I can't think of a great Spidey fight that I feel would have been better with an onslaught of new gadgets or tools.

I'm not saying he should come up with a new gadget to use once and never again, like that anti magnetic inverter he used on Vulture on his first appearance, just be able to create stuff he can use semi occasionally.

Edit:

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.

Them having a relationship is fine, problem is that whenever they have one, Tony becomes his mentor and then Peter is characterized to want be like him or whatever, makes him come across a lot more like a sidekick and possibly less competent, which misses the point of the character, so it'd be a problem if it happened with someone who's arguably more fitting for Spidey to look up to like Reed too, so it's not Tony himself, it's what other writers do when using their relationship.

Plus, for me, there's the additional issue of Tony just not being fitting to be anyone's mentor for long, just don't see him working in that role lol.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Plus, for me, there's the additional issue of Tony just not being fitting to be anyone's mentor for long, just don't see him working in that role lol.

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.

You could have adapted that story if you had Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and RDJ's Iron Man but not with Tom Holland, because of star politics. Around 2007-08, Tobey was the bigger star than RDJ who was given a major second chance. So you could have a movie where Spider-Man breaks and calls Iron Man to be a jerk and fights him because Tobey's star was higher than RDJ (for those who doubt this see the movie Wonder Boys where RDJ has a small supporting role in a movie where Tobey and Michael Douglas are the leads).

But in 2015, Robert Downey Jr. had established himself as the franchise lead and Tom Holland was the new kid who besides being young was stepping into shoes filled by Tobey Maguire and Garfield. There wasn't much chance of allowing a new up-and-coming actor to be framed as having the upper hand in a moral argument against the established lead actor. No franchise ever allows that as a rule. There are agents and others that prevent that kind of thing (for reasons why see Tarantino's Once Upon A Time in Hollywood where Al Pacino's agent reminds DiCaprio's washed up cowboy that it's okay for young actors to beat him up because he's a star on the downturn and not someone with parity). So that's why RDJ's Iron Man gets a kind of halo effect in the movies even if it goes against all narrative and world building sense.

[Agent Z]

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.

You could have adapted that story if you had Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and RDJ's Iron Man but not with Tom Holland, because of star politics. Around 2007-08, Tobey was the bigger star than RDJ who was given a major second chance. So you could have a movie where Spider-Man breaks and calls Iron Man to be a jerk and fights him because Tobey's star was higher than RDJ (for those who doubt this see the movie Wonder Boys where RDJ has a small supporting role in a movie where Tobey and Michael Douglas are the leads).

But in 2015, Robert Downey Jr. had established himself as the franchise lead and Tom Holland was the new kid who besides being young was stepping into shoes filled by Tobey Maguire and Garfield. There wasn't much chance of allowing a new up-and-coming actor to be framed as having the upper hand in a moral argument against the established lead actor. No franchise ever allows that as a rule. There are agents and others that prevent that kind of thing (for reasons why see Tarantino's Once Upon A Time in Hollywood where Al Pacino's agent reminds DiCaprio's washed up cowboy that it's okay for young actors to beat him up because he's a star on the downturn and not someone with parity). So that's why RDJ's Iron Man gets a kind of halo effect in the movies even if it goes against all narrative and world building sense.

It had nothing to do with star politics. The MCU movies simply weren't written by people who felt the need to make Tony an absolute scumbag.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It had nothing to do with star politics.

Everything has everything to do with star politics. The reason why Cyclops in the X-Men movies is fourth banana at best...he's never been cast with an actor of sufficient presence and fame. If they cast say Edward Norton as Cyclops in the first X-Men movie with Jackman's Wolverine, then those movies would have featured Cyclops as the First of the X-Men which he is in comics, since Norton would insist on some amount of prominence and due deference to a name actor like him.

Most movie directors have said that most of the movie is done in the casting. But for a superhero movie it goes further than that...because the characters have a history and so on. Who you cast says a lot about how you see that character and so on and so forth. One of the reasons why Joker for instance is so widely seen as Batman's Arch-Enemy among the general public, to the point of fielding his own movie, is that he's always been cast with a major actor (with the exception of maybe Leto, albeit he did win an Oscar right before he appeared in Suicide Squad).

The MCU movies simply weren't written by people who felt the need to make Tony an absolute scumbag.

Because RDJ unexpectedly carried the movie that founded the entire franchise. Iron Man worked because of him as an actor and they needed to keep him around. So that meant when Civil War came around they couldn't accurately adapt the story where Peter initially admires Tony but then turns on him decisively in favor of Cap. If they had done that, then you could establish Spider-Man as an independent free agent, if they cast an actor with some presence and fame you could still have established that...since even in Captain America Civil War, you could still have found reasons for why Peter turned on Tony...like for instance the fact that Tony lied to him about Cap, and seeing the other heroes arrested and so on.

[Prof. Warren]

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.

Yeah. It's weird, isn't it?

[Prof. Warren]

Because RDJ unexpectedly carried the movie that founded the entire franchise. Iron Man worked because of him as an actor and they needed to keep him around. So that meant when Civil War came around they couldn't accurately adapt the story where Peter initially admires Tony but then turns on him decisively in favor of Cap. If they had done that, then you could establish Spider-Man as an independent free agent, if they cast an actor with some presence and fame you could still have established that...since even in Captain America Civil War, you could still have found reasons for why Peter turned on Tony...like for instance the fact that Tony lied to him about Cap, and seeing the other heroes arrested and so on.

Civil War told a very different story than the one in the comics, for a variety of reasons.

It didn't have to, nor was trying, to hit the exact same beats as the comics, note for note.

It isn't important that Peter turn on Tony in the movies. In the comics it made sense in-story. In the movies, it would not.

Forcing that element for the sake of mirroring the mini - when the movie already differed in so many other areas - would have been awkward and unnecessary.

[Frontier]

Civil War told a very different story than the one in the comics, for a variety of reasons.

It didn't have to, nor was trying, to hit the exact same beats as the comics, note for note.

It isn't important that Peter turn on Tony in the movies. In the comics it made sense in-story. In the movies, it would not.

Forcing that element for the sake of mirroring the mini - when the movie already differed in so many other areas - would have been awkward and unnecessary.

I think from a thematic character element it would've been an important bit to incorporate in the movie, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary.

I wish we had gotten something more like it in subsequent movies, but c'est la vie.

[NC_Yankee]

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.

I disagree 100%, it is not personal, it is simply that most of us ( myself included), believe the Spider-Man who works best, is the Spider-Man who is not disrespected ( such as in The Avengers), seen as the poodle of Tony Stark, or a Man-Child. He does not need The Avengers or for that matter the MCU to be a great character. Today, we have new and compelling stories ( like the ones presented by Nick Spencer), in addition to that, there are almost 60 years of excellent stories that can be presented in a Spider-Man movie, without The Avengers and ( or) Iron Man.

[Bloxer]

It had nothing to do with star politics. The MCU movies simply weren't written by people who felt the need to make Tony an absolute scumbag.

Yeah, it seems pretty simple if you ask me, especially considering the fact that it's universally accepted that the writing of Iron Man in the Civil War comics is out of character and considered bad writing in general.
So it's just baffling for it to be called "star politics" that they decided to not do the things people hated and made Civil War considered to be one of Marvel's worst stories.
Like did we really want Iron Man to create an evil Thor Clone and throw people into the negative zone?

I disagree 100%, it is not personal, it is simply that most of us ( myself included), believe the Spider-Man who works best, is the Spider-Man who is not disrespected ( such as in The Avengers), seen as the poodle of Tony Stark, or a Man-Child.

Yeah you lost me here because I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, it pretty much sounds like gibberish.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Civil War told a very different story than the one in the comics, for a variety of reasons.

.

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.

It isn't important that Peter turn on Tony in the movies.

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.

Forcing that element for the sake of mirroring the mini - when the movie already differed in so many other areas - would have been awkward and unnecessary.

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.

Yeah, it seems pretty simple if you ask me, especially considering the fact that it's universally accepted that the writing of Iron Man in the Civil War comics is out of character and considered bad writing in general.

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.

Like did we really want Iron Man to create an evil Thor Clone and throw people into the negative zone

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.