Who should be Spider-Man's MCU Arch-Nemesis? Green Goblin or Doc Ock?

[Zeitgeist]

The MCU Spider-Man, however, seems entirely motivated by the prospect of impressing Tony Stark and, later, living up to his legacy. Not only that, but Peter's suit and tech, his connections to the superhero world, and even his villains all come through his connection to Iron Man. He is literally a character living in the shadow of Tony Stark. And, as enjoyable as those movies are, that's antithetical to who Spider-Man has traditionally been.

Isn't the whole point of Homecoming and then doubled-down on in Far From Home that Peter isn't meant to be the next Stark, but that he should forge his own path? The point of said villains is to show that the way Stark did things had a lot of faults and that he wasn't always necessarily the best guy, and that while he was a positive influence in Peter's life, he's definitely wasn't someone to model yourself off of.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Tony did nothing wrong in any of these cases...

And that's what it comes down to. Iron Man is shoehorned into Spider-Man as a source of conflict and motivation for his villain but because he's a protected character who has fans and is a big-time Avenger, not to mention the entire MCU is founded on the success of the first movie...it means that the story can't actually ask big questions of him. Big name actors are cast as prominent villains and given shades of conflict and nuance, but because of who Tony Stark is, they can't actually get resolution or be treated with real respect that they would in any other situation. In the comics, Bestman was held accountable, in the movies Stark isn't.

So that's why it's a big mistake and a problem for both Iron Man and Spider-Man that Tony is shoehorned into these movies the way he is. Overall it adds to a subtext about rich people being able to do whatever they want, and poor people deserve to be screwed over. Because if they try to complain, they are wrong, and besides they turn evil anyway so why bother. Tony took credit for Beck's work but they make Beck into a total psycho so audiences come away thinking Tony was right to do so, just like some fans think Marvel were right to stiff Steve Ditko and others.

Isn't the whole point of Homecoming and then doubled-down on in Far From Home that Peter isn't meant to be the next Stark, but that he should forge his own path?

The big suit up sequence in FFH which is set to Back in Black by ACDC (i.e. Dad Rock sublime) comes after Happy tells Peter to not worship Tony so much...so the message is mixed and inconsistent. More to the point, the focus on Stark and Iron Man in the movies is definitely in excess to other MCU movies. And definitely in excess to their team-up history in comics.

The point of said villains is to show that the way Stark did things had a lot of faults and that he wasn't always necessarily the best guy,

Well some fans here think Tony did nothing wrong and these people were fundamentally evil and have zero motivations and reasons for doing what they did. So to me it's a wash. We have some people claiming that Tony was blameless, while others saying the movies say that Tony was flawed. So I don't think the movie's message is clear. Or that the movies have any message.

To me the shoehorning of Iron Man in these movies cultivates a toxic mentality among some fans. A worship for rich people being a significant fact. We have people on CBR here and elsewhere claiming that it was "realistic" for Iron Man to create suits for Peter because, words to the effect, "poor people can't create anything, have no talent" and so on. There's definitely a neo-Randian mindset, worse than anything Ditko did, among this crowd.

[Skullkid]

See you make it extremely hard to take this seriously by this you're point it just sounds like you're saying the movie should've been making Tony's character look worse to make Toomes and Beck look better.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

See you make it extremely hard to take this seriously by this you're point it just sounds like you're saying the movie should've been making Tony's character look worse to make Toomes and Beck look better.

I am saying precisely the movies shouldn't have used Iron Man that way, so as not to make him look so bad but also not bad enough that he can't be an actual villain in his own.

It makes the story frustrating. If they had used Bestman as in the case of Vulture, you would have gotten a resolution of some sort with that conflict. You can't do that with Iron Man.

Ultimately Iron Man was poorly used in the MCU Spider-Man movies. Rather than a cool fun team-up and so on, what we got is a fairly restricting and frustrating mash where Spider-Man becomes an Iron Man sub-franchise.

[Skullkid]

Nothing you say makes this sound any less like nonsense.
Vulture turned to villainy because another company got the contract he wanted, there's nothing else needed after that, there's no resolution required.
The more you talk you just keep trying to attach more stuff that isn't needed or relevant to try and make your point, and it continues not to work.

[Hypestyle]

i'm not eager to see either yet. especially with the expectations that a) Ock fans wanting to see the "superior" storyline fast-tracked, and b) Goblin fans wanting to see the Ultimate version this time, which I've never related to..

[Revolutionary_Jack]

i'm not eager to see either yet. especially with the expectations that a) Ock fans wanting to see the "superior" storyline fast-tracked,

If and when Ock comes in the MCU, and it's a big IF, doing Superior would be low on the priority simply because it's hard to impossible to do it in a mainstream superhero movie and there wouldn't be much or anything of visual interest in it.
-- The biggest thing is that Superior Spider-Man is definitely not a "first Ock story". First, they need to re-introduce and re-establish Dr. Octopus. That itself is hard. Second, they need to build and establish a rivalry and backstory which makes "Dying Wish" work as a surprise.
-- Superhero movies as a rule are geared towards introducing new villains and threats rather than repeating old ones. Having Dr. Octopus as a villain for two straight movies would simply not work.
-- Superior Spider-Man story is not uniquely an Octopus story, i.e. a story that shows off a guy with metal armatures wrecking stuff. It has Ock hijacking and stealing identities...which is basically a Chameleon thing. So if you do Chameleon first, there won't be interest in doing Ock second. If you do Superior Ock first, there won't be interest in doing Chameleon. Since you can sell action figures of Ock and Chameleon, they'd do that.
-- Having 95% of the movie with a villain in the body of the actor playing the hero will not be a story that movie producers and others will be interested in marketing and selling.
-- "Emo Peter" from Spider-Man 3. There was already an iconic rendition of Peter Parker with his mind hijacked into acting like a douche. Not very popular.

[Zeitgeist]

The big suit up sequence in FFH which is set to Back in Black by ACDC (i.e. Dad Rock sublime) comes after Happy tells Peter to not worship Tony so much...so the message is mixed and inconsistent. More to the point, the focus on Stark and Iron Man in the movies is definitely in excess to other MCU movies. And definitely in excess to their team-up history in comics.

It's Spidey's hero worship of Captain America in the comics transferred to Iron Man in the MCU, that's simply all it is. I'm sure if Evans' Cap somehow became the cornerstone of the cinematic universe then it would have been him instead, but Downey's Stark resonated more with audiences because of the non-conventional aspects of the character. While Spidey's love of Cap is more pure on paper, the relationship presented in the MCU feels more nuanced and is even more pertinent for us society-wise in this era of stan and cancel culture for my money because of how it addresses that even our heroes can have faults, and that maybe we shouldn't put everyone so high on a pedestal.

Well some fans here think Tony did nothing wrong and these people were fundamentally evil and have zero motivations and reasons for doing what they did. So to me it's a wash. We have some people claiming that Tony was blameless, while others saying the movies say that Tony was flawed. So I don't think the movie's message is clear. Or that the movies have any message.

I mean, some people didn't realise Fight Club was damning of toxic masculinity. I believe in Death of the Author to a degree but sometimes people just aren't looking deep enough.

To me the shoehorning of Iron Man in these movies cultivates a toxic mentality among some fans. A worship for rich people being a significant fact. We have people on CBR here and elsewhere claiming that it was "realistic" for Iron Man to create suits for Peter because, words to the effect, "poor people can't create anything, have no talent" and so on. There's definitely a neo-Randian mindset, worse than anything Ditko did, among this crowd.

I don't think I'd go that far, thought that mindset is somewhat prevalent in general due to the current political climate worldwide, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were seeping into fandom.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I could see them retooling Superior Spiderman/Octopus and other of Dan Slott's run as a solo Doc Ock movie. You could have him try to be a hero before becoming a villian. A classic Protagonist's journey to villiany type movie.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I could see them retooling Superior Spiderman/Octopus and other of Dan Slott's run as a solo Doc Ock movie. You could have him try to be a hero before becoming a villian. A classic Protagonist's journey to villiany type movie.

That might be what Sony does. It might work in the same way that Venom did. It just wouldn't call itself Superior Spider-Man that's all and it wouldn't really be the story in the original run, which is probably for the best.

It's Spidey's hero worship of Captain America in the comics transferred to Iron Man in the MCU, that's simply all it is.

Spider-Man worshipping Cap is unexceptional because everyone does, and Spider-Man in the comics said multiple times that Cap reminds him of Uncle Ben. So it's not really the same thing. And besides, having hero worship is not the problem. If MCU Captain America was the one who asked SHIELD to make Spider-Man his costume, trained Spider-Man to web-swing and use his powers, I would have the same problems as Tony Stark making stuff that Peter made himself. Cap, hypothetically, teaching Spider-Man to use his powers when in the comics he figured that on his own, would be as problematic and subtracting to me as Tony Stark making stuff that Peter DIY'd himself.

I mean, some people didn't realise Fight Club was damning of toxic masculinity. I believe in Death of the Author to a degree but sometimes people just aren't looking deep enough.

The fact is that any criticism of MCU Spider-Man and its use of Iron Man is responded to with attempts to dismiss it or outright malign it.
-- If I say that the movies don't hold Iron Man accountable, I get responses from some people saying "Iron Man is a saint, he is right to exploit people, Vulture and Mysterio are sub-humans who are greedy resentful rabble" or words to that effect. Aka Tony is Right.
-- Then others say, that of course the movies aren't supporting Iron Man and so on, even if the rest of the movie doesn't actually outright have Peter voicing his issues with that.

If I say that the movies are driven more by corporate/star/image politics i.e. RDJ must always be the star and how that affects stuff, I am told that doesn't exist. At least you admit that the success of the RDJ Iron Man movies did affect his role in these movies.

[Agent Z]

-- Having 95% of the movie with a villain in the body of the actor playing the hero will not be a story that movie producers and others will be interested in marketing and selling.

People thought the same about a Joker or Venom movie until those happened.

-- "Emo Peter" from Spider-Man 3. There was already an iconic rendition of Peter Parker with his mind hijacked into acting like a douche. Not very popular.

Spider-Man 3 was about Peter being corrupted by an alien being. Superior Spider-Man is about a villain displacing Peter's mind and stealing his body. Two very different plots.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

People thought the same about a Joker or Venom movie until those happened.

A huge difference between getting audiences to pay to see a movie outright promoted as entirely from the perspective of a villain, as in the case of Joker, or anti-hero, in the case of Venom...and getting audiences to buy that Tom Holland is inhabited by a smelly villain for the duration of an entire movie.

Spider-Man 3 was about Peter being corrupted by an alien being. Superior Spider-Man is about a villain displacing Peter's mind and stealing his body. Two very different plots.

From the perspective of the movie audience, what they will see is Peter acting like a douche for an extended period. There's no functional difference. People didn't like seeing Tobey Maguire's Peter as a slimy abusive sleaze, and that was for basically just a few scenes. They won't like seeing Superior Spider-Man which would be almost an entire movie of nothing but that.

[Mister Mets]

A huge difference between getting audiences to pay to see a movie outright promoted as entirely from the perspective of a villain, as in the case of Joker, or anti-hero, in the case of Venom...and getting audiences to buy that Tom Holland is inhabited by a smelly villain for the duration of an entire movie.



From the perspective of the movie audience, what they will see is Peter acting like a douche for an extended period. There's no functional difference. People didn't like seeing Tobey Maguire's Peter as a slimy abusive sleaze, and that was for basically just a few scenes. They won't like seeing Superior Spider-Man which would be almost an entire movie of nothing but that.

But it's not Peter acting like a douche; it's bodyswapping. And that's been done before successfully.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But it's not Peter acting like a douche; it's bodyswapping. And that's been done before successfully.

You mean Face/Off? (because there it's a double body-swap and both stories are told in parallel)

And it hasn't been done in a superhero movie.

[Agent Z]

You mean Face/Off? (because there it's a double body-swap and both stories are told in parallel)

And it hasn't been done in a superhero movie.

Lots of things haven't been done in a superhero movie. It has no bearing on whether or not they will be successful.

And the complaints about the symbiote plot in SM3 where about people thinking it was intruding in an overstuffed movie or people just hating the dancing in the street scene.