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

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Simone's points are all good ones, but it made me wonder if she's ever watched one of those Disney made-for-TV movies. The MCU Spider-Man movies follow the same formula to a "T." Disney just followed their somewhat safe version of tried and true.

You can ask her on twitter, if you so wish.

Obviously we all have our own touchstone for what counts as mediocre pap (which is what MCU Spider-Man is). She was actually offering some constructive feedback. She was pointing out that it had moments which she liked but also stuff which can be improved, and gave specific examples.

[Scott Taylor]

You can ask her on twitter, if you so wish.

Obviously we all have our own touchstone for what counts as mediocre pap (which is what MCU Spider-Man is). She was actually offering some constructive feedback. She was pointing out that it had moments which she liked but also stuff which can be improved, and gave specific examples.

Nah. It wasn't an attack on her, just to be clear.

The interesting thing about Far From Home was that it could not have Iron Man in it. They kind of replaced Iron Man with Mysterio in the first half, and the spectre of Iron Man was present, yes, but this really was Peter on his own ultimately. And it showed. Homecoming was good movie, but this one was way better in the way it handled Peter and Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Nah. It wasn't an attack on her, just to be clear.

Oh I know that. I meant that sincerely. You can probably ask her about it on twitter.

The interesting thing about Far From Home was that it could not have Iron Man in it. They kind of replaced Iron Man with Mysterio in the first half, and the spectre of Iron Man was present, yes, but this really was Peter on his own ultimately. And it showed. Homecoming was good movie, but this one was way better in the way it handled Peter and Spider-Man.

Far from home was a legitimate disappointment because while I wanted Mysterio as a major bad guy, I didn't want this Mysterio. I didn't like Jake Gyllenhaal's version of Mysterio, although I know that's a minority view even among people who are detractors of this movie. Nothing against his performance but to me a Mysterio who is a scientist and tech-dude and not an artist and genius VFX guy, isn't really the character.

I don't think Far From Home was wrong to address Iron Man per se. It's the first movie after Endgame and a sequel to it, so obviously they needed to address Iron Man's passing and the vacuum it creates. They might have gone overboard with it, but it wasn't a bad idea to do it in and of itself. Where I think it went off the rails, is making the crux of Iron Man's involvement being that he stole Quentin Beck's technology and took credit for it. That kind of lame move diminishes Tony as a character, and it's just unnecessary. I mean if they just made Mysterio a con artist and crook who used his tech to trick skrull-Shield and Peter, without a personal motivation for revenge, and he's just doing a hero-gig for the perks and money...that would have been fine in and of itself. Call me crazy, but what's wrong with bad guys just wanting to rob banks?

The problem with the Spider-Man movies (and this is Sony more than Disney) is that the first movie they did with Green Goblin, was a villain who had a personal connection to Peter in the comics and knew his identity. No problem with that, but they made that into a template they repeated with every villain after that. Sure it's alright with Doctor Octopus (defensible to a point), Venom (true to comics), but not with freaking Sandman, not with the Lizard, not with Electro, and not with Vulture, and Mysterio. So they keep shoehorning some personal connection between hero and villain even when it's not true to the character.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Tony is the main guiding male role model in his life during the time that we see him. That doesn't mean Ben wasn't there first.

We just haven't had that story yet. Maybe we will. But whether we do or not, it doesn't mean it isn't part of MCU Peter's backstory.

If you read the Lee/Romita Sr run, Capt. Stacy is the most important male figure in his life.

In issue #100, when Peter is in the grips of a feverish nightmare, assaulted by all his foes, at the end he reaches a distant light that's been calling out to him. In that light is a vision of Capt. Stacy, not Uncle Ben, offering Peter comfort and advice. Now, this is Stan Lee writing this in Spider-Man's historic 100th issue. If he's ok with another male figure in Peter's life having that kind of important role in Peter's life, I think it's fine that Tony plays a key role for him in the MCU.

The point is that Peter's been in at least 5 MCU films including two of his own movies and we still haven't been shown that backstory.

Also, I don't think you're grasping the meaning of "adult mentor" in the sense I'm talking about. George Stacy never supervised Peter's activities as Spider-Man nor did he grant Peter his advanced tech to use in lieu of his own inventions. For that matter, neither did Uncle Ben, for obvious reasons. There's a difference between an Uncle Ben/Peter or George Stacy/Peter relationship, where the former simply advises the latter, and a Bruce Wayne/Dick Grayson relationship, where the mentor literally trains, supervises, and enables the mentee to be a hero. Tony's relationship with Peter in the MCU has turned into the latter. And that'd be another story if we were talking about any other character, like Dick Grayson or Wally West or even Bucky Barnes. But, again, Spider-Man was created to not be one of those characters.

As I said earlier, if Peter had never made a suit of his own, if he didn't come up with his Spider-Man identity, if he didn't invent his own web shooter and web fluid, that would be a problem. But all Tony does is make him a different suit. Peter already made his own gear. We even see him working on refining his web fluid formula in Homecoming. Tony just gave him some different gear.

Yeah, Tony only made him a new, much better suit with enhanced web-shooters, that has since become the chief suit that Peter wears, and that other suit that Peter used to wear has since been discarded along with those web-shooters he designed...

So, yeah, you see the point? Even if Peter technically made his own suit, the fact that Tony came along and remade almost everything about him means he's no longer that self-made hero, which is one of the things that defines Spider-Man.

Well, again, if you can't get on board with the idea that, hey, this is an opportunity to tell a different Spider-Man story and have some fun, then this might not be for you. And that's fine.

Or, you know, people can just voice their opinions and hopefully be heard on some of them. This doesn't have to be a take-it-or-leave-it scenario. As I said, there are things about the MCU Spider-Man movies I love. I love Tom Holland as Peter (he's probably one of the best actors to step into the role), I love the plots of his standalone movies, I love that it's connected to the MCU, etc. But enjoying the movies doesn't mean people have to shut up about the things that they wish were different about them or that we can't critique them in hopes that some of the things we want are incorporated into the films.

In Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends, that wasn't by the book Spider-Man. He was part of a team, not a loner, and he had a fancy, Bat-cave style array of crime computers in Aunt May's house that were installed by none other than Tony Stark. And yet that was surely the introduction to Spider-Man for many fans and even though it wasn't just like the comics, it didn't stop kids watching it to develop a love of the character.

Well, when was the last time you heard someone refer to Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends as a truly definitive take on Spider-Man? Also, even in that scenario, Tony is not the one who built Spider-Man's suit and Spider-Man's motivation wasn't to impress Tony. Furthermore, I never said that Spider-Man was a loner. He is, however, self-made. There's a difference.

[Prof. Warren]

Well, when was the last time you heard someone refer to Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends as a truly definitive take on Spider-Man?

When was the last time you heard someone refer to MCU Spidey as the definitive Spider-Man? Never, I hope. The only time I hear that said is when someone worries that somehow it's supposed to be, or might be taken that way.

It's "a" Spider-Man. Point being, every entry point into Spider-Man from outside media diverges from the comics. By now, few people even remember now how outraged fans were that the Raimi Spider-Man had organic web-shooters and how that was regarded as a betrayal of the intent of the comics and how it undermined - or removed altogether, really - Peter's scientific genius. It was seen a big deal at the time but few people care about it now.

I imagine it will be much the same with Tony in the MCU Spidey's. In time, it will be surprising for many people to remember, or to be told, that this was actually an issue for anybody. By then, we'll be on to other live action incarnations of Spidey with their own controversial elements to be distracted by.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I imagine it will be much the same with Tony in the MCU Spidey's. In time, it will be surprising for many people to remember, or to be told, that this was actually an issue for anybody. By then, we'll be on to other live action incarnations of Spidey with their own controversial elements to be distracted by.

The problem is that Feige wants the MCU to become like the 616 Continuity. A lasting permanent thing. Ideally he wants Spider-Man in the MCU to be the only live action version of him going forward where all his adventures in the movies originate from here. With that in mind, the issues of Iron Man being so tied to Peter's first adventures will be a lingering issue if the MCU continues, or he continues to be in the MCU.

[David Walton]

Simone's points are all good ones, but it made me wonder if she's ever watched one of those Disney made-for-TV movies. The MCU Spider-Man movies follow the same formula to a "T." Disney just followed their somewhat safe version of tried and true.

She's primarily judging the film as a Spider-Man piece, though, not a Disney one.

And do Disney teen shows and films typically use retro music?

On a side note, Holland's performance in ONWARD is stellar. The movie is sheer excellence.

[Rincewind]

The problem is that Feige wants the MCU to become like the 616 Continuity. A lasting permanent thing. Ideally he wants Spider-Man in the MCU to be the only live action version of him going forward where all his adventures in the movies originate from here. With that in mind, the issues of Iron Man being so tied to Peter's first adventures will be a lingering issue if the MCU continues, or he continues to be in the MCU.

Do you have any support for this claim? Is there an interview where Feige explicitly said all this? Or is this just speculation on your part?

[Prof. Warren]

The problem is that Feige wants the MCU to become like the 616 Continuity. A lasting permanent thing.

I don't see Feige wanting the MCU to be a lasting, permanent thing to be a problem.

Of course he would, as he should. You work that hard on something, you want it to last.

But it is still a continuity unto itself. Like the 616, it is an on-going, ever-evolving thing but it is not a replacement for the 616.

The definitive version of all these characters are in the books. The movies are a universe of its own and should be viewed as such.

No matter how much I like any of these movies, or the individual portrayals of these characters, there's none of them that supersede the comic versions for me.

If the interest of some of the general public stops at the MCU movies and they don't feel the need to aquatint themselves with anything else, that's fine.

As a fan, I'm well aware of the many different versions of Spider-Man in the comics, in the movies, on TV, in animation and so on and I enjoy this particular one on its own terms, just as I enjoy many others on their own terms. I can't be concerned with what every other viewer knows or doesn't know or what they care to know.

The complaint that people might watch the MCU Spidey but not be properly versed in every core aspect of his mythology holds zero interest for me. That has no bearing on how the movies play for me as a viewer.

Ideally he wants Spider-Man in the MCU to be the only live action version of him going forward where all his adventures in the movies originate from here. With that in mind, the issues of Iron Man being so tied to Peter's first adventures will be a lingering issue if the MCU continues, or he continues to be in the MCU.

Well, who knows what the future holds, right?

Ideally, Feige would surely want Spidey to stay in the MCU but anything could happen. He understands as much - or more - than anyone how tenuous these things are.

And even if he does stay in the MCU, who knows how Spidey will evolve in that environment.

Whatever is a "lingering issue" for some people is their own choice. What is a lingering issue for some is a "was never an issue" for others.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Do you have any support for this claim? Is there an interview where Feige explicitly said all this? Or is this just speculation on your part?

Feige said multiple times that he wants the movies made in Marvel, which he says he's planned till 2030 and beyond to be in a single continuity.

He cited James Bond as a model. Until the Daniel Craig movies (which is obviously a reboot), it was understood that the character from Dr. No to Die Another Day was the same version of the same character, played by multiple actors. Continuity was kept on the down-low (like for instance vague allusions to Bond's marriage, revenge on Blofeld and other stuff) and of course presence of certain actors (like Q by Desmond Llewellyn) gave continuity but basically it was understood that the James Bond was the same version of the character originated by Sean Connery. Daniel Craig was the reboot and obviously once he steps down, different actors will originate from him as well (not that there won't be inspiration from the Connery movies or earlier movies) but it will be Craig's version that is the new starting point.

https://www.ifc.com/2012/04/kevin-fe...man-james-bond

“I think Bond is a good example,” Feige said. “Let’s put it this way: I hope [Robert] Downey [Jr.] makes a lot of movies for us as Stark. If and when he doesn’t, and I’m still here making these movies, we don’t take him to Afghanistan and have him wounded again. I think we James Bond it.”

Ultimately the MCU is defined by continuity. If the IM movies weren't leading to the Avengers and didn't have Fury's cameo at the end, it would be greatly diminished. The fact that the MCU is a continuity shaped by the Chitauri invasion or Thanos' Snap and so on, gives meaning to even the smallest offerings in the universe. Given all this, given that they titled the first MCU Spider-Man movie "Homecoming" and given that obviously they want Spider-Man back full time, I think it's clear they want Holland's Spider-Man or this version of him to last indefinitely and be the main cinematic Spider-Man going forward.

Of course they rebooted Bond eventually but as absurd and silly as those movies are, it's not one filled with magic and weird science like Marvel, where large scale events can alter and provide "A Fresh Start" without actually changing the continuity. Say "Secret Wars" or some big magic event and so on.

[Rincewind]

Feige said multiple times that he wants the movies made in Marvel, which he says he's planned till 2030 and beyond to be in a single continuity.

He cited James Bond as a model. Until the Daniel Craig movies (which is obviously a reboot), it was understood that the character from Dr. No to Die Another Day was the same version of the same character, played by multiple actors. Continuity was kept on the down-low (like for instance vague allusions to Bond's marriage, revenge on Blofeld and other stuff) and of course presence of certain actors (like Q by Desmond Llewellyn) gave continuity but basically it was understood that the James Bond was the same version of the character originated by Sean Connery. Daniel Craig was the reboot and obviously once he steps down, different actors will originate from him as well (not that there won't be inspiration from the Connery movies or earlier movies) but it will be Craig's version that is the new starting point.

https://www.ifc.com/2012/04/kevin-fe...man-james-bond



Ultimately the MCU is defined by continuity. If the IM movies weren't leading to the Avengers and didn't have Fury's cameo at the end, it would be greatly diminished. The fact that the MCU is a continuity shaped by the Chitauri invasion or Thanos' Snap and so on, gives meaning to even the smallest offerings in the universe. Given all this, given that they titled the first MCU Spider-Man movie "Homecoming" and given that obviously they want Spider-Man back full time, I think it's clear they want Holland's Spider-Man or this version of him to last indefinitely and be the main cinematic Spider-Man going forward.

Of course they rebooted Bond eventually but as absurd and silly as those movies are, it's not one filled with magic and weird science like Marvel, where large scale events can alter and provide "A Fresh Start" without actually changing the continuity. Say "Secret Wars" or some big magic event and so on.

1. That's a quote from 2012. An 8 year old quote made 5 years and 1 reboot before Spider-Man was actually available to use in the MCU.
2. The MCU has not used the "James Bond" model of ongoing stories. Tony Stark and Stever Rogers were not recast when the original actors were done. Instead the characters were written out and can only appear in flashbacks/prequels.
3. There are still multiple Spider-Man stories being produced in different media, including movies.
4. The quote has f**-all to do with the current Spider-Man MCU stories.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

1. That's a quote from 2012. An 8 year old quote made 5 years and 1 reboot before Spider-Man was actually available to use in the MCU.
2. The MCU has not used the "James Bond" model of ongoing stories. Tony Stark and Stever Rogers were not recast when the original actors were done. Instead the characters were written out and can only appear in flashbacks/prequels.
3. There are still multiple Spider-Man stories being produced in different media, including movies.
4. The quote has f**-all to do with the current Spider-Man MCU stories.

You don't have to be quite so rude in your response to me. You asked a question (why I think Feige wants to keep the continuity), I gave you an answer. Sheesh.

It's extremely unlikely to impossible that Feige is going to close the door on future IM or future CA movies. Eventually there will be IM and CA movies again in the MCU and it will be done by keeping the continuity as much as possible. The MCU has a Multiverse, it has time travel, and the door is open for stuff like Incursions, and other stuff, so eventually you will have Cap and IM back in the MCU and after some polish and fairy dust, it will be the same as it always was.

My point is that it's not going to be a full continuity reboot. It will be the same continuity that underwent the Chitauri invasion and the Snap. There are myriad ways they can do that based on all the cosmic-magic stuff that's been opened up.

[Rincewind]

You don't have to be quite so rude in your response to me. You asked a question (why I think Feige wants to keep the continuity), I gave you an answer. Sheesh.

It's extremely unlikely to impossible that Feige is going to close the door on future IM or future CA movies. Eventually there will be IM and CA movies again in the MCU and it will be done by keeping the continuity as much as possible. The MCU has a Multiverse, it has time travel, and the door is open for stuff like Incursions, and other stuff, so eventually you will have Cap and IM back in the MCU and after some polish and fairy dust, it will be the same as it always was.

My point is that it's not going to be a full continuity reboot. It will be the same continuity that underwent the Chitauri invasion and the Snap. There are myriad ways they can do that based on all the cosmic-magic stuff that's been opened up.

You don't have to present your opinion and speculation as fact. The fact is that you do not know what Feige or any of the Marvel Studios personnel have planned outside of what has been officially announced or confirmed.

While you may believe that future Iron Man and Captain America movies are forthcoming, that is speculation on your part.

I look at the same movies and think that if Marvel Studios wanted to keep pumping out movies with the same characters, they wouldn't continually introduce new characters. And I especially do not believe that Marvel Studios would have killed off Tony and aged Steve to elderly in Endgame if they were just going to bring back a clone/time travel replacement/alternate reality version. But that's just my opinion.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You don't have to present your opinion and speculation as fact. The fact is that you do not know what Feige or any of the Marvel Studios personnel have planned outside of what has been officially announced or confirmed.

Sure.

I look at the same movies and think that if Marvel Studios wanted to keep pumping out movies with the same characters, they wouldn't continually introduce new characters.

That's a good point. The MCU is built on expansion and novelty, always bringing and starting new IP, new sequels and then crossing them over. At the same time, IP and characters do not have transitive properties.

For instance, not every new character introduced by Feige and co. can occupy the role that Stark and Cap did. Ant-Man for instance is low-selling and not as big as the other two. Black Panther is definitely a big character but he's also someone so unique...i.e. he's a whole another pillar, with a whole another spot, rather than filling in the void left by Cap and Tony.

Ideally the Fantastic Four and the X-Men can spin stuff between them to keep the MCU running for a longer time. But the FF have never been done right, in the case of the X-Men, they will have to recast Wolverine and Professor Xavier at the very least.

And I especially do not believe that Marvel Studios would have killed off Tony and aged Steve to elderly in Endgame if they were just going to bring back a clone/time travel replacement/alternate reality version. But that's just my opinion.

And to be honest, I would prefer it if Feige and the MCU would do as you wish. I think your idea on how the MCU should be is better. At the same time, I don't think or believe that's how it will be.

I do think that eventually they will find a way to bring the O5 back in some way or another, and bring back IM and CA to the MCU with new actors but in the same continuity.

[Rincewind]

And to be honest, I would prefer it if Feige and the MCU would do as you wish. I think your idea on how the MCU should be is better. At the same time, I don't think or believe that's how it will be.

To clarify, that is not what I think Feige and the MCU should do. I think that is what they are currently and will continue to do.