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

[PCN24454]

Honestly I think that’s why I didn’t mind as much. Tony’s relationship with Spidey as well as The Hero’s treatment of Spidey seem very much like the Ultimate Spidey as well post New Avengers Spidey’s relationship with the heroes with elements of the JMS era of Peter/Tony relationship before Bill Foster’s death/Clone Thor soured it. But I do feel like they should have had more of the smart mouth talking back element that made Ultimate Peter endearing as a character, like Peter making fun of Tony’s age or how it’s obvious Tony isn’t used to the mentor role

I think the problem that most people have is that Peter is portrayed as though he absolutely can't function without help, and obviously that his life apparently revolves around other superheroes.

That's pretty much the difference between the MCU and the comics. While Iron Man was still portrayed as Peter's senior, they were more portrayed as partners and the only times when Tony made Peter submit to his absolute authority was when it was clear that he'd gone off the deep end.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think the problem that most people have is that Peter is portrayed as though he absolutely can't function without help, and obviously that his life apparently revolves around other superheroes.

That's pretty much the difference between the MCU and the comics. While Iron Man was still portrayed as Peter's senior, they were more portrayed as partners and the only times when Tony made Peter submit to his absolute authority was when it was clear that he'd gone off the deep end.

In Ultimate Comics, Tony never tried to do that. He was more the cool rogue uncle type.

In CIVIL WAR, Tony thought he was doing this, but it turns out the one going off the deep end is himself, and Peter was shutting him down.

Fundamentally the issue is casting. RDJ is the biggest actor in the MCU cast, and Tom Holland is a total newbie. So there wasn't much scope for RDJ's agents allowing a young actor to get an on-screen win over him.

For people who doubt this, see Once Upon A Time in Hollywood where Al Pacino's agent character explains very clearly the politics of casting. If an old western actor allows younger actors to show him up, it reduces his stock and his perceived star status.

You see this also in the MCU in other interactions between the actors. Like Chris Evans' Cap maybe scores a win over Tony at the end of CIVIL WAR, but Tony is never shown on-screen outright apologizing to Cap. And in ENDGAME, without taking responsibility, he lays into Chris Evans and he has to be the one who makes the half-hearted non-apology by bringing the shield back all without saying "sorry" for the whole registration thing.

[PCN24454]

You see this also in the MCU in other interactions between the actors. Like Chris Evans' Cap maybe scores a win over Tony at the end of CIVIL WAR, but Tony is never shown on-screen outright apologizing to Cap. And in ENDGAME, without taking responsibility, he lays into Chris Evans and he has to be the one who makes the half-hearted non-apology by bringing the shield back all without saying "sorry" for the whole registration thing.

This is an entirely different debate. Let's drop it.

Basically, yes. The nature of their relationship is different from comics to movies.

[Rincewind]

For people who doubt this, see Once Upon A Time in Hollywood where Al Pacino's agent character explains very clearly the politics of casting. If an old western actor allows younger actors to show him up, it reduces his stock and his perceived star status.

You see this also in the MCU in other interactions between the actors. Like Chris Evans' Cap maybe scores a win over Tony at the end of CIVIL WAR, but Tony is never shown on-screen outright apologizing to Cap. And in ENDGAME, without taking responsibility, he lays into Chris Evans and he has to be the one who makes the half-hearted non-apology by bringing the shield back all without saying "sorry" for the whole registration thing.

Any actual support for this or is it just speculation?

[Prof. Warren]

Any actual support for this or is it just speculation?

I think you already know the answer to this.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Any actual support for this or is it just speculation?

It's rather obvious to anyone who has any knowledge about the movie business, movie stardom, agents and so on. When you become a big time movie star, it becomes necessary, for better and for worse, to always be presented as a charismatic, cool guy on screen, and that means putting it in your contract certain rules, i.e. don't show my bad side, make sure I get the last word in, and so on. This isn't necessarily narcissism mind you. In the case of an actor like RDJ given that he was for years a character actor on independent films and other stuff, and of course had drug problems, once he becomes a leading man, he kind of wants to consolidate his gains and not be lowered again. It's also the reason why Will Smith turned down Django Unchained because after reading the script, he realized that he didn't get to kill the bad guy (i.e. Leonardo DiCaprio), and as he said, "I need to be the lead. I have to kill the bad guy". Is Will Smith being narcissistic or as one of the few successful African-American leading men blockbuster stars, he's trying to insist on the same privileges any star wants to make sure their viability doesn't get lowered?

It's the reason why Jack Nicholson has top billing and name above the title credit on Batman 1989. He was a much more respected actor and far bigger star than young up-and-coming Michael Keaton was at the time. In fact, one reason why the Joker is always considered Batman's best villain is that you always have major Oscar-winning or Oscar-nominated or critically respected actors cast as him. It's a role you give to a guy who can be a leading man in his own right. Whereas that doesn't always apply to other Batman villains.

In the MCU Spider-Man movies, you have young up-and-coming Tom Holland, a character actor who had done a lot of independent movies (and quite good in some of them like The Lost City of Z) and in the MCU Spider-Man movies, he's paired against established professional actors of solid resume (Keaton, RDJ, Gyllenhaal). That works in the sense of selling his inexperience, but it also means that he comes off as overly vulnerable. Whereas in the Sam Raimi movies, you didn't really have big stars but actors known for independent movies. So Willem Dafoe and Tobey Maguire were both actors who did weird indie movies and that meant that both of them could be framed as equals in that movie. Same with Alfred Molina.

[ironman2978]

I think the problem that most people have is that Peter is portrayed as though he absolutely can't function without help, and obviously that his life apparently revolves around other superheroes.

That's pretty much the difference between the MCU and the comics. While Iron Man was still portrayed as Peter's senior, they were more portrayed as partners and the only times when Tony made Peter submit to his absolute authority was when it was clear that he'd gone off the deep end.

I do agree with Revolutionary_Jack that who RDJ and Tom Holland are played a role in MCU Peter/Tony’s relationship as well as the 616 and Ultimate comics. While MCU Peter has showed autonomy (Disobeying Tony on multiple occasions and frustration at Tony treating Him as a kid, etc) but who the actors are does also play a huge role in the characters they play and vice-versa.


Peter was Spider-Man before Tony Stark with his OWN good design, with his OWN web-shooters and his OWN web-fluid, with his OWN moving lenses, but it’s not the focus since similar stories was shown in Spider-Man 1 and Amazing Spider-Man 1.

MCU Spider-Man villains are still Spider-Man villains and affect Spidey’s life in multiple ways. But now Spidey’s stories, background and characters are just also connected to fit into the story of the larger MCU like how SSM or Webb tried to streamline or change the story to work for the story they tried to tell.(No different from Black Widow and Hulk having a relationship, Hulk being a product of trying to recreate Captain America, Ultron being a Stark/Banner creation with the help of Mind Stone instead of being created by Hank Pym same with Vision coming from J.A.R.V.I.S or Ghost being recreated to be an Ant Man villain/daughter of Bill Foster, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch’s home get destroyed by Stark Industries technology/Hydra uses the mind stone to give them powers, Black Panther’s dad killed by Zemo framing the Winter Soldier as opposed to Klaw or how Tony’s parents killed by Winter Soldier, etc.)


In fact, MCU Spidey films is no different from the Marvel one-shots that explained what happened in the aftermath of those movies (Tony/General Ross in TIH, Coulson’s trip to New Mexico, the couple finding Chitauri tech, etc). It just uses Spidey as the focal point of seeing the aftermath of MCU/Tony’s action like a Marvel Team-Uo style film starting and never taking the focus off of Spider-Man as opposed to a SpiderMan adventure in a solo film, or if this was a Spidey who started off in a solo reboot film/show in the MCU before he got put in Civil War (Webb ASM, Ant Man, Daredevil or the Incredible Hulk movie). MCU Spidey who got introduced in 8 min for Civil War, and that would end up defining his personality and arc in the rest of the MCU to come, this also includes his 7 minutes he appeared in Infinity War and the 3 min he appeared in Endgame. I feel these interviews give the best point of view when it comes to how Spidey got adapted into the MCU:

Question: Another major part of this series is how many of the super-powered people are connected. Spider-Man, Electro and the Lizard are all results of the same basic experiments. Doctor Octopus, the Green Goblin, Sandman and Rhino all owe their origins to Norman Osborn’s technology and influence. Mysterio and the Tinkerer work for the Chameleon.

Greg Weisman’s answer : The Marvel Universe was basically built on the fly. Since we’re starting this cartoon from scratch, we have the luxury of building a more cohesive universe from day one because we know where we’re going to go with these characters and who’s going to come later.

https://www.comicmix.com/2008/08/19/...imated-series/

Jon Watts: “ When I watched Marvel movies — or any big spectacle movie, I’d see extras in the background and think: what is their life like? How have they been impacted? In a perfect way Spider-Man allows me to explore the ground level of this crazy universe because that’s who Spider-Man is- He’s ground level, he’s a regular guy. That became the lens I was able to explore this crazy universe through. It was something I was already interested in, so it was fun to do it in a Spider-Man movie.” (https://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/201....co/xf6W9D6gun)


Joe Russo: “ We had thought back to the things that excited us about him as a character when we were younger, and one of the most important components of that was that he's a high schooler burdened with incredible powers and responsibility. That really differentiates him from every other character in the Marvel universe as opposed to other superheroes. For us, it was extremely important that we cast somebody very close to the age of a high school student. The previous films had adults playing a high schooler. We wanted more of an authenticity to the casting. We were very specific about that. We wanted an energy and charisma from the character, an energy, but also an insecurity that would make him fun to watch in contrast to the confident superheroes.”

Anthony Russo: “I would also add, again, we're introducing this character in a Captain America movie.
If you look at what we did with Winter Soldier with the Cap character in terms of bringing him into the modern world, trying to ground the movie tonally into something that was a step toward real-world, at least to the degree you can do that in a superhero movie, that's still the tonal universe that we're playing in in Civil War. We're bringing a character… we're bringing Spider-Man into the movie in that universe, now, in that specific tonal stylistic world. I think underscoring everything Joe was saying about your question in terms of how were we thinking about the character in relation to past interpretations of the character, part of our choices were all so colored by the specifics of the world what we were playing in with these two Captain America movies, meaning Winter Soldier and Civil War. It's a very specific tonal world. It's a little more grounded and a little more hard-core contemporary. That was also coloring our choices a lot about the character on Spider-Man.”
(https://comicbook.com/2016/01/08/exc...in-how-their-/)

Kevin Feige: You look at the early comic books of Spider-Man and what was so great about what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko did was they said what if one of the most powerful heroes we have is a high school kid who also has to do homework and isn’t a billionaire, or isn’t a genius scientist, or isn’t a trained assassin, or isn’t another scientist who had an accident but is a kid?

The one thing that hasn’t been able to be explored in the other five [“Spider-Man”] movies is his relationship to the broader Marvel Universe and that’s something that was exciting to us. To go back to those Stan Lee, Steve Ditko origin tales of having him be younger and that dichotomy with dealing with the rest, and also in Brian Michael Bendis’ “Ultimate Spider-Man.”

That the younger he was, the more truer he was to the original Spider-Man comic book stories and also the more unique and different he would be in comparison to the other Marvel heroes.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...629-story.html

What Greg Weisman said for Modernizing the SSM cartoon also applies to MCU that applied to modern adaptations (USM comics, 90s cartoon, Raimi and Webb films or SSM cartoon that were restricted from using other Marvel heroes/elements). They already built the MCU and created/playing with these very interconnected relationships since Iron Man 2, now they had to design Spidey to fit into that universe -look, story,etc. And he still is Peter Parker and but just a new take on familiar stories. He’s no different from JMS, Slott, BMB or Stan Lee, etc. But instead of starting off solo/isolated like Raimi/Webb films, he is essentially adapted/introduced into a Marvel Team Up/Avengers event and had to build his world from there. Spidey’s personality and skills at being a superhero varies to fit the story and generation he is being written in or if they are retelling his teenage years. MCU Spidey was still in his learning curves but playing against the larger Marvel players, particularly Iron Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But instead of starting off solo/isolated like Raimi/Webb films, he is essentially adapted/introduced into a Marvel Team Up/Avengers event and had to build his world from there. Spidey’s personality and skills at being a superhero varies to fit the story and generation he is being written in or if they are retelling his teenage years. MCU Spidey was still in his learning curves but playing against the larger Marvel players, particularly Iron Man.

I will agree with one thing. When you come down to it, fidelity doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how faithful the MCU Spider-Man is. It doesn't matter that Iron Man is featured heavily.

Those are the choices the producers made, and while you may have issues with those principles, that by itself has nothing to do with whether the final movies worked on its own terms or not. Most of the criticism here, and I am very much included in that group, has focused on those choices rather than how those choices were executed. In my case, I will say that I have conflated my feelings about the execution with my feelings about the intentions.

[Rincewind]

It's rather obvious to anyone who has any knowledge about the movie business, movie stardom, agents and so on. When you become a big time movie star, it becomes necessary, for better and for worse, to always be presented as a charismatic, cool guy on screen, and that means putting it in your contract certain rules, i.e. don't show my bad side, make sure I get the last word in, and so on. This isn't necessarily narcissism mind you. In the case of an actor like RDJ given that he was for years a character actor on independent films and other stuff, and of course had drug problems, once he becomes a leading man, he kind of wants to consolidate his gains and not be lowered again. It's also the reason why Will Smith turned down Django Unchained because after reading the script, he realized that he didn't get to kill the bad guy (i.e. Leonardo DiCaprio), and as he said, "I need to be the lead. I have to kill the bad guy". Is Will Smith being narcissistic or as one of the few successful African-American leading men blockbuster stars, he's trying to insist on the same privileges any star wants to make sure their viability doesn't get lowered?

It's the reason why Jack Nicholson has top billing and name above the title credit on Batman 1989. He was a much more respected actor and far bigger star than young up-and-coming Michael Keaton was at the time. In fact, one reason why the Joker is always considered Batman's best villain is that you always have major Oscar-winning or Oscar-nominated or critically respected actors cast as him. It's a role you give to a guy who can be a leading man in his own right. Whereas that doesn't always apply to other Batman villains.

In the MCU Spider-Man movies, you have young up-and-coming Tom Holland, a character actor who had done a lot of independent movies (and quite good in some of them like The Lost City of Z) and in the MCU Spider-Man movies, he's paired against established professional actors of solid resume (Keaton, RDJ, Gyllenhaal). That works in the sense of selling his inexperience, but it also means that he comes off as overly vulnerable. Whereas in the Sam Raimi movies, you didn't really have big stars but actors known for independent movies. So Willem Dafoe and Tobey Maguire were both actors who did weird indie movies and that meant that both of them could be framed as equals in that movie. Same with Alfred Molina.

Yeah, that's not proof. That's speculation.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yeah, that's not proof. That's speculation.

It's an empirical observation.

[Rincewind]

It's an empirical observation.

It’s really, really not. It’s you coming up with theories then deciding your theories are fact.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It’s really, really not. It’s you coming up with theories then deciding your theories are fact.

What I am offering is an explanation based on observation of the movies, drawing patterns and consistencies, and then comparing it with other patterns in the movie business. The shoe fits.

You are welcome to disagree, and offer a counter-explanation. Or not.

To give a simple example of what I am talking about. Let's take the Vulture. Spider-Man Homecoming is faithful in spirit to the fact that the Vulture was driven to crime because he was screwed out of a honest deal. In the original comic (ASM#240-241, by Roger Stern and JRJR) that was done to him by a random dude called Bestman. Because of that when Spider-Man and the cops found out, they sympathized with the Vulture and threw the book at him. In Homecoming however, in place of Bestman, you have Iron Man/Tony Stark, and the logic of the movies is that despite Tony Stark objectively wrecking Peter's life by creating villains who have legitimate grievances as a result of his actions, Spider-Man can never actually react to that, or bring that to Tony himself.

[Agent Z]

What I am offering is an explanation based on observation of the movies, drawing patterns and consistencies, and then comparing it with other patterns in the movie business. The shoe fits.

You are welcome to disagree, and offer a counter-explanation. Or not.

To give a simple example of what I am talking about. Let's take the Vulture. Spider-Man Homecoming is faithful in spirit to the fact that the Vulture was driven to crime because he was screwed out of a honest deal. In the original comic (ASM#240-241, by Roger Stern and JRJR) that was done to him by a random dude called Bestman. Because of that when Spider-Man and the cops found out, they sympathized with the Vulture and threw the book at him. In Homecoming however, in place of Bestman, you have Iron Man/Tony Stark, and the logic of the movies is that despite Tony Stark objectively wrecking Peter's life by creating villains who have legitimate grievances as a result of his actions, Spider-Man can never actually react to that, or bring that to Tony himself.

Because Tony didn't wreck Peter's life nor do any of these villains have a legitimate grudge with them.

Bestman embezzled money from Toomes. This is not the same thing as providing a better service than another person or firing a guy whose following actions proved he was unstable. Just because a villain claims somebody screwed them over doesn't mean they're right. Look at Eddie Brock or Victor von Doom.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Bestman embezzled money from Toomes. This is not the same thing as providing a better service than another person

That's not what happened with Toomes. He had a legal city contract to salvage the Chitauri battle damage. That he had fair and square.

It was then annulled by a public-private partnership between Uncle Sam and Tony Stark. They annulled a legal contract obtained by a local salvage company, without compensation and remuneration, which by the way is completely illegal. It amounts to seizure of Eminent Domain, and that means they should have compensated Toomes thoroughly for the entire project at the very least (the better choice, is simply recruit them and give them extra money to simply turn their stuff to their stockpile). You can argue that Toomes focused excessively on Tony Stark rather than the government, that is fair. And obviously it's a case of negligence on how the law is enacted and enforced, on which Tony doesn't have control. So that can be argued. But at heart, Toomes' grievance is entirely legitimate.

...or firing a guy whose following actions proved he was unstable.

While also taking credit for his invention and keeping his prototype? And if Post-Age of Ultron and Post-IM3 Tony Stark is so concerned over a guy being unstable, and that guy is a genius inventor, based on his own experiences, simply firing that guy was not a good move.

That entire section, reads like a live action propaganda of "Disney is right to d--k over his animators, Lee was right to screw over Ditko...they all turned evil anyway".

If it was anyone other than Tony Stark doing these actions, or if it wasn't RDJ playing Tony Stark, we would not necessarily see him as sympathetic in the least. That's my point. In the comics, random dude Bestman could be condemned but in the movies, Stark is Teflon.

[Agent Z]

That's not what happened with Toomes. He had a legal city contract to salvage the Chitauri battle damage. That he had fair and square.

It was then annulled by a public-private partnership between Uncle Sam and Tony Stark. They annulled a legal contract obtained by a local salvage company, without compensation and remuneration, which by the way is completely illegal. It amounts to seizure of Eminent Domain, and that means they should have compensated Toomes thoroughly for the entire project at the very least (the better choice, is simply recruit them and give them extra money to simply turn their stuff to their stockpile). You can argue that Toomes focused excessively on Tony Stark rather than the government, that is fair. And obviously it's a case of negligence on how the law is enacted and enforced, on which Tony doesn't have control. So that can be argued. But at heart, Toomes' grievance is entirely legitimate.

Even if Toomes does have a legitimate grievance, it isn’t with Tony. Hell, unlike the other maniacs with an irrational grudge against Tony, Toomes isn’t even going after him. He’s hurting other people who had nothing to do with his losing a job.

And if Post-Age of Ultron and Post-IM3 Tony Stark is so concerned over a guy being unstable, and that guy is a genius inventor, based on his own experiences, simply firing that guy was not a good move.

And what else was he supposed to do? Leave him in the company and risk endangering his employees?

If it was anyone other than Tony Stark doing these actions, or if it wasn't RDJ playing Tony Stark, we would not necessarily see him as sympathetic in the least. That's my point. In the comics, random dude Bestman could be condemned but in the movies, Stark is Teflon.

The MCU has repeatedly shamed Tony for his past as an arms dealer or how he has dealt with women he has been involved with and blamed him for casualties in wars he didn’t start. If any characters in the MCU are Teflon it’s Captain America and Scarlet Witch. The former could give Colonel Jessup from a Few Good Men poiners in how to be a raging hypocrite while covering up a crime for your own agenda and the latter is a terrorist who despite endangering and killing numerous people because of a misplaced grudge is still treated with more sympathy than she deserves.