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

[WebSlingWonder]

Problem is, they wrote themselves into this corner by making "Mr. Stark" his defining characterization and the single most important character in the Spider-Man MCU movies. What should've been done is that he interacts with multiple heroes, Iron Man of course, but also bonding with Cap and having a friendship with the others. I'd like to see a scene of Spidey and Hawkeye bonding, getting introspective on both, perhaps like this in Secret Wars:



However, he only interacts with Stark, and anything else is brief and token, amounting to a few sentences. Strange outright calls Peter his "ward" and nothing is done to combat that. This is before you get into Iron Man's "below my pay grade" attitude, which was insulting (Avengers have dealt with plenty of street level villains in the comics), dumb (Vulture was a huge threat both to the Avengers and to the people with the weapons he was trafficking), and worse, he was painted as being in the right somehow. If Spidey had died at the end at Vulture's hands, it would've been entirely his fault.

Let the record stand that I still enjoyed the movies, but Stark was a weak link. Unfortunately, because he's so prominent in them, that amounts to a lot gripes.

I also like the idea that Spidey couldn't make an accurate Ditko suit on his own, yet he could still build fully functional web shooters. Then he did make his own suit, albeit with Stark resources, but the bottom line is that both of these undermine the idea that "Peter couldn't make his own suit".

Also, I was actually looking forward to Nick Fury in FFH. I thought it would've been great to switch it up, exchange snark, and have a relationship similar to that of Ultimate. Plus, it'd be a nice break from Stark, while going with a memorable comics relationship (alternate universe, but still). Yet that was mishandled too. First, Nick Fury just pulls him in a mission with no agency of his own. Second, they don't have much of a relationship at all, just Fury talking down on Spidey, so no meaningful interactions. Third, that wasn't even Fury! The real Nick Fury thought so little of Spider-Man that he sent a Skrull double just to take of him like he was some pest, while he was on vacation at the S.W.O.R.D. base. Just insulting. I mean, Nick Fury was a hardass in USM to Spidey, but he did actually care about him, and certainly enough to show up in person.

And again...I ask: why do you even care? Does it greatly impact your life to the point where you care that much about Spider-Man's importance/portrayal in the MCU? At the end of the day, they're just movies. And that's all they are.

[Hybrid]

Idk, maybe it's because I want to see something I like get properly represented on the big screen and I take issue when it isn't. Why do you care so much that I care?

Don't get me wrong, I get what being a different continuity is. I also get that things need to be changed. However, the fact is that when making a new continuity based on a preexisting one, you have to take into account what you adapt. The good adaptations take the best parts of the characters, their stories, the mythos, and make it work. They can even make something new out of it that's just as good.

Look at DCAU Batman, which distilled many aspects of the mythos and introduced Batman to a new audience, not to mention it gave us an original creation with Batman Beyond that was a worthy follow up. It struck the right balance between comic accuracy and original writing. Not everyone is on par with the team of Dini, Timm and Burnett, sadly.

The bad ones change things to the detriment of everyone involved. TASM did that, and that's the case with MCU Spider-Man's relationship with Iron Man.

[WebSlingWonder]

Idk, maybe it's because I want to see something I like get properly represented on the big screen and I take issue when it isn't. Why do you care so much that I care?

Don't get me wrong, I get what being a different continuity is. I also get that things need to be changed. However, the fact is that when making a new continuity based on a preexisting one, you have to take into account what you adapt. The good adaptations take the best parts of the characters, their stories, the mythos, and make it work. They can even make something new out of it that's just as good.

Look at DCAU Batman, which distilled many aspects of the mythos and introduced Batman to a new audience, not to mention it gave us an original creation with Batman Beyond that was a worthy follow up. It struck the right balance between comic accuracy and original writing. Not everyone is on par with the team of Dini, Timm and Burnett, sadly.

The bad ones change things to the detriment of everyone involved. TASM did that, and that's the case with MCU Spider-Man's relationship with Iron Man.

You know the comics exist, right? You know there are other better adaptations out there for Spider-Man, right? You know that harping on this one adaptation when there are hundreds of better ones makes you look rather obsessed, right?

Whether you like it or not, the MCU Spider-Man exists in it's current form. Is that good or bad? Who knows and who cares? The world's going crazy right now and you're worried about this? REALLY? How a character is portrayed on screen? Hell, we may not even HAVE a "big screen" in a couple of months. So I care that you're obsessed with this because it is adding nothing of value to any half-decent conversation and is a slap in the face of what's going on right now. Oh, I know I'll catch some flak for that, but screw it: I don't care.

If Spider-Man could survive Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2, he can certainly survive this current incarnation, which isn't even that bad. You're just making it worse than it is.

[Frontier]

Yes, this is the best way to look at it.

Stop worrying that this isn't the "definitive" Spider-Man.

It isn't and isn't meant to be. It's just one interpretation among many that's meant to be enjoyed on its own terms.

I'm not asking for it to be the "definitive" Spider-Man but people seem to have this expectation of the MCU matching up to the standard of becoming the definitive version so I'd rather not see Spidey fall short of that compared to other MCU interpretations.

Granted, I guess by that same logic Hemsworth's Thor would be the "definitive" Thor and I would never co-sign that.

I think PS4 Spidey was closer to what I would expect from MCU Spidey then what we actually got.

[boots]

Granted, I guess by that same logic Hemsworth's Thor would be the "definitive" Thor and I would never co-sign that.

but y

hemsworth's thor is bloody magnificent

[Prof. Warren]

I'm not asking for it to be the "definitive" Spider-Man but people seem to have this expectation of the MCU matching up to the standard of becoming the definitive version so I'd rather not see Spidey fall short of that compared to other MCU interpretations.

Granted, I guess by that same logic Hemsworth's Thor would be the "definitive" Thor and I would never co-sign that.

I think PS4 Spidey was closer to what I would expect from MCU Spidey then what we actually got.

Again, the game and the movies are completely different mediums, with a very different set of circumstances and demands.

People should drop the belief that the MCU purports to be or has ever been intended to be the "definitive" Spider-Man. It isn't.

It was only a happy circumstance of corporate cooperation that allowed Spidey to be in the MCU at all. It's a version of Spidey tailored to fit an already established universe, not the be-all, end-all take on the character.

[Frontier]

but y

hemsworth's thor is bloody magnificent

If he were playing Hercules, sure.

Again, the game and the movies are completely different mediums, with a very different set of circumstances and demands.

People should drop the belief that the MCU purports to be or has ever been intended to be the "definitive" Spider-Man. It isn't.

It was only a happy circumstance of corporate cooperation that allowed Spidey to be in the MCU at all. It's a version of Spidey tailored to fit an already established universe, not the be-all, end-all take on the character.

I'm not saying the MCU has ever claimed to be trying for a "definitive" Spider-Man but it's an issue of living up to their own reputation of adapting stuff by that point. I get the game and movies are completely different but I think we can compare how they approached the source material and characterization nevertheless.

Even the Marvel's Spider-Man cartoon, as many issues as that interpretation did, went about establishing Spider-Man in an established (if incredibly inconsistent) Marvel Animated universe but allowed him to be more independent and individualized as a hero.

[Mister Mets]

A lot of posts have been deleted by multiple moderators.

Discuss the topic and not one another. Different views about what works for a fictional character shouldn't lead to insults and personal attacks.

[Prof. Warren]

I'm not saying the MCU has ever claimed to be trying for a "definitive" Spider-Man but it's an issue of living up to their own reputation of adapting stuff by that point. I get the game and movies are completely different but I think we can compare how they approached the source material and characterization nevertheless.

Even the Marvel's Spider-Man cartoon, as many issues as that interpretation did, went about establishing Spider-Man in an established (if incredibly inconsistent) Marvel Animated universe but allowed him to be more independent and individualized as a hero.

Well, again, when people complain about the MCU Spidey not being independent and individualized enough, it seems like people just don't fully grasp the point of the Sony/Marvel deal.

This is a collaboration between two major studios, both acting together to maximize their respective properties to their mutual benefit. Sony, on its own, can and has made Spider-Man films that have him operating fully on his own.

They don't need Marvel to do that. The benefit of Sony teaming with Marvel isn't that Marvel is the only ones who can make a good Spider-Man movie. Sony has done fine on their own with that. The benefit is that teaming with Marvel puts Spidey in the MCU. That's what Sony wants.

So these movies have to really have to make use of that aspect. And not just in name dropping or Easter Eggs or background details, it has to be front and center. Otherwise what's the point?

So Spider-Man occupies a unique place in the MCU. If he seems more dependant on other characters than the likes of BP or Thor and less of an independent entity, that's because - for real world reasons - he is. He has to be used in a different way than other characters because he isn't owned by Marvel Studios, he is on loan.

[Frontier]

Well, again, when people complain about the MCU Spidey not being independent and individualized enough, it seems like people just don't fully grasp the point of the Sony/Marvel deal.

This is a collaboration between two major studios, both acting together to maximize their respective properties to their mutual benefit. Sony, on its own, can and has made Spider-Man films that have him operating fully on his own.

They don't need Marvel to do that. The benefit of Sony teaming with Marvel isn't that Marvel is the only ones who can make a good Spider-Man movie. Sony has done fine on their own with that. The benefit is that teaming with Marvel puts Spidey in the MCU. That's what Sony wants.

So these movies have to really have to make use of that aspect. And not just in name dropping or Easter Eggs or background details, it has to be front and center. Otherwise what's the point?

So Spider-Man occupies a unique place in the MCU. If he seems more dependant on other characters than the likes of BP or Thor and less of an independent entity, that's because - for real world reasons - he is. He has to be used in a different way than other characters because he isn't owned by Marvel Studios, he is on loan.

I think we've gone over this point before. I acknowledge why they handled it the way they did, just that I feel that it has a negative effect on Spidey's portrayal in the MCU when they could have gone for a more even-handed approach that isn't so reliant on one, individual, character.

[Prof. Warren]

I think we've gone over this point before. I acknowledge why they handled it the way they did, just that I feel that it has a negative effect on Spidey's portrayal in the MCU when they could have gone for a more even-handed approach that isn't so reliant on one, individual, character.

I think the MCU portrayal is already much more even-handed than some detractors want to paint it as.

When you really look at how much Robert Downey Jr. is in Homecoming, it's not that much. It's still very much Spidey's movie.

But as I said earlier, this is not going to be the last live action incarnation of the character.

I think some fans who might have a problem with it now might warm up to it down the line once it becomes more clear that it's just one version of the character, not the last or the definitive one.

[Frontier]

I think the MCU portrayal is already much more even-handed than some detractors want to paint it as.

When you really look at how much Robert Downey Jr. is in Homecoming, it's not that much. It's still very much Spidey's movie.

But as I said earlier, this is not going to be the last live action incarnation of the character.

I think some fans who might have a problem with it now might warm up to it down the line once it becomes more clear that it's just one version of the character, not the last or the definitive one.

If Stark's presence in the movie was purely physical, sure, but I felt it went well beyond that in Homecoming.

Oh, I hold no allusions that this will be the last live action version of Spider-Man or anything. I just don't see the harm in frankly discussing the version we currently have.

[boots]

If he were playing Hercules, sure.

i can see that, though it works even better with thor. who knew?

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Well, again, when people complain about the MCU Spidey not being independent and individualized enough, it seems like people just don't fully grasp the point of the Sony/Marvel deal.

This is a collaboration between two major studios, both acting together to maximize their respective properties to their mutual benefit. Sony, on its own, can and has made Spider-Man films that have him operating fully on his own.

They don't need Marvel to do that. The benefit of Sony teaming with Marvel isn't that Marvel is the only ones who can make a good Spider-Man movie. Sony has done fine on their own with that. The benefit is that teaming with Marvel puts Spidey in the MCU. That's what Sony wants.

So these movies have to really have to make use of that aspect. And not just in name dropping or Easter Eggs or background details, it has to be front and center. Otherwise what's the point?

So Spider-Man occupies a unique place in the MCU. If he seems more dependant on other characters than the likes of BP or Thor and less of an independent entity, that's because - for real world reasons - he is. He has to be used in a different way than other characters because he isn't owned by Marvel Studios, he is on loan.

What I don't think you're realizing though is that the inverse of this is also very true: because of the deal, the MCU gets to include Spider-Man. Spider-Man is, by far, the most beloved and famous Marvel character of all time and is one of the three biggest superheroes of all time. As a solo franchise, he's been able to generate more income than the entirety of the MCU's box office revenue. And, yeah, Spider-Man as a franchise has been around a lot longer than the MCU, but the fact that he is such a valuable property on his own means that Spider-Man doesn't necessarily need the MCU or other Marvel characters. People will go see Spider-Man movies with or without their connection to the rest of the Marvel Universe. Even Venom (which was well...) showed us that.

[Prof. Warren]

What I don't think you're realizing though is that the inverse of this is also very true: because of the deal, the MCU gets to include Spider-Man. Spider-Man is, by far, the most beloved and famous Marvel character of all time and is one of the three biggest superheroes of all time. As a solo franchise, he's been able to generate more income than the entirety of the MCU's box office revenue. And, yeah, Spider-Man as a franchise has been around a lot longer than the MCU, but the fact that he is such a valuable property on his own means that Spider-Man doesn't necessarily need the MCU or other Marvel characters. People will go see Spider-Man movies with or without their connection to the rest of the Marvel Universe. Even Venom (which was well...) showed us that.

Yes, of course. This is why the Sony/Marvel deal is to each other's mutual benefit.

Sony could easily keep making their own Spider-Man films and do very well with them.

And by the same token, Marvel can easily be Spidey free and rake in billions.

But aside from the monetary angle, I think parties on either side just think it's cool and fun to have Spider-Man in the MCU mix.