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

[Frontier]

I'm starting to think Spidey is losing out from being in this shared custody situation...

Also, Downey Jr. and Holland have a wonderful chemistry together. I'm glad that the filmmakers had the sense to take full advantage of it as it would have been a real shame not to get as much mileage out of that connection as possible while the opportunity was there. Peter has had many adult mentors in the comics, from JJJ to Robbie Robertson to Capt. Stacy. Peter's had many surrogate dads in the comics. That he should have Tony as a mentor figure in the MCU is completely legitimate.

None of those other mentor figures have been as involved in Peter as Spider-Man as Tony in the movies has.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

It doesn't give Tony any control over Peter.

Tony takes the suit back in Homecoming and Peter still goes after the Vulture on his own with his homemade suit.

It's seeing how independent Peter really is that prompts Tony to extend Peter an invitation to The Avengers.

Peter literally says "I'm nothing without this suit" when Tony takes it away. And yes, there's the whole arc of Peter proving he doesn't necessarily need the suit (even though he gladly takes it back at the end of Homecoming), BUT that is EXACTLY the point. Peter, as a character, is someone who starts from a place of independence. That is one of the things that made him popular in the first place. He is 100% self-made. He doesn't need or even want Iron Man's tech.

Again, people worry far, far, far too much about what they believe other people think or know.

One of the chief complaints about the MCU is from comic fans being all worked up about the thought of non comic fans not fully grasping the true Spider-Man mythology.

Who cares?

Fans are introduced to Spider-Man in many, many different ways.

Through The Electric Company, through the '70s Nicholas Hammond TV series, through Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends. And on and on and on.

Once they're introduced to the character, if they are interested enough to learn more the comics are there to be discovered.

If they don't want to learn more - so what?

If the MCU is all some people know about Spider-Man it's not the end of the world, really.

As a fan, I like the MCU Spidey on its own terms for what it is.

I understand that this will certainly not be the last incarnation of Spider-Man on screen so this is just the current version.

In another few years, there'll be another and another after that and so on and all of them will have their own strengths and weaknesses as adaptations.

Uh because in a lot of cases, what the general public perceives about a character tends to circle back and inform their portrayal in the comics? A large part of the Marvel comic book universe has now been changed to be more in line with the MCU films. That's indisputable. Also, who says it's about what other people think? I'd think any fan of the Marvel Universe or Spider-Man would want to see the MCU version of Spider-Man successfully capture the spirit of the character, not because they care what others think but because of their own personal enjoyment.

The extent to which people really don't get the concept of integrating Spidey into the MCU is astounding.

Every suggestion as to how it could have been done "better" amounts to variations on keeping Peter as isolated as possible.

"What if Tony dropped by, like once, and then left and never came around again? Wouldn't that be better?"

The changes are no where near as drastic as some fans want to portray them as.

Spidey in the MCU is still completely recognizable as Spidey.

But I have a feeling it will never sink in and it will always be an endless string of suggestions like "but what if Spider-Man, you know, just swung past Avengers Towers in the last shot of the movie?"

Okay, there's no need to be condescending here. Just because people don't agree with you on a topic doesn't mean that they "don't understand" or "don't get" what you're saying. To frame it that way is pretty disrespectful.

Now, let's address your points one-by-one.

1) People absolutely get the draws of integrating Peter into the MCU. Again, I stated as such. I'd say a lot of people are excited about that. HOWEVER, some fans are just not too thrilled with how they've done it because they way they have, to them, misses the whole point of Spider-Man as a character. There were ways to put Spider-Man squarely in the MCU without him being made into Tony's successor/protege.

For example, just spitballing, but since the Civil War arc from the comics actually ended with Peter switching sides anyway, ditching Iron Man's side and joining Captain America's, what if we saw something similar to that in the actual movie? Peter could have realized that he actually sympathized more with Steve and ended up helping him and then, once it was over, Steve calls on just one last favor from Tony: leaving Peter alone, despite everything, because "he's just a kid." And then in Spider-Man's standalone film, they could have springboarded off of that, Spider-Man's seeming betrayal of law and order during Captain America: Civil War, to introduce characters like J. Jonah Jameson who really lean into that and vilify Spider-Man as a menace to society. And then that could have served as an interesting subplot while Peter was fighting Vulture. So, there's a perfectly good alternative route to both cement Peter in the MCU (since his status quo stems from Captain America: Civil War) while still allowing it to be at least somewhat more authentically Spider-Man.

2) Nobody cares that this isn't the comics. Some people are just pointing out that, whatever the medium, there are some things that inherently define Spider-Man as a character. What they're saying is that they aren't certain that the MCU has captured those things. On that note...

3) Saying that he's recognizable as Spidey doesn't necessarily mean that it captures the essence of what makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man. There's a lot about his world and his supporting cast that is completely different. As many people have pointed out, even though we don't necessarily need a recapping of what happened to Uncle Ben, it seems as if in the MCU he never even existed.

Also, Aunt May and Peter's relationship is like barely touched on. Most of the time, she's relegated to just being "Peter's hot aunt" who everyone from Tony to Happy Hogan hits on instead of highlighting that she is the closest thing Peter has to a mom. As someone else pointed out, the fact that they just blew over the whole ordeal of her finding out he was Spider-Man, when at least in the comics, that was a huge revelation for her and had a big impact on their relationship, is kind of a shame. A lot of classic Spider-Man supporting characters have also been pushed to the background, like J. Jonah Jameson (who is now an Info Wars-style conspiracy nut instead of Peter's boss, with the Daily Bugle being a fringe website instead of the place Peter works), Robbie Robertson, Harry Osborn, George Stacy, Gwen Stacy, etc.

4) You have yet to really explain why lacking "control over the character" equates to "they have to change the character to fit in the MCU." That logic is...shaky to say the least. And that's especially the case when the draw of having Spider-Man in the MCU is because he's Spider-Man. He's Marvel's flagship character and his popularity stems from at least a few specific factors. He's a kid from Queens who crafts his own heroic persona, free from anyone else's influence. That is what made him popular in the first place.

And...

The "discomfort" seems to stem from misreadings of the movie itself (Peter is not Tony's sidekick, that's a distorted perception) and misunderstanding why Sony and Marvel are collaborating in the first place (it's not to make solo Spider-Man movies or to make movies that barely involve the MCU - it's to really put Spider-Man squarely in the MCU).

5) I've already touched upon the reasons why people might see it as Peter being a "sidekick" to Tony. It's not just their personal relationship or that Peter looks up to Tony. It's the fact that a) Tony built both of Spider-Man's suits, b) much of the plots of both of Spider-Man's films have revolved around the things happening with Stark Industries (in Homecoming, the Avengers Tower to Avengers Campus move was the climax of the film and in Far From Home, it revolved around Peter safeguarding EDITH because Tony left it to him), and c) what motivated both Vulture and Mysterio to villainy was their personal history (either direct or indirect) with Tony Stark.

The fundamental theme of the character is "with great power comes great responsibility." The MCU Spidey embodies that just fine.

Also, Downey Jr. and Holland have a wonderful chemistry together. I'm glad that the filmmakers had the sense to take full advantage of it as it would have been a real shame not to get as much mileage out of that connection as possible while the opportunity was there. Peter has had many adult mentors in the comics, from JJJ to Robbie Robertson to Capt. Stacy. Peter's had many surrogate dads in the comics. That he should have Tony as a mentor figure in the MCU is completely legitimate.

Uh, JJJ, Robbie Robertson, and George Stacy aren't what I'd call mentors or surrogate dads for Peter. They do not occupy that role just by virtue of being adult men whom he trusts. Heck, a lot of the time, Peter doesn't even trust JJJ and he's actually traditionally been kind of a villain in Peter's life. Peter kind of hates him a lot of the time. The one person who is actually a "dad" to Peter is Ben Parker.

And RDJ and Tom Holland do have excellent chemistry. But I'm sure that chemistry could exist between Holland and pretty much anyone. They're all great actors. I'd have loved to see more interaction between Tom Holland's Peter and Chris Evans's Steve Rogers, to be honest.

You can read whole runs of the comic with barely or any mention of Ben. The comics are free to just tell Spider-Man stories as they see fit. They don't have to remind the reader constantly about Uncle Ben. After five films in which Ben was a key player, the movies have earned the right to move on a bit too.

Lol. The difference is that the comics have already established that Ben is a guiding influence in Peter's life. The MCU has not done that yet. Hopefully, they will.

[Prof. Warren]

Lol. The difference is that the comics have already established that Ben is a guiding influence in Peter's life. The MCU has not done that yet.

There hasn't been the need to.

It can be safely assumed that Peter's backstory in the MCU is totally in line with his origin in every other version.

No reason to believe otherwise.

If a new reader reads a Spider-Man comic that doesn't refer to Uncle Ben, and the vast majority of them don't, do we worry that this comic has done a disservice to Spider-Man?

No, of course not.

Hopefully, they will.

They might. As I said, I would be surprised if, before Holland exits as Spidey, that we don't get a flashback to his origin.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

There hasn't been the need to.

It can be safely assumed that Peter's backstory in the MCU is totally in line with his origin in every other version.

No reason to believe otherwise.

If a new reader reads a Spider-Man comic that doesn't refer to Uncle Ben, and the vast majority of them don't, do we worry that this comic has done a disservice to Spider-Man?

No, of course not.

The "need" is establishing him as Spider-Man because that's who Spider-Man is. The comics take place in a universe that has already featured Ben Parker. If a new reader picks up a Spider-Man comic that doesn't feature Uncle Ben, they can always pick up another one, set in the same universe, that does feature him. There is no MCU appearance or mention of Uncle Ben, even though he is a fundamental part of Peter's development as a person. That's the point.

They might. As I said, I would be surprised if, before Holland exits as Spidey, that we don't get a flashback to his origin.

That would be great. Personally, I hope Tom Holland is able to convince Tobey Maguire to come on board and be the MCU's Uncle Ben in that flashback.

[Prof. Warren]

The "need" is establishing him as Spider-Man because that's who Spider-Man is. The comics take place in a universe that has already featured Ben Parker. If a new reader picks up a Spider-Man comic that doesn't feature Uncle Ben, they can always pick up another one, set in the same universe, that does feature him. There is no MCU appearance or mention of Uncle Ben, even though he is a fundamental part of Peter's development as a person. That's the point.

But people know who Spider-Man is already. They know the backstory. There's no need to rehash it - or even mention it - in every single outside media adaptation.

You could do a Superman movie and not mention Krypton exploding and people wouldn't be asking "But wait? How did he even get here?!" It's such a well known part of his lore that you can assume that the audience is already familiar with it. Likewise, the Waynes don't have to die in every Batman adaptation.

Same with Uncle Ben. I wouldn't doubt that before Spidey leaves the MCU that they explicitly acknowledge the origin but it's something that they didn't need to address up front.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

But people know who Spider-Man is already. They know the backstory. There's no need to rehash it - or even mention it - in every single outside media adaptation.

You could do a Superman movie and not mention Krypton exploding and people wouldn't be asking "But wait? How did he even get here?!" It's such a well known part of his lore that you can assume that the audience is already familiar with it. Likewise, the Waynes don't have to die in every Batman adaptation.

Same with Uncle Ben. I wouldn't doubt that before Spidey leaves the MCU that they explicitly acknowledge the origin but it's something that they didn't need to address up front.

There is not a need to rehash it but there is a need to mention it. If WB did a Superman movie that didn't start with the destruction of Krypton, that's one thing. However, if they made a series of Superman movies where the word "Krypton" was never once uttered at all, then that's another, given that being Kryptonian is Superman's whole, you know, thing. Krypton has to eventually come up whether that's in the form of the Fortress of Solitude or if General Zod or Brainiac is the villain.

And nobody's saying they needed to address it upfront or make it a big deal, but we're now two movies in and the word "Ben" has never even been mentioned. This is the guy who is supposed to be the main male role model in Peter's life, dead or not, and who helped define Peter as a person. Is one mention too much to ask?

[Prof. Warren]

There is not a need to rehash it but there is a need to mention it. If WB did a Superman movie that didn't start with the destruction of Krypton, that's one thing. However, if they made a series of Superman movies where the word "Krypton" was never once uttered at all, then that's another, given that being Kryptonian is Superman whole, you know, thing. Krypton has to eventually come up whether that's in the form of the Fortress of Solitude or if General Zod or Brainiac is the villain.

And nobody's saying they needed to address is upfront or make it a big deal, but we're now two movies in and the ord "Ben" has never even been mentioned. This is the guy who is supposed to be the main male role model in Peter's life, dead or no, and who helped define Peter as a person. Is one mention too much to ask?

It's not too much but you also have to understand that a lot of fans just don't see it as a big deal. As I said, the vast, vast majority of Spider-Man comics have no mention of Uncle Ben and no one has a problem with it. The movies at this point by now should have the same freedom.

If the next MCU Spidey film should have a flashback or mention of Spidey's origin, maybe everybody who's felt put out that it didn't come up in either Homecoming or Far From Home will be able to say "Oh, ok."

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

It's not too much but you also have to understand that a lot of fans just don't see it as a big deal. As I said, the vast, vast majority of Spider-Man comics have no mention of Uncle Ben and no one has a problem with it. The movies at this point by now should have the same freedom.

If the next MCU Spidey film should have a flashback or mention of Spidey's origin, maybe everybody who's felt put out that it didn't come up in either Homecoming or Far From Home will be able to say "Oh, ok."

Again, as I said, the comics continuity has already established Ben as the guiding male role model in Peter's life. So, it's fine that they don't mention him sometimes or even a lot of the time because the 616 Marvel Universe has established him. The MCU hasn't so far. Like you said, this is a new reality and a new Spider-Man, but because that is, we don't know what made this Peter choose to be a hero yet. And, as stated, there are some things that any iteration of Spider-Man should have. Uncle Ben is one of those things.

However, this discussion is tangential, albeit not unrelated, to the main topic of this thread. And that is that many fans may feel that the MCU version has supplanted a lot of the things that have historically defined Spider-Man mythos for the sake of incorporating him into the MCU when there could have been just as good a way to accomplish the latter without doing so. They chose to make Iron Man the guiding male role model in Peter's life when, traditionally, that's been his Uncle Ben. They made it so he got his suits from Iron Man when traditionally, Peter's always made his own gear. And these aren't little things. They're big things that have always defined the character because, as I've repeated at length now, Peter was created to be that kid superhero who wasn't a sidekick and who didn't need any adult mentor to show him the ropes. So, to some people, making Iron Man so prominent in his life and framing Peter as the successor to Iron Man's legacy may be seen as taking this character away from his core purpose.

[Prof. Warren]

However, this discussion is tangential, albeit not unrelated, to the main topic of this thread. And that is that many fans may feel that the MCU version has supplanted a lot of the things that have historically defined Spider-Man mythos for the sake of incorporating him into the MCU when there could have been just as good a way to accomplish the latter without doing so. They chose to make Iron Man the guiding male role model in Peter's life when, traditionally, that's been his Uncle Ben.

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.

They made it so he got his suits from Iron Man when traditionally, Peter's always made his own gear.

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.

And these aren't little things. They're big things that have always defined the character because, as I've repeated at length now, Peter was created to be that kid superhero who wasn't a sidekick and who didn't need any adult mentor to show him the ropes. So, to some people, making Iron Man so prominent in his life and framing Peter as the successor to Iron Man's legacy may be seen as taking this character away from his core purpose.

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.

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.

Eventually, later in the series, they did a flashback to Spidey's origin but that was late in the game. Maybe, as I've suggested, the MCU will fill in Spidey's origin before they're done. One reason they haven't so far is that they feel it was already so fresh in the minds of viewers from the previous two movie series. Another might be that they didn't want to cast another Uncle Ben just yet after having two excellent, hard to top choices like Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen. After all, they didn't have JJJ in the MCU until they could get J.K. Simmons back. So we'll see.

The fact is, the comics are always there. If people discover Spider-Man in some outside media adaptation, if their interest is great enough they'll go find the comics and get the whole story. Not just the origin but all the rest of it that the movies can only scratch the surface of.

[blackspidey2099]

I'm starting to think Spidey is losing out from being in this shared custody situation...

He definitely is, LOL. The building blocks of the character are clearly being sacrificed in some sort of Faustian bargain for Disney and Sony to earn billions.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

He definitely is, LOL. The building blocks of the character are clearly being sacrificed in some sort of Faustian bargain for Disney and Sony to earn billions.

Good luck sorting out who is the Devil in that situation.

[David Walton]

One of the most compelling characteristics of teenage Peter Parker is that he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder when it comes to dealing with the superhero community. I mean, we're talking about the guy who broke into the Baxter Building to 'audition' for the FF, fought them to a standstill, and then told to them buzz off when he found out it wasn't a paying gig.

Maguire and Garfield both had a bit of that antagonistic streak going for them, so you could imagine them butting heads with other heroes, but Holland's Peter is much tamer by comparison. Even when he's fighting them in CW he goes out of his way to be nice.

I would very much like to see a live action Peter who is outwardly arrogant and gradually grows into more mature, thoughtful relationships with the superhero community, but still keeping his distance from them personally. That's how I envision Spider-Man.

[Frontier]

One of the most compelling characteristics of teenage Peter Parker is that he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder when it comes to dealing with the superhero community. I mean, we're talking about the guy who broke into the Baxter Building to 'audition' for the FF, fought them to a standstill, and then told to them buzz off when he found out it wasn't a paying gig.

Maguire and Garfield both had a bit of that antagonistic streak going for them, so you could imagine them butting heads with other heroes, but Holland's Peter is much tamer by comparison. Even when he's fighting them in CW he goes out of his way to be nice.

I would very much like to see a live action Peter who is outwardly arrogant and gradually grows into more mature, thoughtful relationships with the superhero community, but still keeping his distance from them personally. That's how I envision Spider-Man.

Holland has virtually zero personality as Spider-Man, especially compared to how Garfield was in the suit. Aside from the rare quip he basically acts exactly like he does as Peter.

[David Walton]

Holland has virtually zero personality as Spider-Man, especially compared to how Garfield was in the suit. Aside from the rare quip he basically acts exactly like he does as Peter.

Yep, he definitely plays Peter and Spider-Man as the same personality. And it's a deferential personality at that, always eager to please the other heroes.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Gail Simone pointed this out herself:
https://twitter.com/GailSimone/statu...20986729680897

First, there is a clear conceptual choice that I don't get at all.
Here it is.
What happened to Spider-man the smartass?
The reason Spider-man works in the comics is because he is the loner, the underdog. Everyone thinks he's a doormat. He's bullied at school, he's bulled in his job, he's bullied in the spidey suit.
So when he fights back, when he gets the better of people who are stronger and richer and meaner, WE FUCKING LOVE HIM because that's a world we'd all like to live in.
But THIS Spider-man doesn't tell jokes, doesn't mock the powerful, he is in awe of them, he only wants to please them and be friends with them and avoid disappointment from them.
And weirdest of all, they made Spider-man EVERYONE's straight man.
Nick Fury, MJ, his fellow students, the villains, Happy, even his aunt, EVERYONE makes fun of him and his response is puppy eyes.