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

[Marvelgirl]

MCU Spiderman is poorly written and a poorly re-imagined version of the classic character. He was Tony Stark's stepchild in the movies. The movies felt like an instalment deeply embedded in MCU rather than a stand alone Spider-man movie. MCU Spiderman is a blatant waste, His stories feels like something Sam Raimi would have been bored by and skipped over.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Agent Z, I think you have the wrong idea about Jack's view of the Marvel Universe outside Spider-Man. He does not hate Marvel's characters as a whole apart from Spider-Man and X-Men like you think he does. I don't know him personally, but I do interact with him a lot here, and this is what I've gathered from it:

• His favorite supervillain is Doctor Doom, having praised him for being so complex, multifaceted and versatile.
• He also likes the Fantastic Four as a whole, having praised their dynamics, relationship with others, and considers them better than the Avengers. He said Hickman's Avengers was great for being a stealth FF story.
• Doctor Strange is another hero he likes, due to his cosmic adventures and unique stance in the MU. That, and he's the "Ditko Bro" with Spidey.
• I've seen him praise Captain America, due to him being such an upstanding guy and having a great lore of his own.
• Daredevil is another one, due to his dark stories with noir tones, and connection to Spidey, even lamenting how Kingpin has been used as a Spidey villain in media when he should be DD's foe. He's said that Born Again is one of the best stories ever.
• The Avengers, he's stated, has had good runs like under Roger Stern. The main appeal, one that I agree with, is that they're at their best as the home for lesser heroes to find their footing, as opposed to being "Marvel's Justice League". That's where a lot of the issues began.
• He's even praised David Michelinie's defining run on Iron Man, yes really. I remember him saying that was the best he was written.
• The main issue he's had with the shared universe is when it comes at the cost of one character in favor of another, at the expense of storytelling.

Now, if Revolutionary_Jack would like to set the record straight, by all means. But what I've seen shows that he's far from someone who hates everything MU besides Spider-Man like you claim he does. It's more that he has issue with the way they handle things.

My name is Revolutionary_Jack and I approve this message. You got what the Germans would call my weltanschauung right and put it together more concisely than I would have been able to.

You’re using the word toxicity wrong.

Toxicity is accusing a poster with a critical view of "hating Iron Man" rather than debating their actual point. That's what's called an ad-hominem attack, where you attack the poster by undermining their right to debate rather than their actual argument. BTW, if someone hates Spider-Man and that is their grounds for not liking MCU Spider-Man, that is still a valid reason, end of story. So quit trying to use that line as some kind of comeback. Saying stuff like "Peter can't make his suit and upgrades because he's a peasant" an argument I have seen on many message boards and so on, is definitely toxic in the real world sense. Arguments like that are why He-Who-Is-Far-Too-Lame is in the white house. As for myself, I do not dislike RDJ's version of Iron Man, or have issues with his performance, and I indeed like Iron Man 3 very much, I do have issues with the changes and turns in the story from Age of Ultron onwards though.

[Agent Z]

My name is Revolutionary_Jack and I approve this message. You got what the Germans would call my weltanschauung right and put it together more concisely than I would have been able to.



Toxicity is accusing a poster with a critical view of "hating Iron Man" rather than debating their actual point. That's what's called an ad-hominem attack, where you attack the poster by undermining their right to debate rather than their actual argument. BTW, if someone hates Spider-Man and that is their grounds for not liking MCU Spider-Man, that is still a valid reason, end of story. So quit trying to use that line as some kind of comeback. Saying stuff like "Peter can't make his suit and upgrades because he's a peasant" an argument I have seen on many message boards and so on, is definitely toxic in the real world sense. Arguments like that are why He-Who-Is-Far-Too-Lame is in the white house. As for myself, I do not dislike RDJ's version of Iron Man, or have issues with his performance, and I indeed like Iron Man 3 very much, I do have issues with the changes and turns in the story from Age of Ultron onwards though.

How about you quit bringing up the properted lack of good Iron Man stories or accusing people who defend the MCU version of classicism? I've seen more people talking about this supposed classicism among MCU Spider-Man defenders than any actual evidence of such. If you don't like something done to you don't do it to others.

You are perfectly free to dislike MCU Spider-Man. It doesn't mean people can't point out the hyperbole and lack of objectivity in your arguments.

And I did debate your points, which you ignored.

[VolcanikTiger86]

To me part of the issue is the rights issue, a lot of people said they wouldn't do Iron Man if they had F4, Spidey and X-Men but here is the thing for me there is nothing wrong with Iron Man being a mentor if they showed Peter as being a genius now a lot of that could be there choice in cast, the only thing that I think they missed out on is that they decided they had to do a high school peter with a Tony who was in his forties but that's rights again.

For me Peter joining the MCU should have been at least 19 and been operating with the classic suit for about 4 years, they should have been a bit of tug of war before Peter worked as Tony's intern and proved his worth rather than just being given things because why not.

But its Feige and the MCU we can only see what happens going forward

[Revolutionary_Jack]

How about you quit bringing up the properted lack of good Iron Man stories

How would you feel if suddenly Adam Strange was treated as the big thing in DC movies and cartoons, and Superman was shown as intern to Adam Strange and so on? It wouldn't feel right, would it?

It's perfectly right to bring up Iron Man's considerably low prestige to contest his elevation over Spider-Man. Because it's quite natural to feel this way whenever one character is being put down in favor of another...i.e. jobbing and so on.

or accusing people who defend the MCU version of classicism?

Firstly, pedant that I am, I need to remind you that Classicism is a specific and actual thing quite different from what you mean.

I think you mean "classism" (which is not really a word, not yet anyway) and what is meant by that is what used to be called snobbery, or actually "elitism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism).

Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with an intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

That is actually Iron Man's real attitude in the MCU. He is an elitist. And throughout Homecoming, he comes across as an actual class snob. And he's not called out for it once in that movie.

[Prof. Warren]

Main issue is that the MCU is seen as the be-all-end-all portrayal of the Marvel Universe, more legit than other sources including the comics themselves, and being in the MCU some kind of rite of passage to being recognized as a "real" character.

No one actually thinks this. And if they do, they're wrong.

People tend to be wrong about a lot of things. It can't be helped.

Luckily this involves an ultimately trivial matter so it's not something to actually be concerned about.

While the MCU is surely how most of the general public knows these characters, it does not make it more legit than the comics.

They just represent one interpretation of these characters.

They are subject to endless variations of them as time goes on but the comics will always remain the defining text.

It shouldn't be that way, and it is. As a result, for something that is the be-all-end-all, I feel the characters' portrayal in that universe matters. Spider-Man's portrayal in the MCU is going to take precedence, and that sends a bad message. Spider-Man in the MCU should be perfect opportunity to promote his own lore, not someone else's.

Every time someone complains about the Sony/Marvel Spider-Man films not isolating Spider-Man and not giving him his own space, I feel like it's like having to patiently explain reality over and over again.

If Sony wanted to keep making Spider-Man movies where Spider-Man is on his own and no other characters are vying for screen time and his mythology is utterly and completely self-contained, they wouldn't be collaborating with Marvel. They could just be doing their own thing, as they were with the Raimi trilogy and the Garfield films.

But, for various reasons, both creative and economical, they didn't want to do that. They wanted to take advantage of having Spider-Man occupy a shared universe. And Marvel wanted the opportunity to include Spider-Man in their sandbox.

The entire point of the deal is to embed Spider-Man in the MCU. So of course his films will have his stories intertwined with that larger universe.

It's supposed to be, you know, fun. We had five films prior where Spider-Man was strictly a solo act. With the Tom Holland films, we get to see him bouncing off other heroes and living in a full-fledged Marvel Universe.

Had Marvel outright owned the rights to Spider-Man, would he have been introduced to the MCU in a different way, would he have been allowed to have his own space more than he does now? I would think so. But that isn't the situation here. The situation is that he's on loan from Sony to Marvel. That means they have to maximize the benefits of that collaboration. If Sony allowed Marvel to use Spider-Man but Marvel ended up making a movie whose connection to the MCU was tangential at best, Sony would rightly wonder why they were bothering to team up with Marvel at all.

The fact that the MCU was already well under way when this deal happened means that Spider-Man had to be interwoven into the MCU at a point where the universe was already well established, where storylines were far down the line, and characters were already several movies deep into their development. You can't undo or stop all of that just to accommodate this one character. You have to find a way to bring them in without undoing the larger framework. Having Tony function as Peter's "in" to the MCU makes sense in the context of the MCU. Not only does it make sense from a story point of view but, from a real world standpoint, it makes sense to take advantage of the genuine chemistry that Downey Jr. and Holland have. That's a relationship that just works on screen. To not lean into that would have been ridiculous.

And the complaints about Peter's relationship to Tony in the MCU are always absurd.

One, Peter is not Tony's sidekick. This is a flat-out false assertion. He is not the Robin to Tony's Batman. We never see Tony and Peter out on patrol together. We never see them together in Stark Labs collaborating and hashing out their plans with Tony tutoring Peter in the ways of crimefighting. Tony is never that hands-on with Peter. He mentors him from afar, at best, really only stepping in when a screw-up can't ignore happens. Peter wants to be involved more in bigger Avengers business but that's because he wants to be helpful. He wants to live up to his mantra of great power and great responsibility. But the whole point of Homecoming is that he learns that he can do that just fine as a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. And no, having him get involved in Infinity War/Endgame does not undo that. If a bigger problem lands right in front of Peter, of course he's going to get involved rather than say "no, this isn't my beat." In the comics, Spidey gets pulled into bigger conflicts all the time and then he goes right back to webbing up purse snatchers to lampposts. It's no different here.

And two, Peter is not reliant on Stark Tech to be Spider-Man. Tony comes to Peter after Peter has already been operating as Spider-Man. Peter had already invented his web shooters and web fluid and made his own costume. He was Spider-Man. Tony comes to him after Peter's career was already in medias res. That he gives him a tricked out new costume doesn't mean that Spider-Man didn't begin until Tony gave him the suit. As for Tony being able to give Peter a suit that improved on what Peter was able to do on his own, well, duh.

Peter can certainly make his own Spider suit. We see it in the films. But his homemade outfit reflects what a teenager with limited means - not to mention limited skills as a designer - can pull together. Tony's suit is what a billionaire can do. To anyone who says "But Peter should do it on his own!", I say it doesn't matter. We don't need to establish that Peter is an expert costume designer in order to validate him as Spider-Man. The fact that Peter already established his Spider-Man identity on his own prior to Tony coming in is what matters. Tony giving Peter a suit with its own AI is just a way to have fun in a new way that the movies had not previously been able to exploit. It doesn't diminish who Peter is.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is what I mean when I say the MCU Spider-Man movies promote elitism and snobbery.

Peter can certainly make his own Spider suit. We see it in the films. But his homemade outfit reflects what a teenager with limited means - not to mention limited skills as a designer - can pull together.

The assumption here is that a "teenager with limited means" cannot create the classic Ditko spider-suit. That somehow it's become believable for a subset of the audience that this kind of thing needs rich people to do more effectively.

--It's not like we live in the age of YouTube and hours of DIY videos online, both amateur and professional (like Skillshare), by which anyone has access to the knowledge to do homemade stuff.
--It's not like the high expenses in America practically demand that homeowners and low-income households learn very early how to fix and manage their equipment and stuff themselves since it's too expensive, prohibitively, to get professionals to do it.

Maybe it's because people who make the MCU movies and other fans have no contact with people on the skids, or no knowledge of the lives of people with low-income. But the notion, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" just isn't true. People can be intelligent across the income spectrum and people of low means have always been far more individually resourceful than those with multi-figure salaries.

[Hybrid]

Again, I refer to Spider-Man PS4. It is set in a world where it's established that the other superheroes of the MU exist.

As for the shared universe aspect, a real and organic way to do it would be like Spider-Man PS4. He's in a shared world where other superheroes exist, and it's pretty implicit he's had adventures with them. There was Avengers Tower, Alias Investigations, a Wakanda embassy, Nelson & Murdock, the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Raft, Roxxon, Damage Control, a statue of Lockjaw, and of course Taskmaster makes a welcome appearance where he mentions going toe-to-toe with the Avengers in the past.

See, Spider-Man PS4 was not set in an isolated universe where Spider-Man was the only hero. You saw all these different Marvel landmarks and world elements, you know there's more out there, yet at the same time, it's focused on developing Spider-Man's story using his lore first and foremost. It draws from different aspects of the Spider-Man mythos, and other takes of it, to create a unique world for Spider-Man that still feels like his own. I even said the sequels can feature more characters from the General MU, citing Phil Coulson, Human Torch, Daredevil and even Iron Man as examples, because it wouldn't be intrusive after his own story was developed.

In general, I really like the way they adapt the 616 comics, and distill it with elements of various media, update the source, and have their own spin on things. It's just so... natural. It's like what BTAS did to the Batman lore. To wit:

• Spidey is based largely on his 616 counterpart: Bitten by the spider at age 15, has moved out of Aunt May's house and into his own apartment, is friends with Harry and dated MJ, and takes after his current post-graduate status. However, the aspect of him, MJ and Harry being a trio take after the Raimi Trilogy and Ultimate Spider-Man series, in that they've known each other since middle school.
• Peter and MJ have an on-again and off-again relationship much like their relationship during the Wolfman-Stern-Defalco era, the Ultimate comics, and the Raimi films. As always, May supports their relationship, and MJ's interest in journalism is also from Ultimate but taken to the logical step of being a reporter.
• May is an activist helping out the poor, bringing to mind Noir of all things.
• Spider-Man exists in a world with other superheroes, as mentioned. He's a part of a setting, and doesn't need to constantly meet the other heroes to rub it in.
• Norman Osborn being mayor of NYC brings to mind him being the head of H.A.M.M.E.R. and the Thunderbolts during the '00s, where he became a prominent politician in the MU. It's also another case of distillation and alteration, as he hasn't yet become the Green Goblin but it's implied he will, his son Harry is the host of the Venom Symbiote (like in the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series), and he's the one responsible for Miles Morales' spider-bite (again, bringing to mind Peter's origin to Oscorp in Ultimate).
• Miles Morales exists in this game as part of the same universe as Peter, and the way Peter takes him under his wing makes sense. It ties the origins together in a way that isn't convoluted. On that note, it welds more elements of Ultimate Marvel by default.
• Other villains combine different elements. Rhino manages to take after 616 (being big and bulky) and Ultimate (with cybernetic armor), Vulture uses a modernized suit like in Homecoming yet leans more heavily into his normal 616 portrayal etc.
• Spidey's supporting cast also varies. There's the classic Mary Jane, May, Harry, and J.J, the Ultimate transplant of Miles, Jefferson and Rio, and there's also Yuri Watanabe who serves as an ally of Spider-Man. Her being more recent and obscure is left-field, but still makes perfect sense.
• Overall, the setting is an amalgamation of different Spidey portrayals, and also a modernization. It's very much set in today's world without time-scaling, with Peter being a millennial from the start. He has his own webpage with 15 million likes, J.J. now runs a podcast because paper media has fallen, and the public reaction is more mixed-positive because they don't just blindly follow news sources like they used to in the internet age.
• That should be enough to illustrate the point. That point being: Spider-Man PS4 took heavily from the best elements of Spider-Man in different forms, remixed them, and updated it, to give us the best portrayal they could give. That's why it far outshines the MCU portrayal, where everything goes back to Stark and far too little of his own lore got to make their presence in the MCU felt.

See, that is how MCU Spider-Man could've been done. You could've had the movies as being unambiguously set in the MCU, and show that there's more that exists, while the story is still focused on his lore. Then, you can add more outside elements later. Like, you could have the first movie focused on himself, then add more in the sequels, but still focused mainly on him. Then you can make full use of Spider-Man in crossovers, like have him play off of others. No one had an issue with Spider-Man in a shared universe, what they have issue with is that the shared universe dominates his narrative.

In regards to Spider-Man lore versus Marvel Universe between the PS4 and MCU, this picture sums it up:

[Agent Z]

How would you feel if suddenly Adam Strange was treated as the big thing in DC movies and cartoons, and Superman was shown as intern to Adam Strange and so on? It wouldn't feel right, would it?

I've been exposed to universes were Superman wasn't even the first superhero and frankly I can't even say this would be the most undignified thing DC would have done with Superman after decades of him playing second banana to Batman. I care more about how well the story is handled than some arbitrary pecking order that fans ascribe to.

It's perfectly right to bring up Iron Man's considerably low prestige to contest his elevation over Spider-Man.

And yet, I don't see you or anyone else complaining when Steve Rogers is depicted as Spider-Man's senior and superior in the MU frequently. Stories should not be determined by a character's out-of-universe popularity. This is what gets us nonsense like Batgod or the Deathstroke vs Justice League fight in Identity Crisis.

This is what I mean when I say the MCU Spider-Man movies promote elitism and snobbery.



The assumption here is that a "teenager with limited means" cannot create the classic Ditko spider-suit. That somehow it's become believable for a subset of the audience that this kind of thing needs rich people to do more effectively.

--It's not like we live in the age of YouTube and hours of DIY videos online, both amateur and professional (like Skillshare), by which anyone has access to the knowledge to do homemade stuff.
--It's not like the high expenses in America practically demand that homeowners and low-income households learn very early how to fix and manage their equipment and stuff themselves since it's too expensive, prohibitively, to get professionals to do it.

Maybe it's because people who make the MCU movies and other fans have no contact with people on the skids, or no knowledge of the lives of people with low-income. But the notion, "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" just isn't true. People can be intelligent across the income spectrum and people of low means have always been far more individually resourceful than those with multi-figure salaries.

Yeah, this is very much the definition of an ad hominem attack. "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" is not an argument Prof. Warren or anyone else here as used at any point.

[Prof. Warren]

The assumption here is that a "teenager with limited means" cannot create the classic Ditko spider-suit. That somehow it's become believable for a subset of the audience that this kind of thing needs rich people to do more effectively.

That's not the assumption.

If it was just about making a suit that looks like the classic Ditko design, you could always do it in a way where audiences could buy it.

We've already seen it in the live action Nicholas Hammond series and in the Raimi and Webb films.

The Amazing Spider-Man was the most successful of the bunch in this regard, showing Garfield's Peter working with (I believe) silk screening techniques, and Raimi just not even bothering and just making the jump from Peter drawing a costume to suddenly being in it.

At the end of the day, no one really cares that much about how Peter gets into his costume. They just want him in it and for him to look like he does in the comics.

Having Tony supply Peter with a costume in the movies is simply a means to an end.

And having it tricked out with Stark Tech is a way to add a fun wrinkle to Peter's journey as a hero.

It adds amusing complications to various situations and, with the Karen AI, it gives Peter someone to talk to and any opportunity to have Holland's Peter nervously jabber is a good one.

It is not a statement on class in America. It isn't a dig at Peter's income or means to say that Tony can come up with a more high tech suit. Of course he can. He's Tony Stark.

One could make the argument that Spider-Man's DIY approach is part of his appeal. I would say that the MCU films acknowledge that aspect of the character but that it doesn't let it stand in the way of having fun with the new, unique opportunities that having Peter in the MCU presents.

Down the line, when many other Spider-Man films have been made and fans can see that the Tom Holland, MCU era was one of many in a never-ending line of film adaptations of the character, I think that people will be better able to enjoy it on its own terms once they see that it was only one interpretation and not the be-all, end-all incarnation of the character.

[Matrik]

I've been exposed to universes were Superman wasn't even the first superhero and frankly I can't even say this would be the most undignified thing DC would have done with Superman after decades of him playing second banana to Batman. I care more about how well the story is handled than some arbitrary pecking order that fans ascribe to.



And yet, I don't see you or anyone else complaining when Steve Rogers is depicted as Spider-Man's senior and superior in the MU frequently. Stories should not be determined by a character's out-of-universe popularity. This is what gets us nonsense like Batgod or the Deathstroke vs Justice League fight in Cry For Justice.



Yeah, this is very much the definition of an ad hominem attack. "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich" is not an argument Prof. Warren or anyone else here as used at any point.

I think you meant to say 'identity crisis'.

[Prof. Warren]

Again, I refer to Spider-Man PS4. It is set in a world where it's established that the other superheroes of the MU exist.

See, Spider-Man PS4 was not set in an isolated universe where Spider-Man was the only hero. You saw all these different Marvel landmarks and world elements, you know there's more out there, yet at the same time, it's focused on developing Spider-Man's story using his lore first and foremost. It draws from different aspects of the Spider-Man mythos, and other takes of it, to create a unique world for Spider-Man that still feels like his own. I even said the sequels can feature more characters from the General MU, citing Phil Coulson, Human Torch, Daredevil and even Iron Man as examples, because it wouldn't be intrusive after his own story was developed.

Again, the demands between developing the game and teaming with Sony on incorporating Spider-Man into the MCU are very different.

The MU stuff in the game can be allowed to be more tangential whereas in the films that would defeat the purpose of a Sony/Marvel collaboration.

[Hybrid]

No it wouldn't, did you miss the part where I said "Then, you can add more outside elements later. Like, you could have the first movie focused on himself, then add more in the sequels, but still focused mainly on him."? Because you didn't acknowledge that. Think like how Hulk was in Thor: Ragnarok but it only added without subtracting. I can best describe Ragnarok as being a combination of God of Thunder, Mighty Avenger and Planet Hulk.

MCU Spider-Man on the other hand adapts nothing apart from the basic premise of the character.

[Frontier]

Maybe it's just me but I just can't see the benefit of the Iron Man relationship.

I mean, sure, from a marketing perspective I get they wanted to emphasize Spider-Man is in the MCU by pairing him with a major MCU character, and sure Tom Holland and RDJ have good chemistry...but none of it really feels all that much like Spider-Man.

A character who is defined by their independence and self-sufficiency getting so involved with an adult hero as this significant mentor in his teen years just seems to run counter to most depictions of Spidey. Even the movies acknowledge this by trying to make it a plot point that Peter needs to move away from Stark and be his own man, even if the movies can never quite completely do away with the Iron Man elements they've injected into his life like Happy, his suits are Stark tech, all the suits he has now like his own Hall of Armor, or the one time he makes his own professional suit is practically the same way Tony made his armors. It's like they can't make up their minds.

Even his relationships with other heroes, or lack there of, seems predicated on him being this kid hero who Iron Man took in and got involved in larger Super heroics rather then on his own independent merits, at least to me.

So, yeah, not sure if the Iron Man relationship has had much of a positive benefit on the overall franchise.

That's not the assumption.

If it was just about making a suit that looks like the classic Ditko design, you could always do it in a way where audiences could buy it.

We've already seen it in the live action Nicholas Hammond series and in the Raimi and Webb films.

The Amazing Spider-Man was the most successful of the bunch in this regard, showing Garfield's Peter working with (I believe) silk screening techniques, and Raimi just not even bothering and just making the jump from Peter drawing a costume to suddenly being in it.

At the end of the day, no one really cares that much about how Peter gets into his costume. They just want him in it and for him to look like he does in the comics.

So by that logic, we didn't really need Starksuits.

[Prof. Warren]

So by that logic, we didn't really need Starksuits.

You don't need them. But that doesn't mean they're not fun to have.