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

[Prof. Warren]

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.

Well, Hulk and Thor are both characters that Marvel owns. They have the luxury of using them to whatever extent they want.

Spider-Man, on the other hand, is on temporary loan from Sony to Marvel in a deal that could expire at any time and has to be used in a way that both parties deem to be mutually beneficial for as long as the arrangement lasts. The option of adding "more outside elements later" isn't a sensible approach in this situation.

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

Isn't the basic premise of the character what's most important?

The MCU is its own universe. It is not the 616 universe. It has its own continuity.

Adapting every aspect of Spider-Man verbatim from the comics into the MCU is not going to happen.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

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

Safe to say that it's not just you. Eight posters on this thread agree with IM being overemphasized over Spider-Man. With you, that makes nine. That's the majority of posters here.

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

It's been a benefit to Iron Man's franchise sure, and also I suppose the Avengers franchise...and in that sense it's a benefit to the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise. But it's not been to the benefit of Spider-Man as a character, and Spider-Man as a franchise.

Ulimately, Tom Holland Spider-Man is the story of a MCU fanboy in the MCU, not Peter Parker the character.

If I am being totally personal, if I want to confess my real gripes with all this...
-- My real frustration with all this, is that this is just another way for Quesada's vision or the legacy of his vision to hold sway on the wider culture. The more they present Spider-Man as a teenage high school kid who can f--k up a cup of coffee and can't do anything without Iron Man holding his leash...the more the Tom Brevoorts of the parking lot feel confident repeating the lie that "Spider-Man is about youth". The fact that the MCU has a reputation for being faithful to the comics means that there are also people online and elsewhere who think that this is a true version of Spider-Man.
-- Luckily we have Into the Spider-Verse, and I remember so many fans being surprised to seeing both versions of Peter as an older established character in that movie, and having to explain them no, this version is far truer to the Spider-Man of the comics in its most classic and highest-selling form.
-- In the interest of full disclosure...I will admit that I have come to dislike the MCU Spider-Man. I have respect for the actors, and some of the people behind the scenes but the overall collaboration has filled me with complete dislike for the product. I have no more interest in this version of the character. It would quite please me if there were never any more follow-ups to this version of the story. And the fact that the production of the third film like everything in the MCU and everything in Hollywood is going to face considerable and insurmountable delays does not displease me as everything else about the current crisis does.
-- I was interested in a third Spider-Man film divorced from the MCU yes. I feel that maybe then, Tom Holland might finally show us what he's got.

Practically every choice made in the movies irritated me and rubbed me the wrong way. Starting from Homecoming where Jon Watts essentially retconned CIVIL WAR all the way to making jokes about Spider-Man not being able to swing, and all the way to bringing Simmons' Jonah back but as some Alex Jones type.

That's my complete subjective opinion on this. My more-than-two-cents.

[WebSlingWonder]

Safe to say that it's not just you. Eight posters on this thread agree with IM being overemphasized over Spider-Man. With you, that makes nine. That's the majority of posters here.



It's been a benefit to Iron Man's franchise sure, and also I suppose the Avengers franchise...and in that sense it's a benefit to the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise. But it's not been to the benefit of Spider-Man as a character, and Spider-Man as a franchise.

Ulimately, Tom Holland Spider-Man is the story of a MCU fanboy in the MCU, not Peter Parker the character.

If I am being totally personal, if I want to confess my real gripes with all this...
-- My real frustration with all this, is that this is just another way for Quesada's vision or the legacy of his vision to hold sway on the wider culture. The more they present Spider-Man as a teenage high school kid who can f--k up a cup of coffee and can't do anything without Iron Man holding his leash...the more the Tom Brevoorts of the parking lot feel confident repeating the lie that "Spider-Man is about youth". The fact that the MCU has a reputation for being faithful to the comics means that there are also people online and elsewhere who think that this is a true version of Spider-Man.
-- Luckily we have Into the Spider-Verse, and I remember so many fans being surprised to seeing both versions of Peter as an older established character in that movie, and having to explain them no, this version is far truer to the Spider-Man of the comics in its most classic and highest-selling form.
-- In the interest of full disclosure...I will admit that I have come to dislike the MCU Spider-Man. I have respect for the actors, and some of the people behind the scenes but the overall collaboration has filled me with complete dislike for the product. I have no more interest in this version of the character. It would quite please me if there were never any more follow-ups to this version of the story. And the fact that the production of the third film like everything in the MCU and everything in Hollywood is going to face considerable and insurmountable delays does not displease me as everything else about the current crisis does.
-- I was interested in a third Spider-Man film divorced from the MCU yes. I feel that maybe then, Tom Holland might finally show us what he's got.

Practically every choice made in the movies irritated me and rubbed me the wrong way. Starting from Homecoming where Jon Watts essentially retconned CIVIL WAR all the way to making jokes about Spider-Man not being able to swing, and all the way to bringing Simmons' Jonah back but as some Alex Jones type.

That's my complete subjective opinion on this. My more-than-two-cents.

And that's your opinion. But not everyone is going to hate MCU Spider-Man. I certainly don't see it as true Spider-Man (Spectacular Spider-Man, ITSV, and the PS4 game are the best). For me, they're fun movies that are energetic, uplifting, and are a good palette cleanser in between the bigger MCU movies. Could they be better? Absolutely! But...they're not. I've accepted that, but I certainly don't want it to be discontinued.

[Hybrid]

Again, just gonna reiterate that they didn't need to make Spider-Man into Iron Man's protege when they already had Ant-Man for that. Seriously, why not do that? Scott Lang actually was part of Tony Stark's supporting cast and they were friends, with Cassie even calling him "Uncle Tony"! At least, if Iron Man had a role in the Ant-Man movies it would've made sense, albeit they'd need to be rewritten, but as much as I enjoyed them, I wasn't big on this portrayal of Hank nor am I big on Hope who's just an OC (but shares the name of an AU villain), so it might've been better. Then you could've used Hank and Janet differently too.

I'm just pointing this out because it seems like they didn't take the most obvious option for the character that best fit the mentor-student dynamic with Tony (ie basis in the canon), but shoehorned it to the character where it completely goes against what they're all about. It's baffling the more I think about it.

[Frontier]

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

I guess fun in the sense that they look cool, have cool gadgets, or mess up on Peter enough, yeah, but they still don't really fit the character in my opinion.

And that's your opinion. But not everyone is going to hate MCU Spider-Man. I certainly don't see it as true Spider-Man (Spectacular Spider-Man, ITSV, and the PS4 game are the best). For me, they're fun movies that are energetic, uplifting, and are a good palette cleanser in between the bigger MCU movies. Could they be better? Absolutely! But...they're not. I've accepted that, but I certainly don't want it to be discontinued.

I mean, I enjoy the MCU movies, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want something more like Spec or the PS4 Spidey in the MCU.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I certainly don't see it as true Spider-Man (Spectacular Spider-Man, ITSV, and the PS4 game are the best). For me, they're fun movies that are energetic, uplifting, and are a good palette cleanser in between the bigger MCU movies. Could they be better? Absolutely! But...they're not. I've accepted that, but I certainly don't want it to be discontinued.

This is totally fair.

As long as people accept that MCU Spider-Man is "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man it's fine.

The MCU is certainly set up to be the permanent screen home of all the characters it adapts. The MCU Continuity is intended to last as long as possible, so when they adapt Spider-Man the danger was that this would define the character in all adaptations going forward. Thanks to the success of ITSV and the PS4 that hasn't happened yet. But it's certainly something to resist.

[Prof. Warren]

Safe to say that it's not just you. Eight posters on this thread agree with IM being overemphasized over Spider-Man. With you, that makes nine. That's the majority of posters here.

Wow, eight posters on a comic book message board don't like something!

And this is on a thread of a subject that's already been long beaten to death so who knows how many people just haven't bothered to come around.

Point being, it's not hard to find things that comic book fans have an issue with.

This is just one of many and, ultimately, the dissatisfaction registers no impact outside of boards like these.

Fair to not like something but movies are not made for a niche audience of comic fans, nevermind trying to please every segment of that tiny niche.

It's been a benefit to Iron Man's franchise sure, and also I suppose the Avengers franchise...and in that sense it's a benefit to the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise. But it's not been to the benefit of Spider-Man as a character, and Spider-Man as a franchise.

Anything that extends the popularity of Spider-Man is to the benefit of the character and the Tom Holland films have definitely done that.

Ultimately, Tom Holland Spider-Man is the story of a MCU fanboy in the MCU, not Peter Parker the character.

No, that's simply reiterating the false belief that MCU Peter is nothing but Tony's sidekick.

If anything, Peter and Tony's relationship in the MCU can be traced to Ultimate Team-Up 5 and 6 where Bendis established Peter's admiration for Tony.

If I am being totally personal, if I want to confess my real gripes with all this...
-- My real frustration with all this, is that this is just another way for Quesada's vision or the legacy of his vision to hold sway on the wider culture. The more they present Spider-Man as a teenage high school kid who can f--k up a cup of coffee and can't do anything without Iron Man holding his leash...the more the Tom Brevoorts of the parking lot feel confident repeating the lie that "Spider-Man is about youth". The fact that the MCU has a reputation for being faithful to the comics means that there are also people online and elsewhere who think that this is a true version of Spider-Man.
-- Luckily we have Into the Spider-Verse, and I remember so many fans being surprised to seeing both versions of Peter as an older established character in that movie, and having to explain them no, this version is far truer to the Spider-Man of the comics in its most classic and highest-selling form.
-- In the interest of full disclosure...I will admit that I have come to dislike the MCU Spider-Man. I have respect for the actors, and some of the people behind the scenes but the overall collaboration has filled me with complete dislike for the product. I have no more interest in this version of the character. It would quite please me if there were never any more follow-ups to this version of the story. And the fact that the production of the third film like everything in the MCU and everything in Hollywood is going to face considerable and insurmountable delays does not displease me as everything else about the current crisis does.
-- I was interested in a third Spider-Man film divorced from the MCU yes. I feel that maybe then, Tom Holland might finally show us what he's got.

Practically every choice made in the movies irritated me and rubbed me the wrong way. Starting from Homecoming where Jon Watts essentially retconned CIVIL WAR all the way to making jokes about Spider-Man not being able to swing, and all the way to bringing Simmons' Jonah back but as some Alex Jones type.

That's my complete subjective opinion on this. My more-than-two-cents.

All opinions are valid. Any fan has a right to not dig what the MCU is doing with Spider-Man.

I feel fairly positive, though, that Quesada has had zero input into the treatment of Spider-Man in the films and, more importantly, that no one making the movies is thinking one bit about perpetrating Quesada's vision of the character. If they happened to be influenced by some of the comics that Quesada oversaw as EIC, it's not out of a drive to extend his personal legacy. It's not as though only Quesada or Brevoort believe that Spider-Man should ideally be young. In the MCU it makes particular sense as it allows them to have a character that has a very different journey and personal perspective than the rest of the characters.

Again, just gonna reiterate that they didn't need to make Spider-Man into Iron Man's protege when they already had Ant-Man for that.

Well, if you're making movies were millions, even billions, of dollars are on the line, and you want to bring Spider-Man into the mix, it makes a lot more sense from a commercial standpoint to pair him up with Iron Man. That's ultimately the bottom line.

As long as people accept that MCU Spider-Man is "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man it's fine.

Every version of Spider-Man outside of the comics is "a" Spider-Man, not "the" Spider-Man.

No adaptation of the character in outside media supersedes the comic itself, no matter how much more widely consumed it may be.

[WebLurker]

I find it interesting that almost all commentary on the subject rarely addresses the fact that the MCU Spidey movies are based on the Ultimate comics, not the 616 ASM ones.

[Frontier]

I find it interesting that almost all commentary on the subject rarely addresses the fact that the MCU Spidey movies are based on the Ultimate comics, not the 616 ASM ones.

Ultimate Spidey didn't have Iron Man in as significant a role either. I also don't think it's all that based around the Ultimate books, at least Peter-wise, for the most part.

[blackspidey2099]

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.

I wouldn't exactly say the Stark tech added anything cool to the suit. Karen was there for like 10 min in Homecoming and ignored after that. They had a couple different web types which were used in Homecoming as well. Is it really worth gutting one of the most essential aspects of the character for 2 or 3 comical scenes? The fact that Sony/MCU execs thought so shows just how little they care about the character. The most ridiculous part is that they could have done all of that with a suit Peter has made himself if they cared enough. I see nothing about any of the MCU suits that requires it to have been Tony Stark who gave Peter the suit and not Peter building it on his own. You can just as easily have Peter build a suit with an AI to talk to, or different web types, or spider tracers (all of which he built himself in the comics), and keep both the "fun" aspects of the tech and the DIY aspect that is so important to the character. Literally no one would have thought that goes against Spider-Man's character in any way or complained.

The real problem with how they handled the situation is that, instead of allowing Peter to bounce off plenty of different heros in the MCU, they heavily tied him to one character and made Peter dependent on him. So they basically screwed up not only Spider-Man's character himself, but also the major reason why people wanted him in the MCU. Let's be real - have there been any memorable interactions between Spider-Man and any other hero beyond Tony Stark? There was a couple of quips in Civil War with Cap and Bucky, and that's it. I guess you could also say the one scene in Endgame with Captain Marvel. I can guarantee that, if you asked anyone prior to 2015, if you said that Spider-Man was going to join the MCU but not interact with any of the characters in it beyond becoming what amounts to essentially Tony's ward, most people would pass. I'm still quite salty that we haven't even seen Peter have a proper conversation with, or even talk to characters like Thor, Hulk, Cap, Black Panther, etc.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm still quite salty that we haven't even seen Peter have a proper conversation with, or even talk to characters like Thor, Hulk, Cap, Black Panther, etc.

I approve this message.

Also, hated the AI thing. Apparently they wanted an AI to give Peter someone to talk to, and to find a way to do the constant monologuing of the comics (since it's been drilled into too many uncreative people that voiceovers aren't good in movies).

Which again doesn't make sense, because the conversations Peter has with the AI aren't good. And also it gets redundant when Ned Ganke Lee finds out and he becomes the sounding board for Peter. The sequel did away with that even more.

I am fully aware that the MCU Spider-Man isn't the first adaptation to devalue the idea of Peter having a secret identity and double life. This kind of started with Spider-Man 2 and that ridiculous scene where all the passengers decide to protect his secret. But to me it's by far the worst offender. You cannot tell the story of Peter and Spider-Man's work/life balance without him having a protected secret identity. More importantly the ending of FFH literally rings hollow if everyone in his social circle and several others see him maskless and know him anyway.

[Agent Z]

I approve this message.

Also, hated the AI thing. Apparently they wanted an AI to give Peter someone to talk to, and to find a way to do the constant monologuing of the comics (since it's been drilled into too many uncreative people that voiceovers aren't good in movies).

Which again doesn't make sense, because the conversations Peter has with the AI aren't good. And also it gets redundant when Ned Ganke Lee finds out and he becomes the sounding board for Peter. The sequel did away with that even more.

I am fully aware that the MCU Spider-Man isn't the first adaptation to devalue the idea of Peter having a secret identity and double life. This kind of started with Spider-Man 2 and that ridiculous scene where all the passengers decide to protect his secret. But to me it's by far the worst offender. You cannot tell the story of Peter and Spider-Man's work/life balance without him having a protected secret identity. More importantly the ending of FFH literally rings hollow if everyone in his social circle and several others see him maskless and know him anyway.

Peter hasn't had a protected secret identity ever since Norman Osborn discovered it and MJ was retconned into having known he was Spider-Man long before. To be honest, the secret identity drama is an outdated trope that was wearing out its welcome for decades.

[David Walton]

I approve this message.

Also, hated the AI thing. Apparently they wanted an AI to give Peter someone to talk to, and to find a way to do the constant monologuing of the comics (since it's been drilled into too many uncreative people that voiceovers aren't good in movies).

Which again doesn't make sense, because the conversations Peter has with the AI aren't good. And also it gets redundant when Ned Ganke Lee finds out and he becomes the sounding board for Peter. The sequel did away with that even more.

I am fully aware that the MCU Spider-Man isn't the first adaptation to devalue the idea of Peter having a secret identity and double life. This kind of started with Spider-Man 2 and that ridiculous scene where all the passengers decide to protect his secret. But to me it's by far the worst offender. You cannot tell the story of Peter and Spider-Man's work/life balance without him having a protected secret identity. More importantly the ending of FFH literally rings hollow if everyone in his social circle and several others see him maskless and know him anyway.

In the SM2 scene, though, no one recognized Peter as anyone other than 'some kid.' And the Raimi-verse didn't dive into the ready availability of camera phones until the third film. I get what you're saying but I don't think that scene's what got the ball rolling.

I think it comes down more to Bendis' influence with regard to dismantling secret ids, for better and for worse.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In the SM2 scene, though, no one recognized Peter as anyone other than 'some kid.' And the Raimi-verse didn't dive into the ready availability of camera phones until the third film. I get what you're saying but I don't think that scene's what got the ball rolling.

I think it comes down more to Bendis' influence with regard to dismantling secret ids, for better and for worse.

Bendis cited Spider-Man 2 as his inspiration. Of course he started doing it before to some extent.

[Frontier]

Yeah, in retrospect now I think Bendis just has a thing against secret identities with the extent to which he's flippant with them or just outs a hero.

Peter hasn't had a protected secret identity ever since Norman Osborn discovered it and MJ was retconned into having known he was Spider-Man long before. To be honest, the secret identity drama is an outdated trope that was wearing out its welcome for decades.

On a grander scale his secret identity is probably one of the best kept of the entire Superhero community. Osborn knowing has always been a horror story for what can happen if a villain finds out who you are.