Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 72
  1. #46
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
    I’m just asking. Not trying to start anything. I’m honestly just curious. Usually I’m not when people hat Tony, but what is it about Tony that you seem to hate?
    That post I made only made one mention of Stark...i.e. "Stark tech" and not Stark himself. The next paragraph had me describe the possible future direction of MCU Spider-Man under a succession of other science dads...in a manner that conveys that I don't look forward to that either. So it wasn't exactly my dishing against Tony Stark to start with. Still, I will answer.

    My criticisms about the spotlight on Spider-Man and Tony Stark's relationship is not the same as saying I hate or dislike Tony Stark. That might sound disingenuous I know. Tony Stark has never been a favorite character of mine but that's not the same as me hating him. (Hal Jordan...now that's a character I hate). I like him in some Avengers story and some solo stories but I won't deny that the character never clicked with me unlike Spider-Man, or for that matter among Avengers -- Cap and Thor, both of whom I like far more in the comics and overall MCU. That doesn't mean that I want Tony Stark to be cancelled as a publication and killed off or any such thing. So on that level no, I don't hate Tony Stark. I happen to like Robert Downey Jr. as an actor, and as a fan of the actor I do think that it's a shame that Iron Man has taken so much of his time to the point that he hasn't done any significant non-IM movies for a long time. I prefer the movies he made earlier in his career like Short Cuts or Natural Born Killers as well as Zodiac, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Tropic Thunder (he got an Oscar nomination for the latter in the same year IM came out). The hope was that IM would pay his bills and he would continue to do the more capable roles he was drawn to, with the security net firmly established. Instead that hasn't happened but hey, I won't begrudge an actor who long struggled for recognition in independent low-budget movies for getting paid.

    As far as RDJ's Tony goes I liked him in Iron Man 3 (I think IM-1 which so many people seems to think is the actor's debut film, is fine but just above average and not especially good) and I liked all his scenes with Doctor Strange in IW and Endgame. But I didn't especially care for how the MCU seemed to center around him as the movies went forward. I especially didn't care for his handling in the Spider-Man movies because I felt it was an overreach i.e. a transparent attempt to elevate Iron Man by tying him, and him alone at the detriment of other Marvel superheroes, to Spider-Man. Like not only is Spider-Man heavily featured but Happy Hogan now has a big role in the Spider-Man supporting cast. That comes at the detriment of Spider-Man's supporting cast because in the MCU movies, Aunt May is basically there for a cheap gag, and has far less screentime and far less to do with Peter than Happy does (a fact that Marisa Tomei has complained about).

    If you are a fan of Iron Man, I don't think you should be entirely happy with how these movies handle Tony either. I mean the repeated attempt to make Spider-Man villains get their origins, in the comics entirely separate and unconnected, tied to Iron Man is infuriating because on one hand it adds as a pile of villains created by Stark in the MCU. And it's also frustrating because there's no actual recognition and catharsis for this. Because on account of the fact that Iron Man is a protected character, he can never actually be called out or put to task by Peter Parker for his actions because Iron Man in the MCU is senior and played by a big star, while Spider-Man is played by a character actor plucked out of obscurity.

    Take the Vulture. In the comics, his origin had him screwed out of his inventions by Gregory Bestman and drove him to crime. When Spider-Man and the police found out about this, they openly sympathized with him and took Bestman in for his crime.
    Justice for Bestman.jpg

    In the movies, Stark takes the role of Bestman and he begins and ends the same movie coated with chrome plated teflon. So that's a case where Stark's presence actually negates and inverts the point of the original comic and ruins a Spider-Man character beat.

  2. #47
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The real catharsis will be for Spider-Man to give up on the concept of being an Avenger, destroy all his Stark tech, and go back to making stuff entirely by himself.
    He proved he didn't need it in Homecoming. He defeated the Vulture and stopped the theft of the Avenger's stuff with his own technology and willpower. He even rejected the offer to join the Avengers and get a nanotech suit. He proved he didn't need it. His continued connection to Stark is simply to provide the resources to build his own stuff which is what we see him doing in Far From Home.

    Spider-Man will never get there. The fact is that the producers have introduced Spider-Man as an inexperience "aw shucks" guy and there will always be a temptation and insistence to ensure that the character doesn't go too far from how he was introduced in the MCU. So what will happen is that they will include other geniuses like Reed Richards and have Spider-Man intern under him, or Amadeus Cho, or Brashear, and so on and so forth.
    As a proper member of the Avengers? I think that is more than possible in the MCU and it's likely he'd be their tech guy and all of those other geniuses you mention are not joining the MCU at least not for a while and I doubt they'd be Avengers.

    In the comics all it would take is a writer that feels Spider-Man is a capable leader (Slott pretty much had him take charge of the Avengers during Ends of the Earth) and make an Avengers book out of the idea. If Sunspot can lead an Avengers team so can Spider-Man.

  3. #48
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post

    I especially didn't care for his handling in the Spider-Man movies because I felt it was an overreach i.e. a transparent attempt to elevate Iron Man by tying him, and him alone at the detriment of other Marvel superheroes, to Spider-Man.
    This is not true. Iron Man wasn't featured the way he was in Spider-Man: Homecoming to boost his own rep. It's actually the other way around. RDJ's Iron Man prints money. His previous four film appearances broke a billion dollars at the box office, and his portrayal of that character is probably one of the most popular portrayals of a superhero ever with modern audiences. I would argue that he's more popular than any version of Spider-Man in the movies (the Spider-Man brand is more popular than Iron Man, but none of the three actors are as beloved as RDJ). Meanwhile, Spider-Man was in a creative rut and Homecoming was facing the prospect of following up TASM 2, which was a major disappointment and proved that audiences were getting fatigued of Spider-Man.

    Therefore, putting Iron Man in the movie helped bolster it's chances of success. Also, Peter's love of Tony made sense in the universe they built. Peter is a science geek and loves superheroes and Tony is a super successful scientific genius and the first modern superhero. Therefore, the movie having Peter start out as an Iron man fanboy (a phase he grows out of by the end of Homecoming, but I will elaborate on that later) is a decision that makes perfect sense in universe and also makes sense as a business decision. It has nothing to do with bolstering Iron Man's rep, because he didn't need a boost.



    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Take the Vulture. In the comics, his origin had him screwed out of his inventions by Gregory Bestman and drove him to crime. When Spider-Man and the police found out about this, they openly sympathized with him and took Bestman in for his crime.
    Justice for Bestman.jpg

    In the movies, Stark takes the role of Bestman and he begins and ends the same movie coated with chrome plated teflon. So that's a case where Stark's presence actually negates and inverts the point of the original comic and ruins a Spider-Man character beat.
    I think you make an interesting point there (and anyone who references Roger Stern gets a point in my book), but I don't agree. Tony does take the role of Bestman in the broad strokes of Vulture's origin, but the details are very, very different. Let's really compare the two origins.

    In the comics, Bestman was a friend of Toomes who embezzled money from their company (breaking the law) and got Toomes personally fired through legal loopholes, betraying a once great friend, purely so he could satisfy his own greed.

    In the film version, Toomes is working as a salvage operator who has secured a city contract to clean up New York after the Chituari invasion. Tony Stark, not wanting potential alien technology to fall into the hands of dangerous people, secures a deal that ensures this tech will be cleaned up by the government and locked in a secure facility where no one can get it and/or abuse it. This deal leads to Toomes loosing his job, because the government terminates his contract.

    Yes, Tony is responsible for causing Toomes to lose his livelihood, but he doesn't do so directly. He isn't betraying a close friend or knowingly throwing someone under a bus. He probably didn't even know who Toomes was or that he lost his job until years after it happened. Tony probably didn't think anyone would be fired because of this, which certainly demonstrates. some negligence and oversight on his part, but is certainly far more forgivable than the greedy jerkassery that Bestman displayed in the comics. Tony also formed Damage Control for altruistic reasons. He wanted to control the cleanup so that he could prevent the Chituari tech from falling into the wrong hands (and several movies and shows in the MCU, including Homecoming itself, have shown how dangerous Chituari tech is). Again, He wasn't just motivated by greed like Bestman was. He was acting in (what he perceived as) the public's best interest. And, again, he didn't break the law.

    I'm not saying Tony was blameless, but rather that his role in Toomes' origin was another example of his tendency to overlook the long term consequences his actions have, and this is a flaw he had already been aware of and dealing with by Homecoming. Age of Ultron and Civil War are all about Tony facing the impact his decisions have had on regular people and how guilty that makes him feel.

    Also, the movie doesn't completely let Tony off scott free. Well, it does in that he faces no repercussions himself, but Peter clearly has a less idealized view of Tony by the end of the film.

    Earlier, before the ASM 33 homage, the Vulture gives Peter a long speech about how Tony Stark doesn't really care about regular people and how he built his fortune off of selling weapons (just like Toomes did), describing him as living in an ivory tower isolated from the regular people that he supposedly protects. Note that Peter doesn't really have a retort to this speech (he just says "Why are you telling me this?" after a long pause), which shows that Adrian is maybe changing his opinion on Tony a little bit. So, at the end, when Peter is offered a spot on the team, he declines because he realizes that being a full time Avenger and living in the fancy compound would make him lose sight of the regular people that he set out to protect in the first place, before Tony recruited him in Civil War ("I wanna stay on the ground for a little while. Looking out for the little guy").

    So, while Tony isn't shamed like Bestman was in that story, I would argue that A) he didn't do anything nearly as reprehensible as Bestman did and B) the movie clearly wanted you to sympathize with Toomes and Peter's decision not to join the Avengers was their way of demonstrating how Spider-Man, being a regular guy, is a more pure hero than Tony is.

    Just my two cents.

  4. #49
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orbus View Post
    He proved he didn't need it in Homecoming. He defeated the Vulture and stopped the theft of the Avenger's stuff with his own technology and willpower. He even rejected the offer to join the Avengers and get a nanotech suit. He proved he didn't need it. His continued connection to Stark is simply to provide the resources to build his own stuff which is what we see him doing in Far From Home.
    Preach. The climax of Homecoming literally has Peter beat the Vulture with his crappy sweatpant suit and his clunky homemade web shooters. Far From Home shows him design his own suit that seems to lack all of the stark gadgets save for taser webbing (and he himself is shown programming the taser webbing to have the precise voltage it needs to short circuit Mysterio's drones using his scientific know how), and in that climax he wins by jury rigging some gadgets together out of scraps of machinery on the fly (without any help from Stark tech, I should add).

    I completely understand that MCU Spidey is not everyone's cup of tea, and I have plenty of issues with him myself (issues as in problems, not issues of a comic ), but his reliance on Stark tech is exaggerated by detractors in my humble opinion.

  5. #50
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Parker View Post
    This is not true. Iron Man wasn't featured the way he was in Spider-Man: Homecoming to boost his own rep. It's actually the other way around. RDJ's Iron Man prints money. His previous four film appearances broke a billion dollars at the box office, and his portrayal of that character is probably one of the most popular portrayals of a superhero ever with modern audiences. I would argue that he's more popular than any version of Spider-Man in the movies (the Spider-Man brand is more popular than Iron Man, but none of the three actors are as beloved as RDJ).
    That's not true at all. Certainly not if you adjust for inflation as this list (made after Civil War but for the purposes of this discussion still valid) proves (https://screenrant.com/highest-gross...ted-inflation/). Basically, all three Iron Man movies earned far less than Spider-Man 3 did. The third movie, and the third movie alone, grossed a billion dollars worldwide but the real profits are in the domestic gross, and ultimately popularity is defined by the popularity with US audiences. IM-1 in 2007 made $312mn dollar domestic gross and compare that with Spider-Man 1's 2002 take of $403mn (which in today's money is $612mn), it's nearly $100mn less.

    As for "none of the three actors are as beloved as RDJ" I don't know how we can measure that but RDJ by himself can't sell a movie (see Doolittle or the low-performing Sherlock Holmes movies). He's only successful as Iron Man. He ain't DiCaprio or Tom Hanks, both of whom can sell a movie by their mere presence. His solo movies weren't as successful as Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man movies. If you include the Avengers movies and also Captain America Civil War, maybe that goes up but I don't think one can credit RDJ entirely or majorly for the success of those movies. The Avengers 1 was sold on novelty, the first superhero team up movie, the promise of a Hulk who was fun to watch. Age of Ultron underperformed and was a relative failure. Captain America Civil War came off hot after Winter Soldier's word-of-mouth success, with the promise of featuring more team-ups, the hook of a superhero gang war, and of course Spider-Man.

    Therefore, putting Iron Man in the movie helped bolster it's chances of success. Also, Peter's love of Tony made sense in the universe they built. Peter is a science geek and loves superheroes and Tony is a super successful scientific genius and the first modern superhero.
    Iron Man is also someone with a past as a war profiteer and arms dealer and most recently, around the time of Captain America Civil War, created a murder robot that destroyed an entire city and killed tons of people. Unless Peter has buried his head in the sand, it's hard to imagine him not knowing about this or not having some opinion about that. If MCU Peter had been configured closer to comics!Peter, Spider-Man would have sassed Iron Man about it. Instead the character has been conceived as a mascot and fan surrogate, and not an actual character with multiple dimensions living in that world. He's not allowed to have opinions.

    I think you make an interesting point there (and anyone who references Roger Stern gets a point in my book), but I don't agree. Tony does take the role of Bestman in the broad strokes of Vulture's origin, but the details are very, very different. Let's really compare the two origins.
    As part of the reason for Tony being a more protected character than Bestman, there are obvious tells to allow his fans to see him off the hook even if the movie for its engine depends on us seeing and accepting Toomes' point-of-view and identifying with his vicarious revenge on Iron Man. But again the point is in the comics, that wasn't the case.

    He isn't betraying a close friend or knowingly throwing someone under a bus. He probably didn't even know who Toomes was or that he lost his job until years after it happened.
    The Burglar didn't know who Peter was when he shot Uncle Ben either. He didn't know Ben either, heck he just met Ben the night he shot him. It's not like he killed a close friend of his or anything.

    Yes, Tony is responsible for causing Toomes to lose his livelihood, but he doesn't do so directly.
    Because with Tony's great power there must come no responsibility and no accountability. Bestman, no name character, can be held accountable on the other hand. Which is why it's weak to shoehorn Tony Stark that way. It makes watchers of Spider-Man movies hate Stark but it also frustrates them because the movie still ends with the intent of seeing Stark as a good guy. So you get nothing. And it pits Spider-Man fans against Iron Man fans.

  6. #51
    IRON MAN Tony Stark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Hellfire Club
    Posts
    7,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Parker View Post
    This is not true. Iron Man wasn't featured the way he was in Spider-Man: Homecoming to boost his own rep. It's actually the other way around. RDJ's Iron Man prints money. His previous four film appearances broke a billion dollars at the box office, and his portrayal of that character is probably one of the most popular portrayals of a superhero ever with modern audiences. I would argue that he's more popular than any version of Spider-Man in the movies (the Spider-Man brand is more popular than Iron Man, but none of the three actors are as beloved as RDJ). Meanwhile, Spider-Man was in a creative rut and Homecoming was facing the prospect of following up TASM 2, which was a major disappointment and proved that audiences were getting fatigued of Spider-Man.

    Therefore, putting Iron Man in the movie helped bolster it's chances of success. Also, Peter's love of Tony made sense in the universe they built. Peter is a science geek and loves superheroes and Tony is a super successful scientific genius and the first modern superhero. Therefore, the movie having Peter start out as an Iron man fanboy (a phase he grows out of by the end of Homecoming, but I will elaborate on that later) is a decision that makes perfect sense in universe and also makes sense as a business decision. It has nothing to do with bolstering Iron Man's rep, because he didn't need a boost.





    I think you make an interesting point there (and anyone who references Roger Stern gets a point in my book), but I don't agree. Tony does take the role of Bestman in the broad strokes of Vulture's origin, but the details are very, very different. Let's really compare the two origins.

    In the comics, Bestman was a friend of Toomes who embezzled money from their company (breaking the law) and got Toomes personally fired through legal loopholes, betraying a once great friend, purely so he could satisfy his own greed.

    In the film version, Toomes is working as a salvage operator who has secured a city contract to clean up New York after the Chituari invasion. Tony Stark, not wanting potential alien technology to fall into the hands of dangerous people, secures a deal that ensures this tech will be cleaned up by the government and locked in a secure facility where no one can get it and/or abuse it. This deal leads to Toomes loosing his job, because the government terminates his contract.

    Yes, Tony is responsible for causing Toomes to lose his livelihood, but he doesn't do so directly. He isn't betraying a close friend or knowingly throwing someone under a bus. He probably didn't even know who Toomes was or that he lost his job until years after it happened. Tony probably didn't think anyone would be fired because of this, which certainly demonstrates. some negligence and oversight on his part, but is certainly far more forgivable than the greedy jerkassery that Bestman displayed in the comics. Tony also formed Damage Control for altruistic reasons. He wanted to control the cleanup so that he could prevent the Chituari tech from falling into the wrong hands (and several movies and shows in the MCU, including Homecoming itself, have shown how dangerous Chituari tech is). Again, He wasn't just motivated by greed like Bestman was. He was acting in (what he perceived as) the public's best interest. And, again, he didn't break the law.

    I'm not saying Tony was blameless, but rather that his role in Toomes' origin was another example of his tendency to overlook the long term consequences his actions have, and this is a flaw he had already been aware of and dealing with by Homecoming. Age of Ultron and Civil War are all about Tony facing the impact his decisions have had on regular people and how guilty that makes him feel.

    Also, the movie doesn't completely let Tony off scott free. Well, it does in that he faces no repercussions himself, but Peter clearly has a less idealized view of Tony by the end of the film.

    Earlier, before the ASM 33 homage, the Vulture gives Peter a long speech about how Tony Stark doesn't really care about regular people and how he built his fortune off of selling weapons (just like Toomes did), describing him as living in an ivory tower isolated from the regular people that he supposedly protects. Note that Peter doesn't really have a retort to this speech (he just says "Why are you telling me this?" after a long pause), which shows that Adrian is maybe changing his opinion on Tony a little bit. So, at the end, when Peter is offered a spot on the team, he declines because he realizes that being a full time Avenger and living in the fancy compound would make him lose sight of the regular people that he set out to protect in the first place, before Tony recruited him in Civil War ("I wanna stay on the ground for a little while. Looking out for the little guy").

    So, while Tony isn't shamed like Bestman was in that story, I would argue that A) he didn't do anything nearly as reprehensible as Bestman did and B) the movie clearly wanted you to sympathize with Toomes and Peter's decision not to join the Avengers was their way of demonstrating how Spider-Man, being a regular guy, is a more pure hero than Tony is.

    Just my two cents.
    You said what I wanted to say beautifully. Tony was in Homecoming to boost the Spider Man brand. Not the other way around and also he didn’t mean to make Toomes. He invented Damage Control to pick up after super heroes did serious damage to public property.
    "We live in a world of cowards. We live in a world full of small minds who are afraid. We are ruled by those who refuse to risk anything of their own. Who guard their over bloated paucities of power with money. With false reasoning. With measured hesitance. With prideful, recalcitrant inaction. With hateful invective. With weapons. F@#K these selfish fools and their prevailing world order." Tony Stark

  7. #52

    Default

    I think that Marvel wanted to make it explicitly clear that, unlike the previous films, this Spider-Man has the selling advantage that it was set in the MCU. That's why Tony Stark is a lead character alongside Peter, but it was not just him. We got references to the first Avengers film, Civil War, Cap was also mentioned, the thiefs use Avengers masks, etc.

    Anyway, in just a couple of decades we have had 9 films with Peter Parker in it (10 if we count the animated one). Almost the same than Stark himself, but at least that was a single character's story arc and it had a closure. If Marvel wants to keep the Spider-Man franchise around, they should kill Peter Parker and bring in live-action versions of Miles Morales or Spider-Gwen. Or even both.

  8. #53
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post

    There's also the restrictions with Tom Holland. As an actor, he's largely a character actor than a lead. He can't command a movie by his own, as such every scene in the MCU usually has him paired with another supporting character, either senior to him or younger to him, especially in the big character scenes because as an actor he unlike Tobey Maguire, or even Andrew Garfield, doesn't have the quality to communicate interior development.
    Ok, I apologize for responding to 2 comments of yours without giving you a chance to respond, but I strongly disagree with this point.

    Holland is a fantastic actor, fully capable of carrying a film and of portraying interior development. He is way more capable of this than Maguire ever was in my opinion. I don't mean to diss on Maguire, who was a decent Spidey and worked well enough for the films he was in, but his acting was so one note and flat, largely consisting of him just looking depressed all the time, with his deliveries often being stilted and awkward. Maybe that was partially direction, but I just don't think his acting is much to write home about in those movies (with the weird exception of Spider-Man 3, where I think he actually played a pretty convincing sexist scumbag in the black costume scenes, and also the scene with Aunt May regarding Ben's death in 2). He's fine, but those movies. are carried by the strengths of Raimi's visual style and by the wonderful performances by supporting players and villains, at least for me (no disrespect to your opinion, of course).

    Holland is way more charismatic than Maguire in my opinion, with much more convincing line deliveries and a more full range of emotions. His performance during the ASM 33 homage was incredible, and that scene was completely done on his own, with no other actors in sight. His performance during Tony's death in Endgame is also excellent (and this isn't just me saying this, a ton of people I know personally have called out his acting in that scene as being excellent). Yes, RDJ was in that scene, but RDJ was just lying and pretending to be almost dead. Holland carries that scene entirely on his own (and, not to get too personal here, but as someone who recently had a similar occurrence with a family member, it really rang true for me).

    He's also plenty capable of subtle emotions. The way he conveyed Peter's mixed emotions (entirely through facial expressions and tone of delivery) after Mysterio died, where he was partially relieved that the threat was over but clearly really disturbed by not being able to bring Beck in alive (this is really demonstrated when he reunites with MJ on the bridge). Or when he's made an Avenger in Infinity War and is clearly really excited at first but then immediately sobers up to the responsibility of it and mentally prepares to get the job done. Again, that scene was done with no dialogue and entirely through facial expressions. Yes, RDJ is in that scene, but Holland alone gives us that moment.

    I fully respect your opinion on Holland's acting ability, but I just wanted to point out examples where I think he proves himself an incredibly capable actor. Cheers.

  9. #54
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post

    As for "none of the three actors are as beloved as RDJ" I don't know how we can measure that but RDJ by himself can't sell a movie (see Doolittle or the low-performing Sherlock Holmes movies). He's only successful as Iron Man. He ain't DiCaprio or Tom Hanks, both of whom can sell a movie by their mere presence. His solo movies weren't as successful as Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man movies. If you include the Avengers movies and also Captain America Civil War, maybe that goes up but I don't think one can credit RDJ entirely or majorly for the success of those movies. The Avengers 1 was sold on novelty, the first superhero team up movie, the promise of a Hulk who was fun to watch. Age of Ultron underperformed and was a relative failure. Captain America Civil War came off hot after Winter Soldier's word-of-mouth success, with the promise of featuring more team-ups, the hook of a superhero gang war, and of course Spider-Man.
    I'll clarify by saying that I meant RDJ's version of Iron Man specifically is more popular than any specific version of Spider-Man. Again, I can't prove this, but it is the general vibe I get from conversations with friends and whatnot. Yes, the Maguire movies were more successful commercially, but they were riding on the novelty of seeing such an iconic character be adapted into big budget films for the first time, as well as being boosted by high profile villains and a great supporting cast. Maguire alone is not the sole reason for their success, where I would argue that Downey's charisma in the role of Stark, as well as the specific personality, arc, and writing of that character was crucial to the success of his films. Again, this is subjective, so we can agree to disagree on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Iron Man is also someone with a past as a war profiteer and arms dealer and most recently, around the time of Captain America Civil War, created a murder robot that destroyed an entire city and killed tons of people. Unless Peter has buried his head in the sand, it's hard to imagine him not knowing about this or not having some opinion about that. If MCU Peter had been configured closer to comics!Peter, Spider-Man would have sassed Iron Man about it. Instead the character has been conceived as a mascot and fan surrogate, and not an actual character with multiple dimensions living in that world. He's not allowed to have opinions.
    Tony creating Ultron isn't public knowledge in the MCU far as I can tell. It's never been talked about by any civilian characters. Yes, this version of Peter is less sassy than his comics counterpart, but by the end I think he saw Tony as a good but flawed man (which he is), not a demigod like he did at the beginning. Plus, Peter did rip into Tony a little earlier in the film for ignoring his warning about the weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    As part of the reason for Tony being a more protected character than Bestman, there are obvious tells to allow his fans to see him off the hook even if the movie for its engine depends on us seeing and accepting Toomes' point-of-view and identifying with his vicarious revenge on Iron Man. But again the point is in the comics, that wasn't the case.
    I don't understand you're point here. The movie makes Tony less despicable than Bestman, because stealing from someone and then firing them is out of character for Tony Stark. Therefore, he gets let off easier because it's a more complex situation than it was in the comics. Bestman is a cartoon character, a cardboard cutout of an evil businessman, something we've seen in superhero films a million times. Exploring the unintended consequences of a superhero's attempt to safely prevent alien weapons from flooding the streets by working with the government to clean up the results of a battle is an interesting and worthwhile idea to explore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The Burglar didn't know who Peter was when he shot Uncle Ben either. He didn't know Ben either, heck he just met Ben the night he shot him. It's not like he killed a close friend of his or anything.
    This comparison is irrelevant. Tony making a business decision that (completely unknown to him) causes a guy to lose his job is nothing like breaking into an old man's house and murdering him in cold blood. The point I was making is that a person who would be willing to screw over their close friend for a quick buck is a cold blooded scumbag, not that it's ok to murder people as long as they are strangers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Because with Tony's great power there must come no responsibility and no accountability. Bestman, no name character, can be held accountable on the other hand. Which is why it's weak to shoehorn Tony Stark that way. It makes watchers of Spider-Man movies hate Stark but it also frustrates them because the movie still ends with the intent of seeing Stark as a good guy. So you get nothing. And it pits Spider-Man fans against Iron Man fans.
    Tony held himself accountable for his mistakes in Ultron and Civil War, and he is constantly working to be a better person. Therefore, the story lets him off easier because we know he's a good man who is working to be better, in spite of his flaws and privilege. Bestman was an ********* who showed no regret for his actions. I also have no idea what you are talking about with pitting Iron Man fans against Spider-Man fans. The movie ends with them on good terms, amicably parting ways. Yes, it points out that Peter is probably a better person than Tony, but I think most Iron Man fans would agree with that. Part of what makes Tony so interesting is how flawed and broken he is.

    This has been a really fun debate. I never thought I would be thoroughly comparing Tony Stark and Greg Bestman's roles in the Vulture's origin when I woke up today .
    Last edited by Matt Parker; 08-11-2020 at 08:41 PM.

  10. #55
    IRON MAN Tony Stark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Hellfire Club
    Posts
    7,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's not true at all. Certainly not if you adjust for inflation as this list (made after Civil War but for the purposes of this discussion still valid) proves (https://screenrant.com/highest-gross...ted-inflation/). Basically, all three Iron Man movies earned far less than Spider-Man 3 did. The third movie, and the third movie alone, grossed a billion dollars worldwide but the real profits are in the domestic gross, and ultimately popularity is defined by the popularity with US audiences. IM-1 in 2007 made $312mn dollar domestic gross and compare that with Spider-Man 1's 2002 take of $403mn (which in today's money is $612mn), it's nearly $100mn less.

    As for "none of the three actors are as beloved as RDJ" I don't know how we can measure that but RDJ by himself can't sell a movie (see Doolittle or the low-performing Sherlock Holmes movies). He's only successful as Iron Man. He ain't DiCaprio or Tom Hanks, both of whom can sell a movie by their mere presence. His solo movies weren't as successful as Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man movies. If you include the Avengers movies and also Captain America Civil War, maybe that goes up but I don't think one can credit RDJ entirely or majorly for the success of those movies. The Avengers 1 was sold on novelty, the first superhero team up movie, the promise of a Hulk who was fun to watch. Age of Ultron underperformed and was a relative failure. Captain America Civil War came off hot after Winter Soldier's word-of-mouth success, with the promise of featuring more team-ups, the hook of a superhero gang war, and of course Spider-Man.



    Iron Man is also someone with a past as a war profiteer and arms dealer and most recently, around the time of Captain America Civil War, created a murder robot that destroyed an entire city and killed tons of people. Unless Peter has buried his head in the sand, it's hard to imagine him not knowing about this or not having some opinion about that. If MCU Peter had been configured closer to comics!Peter, Spider-Man would have sassed Iron Man about it. Instead the character has been conceived as a mascot and fan surrogate, and not an actual character with multiple dimensions living in that world. He's not allowed to have opinions.



    As part of the reason for Tony being a more protected character than Bestman, there are obvious tells to allow his fans to see him off the hook even if the movie for its engine depends on us seeing and accepting Toomes' point-of-view and identifying with his vicarious revenge on Iron Man. But again the point is in the comics, that wasn't the case.



    The Burglar didn't know who Peter was when he shot Uncle Ben either. He didn't know Ben either, heck he just met Ben the night he shot him. It's not like he killed a close friend of his or anything.



    Because with Tony's great power there must come no responsibility and no accountability. Bestman, no name character, can be held accountable on the other hand. Which is why it's weak to shoehorn Tony Stark that way. It makes watchers of Spider-Man movies hate Stark but it also frustrates them because the movie still ends with the intent of seeing Stark as a good guy. So you get nothing. And it pits Spider-Man fans against Iron Man fans.
    To the part about RDJ not carrying a movie. What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!! Do little flopped, but Sherlock Holmes 1 and 2 did like gang busters in theaters. They are working on part 3 as we speak. It wouldn’t be a trilogy if it didn’t do well.
    Last edited by Tony Stark; 08-11-2020 at 09:20 PM.
    "We live in a world of cowards. We live in a world full of small minds who are afraid. We are ruled by those who refuse to risk anything of their own. Who guard their over bloated paucities of power with money. With false reasoning. With measured hesitance. With prideful, recalcitrant inaction. With hateful invective. With weapons. F@#K these selfish fools and their prevailing world order." Tony Stark

  11. #56
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Parker View Post
    I'll clarify by saying that I meant RDJ's version of Iron Man specifically is more popular than any specific version of Spider-Man. Again, I can't prove this, but it is the general vibe I get from conversations with friends and whatnot.
    Iron Man and Spider-Man don't have the same value. Spider-Man was a big successful character across multiple mediums before the movie came out, and Spider-Man would have remained an iconic character even if the movie failed, in the same way Superman despite the failure of the Snyder movies is still an iconic character. Whereas Iron Man never had any kind of big success either in comics or cartoons or anywhere, so RDJ got to be the most successful version of the character and define him in a way that even Christopher Reeve couldn't define Superman completely, or for that matter Sean Connery couldn't define James Bond completely. So on that level, RDJ's Iron Man is a bigger achievement than Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man certainly. Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man remains the most successful live-action version of the character. And before people bring up Far From Home's billion dollar worldwide take, I'll point out that it's US gross ($392mn) is lower than Spider-Man 1's ($403mn) and that is without adjusting for inflation. Adjusted it will be $612mn. And considering the pandemic and the way movie theaters are on the edge of extinction, that record might well stand as permanent. Likewise, Tobey Maguire carried those movies entirely by himself whereas Tom Holland's Spider-Man appearances are forever bracketed with team-ups and cameos with Iron Man, Nick Fury and so on.

    Tony creating Ultron isn't public knowledge in the MCU far as I can tell. It's never been talked about by any civilian characters.
    It very much is public knowledge. We see a woman accost Tony at the University hallway in Captain America Civil War right after he introduces "BARF" to make it pertinent to MCU Spider-Man. The entire Sokovia Accords is a worldwide phenomenon and covered by the media, and as the name suggests, it's based on the rampage of Ultron in the second Avengers movie and the knowledge that the Avengers were indirectly responsible for it.

    I don't understand you're point here. The movie makes Tony less despicable than Bestman, because stealing from someone and then firing them is out of character for Tony Stark.
    Off-topic and tangential but I can't help but point out that "stealing from someone and then firing them" is what Tony does to Mysterio in FFH, where he hijacks technology Beck developed and passes it off as his own invention, via retcon. I don't care for that either (because that retcon sucks and the movie's Mysterio sucks).

    This comparison is irrelevant. Tony making a business decision that (completely unknown to him) causes a guy to lose his job is nothing like breaking into an old man's house and murdering him in cold blood.
    This is another example of values of fandom latching on with disturbing subtext. This dangerously sounds like the passes billionaires and their attorneys give as defenses for corporate negligence. The passes one creates for characters in fiction would not be supportable and yet people want to make it happen because they like a character. Fact is, nobody with that much power and influence can be entirely naive as to be ignorant of the fact that their decisions could rebound and affect people working with the company. I mean look at the news and the DC layoffs happening. Did any of the people getting fired knew or met who was in charge of AT and T? No. But the people at the high level made a decision and because of that some 600 people lost their job. Someone as smart as Tony Stark cannot be so dumb as to think that business deals like a private-public partnership won't have an effect on independent contractors.

    I mean quite unintentionally I am sure (and I hope), what you have with MCU Iron Man and his relationship with Spider-Man villains is basically the kind of propaganda that goes, "Walt Disney and Stan Lee were right to screw over Ub Iwerks and Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, because they turned evil anyway. That justifies their IP swindle 100%. Worthless peasants don't deserve to be entertained or listened to. Now fanboy drop on your knees and cry and whimper about how you will never measure to the Great Man". This happens because they took a setup and idea that makes a villain have understandable and sympathetic grievances to entertain and attract the attention of quality actors like Keaton and Gyllenhaal but make the guy their grievance is directed against someone who is a protected character. Their attempt to shoehorn Iron Man ruins the movies completely, and also doesn't do favors to Iron Man as a character. I am not a fan of Iron Man but even I felt offended when FFH made him out to be some plagiarist. I don't think any version of Tony is capable of that at the very least.

  12. #57
    Extraordinary Member TheCape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Venezuela
    Posts
    8,641

    Default

    To be honest, i just assumed that Beck was just delusional and exagerating how much Tony screw him over, but then again, the movie never really go into details about what actually happend, beyond Beck's account.
    "Wow. You made Spider-Man sad, congratulations. I stabbed The Hulk last week"
    Wolverine, Venom Annual # 1 (2018)
    Nobody does it better by Jeff Loveness

    "I am Thou, Thou Art I"
    Persona

  13. #58
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
    To the part about RDJ not carrying a movie. What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!!
    Leonardo DiCaprio appeared in movies like Inception, Catch Me if you can, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Revenant. Know what all these movies have in common? They are all original properties and stories introduced and developed and sold on the presence of the actor in those movies. RDJ has never been able to do that. That's actually why he appeared in Iron Man and was campaigning for that. He was getting old and had that frustrating career of being leading man material but somehow never actually becoming a major star despite having all the qualities of a movie star. RDJ loved The Matrix and that inspired blockbuster envy for him because he wanted to be Keanu. And Keanu Reeves is another example of an actor who can carry and sell a movie by himself...he had success with Bill and Ted, Speed, and then went to new heights with The Matrix before reinventing himself again with John Wick.

    Movies like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang where he played the lead role and carried a movie only achieved cult success. Zodiac where he played a supporting role (but given the length of a movie a substantial supporting role), achieved critical acclaim and modest success but didn't cross over, even if that's a masterpiece and one of the two best single movies he's appeared in (the other is Robert Altman's Short Cuts). His most hilarious role, Tropic Thunder was a big hit (and thankfully has never gotten a sequel) but even then that had other stuff going for it. The out-there premise, Ben Stiller, and of course Tom Cruise's hilarious secret performance (that gave it word-of-mouth).

    Sherlock Holmes 1 and 2 did like hang busters in theaters. They are working on part 3 as we speak. It wouldn’t be a trilogy if it didn’t do well.
    Sherlock Holmes 1 was a success but the sequel made far less money domestically the first one (and on a higher budget). It's also a high budget polished take on a very popular and famous Public Domain IP.

  14. #59
    IRON MAN Tony Stark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Hellfire Club
    Posts
    7,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Leonardo DiCaprio appeared in movies like Inception, Catch Me if you can, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Revenant. Know what all these movies have in common? They are all original properties and stories introduced and developed and sold on the presence of the actor in those movies. RDJ has never been able to do that. That's actually why he appeared in Iron Man and was campaigning for that. He was getting old and had that frustrating career of being leading man material but somehow never actually becoming a major star despite having all the qualities of a movie star. RDJ loved The Matrix and that inspired blockbuster envy for him because he wanted to be Keanu. And Keanu Reeves is another example of an actor who can carry and sell a movie by himself...he had success with Bill and Ted, Speed, and then went to new heights with The Matrix before reinventing himself again with John Wick.

    Movies like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang where he played the lead role and carried a movie only achieved cult success. Zodiac where he played a supporting role (but given the length of a movie a substantial supporting role), achieved critical acclaim and modest success but didn't cross over, even if that's a masterpiece and one of the two best single movies he's appeared in (the other is Robert Altman's Short Cuts). His most hilarious role, Tropic Thunder was a big hit (and thankfully has never gotten a sequel) but even then that had other stuff going for it. The out-there premise, Ben Stiller, and of course Tom Cruise's hilarious secret performance (that gave it word-of-mouth).



    Sherlock Holmes 1 was a success but the sequel made far less money domestically the first one (and on a higher budget). It's also a high budget polished take on a very popular and famous Public Domain IP.
    Sherlock Holmes did better than 1 overall. In total. You can’t just pick certain facts and ignore the rest. As to carrying movies. I think Iron Man 1-3 and both Holmes movies have proven that RDJ is a banksble actor.
    "We live in a world of cowards. We live in a world full of small minds who are afraid. We are ruled by those who refuse to risk anything of their own. Who guard their over bloated paucities of power with money. With false reasoning. With measured hesitance. With prideful, recalcitrant inaction. With hateful invective. With weapons. F@#K these selfish fools and their prevailing world order." Tony Stark

  15. #60

    Default

    As for Wolverine... he's the big star of the X-Men films, the one the audiences want to see, and that's unlikely to change. Disney did not buy Fox to make a film about armor or the skeleton inside pink goo. The new X-Men films WILL include Wolverine, there's no way that will change. So... will Logan be a member of both X-Men and Avengers? I doubt it. Disney will not want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs either; they already made that mistake by releasing so many Star Wars films in such a short timeframe.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •