Wolverine and Spider-Man as Avengers in the MCU?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I really dont understand these random this counts this does not?

Basically we are talking about great defining moments for Spider-Man outside his titles, and in this case, specifically in Avengers books where he's an Avenger. It's not a big surprise that Spider-Man comes of well in the Civil War tie-ins that JMS wrote, as opposed to the actual CIVIL WAR title. It's not a surprise that Spider-Man does well in the Hydra story that JMS wrote as opposed to what Bendis did in New Avengers.

My argument and that of many others is that there aren't enough, not of sufficient impact, to justify Spider-Man being part of the Avengers because what is there to be gained? Nothing for the most part. As a fan of Spider-Man, it's more important to see him defeat Juggernaut on his own than in him being part of the Avengers and being assigned a minor role while other people do cool stuff. The former happens to be a story of far greater quality than any Avengers story with Spider-man. Spider-Man's best showing in any Marvel event remains SECRET WARS 1984. Nothing since then, certainly none of the Avengers stuff, has given anything to write about compared to that.

Does what happens in CAP or Iron man solo stories involving avengers not count it seems kinda dumb it is a shared universe.

"shared universe" is pretty hollow because some shares are bigger than others, and some are more equal than others.

In the case of Cap, Iron Man, Thor, they have smaller shares as solo heroes than Spider-Man does, and bigger shares of Avengers than others. So Cap, Iron Man, and Thor have great moments in their own books and great moments in the Avengers books. Captain America gets great moments across the board, in fact two of his most major defining moments, happens in a Daredevil story (Born Again - "I'm loyal to nothing general, except the dream") as well as Spider-Man (The Civil War tie-ins by JMS -- the famous "you move" speech). Thor has many moments in his own titles and as an Avenger too ("Ultron, we shall have words with thee"). In the case of Iron Man one can plausibly argue that his greatest stories as a character have been in Avengers titles and not in his solo books. And that were he not an important character in Avengers, he would not have especial relevance. Whatever the case, Iron Man is canonically junior to Spider-Man in 616 and he should not be tied so much to his corner.

His leadership in spider island heavily involved the Avengers...

Reed Richards was more heavily involved in that story than the Avengers were (which I looked again recently, only Marvel event story that dealt with a city-wide epidemic, Jonah especially comes off as a great mayor these days). And again it's mainly a Spider-Man story and event and happened in ASM.

[pageturner]

Basically we are talking about great defining moments for Spider-Man outside his titles, and in this case, specifically in Avengers books where he's an Avenger. It's not a big surprise that Spider-Man comes of well in the Civil War tie-ins that JMS wrote, as opposed to the actual CIVIL WAR title. It's not a surprise that Spider-Man does well in the Hydra story that JMS wrote as opposed to what Bendis did in New Avengers.

My argument and that of many others is that there aren't enough, not of sufficient impact, to justify Spider-Man being part of the Avengers because what is there to be gained? Nothing for the most part. As a fan of Spider-Man, it's more important to see him defeat Juggernaut on his own than in him being part of the Avengers and being assigned a minor role while other people do cool stuff. The former happens to be a story of far greater quality than any Avengers story with Spider-man. Spider-Man's best showing in any Marvel event remains SECRET WARS 1984. Nothing since then, certainly none of the Avengers stuff, has given anything to write about compared to that.



"shared universe" is pretty hollow because some shares are bigger than others, and some are more equal than others.

In the case of Cap, Iron Man, Thor, they have smaller shares as solo heroes than Spider-Man does, and bigger shares of Avengers than others. So Cap, Iron Man, and Thor have great moments in their own books and great moments in the Avengers books. Captain America gets great moments across the board, in fact two of his most major defining moments, happens in a Daredevil story (Born Again - "I'm loyal to nothing general, except the dream") as well as Spider-Man (The Civil War tie-ins by JMS -- the famous "you move" speech). Thor has many moments in his own titles and as an Avenger too ("Ultron, we shall have words with thee"). In the case of Iron Man one can plausibly argue that his greatest stories as a character have been in Avengers titles and not in his solo books. And that were he not an important character in Avengers, he would not have especial relevance. Whatever the case, Iron Man is canonically junior to Spider-Man in 616 and he should not be tied so much to his corner.



Reed Richards was more heavily involved in that story than the Avengers were (which I looked again recently, only Marvel event story that dealt with a city-wide epidemic, Jonah especially comes off as a great mayor these days). And again it's mainly a Spider-Man story and event and happened in ASM.

So you want him back in high school taking pictures? Putting him among the elite characters of the MU is bad and put him back in his corner?
To me this is not business and bad storytelling. He has one of the best over all power sets. Strong than many, faster than many, more agile than most, a bit of a healing factor and brilliant although lacking on confidence. He is/has been an aid to any team he has been on (except maybe spider man and the xmen which I bailed on to early to tell). His status as the hero to be feared is gone. He has been shoulder to shoulder with Cap, Reed, Ben, IM and several other trusted hereos. Even the voice of Jonah calling him a menace is gone.

He belongs in the sunshine. He has been called the best of the hero community he belongs among them not sitting on a ledge leaving things to the big guns it is not the 70's anymore. He is a big gun.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So you want him back in high school taking pictures?

Not being an Avenger does not equal "being back in high school taking pictures?"

Not all solo heroes who aren't Avengers are high school kids. Daredevil isn't an Avenger. He's not a high school kid.

Putting him among the elite characters of the MU is bad and put him back in his corner?

As far as the reader goes Spider-Man is the elite character. Spider-Man's supporting cast for instance are as famous and iconic as characters as any Marvel superhero. J. Jonah Jameson and Mary Jane Watson are the biggest civilian characters in comics. There's more interest to see Spider-Man with his supporting cast and his rogues than him being an Avenger.

When Spider-Man is with the Avengers, focus shifts away from his supporting cast and rogues, where fellow Avengers become the supporting cast, and that's generally not interesting.

Spider-Man can work perfectly fine as a solo hero, i.e. if Marvel decides to separate Spider-Man from 616 and give him a corner where he's the only superhero and his rogues are the only supervillains, he'd work. A few things (Johnny Storm, fighting Juggernaut) would be lost but not much else. I mean Sam Raimi's films went that way and the first two movies are the only entirely satisfying movies in live-action.

[Snoop Dogg]

Spider-Man being a movie Avenger works because that stuff is baked into his DNA in that continuity, while in the books it's not really worth it beyond sales and a writer wanting to write Spider-Man saying some stuff. Spider-Man is already Marvel's most restricted character due to the brand integrity and all the titles he's in, so being in an Avengers book where a writer can't do much with him and he doesn't have/can't form any intimate relationships with his teammates is a waste of time and takes away oxygen from characters who could be better suited for the task. It worked in New Avengers because that was Bendis trying to reset the deck with a fresh start but as that era went on and he returned in the Waid run, Peter was only good for some solid guffaws.

[XPac]

Spider-Man being a movie Avenger works because that stuff is baked into his DNA in that continuity, while in the books it's not really worth it beyond sales and a writer wanting to write Spider-Man saying some stuff. Spider-Man is already Marvel's most restricted character due to the brand integrity and all the titles he's in, so being in an Avengers book where a writer can't do much with him and he doesn't have/can't form any intimate relationships with his teammates is a waste of time and takes away oxygen from characters who could be better suited for the task. It worked in New Avengers because that was Bendis trying to reset the deck with a fresh start but as that era went on and he returned in the Waid run, Peter was only good for some solid guffaws.

During Bendis run, the relationship with Peter and Tony actually ended up becoming pretty important to the greater story though.

Spider-Man can work when a writer wants to make him work, OR he can be window dressing if the writer chooses to use him that way. There's nothing inherently unworkable about him... though he can present some unique challenges that other non mascot characters don't have. But Avengers at this point is used to such restrictions, as it's roster is often make up of big name characters with solo books. Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, etc...

So again, it's up to the writer. He's worth it if the writer makes it worth it.

[TheCape]

During Bendis run, the relationship with Peter and Tony actually ended up becoming pretty important to the greater story though.

Far as i remember, the bulk of Peter and Tony relationship was covered in his own titles, mainly JMS run, Bendis barely touched it.

[XPac]

Far as i remember, the bulk of Peter and Tony relationship was covered in his own titles, mainly JMS run, Bendis barely touched it.

He touched it, but yes the bulk of it was in Tony and Peters solo books. Which is exactly what you would expect from 2 characters with solo books. That lions share of their development occurs there. But the point being it actually was important to what was going on with both characters, and the landscape of the MU in general. And really you can make a pretty descent arguement this was the first time Spider-Man was EVER actually important to an event level story, at least to this degree. So his inclusion into the Avengers actually did matter. Heck, his entire freaking family moved into Avengers tower... it mattered.

[Frontier]

Spider-Man being a movie Avenger works because that stuff is baked into his DNA in that continuity, while in the books it's not really worth it beyond sales and a writer wanting to write Spider-Man saying some stuff. Spider-Man is already Marvel's most restricted character due to the brand integrity and all the titles he's in, so being in an Avengers book where a writer can't do much with him and he doesn't have/can't form any intimate relationships with his teammates is a waste of time and takes away oxygen from characters who could be better suited for the task. It worked in New Avengers because that was Bendis trying to reset the deck with a fresh start but as that era went on and he returned in the Waid run, Peter was only good for some solid guffaws.

Which I think sums up some of the issues with Spider-Man within the MCU.

[pageturner]

Not being an Avenger does not equal "being back in high school taking pictures?"

Not all solo heroes who aren't Avengers are high school kids. Daredevil isn't an Avenger. He's not a high school kid.



As far as the reader goes Spider-Man is the elite character. Spider-Man's supporting cast for instance are as famous and iconic as characters as any Marvel superhero. J. Jonah Jameson and Mary Jane Watson are the biggest civilian characters in comics. There's more interest to see Spider-Man with his supporting cast and his rogues than him being an Avenger.

When Spider-Man is with the Avengers, focus shifts away from his supporting cast and rogues, where fellow Avengers become the supporting cast, and that's generally not interesting.

Spider-Man can work perfectly fine as a solo hero, i.e. if Marvel decides to separate Spider-Man from 616 and give him a corner where he's the only superhero and his rogues are the only supervillains, he'd work. A few things (Johnny Storm, fighting Juggernaut) would be lost but not much else. I mean Sam Raimi's films went that way and the first two movies are the only entirely satisfying movies in live-action.

so now the complaint when spiderman is in Avengers books you dont get enough Jonah and MJ? You don't get much Pepper and Sharon and other Asgardians in the books either so what. When he is in an Avengers or FF book he is a part of the team. He gets to play with his friends in his own books but he is part of something bigger.

Beating the vulture was fun and all but it is small time. Spiderman should not be small time. Even with the regression in age he should be among his peers. I would have rather they skip to at least college with him but I got what I got. I will put up with the 20 something high schoolers if I have to.

Rami had him separate because he had no choice. It was not that the story demanded it he only had access to the spiders. The first movies of the MCU the heroes stayed on their own for the most part (Hawkeye in Thor being the only one that jumps to mind). That was then this is now it is a shared universe in books and films. Spiderman works best among the best.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

so now the complaint when spiderman is in Avengers books you dont get enough Jonah and MJ? You don't get much Pepper and Sharon and other Asgardians in the books either so what. When he is in an Avengers or FF book he is a part of the team. He gets to play with his friends in his own books but he is part of something bigger.

Beating the vulture was fun and all but it is small time. Spiderman should not be small time. Even with the regression in age he should be among his peers. I would have rather they skip to at least college with him but I got what I got. I will put up with the 20 something high schoolers if I have to.

The problem is that many people ascribe the values of a caste system to being in a shared universe. It's presumed these days that you belong to a lower caste or lower class if you are not part of the Avengers. And that's where it not only gets silly but potentially disturbing. That's where it gets absurd. In real life we don't consider first responders to be lesser heroes than soldiers and astronauts. Try and apply that value in real life and people will rightly consider you a sociopath.

The "shared universe" is not some special or deep concept in the least bit. At heart it's a carny trick intended to divorce the close relationship audiences have with their wallets. That's what they are at core. As far as Marvel's history goes, the shared universe, i.e. recycling and pooling together heroes from multiple titles so they cameo and interact in different places and so on, is also largely a way to exercise dominion over IP so that they don't return to the original creators. It was understood in the classic Marvel era (say Stan Lee to Jim Shooter) that at heart each title and character worked best when they worked alone and that the Avengers' main purpose was a dumping ground for characters who aren't big enough to pass muster. Have you ever wondered why the Avengers had such a legendary high turnover rate to the point that practically anyone was an Avenger, to the point that being an Avenger had almost zero meaning and prestige in the old days. Freakin' Flint Marko the Sandman was an Avenger after all.

Spider-Man going from solo hero to being an Avenger isn't any kind of promotion or rise in hierarchy, mostly because in the comics and the movies, he's a far bigger hero in his solo stories than in the team-up stuff.

Rami had him separate because he had no choice. It was not that the story demanded it he only had access to the spiders. The first movies of the MCU the heroes stayed on their own for the most part (Hawkeye in Thor being the only one that jumps to mind). That was then this is now it is a shared universe in books and films. Spiderman works best among the best.

You are acting as if Hawkeye and Iron Man have the same values as Spider-Man. Spider-Man as a character is better than them, he has better stories, a better supporting cast, and a better rogues gallery.

Focusing entirely on Spider-Man in the first Raimi film meant you could go deep and make iconic versions of Mary Jane, Jameson, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Harry Osborn. Likewise the Green Goblin. The first Spider-Man movie is still today the most violent and bloody Spider-Man film, across all reboots. Green Goblin kills 21 people in the first movie, highest on-screen body count. Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man defeated Goblin entirely by himself using his powers and wits. Whereas in the MCU, Peter relies on Stark gadgets, stupidity of enemies and an entire support crew to defeat far less dangerous villains like Vulture and Mysterio.

[XPac]

The problem is that many people ascribe the values of a caste system to being in a shared universe. It's presumed these days that you belong to a lower caste or lower class if you are not part of the Avengers. And that's where it not only gets silly but potentially disturbing. That's where it gets absurd. In real life we don't consider first responders to be lesser heroes than soldiers and astronauts. Try and apply that value in real life and people will rightly consider you a sociopath.

The "shared universe" is not some special or deep concept in the least bit. At heart it's a carny trick intended to divorce the close relationship audiences have with their wallets. That's what they are at core. As far as Marvel's history goes, the shared universe, i.e. recycling and pooling together heroes from multiple titles so they cameo and interact in different places and so on, is also largely a way to exercise dominion over IP so that they don't return to the original creators. It was understood in the classic Marvel era (say Stan Lee to Jim Shooter) that at heart each title and character worked best when they worked alone and that the Avengers' main purpose was a dumping ground for characters who aren't big enough to pass muster. Have you ever wondered why the Avengers had such a legendary high turnover rate to the point that practically anyone was an Avenger, to the point that being an Avenger had almost zero meaning and prestige in the old days. Freakin' Flint Marko the Sandman was an Avenger after all.

Spider-Man going from solo hero to being an Avenger isn't any kind of promotion or rise in hierarchy, mostly because in the comics and the movies, he's a far bigger hero in his solo stories than in the team-up stuff we have literally never seen before.



You are acting as if Hawkeye and Iron Man have the same values as Spider-Man. Spider-Man as a character is better than them, he has better stories, a better supporting cast, and a better rogues gallery.

Focusing entirely on Spider-Man in the first Raimi film meant you could go deep and make iconic versions of Mary Jane, Jameson, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Harry Osborn. Likewise the Green Goblin. The first Spider-Man movie is still today the most violent and bloody Spider-Man film, across all reboots. Green Goblin kills 21 people in the first movie, highest on-screen body count. Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man defeated Goblin entirely by himself using his powers and wits. Whereas in the MCU, Peter relies on Stark gadgets, stupidity of enemies and an entire support crew to defeat far less dangerous villains like Vulture and Mysterio.

Honestly I think it was a good thing that the MCU Spider-Man didn't focus entirely on Spider-Man and his own supporting cast. Not that I don't agree Spidey has the best supporting cast in all of comics... but I think with reboot after reboot we've kind of seen that already. It was a nice refresh to NOT see the wheel re-invented again for the third time at least right out of the gate... and I'd say the same thing for Batman in Batman vs Superman. Since everyone kind of already knows Batman and Spider-Man orign and backstory and supporting cast anyways, having the audience not revisit that again and just throwing them into something new I think was actually smart.

You can't do that for everyone... but you can do that for Batman and Spider-Man. We've seen the same stuff with them re-invented so many times, it just felt less tedius to see them mixed with other characters doing entirely different stuff.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Honestly I think it was a good thing that the MCU Spider-Man didn't focus entirely on Spider-Man and his own supporting cast. Not that I don't agree Spidey has the best supporting cast in all of comics... but I think with reboot after reboot we've kind of seen that already. It was a nice refresh to NOT see the wheel re-invented again for the third time at least right out of the gate... and I'd say the same thing for Batman in Batman vs Superman. Since everyone kind of already knows Batman and Spider-Man orign and backstory and supporting cast anyways, having the audience not revisit that again and just throwing them into something new I think was actually smart.

You can't do that for everyone... but you can do that for Batman and Spider-Man. We've seen the same stuff with them re-invented so many times, it just felt less tedius to see them mixed with other characters doing entirely different stuff.

The problem is that MCU is intended to be, and is likely to be, the permanent lasting version of these characters at least in live-action. Feige and MCU will likely Tom Holland to be Spider-Man for at least as long as Robert Downey Jr was Iron Man (which was some 12 years plus), and even if somewhere down the line they recast Holland, they will likely continue in the same continuity in the manner of the James Bond films (until Daniel Craig). And for many people, the MCU is seen as a replacement and alternative to the 616 Continuity, allowing it to possess a great deal of legitimacy. So Tom Holland being a fawning wannabe Avenger has the potential to become a lasting, and detrimental, aspect of the character.

Which is why it's not the same thing as the DCEU or Zack Snyder and the DC Universe. So far the only thing stopping that is Sony keeping hold of Spider-Man's rights, as well as the success of ITSV, which definitely established in the minds of people that Every Spider-Man you see on-screen is "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man, which did take away legitimacy from Tom Holland.

[Orbus]

The problem is that MCU is intended to be, and is likely to be, the permanent lasting version of these characters at least in live-action. Feige and MCU will likely Tom Holland to be Spider-Man for at least as long as Robert Downey Jr was Iron Man (which was some 12 years plus), and even if somewhere down the line they recast Holland, they will likely continue in the same continuity in the manner of the James Bond films (until Daniel Craig). And for many people, the MCU is seen as a replacement and alternative to the 616 Continuity, allowing it to possess a great deal of legitimacy. So Tom Holland being a fawning wannabe Avenger has the potential to become a lasting, and detrimental, aspect of the character.

Which is why it's not the same thing as the DCEU or Zack Snyder and the DC Universe. So far the only thing stopping that is Sony keeping hold of Spider-Man's rights, as well as the success of ITSV, which definitely established in the minds of people that Every Spider-Man you see on-screen is "a" Spider-Man and not "the" Spider-Man, which did take away legitimacy from Tom Holland.

The fact that Peter is such a wannabe Avenger in the MCU would make it more cathartic to actually have him become an actual Avenger not just drafted in an emergency when he happens to there.

I doubt he'd be the leader of the team (although I wouldn't mind seeing him lead an Avengers team in the comics) but he could be the teams resident scientist now that Tony is no more.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The fact that Peter is such a wannabe Avenger in the MCU would make it more cathartic to actually have him become an actual Avenger not just drafted in an emergency when he happens to there.

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.

I doubt he'd be the leader of the team (although I wouldn't mind seeing him lead an Avengers team in the comics) but he could be the teams resident scientist now that Tony is no more.

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.

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.

[Tony Stark]

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.



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.

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.

I’m just asking. Not trying to start anything. I’m honestly just curious. Usually I’m not when people hate Tony, but what is it about Tony that you seem to hate?