Wolverine and Spider-Man as Avengers in the MCU?

[XPac]

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.

Again though, in the MCU everyone tends to show up in the Avengers films. So I'm not sure it even matters whether or not he's officially a member or not. Avenger movies tend to be all hands on deck.

[Matt Parker]

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.



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.



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 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.

Ok, I am not a corporate shill. I never said that ToNy was perfect. In fact, I think his flaws are what make him interesting, and the movies acknowledge his flaws. Please donÂ’t put words in my mouth.

Also, the Mysterio situation is also different than what happened with Bestman. For one, Tony didnÂ’t steal BeckÂ’s technology. When he presented it at MIT, Beck was there with him. We only saw a brief part of that speech, but itÂ’s possible Beck himself spoke at the event (he was all dressed up in a suit in the glimpse we saw, who knows). Rather, Beck was unhappy because A) Tony named it BARF and B) Tony wanted to use it for therapy and Beck wanted to use it for other applications. Yes, Toby inarguably hogged the spotlight, but he didnÂ’t outright steal it. Tony never claimed to invent Barf. I know you will accuse me of being a shill for corporations, but I am arguing that Tony isnÂ’t as bad as Bestman, not that heÂ’s perfect or that he is a coroporate overlord we should all bow down to. My defense of a fictional character that I can tell is a good person at heart doesnÂ’t mean I endorse tools like Elon Musk or A T and T.

Also, Beck says he was fired for being unstable, which he clearly is. HeÂ’s a lunatic. I understand your point that corporations often scapegoat employees they screw over as being bad people, but Beck actually was a bad person, and Tony did not steal his tech from him. Plus, Beck is a fictitious character. This isnÂ’t corporate propaganda in the real world accusing a good man of being evil to justify stealing from him. Beck is actually a bad person, and he was fired because he was unstable and dangerous (he literally has no problem with murdering children, for GodÂ’s sake). Plus, Barf was not stolen from him.

To your point about Tony making Ultron, I donÂ’t think that itÂ’s public knowledge. The outrage over Sokovia is never stated to be about Tony making Ultron, but more vaguely the damage that Ultron caused. Miram Spencer never mentions Ultron when she confronts Tony. She just seems to be upset that her son was killed on the AvengersÂ’ watch and that no one answered for an entire city being destroyed. However, the movie is really vague about this, and I think it could have been conveyed more clearly. I think itÂ’s kind of unclear whether him creating Ultron is public knowledge. If you remember a moment that makes this more clear, feel free to correct me. Maybe IÂ’m delusional.

Finally, your point about comparing Tom HollandÂ’s success to Maguire has nothing to do with what I was arguing. RDJ as Tony Stark is a more iconic character than specifically Tobey Maguire as Spider Man. You admitted as such. Yes, this is because Iron Man was obscure before the movies and the film portrayal cemented RDJ as definitive Tony Stark in the public perception. You are right. That is the point I was making.

ItÂ’s clear that we simply donÂ’t see these movies the same way. Your interpretations are perfectly valid and I respect your opinion. Agree to disagree?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Ok, I am not a corporate shill. I never said that ToNy was perfect. In fact, I think his flaws are what make him interesting, and the movies acknowledge his flaws. Please donÂ’t put words in my mouth.

I am not saying you are a corporate shill. I apologize if it came out that way. What I am saying is that fandom, in this case fandom of a certain character where you naturally like the character and want to defend him, leads you in a blind alley of defensiveness which tend to parallel patterns in real life that are disagreeable.

Also, the Mysterio situation is also different than what happened with Bestman. For one, Tony didnÂ’t steal BeckÂ’s technology. When he presented it at MIT, Beck was there with him. We only saw a brief part of that speech, but itÂ’s possible Beck himself spoke at the event (he was all dressed up in a suit in the glimpse we saw, who knows).

Nobody heard of Quentin Beck and his connections to Tony Stark, not even the resources that Shield has access to (which Talos!Fury has access to anyway) until midway through FFH. If he made public speeches, then it would have come up and been flagged. So that's not a supportable interpretation.

And again I think you need to defend based on what's there in the movie and not what you wish to infer.

Yes, Toby inarguably hogged the spotlight, but he didnÂ’t outright steal it. Tony never claimed to invent Barf.

Until FAR FROM HOME, nobody in the fandom or anywhere had any reason to doubt that Tony Stark invented that AR technology in that scene in CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR. The film presented it and implied that it was Tony who created it. And they definitely didn't plan that scene with the idea of seeding Mysterio because Captain America Civil War had a complex production where Spider-Man was added in very late in production. That scene was filmed fairly early in production and could not possibly have been written with a view of seeding a future Spider-Man villain since they didn't know they'd get Spider-Man at that time (because he came in late with a deal with Sony that happened late in the day necessitating a hasty recasting of the characters of May and Peter in short order). So that scene was written and filmed with the intention of it being Tony Stark presenting his new invention. If FAR FROM HOME is going to retcon that and claim somebody else invented that...then that means that Tony Stark plagiarized and passed the invention of other people as his own work. Full Stop. In the movie, nobody heard of Quentin Beck which based on what we see and hear, and pending future retcons (which might or might not come to salvage Tony Stark).

My defense of a fictional character that I can tell is a good person at heart doesnÂ’t mean I endorse tools like Elon Musk or A T and T.

Just because you like a character that doesn't mean you should defend or justify every version of that character. I am a fan of Spider-Man as a character but you won't hear me defend stuff like Clone Saga or OMD, stuff like him slapping MJ in a fit of anger in the former as somehow being in character for him. I want that stuff buried and never referred to again (and which has happened). I like Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy and Tobey Maguire's Peter but I won't defend Spider-Man 3. You can like Tony Stark as a character and the MCU version, and still take issues with how he's presented in the MCU Spider-Man movies. I should think that if you are a fan of Tony Stark it should bother you that the Spider-Man movies repeatedly frame him as being indirectly responsible for the turn to supervillainy of characters who in the comics turned to supervillainy without his intervention.

Plus, Beck is a fictitious character.

Far From Home is meant for an audience of real people, and not an audience of fellow fictional characters.

When an audience sees a guy who has his invention miscredited and stolen from him and then presented in the rest of a movie as an evil would be murderer and a psycho. And this after the first movie presented a guy who lost his business because of cruel and callous negligence as a bad guy, nobody can be faulted for wondering about what the movie's major malfunction is? The movies are schizoid. Tony Stark is somehow present far more than Uncle Ben is, and Happy Hogan has a bigger part than Aunt May does...and yet the villains have justified grievances at Stark and the movie still ends with Spider-Man putting them down as scum and having a positive unvarnished view of Tony at the end.

To your point about Tony making Ultron, I donÂ’t think that itÂ’s public knowledge.

1. It absolutely is public knowledge. Nothing the movies show and tell us imply otherwise. I mean look at ANT-MAN where Hank Pym dismisses the Avengers because they destroy cities and sneers at Tony Stark.

2. If it weren't public knowledge that would make Stark a liar who indulges in cover-ups of his actions and who doesn't take the minimum accountability. Your defense of Stark makes him come off as even worse person than the movies show.

Agree to disagree?

Always do.

[Agent Z]

So the common consensus is that the X-Men movies are almost all entirely Woverine focused to the detriment of other characters but he is understandably a huge draw for the audience so you have to have him. Would it be a better idea that if the Avengers franchise continues in movie form that Logan is a member of the Avengers. Likewise Spider-Man becomes a 'proper' Avengers member in a similar set up to how it was in New Avengers. If you've got Spidey and maybe another A-List character on the roster he wont dominate the movie as much and can easily bounce off them in unique ways we haven't seen the character do in any of the X films. He'd still be a mutant and you can establish a connection with the inevitable MCU X-Men but he'd primarily be an Avenger.

Am I crazy for thinking this is a good idea and wanting this or could it work?

I think Logan should stick to being an X-Man. I can take or leave Peter being an Avanger.

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 is far from the only superhero with a problematic past and he never broke any laws when selling weapons. He also created Ultron after having his mind messed with by Scarlet Witch, a woman who joined a neo-nazi organization which a lot less people seem to have issues with for some reason.

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.

Your issue is that you keep trying to compare Bestman and Tony as if what they did is equivalent. It isn't. One was trying to help people the other was criminal who screwed over his friend. That isn't protecting Tony, that's sticking to his actual character. By your logic, any super villain with an irrational grudge against Peter is bad writing.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Tony is far from the only superhero with a problematic past...

Tony happens to be the superhero Spider-Man is shown interacting with most often. If Spider-Man hung around Scarlet Witch, he should probably be sassing her out too.

...and he never broke any laws when selling weapons.

Spider-Man didn't break any laws either, when he used his powers as an entertainer just to make money either, or when he let the Burglar escape because it wasn't his problem.

Just because Tony didn't break any laws, that doesn't mean he can't be judged for his actions morally and ethically, especially since the movies have done so multiple times, and Tony's entire story is that he hates the person he used to be.

But again this demonstrates the double standard. People object to the idea that MCU Spider-Man should call out Iron Man for the stuff that he's already called out for in earlier movies. People just don't think that MCU Spider-Man has a right to do so. So any attempt at criticism is brushed away with defenses that don't hold up and aren't just.

He also created Ultron after having his mind messed with by Scarlet Witch,

All Wanda did was drive Tony to take the Scepter with the Mind Stone...but the plans for Ultron existed before that raid, and even afterwards, Bruce Banner is skeptical about the entire thing multiple times and tries to warn him about it to no avail because Tony decides that he's smarter than any moral objections that can be thrown at them. And more importantly Tony continues to justify to Steve and others that he was right to build Ultron throughout the sequel.

Anyway back on-topic, I will say that this probably isn't public knowledge in the MCU, i.e. that a Wanda-inspired Vision was the catalyst for Tony making Ultron.

...a woman who joined a neo-nazi organization which a lot less people seem to have issues with for some reason.

Again Wanda's not the one established and framed as the hero that Spider-Man looks up to and is a fanboy of. Her dubious baggage is not on trial here.

Your issue is that you keep trying to compare Bestman and Tony as if what they did is equivalent.

Both play a similar role in Toomes' origins but one is treated differently by the story than the other.

[Agent Z]

Spider-Man didn't break any laws either, when he used his powers as an entertainer just to make money either, or when he let the Burglar escape because it wasn't his problem.

Letting a burglar go is far more obviously dangerous and lacking in altruism than what Tony did.

Just because Tony didn't break any laws, that doesn't mean he can't be judged for his actions morally and ethically, especially since the movies have done so multiple times, and Tony's entire story is that he hates the person he used to be.

Exactly. Tony has been repeatedly judged for his actions with several people throwing his past in his face so let’s not pretend like the MCU lets him off the hook. He’s been called out, criticized and demonized in-universe and out more than any other character, including some villains. Hell, he’s the only MCU character that fans have frequently called a war criminal despite Thanos, Loki, Odin and possibly some of the Guardians being more deserving of that label.

So I’m not really sure why Homecoming and Far From Home not castigating Tony for Toomes and Beck’s sins is an issue. There is plenty Tony has done he actually can be criticized for. Being the target of an irrational super villain grudge is just common superhero storytelling. Being the “little guy” is not a mark of virtue and drawing false equivalencies between fictional characters and real life people who have been unfairly hurt by corporate politics is frankly insulting to the struggles and suffering those real life people went through. And I can’t help but notice that whenever this topic comes up you have nothing to say about the working class people hurt by Toomes and Beck’s crimes.

Hell, the writers had to ignore or be unaware of the fact that Toomes would have to be given a written termination notice for convenience and be paid for all expenses occurred, plus extra. Toomes himself admitted he overextended in more ways than one. Likewise, if Beck really was working SI, he'd have been working on a team meaning he wouldn't be getting sole credit for BARF. These guys aren't little people being stepped on by giants, they're greedy, entitled murderers and thieves who think nothing of hurting innocent people just to spite one person they perceive as having wronged them.

These conversations are a result of people taking the characters who scapegoat Tony way too seriously. I get the felling Marvel could make a movie where a villain blames Tony for the coronavirus pandemic and the death of George Floyd and people would actually take that villain at their word.

At the end of it all, Toomes and Beck’s grudges against Tony are about as valid as Eddie Brock’s grudge against Spider-Man or Doom thinking that Reed really did ruin his face.

But again this demonstrates the double standard. People object to the idea that MCU Spider-Man should call out Iron Man for the stuff that he's already called out for in earlier movies. People just don't think that MCU Spider-Man has a right to do so. So any attempt at criticism is brushed away with defenses that don't hold up and aren't just.

What double standard? When did I ever say I don’t want Peter to call Tony out on his mistakes? My point is that stuff like Toomes, Beck or Wanda blaming him for her parents’ death are not his fault.

All Wanda did was drive Tony to take the Scepter with the Mind Stone...but the plans for Ultron existed before that raid, and even afterwards, Bruce Banner is skeptical about the entire thing multiple times and tries to warn him about it to no avail because Tony decides that he's smarter than any moral objections that can be thrown at them.

Wanda specifically inserted that image into Tony’s head the purpose of making him do something self-destructive. Notice her smirk when Tony leaves with the scepter and her immediately recognizing Ultron as a creation of Tony’s before he actually says so. Why do you think Ultron sought out the Maximoffs in the first place? He’s as much her creation as Tony’s if not moreso.

Anyway back on-topic, I will say that this probably isn't public knowledge in the MCU, i.e. that a Wanda-inspired Vision was the catalyst for Tony making Ultron.

Yeah the Avengers continuing to cover Wanda’s ass is a pretty strong mark against them being allowed to self-govern.

Both play a similar role in Toomes' origins but one is treated differently by the story than the other.

Their roles are only similar in the most superficial of ways.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Letting a burglar go is far more obviously dangerous and lacking in altruism than what Tony did.

Are you serious? Tony Stark sold weapons to make profits, making him complicit in military interventions and conflicts around the world. Tony's negligence killed countless Uncle Bens and until some terrorists turned his tech against him, he never cared; which Yinsen himself pointed out to him.

Exactly. Tony has been repeatedly judged for his actions with several people throwing his past in his face so let’s not pretend like the MCU lets him off the hook.

Except by Spider-Man. Spider-Man is not allowed to have opinions.

So I’m not really sure why Homecoming and Far From Home not castigating Tony for Toomes and Beck’s sins is an issue.

Because again the story frames the entire conflict originating from his actions. For there to be any resolution, Spider-Man needs to reject or rebuke Stark directly. Much like how T'Challa told his ancestors' spirits they were wrong in Black Panther.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Are you serious? Tony Stark sold weapons to make profits, making him complicit in military interventions and conflicts around the world. Tony's negligence killed countless Uncle Bens and until some terrorists turned his tech against him, he never cared; which Yinsen himself pointed out to him.

I agree war profiteering is a horrible business, however, we don't know the exact details on what he's involved in and we don't have any information to make any judgements about any sales he did make. We also don't know how much of that was Stane selling weapons under the table, which muddies things. But he did care when he heard about his weapons being used by terrorists. He only found out when the reporter told him that, and when he did he flew to where they were to destroy them as Iron Man. And when he did learn about his weapons being misused he did something about it. He had nobody in his life to do this, until he met Yinsen and Everhart. If he truly was that cold-blooded what they said wouldn't have mattered.

Except by Spider-Man. Spider-Man is not allowed to have opinions.

He has opinions, we just don't know them in the movies we've seen. MJ would have chewed him out directly, I'd have liked to see his reaction to that lol

Because again the story frames the entire conflict originating from his actions. For there to be any resolution, Spider-Man needs to reject or rebuke Stark directly. Much like how T'Challa told his ancestors' spirits they were wrong in Black Panther.

Stark did nothing wrong against those two. Toomes was put in a bad position, but he could have gotten out of it he just wouldn't have a nice house anymore and he moved on far too quickly into being a super-villain. He was Marvel's Walter White. Beck was mentally unstable and Stark didn't steal anything from him, he was an employee for Stark. He only cared about himself and anyone who stood between him and his goals was toast, including his own Mysterio staff when they questioned him too often. Stark is a big catalyst, but he didn't make either of two super-villains. They chose that life on their own.

[anyajenkins]

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.

Yeah, Beck worked for Tony, that means he was inventing stuff for Stark industries. Tony didn’t steal’ anything, beck just didn’t like what he did with his work.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I agree war profiteering is a horrible business, however, we don't know the exact details on what he's involved in and we don't have any information to make any judgements about any sales he did make.

Ulysses Klaue knew him and associated with him in his war profiteering days. It was his weapons that were deployed in Sokovia, which is not even some big secret since SHIELD lists that in their files on the twins at the very start (when Maria Hill debriefs Cap). I am sure that Stark never did anything directly criminal but the nature of his business means that he would surely have sold weapons to micro-nations in the Balkans and Klaue could have been one of the many shady contractors the US Government routinely gets into bed with. That's plenty amoral and blood-drenched as it is, not to mention totally legal.

But he did care when he heard about his weapons being used by terrorists. He only found out when the reporter told him that, and when he did he flew to where they were to destroy them as Iron Man.

That was after he himself was captured by terrorists and forced into a cave with Yinsen. Not before. Stark likely knew that his weapons were used by bad actors, the kind who would in turn sell his tech to worse actors which is how these things worked.

He has opinions, we just don't know them in the movies we've seen.

I don't know if you understand how continuity film editing works, but that comes to the same thing.

Stark did nothing wrong against those two.

Nothing criminally or legally wrong. That's not the same thing as being morally and ethically right.

[Agent Z]

Tony did not start the war in Sokovia nor did he fire the bomb that killed Wanda and Piedro's parents. We don't even know if he knowingly sold weapons their or if it was another one of Obidiah Stane's under the table dealings.

That was after he himself was captured by terrorists and forced into a cave with Yinsen. Not before. Stark likely knew that his weapons were used by bad actors, the kind who would in turn sell his tech to worse actors which is how these things worked.

And Peter realized the error of his ways because the burglar killed his uncle and not someone else's.

Nothing criminally or legally wrong. That's not the same thing as being morally and ethically right.

And Eddie Brock thought he was an innocent man whose life was ruined by Spider-Man instead of his own opportunism and irresponsibility. Also, you've conveniently ignored the whole thing about Beck working for Tony and the fact Toomes could have gotten himself out of his situation in another way.

[Frontier]

That was after he himself was captured by terrorists and forced into a cave with Yinsen. Not before. Stark likely knew that his weapons were used by bad actors, the kind who would in turn sell his tech to worse actors which is how these things worked.

The movie seemed to portray him as being oblivious that his tech was being used to that extent, and that it was Stane who was more involved in that side of things under Tony's nose.

Nothing criminally or legally wrong. That's not the same thing as being morally and ethically right.

I think it's more a case of being misguided in that he made decisions he felt were right but wasn't thinking about the deeper consequences (which is a very Tony thing to do).