Spider-Man: No Way Home

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I would argue that claiming this Spider-Man being friends with one billionaire (whom the second movie acknowledges was not perfect and who is never portrayed as such in any of the films) is a perversion of the character's values and comparable to Captain America blindly following the state, is a strawman argument as well as an oversimplification of the films.

The movie sends mixed signals, and the character himself has to acknowledge it in order for it to count.

It's also not just Stark, but also people from Stark's world like Happy and Fury. Writers like Gail Simone have previously pointed out the same thing, too.

So are we expecting Maguire and Garfield to fulfill the movies need for Spider-Man quips that I doubt we'll get from Holland?

Yes (especially Garfield).

[Metro]

Yes because Nick Fury obviously is an Iron Man character.
How could I possibly forget?
I don't know why people comain about Iron Man so much, in the early Spider-Man comics the Fantastic Four played very similar role in Peter's development as Spider-Man, and it's strange how people complain about Tony being a billionaire like Peter is best friends with Harry Osborn in most incarnations.

[Agent Z]

I mean, if we get technical, then yeah technically everything is personal taste. John Walker's Captain America or Ultimate Captain America aren't any less "valid" than 616 or MCU Steve Rogers. The same would go with a Wonder Woman with sexist undertones or a Black Panther with racist ones.

This technicality you want me to acknowledge is 1) is obvious & already goes without saying, and 2) misses the point.

As for your neckbeard comment ... I feel like we are back to asserting that the naysayers here are just a few random losers on the internet, so I'll just repost my ignored response from earlier:

At the end of the day, Simone, Garfield and Persichetti are welcome to their opinions but it is their opinions. They do not speak for the majority and their views should not be considered more important than anyone else's. People had issues with Garfield's take on Spider-Man as well and Simone of all people should understand what it feels like to have your own take on a character so cynically questioned by gatekeepers. These people are not the arbiters of what Spider-Man is and should not be.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Yes because Nick Fury obviously is an Iron Man character.
How could I possibly forget?
I don't know why people comain about Iron Man so much, in the early Spider-Man comics the Fantastic Four played very similar role in Peter's development as Spider-Man, and it's strange how people complain about Tony being a billionaire like Peter is best friends with Harry Osborn in most incarnations.

1. The Fantastic Four are different people from Iron Man, and Peter doesn't blindly look up to them or is mentored by them. ASM #1 even ends with Spider-Man not joining the FF.

2. Peter doesn't blindly look up to Harry or have that same dynamic with him.

3. Peter's friendship with Harry almost always falls apart due to Harry's toxic jealousy for Peter. So even if we count Harry as an example, they still have a change of heart about one another, which MCU Peter and Tony don't.

At the end of the day, Simone, Garfield and Persichetti are welcome to their opinions but it is their opinions. They do not speak for the majority and their views should not be considered more important than anyone else's. People had issues with Garfield's take on Spider-Man as well and Simone of all people should understand what it feels like to have your own take on a character so cynically questioned by gatekeepers. These people are not the arbiters of what Spider-Man is and should not be.

You are correct and I agree with everything you said. That post was just there to challenge the assertion that the naysayers in this case are simply neckbeards on the internet. If someone makes a false claim like that, I do think it's valid to bring up names like Garfield, Simone, and Rothman as a counter-argument. But yes, otherwise I agree that there is generally no point in sourcing other people's opinions like that.

[Agent Z]

The movie sends mixed signals,

There are no mixed signals. The movie doesn't have to claim Tony is worse than Hitler, Satan and Stalin combined to acknowledge his flaws.

and the character himself has to acknowledge it in order for it to count.

According to what law? Happy, who is one of Tony's friends, acknowledges it.

It's also not just Stark, but also people from Stark's world like Happy and Fury.

Nick Fury is not an Iron Man character and most of the characters in the movies are Spider-Man's supporting cast.

I really don't get why MCU Spider-Man gets this much flack for doing things other MCU characters get away with. No one was complaining about Hulk being in Thor's third movie or how the third Captain America film was basically Avengers 3 in all but name.

Writers like Gail Simone have previously pointed out the same thing, too.

With all due respect to Simone, her word is not law.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

There are no mixed signals. The movie doesn't have to claim Tony is worse than Hitler, Satan and Stalin combined to acknowledge his flaws.

Far From Home does acknowledge that Tony was a complicated man (which is true), but also puts emphasis on how Tony "chose" Peter and how Peter should value that. That isn't real independence as he is still getting his confidence from Tony's opinion of him, and Peter's T'Challa moment where he stops blindly questioning his idol is still missing. It's those two particular things that MCU Spider-Man has to have a change of attitude about, but Sony/Disney simply don't want him to.

Furthermore, the overall context matters. Tony is treated by the films as a complicated man with both a good and dark side, while the working-class villains that he screwed over aren't extended that same sympathy. MCU Spider-Man likewise doesn't react or seem to care about the ways Tony has affected the lives of both men. Context like that can't be ignored, it matters when looking at the bigger picture.

I really don't get why MCU Spider-Man gets this much flack for doing things other MCU characters get away with. No one was complaining about Hulk being in Thor's third movie or how the third Captain America film was basically Avengers 3 in all but name.

There are some people who think the crossover elements are a problem with Spider-Man. I am not one of those people, though. There are easy ways to include other characters and still have Spider-Man feel and act like Spider-Man. 60 years of Marvel Team-Ups have shown this not to be an inherent problem.

[Gorthon616]

Peter's T'Challa moment where he stops blindly questioning his idol is still missing.

T'Challa moment?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

T'Challa moment?

Where he goes "You were all wrong to turn your back on the world." That was the moment he stopped blindly looking up to his father figure and became an independent leader of Wakanda.

[Gorthon616]

Where he goes "You were all wrong to turn your back on the world." That was the moment he stopped blindly looking up to his father figure and became an independent leader of Wakanda.

In Spider-Man Homecoming, Spider-Man disobeys Tony's orders to stay out of trouble. But decides on his own to stop the villain and save lives.

[Gorthon616]

Where he goes "You were all wrong to turn your back on the world." That was the moment he stopped blindly looking up to his father figure and became an independent leader of Wakanda.

In Spider-Man Homecoming, Spider-Man disobeys Tony's orders to stay out of trouble. But decides on his own to stop the villain and save lives.

And if you want to take it further, Peter is addressing the past's mistakes and/or consequences (i.e. all the Stark weapons tech) and ensuring that they are not perpetuated into further cycles of violence (i.e. being sold on the black market as weapons).

[Metro]

It's really funny that people pretend Peter was ever subservient to Tony, Peter literally disobeys and ignores everything Tony made either tells to do or not to do.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

In Spider-Man Homecoming, Spider-Man disobeys Tony's orders to stay out of trouble. But decides on his own to stop the villain and save lives.

It's really funny that people pretend Peter was ever subservient to Tony, Peter literally disobeys and ignores everything Tony made either tells to do or not to do.

In Homecoming? That was great, and his character arc at the end was indeed him breaking off from Tony according to Watts and Feige at the time. Infinity War and Endgame retconned then retconned that to him wanting to impress Mr. Stark, and FFH doubled down on that. That's the unfortunate thing, there is a clear lack of unified vision when it comes to this Spider-Man and his role and attitude changes from film to film.

And if you want to take it further, Peter is addressing the past's mistakes and/or consequences (i.e. all the Stark weapons tech) and ensuring that they are not perpetuated into further cycles of violence (i.e. being sold on the black market as weapons).

In Homecoming? Those were Chitauri weapons, not Stark's. From what we know, Peter put the entirety of the blame for that on Toomes.

In Far From Home? Him taking control of EDITH doesn't have the same impact if the film implies that Stark "chose" him to have EDITH instead of Mysterio. This is what I meant when I said the film sends mixed messages at best.

[Gorthon616]

In Homecoming? That was great, and his character arc at the end was indeed him breaking off from Tony according to Watts and Feige at the time. Infinity War and Endgame retconned then retconned that to him wanting to impress Mr. Stark, and FFH doubled down on that. That's the unfortunate thing, there is a clear lack of unified vision when it comes to this Spider-Man and his role and attitude changes from film to film.

In Homecoming? Those were Chitauri weapons, not Stark's. From what we know, Peter put the entirety of the blame for that on Toomes.

In Far From Home? Him taking control of EDITH doesn't have the same impact if the film implies that Stark "chose" him to have EDITH instead of Mysterio. This is what I meant when I said the film sends mixed messages at best.

I don't really see how Infinity War made his motivation trying to impress Stark. He headed out to fight the Black Order on his own. Stark just happened to be there, and he (again) disobeyed Stark by staying on the ship. I never thought that he hated Stark (just like I don't think T'Challa now hates his father or wouldn't want to make his father proud), but he's clearly shown that he thinks on his own and makes his own decisions.

And in the ending of Homecoming it was Stark tech. Yes, at the beginning and for most of the film, it was Chitauri technology, but for the end sequence Toomes tries to steal from Stark as he is moving tech out of Avengers Tower.

As far as Far From Home goes... I don't really know what you are getting at. Why would Stark choose Mysterio over Peter? And what does Peter being given Edith by Stark have to do with anything?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I don't really see how Infinity War made his motivation trying to impress Stark. He headed out to fight the Black Order on his own. Stark just happened to be there, and he (again) disobeyed Stark by staying on the ship. I never thought that he hated Stark (just like I don't think T'Challa now hates his father or wouldn't want to make his father proud), but he's clearly shown that he thinks on his own and makes his own decisions.

I am referring to his character arc in Homecoming, not the scene in Infinity War. The Russos retconned Peter's decision at the end of Homecoming to him simply wanting to impress Tony. That was his T'Challa moment initially, according to statements Feige and Watts made back in 2017.

And in the ending of Homecoming it was Stark tech. Yes, at the beginning and for most of the film, it was Chitauri technology, but for the end sequence Toomes tries to steal from Stark as he is moving tech out of Avengers Tower.

Even then, he seems mostly concerned about whose hands it is in than the nature of the tech. But I can give this a pass because they never outright stayed the nature of the tech. It could have been arc reactor or clean energy for all we know, which can be used maliciously if tweaked a bit.

As far as Far From Home goes... I don't really know what you are getting at. Why would Stark choose Mysterio over Peter? And what does Peter being given Edith by Stark have to do with anything?

Point is, it shouldn't matter who Stark chose or what Stark thinks of Peter. But this Peter's admiration of Stark is so ingrained in this version that it makes it hard to imagine an MCU where that's just a non-factor for Peter.

[Metro]

In Homecoming? That was great, and his character arc at the end was indeed him breaking off from Tony according to Watts and Feige at the time. Infinity War and Endgame retconned then retconned that to him wanting to impress Mr. Stark, and FFH doubled down on that. That's the unfortunate thing, there is a clear lack of unified vision when it comes to this Spider-Man and his role and attitude changes from film to film.



In Homecoming? Those were Chitauri weapons, not Stark's. From what we know, Peter put the entirety of the blame for that on Toomes.

In Far From Home? Him taking control of EDITH doesn't have the same impact if the film implies that Stark "chose" him to have EDITH instead of Mysterio. This is what I meant when I said the film sends mixed messages at best.

The idea, Peter stuck around in Infinity War and Endgame just because he wanted to impress Tony is just do hilariously wrong, like is what is Spider-Man just supposed to ignore the aliens that are threatening the planet?