Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 364
  1. #166
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I think there should definitely have been more self-reflection regarding Tony's part in what happened with Toomes than what we got in the movie.
    This I agree with. If there was some self-reflection on Peter and Tony's part, an acknowledgement that the movie they are making is the same one that all audiences are seeing, then it would have been okay. There would be problems stil, but at least you can get a sense you aren't being gaslighted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arsenal View Post
    You mean to tell me that Peter looked up to a guy who had a gift, paid a price for selfishly using said gift
    First of all, what price did Tony pay for becoming Iron Man? Tony becoming Iron Man wasn't some self-sacrifice like Bruce Wayne who basically gave away a normal teenage youth, human happiness, relationships for his crusade.

    By becoming Iron Man, Tony still got to keep his money (most of it acquired from his arms-dealing days), his company, his home, and he gets to be in a relationship with the girl of his dreams. And he becomes a bigger celebrity than ever before.

    Oh, and said guy also just so happened to save his city from an alien invasion?
    Iron Man didn't do it all by himself, he did it with the help of many others and yet the MCU Spider-Man singles him out over other Avengers.

    Let's not forget that Tony outright lied to Peter in CIVIL WAR and recruited him to fight his own best friends by telling him that Captain America went crazy rather than "I tried to force everyone to back this unpopular policy that got made because of a robot I built that killed a bunch of people, and when Cap thought it was too extreme, we argued and now I want you, rando kid, to get involved and participate in a gang fight". That's basically crude mall-recruitment tactics.

    Bird boy had himself a guy who could reverse engineer alien tech and decided to create weapons instead of literally anything else yet Stark's the one responsible because he "radicalized" him?
    In Age of Ultron, Cap expresses sympathy for Wanda and Pietro on hearing their backstory about fighting invaders of their country and signing up for an experiment to get a chance, because they got radicalized. If Captain America can relate and empathize to kids in Sokovia having grievances and taking arms, why can't you extend that to Vulture (who after all doesn't exactly join Hydra or anything).

  2. #167
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    452

    Default

    I am really interested as to where the Spider-man franchise will go AFTER the third movie more than the third film itself. Will the 3rd film be a prelude to a Spider-verse event movie? Will this be or lead up to the conclusion of Tom Holland's Spider-man? Will they try to introduce Miles Morales' Spider-man or some legacy character to continue the franchise? Will Sony try to do some sort of continuation of the Sam Raimi universe with Tobey and Sam potentially back in the mix? Will they just reboot and go back to basics with Peter Parker for the fourth time?

    So many possibilities.
    Last edited by Spider-Tiger; 03-01-2021 at 12:56 PM.

  3. #168
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider-Tiger View Post
    I am really interested as to where the Spider-man franchise will go AFTER the third movie more than the third film itself. Will the 3rd film be a prelude to a Spider-verse event movie? Will this be or lead up to the conclusion of Tom Holland's Spider-man? Will they try to introduce Miles Morales' Spider-man or some legacy character to continue the franchise? Will Sony try to do some sort of continuation of the Sam Raimi universe with Tobey and Sam potentially back in the mix? Will they just reboot and go back to basics with Peter Parker for the fourth time?

    So many possibilities.
    Tom Holland's contract with Sony will be up with the third movie.

    And I honestly am not sure what the future will be after that. The MCU broke off the deal with Sony after FFH for a few months, and Sony announced and made plans to do a third film without the MCU (and got to be honest, I would have preferred that). Eventually they agreed to a third film and another deal but the details aren't made clear.

    I doubt that the MCU would renew the contract with Sony or extend it because it's basically allowing a rival studio to profit of connection to their films. So I think the next movie based on how it ends would likely be it for Spider-Man in the MCU, barring an unexpected change in circumstances.

  4. #169
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,601

    Default

    Isn't there another MCU guest appearance after No Way Home in the cards?

  5. #170
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    63,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    We are talking about everything. But even post-IM Tony isn't anything that impressive. Tony for most of the MCU has been extremely negligent and has had a massive ego that has put people at harm. His actions in Age of Ultron would at best be considered manslaughter, which he would be tried for in real life. Infinity War and the beginning of Endgame go as far as to argue that he was Earth's Thanos.

    None of this is information inferred. All the Iron Man and Avengers movies (plus Civil War) explicitly talk about this. Tony's entire character arc in Endgame works only due to this.

    I'm not sure why we have to deny basic common-sense assertions of who Tony Stark was throughout these films just so this take on Spider-Man can work and make sense. I want it to work and for it to make sense as much as you do, but sadly it doesn't.
    I mean, there were parallels in as far as they viewed themselves as futurists trying to save their respective planets, Thanos was the one who thought wiping out half the universe was worth the cost while Tony brough them back. But otherwise Tony is nothing like Thanos.

    I just think we're somewhat overthinking it when it comes to Tony in the movies even as someone who really does not care for the Spider-Man/Iron Man relationship in the films.
    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    First of all, what price did Tony pay for becoming Iron Man? Tony becoming Iron Man wasn't some self-sacrifice like Bruce Wayne who basically gave away a normal teenage youth, human happiness, relationships for his crusade.

    By becoming Iron Man, Tony still got to keep his money (most of it acquired from his arms-dealing days), his company, his home, and he gets to be in a relationship with the girl of his dreams. And he becomes a bigger celebrity than ever before.
    I mean, he gave up his company's primary means of money and eventually gave the company wholesale to Pepper, his house got blown up by AIM, he got PTSD from the Battle of New York where he helped avoid New York from getting nuked and which stopped the Chitauri, he actively puts himself out there in the suit to battle villains and save people...he's not Batman but I think it's wrong to think post-IM Tony wasn't self-sacrificing to some extent.

    Iron Man didn't do it all by himself, he did it with the help of many others and yet the MCU Spider-Man singles him out over other Avengers.

    Let's not forget that Tony outright lied to Peter in CIVIL WAR and recruited him to fight his own best friends by telling him that Captain America went crazy rather than "I tried to force everyone to back this unpopular policy that got made because of a robot I built that killed a bunch of people, and when Cap thought it was too extreme, we argued and now I want you, rando kid, to get involved and participate in a gang fight". That's basically crude mall-recruitment tactics.
    Peter latched onto Tony because he connected with him the most due to their shared interests and because Tony was the first public Superhero.

    Tony didn't give Peter the whole story but at the time the conflict was over Steve helping a wanted fugitive and not really over the Accords.
    In Age of Ultron, Cap expresses sympathy for Wanda and Pietro on hearing their backstory about fighting invaders of their country and signing up for an experiment to get a chance, because they got radicalized. If Captain America can relate and empathize to kids in Sokovia having grievances and taking arms, why can't you extend that to Vulture (who after all doesn't exactly join Hydra or anything).
    Wanda and Pietro's situation was completely different though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Isn't there another MCU guest appearance after No Way Home in the cards?
    I was under the impression he at least had one last crossover movie.

  6. #171
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I was under the impression he at least had one last crossover movie.
    That was my impression as well. I understand Holland's current contract ends after NWH, but he said he would sign another contract. I fully expect Holland to sign another contract of some kind, even though I'm ready to move on from the MCU Spider-Man.

  7. #172
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    63,895

    Default

    I wonder if they'll bring back Tinkerer. It feels like they kind of forgot about him.

  8. #173
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I mean, there were parallels in as far as they viewed themselves as futurists trying to save their respective planets, Thanos was the one who thought wiping out half the universe was worth the cost while Tony brough them back. But otherwise Tony is nothing like Thanos.
    In hindsight, it is safe to say that MCU Thanos was Iron Man's archenemy and dark mirror. Like it's not just the superficial things like the fact they're both very smart and that born were born privileged. Their main similarities were their immense egos and how they saw themselves as working on behalf of everyone. Any talk of them being "futurists" were for the most part just them rationalizing their actions and their negligence towards life. In reality, both couldn't tell the difference between saving the world and destroying it - that is until the end when Tony manages to outgrow that toxic mindset while Thanos doesn't, and that is ultimately what saves Tony's soul and what proves that "Tony Stark has a heart".

    I'm not an Iron Man diehard, but Tony's 11-year character arc is one of the most brilliant stories ever done with a superhero and his dynamic with Thanos is one of the best hero/archenemy dynamic I have ever seen. It all works precisely because Tony was someone very similar to Thanos and could have easily become him.

    I just think we're somewhat overthinking it when it comes to Tony in the movies even as someone who really does not care for the Spider-Man/Iron Man relationship in the films.
    To be honest, I think too many people are underthinking it, both in MCU Spider-Man and in real life. As Jack already pointed out, what happens to people like Toomes and Beck happens to millions of real working people all the time and those people are demonized all the time, including people like Kirby and Ditko who have had these same arguments people make in favor of these movies be used against them.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 03-01-2021 at 03:44 PM.

  9. #174
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    In hindsight, it is safe to say that MCU Thanos was Iron Man's archenemy and dark mirror. Like it's not just the superficial things like the fact they're both very smart and that born were born privileged. Their main similarities were their immense egos and how they saw themselves as working on behalf of everyone.
    It's important to note that "Tony Stark has a heart" was a joke made by Pepper at his expense, and initially sarcastic, and what it symbolizes is accountability.

    The reason Tony Stark became a better person is that he had people hold him accountable time and time again. It was Yinsen in that cave, then Pepper, even the journalist who pushes Tony to go public as Iron Man and by going public, Tony has taken the mantle and expectations of being a superhero, the fame and everything on his shoulders, removing his private life and going all in. In the sequel, it's Natasha, Rhodey, Nick Fury who hold him accountable. In the first Avengers its Coulson, and Steve Rogers, and also Banner who help him out. In CIVIL WAR, his backing of the Sokovia Accords (which admittedly, was an overcorrection and a mistake) also came from a positive place where a woman brings him to task about Ultron. Whereas Thanos was unaccountable and unable to be checked by anyone. So with that, Peter Parker's own movies not holding Tony accountable feels even more off.

    Any talk of them being "futurists" were for the most part just them rationalizing their actions and their negligence towards life.
    The ironic thing, karmic if you will, is that Tony Stark the futurist ultimately becomes a puppet of fate when Dr. Strange sets him on the course to sacrifice his life. Tony becomes Strange's tool at the end, used and sacrficed for the greater good, just as he used and misused people with Ultron and the Sokovia Accords. So in that level it's a kind of fitting ending in the way that the people condemned by Dante to Purgatorio and Inferno met fates in line with their actions in life. The movies frame Tony's death as a big heroic sacrifice and so on, but you can equally read it as a tragic end for a guy who sought control and power all his life, never fully coming to terms with how little he or anyone had control in the larger cosmos.

    As Jack already pointed out, what happens to people like Toomes and Beck happens to millions of real working people all the time and those people are demonized all the time, including people like Kirby and Ditko who have had these same arguments people make in favor of these movies be used against them.
    Right now, there's a new biography of Stan Lee by Abraham Riesman which takes a very hard and critical look at his career and reveals a very flawed picture and people across comics sites are throwing conniptions simply because Riesman raises the obvious point that Lee's career before and after his collaboration with Kirby and Ditko is far less impressive than their careers without Lee, which does suggest that the latter were far more responsible for Marvel's success than he. People across comics business and fansites trot out excuses for Lee screwing over Jack and Steve and so on, and it's identical to defenses of Tony against Vulture and Beck.Obviously Sony and MCU didn't intend this, but Vulture and Beck are quite allegorical for the perceptions people had about Kirby and Ditko. Vulture is an old-fashioned working-class guy looking after his family, proud with a self-reliant streak while Beck is an obsessive perfectionist who mixes grievances with grudges.

    And RDJ's Iron Man is Stan Lee or a realization of Lee's power. Iron Man is the one character that is far more Stan Lee than Kirby and/or Ditko (who granted did come up with the red and gold color scheme of the costume). Lee intended Iron Man to be an establishment industrialist that hippies latch on to...the problem is it didn't take. Iron Man in the comics labored for decades as the lesser star in the stable next to Spider-Man, FF, X-Men, even Daredevil, The Mighty Thor, Captain America have outshone Tony in comics in terms of sales and also for boasting individually far greater number of classic stories and runs than Iron Man does. And yet the MCU with RDJ comes along, and suddenly Iron Man becomes the central IP of the cinematic universe.

  10. #175
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The reason Tony Stark became a better person is that he had people hold him accountable time and time again. It was Yinsen in that cave, then Pepper, even the journalist who pushes Tony to go public as Iron Man and by going public, Tony has taken the mantle and expectations of being a superhero, the fame and everything on his shoulders, removing his private life and going all in. In the sequel, it's Natasha, Rhodey, Nick Fury who hold him accountable. In the first Avengers its Coulson, and Steve Rogers, and also Banner who help him out. In CIVIL WAR, his backing of the Sokovia Accords (which admittedly, was an overcorrection and a mistake) also came from a positive place where a woman brings him to task about Ultron. Whereas Thanos was unaccountable and unable to be checked by anyone. So with that, Peter Parker's own movies not holding Tony accountable feels even more off.
    Even more awkward is that Spider-Man is arguably Marvel's most class-conscious hero. He is the "everyman", the guy most connected to the ground, the guy who talks the most about responsibility. If anything Peter Parker and his films by extension should hold Tony Stark the most accountable of all the MCU films. It would be problematic if Tony wasn't held accountable period, but it's especially problematic in the context of Spider-Man not doing that.

    Like, everything Tony does in Homecoming and FFH is what Spider-Man's archenemy does literally all the time. Norman screws over the poor, patents other people's work and creates new villains (intentionally or unintentionally) every other week in the MU, and Peter Parker considers him accountable for it all the time. But Tony Stark does the same things and we're supposed to believe that the same character would turn a blind eye.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 03-01-2021 at 06:14 PM.

  11. #176
    World's Greatest Hero blackspidey2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    See, I don't even think the issues brought up with MCU Spider-Man can be considered 'fan complaints'. If you ask me, they're things everyone should be upset about on principle. I'm not a diehard Captain America fan, but I would be put off on principle if Cap's next film portrayed him as someone who uncritically admires the state (Cap uncritically admiring the state makes about as much sense as Spider-Man uncritically admiring rich business types). The same goes for a Woman Woman film with sexist undertones, or if a Black Panther film had racist undertones. These examples would all be the equivalent of a Spider-Man with ageist and classist undertones to him, but the latter isn't seen that way and it's frustrating.

    MCU Spider-Man is to Spider-Man essentially what Cold War Silver Age Superman was to Joe and Jerry's Superman - a character stripped of what he was about and turned into literally the opposite by corporate suits. Like, it hasn't exactly become the default take on Spider-Man like Cold War Superman did for a while, and he doesn't evoke the same "feel good" emotions that Cold War Superman did. But in terms of how he functions, that's essentially what this Spider-Man is.
    Very well said. I can't wait till this whole MCU business is done with.
    "Anyone can win a fight when the odds are easy! It's when the going's tough - when there seems to be no chance - that's when it counts!" - Spider-Man

  12. #177
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    Even more awkward is that Spider-Man is arguably Marvel's most class-conscious hero. He is the "everyman", the guy most connected to the ground, the guy who talks the most about responsibility. If anything Peter Parker and his films by extension should hold Tony Stark the most accountable of all the MCU films. It would be problematic if Tony wasn't held accountable period, but it's especially problematic in the context of Spider-Man not doing that.

    Like, everything Tony does in Homecoming and FFH is what Spider-Man's archenemy does literally all the time. Norman screws over the poor, patents other people's work and creates new villains (intentionally or unintentionally) every other week in the MU, and Peter Parker considers him accountable for it all the time. But Tony Stark does the same things and we're supposed to believe that the same character would turn a blind eye.
    There's almost like this caste system in the MCU. Tony Stark can only be held accountable by those in his own superhero warrior caste or others in that world, but Peter Parker and his world is too lowly to do anything other than grovel.

    In Homecoming, Tony dismisses Adrian Toomes as "beneath my pay grade" and fobs him off to the FBI and I kept expecting some pushback or some kind of rubbing in his face to happen when I saw it first and yet it never came, and the film somehow normalizes that attitude. And Tony's attitude is frankly absurd and indefensible because for it to work you have to accept that Tony Stark somehow singlehandedly defeated the Chitauri and Ultron (which he didn't) and that he never had trouble in his solo films (which he absolutely did). Adrian Toomes is definitely on the level of say Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, or you know Killian who bombed Tony's house and basically drove underground so he's not at all beneath Tony's pay-grade. And there's no way the FBI could have handled him. And yet there isn't any pushback to that. Like if when Peter meets Tony at the compound at the end, Peter sassed at Tony and goes, "Guess he was on your paygrade after all" (which comics Spider-Man absolutely would have done).

    These movies seem to accept that Iron Man and his movies belong to some superior caste and that's just not how you adapt Spider-Man. It totally robs the romance of the shared universe and crossover, because obviously in his own movies, in the Raimi movies or ITSV, Peter wouldn't be subject to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackspidey2099 View Post
    Very well said. I can't wait till this whole MCU business is done with.
    In my opinion, the MCU never delivered, not even once, what was promised. We were told to expect Marvel Team-Up, or Spider-Man making cool crossovers and teamups with different heroes and instead the movies make Spider-Man into a goddamn Iron Man subfranchise, a character who is literally not fit to shine Spider-Man's shoes on any metric that counts -- inferior comics, inferior rogues gallery, inferior supporting cast, inferior cartoons, inferior games, and also head-to-head Raimi's movies and ITSV are better than any of the solo IM movies (I will say Iron Man 3 is better than Spider-Man 3, so there's that).

    At this point, I would prefer if Spider-Man is a standalone solo hero and doesn't crossover into the MCU again.

  13. #178
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    There's almost like this caste system in the MCU. Tony Stark can only be held accountable by those in his own superhero warrior caste or others in that world, but Peter Parker and his world is too lowly to do anything other than grovel.

    In Homecoming, Tony dismisses Adrian Toomes as "beneath my pay grade" and fobs him off to the FBI and I kept expecting some pushback or some kind of rubbing in his face to happen when I saw it first and yet it never came, and the film somehow normalizes that attitude. And Tony's attitude is frankly absurd and indefensible because for it to work you have to accept that Tony Stark somehow singlehandedly defeated the Chitauri and Ultron (which he didn't) and that he never had trouble in his solo films (which he absolutely did). Adrian Toomes is definitely on the level of say Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, or you know Killian who bombed Tony's house and basically drove underground so he's not at all beneath Tony's pay-grade. And there's no way the FBI could have handled him. And yet there isn't any pushback to that. Like if when Peter meets Tony at the compound at the end, Peter sassed at Tony and goes, "Guess he was on your paygrade after all" (which comics Spider-Man absolutely would have done).

    These movies seem to accept that Iron Man and his movies belong to some superior caste and that's just not how you adapt Spider-Man. It totally robs the romance of the shared universe and crossover, because obviously in his own movies, in the Raimi movies or ITSV, Peter wouldn't be subject to that.
    Damn. Way to hit the nail on the head with the bolded parts.

    Some of that attitude might also be due to the Spider-Man films being Sony films. MCU or not, Holland's films will never be "pure-blooded" by the standards of the Disney studio execs.

    Also, I forgot to mention this, but Spider-Man doesn't even turn a blind eye to Iron Man himself in the same book that supposedly inspired their movie relationship. I don't know if Marvel thought all this was a good idea because of the Civil War comics, but if they did... Is that really any different from how off Zack Snyder was about the point of Watchmen?
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 03-01-2021 at 06:58 PM.

  14. #179
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    63,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    Even more awkward is that Spider-Man is arguably Marvel's most class-conscious hero. He is the "everyman", the guy most connected to the ground, the guy who talks the most about responsibility. If anything Peter Parker and his films by extension should hold Tony Stark the most accountable of all the MCU films. It would be problematic if Tony wasn't held accountable period, but it's especially problematic in the context of Spider-Man not doing that.
    One of my issues with MCU Spider-Man is how he seemingly has no money problems or "real life" problems because he has access to Stark money, resources, and access to stuff like Quinjets and stuff.

    I think it's ridiculous that Peter has gone through six suits that he can practically make a Hall of Armor out of, although that's more a consequence of the merchandising need of Superheroes.

    But I think for the MCU the be all end all of Peter's problems are that he's young and in high school.
    Like, everything Tony does in Homecoming and FFH is what Spider-Man's archenemy does literally all the time. Norman screws over the poor, patents other people's work and creates new villains (intentionally or unintentionally) every other week in the MU, and Peter Parker considers him accountable for it all the time. But Tony Stark does the same things and we're supposed to believe that the same character would turn a blind eye.
    I think he's more like Max Modell from the last Spider-Man cartoon where his intentions are good, he's Peter's science mentor, Peter uses his resources, but Max's decisions always inevitably seem to make things harder for Peter and end up creating/motivating all his major villains.

    spoilers:
    Heck, he was technically the final boss of the show.
    end of spoilers
    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    In Homecoming, Tony dismisses Adrian Toomes as "beneath my pay grade" and fobs him off to the FBI and I kept expecting some pushback or some kind of rubbing in his face to happen when I saw it first and yet it never came, and the film somehow normalizes that attitude. And Tony's attitude is frankly absurd and indefensible because for it to work you have to accept that Tony Stark somehow singlehandedly defeated the Chitauri and Ultron (which he didn't) and that he never had trouble in his solo films (which he absolutely did). Adrian Toomes is definitely on the level of say Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, or you know Killian who bombed Tony's house and basically drove underground so he's not at all beneath Tony's pay-grade. And there's no way the FBI could have handled him. And yet there isn't any pushback to that. Like if when Peter meets Tony at the compound at the end, Peter sassed at Tony and goes, "Guess he was on your paygrade after all" (which comics Spider-Man absolutely would have done).
    "Beneath his paygrade" in the sense that The Avengers in the MCU don't fight street crime like Spider-Man does. He still eventually got involved in the FBI bust that spiraled out of control with Peter there.

    Is anyone acting like Tony single-handedly resolved those conflicts? He was just an integral part of the team and did his part.
    In my opinion, the MCU never delivered, not even once, what was promised. We were told to expect Marvel Team-Up, or Spider-Man making cool crossovers and teamups with different heroes and instead the movies make Spider-Man into a goddamn Iron Man subfranchise, a character who is literally not fit to shine Spider-Man's shoes on any metric that counts -- inferior comics, inferior rogues gallery, inferior supporting cast, inferior cartoons, inferior games, and also head-to-head Raimi's movies and ITSV are better than any of the solo IM movies (I will say Iron Man 3 is better than Spider-Man 3, so there's that).
    I don't disagree that Spider-Man could stand to be more standalone, but as someone who likes Iron Man's comics, Rogues Gallery, supporting cast, and cartoons (the games haven't been much to write home about) I feel like you're not giving him a fair shake.

  15. #180
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    One of my issues with MCU Spider-Man is how he seemingly has no money problems or "real life" problems because he has access to Stark money, resources, and access to stuff like Quinjets and stuff.
    Well that's part of the whole baggage of the movie's dubious class politics. It bothers me that the producers spread this idea that Peter couldn't build the Spider-Man suit which he did in the comics, because apparently poor people can't stitch or maybe they think Peter knowing needlework means he's a girl or something, and that it's more acceptable for a rich businessman with a 3D printer to make it.

    I think it's ridiculous that Peter has gone through six suits that he can practically make a Hall of Armor out of, although that's more a consequence of the merchandising need of Superheroes.
    Nolan's last Batman movie reused the suit from the second one, didn't affect or hurt its merchandising sales one bit.

    "Beneath his paygrade" in the sense that The Avengers in the MCU don't fight street crime like Spider-Man does.
    The comparison isn't to Tony Stark in the Avengers, it's to Tony Stark in his solo movies where he struggled against Ivan Vanko (needing Rhodey to beat him up), and against Killian (where he basically destroyed all his suits to fight him and ultimately Pepper was the one who finished him). Tony Stark individually isn't below the paygrade of a gang of sophisticated thieves who repurpose and rewire Chitaturi tech to successfully rob the US Government for more than a half-decade without the Avengers and Shield noticing that their inventory is getting thin.

    As for the Avengers, at the time of Homecoming, the Avengers is basically Tony, Rhodey, Vision (and given he's seeing Wanda secretly, he's not reliable). The big heavy hitters -- Hulk, Thor -- are off-planet. Cap, Natasha, Falcon, Ant-Man have their own splinter-Avengers group. Black Panther is aligned with Cap. So we aren't talking about a full roster of Avengers, basically just three dudes in a compound.

    Anyway you look at this, Tony's actions and attitude makes no sense.

Posting Permissions

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