Anyone annoyed with the trend started by the MCU making Peter a new hero?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Which was likely why Joker War from last year ended with Batman losing the bulk of his fortune thanks to the Joker hacking into and commandeering his Wayne Enterprises accounts and resources, including the gear, vehicles, and weaponry intended for the Caped Crusader's use, which the Joker then used to go on a spree of murder and mayhem that was unprecedented even by his standards, and currently having to make do with only millions as opposed to billions, especially with Bruce Wayne being watched like a hawk by the IRS.

With all the elseworlds DC has done, it's amazed me how no one's done a Poor Batman, Low-Budget Batman or Working-Class Batman. Like would Bruce have become Batman if he hadn't been rich? I guess that might make him more similar to Daredevil since Matt Murdock is an Irish-Catholic working-class kid who became a lawyer and blind superhero and is a genuine underdog superhero.

But I'd argue that the thing about Bruce that's most appealing, for better and worse, that strong sense of vengeance, commitment, and determination crosses class lines and going forward with all the baggage being a rich guy has today, it might make more sense to make Batman work as a poor guy. I'd like a run on Batman similar to Cullen Bunn's MAGNETO which takes the great supervillain with all his resources and top-of-the-line tech and sends him on a low-budget with reduced powers and still shows the same intelligence, charisma, and determination at play.

Relating back to Spider-Man and the understandable criticisms of his MCU portrayal, not just in terms of him coming off as a shallow parody of how middle-aged and older men think modern teenagers behave and think, but also the class issues in having Iron Man as his mentor and surrogate father figure in a way that's meant to be more positive than how things turned out between them in the comics, I would say the major disappointment of Homecoming was that while the Vulture made a rather good case against Peter idolizing Tony Stark, which was somewhat reinforced by Tony's own (arguably) imperious and neglectful style of mentorship, the plot didn't allow for Peter to fully reckon with Tony's character flaws (and arguable moral failures). I mean, hell, Captain America: Civil War had their beginning interactions end with Tony emotionally blackmailing Peter (by threatening to tell his Aunt May he was Spider-Man) into accompanying him to fight Captain America in Germany and not even giving him the full story, just his interpretation of what Cap was doing and why, as shown by Spidey's exchange with Cap when they actually fought, specifically, "You're wrong, but you think you're right. That makes you dangerous." (Projection much, Tony? After all, Avengers: Age of Ultron's plot was propelled in large part by him recklessly pushing ahead because he thought he was right, damn what anyone else had to say in terms of cautioning him against the course of action he'd decided to pursue.) Somehow, that never got addressed or rectified in any meaningful way before Tony's (heroic) death in Avengers: Endgame and even Far From Home's attempt via Happy Hogan to puncture the hero-worship bubble by explaining to Peter that Tony was as flawed and messed up as anyone else . . . still rang rather hollow given how he was practically canonized (made into a sainted figure) following his death, which I'd hope would be tackled more in a Disney+ MCU follow-up series like Armor Wars.

Great points. Tom Holland's Peter is let down by the writing because they're not allowing him to have complicated feelings towards Tony Stark on a personal level.

[Frontier]

With all the elseworlds DC has done, it's amazed me how no one's done a Poor Batman, Low-Budget Batman or Working-Class Batman. Like would Bruce have become Batman if he hadn't been rich? I guess that might make him more similar to Daredevil since Matt Murdock is an Irish-Catholic working-class kid who became a lawyer and blind superhero and is a genuine underdog superhero.

But I'd argue that the thing about Bruce that's most appealing, for better and worse, that strong sense of vengeance, commitment, and determination crosses class lines and going forward with all the baggage being a rich guy has today, it might make more sense to make Batman work as a poor guy. I'd like a run on Batman similar to Cullen Bunn's MAGNETO which takes the great supervillain with all his resources and top-of-the-line tech and sends him on a low-budget with reduced powers and still shows the same intelligence, charisma, and determination at play.

Maybe not "working class" but Batman: Earth One and the recent Batman: Imposter depict a more down-to-Earth, scaled down, Batman.

But you could never really permanently do away with stuff like the gadgets, cave, cars, etc. It's like Batman has enough training to fight without that stuff for a while but it's too recognizable (and frankly cool) to do away with.

[Huntsman Spider]

With all the elseworlds DC has done, it's amazed me how no one's done a Poor Batman, Low-Budget Batman or Working-Class Batman. Like would Bruce have become Batman if he hadn't been rich? I guess that might make him more similar to Daredevil since Matt Murdock is an Irish-Catholic working-class kid who became a lawyer and blind superhero and is a genuine underdog superhero.

But I'd argue that the thing about Bruce that's most appealing, for better and worse, that strong sense of vengeance, commitment, and determination crosses class lines and going forward with all the baggage being a rich guy has today, it might make more sense to make Batman work as a poor guy. I'd like a run on Batman similar to Cullen Bunn's MAGNETO which takes the great supervillain with all his resources and top-of-the-line tech and sends him on a low-budget with reduced powers and still shows the same intelligence, charisma, and determination at play.



Great points. Tom Holland's Peter is let down by the writing because they're not allowing him to have complicated feelings towards Tony Stark on a personal level.

Thanks, and you make some great ones yourself.

Maybe not "working class" but Batman: Earth One and the recent Batman: Imposter depict a more down-to-Earth, scaled down, Batman.

But you could never really permanently do away with stuff like the gadgets, cave, cars, etc. It's like Batman has enough training to fight without that stuff for a while but it's too recognizable (and frankly cool) to do away with.

Yeah, that's a good point. It might not entirely make sense outside the "cool" factor, but "cool" is still a major factor in superhero comics, so . . .

[Lukmendes]

To be honest I haven't re-watched Gargoyles in years but I think Xanatos was responsible for Thailog, The Pack, and maybe one other villain.

Well then it sounds like it's a Weisman thing.

Relating back to Spider-Man and the understandable criticisms of his MCU portrayal, not just in terms of him coming off as a shallow parody of how middle-aged and older men think modern teenagers behave and think, but also the class issues in having Iron Man as his mentor and surrogate father figure in a way that's meant to be more positive than how things turned out between them in the comics, I would say the major disappointment of Homecoming was that while the Vulture made a rather good case against Peter idolizing Tony Stark, which was somewhat reinforced by Tony's own (arguably) imperious and neglectful style of mentorship, the plot didn't allow for Peter to fully reckon with Tony's character flaws (and arguable moral failures). I mean, hell, Captain America: Civil War had their beginning interactions end with Tony emotionally blackmailing Peter (by threatening to tell his Aunt May he was Spider-Man) into accompanying him to fight Captain America in Germany and not even giving him the full story, just his interpretation of what Cap was doing and why, as shown by Spidey's exchange with Cap when they actually fought, specifically, "You're wrong, but you think you're right. That makes you dangerous." (Projection much, Tony? After all, Avengers: Age of Ultron's plot was propelled in large part by him recklessly pushing ahead because he thought he was right, damn what anyone else had to say in terms of cautioning him against the course of action he'd decided to pursue.) Somehow, that never got addressed or rectified in any meaningful way before Tony's (heroic) death in Avengers: Endgame and even Far From Home's attempt via Happy Hogan to puncture the hero-worship bubble by explaining to Peter that Tony was as flawed and messed up as anyone else . . . still rang rather hollow given how he was practically canonized (made into a sainted figure) following his death, which I'd hope would be tackled more in a Disney+ MCU follow-up series like Armor Wars.

So Tony's a piece of shit who got martyrized post death, guess if we get a Gwen in MCU, she's safe, since Stark already did her thing, classic MCU Stark stealing other characters' thing .

With all the elseworlds DC has done, it's amazed me how no one's done a Poor Batman, Low-Budget Batman or Working-Class Batman. Like would Bruce have become Batman if he hadn't been rich? I guess that might make him more similar to Daredevil since Matt Murdock is an Irish-Catholic working-class kid who became a lawyer and blind superhero and is a genuine underdog superhero.

But I'd argue that the thing about Bruce that's most appealing, for better and worse, that strong sense of vengeance, commitment, and determination crosses class lines and going forward with all the baggage being a rich guy has today, it might make more sense to make Batman work as a poor guy. I'd like a run on Batman similar to Cullen Bunn's MAGNETO which takes the great supervillain with all his resources and top-of-the-line tech and sends him on a low-budget with reduced powers and still shows the same intelligence, charisma, and determination at play.

That's like asking for a Superman who has no powers.

Like it or not, Bruce being a rich boy is a huge part that defines who he is, because silly stuff like batmobile is cool, and as much as people try to make dumb arguments about realism, super heroes are about being cool.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I will say that while I take issue with how authoritarian and fascist-lite Batman has been portrayed in recent years, I don't consider Batman conceptually elitist or out-of-touch in the way Iron Man is. A character like Iron Man was specifically designed to be like that, whereas Batman was initially just Sherlock Holmes in a batsuit. His dad was a doctor who left him a "trust fund" to explain how he can afford all the gadgets. The idea to make him uber-rich came in later and actually came from Zorro, who was a hero of the people despite his class status. Even then, Bruce's connection to his company is superficial in the same way his dad's was, unlike Tony and his father whom were actively involved in everything Stark Enterprises does and are thus partly responsible.

Honestly, Batman at his best is more in-touch with everyday people than most of the Avengers. He actually has direct interactions with Gotham's citizens and the people he is trying to protect, even if it's in costume and not as Bruce Wayne.

See, that's especially the problem with turning anyone, let alone Spider-Man of all people, into a kid sidekick for Iron Man. You have to make it believable that the hero is someone the sidekick can look up to, otherwise the dynamic doesn't work and makes the sidekick look foolish to the audience. It is believable how a working-class boy like Dick Grayson came to look up to Batman and grew to see him as a father figure even if the guy had his faults, and even if Dick didn't agree with him on everything. It's significantly harder, practically impossible, to do that with a character as (intentionally) conceptually flawed as Iron Man, and it's an incredibly poor taste decision to do it through Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I will say that while I take issue with how authoritarian and fascist-lite Batman has been portrayed in recent years, I don't consider Batman conceptually elitist or out-of-touch in the way Iron Man is. A character like Iron Man was specifically designed to be like that, whereas Batman was initially just Sherlock Holmes in a batsuit. His dad was a doctor who left him a "trust fund" to explain how he can afford all the gadgets. The idea to make him uber-rich came in later and actually came from Zorro, who was a hero of the people despite his class status. Even then, Bruce's connection to his company is superficial in the same way his dad's was, unlike Tony and his father whom were actively involved in everything Stark Enterprises does and are thus partly responsible.

Those are valid points and would apply if Batman was still in his Adam West phase. Lance Parkin (Alan Moore's biographer) wrote a three part essay on Batman, and Part 3 talks about the trope of wealth in Batman:
http://sequart.org/magazine/41539/su...t-three-money/

Batman was originally a "gentleman adventurer" who was independently wealthy but since the 1970s they introduced realism and that's when they introduced Wayne Enterprises and also Lucius Fox (they came together) and then WayneTech, and now you have a situation where Bruce Wayne can fund Justice League satellites and spaceships, is obviously Gotham's largest employer and one of the most powerful figures in the DC Universe. In terms of subtext, Bruce Wayne would just absolutely benefit from Reagan era deregulation, from Bush and Trump's tax cuts, and is obviously a dodger of the global movement to tax inherited wealth. Writers get around this by arguing that Bruce is a philanthropist but we know now that philanthropy is largely a scam, a way for the rich to hide their wealth and dodge taxes.

Batman can't be a fabulously rich man and be truly ethical or he'd be bought out or muscled out because there's literally no way a capitalist with ethics can compete with Amazon, or Google.

You are right that Iron Man was from the outset enmeshed in the Military-Industrial Complex in the way Batman isn't. The character was introduced as a Cold Warrior who sold weapons to fight the commies and is a merchant of death who changed his ways in his 1940s having a mid-life crisis.

See, that's especially the problem with turning anyone, let alone Spider-Man of all people, into a kid sidekick for Iron Man. You have to make it believable that the hero is someone the sidekick can look up to, otherwise the dynamic doesn't work and makes the sidekick look foolish to the audience. It is believable how a working-class boy like Dick Grayson came to look up to Batman and grew to see him as a father figure even if the guy had his faults, and even if Dick didn't agree with him on everything. It's significantly harder, practically impossible, to do that with a character as (intentionally) conceptually flawed as Iron Man, and it's an incredibly poor taste decision to do it through Spider-Man.

Agreed. Yeah the Bruce/Dick relationship makes a lot of sense in that level. Whereas the MCU version of Peter/Tony don't make sense.

Tony Stark had a moral awakening at the age of 40, Peter at the age of 15, so I think it's pretty clear that one guy has a clearer sense of right and wrong earlier in his life than the other guy.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Those are valid points and would apply if Batman was still in his Adam West phase. Lance Parkin (Alan Moore's biographer) wrote a three part essay on Batman, and Part 3 talks about the trope of wealth in Batman:
http://sequart.org/magazine/41539/su...t-three-money/

Batman was originally a "gentleman adventurer" who was independently wealthy but since the 1970s they introduced realism and that's when they introduced Wayne Enterprises and also Lucius Fox (they came together) and then WayneTech, and now you have a situation where Bruce Wayne can fund Justice League satellites and spaceships, is obviously Gotham's largest employer and one of the most powerful figures in the DC Universe. In terms of subtext, Bruce Wayne would just absolutely benefit from Reagan era deregulation, from Bush and Trump's tax cuts, and is obviously a dodger of the global movement to tax inherited wealth. Writers get around this by arguing that Bruce is a philanthropist but we know now that philanthropy is largely a scam, a way for the rich to hide their wealth and dodge taxes.

Batman can't be a fabulously rich man and be truly ethical or he'd be bought out or muscled out because there's literally no way a capitalist with ethics can compete with Amazon, or Google.

You are right that Iron Man was from the outset enmeshed in the Military-Industrial Complex in the way Batman isn't. The character was introduced as a Cold Warrior who sold weapons to fight the commies and is a merchant of death who changed his ways in his 1940s having a mid-life crisis.

This is getting off-topic but Bruce Wayne's connection to Wayne Enterprises has always been superficial. Him and Thomas Wayne have both essentially only been the mascots in the same way MCU Spider-Man is a mascot for Marvel/Disney.

I don't have a problem with Batman and Iron Man being mega-rich because they're generally treated as the exception among superheroes in their universe (there's some other rich ones but who are we kidding... Batman and Iron Man financially run their respective world), and in Iron Man's case the attitude and values that often comes with being rich are there intentionally.

[Agent Z]

Tony Stark had a moral awakening at the age of 40, Peter at the age of 15,

And all it took was Peter's uncle getting shot because of a robber he refused to stop. Let's not act as if either of these two woke up one day and decided to be better people out of the blue.

[Jman27]

And all it took was Peter's uncle getting shot because of a robber he refused to stop. Let's not act as if either of these two woke up one day and decided to be better people out of the blue.

true both are doing this out of guilt. one just got it earlier than the other

[TheCape]

Peter is doing it more out of a sense of responsability than guilt, he has a responsability complex, as Spencer himself said in his run. The guilt is for sure an important element, but i always see it as a consequence of Peter's behavior not the root. Feel free to disagreed and i'm sure that some stories do, but always in my personal opinion, Peter does this mainly out of responsability. I can't comment on Iron Man because i read very little of it, but i'm gonna assume that he does the same too. Althougth i wouldn't compare Peter with Tony too much in that regard, i doubt that you can compare a angsty teen with a chip on his shoulder and a bit of an attitude, with a War Profiteer, not trying to knock on Tony, but beyond being genuises, i never found much commonality beetween the two, beyond the standard superhero values.

[Huntsman Spider]

Peter is doing it more out of a sense of responsability than guilt, he has a responsability complex, as Spencer himself said in his run. The guilt is for sure an important element, but i always see it as a consequence of Peter's behavior not the root. Feel free to disagreed and i'm sure that some stories do, but always in my personal opinion, Peter does this mainly out of responsability. I can't comment on Iron Man because i read very little of it, but i'm gonna assume that he does the same too. Althougth i wouldn't compare Peter with Tony too much in that regard, i doubt that you can compare a angsty teen with a chip on his shoulder and a bit of an attitude, with a War Profiteer, not trying to knock on Tony, but beyond being genuises, i never found much commonality beetween the two, beyond the standard superhero values.

If it helps, Tony himself has admitted in the recent Iron Man Annual tying into the Infinite Destinies saga after finding out about the torturous experimentation Miles Morales went through at the hands of the Assessor and targeting the Assessor for that, that it reminded him of his own torturous harrowing that helped make him into a hero back in his origin story, only in his (Tony's) mind, he deserved that pain and misery far more than a good kid like Miles did because of said past as a war profiteer. That said, if there's any aspect of similarity between him and Peter, it's that their respective moral awakenings came when they were directly confronted with the human toll of their careless and selfish behavior --- Tony's weapons being used to kill innocent people instead of "enemy combatants" and Peter realizing that the man he just apprehended for killing his Uncle Ben in a burglary gone bad was the same thief he let escape earlier because, "I missed the part where that's my problem" --- though, of course, Peter's was when he was still a teenager and Tony's was when he was already well into adulthood.

[TheCape]

If it helps, Tony himself has admitted in the recent Iron Man Annual tying into the Infinite Destinies saga after finding out about the torturous experimentation Miles Morales went through at the hands of the Assessor and targeting the Assessor for that, that it reminded him of his own torturous harrowing that helped make him into a hero back in his origin story, only in his (Tony's) mind, he deserved that pain and misery far more than a good kid like Miles did because of said past as a war profiteer. That said, if there's any aspect of similarity between him and Peter, it's that their respective moral awakenings came when they were directly confronted with the human toll of their careless and selfish behavior --- Tony's weapons being used to kill innocent people instead of "enemy combatants" and Peter realizing that the man he just apprehended for killing his Uncle Ben in a burglary gone bad was the same thief he let escape earlier because, "I missed the part where that's my problem" --- though, of course, Peter's was when he was still a teenager and Tony's was when he was already well into adulthood.

That sounds more like redemption than anything, so i can see why Peter would relate to that to an extent, Spider-Man isn't a story about redemption IMO but there are times when Peter admits that a part of him is to an extent trying to make up for that mistake, like in "The Kid Who Collected Spider-Man". Still, i would prefer to see that dynamic play more like equals fellow supers instead of mento/mentee, i repeat what i said sometime ago, is like having Batman training Superman or Wolverine training Cyclops, one characther benefits too much and the other lost many cool parts of their appeal. Plus is makes the universe feel a lot more smaller.

[Huntsman Spider]

That sounds more like redemption than anything, so i can see why Peter would relate to that to an extent, Spider-Man isn't a story about redemption IMO but there are times when Peter admits that a part of him is to an extent trying to make up for that mistake, like in "The Kid Who Collected Spider-Man". Still, i would prefer to see that dynamic play more like equals fellow supers instead of mento/mentee, i repeat what i said sometime ago, is like having Batman training Superman or Wolverine training Cyclops, one characther benefits too much and the other lost many cool parts of their appeal. Plus is makes the universe feel a lot more smaller.

Yeah, that makes sense, and I, too, would rather see Peter and Tony interact as equals and peers.

[CrimsonEchidna]

Great points. Tom Holland's Peter is let down by the writing because they're not allowing him to have complicated feelings towards Tony Stark on a personal level.

It's not just that for me. I think my biggest problem in hindsight with the Holland films is when you stop and think about it, the supporting character he has the most defined relationship with is Happy. It's Happy who gives him the pep talk about becoming his own hero in Far From Home, not Ned (who they desperately wanted to rip off Ganke Lee but didn't bother to make him a true confidant) not MJ (who's romantic subplot with Pete is supposed to be really significant in this movie) and not even Aunt May who's arguably had even less to do than the previous two incarnations of Aunt May.

And in Homecoming, the character Pete has his heart to heart with is the freakin A.I. Tony built for him.

Compare and contrast that with that Miles Morales PS4 game. Where it covers the same discussion of Miles wanting to live up to Pete's shadow but they never undercut his relationships with Ganke, his mom and Uncle Aaron. In fact they reinforce different perspectives on it.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It's not just that for me. I think my biggest problem in hindsight with the Holland films is when you stop and think about it, the supporting character he has the most defined relationship with is Happy.

Absolutely.

The character of Happy Hogan is cringe on several levels. It's just fundamentally wrong to elevate an Iron Man supporting character over a Spider-Man supporting character. That's like elevating Jar-Jar Binks over Yoda in terms of aesthetic priorities.