The problem with Iron Man being Spider-Man's mentor in the MCU

[David Walton]

Bendis cited Spider-Man 2 as his inspiration. Of course he started doing it before to some extent.

I don't hold Raimi accountable for Bendis' bias against secret identities. The train scene didn't involve Peter being flippant with his id, his mask caught on fire so it was either discard it or burn his face off. And the passenger reaction emphasized the importance of the secret identity. They understood its significance.

[Frontier]

I don't hold Raimi accountable for Bendis' bias against secret identities. The train scene didn't involve Peter being flippant with his id, his mask caught on fire so it was either discard it or burn his face off. And the passenger reaction emphasized the importance of the secret identity. They understood its significance.

Yeah, it was more of a kind of reverential moment compared to the number of times Peter would end up with his mask off in almost every USM arc.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yeah, in retrospect now I think Bendis just has a thing against secret identities with the extent to which he's flippant with them or just outs a hero.

That's the indie comic wiseguy in him.

Osborn knowing has always been a horror story for what can happen if a villain finds out who you are.

And Goblin knowing his identity was another way to establish him as the greatest threat. It means nothing if Vulture and Mysterio and everyone else just knows who he is. You don't get any of the interactions where hero and villain know each other as Spider-Man and Vulture first. Or Spider-Man and Mysterio.

Think about Goblin's reaction when he first found out who Spider-Man was.

ASM #39 - Norman finds ID.jpg

Goblin finds it amazing that Spider-Man was some young kid. That implies that Spider-Man in the original comics was so capable and good at being Spider-Man that everyone thought he was an older dude and capable. In the USM comics and the MCU, random dudes like Aaron Davis can grok that Spider-Man is a teenager out of his depth. So that devalues the character and setting, and basically changes Peter from a guy who punches above his little resources but works hard and scrapes by (which is how Lee-Ditko-Romita saw him) to a f--k up who can't make a cup of coffee.

So that adds to the frustration and layers of misreading that people have about the character.
-Go back to Spider-Man 1. Well before the Thanksgiving scene, you had three scenes between Spider-Man and Goblin where they interact as Spider-Man and Goblin. Without that, the Thanksgiving scene doesn't have the impact it does. That sense of escalating tension between Goblin and Spider-Man needs a buildup to get from there all the way to the brutal finale where they beat the stuffing out of each other. Spider-Man 1 has a kind of perfect structure in telling a parallel back-and-forth story between hero and villain that the other movies, by Raimi and others, haven't repeated.
- In Homecoming, Vulture sneaks up and drops Spider-Man from high in the sky without any words exchanged. Then after that, their first meaningful interaction is that car scene (which is beat-for-beat a remake of the Thanksgiving scene in a lot of respects) and they interact for the first time as Toomes and Peter and that's it. And that reduces everything. In FFH, Quentin Beck knows who Spider-Man is from the start.

[David Walton]

Yeah, it was more of a kind of reverential moment compared to the number of times Peter would end up with his mask off in almost every USM arc.

Reverential is a perfect description of that moment.

[blackspidey2099]

I approve this message.

Also, hated the AI thing. Apparently they wanted an AI to give Peter someone to talk to, and to find a way to do the constant monologuing of the comics (since it's been drilled into too many uncreative people that voiceovers aren't good in movies).

Which again doesn't make sense, because the conversations Peter has with the AI aren't good. And also it gets redundant when Ned Ganke Lee finds out and he becomes the sounding board for Peter. The sequel did away with that even more.

100% agreed. People keep bringing up Karen like it was some revolutionary idea and the only way to portray Spider-Man's thought process on screen when she's been ignored ever since like halfway through Homecoming. Personally, I'm not a fan of Ned being in Peter's ear while doing missions either, though. It reminds me too much of those CW shows. I don't see why it's so unbelievable for Peter to just talk to himself anyways - he's an awkward nerdy dude and it isn't exactly out of character.

[Huntsman Spider]

On the secret identity issue, I prefer the balance, such as it is, struck by most of the Arrowverse series --- the general public isn't entitled to know who you are behind the mask, but you shouldn't lie to your friends and family and the other people you (claim to) love about who you are and what you're doing, especially if the latter ends up putting their lives at risk because someone with a grudge against you goes the Green Goblin/Venom route of visiting and playing nice with them to prove that they can get to you and/or your loved ones anytime they want. That said, I do agree for the most part that as cool as Iron Man's dynamic with Spider-Man in the MCU was at first, it's worn out its welcome by now and done a fair amount of damage to the perception of Spider-Man's ability to stand on his own two feet like he did in his original (and even his Ultimate) depictions.

[Frontier]

100% agreed. People keep bringing up Karen like it was some revolutionary idea and the only way to portray Spider-Man's thought process on screen when she's been ignored ever since like halfway through Homecoming. Personally, I'm not a fan of Ned being in Peter's ear while doing missions either, though. It reminds me too much of those CW shows. I don't see why it's so unbelievable for Peter to just talk to himself anyways - he's an awkward nerdy dude and it isn't exactly out of character.

Not to mention it's basically Peter ripping Miles off.

On the secret identity issue, I prefer the balance, such as it is, struck by most of the Arrowverse series --- the general public isn't entitled to know who you are behind the mask, but you shouldn't lie to your friends and family and the other people you (claim to) love about who you are and what you're doing, especially if the latter ends up putting their lives at risk because someone with a grudge against you goes the Green Goblin/Venom route of visiting and playing nice with them to prove that they can get to you and/or your loved ones anytime they want. That said, I do agree for the most part that as cool as Iron Man's dynamic with Spider-Man in the MCU was at first, it's worn out its welcome by now and done a fair amount of damage to the perception of Spider-Man's ability to stand on his own two feet like he did in his original (and even his Ultimate) depictions.

Even the Arrowverse takes it too far in my opinion by letting virtually everyone in the hero's social circle know their secret identity, so no one really relates to them in a civilian capacity and everyone has to be involved in their Superhero life.

I mean, dear lord, the number of times Barry takes off his mask or haphazardly reveals his identity to someone...

[Hybrid]

I approve this message.

Also, hated the AI thing. Apparently they wanted an AI to give Peter someone to talk to, and to find a way to do the constant monologuing of the comics (since it's been drilled into too many uncreative people that voiceovers aren't good in movies).

Which again doesn't make sense, because the conversations Peter has with the AI aren't good. And also it gets redundant when Ned Ganke Lee finds out and he becomes the sounding board for Peter. The sequel did away with that even more.

I am fully aware that the MCU Spider-Man isn't the first adaptation to devalue the idea of Peter having a secret identity and double life. This kind of started with Spider-Man 2 and that ridiculous scene where all the passengers decide to protect his secret. But to me it's by far the worst offender. You cannot tell the story of Peter and Spider-Man's work/life balance without him having a protected secret identity. More importantly the ending of FFH literally rings hollow if everyone in his social circle and several others see him maskless and know him anyway.

That's a good point. I mean, The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man was very impactful in part because Spidey revealed his identity to the young and dying Tim Harrison. Keeping in mind that back in the '80s, Spidey wasn't keen on revealing his identity to anyone, which just goes to show you how significant Tim was. That was an example that made sense, as it was something that Spidey wouldn't normally do, so they made it count.

Contrast that with MCU Spider-Man, who did a miserable job at trying to maintain a secret identity, and yeah.

[WebSlingWonder]

I think the problem lies with the fact that this conversation as a whole has been done to death on an exponential scale. What can be said that hasn't already been said?

For instance, we knew about the Iron Man connection. We knew about the lack (or no mention) of Uncle Ben. We knew about the suit and the tech. We knew about the supporting cast. We knew about MJ. We knew about May. We know how his villains are tied to Stark and not Spidey. We even knew about the secret identity (which is also not unique to this version of Spider-Man). We know this. Does that make it right? No, most certainly not. I'd personally sooner rewatch ITSV or replay PS4 or, heck, just read a comic to get the truest version of Spider-Man. But...it doesn't make sense to me to just constantly parrot the same narratives of why MCU Spider-Man is not a good Spider-Man.

Tell me this: even if you all come to a consensus, where does that leave y'all? Will you stop watching Spider-Man movies? Will you petition Sony to keep the movie rights? Will you try and convince fellow comic movie fans that this isn't the "true Spider-Man" when in reality none of them are except for the comics? Like, what does it gain you?

[blackspidey2099]

I think the problem lies with the fact that this conversation as a whole has been done to death on an exponential scale. What can be said that hasn't already been said?

For instance, we knew about the Iron Man connection. We knew about the lack (or no mention) of Uncle Ben. We knew about the suit and the tech. We knew about the supporting cast. We knew about MJ. We knew about May. We know how his villains are tied to Stark and not Spidey. We even knew about the secret identity (which is also not unique to this version of Spider-Man). We know this. Does that make it right? No, most certainly not. I'd personally sooner rewatch ITSV or replay PS4 or, heck, just read a comic to get the truest version of Spider-Man. But...it doesn't make sense to me to just constantly parrot the same narratives of why MCU Spider-Man is not a good Spider-Man.

Tell me this: even if you all come to a consensus, where does that leave y'all? Will you stop watching Spider-Man movies? Will you petition Sony to keep the movie rights? Will you try and convince fellow comic movie fans that this isn't the "true Spider-Man" when in reality none of them are except for the comics? Like, what does it gain you?

Are any of us gaining anything from this conversation? Well, no, I don't think so (unless Feige anonymously browses these threads?). But then again, what do any of us gain from posting anything on these forums? It's just a way to pass time and discuss topics regarding some of our favorite fictional characters. At the end of the day, I think people just like to discuss and/or debate, and that's what these threads facilitate.

[WebSlingWonder]

Are any of us gaining anything from this conversation? Well, no, I don't think so (unless Feige anonymously browses these threads?). But then again, what do any of us gain from posting anything on these forums? It's just a way to pass time and discuss topics regarding some of our favorite fictional characters. At the end of the day, I think people just like to discuss and/or debate, and that's what these threads facilitate.

Yeah but this topic comes up so often, and it's entirely unproductive or conducive to anyone's enjoyment of these movies.

[Hybrid]

What's wrong with discussing this, just because "it's been done before"? By that logic, there would be no point in discussing how bad the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was, and that's become an internet past time (though the ST was far worse than MCU Spider-Man; for as untrue the movies were to the source they were at least competently made).

Plus, you always find new ways to discuss it, as more times passes and more information is known, and you begin to come up with new ideas and new ways to put it. Also, the fact that you don't get is that none of us have a problem with Spider-Man in a shared cinematic universe, in fact we were all looking forward to it, I would wager. The problem lies in the execution. As put by Jack, they decided to tell the story of an MCU fan in the MCU itself, rather than tell the story of Peter Parker, Spider-Man.

I don't think the argument of "it's been done to death" is a solid argument against this discussion. As an unrelated, but valid, example, World War II has been "done to death" for decades, and guess what? People always find ways to make the topic interesting to talk about. It doesn't matter how many times something is discussed, what matters is how interesting it is.

[WebSlingWonder]

What's wrong with discussing this, just because "it's been done before"? By that logic, there would be no point in discussing how bad the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was, and that's become an internet past time (though the ST was far worse than MCU Spider-Man; for as untrue the movies were to the source they were at least competently made).

Plus, you always find new ways to discuss it, as more times passes and more information is known, and you begin to come up with new ideas and new ways to put it. Also, the fact that you don't get is that none of us have a problem with Spider-Man in a shared cinematic universe, in fact we were all looking forward to it, I would wager. The problem lies in the execution. As put by Jack, they decided to tell the story of an MCU fan in the MCU itself, rather than tell the story of Peter Parker, Spider-Man.

I don't think the argument of "it's been done to death" is a solid argument against this discussion. As an unrelated, but valid, example, World War II has been "done to death" for decades, and guess what? People always find ways to make the topic interesting to talk about. It doesn't matter how many times something is discussed, what matters is how interesting it is.

But you, Hybrid, have brought nothing new to the discussion judging from the very first post. Nothing new. It's the same discussion as when "Homecoming" and "Far From Home" came out. I get where you're coming from; but YOU started the discussion unprompted by much of anything beyond, "I was thinking about..." It doesn't add any value.

You want to make the topic interesting? Find a new angle. Find a way to discuss the topic without talking about the same ten attributes. Or don't. I honestly do not care what you do. But know this: you're not going to change people's opinions of these movies either for or against, so you might as well not even try.

[Hybrid]

But you, Hybrid, have brought nothing new to the discussion judging from the very first post. Nothing new. It's the same discussion as when "Homecoming" and "Far From Home" came out. I get where you're coming from; but YOU started the discussion unprompted by much of anything beyond, "I was thinking about..." It doesn't add any value.

You want to make the topic interesting? Find a new angle. Find a way to discuss the topic without talking about the same ten attributes. Or don't. I honestly do not care what you do. But know this: you're not going to change people's opinions of these movies either for or against, so you might as well not even try.

Well, you seem to be the only one with the specific problem of this, others have indeed been able to discuss it quite well. I didn't aim to change people's minds, because the staunchest defenders of this have a tendency to dismiss comics entirely and go "DURRR, the comics aren't as big as the movies so they don't mean anything". Not someone whose mind is worth changing, to me.

Also, I did bring up Ant-Man, which is different from others I've seen. At least with Scott, it had a basis in the lore.

Honestly, it's a little weird that this happened to Spider-Man, when they already had a headlining character they've could've connected to Tony Stark and it wouldn't be out of place:

Ant-Man

Scott Lang in the comics was a supporting character to Tony, and the Avengers, and they were pretty good friends. They were close enough that Cassie even thought of him as a surrogate uncle before she became a superhero herself. Hell, in the early issues of Young Avengers, set after Disassembled where Scott died, they both grieved and bonded together over Scott, while Tony tried to convince Cassie not to be a superhero because he doesn't want to deal with the pain of losing her too.


So, did they just totally miss the potential this could've had for the MCU? They had the perfect connection right there, and it would've made sense. Plus, I think having Tony be a mentor to Scott, while both were grown men, would be better than the surrogate father that had Tony become for Peter. Scott could've been a good foil to Tony, both of them having similarities (tech-based heroes with a checkered past, and a snarky demeanor) but differences for contrast (Tony's rich while Scott is working class, Tony doesn't have kids while Scott looks after his daughter, Tony is a leading figure while Scott is a support). Then in Endgame when Tony and Pepper have Morgan after Scott's apparent demise, they could've had Cassie be a surrogate sister for the girl and looking up to "Uncle Tony". That would set the stage perfectly for Cassie to become a hero of her own as Stature, because she grew up around them.

Man, this stuff writes itself.

But do you agree that in the MCU context, having Tony play heavily into Scott's arc would've made a lot more sense than Peter's?

I haven't seen anyone bring that up, have you?

[WebSlingWonder]

Well, you seem to be the only one with the specific problem of this, others have indeed been able to discuss it quite well. I didn't aim to change people's minds, because the staunchest defenders of this have a tendency to dismiss comics entirely and go "DURRR, the comics aren't as big as the movies so they don't mean anything". Not someone whose mind is worth changing, to me.

Also, I did bring up Ant-Man, which is different from others I've seen. At least with Scott, it had a basis in the lore.


I haven't seen anyone bring that up, have you?

I have a problem with the fact that this is even a problem for people. It's a goddamn interpretation of the character, not the end-all-be-all version. Why is this criticized and scrutinized more than anyone else?