I was literally going to post this exact same thing.While the MCU Peter Parker may have seen Tony Stark as a mentor / surrogate father figure, he was hardly Tony Stark's "sidekick".
Spidey OUT of MCU
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
While the MCU Peter Parker may have seen Tony Stark as a mentor / surrogate father figure, he was hardly Tony Stark's "sidekick".
He just stopped being Spider-Man when Tony decided to take away his tech and he felt he was nothing without it.
And then he went on to prove that that wasn't the case. Peter defeated the Vulture with his homemade suit without any help from Iron Man.
While the MCU Peter Parker may have seen Tony Stark as a mentor / surrogate father figure, he was hardly Tony Stark's "sidekick".
I disagree.
Homecoming was the "Tony Stark Show, guest-starring Peter Parker".
Wut?
Having actually seen Homecoming, I doubt that.
Doubt away, but he’s right. It appears you have the same impression that many people have about Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. His Best Actor Oscar should have been for the supporting role, not the lead (he’s barely in 15 minutes of the movie).
Tony Stark is little more than an extended cameo, though the influence of his character in the story is somewhat more substantial.
I'm sorry that you left the movie at that point because the ending was actually pretty good and showed that he was his own hero and not the sidekick. It was kind of the point of the movie. It's on Netflix, you should watch it.
Not in the US. Here, Starz has pay tv rights to Homecoming.
Sorry, but you can always rent.Not in the US. Here, Starz has pay tv rights to Homecoming.
It's correct. Stark appears for just under eight minutes of screentime.
Agreed. The MCU Feige Spider films are excellent. It's a shame Sony will ruin a good thing.
He is of the opinion that no Marvel character can exist without being forced into every film as part of a wrestling-like free for all, even if it compromises the essence of certain characters. The source--the comics--did not create/introduce characters that way, and were defined by what they did on their won long before becoming part of group. Even the retconned Captain America--revived by the Avengers--was largely defined by his solo stories in Tales of Suspense, where he dealt with his "man out of time" issues, and that continued for years after ToS transitioned into the Silver Age Cap title, and while partnered with the Falcon years later.
Of course. How anyone missed that part of the character is...
Anyway, Parker grew in confidence into the Romita era, but he still suffered from depression and doubt over those closest to him, trying to fight crime while being wanted by the police, feelings of being unappreciated, etc. That was a long running hallmark of Parker's character...if those long years of the comic were read.
Which was simply...stupid. He was already "Spider-Man" before he ever met Stark, but somehow, he recognition of his own life as a costumed do-gooder was upended in favor of his thinking he needed to prove a worth he already had to Stark. That is in no way how Spider-Man was established in the comics, or in the superior Raimi movies.
Pretty much.
He was only in the film for like 10 minutes...
That was one part of one movie.
Garfield's Peter was doing a full-on Edward Cullen impersonation. That absolutely shocked me when I first watched that movie, how little Hopkins was in it chronologically. And yet how much he dominates my memory of it.
No, I just don't see the point of having the characters act like no one else exists in the world but them when other characters being around can easily enrich the experience.
Like Falcon in the first Ant-Man movie, or Dr Strange in Thor Ragnarok. Small appearances, but very important ones.
Spider-Man not being the only hero to exist in the world in no way compromises his essence.
They crossed over all the damn time.
And his other appearances in other books and other characters showing up in his in no way messed with that.
It's only part of his character. It's like how the FoX-Men Movies made Nightcrawler uber-religious while missing out entirely on his swashbuckler persona. It's only part of the character being shown.
And plenty of times where he felt just the opposite. You know, a whole character?
You're not getting it. The point was that he'd let himself be seduced by the "Higher life" and become too dependent on it and forgotten what he was like before. Then rediscovering that old self.
If you're thin skinned enough to let 8 minutes of another character make you think it's all about them.
The actual amount of screen time that Robert Downey Jr. has in Homecoming is irrelevant because Tom Holland's Peter Parker is so completely defined by his association with Tony Stark (Marvel Studios even went back and retconned their third movie ever - Iron Man 2 - so that Peter had been an Iron Man fan as a child and actually briefly helped him) that he has no real identity of his own and is even fighting a villain whose entire motivation for doing what he's doing goes back to Tony.
Far From Home does use Peter's association with Tony as a motivating factor in its narrative and also gives its villain a connection to Tony, but what sets it apart from Homecoming is that it also gives Peter other motivations that have nothing to do with Tony at all and therefore allows him to be presented as something more than just "Tony Stark's side-project" and an "afterthought in his own movie".
Far From Home does use Peter's association with Tony as a motivating factor in its narrative and also gives its villain a connection to Tony, but what sets it apart from Homecoming is that it also gives Peter other motivations that have nothing to do with Tony at all and therefore allows him to be presented as something more than just "Tony Stark's side-project" and an "afterthought in his own movie".
Backing away from this exchange, I guess?