Discussion Film / SpiderManHomecoming

The problem with your addition wasn't whether you have a point or not, it's that it was pure Conversation in the Main Page. If you feel a trope example doesn't fit, you don't write a counterpoint, you remove it. Repair, Don't Respond.

In the case of the aforementioned Broken Aesop, yes, the example is arguable, which mean it doesn't fit on the main page which are for objective tropes. I wouldn't mind seeing it gone, or at least seriously rewritten. But that should still left it at one example with no sub-bullets.

Yes you've already made me aware of what the problem with my addition was, that's why I brought it over to the discussion page, I wanted to check and see if I wasn't the only one who thought so before removing it, seemed improper to just go and remove it out of the blue.

A good part of the problem is the sudden 8-year Time Skip that occurs after Toome's decides to keep the Chitauri equipment he had already salvaged. This skips over any potential grievance resolution that may have occurred regarding Toomes' contract with the city.

The government didn't know Toomes was keeping the Chitauri equipment. Toomes was doing it to spite the government and to make sure they get something from their lost deal.

The scene felt more like an armed crew showing up to insure a "peaceful" vacating of the area and not a bunch of bureaucrats ready to negotiate the details of contract compensation.

That's because it is Hollywood Law. You can't simply do Cease and Desist like that, especially to a salvage company that has a legal contract to operate in New York City...aka some of the most contested real-estate markets in the world. Stuff like that simply wouldn't fly.

The only thing that is unbelievable about the situation is that "a little guy" like Toomes actually got so far. In reality, there would be a huge bidding war between multiple corporations at the very least, and someone like Toomes as a little guy and independent contractor would not make it to "the room where it happened" so to speak.

It's my assertion that it's this lack of respect/loss of control shown to him as being just "a little guy" that is the major cause of his Face–Heel Turn and not the unverified lack of compensation.

The opening scene is pretty clear that Toomes and his buddies are getting stiffed by the Damage Control. When Toomes talks about how much he's sunk into it, one of the Damage Control sneers at him for overreaching like some Victorian bad guy...so its clear that he's not being compensated.

And that is Hollywood Law, because there's no way in real-life that such seizure of eminent domain, especially to a white businessman in New York City, goes uncompensated like that.

Julian Lapostat, your response basically re-inforces my position that it was unlikely that Toomes was left completely uncompensated. You mention numerous times that the way it was handled would not fly in true legal fashion.

The scene as portrayed did not make it clear Toomes was never going to be compensated.

With his work site being shut down, Toomes started to panic about his financial commitments now that the job was being taken away from him. Then One Jerkass field agent taunts Toomes about "over extending" himself and the lady supervisor tells him to take up any grievances with her supervisor. What the scene made clear was they just didn't care about making the transition to Damage Control respectful toward Toomes and his crew and no one from the DOD/Damage Control team addressed his concerns. The scene showed that the field agent's primary focus was getting the current salvage crew away from classified material as quickly as possible.

Again, the point I'm trying to raise is not that Toomes wasn't potentially hurt financially. Clearly, he's out of a job, he'd have to lay off all the new crew he hired, he'd have all the new equipment he purchased that he no longer needed. Even with eventual compensation (from filing a grievance or a lawsuit), there were likely many lean months ahead of him.

The point I'm trying to raise is that, from a story telling perspective, I feel the primary driving force toward his Face–Heel Turn into the Vulture was the lack of respect he was showed, that he suffered complete loss of control in his ability to take care of this family, that he was treated like a "little guy" whose concerns were ignored by the Starks of the world. That he made a boatload of money in his new career as a alien-tech gun-runner was frosting on the cake.

''You mention numerous times that the way it was handled would not fly in true legal fashion. The scene as portrayed did not make it clear Toomes was never going to be compensated.''

I said Hollywood Law for a reason. It's a situation the movie presents as legal but isn't. Damage Control was created by Executive Order as that lady says, but we know from recent experiences, such as a certain travel ban, that executive orders are not fiats that can be easily enforced at once. There's no way that a government can swoop in without warning and shut down a business and that's it. There would have to be early warnings, offerings of compensations, and Toomes could suggest they take it with the City Authorities since they gave him legal contracts.

The whole situation is absurd and implausible and it's more than enough to vindicate Toomes' becoming a supervillain.

The point I'm trying to raise is that, from a story telling perspective, I feel the primary driving force toward his Face–Heel Turn into the Vulture was the lack of respect he was showed, that he suffered complete loss of control in his ability to take care of this family, that he was treated like a "little guy" whose concerns were ignored by the Starks of the world

What you feel Toomes' primary motivations are is worth a YMMV or WMG or Headscratchers discussion. The point is what the film shows is that he isn't compensated...and that he is a victim of government malfeasance. He was a law-abiding citizen who worked legally and he got stiffed by stuff he wasn't responsible for. That's the plot, the setup and the evidence on the screen...anything else is up for debate...but does not belong on this page.

I'm not trying to argue what I feel, but rather what the movie supports. Toomes' compensation or lack thereof is a gray area in the story. Otherwise please point me to the line in the movie (or the Word of God confirmation) that unambiguously says Toomes never received compensation.

The intention of my raising this discussion was to reconcile the way Toomes is treated at the start of the movie with his Motive Rant with Peter just before he collapses the building on him. Toomes' talk in that scene seems to make it clear that his motivations are him wanting to claw out and secure an existence because "the big guys" (like Stark) just don't care about "the little guys" (like him and Peter).

That seems to give it more weight than just a YMMV or WMG entry, but is a valid discussion on the villian's motivations. Toomes becomes the Vulture because he was hurt financially, was treated without respect, and suffered a loss of control regarding his livelihood.

Toomes' talk in that scene seems to make it clear that his motivations are him wanting to claw out and secure an existence because "the big guys" (like Stark) just don't care about "the little guys" (like him and Peter).

So how does him not being compensated contradict that?

The lack of compensation is so clearly presented that I am surprised you see it as a gray area. Nobody else has until now.The scene is made clear in the context. Toomes talks about how much he has sunk into it, the government says tough luck and makes fun of him, and that's it...

Where Toomes goes wrong is that he sees Tony Stark allied with Damage Control and takes his anger out of Stark out of Misplaced Retribution. Tony isn't entirely responsible for Damage Control, that was created by the US Government under a Presidential Executive order and while Tony might partner or suggest it, it would be a huge stretch to assume that he entirely wrote the policies...that part is not suggested in the film.

Toomes feels angry, confused, and bitter...but his grievances are legitimate.

I don't think we're that far off in our viewpoints. I think we're perhaps differing in how we interpret the first scene.

I'm viewing it as a national defense issue. The Executive Order was signed and the Department of Defense in conjunction with Damage Control realized there were tons of alien tech lying scattered everywhere and that local municipalities were contracting with civilian salvage companies to start cleaning up and the government needed to pull in the reins tight and fast.

Hence the team that Toomes encountered. Their orders were essentially to secure the site. They didn't care about concepts like "eminent domain", "legal contracts" or "offerings of compensation". They simply wanted Toomes out of the area. However, that doesn't mean there weren't avenues of compensation open to Toomes, just that the team he encountered didn't care one bit about how Toomes felt... hence the Jerkass and his "next time" remark.

After this opening scene, the story picks up 8 years later and Toomes is still running guns. After 8 years of "business is good" the fact that he may have been uncompensated seems to carry less weight as a villain's motivation since over that time he likely has made back his initial contract and more.

However, being insulted, being treated as if your concerns, your livelihood, your family are irrelevant. Now that's more the meat of a villainous Face–Heel Turn. To me, whether he was compensated or not, ultimately seems a weak fueling of his motivation.

Then there are trope examples like Create Your Own Villian that focus the justification almost exclusively on Tony stealing Toomes' contract leaving him bankrupt as the reason he became the Vulture. I see the Vulture as one of the best MCU villains in a while and it disappoints me to see the tropes on this page loaded toward petty revenge over money as his primary motivation toward villainy .

Many examples can be cleaned up with simply wording changes like "potentially bankrupting" and mentioning that he was not just screwed financially but screwed as a person and provider for his family. This is why I opened this discussion point in the first place.

"Revenge over money" is not a petty motivation, at least not for me, and not for most Americans who believe in The American Dream. Money for Toomes means a good future for Liz, and for his family, he's Willy Loman as a supervillain.

I'm viewing it as a national defense issue. The Executive Order was signed and the Department of Defense in conjunction with Damage Control realized there were tons of alien tech lying scattered everywhere and that local municipalities were contracting with civilian salvage companies to start cleaning up and the government needed to pull in the reins tight and fast.

The thing is in the US Government, Executive Orders refer specifically to those mandated by the President without Congressional Approval by either the House or the Senate. It is at best a temporary measure and it can be overturned or challenged by the District and Supreme Courts, or in cases where they violate local laws.

Voiding a city-contract and screwing over a legal contractor is very much the kind of thing that gives "Big Government" a bad name.

the fact that he may have been uncompensated seems to carry less weight as a villain's motivation since over that time he likely has made back his initial contract and more.

He made back his initial contract by criminal activity. He's not shown doing legitimate business after the eight-year timeskip that I recall. His only source of income is to continue criminal activity. The "business is good" was reflecting on their thefts from DOD. What job could his team do that would earn them as good a living?

To rva98014, I have restored the edits you made ignoring the discussion and consensus here...

...I have reported you to Ask the Tropers.

Dear Julian Lapostat,

I wish you had extended me the courtesy of a PM or a continued entry in this discussion thread instead of running to Ask The Tropers over this perceived disregard of the discussion thread. The edit changes I made to the tropes Conflict Ball, Create Your Own Villain, and Slobs Versus Snobs were not attempts to bypass consensus on Toomes' motivations per this discussion but rather were in response to the blanket changes made by troper Kalaong, who reworded these entries to focus on how all the transition problems, insults, and callous treatment Toomes received from the Damage Control team was completely Tony Stark's fault.

Kalaong even confirms this in their edit reason "A key theme is that Stark made a big mess of things by charging around indelicately, without regard for the economic factors he was smashing through - and those he sent to hand out walking papers share a lot of his entitled attitude."

This interpretation ignores that the movie even says that 1) The Department of Damage Control is jointly owned by Stark and the Department of Defense, thus it's inaccurate to say that everything wrong with how Damage Control handled the situation was totally Stark's fault 2) the DODC was operating in accordance with Executive Order 396B implying aspects of national security are at play and they were moving to prevent civilian contractors from having too much exposure to alien tech. It was not just a case of Tony Stark pulling strings to steal contracts from private companies.

My edits basically removed or adjusted wording that was saying "it was all Stark's fault" and I also trimmed down verbose passages such as "Reasonably expecting months of work, he had mortgaged his house to purchase rather than rent heavy equipment and hire additional workers, so having the contract terminated without compensation not only left him bankrupt but homeless. " down to wordings like "Toomes invested heavily into the project so having the contract it terminated without apparent compensation left him hurting financially and possibly losing his house."

In each case I tried to respect the two views we had discussed thus far in our discussion, presenting that Toomes was both hurt financially and insulted and demeaned by Damage Control.

I am going to basically repost this message over on the "Ask the tropers" thread as well as invite any and all to review the edit history for these three tropes so they can see that the changes I made to each entry was not an attempt to bypass our current discussion.

Going to Ask the Tropers is what you do to avoid an Edit War and you started that by forcing opinions that were not fully vetted on this Discussion page on the main page. You are welcome to repost this entry there if you like and defend yourself...Your edits went far beyond Kalaong's comments.

In any case there's already a page entry on the main page for Misplaced Retribution which clarifies the division between Stark and DODC.

I concede the point that my edit reasons did inject too much opinion. The challenge is that Conflict Ball, Create Your Own Villain, and Slobs Versus Snobs are not tropes on the YMMV page but the main trope page. Their current wording heavily implies that Stark is totally to blame. I hold to the point that because The Department of Damage Control is a joint venture of Stark and the Dept of Defense, the "Stark is completely at fault" implication is also a YMMV opinion and shouldn't be part of the trope example.

EDIT: I would suggest that for Conflict Ball... "Tony Stark's Department of Damage Control" be changed to just the "Department of Damage Control and the tag at the end of the example "It is, however, perfectly in-character for Stark...." be removed.

For Create Your Own Villain... remove "thus adding Toomes to the roster of high-tech villains created by Tony Stark. "

For Slobs Versus Snobs... just general reduction of the verbose description of all that Toomes invested in.

I think we can work something out on that regard...

The current edit is:

I think this can be changed to:

• Conflict Ball: It wasn't enough for "Department of Damage Control" to take over the contract for the cleanup after "The Incident" from Toomes' salvage company (potentially bankrupting him in the process), they also had to be snide, unsympathetic and openly insulting while doing it, mocking him to his face for "overextending yourself." Realistically he'd also be compensated for this, but apparently that doesn't happen, just to more decisively force him into villainy.

I agree with removing the last part which is just Natter on Tony Stark..

The second one is.

I don't see anything objectionable here, but okay I think this can be amended with

• Create Your Own Villain: Played with in that it wasn't Peter who created the Vulture, but "Damage Control", the joint venture of Stark Industries and the Department of Defense — thus adding Toomes to the roster of high-tech villains created by Tony Stark. This agency, established to handle the cleanup of superhero disasters, ended up taking over pre-existing civilian cleanup contracts but handled the transition with no concern or even respect for those affected. Toomes' company had not only been working their site for awhile, but Toomes had also mortgaged his house to purchase (as opposed to rent) additional equipment and hire more workers to handle the Manhattan incident.' This created the ironic case where the agency chartered with protecting the public from stray Chitauri tech drove Toomes to exploit and sell that tech to pull himself out of the bad situation they created for him.

That middle sentence is maybe too evocative and guilding the lily...

Moving on to the last:

• Slobs Versus Snobs: A repeated theme represented as the "rich and powerful" verses the "little guy". This is the situation he tries to make Peter understand during his Motive Rant.

I think removing this chunk is justified because it repeats what is mentioned elsewhere and as a description doesn't quite apply to the particular trope...

I agree with the proposed changes to Conflict Ball and Slobs Versus Snobs.

It doesn't appear that there were any changes to Create Your Own Villain. My proposal was to remove "thus adding Toomes to the roster of high-tech villains created by Tony Stark. " Did you concur?

Yeah that can be removed...

I am in agreement and I feel we have reached consensus on this matter. If you have no objections, I'll implement these changes.

Haven't seen this yet, but early Spider-Man most certainly was less of an Instant Expert than, say, the Tobey or Andrew Garfield versions.

The entry, as it stands now, doesn't even really describe a "wimp," either. It describes Peter not as being weaker but less intuitively understanding his suit and powers, but that doesn't necessarily mean "wimp."

I disagree with it as well. "Wimp" and "rookie" aren't mutually inclusive. Just because Spider-Man is a rookie doesn't mean he is a wimp.

The trope is not as simple as "this person is a wimp now." It is that, in comparison with the source material or other adaptations, a character is distinctly not as capable in an action scenario as previously portrayed. There is an important caveat, something that also applies to the inverse Adaptational Badass, in that it is not about small variations in their Power Level but a deliberately broad change. The key example of that idea is Superman, as when you've been shown as able to knock planets out of orbit, anything less than that may seem "wimpy" but that doesn't mean the character is being portrayed as less than competent. The point there is that HOW the character is portrayed is what matters more than the details.

So you can argue a character turning from a One-Man Army into a Guile Hero is the trope via changes in capability, even though both are badass in their own way. Likewise a character turning from an Old Soldier into New Meat is the trope via changes in competence, as the only difference between them is experience.

In Homecoming, Spider-Man spends much of the film making mistake after mistake, crashing into things, fumbling with the functions of his suit and overall is a lot less confident in his capabilities. Tony even states clearly that his excellent showing in Civil War was, in part, due to fighting good guys who weren't looking to kill. This is not a one time gag, but a key part of the film and his character development.

As for how the comics portrayed his early heroics, like the prior films there is usually a training montage or two showing him working out the kinks of his powers and costume. But to dedicated an entire film to him working out the kinks is a lot different than a couple of pages of a comic book.

If I may pitch in, I personally do not believe this Spider Man counts as an adaptational wimp. As of this writing, the Adaptational Wimp page specifically says 'this is not about characters who suffered a minor power decrease or had their most badass moment cut from the adaptation. It is when their usefulness and contribution to the plot is reduced to the absolute bare minimum.'

The MCU Spider-Man is far less competent than most due to inexperience, but still has plenty of impressive moments and does not fit the above description in any sense.

When it comes to the main story about the Vulture, Spider-Man doesn't do anything right until the end. His "usefulness and contribution" is severely impacted because of mistake after mistake. And I have to reiterate that this is all deliberate for the purposes of character development. If he was a confident, experienced hero as he is in the comics and adaptations the movie would pretty much not exist.

It's weird because I agree with your individual statements, but not your point.

Mostly because he wasn't a confident, experienced hero at this point in the comics. Keep in mind, Spider-Man graduated high school after only 28 issues. The number of comics where there's a relevant comparison is fairly low. And Spidey, guess what, was an inexperienced kid (in a world that was far less huge than the MCU in terms of superpowered characters) and bumbled a lot. It's a reason that Spiderman was a codifier for Failure Hero and Determinator in comics.

I think the issue here is that the setting as a whole (along with every other adaptation of early Spider-Man) has been subjected to Adaptational Badass. Keep in mind that when Spider-Man first fought Vulture in the comics (who was an elderly man with a flight harness) Spider-Man lost the first fight because of, well, mistake after mistake and almost died because he fell into a water tank.

I have to concur with Julian Lapostat and KJ Mackley about the MCU Spider-Man being very weak compared to the Spider-Man of the comics and most versions. Even as a teenager who is an inexperience superhero, the Spider-Man of the comics and most versions is still managed to be a great superhero through the fact that he was able to create his own costume and equipment and defeat a large amount of super villains by himself with the uses of his intelligence and powers. The MCU Spider-Man, on the other hand, is just a novice that was practically created to be Ironman's servant/intern and spends much of the film making mistake after mistake through crashing into things, and fumbling with the functions of his suit and overall is a lot less competent.The villains that this version encounters are technically not associated with him in the MCU and he is just interfering with their conflict with Ironman. The only signs of intelligence that this version presents are that he created his own web fluid (along with his web shooters) and attends a STEM school.

Mostly because he wasn't a confident, experienced hero at this point in the comics. Keep in mind, Spider-Man graduated high school after only 28 issues. The number of comics where there's a relevant comparison is fairly low. And Spidey, guess what, was an inexperienced kid (in a world that was far less huge than the MCU in terms of superpowered characters) and bumbled a lot.

Spider-Man didn't bumble around any more than other superheroes did in their adventures in the Bronze Age and Silver Age when he first arrived. Like the Fantastic Four made mistakes and mis-steps too during battles, as did Batman, and especially Green Lantern. Making mistakes is not the same as being inexperienced and incapable. And comparing a single issue to an entire film is not the same thing. Like the fight with Vulture in his first issue that you cite is just one encounter...In the movies he has multiple encounters and not just with the Vulture and his incompetence and incapability is repeatedly emphasized. IN movie terms, it's more or less making that an Ascended Never Live It Down moment. Like making the one time Batman lost to Joker or whoever as a standard for how to stage all of Batman's fight scenes in a movie. That doesn't make sense.

And Spider-Man's problem in the early comics is not that he was inexperienced. That's how the MCU frames it, but in the early comics his problems was because he was a Working-Class Hero struggling to help his ailing aunt, pay the house bills, concentrate on school, relationships, and deal with the superhero stuff on top of that. His main problem was taking a huge amount of loadwork and dealing with an almost unimaginable amount of stress simply because unlike Bruce Wayne and his billions, and Clark Kent with his Kent Farm and steady job at Daily Planet, he had no confidantes and was incredibly lonely and isolated. MCU Spider-Man doesn't quite have the same amount of stress...his aunt may be a widow but she doesn't have health problems (that we know of), he has a Fat Best Friend sidekick and he has an Old Superhero as The Mentor...original Spider-Man would think MCU Spider-Man has it good and he would have a point.

I will agree that the original example might need be reworded to be more specific and less contentious in its wording, and more qualified. But in either case, MCU Spider-Man does qualify as an Adaptational Wimp.

Then propose a writeup. Because the one that is currently commented out is Not An Example at the very least, and I'm less than moved between that and the blatant misrepresentation of early comics Spider-Man.

And his lack of experience absolutely was a major factor in the early comics. He was very emotionally immature in the early days (see: ASM #3 where he quit because he thought Doc Ock was unbeatable until Johnny Storm accidentally gave him a pep talk) and it affected him as Spider-Man. But at the end of the day he did swing around and come back.

So if he really does bungle things constantly during the movie to the point that it effectively limits his Power Level, then let us know. But most things like "isn't the confident, experienced hero he is in the comics," "doesn't build his suit," or even "doesn't have a full knowledge of the functions of his suit" are not indicators of this in of themselves.

Then propose a writeup.

Well here's the original commented out version:

• Adaptational Wimp: This canon's Spider-Man has immense potential, and was recruited by Tony because of it, but is still very fresh to his own powers and how he operates as a hero in his hometown. It doesn't help either that he is not familiar with all the functions of his suit, leading him to make many mistakes and crashing face first into things a lot. In both the comics and most versions, his powers generally came with intuitive control and he's mastered his powers and abilities very quickly.

Here's my proposed replacement:

• Adaptational Wimp:
  • Homecoming!Spider-Man is visibly less competent and capable than the original Spider-Man of the comics. He spends much of the film making mistake after mistake, crashing into things while swinging, fumbling with the functions of his suit and constantly having to try to learn to use his powers .
  • A specific case is the Spider-Sense. Both Kevin Feige and Jon Watts insisted they went for a more subtle approach and wanted to focus on other spider-man capabilities, but twice in the film, Peter's identity is exposed because Ganke Lee and Aunt May watch him change out of costume with his back turned. In the original comics, it's specifically mentioned that Peter's spider-sense warns him from anyone approaching him and learning his identity, and that includes family and loved ones. The first time Peter's identity was exposed, happened because the villain, Green Goblin, used a gas to neutralize his spider-sense. Within this film, Peter gets no warning or indicator whatsoever whenever there is an imminent threat to his identity being exposed.

So that I think we can add this...and the Spider-Sense example just came to me because I had been seeing discussions about the Spider-sense only alerting in the case of threats and that's why Aunt May and Ganke didn't work but the original comics established the spider-sense warned anyone about any threat to his identity. The Spider-sense is canon as per Jo and Anthony Russo and the Infinity war trailers featured it.

Also, magenta's original comments and elsewhere about MCU taking a realistic approach to Spider-Man...leaving aside the whole issue of doing a realistic version of a kid being bitten by a radioactive spider (assuming it's still radioactive and not genetically-altered as Marvel drops I Love Nuclear Power)...the fact is that still doesn't qualify because the MCU is not a Christopher Nolan-Zack Snyder environment. It's more or less the classic Marvel Universe, and it plays most stuff straight, like you know a 40 year old playboy in Iron Man somehow being in good enough physical shape after spending time in a cave with bad rations and shrapnel to his heart suddenly Mac Gyver-ing his way out having spent most of his life working as a corporate weapons-manufacturer, or Doctor Strange suddenly going from newbie to magic to head of one of three sanctum sanctorum is not any less believable because their protagonists aren't teenagers.

And in Spider-Man: Homecoming Spider-Man is not on his first adventure. He has had his origin, and had a period as a You Tube sensation where he caught burglars and stopped a car with his strength after it went at top-speed and fought Team Cap in Berlin...so the whole argument from inexperience doesn't work internally in the context of MCU and its own rules.

I am quite fond of your proposed replacement for Adaptational Wimp trope that is for the MCU Spider-Man, Julian Lapostat. Besides, it's not like any of the other characters presented in this film are weaker than their comic book counterparts (cough! cough! Shocker. cough! cough!). You are a great troper, Julian.

Just please don't use the exclamation point as a descriptive mark. That's a fanfic-originated format that is very much depreciated on this wiki.

I think we need to clarify definitions we are using. When I say "lack of experience or capability" I am talking rather exclusively to the repeated crashing into things that he does, largely of his own accord. We see him faceplanting in the early film Training Montage, get whipped around into near everything when he anchored a web line to a moving truck, faceplant again when trying to get the drop on the highway theft, knock himself out inside the Damage Control container, and all that is just the broadest things I could think of. It is that kind of stuff that has little precedence in the comics, as even when new and fresh to heroics Spidey was always very wily and exceptionally skilled in physical action, in fact exactly as how Civil War presented him as very young but still very skilled. Homecoming had to retcon that portrayal to explain this new portrayal. In comparison, the previous Spider-Man movies showed plenty of truck chases and even if new to his powers he wasn't crashing into everything but artfully dodges every obstacle.

I think the confusion is that "lack of experience or capability" is being assumed as relating to things like superhero protocol, developing an approach strategy or just general mistakes (messing up with the ferry, the bank robbery getting out of control or botching the truck chase). I'll admit, by itself THAT is not the trope. Especially for Spidey, he's a legendary Hero with Bad Publicity and things going wrong for him in that way is just tradition. But coupled with the above thing about being unfamiliar with his powers, it only amplifies giving off the impression of Adaptational Wimp.

So when I read the current example as written, I see primarily the talk about how he is still not fully familiar with his powers, with the suit function hijinks and superhero mistakes being second to that. The proposed rewrite is a little more concise, but I don't really see one as innately better than the other

The first example is a bit too ranting against Tony Stark, and may attract natterish responses; it should be avoided on the ground that Examples Are Not Arguable. And it is no longer true Tony doesn't care about consequences, as this movie and Civil War demonstrated.

The second example is way too much speculative. We don't know that there is no legal market or that Damage Control does nothing with the salvage; the piling up in a government warehouse could be a temporary measure, the time to check if the salvage isn't contaminated in some way (an episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D deals with an alien Chitauri virus transmitted by one piece of such salvage). And the whole comparison to the Aztecs is completely beyond the subject, it has no place on the non-YMMV part of an article.