Spider-Man Unmasked...Good Idea?

[McMurphy]

Marvel Comics, in their quite successful mini-series "Civil War" in which the superheroes are pitted against each other in a bitter battle over civil liberaties when the U.S government passes a law that would require masked crusaders to reveal their identity and enlist into Federal organizations, has demonstrated that it may not be pulling any punches this time around. Spider-Man has unmasked himself and revealed his identity to the public: a move that the company swears to be not reversed.

A good indicator that Marvel is not going to pull a "Inifinity Guantlet" move (i.e.: reverse all the changes after it ended.), is that the decision to unmask Spider-Man has left a rift between those within the company that think it is a good idea and the people who think it is a move that they will spend years attempting to correct.

What is your opinion?

 

[carrie221]

I admittedly have not read the comics since I was about 8 or 9 and I am now 22 but I think that it would not be a good idea. It is one thing for the hero's family or "girl" to find out his real identity but for the entire public to know the truth... it sounds really bad

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

Well, its a small step in the right direction imo, but Peter Parker of all the heroes seems to have to most to lose. Seems like Capt. America should be the focal point of the unmasking movement. Would have been more interesting had Spidey refused to comply...but then again what do I know...?

 

[McMurphy]

Well, its a small step in the right direction imo, but Peter Parker of all the heroes seems to have to most to lose. Seems like Capt. America should be the focal point of the unmasking movement. Would have been more interesting had Spidey refused to comply...but then again what do I know...?

I see what you are saying, but I think that Marvel may have picked Captain America to lead the resistance against the new law because, being a symbol of patronism, the conflict is more dynamic.

Perhaps, it is TOO obvious of a choice in the end because I am not entirely convinced that the personality of Peter Parker would have actually gone along with the civil violation.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

I voted no.
Simply because it endangers those he cares about. That was the whole point of having a secret identity, so that criminals wouldn't target his family to get to him.
It was bad enough when several villains discovered his identity and threatened them but now every "two bit hood" with a grudge against Spider-man will take it out on Aunt May or MJ or even her family.

Steve Rogers is a different case. Most people already know his identity and as a person completely displaced from his original time, all his family and friends would either be dead or extremely elderly.

I really think that Marvel have screwed up here.
Oh, and I'm guessing Peter Parker is out of a job now...?

 

[Azure]

Well in some plots everyone and their dog knows his identity, but really it's stupid idea. The whole spidey thing was that he could be a super hero and at the end of it could go home. That's very different from the Fantastic Four who have to deal with celebrity.
This to me reeks to me of the writers and editors getting a little too power happy.

 

[Princess Ivy]

if it's done it's done, i've never really liked spidey (to much darn angst). but this makes me wonder, will they now start to get paid for saving the world? and if so, who would pay them? what about moral implications of accepting, say, advertising revenue? and what about culpability for damage and destruction wraught during battles. also, would the hero's still then wear a costume to fight crime? i mean it wouldn't really be nessessary anymore, but then, i supose costumes can provide a certain amount of protection against foe's etc... But also on the psycho side, is it easier to beat up a 'masked' hero than an unmasked one?
i remember a while ago when Matt Murdock was revealed as DareDevil and the ensuing media circus, would that continue here? or would the press loose interest because everyone else was doing it?
sorry, i'm waffling here. My one comment though, would be fun to see in DC imagine the suprise on Lois's face on discovering that Clarke was Superman?

 

[Perpetual Man]

Well is it a good idea? Not to sure, but has it led to a good story yes!

My understanding of the situation was the the hero had to register with SHIELD/The government not make their identity public. Spider-man's decision to do so was something he decided to do to help the registration act along, and because basically he was talked, manipulated into doing it by Tony Stark.

And it is a big mistake both in story terms and from writing... down the line there will be problems, but it'll be fun to start with.

The Daredevil unmasking was equally fun but a lot more nebulous... especially as Murdock still denies that he is Daredevil... and now there is another Daredevil running around there is even more fun.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I always thought one of the most important points about superheroes is that their identities had to remain secret because they were working outside of the law, as vigilantes.

If you unmask superheroes - and join them to federal organisations - then surely they are just extraordinary men in silly costumes? The next logical step would be to remove the costumes entirely and have plain federal-issued uniforms.

All in all, it sounds like a very bold by Marvel - and an interesting one - just not sure whether they're trying to grow up MArvel, or basically turn the Marvel universe into an expanded JLA.

2c from a DC reader.

 

[Princess Ivy]

i'd think it souned more like an overrun of the mutant registration act than JLA and associated bad puns.

 

[Eoghann]

Hmm, I'm the only one who thinks its a good idea?

Its an interesting development to explore in stories. As a permanent thing it might be a problem, but lets face it this is comics. Nothing is permanent.

So I say yes, its a good idea because it shakes up the status-quo and gives us some different stories for a while. Once the idea has run its course, someone will dream up a way to reset things again. They always do.

Aunt May and The Green Goblin both used to be dead...

 

[McMurphy]

Hmm, I'm the only one who thinks its a good idea?

Its an interesting development to explore in stories. As a permanent thing it might be a problem, but lets face it this is comics. Nothing is permanent.

So I say yes, its a good idea because it shakes up the status-quo and gives us some different stories for a while. Once the idea has run its course, someone will dream up a way to reset things again. They always do.

Aunt May and The Green Goblin both used to be dead...

Heh. Good point. Marvel likes to point towards never bringing the original Captain Marvel back to life after his death, but should that even count? It isn't as if they haven't published several magazines since his death with the same title or have characters take on his persona since then.

 

[Eoghann]

Heh. Good point. Marvel likes to point towards never bringing the original Captain Marvel back to life after his death, but should that even count? It isn't as if they haven't published several magazines since his death with the same title or have characters take on his persona since then.

They used to say that Captain Marvel and Bucky would always stay dead. Well they've brought back Bucky now...

 

[McMurphy]

They used to say that Captain Marvel and Bucky would always stay dead. Well they've brought back Bucky now...

And god knows how empty the Marvel Universe was without Bucky.

 

[Nesacat]

I voted no. It would eliminate much of the mystique aurrounding superheroes. A great deal of what they mean to us and to the societies they work within comes from their hidden identity; the fact that they work outside the common bounds of law and order within which everyone else functions. They have masks and they have uniforms and they stand apart from everyone else and perhaps are therefore able and allowed to do what no one else can.

And there is also the danger to his family. Right now they are protected because no one knows Peter Parker is SpiderMan. They are clearly the weakest point in his aromour and would be in immediate danger.

 

[Threepwud]

I love Spidey and it has been around for nearly 50 years now (-ish). Maybe a change would be good?

 

[Styr]

Not being a Spiderman reader lately, I have a bunch of comics from the early 90's and a few recent graphic novels, I don't really know what's happening in his life lately. I do have the civil war series and related tie ins though. I don't think it was the best idea in the world to unmask him. When they deciede to retcon this decision they're going to have to come up with an amazing reason, or a stupid unconvincing reason that will turn people off. And they will reverse it, probably in a year or two when the writers change or get bored with using his public identity on plot and wish he had a secret identity again.

Reminds me of the days when everyone was complaining about the clone saga! I think I'll stick with the ultimate Spiderman I much prefer that to the main universes version. As someone already said: "Too much Angst!"

 

[prayerrun]

personally I think it's stupid. plain and simple. Spidey would NOT. under any circumstances reveal his identity to the public BECAUSE of guys like Green Goblin. I think this takes away from the actual character of Spiderman.

 

[Scott T]

In as much as it's sparked debate about the character(s), it's a good idea. Looking at the responses on this forum alone, it seems people have strong views which is quite good for Marvel to have got people emotionally involved.

The logistsics of it ARE insane though. I bet Nick Fury will have to spend all day protecting Aunt May and other people's weak relatives in a secret underground tea room somewhere.

 

[Alienweirdo]

For the record, Spider-man is my all-time favourite comic line.

I'm Torn between Both yes and no. It is true that his secret identity is part of the Spider-man mythos, protecting his loved ones and so forth from his enimies, which will therefore make the comic storylines go in an all new direction, and i do believe 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Change is good, but only if it necessary for the survival of the character. We live in an age were security cameras and computer hackers and conpiracy thoerists watch and learn all about us, and if marvel are trying to keep spider-man modern and up to date they need to keep this into consideration. One cannot keep their secret identity secret from the world for too long in this world. true i'm talking about Spider-man as if he is real, but its not as if the 616 universe doesn't have security cameras etc!

I wonder where the writers will take this, and if it goes horribly wrong, they can just have an infinite crisis or something and put it straight =p

i'm enjoying the Ultimate line more then the mainstream line atm, its just not as overblown and potentially silly as the mainline spider-man.