Ah, yes, and Spider-Man revealing his identity. I already stated that requiring heroes who fully obey the SHRA and reveal their ID's to the government to also do it publically (and make their enemies' jobs a million times easier) is unfair and very naive. And it also takes Spider-Man outside of his realm of existance and into something that feels, well, generic. Not only is he living in an ivory tower in the sky, with nanobot armor, the right-hand of a psuedo politician-armored hero and member of his planet's premire superhero team, but now he is also an instant celebrity. He's basically Booster Gold with a family now. Or perhaps The Flash, back when his own ID was public. The problem, of course, is that those things weren't what made Spider-Man popular in the first place. What made him popular was his ability to mingle a soap opera lifestyle that was relatable to most readers while also mixing in a lot of superhero drama. Poor Peter would struggle to pay the bills, live an honest life and take care of May, but would have to miss his hot date with MJ because Shocker was robbing the mint again. Everyone knows what its like to have a day turn against you, and that's what Spider-Man had. Joe Q blames the loss of this on the simple act of "marrying a supermodel", but that was really nothing that couldn't have worked; in fact, it worked well since the 80's to the point where the cartoons and movies since couldn't have FUNCTIONED without MJ being key to Spidey's world. Using the Flash as an example, outing his ID proved to be a shocking plot development and one that "opened new doors for stories"...for about 1-2 years. Then it was obvious that DC regretted the decision, and so they did some major "cosmic baloney" to undo it and erase that knowledge from the minds of the general public (which wasn't a picnic for Wally either). The same will happen to Spider-Man. We'll have the "usual gang of people who support everything" in and outside Marvel talking about what a great chance this is for Peter to grow, and for some interesting plot developments to occur because of it, and they'd be right; assuming the Spider-writers use it efficiently (which, after THE OTHER, is debatable). But after 1-2 years, especially when SPIDER-MAN 3 is hitting theatres and Spidey's still a secret identity hero and adheres to most of his "formula", Marvel will backpeddle, and need an "out". Some say Loki, others say Dr. Strange, but it all amounts to "cosmic baloney" that makes you go, "What was the point? Couldn't Marvel's editorial staff forsee the effects of their own medium, or are they so eager to make bucks that they string us along anyway?" The reveal wasn't even a huge shocker, as I stated, the last ASM issue made it all but inevitable. Its simply a shame that I've not read Spider-books on a regular basis for years because they kept bungling him in the name to "reinvent" him or "change" something, and that process continues, into the point where Spider-Man is now all but generic. Incidentally, Peter now claims he started his career at 15, even though past sources and comics clearly stated him as being 16. The point? In Marvel time, "10 years" have passed since 1961 and now, which means that if Peter started at 16, he's now 26, maybe almost 27 -- gasp, "pushing" 30! Whereas if he was 15, he is now 25, which is apparently "safer".
Hence is the problem with "events" in the comic medium. American comics remain loyal to a "neverending story", and that means that you can't stretch a property too far from what made it work in the first place, or it becomes unrecognizable. But "events" only work if they mean permanent change, and Marvel's shown that anything from the past, present, or future can be undone at a whim with a "retcon" if it means getting another book in the Top 10. Rely on it too much and you get apathy.
