Ian J. said:
While I can see the point you make with your Flash/Spider-Man comparision, Dread, I really can't equate the two characters or events. To me, making Wally a public super-hero is the natural kind of change I'd like to see more of in comic books--it was natural, and it fit the established character (at least, from what I've heard). Perhaps most importantly, the writers allowed it to stick, and it became an established part of the character for more than ten years (much like Peter's marriage to Mary Jane was) before it was retconned away by Geoff Johns to suit his whims.
I chose to equate them because in the end, it didn't last and it served to prove that an identity reveal is one of those things in comics that is very hard to undo, even harder at times than a death; you need a massive mindwipe to undo it (and some would argue that story was interesting too). But my point is that the DC editorial staff obviously figured the angle had run its course and wanted to take step back. To do that, it took about 10 years.
Marvel, by contrast, barely sticks with anything longer than 2 years.
1. Does it hinder or eliminate what made the character appealing or popular in the first place? If it does, is the character strong enough to survive it? When a character becomes strong enough to survive without their gimmick, then eliminating it can actually be a good thing. I think Rogue, for example, is a good enough character on her own to survive without her defining cant touch people gimmick. Cyclops, on the other hand, cant learn to control his powers without losing a significant part of his appeal, which lies with the goggles.
The angle of a superhero's secret identity is a detail that is all but the cornerstone of the superhero genre, starting with Superman. With that said, Spider-Man got his appeal from taking that "standard" angle and applying it in a more realistic and "modern" teen soap way than other comics at the time (or in some cases since) have done. Some superheroes can step out of the "identity" angle, especially if they never really had a civilian supporting cast to begin with; Captain America is a good example of this, as well as Iron Man currently (when was the last time he interacted with someone who didn't know Stark was Iron Man? I rest my case). Spider-Man, in contrast, thrived on that civilian, seperate life. It was only in recent years that Spidey's supporting cast has been omitted in favor of merging his "superhero" and "civilian" life into one. Some could call it "progression", but when you apply it, it makes Spider-Man seem dull to me.
Spider-Man's been successful for nearly 45 years with a very appealing formula, and that's what he is at this point, as James Bond is also. If you deviate from it too much, you make something that isn't quite Spider-Man. The cartoon SPIDER-MAN UNLIMITED stripped away most conventional Spider-formula (nanobot costume, travelling to another planet, fighting Beastials, waging a civil war with rebels, removing his known supporting cast, etc) and what happened? It flopped.
Speaking of Rogue, she's become very complicated lately, and stripping away the "can't touch people" angle only works if you can find something appealing about her without it. When a character has spent OVER A GENERATION with one "gimmick", having that character stand without it may not work out. Is this bad? Not really; I mean, Indiana Jones is a great character, but would you want to take away his whip, slap him in a suit of armor and have him fight alien bugs "to spice things up"?
2. Does the change make sense? Is it natural? Clark revealing his secret identity to Lois made sense. Hal Jordans transformation into Parallax made sense on the surface. Cyborgs transformation into a human made sense. Supergirls change was later explained in a way that made sense. Spider-Mans outing
doesnt.
I don't think it does, either. In fact, Spider-Man's devotion to Iron Man, although built up over about half a year or so, also seems more forced. I've said it elsewhere, but I feel if Marvel wanted to get Spider-Man in the pro-SHRA camp for the short term, instead of having him befriend Stark, they should have stuck him with Mr. Fantastic. Why? Spider-Man's been friends/rivals with Torch for ages, and he's always finding himself intertwined with the Fantastic Four. Who'd he fight in ASM #1 for the cover billing? Who'd he turn to when his costume started acting funny? Who'd he turn to when Venom first showed up? Spider-Man's had YEARS worth of dealings with the Fantastic Four, and Reed could have easily designed a silly suit of armor for Peter, or examined his "OTHER" related ailements, or whatnot. And it would have felt more natural, and achieved the same end. But Marvel doesn't want moderation, they work from extremes, wanting to have it all. No, it has to be IRON MAN because he's the driving force behind SHRA.
To be fair, JMS tried to make it seem natural by having Spidey decide to go to the event with his reveal NOT because of Iron Man, but basically because of Aunt May. But considering all the hassles he's had when ONE villian has figured out who he was, let alone EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE TRI-STATE AREA AND BEYOND, it seems a bit foolish. But Marvel obviously wants to have Spider-Man suffer and be the "cautionary tale" of CIVIL WAR, so he has to do what the story demands.
3. Will it bring about new stories? This one really depends on the writer(s) involved. Peter David, for example, got a good seventy-five issues out of merging Supergirl with Linda Danvers. However, very little has been done with House of M or the changes brought on by Morrison, despite the possibilities it opened.
The question of bringing new stories is half the point; will they be GOOD stories? Marvel's historically milked out bad change ideas for years, while taking others that in theory were promising and completely mishandling them or ignoring them for the sake of the next event. Spider-Man himself has gone through a score of changes, from becoming a teacher to having two power-upgrades in the span of 2 years, and nothing has come of it. JMS doesn't even bother using the new powers that he, HIMSELF, gave Spidey. To assume that this new plot thread will be handled with 100% efficiently and quality is to have completely ignored Spidey-books for the past 2 years.
The thing is, Marvel likes to pretend it has a long term plan. It doesn't. They only plan stuff per year and then set about implimenting that, which means that some years they contradict stuff and then go back to it. Case in point? Iron Man's identity. Before DISASSEMBLED, he'd outed himself publically and was serving in the government. Then that stuff was swept under the rug so DISASSEMBLED could happen, so IRON MAN could relaunch and become late as all hell and return to prior format. Fast foward about 2 years, and Marvel decides they want Iron Man outed again, and AGAIN dealing with the government. So they pull a 180, and you get a "oh, again?" sort of vibe, just like every time Magneto seems to "die" for the billionth time.
Any change will evoke the potential for stories. The question is, are these good stories? And are these stories that capture the heart of the character? Because I could slap Batman in a suit of armor and have him fight space criminals for 12 issues, and you bet it'd be a story. But would it be a good Batman story?
4. Will the changes be given enough time for readers to adapt? The original incarnation of the Legion went through a ****-load of changes, and it works because they were given thirty years in which to gradually implement them. The outed-Spiderman story probably wont work because theres the underlying suspicion that the changes wont last, and that the writers wont have time to find their groove.
As I stated, Spider-Man has been through a lot of "status quo altering changes" for the past 1-2 years now, from SINS PAST to organic webbing post-DISASSEMBLED to THE OTHER and so on, and very little time is spent actually dealing with it. It's been BOOM, BOOM, BOOM with no end to the cycle. Why? Because "events" increase sales, but only in the short term, so unless you find a way to continue the sales without them, you need to use them like a train, or like steroid injections. Of course, much like steroids, eventually the body itself suffers and breaks down with time. But Marvel's not about FUTURE. They're about the NOW. What works NOW what sells NOW what works NOW. To hell with THEN or even WHEN. That they'll pass off until tomorrow and then pretend the last NOW didn't happen. I hope that made sense, because I confused myself.
5. Can the change be easily reversed, should it not work out? You know, just in case.
The Flash example is my point of this change being one that is very hard to undo efficiently. Even harder than a death at times.
The secret identity is more fundamental to Spider-Man than it is for many other heroes, to boot. Its about as keeping as the web-shooters and the hand-sewn costumes. Oh, wait. Nevermind. Both are gone.
To me, the best example of Development vs. Retconning can be had in DC's Cyborg. After several power changes spanning a period of about eight years, he was returned to a human body, albeit one with Cyborg super-powers. Yes, one can argue that it destroyed the character's original allure and raison d'etre, and I wouldn't disagree; however, I also think that it all helped make the character stronger: the changes were natural, and it helped Vic Stone rise beyond his gimmick. His last lasting change, however, the one where he returned to his original status quo of half man, half robot, is a retcon: it made no sense given the circumstances, reveals no new aspects to Cyborg's personality, and only serves to bring the character back to his silver-age self. Change for the sake of nostalgia.
Cyborg and Spider-Man are both different characters. Cyborg was a longtime team member and didn't have the same dynamic at all as Spidey did. His concept was usually the "Am I a freak or am I a hero" or "which is more vital, the man or the machine" and so on. He's a different kind of fish than Spider-Man, and what does and doesn't work with Cyborg may or may not work with Spider-Man. And that's fine. If they were both the same, they'd be boring.
I'm not a fanatic who honestly believes that the SHRA will remain indefinately, or even that the Spider-reveal will last longer than 2 years (which is the length of time Marvel's attention can stay on one thing in recent years for a property). But in a way events seem to prove that weakness of a neverending serial series. American comics never end, and need to remain constant in some way indefinately otherwise the title doesn't seem like itself. Events claim to change things, often loudly, shockingly. But if you do it every year, one after the other, than even events become formula, and then they become boring.
Marvel always points to stories like DEATH OF GWEN STACY or THE DARK PHOENIX SAGA to justify themselves now, but they miss the point entirely. Those stories were memorable because at the time, those sorts of tales were RARE. Nowadays, they're not rare. They're formula. So they lose their luster when every summer you can expect someone to die, someone to change, something to explode.
People laugh at ARCHIE comics, but at least they were always honest.
