Comics Do you like the unmasking....THE POLL

[Cyclops]

See, Jack, if we all know it's destined to be retconned (which it is), what's the point in telling the story? If it adds nothing in the long run, why include it into regular continuity?

I'm gonna write a story where Peter is "permanently" transgendered. And it'll last for about eight months, so you'll be fooled into thinking it's long-term, and then BAM! I'll change it back and make everybody forget it ever happened.

What's the point, then?

 

[DACrowe]

Uhm....how can you erase this unless you do something stupid like destroy the world and move onto the next or have Superboy punch the timeline or something(coughlazywritingatDCcough)....?

I mean even if somehow the world is MAGICALLY mindwiped about the event there is the fact that there is so much information probalby building up on the internet, in books, on CNN/History Channel/whatever documentaries that note he is Spider-Man (take Deb Whitman's book) and it in every major news archive's recrods....including the video of him PUBLICLY unmasking himself. Without the lazy DC cover-up, it is pretty much impossible to erase the fact that the world knows who Spidey is in 616 continuity now.

 

[Cyclops]

How? I don't know. But I didn't know how they'd erase Batman's back being broken without any ill effects in the long run (I still don't know how they did that), so I'm fairly confident that they'll fall back to the status quo before too much time passes.

Somehow.

 

[Chris Wallace]

So the overwhelming majority of us are in agreement. But there is one good thing I can say about the unmasking; at least Marvel's not trying to make it look like he made the right decision. It was the wrong move & it's biting him in the @$$. Of course some of you (*cough*Cyclops!*cough*) would argue that that's one more reason why it shouldn't have been done. Why bother doing something that hurts the character, only to have him see the error of his ways later? Why pull such a dumb stunt when you've already determined the outcome? And you'd be right. But it'd be a different story if he pulled the mask off & life became a bed of roses for him. Imagine how mad you'd be then.

 

[Cyclops]

Well, it's not that it's bad for him that bugs me. It's that with Marvel's tendency to revert to status quo whenever big changes arise, this gimmick is destined to be forgotten within continuity. Somehow, Peter's ID will be back in the bag eventually and nobody will believe that he's Spider-Man anymore.

THAT is what bugs me. That it's bound to be negated and forgotten about as if it never happened.

 

[Doc Destruction]

The fact that he thought it MIGHT be a good idea at all is my problem with it. So stupid on so many levels.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Very true. Like I said before, they hit him w/so many big changes only to have them undone & buried. It's a big waste of time & resources.

 

[Cyclops]

My thoughts EXACTLY. Why waste the time telling these life-changing stories when history has shown that life-changing gets retconned almost immediately?

How long did it take Grant Morisson's work on X-Men (regardless of whether or not you liked it, that's not the point) to be retconned almost completely out of existence?

Aunt May's death, Norman Osborn's death, Mysterio's suicide, Chapter One (more forgotten than retconned), etc. Any time someone comes along and changes the fabric of the MU, it's only a matter of time until it's retconned away.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I would be ok with that, but it doesnt change my mind about Civil War.

Which is what? For or against?

 

[Chris Wallace]

My thoughts EXACTLY. Why waste the time telling these life-changing stories when history has shown that life-changing gets retconned almost immediately?

How long did it take Grant Morisson's work on X-Men (regardless of whether or not you liked it, that's not the point) to be retconned almost completely out of existence?

Aunt May's death, Norman Osborn's death, Mysterio's suicide, Chapter One (more forgotten than retconned), etc. Any time someone comes along and changes the fabric of the MU, it's only a matter of time until it's retconned away.

Whoa,whoa,whoa-last I heard, Mysterio was still dead.

 

[shinlyle]

See....we all seem to agree.

My thing is, why not use the issues they've wasted on a storyline that will be erased from conitinuity to say, introduce a new supporting cast member? Why not introduce a new villian?

Has anyone else noticed that, despite JMS's penchant for introducing new villians early on, he hasn't introduced a single new character since that crappy Molten Man rip-off back in "Skin Deep"? Anyone else notice that? That was almost 20 issues ago. Before that, it was the Goblin twins...

Now, he just uses the same characters as everyone else.

Peter David started out his run with a potentially cool new character, Tracer, who was just as quickly forgotten about, and, to my knowledge, has yet to be included in a single issue of ANYTHING since his brief appearances in "The Other". Now PAD has gone back to rehashing the past (or resurrecting people from it), and we're back to the smae problem.

How about, instead of wasting time with rehashes, resurrections, or destined-to-be-retconned stories, they start introducing new characters? That's what made Spidey so great....watching how the everyman Peter Parker interacted with different people and situations. Even the villians of Stan's day used to have different motivations and origins...when was the last time we saw somethign interesting donw with a villain? How about the last time we saw a character introduced that bordered on hero and villian, the way the Punisher does? Once upon a time, Spider-Man comics continually broke the mold. A teacher who was obsessed with his student to the point of becoming a costumed villian and attacking the man he thought was responsible for her death(The Jackal). So obsessed was he that he cloned her. That was from ONE issue written by Gerry Conway almost 30 years ago. How about Hobgoblin? He was a character that, on the outside, reminded us of Spdiey's most tenacious foe, and yet, was a totally different animal with different motivations.

It just sickens me, to a point, to know that no meaningful villians or heroes have been ontroduced in Spider-Man since Carnage back in 1992...and even that one is questionable. We've had more goblins, more symbiotes, more CLONES, and even more Mysterios.....and nothing new. Now, they kill off or write away every good supporting character he has, and we're forced to watch them tear down the greatest fictional hero EVER while the comics themselves stagnate and, eventually, die...or at least lose all semblance of what they once were.

It's sad.

 

[Cyclops]

Whoa,whoa,whoa-last I heard, Mysterio was still dead.

Erik Larsen immediately brought him back for his Sinister Six storyline, didn't he? And when he was questioned on it, he said something like "Characters shouldn't be killed, because when you do that, you're depriving future generations of readers of a potentially great character."

 

[Jack O'Lantern]

Which is what? For or against?

Pro Civil War.

 

[Chris Wallace]

1. None of those villains that JMS introduced early on were well-received, had a lasting impact, or were all that bloody interesting.
2. He-like the other writers-has been too busy w/all this Civil War nonsense to do anything original or come up w/any nonsense of his own.
3. I, too, would rather see some changes in his supporting cast/rogues gallery than see the return of villains who've long since gone straight, or any of the other crap they've been shoveling down our throats.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Erik Larsen immediately brought him back for his Sinister Six storyline, didn't he? And when he was questioned on it, he said something like "Characters shouldn't be killed, because when you do that, you're depriving future generations of readers of a potentially great character."

I thought it was never confirmed whther or not he was Beck, & it was proven later in a mini that it wasn't?
And I choose not to acknowledge any Sinister 6 that would allow Sandman to lead or Venom to join.

 

[Jack O'Lantern]

See, Jack, if we all know it's destined to be retconned (which it is), what's the point in telling the story? If it adds nothing in the long run, why include it into regular continuity?

I'm gonna write a story where Peter is "permanently" transgendered. And it'll last for about eight months, so you'll be fooled into thinking it's long-term, and then BAM! I'll change it back and make everybody forget it ever happened.

What's the point, then?

Who says that a story has to have permenent reprecussions? Lots of stories over the past 40 years have added nothing to the long run. Think of all the one-shots and dangling plot lines that there must be. They add nothing and they do no harm.

Of course, if Peter were to be transgendered, it would be a terrible idea because it serves no purpose. How would Peter becoming a woman add to a story or the character? But the unmasking is nowhere near that bad, imo. Any masked vigilante would in all likely hood be unmasked sooner or later anyway. In other words, its relavant to the character and the consequences are relavant.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Jack, you are in the minority here.

 

[Jack O'Lantern]

Jack, you are in the minority here.

Yeah, I know. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Cyclops]

Who says that a story has to have permenent reprecussions? Lots of stories over the past 40 years have added nothing to the long run. Think of all the one-shots and dangling plot lines that there must be. They add nothing and they do no harm.

Of course, if Peter were to be transgendered, it would be a terrible idea because it serves no purpose. How would Peter becoming a woman add to a story or the character? But the unmasking is nowhere near that bad, imo. Any masked vigilante would in all likely hood be unmasked sooner or later anyway. In other words, its relavant to the character and the consequences are relavant.

But when it's reverted, retconned out of existence (and it will be), and Peter's ID is secret yet again, what do those consequences mean? Where has the relevance gone?

The thing is, over the past 40 years, none of those non-permanent storylines were as big as this. Peter's parents turning out to be artificial constructs created by The Chameleon? Not that big, really. Peter unmasking himself on national (and likely international) television? Peter not only being unmasked, but revealing his identity to the entire world? That is HUGE.

And it's a huge event that is destined to be forgotten within continuity or else the very essence of Spider-Man is changed forever. Who he is is changed. How he is perceived is changed. And Marvel will quite frankly never do that. They'd sooner kill off The Hulk than change the very essence of Spider-Man's character permanently.

So then, what does the unmasking become? What is it if it's only going to be completely erased? It's nothing. It's a complete and utter waste of storytelling capacity for something that is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Interesting that you use the term "publicity stunt", Cyclops. I define a publicity stunt-as applied to comic book events-as something that is not only non-permanent, but finds its way into the mainstream media. Like Superman's death, wedding & costume/power change. Why do these things make newspaper headlines? Because they are done to boost sales, nothing more. And yes, I did see news blurbs about Spider-man's unmasking, so it falls into that category.

 

[DACrowe]

On JMS' run to be fair, I thought the villain of Morlun was pretty damn cool for a one-shot story. Now he sucked in The Other but in his original story he was a very good villain. And Ezekiel was a GREAT character who unfortunately couldn't last more than 30 issues before he HAD to die, but I would say Ezekiel is the best supporting cast member created in the last decade or so (new one). And I also would not clal Carnage a great villain. There have been few great new villains since Venom, who again borders for me (great at the beginnign but has been downhill after his first 3 stories or so ever since).

And I think we can agree Peter WILLINGLy (the worst part about it) unmasking himself sucked though.

 

[3dman27]

And I think we can agree Peter WILLINGLy (the worst part about it) unmasking himself sucked though.

IT DID INDEED

 

[SpideyInATree]

Law or not, Avengers or not, a guy who's had his secret identity ****ed around with so often by his super-villains, namely the Green Goblin multiple times, Chameleon (faked his Parents' return), Venom, Scorpion, and several others I'm sure that I can't recall right now, that he'd be damn paranoid about it.

I know I would. I mean, think about it, you've been keeping your identity secret for YEARS to keep your friends and family safe from your villains, wouldn't you be absolutely terrified over the prospects of unmasking, regardless of your support? Don't forget that Peter is a consummate worry-wart, which lends more to a paranoid stand-point.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that Peter would ever be willing to unmask. Yes, his superhero friends might be able to protect his civilian ones and his family, but what if they can't? The what ifs would nag at Peter so much that he would not be able to go through with it.

Peter didn't want to unmask. Aunt May convinced him to do it. And while you point out his being a worry-wart, which is true...which he was worrying and has been so far during this whole thing...he has true respect for his Aunt.

My whole point is that during this entire unmasking situation he hasn't been out of character. He's been very much in character.

And despite people mentioning all his past that was in the past. That was before he became a part of the Avengers. That was before the government passed a law that all superheroes, and supervillains, have to register with the government or face time in prison.

As I said before. People may not like the fact that he did unmask, or the way he did it, or how he was "convinced" to do it. But it's not out of character.

 

[The Joker]

Peter didn't want to unmask. Aunt May convinced him to do it.

Another mischaracterization.

Aunt May would never tell Peter to do that. She worries like hell about him at the best of times when nobody knows his identity. But now she says go and tell everyone who you are so they can be proud of you like me??

BS!

 

[SpideyInATree]

Another mischaracterization.

Aunt May would never tell Peter to do that. She worries like hell about him at the best of times when nobody knows his identity. But now she says go and tell everyone who you are so they can be proud of you like me??

BS!

That's not a mischaracterization either. I seem to recall when she found out he was Spider-Man that she was on a crusade to have people stop bad mouthing him and even wrote a letter to Jameson about it.

Also, you're not taking into account the registration act or the fact that Tony Stark asked Peter to do it. Aunt May just didn't want to see her nephew, who is pretty much like her son, have to keep hiding behind a mask.

I'm sure if they were still living in an old apartment in Soho and Peter wasn't part of the Avengers and there was no Superhuman registration act that she wouldn't have convinced him otherwise.