Hi, welcome to Conspiracy Corner, where I get to make random and probably non-existant connections between various things for no good reason. For today’s installment, I’d like to return to the idea that Marvel’s comics are planned around their movie franchises. We know that comic-Spider-Man gained organic web-shooters so that the comic would be closer to the movie version of the character because Tom Brevoort essentially confirmed that to Newsarama at the time. But cut to Joe Quesada’s blog today, and the following comment, left by a fan: “I’ve been hearing rumors that in the third Spider-man movie, Spidey is going to unmask as well. Do you know if this is true?” Quesada’s response: “I am sworn to secrecy, so you’ll just have to see what happens.”
Today’s conspiracy theory for you all to ponder: Did Spider-Man unmask in the comics because he’s set to do so during the third Spider-Man movie?
The decision… is yours.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
Well, yeah. That’s just good business sense, and a way to attract readers. And over at DC, “Superman” has just “Return”-ed from a long absence. I thought this kind of thing was common, not really a conspiracy.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
And is that necessarily a bad thing?
Batman and Superman have been playing give and take between their comic and screen versions since the 40s (Kryptonite and Renee Montoya are two examples of things introduced outside of comics that have been incorporated into the ongoing mythology).
Sometimes a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from.
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Technically, a bunch of people on the subway train already know Spider-man’s identity when he got unmasked fighting Doc Ock in Spider-man 2. They don’t necessarily know that he’s Peter Parker, but they know his face..
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Huh…could be- Afterall, Joe said the unmasking wasn’t part of Millar’s original script, it was added in later. Whatever, I think it makes for good story, couldn’t care less where the idea came from.
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I honestly doubt that Sam Raimi is that goddanm stupid.
I mean, Jesus Christ on a Bike, isn’t there enough going on in that film already, for one thing?
Just when you thought Spider-Man couldn’t get any goddamn worse.
//\Oo/\\
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I could see Spider-Man unmasking in the movie, if it really is a clone saga/Venom thing, but that’s just me…
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:42 pm
“Batman and Superman have been playing give and take between their comic and screen versions since the 40s (Kryptonite and Renee Montoya are two examples of things introduced outside of comics that have been incorporated into the ongoing mythology).”
And didn’t I read somewhere that Chloe from Smallville was going to become a character in the comic books?
Not to mention the JLU-inspired greater prominence for Hawkgirl in the DCU.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Don’t forget Harley Quinn.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Funny how Quesada bashes the marriage of Spider-man as a short-sighted stunt done only in response to the newspaper comic every chance he gets and then does this….
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
If true, I have to wonder how Marvel picks and chooses what in the comics should sync up with movies and what shouldn’t. I mean, I doubt the upcoming Iron Man movie will have IM selling out to the government and employing questionable tactics to round up other superheroes, and the X-Men didn’t conveniently start wearing black leather again in time for X3.
With the Spidey unmasking thing, I could see it happening if the third movie is supposed to be the last in the series, but I think Raimi’s too much of a traditionalist otherwise.
How much does that kind of thing really help anyway? The Kryptonite/Montoya/Chloe/Hawkgirl examples are all good ones, where an actual character (or rock) is added to the mythology, but does anybody really think a “new” reader is going to pick up a Spider-Man comic, only to throw it down in disgust when they discover that Spidey is using artificial web-shooters?
And why bother having a Superman plot that superficially resembles the movie when you’ve still got the Lois/Clark marriage, the less-campy Luthor, and whatever other elements that make the comic different from the film?
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
I have a theory about Superman Returns that could be considered a spoiler, but I’d like to get some feedback on it, so I’ll just say this: The similarities between the movie and the comic are more than just superficial. Superman II and the events of Infinite Crisis depict a powerless Clark Kent, who suddenly has a lot more time to spend with Lois. (and what ramifications could that have? Google “Man of steel, woman of Kleenex” then go watch the trailer again)