Why is Spider-Man excluded from The Avengers, X-Men, and FF?

[davew128]

What this means is that Peter inventing webbing at 15 is no guarantee he would be able to hold down a job in his 20's. Honestly, there is no guarantee that Peter can even come up with anything else than what he already came up with in comics. We can't just assume Peter could have cured cancer by now if he just put his mind to it simply because he invented webbing. That's not how intelligence works. It's the norm for real-life scientists to have one or two groundbreaking inventions and that's it.

Well in the case of Peter, he suffers from two problems:
1) Being a front line super hero with a secret identity. The demands on his time and attention are enormous.
2) He's Peter Parker. Some people's personalities don't lend themselves to success, either due to distraction, carelessness, or whatever. Case in point: Spock was a full time superhero and found a way to finish Peter's doctorate and build a global tech conglomerate. Peter could NEVER do any of that on his own even if he gave up Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Case in point: Spock was a full time superhero and found a way to finish Peter's doctorate and build a global tech conglomerate. Peter could NEVER do any of that on his own even if he gave up Spider-Man.

Neither could Ock. Otto never built a stable life or showed any business acumen in any point of his life until that moment in the story.

It's not a good example

Yup, dense it is. Clearly the concept of a full time superhero being incompatible with having a secret identity and civilian life went right over your head. Why do you think that back in the day the Maria Stark Foundation provided a $1,000/week stipend to regular roster members? Iron Man and Wasp would have been the only members who didn't need it to survive if living outside the mansion.

The problem isn't realism.

I mean this a superhero genre, it's all fake. It's not any more or any less believable for Peter to be a superhero managing his double life than to accept that the Avengers as a concept works.

The main thing is...which is more interesting for a character? Spider-Man is most interesting when he is by himself than with a team.

[Geralt of Rivia]

Perhaps this has already been brought up, on top of his Avengers tenure during Hickman's FF run Spiderman filled in Johnny Storm's spot while he was "dead".

How is that being "excluded"?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Well in the case of Peter, he suffers from two problems:
1) Being a front line super hero with a secret identity. The demands on his time and attention are enormous.
2) He's Peter Parker. Some people's personalities don't lend themselves to success, either due to distraction, carelessness, or whatever. Case in point: Spock was a full time superhero and found a way to finish Peter's doctorate and build a global tech conglomerate. Peter could NEVER do any of that on his own even if he gave up Spider-Man.

1) You will have to be more specific. There are pros to not having a secret identity, but also cons. You have less freedom to operate, are more likely to be controlled by someone like Norman or Stark, and you're putting your loved ones at greater risk.

2) Spock was bad writing. Otto was at least 40 by the time he became a supervillain. If he could have built a global tech conglomerate on his spare time, he would have done it prior to becoming Ock. Slott saying something is true doesn't make it true.

[Triniking1234]

Slott's story showed that Otto didn't have the goodwill and charisma Peter had to even start a company. He basically got the start-up money from Jameson's dad who was Peter's uncle-in-law at the time.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Spock was bad writing. Otto was at least 40 by the time he became a supervillain. If he could have built a global tech conglomerate on his spare time, he would have done it prior to becoming Ock. Slott saying something is true doesn't make it true.

It's based on the idea "If you're so smart why aren't you rich" and the idea that evil people have some innate talent at business and making money.

These 10 seconds is Superior Spider-Man in a nutshell.

[Agent Z]

1) You will have to be more specific. There are pros to not having a secret identity, but also cons. You have less freedom to operate, are more likely to be controlled by someone like Norman or Stark, and you're putting your loved ones at greater risk.

None of the public identity heroes have been shown as having any less freedom to operate than their more anonymous peers.

Osborn has metaphorically had Peter by the balls despite Peter having a secret identity for most of his superhero career. He was able to kidnap Peter's child, fake his aunt's death, murder his girlfriend and kidnap and torture Peter with impunity. Peter having a secret identity could not and did not prevent any of this.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

None of the public identity heroes have been shown as having any less freedom to operate than their more anonymous peers.

The Avengers kinda have less freedom. Most of them don't interact with corrupt cops, rich dudes, and other people with legal power to the extent that guys like Spider-Man and Daredevil do. Most of them also have a more pro-Establishment view of the world, which is a natural outcome that comes with working with Fury and other 'officials' on a daily basis. There are some exceptions (Steve Rogers, Clint Barton, T'Challa) but generally that's the trend.

The Fantastic Four can get away with not having identities because they're technically explorers. The X-Men don't have secret identities and suffer for it.

Osborn has metaphorically had Peter by the balls despite Peter having a secret identity for most of his superhero career. He was able to kidnap Peter's child, fake his aunt's death, murder his girlfriend and kidnap and torture Peter with impunity. Peter having a secret identity could not and did not prevent any of this.

Right. Because he knew his identity.

And that's just one person.

[Agent Z]

The Avengers kinda have less freedom. Most of them don't interact with corrupt cops, rich dudes, and other people with legal power to the extent that guys like Spider-Man and Daredevil do.

That has less to do with freedom and more to do with the type of adventures told with them. I could argue that Spider-Man and Daredevil have "less freedom" because they don't tangle with aliens, demons, gods and other types of villains the Avengers deal with. The only thing stopping that is what the writer wants to do. Tony Stark frequently clashes with corrupt CEOs and evil government agents and officials are regular antagonists of Captain America.

Most of them also have a more pro-Establishment view of the world

I think you're conflating the Avengers being more accepted compared to Spider-Man with them being pro-Establishment. The only ones that fit this were Tony, Tigra and Carol and even that was only during Civil War.

The Fantastic Four can get away with not having identities because they're technically explorers.

They're still superheroes with public identities that should in theory put their loves ones in danger.

The X-Men don't have secret identities and suffer for it.

The X-Men suffer because of anti-Mutant hatred.

Right. Because he knew his identity.

And that's just one person.

It wasn't just that Norman knew his identity. It was that Peter lacked a strong support network for most of his career. He wasn't on a superhero team and his loved ones didn't know he was Spider-Man or that Norman was the Green Goblin. The public didn't know who the Green Goblin was until he was unmasked by Luke Cage in ''The Pulse'' and that was because of Peter keeping both their identities a secret. If Peter was a public hero on a team, he'd have had people who could protect his more vulnerable friends and family or find ways to hide them until the threat was dealt with.

Peter and Matt are said to protect their identities in order to keep their loved ones safe but they've done a poorer job of doing that than heroes with public identities.

[Agent Z]

It's based on the idea "If you're so smart why aren't you rich" and the idea that evil people have some innate talent at business and making money.

These 10 seconds is Superior Spider-Man in a nutshell.

What's that got to do with Superior Spider-Man?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

That has less to do with freedom and more to do with the type of adventures told with them. I could argue that Spider-Man and Daredevil have "less freedom" because they don't tangle with aliens, demons, gods and other types of villains the Avengers deal with. The only thing stopping that is what the writer wants to do. Tony Stark frequently clashes with corrupt CEOs and evil government agents and officials are regular antagonists of Captain America.

Daredevil no (due to his limited powersets), but Spider-Man engages with those threats all the time. The one exception are magic-related opponents, but even that hasn't been true since JMS who created Morlun and a few other characters.

Iron Man does clash with them, but mostly for business reasons. 616 Tony Stark actually does business and thinks of ways to expand his businesses, while MCU Tony Stark was a little more like Bruce Wayne after a while in the sense he doesn't directly do much business.

Captain America is a fair point, but he is kinda an aberration as an Avenger. He is the equivalent of historical figures like MLK Jr. - someone who in hindsight everyone claims to love and is afraid of badmouthing even though his values still piss a lot of people off and would still make him a target today. That combined with Cap's refusal to give up on his values is why he works as a character that can give up his secret identity and live among the Tony Starks without it altering his concern for everyday people, but that's not something that can work with a character like Spider-Man.

I think you're conflating the Avengers being more accepted compared to Spider-Man with them being pro-Establishment. The only ones that fit this were Tony, Tigra and Carol and even that was only during Civil War.

I'm not conflating them. The idea of your average Avenger having a more pro-Establishment view of the world compared to other heroes has been brought up and discussed throughout the MU. It is the whole reason the Champions formed in the first place.

It wasn't just that Norman knew his identity. It was that Peter lacked a strong support network for most of his career. He wasn't on a superhero team and his loved ones didn't know he was Spider-Man or that Norman was the Green Goblin. The public didn't know who the Green Goblin was until he was unmasked by Luke Cage in ''The Pulse'' and that was because of Peter keeping both their identities a secret. If Peter was a public hero on a team, he'd have had people who could protect his more vulnerable friends and family or find ways to hide them until the threat was dealt with.

Peter and Matt are said to protect their identities in order to keep their loved ones safe but they've done a poorer job of doing that than heroes with public identities.

1) This is exactly what happened in the JMS run. Peter joined the Avengers and gained a network of support, but eventually it backfired and lead to him becoming a fugitive. Him unmasking also lead to MJ losing her career and becoming an outlaw, and Aunt May getting shot. He also lost his teaching job where he was doing a lot of good and a lot of students could confide in him. Those are all consequences that came with him going public.

2) Peter and Matt may have technically done a poorer job of protecting their loved ones, but that's only because a lot of Avengers no longer have any loved ones that are ordinary people. The only exception I can think of is Hawkeye thanks to Matt Fraction's run. That's kinda a problem.

[davew128]

They're still superheroes with public identities that should in theory put their loves ones in danger.

Here's the problem with that with the FF:
- Reed's father is a time travelling dimension hopping adventurer who is rarely on planet and his mother died when he was young.
- Reed's wife is one of the most powerful humans on the planet, who has a wicked nasty maternal instinct and has SHIELD agent training.
- Reed's children are powerful in their own right and fairly well protected
- Sue's husband is one of the most brilliant minds on Earth and beyond, a superhuman who developed as good a defense system as their is for their home, the Baxter Building.
- see above for Sue's children.
- Sue's parents are both deceased.
- Sue's brother is the Human Torch
- Johnny's sister is the Invisible Woman
- Johnny's parents are both deceased
- Johnny isn't currently married but most if not all of his romantic interests have generally been superhuman
- Ben's parents are both deceased.
- Ben's wife lives with him in the Baxter Building
- Aunt Petunia is safe with anonymity

Bottom line, the FF is so close knit as a family and because they don't have extended family outside the superhero community they need to protect, that they are somewhat immune to the protecting the loved ones thing.

[PCN24454]

It's funny how Peter has systematically lost most of his supporting cast so it might now matter that much for him to go public. If his Aunt May dies, he'll have even less reason not to go public.

[Agent Z]

Captain America is a fair point, but he is kinda an aberration as an Avenger. He is the equivalent of historical figures like MLK Jr. - someone who in hindsight everyone claims to love and is afraid of badmouthing even though his values still piss a lot of people off and would still make him a target today. That combined with Cap's refusal to give up on his values is why he works as a character that can give up his secret identity and live among the Tony Starks without it altering his concern for everyday people, but that's not something that can work with a character like Spider-Man.

If we add everyone who's ever been an Avenger, there's also Hawkeye, Luke Cage, She-Hulk, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, Tigra, Falcon, Misty Knight etc.

I'm not conflating them. The idea of your average Avenger having a more pro-Establishment view of the world compared to other heroes has been brought up and discussed throughout the MU.

Any specific examples of such stories?

It is the whole reason the Champions formed in the first place.

That had more to do with the fallout of Civil War 2 than the Avengers being pro-establishment. The Champions thought all adult superheroes were doing a lousy job.

1) This is exactly what happened in the JMS run. Peter joined the Avengers and gained a network of support, but eventually it backfired and lead to him becoming a fugitive. Him unmasking also lead to MJ losing her career and becoming an outlaw, and Aunt May getting shot. He also lost his teaching job where he was doing a lot of good and a lot of students could confide in him. Those are all consequences that came with him going public.

This was a consequence of Iron Man turning on Peter not specifically him having a support network.

2) Peter and Matt may have technically done a poorer job of protecting their loved ones, but that's only because a lot of Avengers no longer have any loved ones that are ordinary people. The only exception I can think of is Hawkeye thanks to Matt Fraction's run. That's kinda a problem.

Regardless, I still think secret identities aren't the strong defense many fans argue they are. Gwen Stacy would still be alive if she knew what she was getting into in a relationship with Peter.

[PCN24454]

Regardless, I still think secret identities aren't the strong defense many fans argue they are. Gwen Stacy would still be alive if she knew what she was getting into in a relationship with Peter.

It depends on how you look at it. Writers love to put supporting characters in peril regardless of secret identities. They'll find some excuse to kill her.