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

[Frontier]

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.

Would she though? Look at how much danger MJ has been in and she's decidedly more capable than the average civilian.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

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.

Most of those names are like Spider-Man. They've been Avengers for a limited amount of time (on and off) and stick closer to Spider-Man's circles.

Any specific examples of such stories?

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.

Part of them doing a lousy job had to do with their views. Carol's stance in Civil War II and Iron Man's stance in Civil War I have traditionally been pro-Establishment opinions. And while Civil War is guilty of butchering and demonizing a lot of characters, there is a grain of truth in saying that a lot of Avengers like Tony Stark have an authoritarian and out-of-touch side to them.

Other examples I can think off the top of my head were in Daredevil comics (Matt not too long ago had a speech about the Avengers not being "people level"), Avengers vs X-Men, and Marvel Knights: Spider-Man. Also an Avenger saying something is "above his pay grade" has become more common in comics since the MCU.

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

Peter, MJ, and Aunt May had a talk about this right at the beginning of Civil War. One of the reasons they thought it would be a good idea for Peter to unmask is because they weren't sure if Tony would out him anyway. This was before Tony even went evil.

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.

Peter and Gwen's relationship had serious communication issues by that point. Peter should have told her he was Spider-Man and ensure she knew the risks and had ways to defend herself. When he got with MJ and (for a period) Felicia, that wasn't an issue anymore.

[Huntsman Spider]

Most of those names are like Spider-Man. They've been Avengers for a limited amount of time (on and off) and stick closer to Spider-Man's circles.



Part of them doing a lousy job had to do with their views. Carol's stance in Civil War II and Iron Man's stance in Civil War I have traditionally been pro-Establishment opinions. And while Civil War is guilty of butchering and demonizing a lot of characters, there is a grain of truth in saying that a lot of Avengers like Tony Stark have an authoritarian and out-of-touch side to them.

Other examples I can think off the top of my head were in Daredevil comics (Matt not too long ago had a speech about the Avengers not being "people level"), Avengers vs X-Men, and Marvel Knights: Spider-Man. Also an Avenger saying something is "above his pay grade" has become more common in comics since the MCU.



Peter, MJ, and Aunt May had a talk about this right at the beginning of Civil War. One of the reasons they thought it would be a good idea for Peter to unmask is because they weren't sure if Tony would out him anyway. This was before Tony even went evil.



Peter and Gwen's relationship had serious communication issues by that point. Peter should have told her he was Spider-Man and ensure she knew the risks and had ways to defend herself. When he got with MJ and (for a period) Felicia, that wasn't an issue anymore.

In regards to the Avengers having an air or attitude about them that smacks of authoritarianism and elitism, I'd say in the case of someone like Iron Man (and Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four, who was his collaborator in the Illuminati and the original Civil War), it's also a technocratic worldview where he thinks, whether consciously or not, that his superior intelligence entitles him to make (nearly) unilateral decisions for the "greater good" of everyone else in the world. This was something Blue Marvel called out --- albeit to Black Panther, who was a member of the reassembled Illuminati --- in Al Ewing's Captain America and the Mighty Avengers leading into Jonathan Hickman's Secret Wars as having led to instead of curbed the impending end of the Marvel Multiverse, and as following events would seem to demonstrate, some of them learned absolutely nothing from that apocalyptic disaster.

Also, I liked that issue of Daredevil you referenced, where he essentially explained to Iron Man that "street-level" heroes actually just operated on the same level as the people they protected, not above them. That was an excellent touch, in my opinion.

[Agent Z]

Would she though? Look at how much danger MJ has been in and she's decidedly more capable than the average civilian.

She's still alive, isn't she?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

In regards to the Avengers having an air or attitude about them that smacks of authoritarianism and elitism, I'd say in the case of someone like Iron Man (and Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four, who was his collaborator in the Illuminati and the original Civil War), it's also a technocratic worldview where he thinks, whether consciously or not, that his superior intelligence entitles him to make (nearly) unilateral decisions for the "greater good" of everyone else in the world. This was something Blue Marvel called out --- albeit to Black Panther, who was a member of the reassembled Illuminati --- in Al Ewing's Captain America and the Mighty Avengers leading into Jonathan Hickman's Secret Wars as having led to instead of curbed the impending end of the Marvel Multiverse, and as following events would seem to demonstrate, some of them learned absolutely nothing from that apocalyptic disaster.

Also, I liked that issue of Daredevil you referenced, where he essentially explained to Iron Man that "street-level" heroes actually just operated on the same level as the people they protected, not above them. That was an excellent touch, in my opinion.

Good points.

I don't know if I would call Reed Richards and T'Challa technocrats, though. I get that they were part of the Illuminati and Reed did what he did during Civil War, but outside of those crossover events (where honestly a lot of character decisions boiled down to novelty... "Hey wouldn't it be cool if the smartest guys in the MU were like the Illuminati?" Me: "Yeah it would, but it doesn't really make sense"), Reed and T'Challa don't strike me as that at all. Reed is like a more adjusted family-man version of Rick Sanchez who for all his faults is very anti-technocrat, and T'Challa runs a socialist country and was the first king to challenge its norms (Wakanda's monarchy isn't the same as traditional monarchies used to be where the King is practically a dictator). Both characters also get along with Spider-Man pretty well, so I would say it's mostly just Tony that fits that description.

[Agent Z]

Part of them doing a lousy job had to do with their views. Carol's stance in Civil War II and Iron Man's stance in Civil War I have traditionally been pro-Establishment opinions. And while Civil War is guilty of butchering and demonizing a lot of characters, there is a grain of truth in saying that a lot of Avengers like Tony Stark have an authoritarian and out-of-touch side to them.

Falcon, She-Hulk, Wonder Man, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, 3D Man, Justice, Firestar, Firebird, Silver Claw, Vision, Living Lightning.

We're really going to claim that all of these guys are authoritarian?

Frankly, I feel like this interpretation of the Avengers seems based less how they actually behave in the comics for most of their history and more on shallow understandings on what authoritarianism and elitism actually

And let's not forget that Tony initially fought against the SHRA. Judging these guys by how they behave in events based on the heroes fighting each other is disingenuous.

Other examples I can think off the top of my head were in Daredevil comics (Matt not too long ago had a speech about the Avengers not being "people level"),

See above.

Avengers vs X-Men,

The Avengers were not the ones who wanted to use a cosmic entity's power for themselves and took over the world in that story.

and Marvel Knights: Spider-Man.

Where they offered him his help no strings attached and he refused and then came to save him from the Sinister 12 anyway.

Also an Avenger saying something is "above his pay grade" has become more common in comics since the MCU.

How is that authoritarian?

Peter, MJ, and Aunt May had a talk about this right at the beginning of Civil War. One of the reasons they thought it would be a good idea for Peter to unmask is because they weren't sure if Tony would out him anyway. This was before Tony even went evil.

I don't know what reason they had for believing that but either way, Peter unmasking was not Tony's idea.

Peter and Gwen's relationship had serious communication issues by that point. Peter should have told her he was Spider-Man and ensure she knew the risks and had ways to defend herself. When he got with MJ and (for a period) Felicia, that wasn't an issue anymore.

On this we can agree.

[Frontier]

She's still alive, isn't she?

Yeah, but thanks to her own effort in part. I don't think Gwen could have taken care of herself like that.

[PCN24454]

Yeah, but thanks to her own effort in part. I don't think Gwen could have taken care of herself like that.

The benefits of having plot armor.

[Frontier]

The benefits of having plot armor.

And not being Gwen Stacy...

[Huntsman Spider]

Good points.

I don't know if I would call Reed Richards and T'Challa technocrats, though. I get that they were part of the Illuminati and Reed did what he did during Civil War, but outside of those crossover events (where honestly a lot of character decisions boiled down to novelty... "Hey wouldn't it be cool if the smartest guys in the MU were like the Illuminati?" Me: "Yeah it would, but it doesn't really make sense"), Reed and T'Challa don't strike me as that at all. Reed is like a more adjusted family-man version of Rick Sanchez who for all his faults is very anti-technocrat, and T'Challa runs a socialist country and was the first king to challenge its norms (Wakanda's monarchy isn't the same as traditional monarchies used to be where the King is practically a dictator). Both characters also get along with Spider-Man pretty well, so I would say it's mostly just Tony that fits that description.

That's a good point, too, and yeah, I can agree that a lot of previous characterization in the 2000s events was sacrificed on the altar of novelty and shock value/drama.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Good points.

I don't know if I would call Reed Richards and T'Challa technocrats, though. I get that they were part of the Illuminati and Reed did what he did during Civil War, but outside of those crossover events (where honestly a lot of character decisions boiled down to novelty... "Hey wouldn't it be cool if the smartest guys in the MU were like the Illuminati?" Me: "Yeah it would, but it doesn't really make sense"), Reed and T'Challa don't strike me as that at all. Reed is like a more adjusted family-man version of Rick Sanchez who for all his faults is very anti-technocrat, and T'Challa runs a socialist country and was the first king to challenge its norms (Wakanda's monarchy isn't the same as traditional monarchies used to be where the King is practically a dictator). Both characters also get along with Spider-Man pretty well, so I would say it's mostly just Tony that fits that description.

Both Reed and T'Challa are different. Reed is all about the pursuit of science and balancing that with his family and love for other people and being aware that he's not always gonna be able to do both.

T'Challa though is all about the pursuit of power to ensure that Wakanda doesn't get rolled over and exploited like its neighbors and that it will always have a seat at the table and so on. Those are two different drives.

In the case of the Illuminati...remember T'Challa rejected the first Illuminati pitched by Bendis before SECRET INVASION. He saw where it was heading and how bad an idea it was. It took the Incursions and the landing of the Black Swans above Wakanda to make him change his mind.

So it's not like T'Challa in normal circumstances is instinctively geared towards the Illuminati.

[pageturner]

Spider-Man could have been an Avenger way back in the '70s.

He was offered a spot on The Avengers in a Spider-Man Annual and his hazing ritual involved him capturing or neutralizing the Hulk. Spider-Man went ahead but rejected it when he saw Hulk was a poor troubled soul and he felt the Avengers were a bunch of insensitive jerks he was too good for, as he should because he's too good for the Avengers.



So basically the only way to be an Avenger is if you're a billionaire, a government Agent, a literal god, a King of an African Nation, and so on and so forth?

Good to have that confirmed. The Avengers -- poor people need not apply. Come back when you move up the social class ladder.

.

Well Ghost Rider and Blade would contradict your second point.

As for the first thing yes under one writer the character rejects the chance. It does not mean under another he could not rejoin.

[pageturner]

1)

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.

Otto did not have Peters support network. He did not have a step uncle to float him the financing. Until posing as peter he let his ego get in the way and spurned people.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well Ghost Rider and Blade would contradict your second point.

No it wouldn't.

As for the first thing yes under one writer the character rejects the chance. It does not mean under another he could not rejoin.

The first writer happens to be Stan Lee himself. And I am sure there's a phrase that goes "while all writers are equal, Stan Lee is more equal than anyone else".

And if Lee's attitude was that Spider-Man is too good for the Avengers, it counts for more I think, or it should at any rate.

Otto did not have Peters support network. He did not have a step uncle to float him the financing. Until posing as peter he let his ego get in the way and spurned people.

You're dodging the point. If all Otto needed was the seed capital to build a business empire, he could have done it years ago. When he was a middle class white scientist for most of his life, working on radioactive material (which essentially means a huge salary by the way) which he could easily have parlayed to get a bank loan to start a business and attract investors. After he became Otto and became a criminal, he could have used his stolen money or all the fancy tech he uses to build his underwater bases and translate that to legitimate ventures. I mean Otto's lack of business acumen was a point in JMS' run where he finds a gig working for a corporate shark and then gets played by him.

The story essentially runs on the sunday cartoon premise that because a bad guy takes over Spider-Man's body he can automatically be a better businessman simply because he's evil.



Or if you want a song and dance here's one by my favorite band, The Kinks

[Huntsman Spider]

No it wouldn't.



The first writer happens to be Stan Lee himself. And I am sure there's a phrase that goes "while all writers are equal, Stan Lee is more equal than anyone else".

And if Lee's attitude was that Spider-Man is too good for the Avengers, it counts for more I think, or it should at any rate.



You're dodging the point. If all Otto needed was the seed capital to build a business empire, he could have done it years ago. When he was a middle class white scientist for most of his life, working on radioactive material (which essentially means a huge salary by the way) which he could easily have parlayed to get a bank loan to start a business and attract investors. After he became Otto and became a criminal, he could have used his stolen money or all the fancy tech he uses to build his underwater bases and translate that to legitimate ventures. I mean Otto's lack of business acumen was a point in JMS' run where he finds a gig working for a corporate shark and then gets played by him.

The story essentially runs on the sunday cartoon premise that because a bad guy takes over Spider-Man's body he can automatically be a better businessman simply because he's evil.



Or if you want a song and dance here's one by my favorite band, The Kinks

A corporate shark who was himself a con artist playing the corporation that hired him for suckers, no less.