Mask villains in Marvel: Should the identity remain a mystery?

[Fanofthegoblins]

You think giving a mask villain like Taskmaster and other costume baddies real names a bad thing? Does unmasking a bad guy ruin the character? I dunno, it's like a no-win situation to me. Unmasking a villain could ruin the mystery, but keeping his mask on could get annoying to some fans.

[jackolover]

There is an aspect of, that having a masked villain evolves into learning his true identity and the villains relationships from there. It seems to develop that way. I remember a villain who was never unmasked to the reader in Amazing Spiderman, once, Mr Big, or someone similar, who got shot by the police after about 4 cameos, and Ditko didn't want him revealed. Ditko also didn't want the Green Goblin's identity revealed either, but Stan Lee forced the villains identity out in the open. In both cases, Ditko's insistence on the anonymity of the two bad guys did play into a mystery that opened up the reader to think in infinite possibilities. Marvel didn't like what Ditko did and have tended to steer clear of the Mystery Man being anonymous, but Ditko did like not having all the balls on the table, because you didn't know what the villain was, and that was intriguing. If that kid Zodiac in Dark Reign had left his mask on, you wouldn't have realized he was just some dumb kid with a penchant for grewl.

(Just on a side note,, speaking of Zodiac, what would have been interesting is if Nekra had sex with the Red Skull, and that daughter of hers was also the Skulls. Nekras daughter loved dressing up as Captain America, so she would have made a perfect sister for Sin).

[Ghostwise]

You think giving a mask villain like Taskmaster and other costume baddies real names a bad thing? Does unmasking a bad guy ruin the character? I dunno, it's like a no-win situation to me. Unmasking a villain could ruin the mystery, but keeping his mask on could get annoying to some fans.

The solution is obvious - keep all villainous identities a mystery, and set up Kickstarters. Then people give money either to keep the identity secret and to have it revealed, and the best-funded Kickstater determines whether the reveal occurs !

It's a perfect plan, really. It needs more ninja, gratuitously half-naked women with an improbable physique, and laconic ill-shaven he-men with a shotgun, of course - for the comic book patina. But I think we can work them in.

[Joe Acro]

If they're somewhat designed as a mystery, I say they should stay that way. Taskmaster, especially due to his mask and his powers, was always an enigmatic figure. I find him less appealing without that. As a similar example (though he's not a villain), I'd feel the same if we learned much more about Paladin.

[Omega Alpha]

There is an aspect of, that having a masked villain evolves into learning his true identity and the villains relationships from there. It seems to develop that way. I remember a villain who was never unmasked to the reader in Amazing Spiderman, once, Mr Big, or someone similar, who got shot by the police after about 4 cameos, and Ditko didn't want him revealed. Ditko also didn't want the Green Goblin's identity revealed either, but Stan Lee forced the villains identity out in the open. In both cases, Ditko's insistence on the anonymity of the two bad guys did play into a mystery that opened up the reader to think in infinite possibilities. Marvel didn't like what Ditko did and have tended to steer clear of the Mystery Man being anonymous, but Ditko did like not having all the balls on the table, because you didn't know what the villain was, and that was intriguing. If that kid Zodiac in Dark Reign had left his mask on, you wouldn't have realized he was just some dumb kid with a penchant for grewl.

I believe Stan was right (oh, I said Steve Ditko was wrong and Stan was right, that's a capital offense in some circles)- removing the mask (though not necessarily to the hero) humanizes the villain and makes his objectives more clear; it's hard to care about a villain that seems completely inhuman and/or seems to be acting at random.

[jackolover]

I believe Stan was right (oh, I said Steve Ditko was wrong and Stan was right, that's a capital offense in some circles)- removing the mask (though not necessarily to the hero) humanizes the villain and makes his objectives more clear; it's hard to care about a villain that seems completely inhuman and/or seems to be acting at random.

Oh well, we each have an opinion. I'm torn between the two concepts. For instance, as a result of Stans decision, Norman Osborn has become one of my favorite characters

[Fanofthegoblins]

I believe Stan was right (oh, I said Steve Ditko was wrong and Stan was right, that's a capital offense in some circles)- removing the mask (though not necessarily to the hero) humanizes the villain and makes his objectives more clear; it's hard to care about a villain that seems completely inhuman and/or seems to be acting at random.

Good point. When the original Hobgoblin was revealed to be Roderick Kingsley, I started to become obsessed with Roderick Kingsley and tried to find more issues featuring him. Let's be honest, would some of us really care for Norman Osborne if he was just Peter's best friend's dad and nothing more?

[Omega Alpha]

Good point. When the original Hobgoblin was revealed to be Roderick Kingsley, I started to become obsessed with Roderick Kingsley and tried to find more issues featuring him. Let's be honest, would some of us really care for Norman Osborne if he was just Peter's best friend's dad and nothing more?

Nope. And after building a mystery about the character's identity for a long time, it wouldn't make sense to reveal him as some random guy either.

Oh, and of course, THE obvious exception to the "it's hard to care about a villain that seems completely inhuman and/or seems to be acting at random." thing is the Joker, but that's because being batshit (pun intended, of course) crazy and psychotic was his stick from the start, and he's the perfect foil for Batman's rigid and stoic seriousness and lack of sense of humor- I don't think he would as, say, a Spider-Man villain, nor if he was revealed to be a crazy guy acting randomly 50 years later after his motives being unclear all along.

And if the entire Bat gallery was made of Jokers, it wouldn't work either- have different villains with different motivations is necessary to not have repetitive stories.

[Zagreus]

I agree, there should be some villians, maybe one or two, who are enigmas, but others should be deeply explored, we should know their motivations, their backstory, etc. That keeps things interesting. More like real life. I think Ditko wanted the Goblin to be like the joker, where we never knew much about him IIRC, but Stan doesn't think like that, he wants the story, the soap opera reveals, and Ditko likes things to be bit more mysterious. I think a mix is better.

[Hostile Kangaroo]

I think there are villains where each option works.

There are villains like The Joker where the identity doesn't matter, it's more about the craziness, the mystery, and the character

There are villains like the original Hobgoblin where the identity is something you try to figure out before it is revealed.

and finally

There are villains where you just are given their identity because it doesn't add to the character to not know it. Doctor Octopus is a good character where you knew is identity from the start. It fits and it helps his origin. If he were a masked villain, it would just be strange.

[mdg1]

The question you have to ask yourself is simple:

If the villain was unmasked... would he still be interesting?

Some villains (and, indeed, some heroes) were only interesting BECAUSE of the mystery of their identity. Once that was gone, they just faded into obscurity, because there was literally nothing else to say.