MCU: Secrets and Lies

[kerravonsen]

On re-watching Iron Man, and pondering Thor-1, it seems to me that SHIELD's knee-jerk reaction is to cover things up even when they don't need covering up. Consider the two cover stories they made in Iron Man: that Tony Stark's bodyguard is Iron Man, and that Stane died in a light plane crash.

A. Having Iron Man be a secret identity.

So far as I can figure, there are two main reasons for a (super)hero having a secret identity.

The most common is that if their civilian identity is known, enemies of the superhero could threaten the civilian's loved ones; given that the superhero has enemies and the civilian does not, and that the civilian has loved ones and the superhero does not. Superman's secret identity may protect the Kents, but it doesn't protect Lois Lane. But in the case of Iron Man, Tony Stark has more enemies than Iron Man does! His loved ones are already under threat. Besides which, making Iron Man Tony's "bodyguard" doesn't really reduce the risk very much. Everybody already knows that Tony Stark built the Iron Man suit. So Tony Stark is already linked to Iron Man. No point in trying to make a secret identity, the connection is already there.

The second reason for a secret identity is that the identity is a codename for someone doing covert operations. Black Widow (before she became an Avenger and her cover was presumably blown); or for another, much older example, the Scarlet Pimpernel. But Iron Man is about as covert as a flashing neon light. So that reason doesn't work either.

There's really only one secret related to Iron Man that needs to be kept secret, and that is that the arc reactor is keeping Tony alive. I can't remember whether Tony takes any particular effort to conceal the existence of the arc reactor in his chest, but I doubt that he's told many people why it is there. It's possible that only Pepper knows.

(I wonder if Coulson knew, in Iron Man 2, that his threatening to use a taser on Tony amounted to a death threat?)

B. Covering up Stane's death.

I'm failing to see why covering up Stane's death was actually necessary. Indeed, the more I think about it, the cover-up causes more problems than it solves. The only problem that I think it solves is that it prevents Obadiah Stane's actions and the things related to them from being investigated. But why would that be necessary?

1. Tony killed Stane in self-defence, and in defence of others. Open and shut case, no need to hide that.
2. The existence of the Iron Man armour can't be covered up anyway.
3. The existence of the arc reactor isn't a state secret. It's Tony Stark's proprietary technology.
4. Okay, the fact that Tony depends on the arc reactor for his life is something that Tony would prefer remained hidden. On the other hand, if it were known, well, it would be an argument Tony could use against the US Government in Iron Man 2 when they try to commandeer "the Iron Man weapon" -- because at least the arc reactor really is a "prosthetic".
5. The cover-story that Iron Monger was a rogue robot makes Tony's reputation worse, because instead of the destruction being Stane's fault, it is Tony's (for allowing something under the auspices of Stark Industries to get out of control). It also paves the way for everyone to blame Tony for Ultron, because in the public's eyes, Ultron is just another example of Tony letting robots get out of control, an even worse example.
6. Covering up Stane's death also covers up that Stane was dealing under the table and that Stane hired Ten Rings to assassinate Tony. This means that Tony is not exonerated in regard to Stark weapons ending up in enemy hands. The fallout of this is that the Maximoff twins have no reason to let go of their grudge against him, and that has a lot of nasty repercussions.

So, the cover story is generally not good for Tony. But there doesn't seem to be any benefit for SHIELD in this cover-story either.

I've seen fan-theories that Stane was either HYDRA, or (wittingly or unwittingly) working with HYDRA, and therefore it was HYDRA-within-SHIELD who wanted Stane's death to be covered up. This makes more sense than anything else I can think of.

Speaking of HYDRA, since I haven't seen The Winter Soldier or Civil War, there's something I'm confused about. I know that HYDRA assassinated Howard and Maria Stark, but I don't know the reason why. Was there even a reason, or was it a random "HYDRA is evil" thing? Inquiring minds want to know. Really, I DO! Because I remember reading in fanfic that Howard had five vials of Super Soldier serum with him at the time, and HYDRA stole them to make the five additional Winter Soldiers. But I don't know if that is canon or not, because, as I said, I haven't seen those movies.

Comments

[selenak]

re: the suggested "his bodyguard" cover story - on a Doylist level, this has no deeper reason than a wink to the fans because this was in fact comic book Tony's self chosen cover story for decades. Basically the same reason why in the first X-Men movie when Logan says something about the uniform, Scott retorts "would you prefer yellow and black spandex" - it's an allusion to what Logan wears in the comics but not in the film. These were all first movies, so it was a given that a sizable part of a first time audience would be comic book fans who'd appreciate these kind of inside jokes. Decades later, the MCU version of the characters is better known than the comic book one, so conditions are different.


re: the Howard and Maria Stark assassination, yes, Howard had five reconstructed superserum vials with him which the Winter Soldier is ordered by Hydra to take and does after he has killed Howard and Maria. (Civil War shows the assassination twice, once in the opening scene, but without revealing whom exactly Bucky Barnes kills before he takes the serum, and once in the climactic scene where the audience and Tony see the footage showing the assassination in its entirety.

[kerravonsen]

on a Doylist level, this has no deeper reason than a wink to the fans because this was in fact comic book Tony's self chosen cover story for decades

Yeah, I gathered that it was so in the comics... but I do tend to approach things from a Watsonian perspective rather than a Doylist one. Then again, I doubt that Tony-in-the-comics's reasons for the bodyguard story are that good either, presuming that my above reasoning holds, which it might not.

Howard had five reconstructed superserum vials with him

Oh good, thank you!
Though how did Howard have superserum in his posession anyway? Wasn't the formula invented by Erskine, and didn't it die with him? I mean, yes, I know Howard collaborated with Erskine, but I'd always thought that Howard's contribution was the "Vita Rays" and the machine which generated them, and the stuff that was injected was all Erskine's. And that Erskine's original formula without the Vita Rays was unstable -- it created Red Skull, who became monstrous. Indeed, I get the impression that every attempt to recreate the serum (whether that be Bruce Banner, the other five Winter Soldiers, the Abomination...) created people who may have been strong and super-healing, but they were also monstrous, feral, or insane.

Then again, the success with Steve Rogers wasn't necessarily because of the Vita Rays, but because of his strength of character. As Erskine said (I think) "the serum amplifies everything: good becomes great, bad becomes monstrous."

Which makes me wonder... do rats have strength of character? Because I remember complaining that all of the folks who tried to recreate the serum had been behaving like alchemists rather than scientists, and that they should have been doing tons of rat trials. But what if the formula doesn't work on rats? Either fails to have any effect, or just kills them because they go insane and tear themselves to pieces? (Oh ugh, imagine cannibalistic super-soldier rats tearing each other apart and then eating the remains... ugh.) But then, if rat trials are impossible, how did Erskine develop his formula in the first place?

Yes, yes, I know it is doomed to failure to try to make comic-book science conform to the rigor of real science, but fannish worldbuilding is a fun game to play, so I shall play it.

[selenak]

re: super soldier serum, Howard - along with a great many scientists in the MCU over the decades - tried to reconstruct it intermittently, not least because the Cold War competition did. Leaving aside the annoying "all science is equal, physicists can do the same as chemists can do the same as other scientists" thing the MCU does (as so many media do, looking at you, Jossverse, for letting Fred the physicist do an autopsy), Howard's original contribution were indeed the vita rays but he also for a while hat a vial of Steve's blood from the experiment days with Erskine (this is a plot point in Agent Carter, season 1 - he doesn't have it anymore afterwards) and of course had worked closely with Erskine which gives him a better head start despite chemistry not being his field. This said, the five people who got injected with Howard's serum once Hydra had it are presented as feral and barely controllable, so yes, Steve is still the sole successful case of the super soldier serum used.

Incidentally, since Peggy at the end of s1 empties the vial with Steve's blood into the Hudson so no one can use it, the fandom has been joking about superpowered fish in NYC ever since. :)

[kerravonsen]

all science is equal, physicists can do the same as chemists can do the same as other scientists

Scientist == Magician and magic can do anything.

And what is it with the "demonstrate that you are a genius by getting five PhD's" thing? Don't they realise how long that would take?

Incidentally, since Peggy at the end of s1 empties the vial with Steve's blood into the Hudson so no one can use it, the fandom has been joking about superpowered fish in NYC ever since.

Ha!