Bringing back Ben
James R. Olson, jr.
I believe you should bring back Ben Reilly, not as Spiderman, but
rather as a wandering hero w/out a costume. He could drop in and out
of the Spiderbooks as needed, and act as a standin for Peter when
needed. Perhaps he could be involved with the Avengers and Hank Pym
on a regular basis. I don't think every character needs a flashy
costume.
I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
Peter as the clone, even though Peter keeps the suit, having earned it
through his many years of heroics.
Matthew Slater
>>
I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
Peter as the clone, even though Peter keeps the suit, having earned it
through his many years of heroics.<<
Absolutely NOT! Ben should stay deader than a door nail, no cross over
or refference should ever be made to this demeanted storyline ever
again, save jokes showing how stupid it was...Keep Ben Reily a puddle
of goo.
--
Matthew Slater
Northwestern University
m-sl...@nwu.edu
A-MAN
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net wrote:
> I believe you should bring back Ben Reilly, not as Spiderman, but
> rather as a wandering hero w/out a costume. He could drop in and out
> of the Spiderbooks as needed, and act as a standin for Peter when
> needed. Perhaps he could be involved with the Avengers and Hank Pym
> on a regular basis. I don't think every character needs a flashy
> costume.
I think Ben should be brought back as the Scarlet Spider. I think Ben
should be the clone(unlike Bizarro---> the perfect clone). Given Ben Los
Angeles and let Peter have New York. I think Ben should have the Gwen
STacy clone as his wife. THis would sove all the problems.
I mean let's face it alot of things in the SPiderverse have twos:
2 Dr. OCtopus'
Venom and CArnage
MAry JAne and Gwen Stacy
Peter and Ben
Green Goblin and HObgoblin
Ben and Aunt May
Owl and Vulture
WHy not let Ben have his own stuff?
> > I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
> Peter as the clone, even though Peter keeps the suit, having earned it
> through his many years of heroics.
>
>
>
No. I like Ben as the clone. As SPider-Man, he came up to too many
villains he didn't know.
Matthew Slater
>>
* Well, how is it justified to say who's the clone and who's not ?
Derros.<<
Read the Osborn Journals...it verifies that Peter is the real deal and
Ben is the clone
Colin R Law
Max Cannon
>>>
>* Well, how is it justified to say who's the clone and who's not ?
>Derros.<<
>Read the Osborn Journals...it verifies that Peter is the real deal and
>Ben is the clone
What really kills me is the fact that people think that Peter is a
clone. And still want proof that he is the original! Norman wouldn't
direct at a glob of goo. He would direct it at Peter Parker.
Ben's goo-ne. Its time to move on.
Max
>Matthew Slater
>Northwestern University
>m-sl...@nwu.edu
Max
mo...@mindspring.com
TomSe...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/TomServoMC/index.html
Adrian Carter
James R. Olson, jr.In article <5cuhrg$4...@mochi.lava.net>,
> I believe you should bring back Ben Reilly, not as Spiderman, but
> rather as a wandering hero w/out a costume. He could drop in and out
> of the Spiderbooks as needed, and act as a standin for Peter when
> needed. Perhaps he could be involved with the Avengers and Hank Pym
> on a regular basis. I don't think every character needs a flashy
> costume.
>
> I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
> Peter as the clone, even though Peter keeps the suit, having earned it
> through his many years of heroics.
>
That's a tough call for a writer to have to get through, after all the
last we saw of Ben Reilly he turned to dust. No off panel death scene to
put anybody in doubt. The guy disintergrated right there and then.
Adi
Wade
I think Ben is the the HRU ! when he trun in to dust, that was a tellporter
tell poreting him there.
by the way, why did spider-man go into the hru when everone eles did? hes
no mutent...
Wade
(sorry for the spelling)
Earl & Daniella Harris
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> I believe you should bring back Ben Reilly, not as Spiderman, but
> rather as a wandering hero w/out a costume. He could drop in and out
> of the Spiderbooks as needed, and act as a standin for Peter when
> needed. Perhaps he could be involved with the Avengers and Hank Pym
> on a regular basis. I don't think every character needs a flashy
> costume.
>
> I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
> Peter as the clone, even though Peter keeps the suit, having earned it
> through his many years of heroics.
Why should Marvel bring Ben Reilly back? You offer no explanation.
I don't want him back, because he is dead. Marval trivializes
death when they bring a character back to life. Let Ben stay
dead. He died in Parkers arms. Didn't he dissolve or something?
That whole story line was convoluted. First, you had the Jackal
deceiving people. Then, you had Osborn, who everyone thought was
dead, deceiving the Jackal as he was deceiving everyone else.
Why make the storyline even more complex? Imagine some other
dead villain coming back to life and saying "Everything you
learned about the clones was a lie. I been yanking the Green
Goblins chain for years."
AAARRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!
Let Ben rest in peace. Put the whole clone story to bed.
Earl Harris Jr.
James R. Olson, jr.
A-MAN <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
->No. I like Ben as the clone. As Spider-Man, he came up to too many
->villains he didn't know.
It wasn't his status as a clone/original that put him up against the
new villians, it was because he took over the costume. And I thought
it was a nice touch, since the villians didn't know that there was a
new person behind the mask, and were pursuing their old scores.
As I said, Peter earned the suit, and deserves it.
James R. Olson, jr.
Earl & Daniella Harris <esha...@widomaker.com> wrote:
->That whole story line was convoluted. First, you had the Jackal
->deceiving people. Then, you had Osborn, who everyone thought was
->dead, deceiving the Jackal as he was deceiving everyone else.
->Why make the storyline even more complex? Imagine some other
->dead villain coming back to life and saying "Everything you
->learned about the clones was a lie. I been yanking the Green
->Goblins chain for years."
->AAARRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!
->Let Ben rest in peace. Put the whole clone story to bed.
Since when is convolution a bad story characteristic? Don't read
anything by Kim Stanley Robinson or Gene Wolfe. You'll be
AAARRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!ing for days!
So Osborne captured Ben, and replaced him with an unstable clone, who
thought he was the first Ben, and disintegrated on death. Ben is
still in captivity somewhere, maybe in suspended animation. Everyone
thinks he's dead, so they're off the scent completely.
James R. Olson, jr.
a...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Adrian Carter") wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr.In article <5cuhrg$4...@mochi.lava.net>,
->jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
->> I believe you should bring back Ben Reilly, not as Spiderman, but
->> rather as a wandering hero w/out a costume. He could drop in and out
->> of the Spiderbooks as needed, and act as a standin for Peter when
->> needed. Perhaps he could be involved with the Avengers and Hank Pym
->> on a regular basis. I don't think every character needs a flashy
->> costume.
->>
->> I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
->> Peter as the clone, even though Peter keeps the suit, having earned it
->> through his many years of heroics.
->>
->That's a tough call for a writer to have to get through, after all the
->last we saw of Ben Reilly he turned to dust. No off panel death scene to
->put anybody in doubt. The guy disintergrated right there and then.
Well, since Ben is the original, and Peter is a stable clone, neither
one of them would have disintegrated on death. That means that the
person who disintegrated was an unstable clone, who was put in place
of Ben at some point. He believed he was the first Ben because of his
implanted memories, and sacrificed himself for Peter just as the first
Ben would have.
James R. Olson, jr.
mo...@mindspring.com (Max Cannon) wrote:
->Ben's goo-ne. Its time to move on.
And the fanboys are triumphant in their new confirmation that comics
are junk literature...
NUBIAN KING
*****************************************************************************
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
P.E.A.C.E.
*****************************************************************************
>
> It wasn't his status as a clone/original that put him up against the
> new villians, it was because he took over the costume. And I thought
> it was a nice touch, since the villians didn't know that there was a
> new person behind the mask, and were pursuing their old scores.
>
> As I said, Peter earned the suit, and deserves it.
>
>
>
I agree with you. I just like the fact that when he was Scarlet
Spider..people saw him as the Scarlet Spider, not Spider-Man. I didn't
like the fact that Jurgens changed the Spider-Man suit for Ben. The
costume was essential to the story, but Jurgens' version was ugly.
The clone story was a ripoff of the Knights saga. Jean Paul=Ben. Jean
Paul can only be Azrael, not Batman. The same goes for Ben, he can only
be the Scarlet Spider.
But I don't think Ben or Little May are dead. Like Norman Osborn, they
will return. I think this will be Marvel's next big story arc in
Spider-Man starting this summer.....the return of Ben.
I want Marvel to do the same thing as DC did with "CONTEST" storyline in
WOnder Woman. I think Marvel should resurrect Ben like DC brought back
Artemis. I like how they set Artemis in her own "place" to be herself.
I want to see Ben come back....only as the Scarlet Spider. My suggestions
would be the following:
1. Put Ben in Los Angeles. I mean Pete has New York. Make them
separated in separate cities. See #8
2. Give Ben the Gwen Stacy clone. This would give all the old school
Spidey readers the chance to see what happened if Pete would've been with
Gwen
3. Kill all of the other clones. (See #2) Only make those two the only
surviving clones.
4. Kill the Jackal
5. Kill Norman Osborn
6. Don't let anyone else in the Marvel Universe know.
This is always a flaw. I think this should be a secret like Spidey's
"miscarriage".
I mean we have Captain America and USAgent.
Venom and Carnage
Hobgoblin and Green Goblin
Why can't it work for Spidey and Scarlet Spider?
Why are the X-Men the Only marvel characters with clones/sagas where they
end up on top?
7. Give Scarlet Spider a base/Hideout. Make him a member of the Avengers
8. Acknowledge that Spider-Man and Scarlet Spider have close ties.
9. Don't publicize about Ben coming back.....make his return similar to
the Lifetheft inclusion....keep him in the shadows.
10. Center the story on the fact that he is the perfected
Spider-Man/clone....like when he took down Venom in Spider-Man #52. I
thought this was the best Scarlet Spider story.
11. Wait to tell the readers how he came back!
12. Bring him back on a grim vendetta against Norman/Miles and his
family....See #4 and #5.
13. Make Scarlet Spider like the single free-spirited Spidey all the
readers miss. Give him good characterization in his book. Make him the
comedian, etc. we miss.
14. Hurry up and bring him back!
Any comments?
Matthew Slater
>>
The clone story was a ripoff of the Knights saga. Jean Paul=Ben.<<
Oh yeah, I loved that part where Ben became a murderous vigilante,
and Peter had to take him down to protect the good name and legacy of
Spider-Man. And where Pete's former sidekick tried to take out Ben
think he'd killed Pete....just like KnightsEnd indeed...
--
Matthew Slater
>>
Well, since Ben is the original, and Peter is a stable clone, neither
one of them would have disintegrated on death. <<
WRONG! Peter's the original, Ben's the clone. Read Osborn Journals
James R. Olson, jr.
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
->The clone story was a ripoff of the Knights saga. Jean Paul=Ben. Jean
->Paul can only be Azrael, not Batman. The same goes for Ben, he can only
->be the Scarlet Spider.
Actually, the replacement-who-can't-cut-it story is an old theme in
comics. It's really been done to death in Iron Man, where the point
was that it's more than the armor that makes the hero.
The same theme was used in Green Lantern with Guy Gardener.
There's a theory that there are only 17 possible stories, and every
story is a repetition of one of them. So it's no surprise that the
same theme is repeated.
(I like your idea of Ben with a vendetta against Osbourne. But Peter
is really the grimmer of the two, at this point.)
NUBIAN KING
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>
> The clone story was a ripoff of the Knights saga. Jean Paul=Ben.<<
>
> Oh yeah, I loved that part where Ben became a murderous vigilante,
> and Peter had to take him down to protect the good name and legacy of
> Spider-Man. And where Pete's former sidekick tried to take out Ben
> think he'd killed Pete....just like KnightsEnd indeed...
NO sidekicks...look at the character. Ben was replacing Peter.
Personally I didn't like it. Ben as the Scarlet SPider was way better
than Peter as SPider-MAn.
Like Bruce....only Peter can be the costume.
BUt I thought Knights was the bomb. SPider-MAn was about $$$$. During
the saga...the story began to go in circles. KNights was crafted well.
I liked it.
BUt I wanted to see Ben as the Scarlet SPider. ENuff said True believers.
David Joseph Young, Jr.
James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
>
> I also think he should be confirmed as the original Spiderman, and
My opinion of the Ben issue has remained the same ever since the first announced that
Ben was the "real thing" and Peter was the clone. They went too far. They should have
been happy with the return of the Spider-Clone as a new supporting character. He would
have grown in popularity, could have gotten his own title, everyone would have been
happy. They had to blow it by saying Peter was the clone and Ben was the real thing.
Thousands of fans suddenly were defensive about it. The sanctity of their favorite hero
was violated. The books in their closets starred a clone (an imitation, a sham) of the
real thing. How's Ben going to look to them? Awful! They blamed him as much as the
writers. I liked Ben. I liked him as the mysterious stranger from out of town. I
liked him as the Scarlet Spider. I even liked him as a temporary Spider-Man (just as I
liked Nightwing as a temp Batman). As soon as Ben was declared the real thing, however,
too many people were not even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They didn't
even read the stories, so they didn't know if they were good or not. (Ben's entire
supporting cast was cool, and would have fit perfectly in a SCARLET SPIDER book.)
Now it's too late. They had to declare Peter the real thing and Ben the clone after all
or they would have never gotten Spider-Man sales back where they were. They had to kill
off Ben because he was too much of a sore spot for too many readers. As is often the
case, the only way to make some characters look good is to martyr them (look at
Hal-Parallax-Jordan for instance).
David Young
day...@luna.cas.usf.edu
Air Judden
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
>> >>
>> The clone story was a ripoff of the Knights saga. Jean Paul=Ben.<<
>>
>> Oh yeah, I loved that part where Ben became a murderous vigilante,
>> and Peter had to take him down to protect the good name and legacy of
>> Spider-Man. And where Pete's former sidekick tried to take out Ben
>> think he'd killed Pete....just like KnightsEnd indeed...
>NO sidekicks...look at the character. Ben was replacing Peter.
>Personally I didn't like it. Ben as the Scarlet SPider was way better
>than Peter as SPider-MAn.
The Scarlet Spider stories sucked and were the lowpoint of the
clone saga. And I was a vocal supporter of the clone sage during
the whole thing.
Judden
Air Judden
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>I agree with you. I just like the fact that when he was Scarlet
>Spider..people saw him as the Scarlet Spider, not Spider-Man. I didn't
>like the fact that Jurgens changed the Spider-Man suit for Ben. The
>costume was essential to the story, but Jurgens' version was ugly.
Go back and look at the inside cover of #0. Don't blame it
on Jurgens. Mark Bagley designed it.
>But I don't think Ben or Little May are dead. Like Norman Osborn, they
>will return. I think this will be Marvel's next big story arc in
>Spider-Man starting this summer.....the return of Ben.
I liked Ben a lot, but he's gone. Live with it. The Clone story
was a disaster and I think Marvel wants to shake the dust of that
off of their feet. Ben's death was heroic and shouldn't be
cheapened. The best way to honor him would be to bring his
supporting cast into the stories, but like I said, I think they
want to put that whole thing behind them.
>I want to see Ben come back....only as the Scarlet Spider. My suggestions
>would be the following:
>1. Put Ben in Los Angeles. I mean Pete has New York. Make them
>separated in separate cities. See #8
Read the new Sensational's letter page. It was suggested. No go.
>2. Give Ben the Gwen Stacy clone. This would give all the old school
>Spidey readers the chance to see what happened if Pete would've been with
>Gwen
Gwen was whiney. Bad news. Deb Whitman was much better, but Ben
never knew her.
>3. Kill all of the other clones. (See #2) Only make those two the only
>surviving clones.
Agreed. Either do something very interesting with Kaine or bump
him off. Spidercide should have his remains sent to the four corners
of the earth.
I think there should have been 5 parts to Revelations. Part 4
should have had Norman take the Gwen Clone and toss her off the
GW Bridge and Ben not be able to save her. Another clone done
gone.
>4. Kill the Jackal
Didn't you read Max. Clonage Omega?
>5. Kill Norman Osborn
Didn't you read PPSM #75?
>6. Don't let anyone else in the Marvel Universe know.
>This is always a flaw. I think this should be a secret like Spidey's
>"miscarriage".
>I mean we have Captain America and USAgent.
>Venom and Carnage
>Hobgoblin and Green Goblin
> Why can't it work for Spidey and Scarlet Spider?
Because Ben is dead and the SS's name is mud and most people believe
Scarlet Spider is dead.
>Why are the X-Men the Only marvel characters with clones/sagas where they
>end up on top?
Because their clone comics sell. Spidey's did not.
>7. Give Scarlet Spider a base/Hideout. Make him a member of the Avengers
How about a decoration? They could have a jar of "Ben-Goo" sitting
on the mantle.
>8. Acknowledge that Spider-Man and Scarlet Spider have close ties.
That was done in the Trial of Peter Parker. Both were on the Kaine
case. Both fought the Jackel. Both fought Chick-Ock.
>9. Don't publicize about Ben coming back.....make his return similar to
>the Lifetheft inclusion....keep him in the shadows.
Everyone knew who he was from the beginning...at least everyone
who knew anything about Spidey history.
>10. Center the story on the fact that he is the perfected
>Spider-Man/clone....like when he took down Venom in Spider-Man #52. I
>thought this was the best Scarlet Spider story.
Logic error here. SM #52 said nothing about Ben being a perfect
clone.
>11. Wait to tell the readers how he came back!
A drawn out clone story with an origin shrouded in mystery? Been there,
done that, didn't work.
>12. Bring him back on a grim vendetta against Norman/Miles and his
>family....See #4 and #5.
Kind of like Pete in Pursuit and Shriekings? Been there, done that,
didn't work.
>13. Make Scarlet Spider like the single free-spirited Spidey all the
>readers miss. Give him good characterization in his book. Make him the
>comedian, etc. we miss.
Read Spectacular Spider-Man and to some extent Sensational. JM and
Todd are both doing this.
>14. Hurry up and bring him back!
After denail and anger, acceptance is the next step.
Judden
Grendel712
I'm tossing my hat in the ring to also suggest that Ben be brought
back, but as the Scarlet Spider. Granted, one could make the argument
that bringing back a dead character in some way cheapens that character,
but how many people these days are complaining, for example, that Jean
Grey, the Red Skull (not Liefeld's Skull), Vindicator, Sasquatch to name a
few, are back among the living? If Ben is brought back in a thoughtful,
well planned way, it could work.
As far as what to do with him when he returns, well definitley
removing him from the core Spider-books is a necessity; there's been
enough whining about the "Clone Saga" without reopening old wounds.
I would suggest that Ben hit the road as in Spider-man the lost
years, a man in search of his own identity/place in the world (and not six
feet under as many of you suggest!). Other alternatives could be to have
Ben join the Thunderbolts (drawn again by Bagley!), or the Heroes for
Hire.
It's a shame that the Marvel writers didn't consider these options
rather than taking the easy way out...
NUBIAN KING
*****************************************************************************
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
P.E.A.C.E.
*****************************************************************************
On 6 Feb 1997, Grendel712 wrote:
> I'm tossing my hat in the ring to also suggest that Ben be brought
> back, but as the Scarlet Spider. Granted, one could make the argument
> that bringing back a dead character in some way cheapens that character,
> but how many people these days are complaining, for example, that Jean
> Grey, the Red Skull (not Liefeld's Skull), Vindicator, Sasquatch to name a
> few, are back among the living? If Ben is brought back in a thoughtful,
> well planned way, it could work.
At least someone is listening!
Personally I don't think Ben is dead. He is somewhere else. I don't
think coming back from the Dead cheapens the character.
Look at Superman. Many people take it for granted when a character is
here, but when they ar dead....they miss that character.
Red Skull to me is like Luthor, Joker, Dr. Doom...he can't die.
THe case of JEan Grey was alright.
Elektra....alright.
> As far as what to do with him when he returns, well definitley
> removing him from the core Spider-books is a necessity; there's been
> enough whining about the "Clone Saga" without reopening old wounds.
NO. Don't do this. MAke him like Azrael, Steel, X-Man.....keep them as
part of the Spidey books....but give him LOs ANgeles.
I think this wound will always be painful....cuase the ways to end it was
stupid. I think just because the Ex-Patriates hate Ben as the real
doesn't mean that MArvel has to kill Ben.
Compared to Peter, Ben has more potential! Ben actually found a way to
beat Venom on his first time facing him.
> I would suggest that Ben hit the road as in Spider-man the lost
> years, a man in search of his own identity/place in the world (and not six
> feet under as many of you suggest!). Other alternatives could be to have
> Ben join the Thunderbolts (drawn again by Bagley!), or the Heroes for
> Hire.
NO. LIke I said in my other post.....acknowledge that he knew he was the
clone all along. Build him up as the more perfect SPider-Man.
THink about this.....his SPider Stingers and expandable webbing was the
bomb. HE has had time to perfect the web shooters.
BUt no more lost years.
Set Ben up properly. Like I said earlier, don't let SPider-MAn know
this....surprise the fans!
> It's a shame that the Marvel writers didn't consider these options
> rather than taking the easy way out...
>
>
Typical. BUt Marvel's reasons don't justify the means.
Now it's time for them to listen to the real fans, not cry babies.
Matthew Slater
>>
It's a shame that the Marvel writers didn't consider these
options
rather than taking the easy way out...<<
I'm sure they CONSIDERED them, they just concluded that they were
better off killing Ben. I agree them.
DANIEL J LIGUORI
--
In article <19970206174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, grend...@aol.com (Grendel712) writes:
|> I'm tossing my hat in the ring to also suggest that Ben be brought
|> back, but as the Scarlet Spider. Granted, one could make the argument
|> that bringing back a dead character in some way cheapens that character,
|> but how many people these days are complaining, for example, that Jean
|> Grey, the Red Skull (not Liefeld's Skull), Vindicator, Sasquatch to name a
|> few, are back among the living? If Ben is brought back in a thoughtful,
|> well planned way, it could work.
|> As far as what to do with him when he returns, well definitley
|> removing him from the core Spider-books is a necessity; there's been
|> enough whining about the "Clone Saga" without reopening old wounds.
|> I would suggest that Ben hit the road as in Spider-man the lost
|> years, a man in search of his own identity/place in the world (and not six
|> feet under as many of you suggest!). Other alternatives could be to have
|> Ben join the Thunderbolts (drawn again by Bagley!), or the Heroes for
|> Hire.
|> It's a shame that the Marvel writers didn't consider these options
|> rather than taking the easy way out...
I think Marvel would be better off bringing back Ben by writing some
stories about his past, a la Lost Years. This way they could judge the
fan interest without bringing him back to life. This will cause little
grief for anti-clone saga fans. A story about Ben's years on the road
could show up in the annuals occasionally and if over time the reaction
remains positive it might be worth bringing him back in the present in
some capacity. To bring him back in the present so soon after he died
would just dredge up a brand new mess and if the interest and support
for him isn't high enough it would not be worth the grief.
-------
Regards,
DANIEL J LIGUORI
James R. Olson, jr.
"David Joseph Young, Jr." <day...@luna.cas.usf.edu> wrote:
->My opinion of the Ben issue has remained the same ever since the first announced that
->Ben was the "real thing" and Peter was the clone. They went too far. They should have
->been happy with the return of the Spider-Clone as a new supporting character. He would
->have grown in popularity, could have gotten his own title, everyone would have been
->happy. They had to blow it by saying Peter was the clone and Ben was the real thing.
->Thousands of fans suddenly were defensive about it. The sanctity of their favorite hero
->was violated. The books in their closets starred a clone (an imitation, a sham) of the
->real thing. How's Ben going to look to them? Awful! They blamed him as much as the
->writers. I liked Ben. I liked him as the mysterious stranger from out of town. I
->liked him as the Scarlet Spider. I even liked him as a temporary Spider-Man (just as I
->liked Nightwing as a temp Batman). As soon as Ben was declared the real thing, however,
->too many people were not even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They didn't
->even read the stories, so they didn't know if they were good or not. (Ben's entire
->supporting cast was cool, and would have fit perfectly in a SCARLET SPIDER book.)
->Now it's too late. They had to declare Peter the real thing and Ben the clone after all
->or they would have never gotten Spider-Man sales back where they were. They had to kill
->off Ben because he was too much of a sore spot for too many readers. As is often the
->case, the only way to make some characters look good is to martyr them (look at
->Hal-Parallax-Jordan for instance).
Funny, I had the exact opposite reaction. I felt that clone saga was
the first really interesting story arc I had seen in Spiderman in
years, that the theme of identity was probably the most sophisticated
one I had ever seen in comics, and making Ben the original was a
master stroke. Of course there was plenty of basic bad writing in
there (what do you expect from bad writers?) but the overall theme of
"Who am I really?" was perfect for Spiderman. Peter and Ben have
always had problems with identity. Think of the many times Peter has
toyed with the idea of giving up the suit. Remember when he grew four
extra arms, and would have been forced to give up his real identity?
Remember "I am the Spider?" The clone saga was just taking these
ideas up to another level.
Of course the fanboys didn't like it. They didn't like Peter getting
married, they don't like any changes in their heroes. Everything has
to go back to zero at the end of the story. The greatest thrill is
the return of a dead character, because it says that nothing really
changes.
Maybe some of their resistance had to do with the comics' portrayal of
clones as cheap imitations, and always flawed. Usually clone stories
have the hero coming up against his perfect match, and triumphing. In
fact, that was the original story, o, those many years ago. One of
the great things about the clone sage was that it reversed that
cliche. But fanboys can't live without their cliches, so in the end
we got the other one, where the copy dies to save the original.
Matthew Slater
>>
I think Marvel would be better off bringing back Ben by writing some
stories about his past, a la Lost Years. This way they could judge
the
fan interest without bringing him back to life. This will cause
little
grief for anti-clone saga fans. A story about Ben's years on the road
could show up in the annuals occasionally and if over time the
reaction
remains positive it might be worth bringing him back in the present in
some capacity. To bring him back in the present so soon after he died
would just dredge up a brand new mess and if the interest and support
for him isn't high enough it would not be worth the grief.<<
This is a pretty good idea! The years on the road were on of the few
things I liked about BR, and might make some interesing limited
series.
David Joseph Young, Jr.
Grendel712 wrote:
>
> I'm tossing my hat in the ring to also suggest that Ben be brought
> back, but as the Scarlet Spider. Granted, one could make the argument
> that bringing back a dead character in some way cheapens that character,
> but how many people these days are complaining, for example, that Jean
> Grey, the Red Skull (not Liefeld's Skull), Vindicator, Sasquatch to name a
> few, are back among the living? If Ben is brought back in a thoughtful,
> well planned way, it could work.
I recently had a story idea (just a premise) for a possible Marvel crossover where the
heroes discover that someone/thing/entity has been cheating Death (ya know, the skeletal
embodiment which Thanos worships) all these years, causing all of the people to die and
come back. This way, Marvel could cover their butts on the "death doesn't mean anything
in comics anymore" and we could have a clean start from now on when characters who die
really do so. What do ya'll think?
David Young
day...@luna.cas.usf.edu
Kevin L. Mahan
As for bringing Ben Reilly back, maybe if we stopped buying the core books, formed an online
protest group, and statred bitching and whining everywhere, we could force Marvel to bring him
back. Afterall, they seem to respond better to those who turn their backs on the books than
they do to those who actually give change a chance.
NUBIAN KING
*****************************************************************************
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
P.E.A.C.E.
*****************************************************************************
I second this. I say we boycott the SPider-MAn books until Ben comes
back. I have. After #75, I gave up on SPider-Man. I liked Ben....but
to bring back NOrman OSBORNE was crazy. It was all hype.
HOw many people are actually interested?
Hasdi Rodzmann Hashim
NUBIAN KING (ahal...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: I second this. I say we boycott the SPider-MAn books until Ben comes
: to bring back NOrman OSBORNE was crazy. It was all hype.
: HOw many people are actually interested?
Oy vey. Reverse-boycotting? How does this makes us any better than those
expatriots responsible for butchering Ben Reilly?
I see one way of reviving Ben Reilly. Real simple. The old school's
method. On the next issue of a losing Spider-title, first panel, see Ben
Reilly half-dressed in his Spidey suit sipping a cup of coffee while
reading the Daily Bugle. See him climbing out of his apartment's back
window and fighting the bad guys. See Ben Urich, trying to find out the
identity of the new Spiderman and trying the clear the LATE Peter Parker's
name.
This is the part you say, "Huh?"
Now, the details get confusing. Recall Marvel concept of timeline. Time
is not a straight line like most people believe; it is made out of
infinite number of branches and forks, like explained by the Watcher in
"What If?", Bruce Banner in Future Imperfect, and the Tommorrow man in
Thor. In this particular timeline, the clone beat Peter Parker near the
smokestack and became a rogue spider-man, went on a mad rampage, REALLY
discrediting Spider-man, and finally, dying in a battle. The dead clone
body suggested the authorities that Peter Parker was Spider-man. The real
Peter Parker, now that his identity exposed and was legally dead, left New
York and went under a new name, Ben Reilly.
That was five years ago. Now, he we see Ben Reilly sipping a cup of coffee
while reading the daily bugle. Years from now, somehow something is going
to cause a rift in the timeline so that a copy of this particular timeline
merged into another timeline where the real Peter Parker threw the clone
into the smoke stack. This spawned another timeline from which we get the
"Clone Saga" and Maximum Clonage. So Peter Parker and Ben Reilly is the
same person, but from a different timeline.
Hmm.... this sounds confusing now. I'll just let Todd Dezago figure out
the details.
Gotta go. I got home work to pass up.
Hasdi
James R. Olson, jr.
judd...@ksu.edu (Air Judden) wrote:
-> The Scarlet Spider stories sucked and were the lowpoint of the
-> clone saga.
Yup, I agree.
I don't see any reason that every paranormal has to have a fancy suit,
unless it's some sort of unexplained side effect of mutation.
NUBIAN KING
I disagree. I think the Peter's Parents coming back was stupid.
From Power and Responsibility to Peter's Trial...it was cool.
But the MAXIMUM CLONAGE part was stupid.
I like the "I'm a clone"Ben as opposed to the "I'm the real thing" Ben.
If you hated the Scarlet SPIDER SAGA, I guess you really like the books now.
Admit it....there's no excitement to SPidey without Ben.
One thing I like about the Clone Saga is that the Ex-Patriates were
peeved cause their dear beloved Peter was the fake.
Admit it Ben had more potential then Peter...plus Ben never hit Mary Jane.
I used to like Spider-Man, but when Marvel sold out to babies...I gave it up.
#1 Supporter of Ben coming back.
Matthew Slater
>>>
Admit it Ben had more potential then Peter..<<
More potenial that for what ? There is almost nothing you could do
with Ben you couldnt do with Peter.
NUBIAN KING
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>>
> Admit it Ben had more potential then Peter..<<
>
> More potenial that for what ? There is almost nothing you could do
> with Ben you couldnt do with Peter.
Think about this.....Ben is single.
MAny more stories. Ben can turn into the ultimate SPider-Man. WHen I
say potential there are many things to be explored with this character
that can't with PEter.
He aslo has better weapons: Stingers, exploding webbing.
Much like CArnage with VEnom. Carnage has more arsenals.
I would like to see cARNAGE VS. sCARLET.THe offspring fight each other.
Ben would also bring back the nostalgia of the old school SPidey...like
UNtold stories.
I'm saying that MArvel should use this to their advantage.
HallNash33
There *is* an on-line group boycotting Spider-Man titles until Ben Reilly
is brought back. They even have their own home page, but I forgot the
url. Oh well, I do know the president, and his e-mail address. The name
of the group is, simply enough, "Bring Back Ben" (or BBB for short).
The president's name: Hack Emery
His e-mail: hem...@hotmail.com (at least, that's what I think his e-mail
address is).
If that's the wrong one, well, go to this Spider-Man Message board.
(http://www.sigma.net/spiderman/smb/) and leave a message for him.
Starving Writer, who would had joined BBB but Spectacular #244 changed his
mind.
Matthew Slater
>>
> >>>
> Admit it Ben had more potential then Peter..<<
>
> More potenial that for what ? There is almost nothing you could do
> with Ben you couldnt do with Peter.
Think about this.....Ben is single.<<
It would be very easy to make Peter single again, infact I think its a
move they ought to do. Please dont ask me to debate the merits of a
divorce, as I have been over this about 1000 times in the past few
months
>>Ben can turn into the ultimate SPider-Man. <<
Wasn't "the Ultimate Spider-Man" a foot tall action figure ?
>>He aslo has better weapons: Stingers, exploding webbing.<<
The impact webbing is ok, but nothing special. The stingers are
unecissary and cliche. Oh boy, poison darts....that's the Spider-Man I
want! (sarcasm)
>>ch like CArnage with VEnom. Carnage has more arsenals.<<
Carnage may have more weapons, but Venom is a much better character.
It's not about equipment my friend
>>Ben would also bring back the nostalgia of the old school SPidey.<<
No! A Spiderman going by name other than Peter Parker, with blonde
hair, not involving comics greatest supporting cast, and shooting
poison darts as people DOES NOT bring back nostalgia!
NUBIAN KING
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> Think about this.....Ben is single.<<
>
> It would be very easy to make Peter single again, infact I think its a
> move they ought to do. Please dont ask me to debate the merits of a
> divorce, as I have been over this about 1000 times in the past few
> months
I don't want to see Peter and MJ split up....it's meaningless.
>
> >>Ben can turn into the ultimate SPider-Man. <<
>
> Wasn't "the Ultimate Spider-Man" a foot tall action figure ?
I thought it was a book.
>
>
> >>He aslo has better weapons: Stingers, exploding webbing.<<
>
> The impact webbing is ok, but nothing special. The stingers are
> unecissary and cliche. Oh boy, poison darts....that's the Spider-Man I
> want! (sarcasm)
I just think Spider-Man is Peter's version and Scarlet Spider is Ben's
version of Spider-Man.
I just think Ben's story where he took doen Eddie was the bomb with
impact webbing and stingers.
>
> >>ch like CArnage with VEnom. Carnage has more arsenals.<<
>
> Carnage may have more weapons, but Venom is a much better character.
> It's not about equipment my friend
True. But lately his books suck. Why doesn't Marvel give Venom a series
instead of mini-series.
But CARNAGE was more evil. I hate seeing Venom as an anti-hero. I like
him more as a villian.
>
> >>Ben would also bring back the nostalgia of the old school SPidey.<<
>
> No! A Spiderman going by name other than Peter Parker, with blonde
> hair, not involving comics greatest supporting cast, and shooting
> poison darts as people DOES NOT bring back nostalgia!
I don't know about comics' greatest supporting cast...that tile belongs
to Superman.
As of the Lifetheft/Web of Death saga....Peter has been poorly
characterized. He used to be strongly characterized....now the writers
have made him WEAK. I hate the fact that they have to keep "shaking up"
his life. One thing I liked about Ben...they brought back the oung
comedian who loved to swing through the skies and catch villains.
Now Peter's life sucks.....daughter taken, brother dead, aunt dead.
Peter's not the same character....he's just Spider-Man now.
Sorry but it doesn't work for him.
And I bet they are gonna do the divorce thing....as another saga to get $$$.
I bet you and many others will buy it.
It's all for the $$$$, that's why the more they listen to the
editors....the more $$$ they lose now.
But as of #75, I could care less about Spider-Man and Marvel.
I personally think that they should give Spider-Man to someone capable of
writing and another capable of drawing the books.
And most of all do Spider-Man the way he should be.
I call for Busiek to move to the "present" books and let someone else
write the past.
Hasdi Rodzmann Hashim
HallNash33 (halln...@aol.com) wrote:
: There *is* an on-line group boycotting Spider-Man titles until Ben Reilly
: is brought back. They even have their own home page, but I forgot the
: url. Oh well, I do know the president, and his e-mail address. The name
: of the group is, simply enough, "Bring Back Ben" (or BBB for short).
http://www.indirect.com/www/jsemery/bbb.htm
Later
Hasdi
James R. Olson, jr.
ha...@umich.edu (Hasdi Rodzmann Hashim) wrote:
->Now, the details get confusing. Recall Marvel concept of timeline. Time
->is not a straight line like most people believe; it is made out of
->infinite number of branches and forks, like explained by the Watcher in
->"What If?", Bruce Banner in Future Imperfect, and the Tommorrow man in
->Thor. In this particular timeline, the clone beat Peter Parker near the
->smokestack and became a rogue spider-man, went on a mad rampage, REALLY
->discrediting Spider-man, and finally, dying in a battle. The dead clone
->body suggested the authorities that Peter Parker was Spider-man. The real
->Peter Parker, now that his identity exposed and was legally dead, left New
->York and went under a new name, Ben Reilly.
->That was five years ago. Now, he we see Ben Reilly sipping a cup of coffee
->while reading the daily bugle. Years from now, somehow something is going
->to cause a rift in the timeline so that a copy of this particular timeline
->merged into another timeline where the real Peter Parker threw the clone
->into the smoke stack. This spawned another timeline from which we get the
->"Clone Saga" and Maximum Clonage. So Peter Parker and Ben Reilly is the
->same person, but from a different timeline.
->Hmm.... this sounds confusing now. I'll just let Todd Dezago figure out
->the details.
Time branches at each decision point, but it never re-merges two
lines. Otherwise we'd have numerous histories. When people come to
the present from the future, they come from a possible future, and
create a new branch. Thus their status of being from the future
doesn't give them knowledge of the timeline they now inhabit, but
only of the possible outcome of current situations.
What you're suggesting is a horrible rationalization of total retcon.
Matthew Slater
>>I don't want to see Peter and MJ split up....it's meaningless.<<
How can you say that Ben is so great becuase he's single, and that
opens up many story lines, and then say it would be meaningless to get
a divorce to make Peter single and open to similar stories..?
NUBIAN KING
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>I don't want to see Peter and MJ split up....it's meaningless.<<
>
> How can you say that Ben is so great becuase he's single, and that
> opens up many story lines, and then say it would be meaningless to get
> a divorce to make Peter single and open to similar stories..?
I think it would be another $cam. Peter is now tied to MJ forever. Ben
has noone right now.
Magus Doran
"Kevin L. Mahan" <klm...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>As for bringing Ben Reilly back, maybe if we stopped buying the core books, formed an online
>protest group, and statred bitching and whining everywhere, we could force Marvel to bring him
>back. Afterall, they seem to respond better to those who turn their backs on the books than
>they do to those who actually give change a chance.
Well, his death sure isn't set in stone. Kaine "deid" by impalement
as well. And disintegration won't stop the writers either considering
the clone made after Ben turned out to be a metamorph.
Face it, the spider writers just don't know how to deal with such an
abstract concept as two Spider men, or a baby. It's so much easier
for them this way. I wish they'd go over to the X-Books and clean
house over there instead.
I was happy with Ben being Spidey and Peter in retirement. He
would've made a great Hank Pym type supporting character.
I didn't really appreciate the writers telling me that I haven't been
reading Spider Man for the past 13 years but a clone.
MD
Matthew Slater
>> think it would be another $cam.<<
So making the surely unpopular move of a divorce would be a$cam, but
resurecting Ben Reilly and luanching him in his own book wouldn't be ?
NUBIAN KING
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >> think it would be another $cam.<<
>
> So making the surely unpopular move of a divorce would be a$cam, but
> resurecting Ben Reilly and luanching him in his own book wouldn't be ?
Nope. It would be bringing him back for good.
Face it. Pretty soon Marvel will realize that Peter is just not paying
the bills anymore. I think the ressurection of Ben is a perfect story
line.
I think the divorce would be just like Supes wedding......just for the $$$.
I think Peter would be weak without Mary Jane. Think about this....she
could marry someone else, plus she's beautiful. But if you look at What
If#21-22*Vol. 2) =, the only females Peter would have is Felicia and
Silver Sable.
Peter is tied to Mary JANE.
Matthew Slater
>>
Nope. It would be bringing him back for good.
Face it. Pretty soon Marvel will realize that Peter is just not
paying
the bills anymore. <<
Ok, Peter Parker doesnt sell comics but Ben Reilly will ? That's why
Spider sales shot down to 20 year lows when the announced Ben as the
main guy...
Matthew Slater
>>I think Peter would be weak without Mary Jane.<<
Was he weak from 1962 until summer of 1987 ?
>> Think about this....she
could marry someone else, plus she's beautiful. But if you look at
What
If#21-22*Vol. 2) =, the only females Peter would have is Felicia and
Silver Sable.>>
One story from one alternate reality...proves nothing. Besides, what
is your point anyway ? that MJ could date more easily than Peter ? So
what ?
NUBIAN KING
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>
> Nope. It would be bringing him back for good.
> Face it. Pretty soon Marvel will realize that Peter is just not
> paying
> the bills anymore. <<
>
> Ok, Peter Parker doesnt sell comics but Ben Reilly will ? That's why
> Spider sales shot down to 20 year lows when the announced Ben as the
> main guy...
I'm saying that the book was selling a lot better when Ben was the
Scarlet Spider.
NUBIAN KING
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>I think Peter would be weak without Mary Jane.<<
>
> Was he weak from 1962 until summer of 1987 ?
In some places....yes.
>
> >> Think about this....she
> could marry someone else, plus she's beautiful. But if you look at
> What
> If#21-22*Vol. 2) =, the only females Peter would have is Felicia and
> Silver Sable.>>
>
> One story from one alternate reality...proves nothing. Besides, what
> is your point anyway ? that MJ could date more easily than Peter ? So
> what ?
I think it does prove something. Peter's life is forever tied to MJ due
to their baby. I think Peter's life would be tragic without MJ.
Matthew Slater
> Was he weak from 1962 until summer of 1987 ?
In some places....yes.<<
Where and how ? And rember that many of Pete's weaknesses are what
made him a great character.
>> Peter's life is forever tied to MJ due
to their baby. I think Peter's life would be tragic without MJ.<<
Many people have a child together, and then break up without their
lives becoming "tragic". My mother is one of them. And what do you
mean by "forever tied"? That they will have always had past together ?
So what ?
NUBIAN KING
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> > Was he weak from 1962 until summer of 1987 ?
> In some places....yes.<<
>
> Where and how ? And rember that many of Pete's weaknesses are what
> made him a great character.
True. I think many of those Marvel Team-Ups were kinda weak.
Yeah and with great power comes great responsibility.
>
> >> Peter's life is forever tied to MJ due
> to their baby. I think Peter's life would be tragic without MJ.<<
>
> Many people have a child together, and then break up without their
> lives becoming "tragic". My mother is one of them. And what do you
> mean by "forever tied"? That they will have always had past together ?
> So what ?
I wouldn't say this. I think there is a bond between the father and
mother when a child is born.
Matthew Slater
>>
I'm saying that the book was selling a lot better when Ben was the
Scarlet Spider.<<
Do you have any sales figures to back this up?
I'd bet my last buck the Spidey books we're selling a bigger market
share before Ben was ever mentioned than after he was made the main
guy.
Ben Reilly
In a previous article, m-sl...@nwu.edu (Matthew Slater) says:
>
>>
>>I'm saying that the book was selling a lot better when Ben was the
>>Scarlet Spider.
>>
>
>Do you have any sales figures to back this up?
>I'd bet my last buck the Spidey books we're selling a bigger market
>share before Ben was ever mentioned than after he was made the main
>guy.
>
So? That's not even what the guy above you said. He said "when Ben was the
Scarlet Spider", not "when he was the main guy". Were not talking Spider-Man
here, were talking Scarlet Spider. I think alot of people liked the Scarlet
Spider, I think alot of people didn't like Ben Reilly as Spider-Man. There
is a difference though.
--
Ben Reilly - bt...@yfn.ysu.edu -------
"Does whatever a spider can". | 1:1 |
-- Pro Deo Et Patria -- -------
"Whales are mammals, mammals have hair. Shave the Whales."
Matthew Slater
>>
So? That's not even what the guy above you said. He said "when Ben
was the
Scarlet Spider", not "when he was the main guy". Were not talking
Spider-Man
here, were talking Scarlet Spider. I think alot of people liked the
Scarlet
Spider, I think alot of people didn't like Ben Reilly as Spider-Man.
There
is a difference though.<<
Fair enough, but I'm also willing to be that the Scarlet Spider solo
issues didnt sell very well also.
Matthew Slater
>> I think many of those Marvel Team-Ups were kinda weak.
Yeah and with great power comes great responsibility.<<
So there were some weakly written Team Ups, that doesn make Peter a
weak person, or a weak character as you implied. All it means is that
there were some forced stories. BTW, Are you old enough to rember
picking some those vol1 Marvel Team-Ups off the stands? Some of them
were quite good.
As for power and responsibilty...THAT'S WHAT MADE SPIDEY GREAT!
>>I wouldn't say this. I think there is a bond between the father and
mother when a child is born.<<
Have you ever had a child ? Look, I've actually talked to somebody who
got married, had a kid, then broke up with the father. That woman was
my mother. She was married to a man before my father, then had my
sister kristen, then got divorced to her first husband. Her life has
beee in no way "tragic" because of this. And even if Pete and MJ do
have "bond" that doesnt mean they would be incapable of living
seperately.
NUBIAN KING
On 11 Feb 1997, Ben Reilly wrote:
>
> In a previous article, m-sl...@nwu.edu (Matthew Slater) says:
>
> >
> >>
> >>I'm saying that the book was selling a lot better when Ben was the
> >>Scarlet Spider.
> >>
> >
> >Do you have any sales figures to back this up?
> >I'd bet my last buck the Spidey books we're selling a bigger market
> >share before Ben was ever mentioned than after he was made the main
> >guy.
> >
>
> So? That's not even what the guy above you said. He said "when Ben was the
> Scarlet Spider", not "when he was the main guy". Were not talking Spider-Man
> here, were talking Scarlet Spider. I think alot of people liked the Scarlet
> Spider, I think alot of people didn't like Ben Reilly as Spider-Man. There
> is a difference though.
THanks for backing me up, Ben!
NUBIAN KING
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >> I think many of those Marvel Team-Ups were kinda weak.
> Yeah and with great power comes great responsibility.<<
>
> So there were some weakly written Team Ups, that doesn make Peter a
> weak person, or a weak character as you implied. All it means is that
> there were some forced stories. BTW, Are you old enough to rember
> picking some those vol1 Marvel Team-Ups off the stands? Some of them
> were quite good.
> As for power and responsibilty...THAT'S WHAT MADE SPIDEY GREAT!
I know this. Peter is kind of a tragic character....but it's his comedy
that gets him by. I mean Peter was basically Urkel with SPider Powers>
FOrced stories....an you're saying the end of the clone saga wasn't.
> >>I wouldn't say this. I think there is a bond between the father and
> mother when a child is born.<<
>
> Have you ever had a child ? Look, I've actually talked to somebody who
> got married, had a kid, then broke up with the father. That woman was
> my mother. She was married to a man before my father, then had my
> sister kristen, then got divorced to her first husband. Her life has
> beee in no way "tragic" because of this. And even if Pete and MJ do
> have "bond" that doesnt mean they would be incapable of living
> seperately.
Nope, I never had a child. I've talk to people who are separated...they
still have abond with the children as well as a weak bond with their
previous partners.
NUBIAN KING
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>
>
> So? That's not even what the guy above you said. He said "when Ben
> was the
> Scarlet Spider", not "when he was the main guy". Were not talking
> Spider-Man
> here, were talking Scarlet Spider. I think alot of people liked the
> Scarlet
> Spider, I think alot of people didn't like Ben Reilly as Spider-Man.
> There
> is a difference though.<<
>
> Fair enough, but I'm also willing to be that the Scarlet Spider solo
> issues didnt sell very well also.
The reason why that didn't sell was because Marvel decided to X out
Peter...pus the storyline sucked.
ALso.....another Scarlet SPider and Dr. Octopus 2....Please.
I still think one of the best stories of them all(clone that is) was the
SPider-Man Unlimited #8...with the Twin TOwers.
NUBIAN KING
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
> >>
> I'm saying that the book was selling a lot better when Ben was the
> Scarlet Spider.<<
>
> Do you have any sales figures to back this up?
I could look up the figures of the SPider-Man books from September
1994-February 1995.
> I'd bet my last buck the Spidey books we're selling a bigger market
> share before Ben was ever mentioned than after he was made the main
> guy.
NO, those books sold when Peter thought Ben had left New YOrk. Those
books sold. Wspecially Web of LIfe.
Air Judden
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>I disagree. I think the Peter's Parents coming back was stupid.
Yes, but the Scarlet Spider issues (the retitled ones) were
stupid. But if we are playing the "oh huh, this isn't as stupid
as..." Then I'll give you one that can't be topped....
Spider-Armor. Web #100.
>From Power and Responsibility to Peter's Trial...it was cool.
Yes.
>But the MAXIMUM CLONAGE part was stupid.
Yes.
>I like the "I'm a clone"Ben as opposed to the "I'm the real thing" Ben.
Yes.
>If you hated the Scarlet SPIDER SAGA, I guess you really like the books now.
>Admit it....there's no excitement to SPidey without Ben.
I didn't hate the Saga, just "Virtual Mortality" and "Cyberwar".
The issues TITLED Scarlet Spider sucked.
>One thing I like about the Clone Saga is that the Ex-Patriates were
>peeved cause their dear beloved Peter was the fake.
That moved cost Ben his life. That was the rallying point that
made people stop reading Spidey, sales to drop, and the return
of Peter.
Yeah, I thought you would say "D'OH!"
>Admit it Ben had more potential then Peter...plus Ben never hit Mary Jane.
Peter didn't break people out of jail (Jannine).
Ben did have more potential, but he's dead. It's part of life. Good
people die.
>I used to like Spider-Man, but when Marvel sold out to babies...I gave it up.
How mature. They don't right stories exactly the way you want, so
you put your thumb in your mouth and pout? So tell me, how did
you ever get over the death of Gwen Stacey?
Judden
Air Judden
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
>> >>>
>> Admit it Ben had more potential then Peter..<<
>>
>> More potenial that for what ? There is almost nothing you could do
>> with Ben you couldnt do with Peter.
>Think about this.....Ben is single.
>MAny more stories. Ben can turn into the ultimate SPider-Man. WHen I
>say potential there are many things to be explored with this character
>that can't with PEter.
Kind of like the stories with Peter and Gwen? Peter and MJ (pre
ASM #192?) Kind of like Peter and Deb Whitman? Been there done
that.
>He aslo has better weapons: Stingers, exploding webbing.
Oh yeah? Peter has plastic Web shooters that don't set off
metal detectors and he has a LED light, so there!
Hey, the Prowler has more than Ben!!! Stingers (Gee, did Ben
copy, there?), Gas, and clawed hands!!!
>Much like CArnage with VEnom. Carnage has more arsenals.
Carnage is the lamest villian Spidey has. He's also the most
1-dimensional. "I like to Kill. I like to Kill. I like to kill".
Ho hum.
Since you are into gizmos, are the Wonder Twins your favorite
heroes?
>I would like to see cARNAGE VS. sCARLET.THe offspring fight each other.
Yawn. You sound like the typical fan(boy) right before the
clone stuff happend: "Carnage is rad! More Carnage!"
>Ben would also bring back the nostalgia of the old school SPidey...like
>UNtold stories.
I'd rather read Untold Tales. Sounds like you afraid to tread
new water and would rather see stories around rehashed ideas (single
Peter), back to a simpler time...kind of sound like an old foggy, or
a country-Western singer...oh, how I miss the good ol' days :D
>I'm saying that MArvel should use this to their advantage.
Bringing back Ben would cheapen PPSM #75...I think we've seen
enough stories cheapened by Retcon's.
Judden
Peter Likidis
Matthew Slater wrote:
>
> >>I think Peter would be weak without Mary Jane.<<
>
Matt that's a stupid question.
Peter and MJ over the last Ten years or so have grown together. Peter
before the marriage would have been (I never read it) a different
character to the one now. I too feel that even though before the
marrauge he was a strong character, today I feel that he would be much
weaker without MJ.
--
Peter Likidis
cen...@wr.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5223/
"Life is a tale told by an idiot...... full of sound and fury, in the
end signifying nothing" - Shakespeare.
Matthew Slater
>> I too feel that even though before the
marrauge he was a strong character, today I feel that he would be much
weaker without MJ.<<
How do you mean weaker ? As in fewer stories, and less interesting to
read about ? or, as in more unsure of himself and less capable ?
HallNash33
> Ok, Peter Parker doesnt sell comics but Ben Reilly will ? That's why
> Spider sales shot down to 20 year lows when the announced Ben as the
> main guy...
Where is the *proof* of this?
I'm sick and tired of hearing about this. Sure, Spider-sales might had
shot down to 20-yr lows, but I'm fairly positive that *all* of comics
sales shot down to 20-yr lows as well (with the possible exception of
X-Men and any titles that hasn't been around that long).
If you will, let's head over to Wizard. You know, that place that always
bashed the spider-clone? Okay, good.
*Note, the books I'm talking about are Web of Spider-Man, Amazing
Spider-Man, Spider-Man, Spectacular Spider-Man, Sensational Spider-Man,
and Peter Parker: Spider-Man*
In the Wizard Top 100 list (not a good barometer, I know, but let's forget
that for a moment okay?) before the Clone Saga half of the Spider-titles
were below #50. The very month the Clone Saga started, all of them were
in the top 50, often between #25 and #50.
During the time Ben Reilly took over as Spider-Man, all the Spider-titles
were in the Top 25. They stayed there for quite a while, almost a year.
When announcements that Peter was coming back as Spider-Man hit the
market, sales started to drop, and titles dropped out of the Top 25, but
still stayed in the Top 50.
The first month Peter was back sales were pretty low. Not a single issue
was in the Top 25. (Of course, the crappy stories that month probably had
something to do with it.) The second month featuring Peter as Spider-Man
again, sales returned to their normal Spidey-levels, so that was probably
a one-time thing due to some special situtation (all the inter-company
crossovers probably).
So, tell me, how has sales dropped when Ben Reilly was Spider-Man? I just
don't see it.
Starving Writer
Ben Reilly
In a previous article, m-sl...@nwu.edu (Matthew Slater) says:
>>>
>
>So? That's not even what the guy above you said. He said "when Ben
>was the
>Scarlet Spider", not "when he was the main guy". Were not talking
>Spider-Man
>here, were talking Scarlet Spider. I think alot of people liked the
>Scarlet
>Spider, I think alot of people didn't like Ben Reilly as Spider-Man.
>There
>is a difference though.<<
>
>Fair enough, but I'm also willing to be that the Scarlet Spider solo
>issues didnt sell very well also.
>
Maybe so, but I think ONE Scarlet Spider title, with good writing and
characterization, would sell.
Matthew Slater
>>
Where is the *proof* of this?<<
I got my info from the Wall Street Journal article that said Spidey
sales were at 20 year lows under Ben Reilly. Now, there were alot of
factors besides Reilly involved here, but if Ben really did have the
great selling powere some people were saying he did it would seem that
the drop would not have been so sharp. Now, the Journal could have
been wrong, but I dont know where it would have been.
Matthew Slater
>>Peter
before the marriage would have been (I never read it) a different
character to the one now.<<
How is Peter Parker a different character now ? What aspects of his
personality do you think have changed ?
James R. Olson, jr.
Peter Likidis <cen...@wr.com.au> wrote:
->Matthew Slater wrote:
->>
->> >>I think Peter would be weak without Mary Jane.<<
->>
->> Was he weak from 1962 until summer of 1987 ?
-> Matt that's a stupid question.
-> Peter and MJ over the last Ten years or so have grown together. Peter
->before the marriage would have been (I never read it) a different
->character to the one now. I too feel that even though before the
->marrauge he was a strong character, today I feel that he would be much
->weaker without MJ.
I have to toss a me-too in here.
For Peter and MJ to break up, their relationship would have to be
totally rewritten. Both Peter and MJ have always been written as
having a deep commitment to each other. It would take a massive,
long-standing trauma to break that commitment, some sort of act by one
which completely shattered the other's trust. I really can't see
either of them commiting such an act.
The only way it could be pulled off is the classic cliche of a
mistaken impression of the other's acts/motives, but the two have been
together for long enough, and have been through enough, that I can't
see that happening.
Of course, the writers are the final word, and if they decide on a
divorce, so be it...
Peter Likidis
Matthew Slater wrote:
>
> >> I too feel that even though before the
>
> How do you mean weaker ? As in fewer stories, and less interesting to
> read about ? or, as in more unsure of himself and less capable ?
> --
Peter Parker today is a part of a one whole. I couldn't imagine Peter
without MJ anymore. I really shouldn't said weaker. I should have really
said MJ makes the character of Peter stronger.
Peter Likidis
I think the back off was more towards the bad publicity that Marvel was
recieving because of ther ex-patriots!
Luis Dantas
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>>>Peter
>before the marriage would have been (I never read it) a different
>character to the one now.<<
>How is Peter Parker a different character now ? What aspects of his
>personality do you think have changed ?
The married Peter is indeed a different character. The most obvious
change is a renewed focus and purpose; as he once told Puma, now he
has a person who he's responsible for (May was always fairly
independent, you know). Also, he feels way more self-confident and
accepted, as befits a well-married man.
It has been years now, but before marriage, Peter was quite unsecure,
even a bit paranoid (anyone remember the hobgoblin issue featuring the
death of Lefty Donovan? Peter was worrying about people suspecting
him of stealing pencils in that issue!). He evolved a lot.
And the best part is, those are both realistic and inspiring,
light-hearted changes. Sure enough, the marriage has had its share of
probations and strains, but all in all is quite successful. Peter and
Mary Jane _have_ been through a lot, and learned how to best help each
other. Witness, for instance, how the irrational rejection of the
black costume by MJ has diminished, or how they've pulled through
crisis such as Jason Jerome, Kristy's bulimy (sp?), MJ's smoking, or
Peter's obsessive behavior after the exposure of his false parents.
Hey, some of us still like stories about overcome angst and happy
families.
godai
HallNash33 wrote:
>
> > Ok, Peter Parker doesnt sell comics but Ben Reilly will ? That's why
> > Spider sales shot down to 20 year lows when the announced Ben as the
> > main guy...
>
>
Didn't Marvel itself acknowledge that sales had taken a huge dive,
attribute this to the ousting of Peter Parker and placement of Ben
Reilly and decide to bring Peter back? I remember the editor of the
books saying something about we know we made a mistake, we're listening
to our fans now, so we're bringing back the one true Spider-man?
Chris Hutts
Matthew Slater
>>
The married Peter is indeed a different character. The most obvious
change is a renewed focus and purpose; as he once told Puma, now he
has a person who he's responsible for (May was always fairly
independent, you know)<<
Is this really a change in personality ? Seems that having
responsibilities is nothing new to Spiderman.
>>
It has been years now, but before marriage, Peter was quite unsecure,
even a bit paranoid (anyone remember the hobgoblin issue featuring the
death of Lefty Donovan? Peter was worrying about people suspecting
him of stealing pencils in that issue!). He evolved a lot.<<
This is one area where I think the marriage has REALLY hurt the Spidey
books. Peter's insercurites and paranoia were what seperated him from
other comic book characters. Those have diminished now, becuase
writers seem to feel compelled to have MJ reassure him every time he
doubts himself. A huge element of what made Spidey special is gone,
and has not been replaced with anything else.
>> Witness, for instance, how the irrational rejection of the
black costume by MJ has diminished,<<
This is the other thing that has bugged me about the character after
the marriage, is the blandining of Mary Jane. When Mary Jane was
created she was fun, wild, humorus character. She reamained so for
about 25 years. Then sometime after the marriage she became the
forever supportive, predictable voice of reason. No longer spunky, MJ
has been reduced to red headed version of Ward Cleaver (well, perhaps
that's a bit harsh, but only a bit). I'm all for character
devlopment, but not if means the characters become dull.
Matthew Slater
>>I couldn't imagine Peter
without MJ anymore. <<
Isn't that a problem ? I mean, should we have a Spiderman who is
reliant on a single supporting cast character to make his story lines
work ? Should Spiderman be designed so that we can do the lonely
character that he was originally sometimes at least ?
James R. Olson, jr.
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> wrote:
->>>
->Where is the *proof* of this?<<
->I got my info from the Wall Street Journal article that said Spidey
->sales were at 20 year lows under Ben Reilly. Now, there were alot of
->factors besides Reilly involved here, but if Ben really did have the
->great selling powere some people were saying he did it would seem that
->the drop would not have been so sharp. Now, the Journal could have
->been wrong, but I dont know where it would have been.
WSJ isn't exactly the most sophisticated source of comics info. I
have a feeling that they were taking Marvel's word at face value, and
Marvel was trying to justify their retcon to themselves.
I tend to favor the previous poster's point that Spidey titles
actually maintained good *relative* sales, even though *absolute*
sales were down.
NUBIAN KING
*****************************************************************************
A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
P.E.A.C.E.
*****************************************************************************
FIrst of all Peter is not BRuce WAyne. It works for BAtman, SPIDER-MAN no.
LIke I said earlier....Ben should be the lonely SPider-Man/Scarlet SPider
type...not Peter.
Peter works well with MJ, but I would like to see the cheerful MJ
back....not the anal smoker. MJ used to be a very strong interesting
character that worked well with Peter.....before they were married.
I think the sterotypical...marriage isn't working, let's get a
divorce....is not cool. Peter works better with MJ.
Matthew Slater
>>
WSJ isn't exactly the most sophisticated source of comics info.<<
No but their a very good source of bussiness info, and they were
reporting about one of the bussiness they had been following. The
Journal is very accuracte, responible newspaper from what I can tell.
>>I have a feeling that they were taking Marvel's word at face value, and Marvel was trying to justify their retcon to themselves.<<
Well, I suppose its possible that the Journal was off, but I'd like to
see some back up. No offense. Also, if Marvel was going to retcon the
clone/bussiness history why would they do it in a manner that showed
them as being horrible writers ?Seems that they would come out with
less of a black eye if the just said Pete returning was planned all
along...comments ?
Peter Likidis
He's a strong character by himself. I never once said that all the
stories need MJ to be good. If Peter went off I'm sure it would still be
a good story. But MJ adds a strength to Peter. Gives in a larger sense
of responsibility outside the "with great power comes great
responsibility" droll.
When I said I can't imagine Peter without MJ anymore, I did not mean
she would be there all the time. But as a supporting character Peter
needs her there.
Air Judden
godai <go...@neosoft.com> writes:
>Didn't Marvel itself acknowledge that sales had taken a huge dive,
>attribute this to the ousting of Peter Parker and placement of Ben
>Reilly and decide to bring Peter back? I remember the editor of the
>books saying something about we know we made a mistake, we're listening
>to our fans now, so we're bringing back the one true Spider-man?
How about a little common sense...if Ben were more popular, or
AS popular, he wouldn't be dead, right? He'd have his own
comics...why do you think there are so many X-Titles out there?
Why was the Green Goblin cancelled? Sales.
Judden
Air Judden
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> writes:
>>> Witness, for instance, how the irrational rejection of the
>black costume by MJ has diminished,<<
>This is the other thing that has bugged me about the character after
>the marriage, is the blandining of Mary Jane. When Mary Jane was
>created she was fun, wild, humorus character. She reamained so for
>about 25 years. Then sometime after the marriage she became the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>forever supportive, predictable voice of reason.
You evidently missed every issue of Amazing between about 260 and
292, eh?
Judden
Air Judden
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> writes:
>>>
>WSJ isn't exactly the most sophisticated source of comics info.<<
>No but their a very good source of bussiness info, and they were
>reporting about one of the bussiness they had been following. The
>Journal is very accuracte, responible newspaper from what I can tell.
I will not go into depth, since it isn't comic-related, but the
mud-slinging libel job they did when claiming that Reggie Lewis'
fatal heart attack was caused by drug usage proved how
responsible they were. Especially, since the Lewis family had
a history of heart problems.
Still though, I put more stock in them and common sense than
Wizard.
Judden
Air Judden
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Matthew Slater wrote:
>> >> think it would be another $cam.<<
>>
>> So making the surely unpopular move of a divorce would be a$cam, but
>> resurecting Ben Reilly and luanching him in his own book wouldn't be ?
>Nope. It would be bringing him back for good.
>Face it. Pretty soon Marvel will realize that Peter is just not paying
>the bills anymore. I think the ressurection of Ben is a perfect story
>line.
This is so hilarious!!!! Peter has been paying the bills for
30 years. All the core titles were making the top 50 of the Comic
Shop News every month. Since Reilly took over, Amazing is the
only one doing it. Ben could not pay the Bills, neither could
Phil Urich. That is why they are gone.
>I think Peter would be weak without Mary Jane. Think about this....she
>could marry someone else, plus she's beautiful. But if you look at What
>If#21-22*Vol. 2) =, the only females Peter would have is Felicia and
>Silver Sable.
You evidently haven't heard of a young lady named Gwen.
Sorry, I put no stock in "What If". Maybe you should read the "What
if Spider-Man's clone had lived?" and you will see the numerous
contradictions it made with the clone saga.
Judden
Air Judden
NUBIAN KING <ahal...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>I just think Ben's story where he took doen Eddie was the bomb with
>impact webbing and stingers.
If you think that story was "the bomb", you should RUN, not walk,
to your comic store and pick up back issues of Amazing Spider-Man
when Roger Stern was writing....
THAT, was the bomb. I've seen the bomb, I knew the bomb... Nubian
King, The Exile Returns Part 4, was NOT the bomb.
>> >>ch like CArnage with VEnom. Carnage has more arsenals.<<
>>
>> It's not about equipment my friend
>True. But lately his books suck. Why doesn't Marvel give Venom a series
>instead of mini-series.
Tom answered this. It basically IS a series, but the bean counters
figure #1 issues sell better, and have it calculated in.
And no, Spidey's books don't suck. They are developing plots, haven't
you figured that out?
>But CARNAGE was more evil. I hate seeing Venom as an anti-hero. I like
>him more as a villian.
I just got sick of seeing him every 6 months.
>> No! A Spiderman going by name other than Peter Parker, with blonde
>> hair, not involving comics greatest supporting cast, and shooting
>> poison darts as people DOES NOT bring back nostalgia!
>I don't know about comics' greatest supporting cast...that tile belongs
>to Superman.
I disagree. Pick up the Daily Bugle limited series to see what
he's talking about.
>As of the Lifetheft/Web of Death saga....Peter has been poorly
>characterized. He used to be strongly characterized....now the writers
>have made him WEAK. I hate the fact that they have to keep "shaking up"
>his life. One thing I liked about Ben...they brought back the oung
>comedian who loved to swing through the skies and catch villains.
>Now Peter's life sucks.....daughter taken, brother dead, aunt dead.
>Peter's not the same character....he's just Spider-Man now.
>Sorry but it doesn't work for him.
Read Spectacular and Sensational... JM and Todd have been writing
some witty stuff.
You want FUNNY? Ben was not funny. When Peter David wrote
Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man...THAT was funny.
Judden
Matthew Slater
>>his is the other thing that has bugged me about the character after
>the marriage, is the blandining of Mary Jane. When Mary Jane was
>created she was fun, wild, humorus character. She reamained so for
>>
You evidently missed every issue of Amazing between about 260
and
292, eh?<<
No, I own all those issues (every ASM) since 200 actually), but in
those issues there is still alot of MJ have being a fun, wild, happy
go lucky sort, a trait which has been abanoned. Now she's strictly the
constant voice/supporting figure. Before then she was still somewhat
unpredictable, largely because she had yet to be so over used.
Matthew Slater
>> But MJ adds a strength to Peter. Gives in a larger sense
of responsibility outside the "with great power comes great
responsibility" droll.<<
I never felt this way. As I see Peter responsibilties to MJ dont have
to do with his powers, but have to do with them being married. The
last good power & responsibilty conflict I can rember involving MJ was
in ASM 291 where he had to decide whether to chase down the
Spider-Slayer in NY, or go support MJ with her family problems in
Pittsbugh, and they weren't even married then !!
>> I did not mean
she would be there all the time. But as a supporting character Peter
needs her there.<<
Does she have to be his wife to be a good supporting character ?? If I
were writing Spidey I would write MJ out, just out of the marriage. I
thik they're still a place for her in the Spider-verse, but I think
the marriage should be chalked up to a noble, yet failed experiment.
Matthew Slater
>>
FIrst of all Peter is not BRuce WAyne. It works for BAtman,
SPIDER-MAN no.<<
I never advotcated making Peter a darker character like Batman, just
that I thought that there were times when he should feel a little
alone. It was one of the thing Spider-man was based off of, a
character who was a little bit lonely sometimes. I didn't mean he
should become a obessive vigalante, who has committed himself totally
to fighting crime like Batman. Nor did I think I implied it.
>>
I think the sterotypical...marriage isn't working, let's get a
divorce....is not cool. Peter works better with MJ.<<
Peter works well with MJ, but only to a point. The marriage has forced
writers to use MJ way more than any indvidual supporting character
should be. BTW, if you dont like the current marriage, and you dont
want a divorce, but you want MJ to stick around , what the heck do you
want from the Pete/MJ realtionship ? A non-sterotypical marriage ?
Like what they're swingers ? ;)
NUBIAN KING
I would like so see more issues where they actually talk about their
problems. SInce Peter doesn't have both Mays, he need MJ. I would like
to see an issue where MJ takes out a thief or some type of book where
Peter underestimates his mate. I would like to see this approached. I
would like to see MJ hit big time.....and Peter gets jealous of this. I
just would like to see stories that test the limits of their
marriage..without the divorce scenario.
Matthew Slater
>>I would like
to see an issue where MJ takes out a thief or some type of book where
Peter underestimates his mate. <<
Already been done, in ASM 309, after MJ is kidnapped, Peter goes to
save, but MJ not only ends up escape herself, but saving Peter with the
hepl of a 357 magnum.
>>I
would like to see MJ hit big time.....and Peter gets jealous of this.<<
This was the first thing they covered in the marriage, Peter being
uncomfortable b/c MJ made so much more $$$ than him.
David K Wessman
In article <33013A...@wr.com.au>, cen...@wr.com.au says...
One of the things I think that Peter and MJ's life was becoming
very ordinary and middle class (besides the spidey gig). They just
kept recycling the same old super-vilians and Peter would whine
about all of the bad stuff that happend to him over the last few
issues. And sales were at an all time low before the Scarlet Spider
which prompted Marvel to try to shake up the title. I really believe
that most of the protest was from people that don't even read the
Spidey titles any more. The same flakes that jump on any band wagon
that rolls by. And the rest felt a huge continuity shift.
Well there is a huge continuity shift right now. First of all
Peter and Ben perfomed the test which proved that Ben was the true
Spider-Man and Peter the Clone. Second, if anybody read the
"Time Bomb" story line where the Jackal had suposedly planted a
subliminal genitic message in Peter to cause him to uncontrolably
want to murder Mary Jane. Now is Marvel going to explain that?
> Peter and MJ over the last Ten years or so have grown together. Peter
>before the marriage would have been (I never read it) a different
>character to the one now. I too feel that even though before the
>marrauge he was a strong character, today I feel that he would be much
>weaker without MJ.
>
HallNash33
<<Well there is a huge continuity shift right now. First of all
Peter and Ben perfomed the test which proved that Ben was the true
Spider-Man and Peter the Clone. Second, if anybody read the
"Time Bomb" story line where the Jackal had suposedly planted a
subliminal genitic message in Peter to cause him to uncontrolably
want to murder Mary Jane. Now is Marvel going to explain that?>>
They already did, in the one-shot "Spider-Man: Osborn Journals"
The message to kill Mary Jane was not a subliminal genetic message, it was
a post-hypnotic suggestion. Had it been genetic Peter would had never
been able to stop his murderous rage until Mary Jane was dead. The Jackal
also did this with the "original" (at that time) Spider-Man, making Ben
Reilly think he was the clone and causing him to leave New York.
As for the clone test... *sigh* Stewart Trainer's equipment was set up
so that it would read Ben to be the real deal, and Peter the clone.
Ah, just go and buy the book. It'd save a lot of explanation. :)
Starving Writer
Matthew Slater
>> Well there is a huge continuity shift right now. First of all
Peter and Ben perfomed the test which proved that Ben was the true
Spider-Man and Peter the Clone. Second, if anybody read the
"Time Bomb" story line where the Jackal had suposedly planted a
subliminal genitic message in Peter to cause him to uncontrolably
want to murder Mary Jane. Now is Marvel going to explain that?<<
Read the Osborn Journals one shot, its all explained there.
James R. Olson, jr.
judd...@ksu.edu (Air Judden) wrote:
->
-> You want FUNNY? Ben was not funny. When Peter David wrote
-> Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man...THAT was funny.
->
Peter David coordinating the clone saga... oh, for what could have
been...
Todd Yancy
jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>Well, since Ben is the original, and Peter is a stable clone, neither
>one of them would have disintegrated on death. That means that the
>person who disintegrated was an unstable clone, who was put in place
>of Ben at some point. He believed he was the first Ben because of his
>implanted memories, and sacrificed himself for Peter just as the first
>Ben would have.
I'd like Ben to return, reclaim the costume so Peter can retire
(again) to raise his daughter (BRING BACK little MAY!!), but Peter
should be left as the original. It was (I believe) Peter being the
clone, and his slapping MJ, that created that stupid movement that
lead to Ben's apparent death.
Todd
tod...@lightspeed.net
I tried to add a spambuster to my e-mail
Did it work?
Todd Yancy
jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
>Well, since Ben is the original, and Peter is a stable clone, neither
>one of them would have disintegrated on death. <<
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>WRONG! Peter's the original, Ben's the clone. Read Osborn Journals
And there's no possibility that the Osbourne Journal is a complete
fabrication? I didn't read the issue (I've dropped the current
Spider-titles until little May is returned), but I was more offended
at them bringing back Osbourne than I was at the return of the clone
and the revelation that he was the original Peter.
Todd Yancy
grend...@aol.com (Grendel712) wrote:
> I'm tossing my hat in the ring to also suggest that Ben be brought
>back, but as the Scarlet Spider.
I hate the name Scarlet Spider. How about Arachnid? Arachnid-Man?
Arachni-Man? Arak, Son of Thunder? Oh, sorry; wrong universe.
Todd Yancy
Earl & Daniella Harris <esha...@widomaker.com> wrote:
>Why should Marvel bring Ben Reilly back? You offer no explanation.
>I don't want him back, because he is dead. Marval trivializes
>death when they bring a character back to life. Let Ben stay
>dead. He died in Parkers arms. Didn't he dissolve or something?
>That whole story line was convoluted. First, you had the Jackal
>deceiving people. Then, you had Osborn, who everyone thought was
>dead, deceiving the Jackal as he was deceiving everyone else.
>Why make the storyline even more complex? Imagine some other
>dead villain coming back to life and saying "Everything you
>learned about the clones was a lie. I been yanking the Green
>Goblins chain for years."
>AAARRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!
>Let Ben rest in peace. Put the whole clone story to bed.
I had no problem with the return of the Jackal. I do have a problem
with the return of the original Green Goblin. Bring back the Jackal
again (it would be easier for him to create a Jackalized clone of
himself than to alter his own appearance) and reveal the Goblin to be
another clone (with a similated chest scar). It would make a lot more
sense than Osbourne healing from a fatal chest wound.
Matthew Slater
>>
Peter David coordinating the clone saga... oh, for what could have
been...<<
After hearing what PAD had to say about the whole clone fiasco two
summers ago I doubt he would have wanted a hand in the mess
Matthew Slater
>
>Well, since Ben is the original, and Peter is a stable clone, neither
>one of them would have disintegrated on death. <<
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>WRONG! Peter's the original, Ben's the clone. Read Osborn Journals
Tod Yance wrote:
And there's no possibility that the Osbourne Journal is a complete
fabrication?<<
Since the whole point of it was to be cannon that explained how the
clone saga....no there is no possibilty that this was a fabrication.
It's cannon. Ben was the clone, he's dead. Peter the original, he's
alive. Peroid.
Matthew Slater
>
>Well, since Ben is the original, and Peter is a stable clone, neither
>one of them would have disintegrated on death. <<
Matthew Slater <m-sl...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>WRONG! Peter's the original, Ben's the clone. Read Osborn Journals
Tod Yance wrote:
And there's no possibility that the Osbourne Journal is a complete
fabrication?<<
Since the whole point of it was to be cannon that explainedthe clone
saga and its final implications ....no there is no possibilty that
HallNash33
<<This is so hilarious!!!! Peter has been paying the bills for
30 years. All the core titles were making the top 50 of the Comic
Shop News every month. Since Reilly took over, Amazing is the
only one doing it. Ben could not pay the Bills, neither could
Phil Urich. That is why they are gone.>>
Sources?
According to Wizard, none of the core titles has dropped below #50
since.... well... since my Wizard collection started (which is about 3 1/2
years ago). I don't have one single Wizard magazine that has the
Spider-Man core titles ranked below #50. As a matter of fact, for most of
Ben's run as Spider-Man all 4 titles were ranked above #25.
Again, I ask you, where are your sources?
Starving Writer