What If Ben Reilly remained Spider-Man?

[Ubauba01]

How would it have affected the franchise if Ben Reilly remained the Sensational Spider-Man and replaced Peter?

[Thievery]

My understanding of the situation is that the vast majority of the 90's Spider-Man fans hated the idea that Ben Reilly hated would replace Peter permanently as Spider-Man, and the sales cratered.
I've read stories that it was so badly received that when the X-Men comics introduced Joseph they called him a copy of Magneto instead of a clone of Magneto because Clone Saga had made even the word clone toxic.
Cant say this with 100% certainty because I wasn't reading Spider-Man at the time.

So my guess is that Spider-Man may actually have been canceled. Or at the very least eventually suffered from an even harder reboot than what actually occurred.

I'm truly sorry, Ben fans. I'm just saying what I believe the majority of Spider-Man fans felt at the time.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

My understanding of the situation is that the vast majority of the 90's Spider-Man fans hated the idea that Ben Reilly hated would replace Peter permanently as Spider-Man, and the sales cratered.

Jemas has famously claimed that the sales were catastrophic by the time it wrapped, but checking around on the data we can look at like Comichron doesn't really corroborate that and shows a steady line from the beginning points to the conclusion for mainline books like Amazing and adjectiveless.
Glenn Greenberg, who was also involved in editing the books at the time, has gone to the bat that not only did the sales remain steady but managed to improve during this time as well (in the "Life of Reilly" series of articles).
The short-notice reversion of the status quo was more involved with editorial upheaval, as a new editor (Bob Budiansky) had basically inherited an in progress storyline from his predecessor, and he always had misgivings about it (also per Glenn Greenberg). When more people began to get involved, and even industry heavyweights like Dan Jurgens joined the books and began voicing their concerns, Greenberg says that factored in overturning Budiansky's mind for good - who seemed to not want to mess with the current storyline out of respect for the creatives, since it was already an in-progress storyline, but then his mind was changed.

I've read stories that it was so badly received that when the X-Men comics introduced Joseph they called him a copy of Magneto instead of a clone of Magneto because Clone Saga had made even the word clone toxic.
Cant say this with 100% certainty because I wasn't reading Spider-Man at the time.

This is true, Marvel decided to bury anything remotely clone related in short order - you have creative talent from the times saying as much like DeMatteis, and I believe DeFalco and Mackie also said in separate occasions it was the case. The proof is in the pudding as well and you could see it in the books.

So my guess is that Spider-Man may actually have been canceled. Or at the very least eventually suffered from an even harder reboot than what actually occurred.

Marvel was having some pretty dire financial troubles at the time, which necessitated the "volume 2" we got after "The Final Chapter" and linewide "volume 2's" as well as a myriad cancellation of books at the time shortly before these relaunches, so Ben's tenure would likely have been cut short there.

How would it have affected the franchise if Ben Reilly remained the Sensational Spider-Man and replaced Peter?

Even for creative talent of the time, like DeMatteis, they figured they could get a "good five year run" out of that status quo. That's probably what we'd have gotten.

[Ubauba01]

Personally, I like Ben Reilly as a character, but I prefer him as the Scarlet Spider. I also think that the SS costume looks better than the Sensational one.

Even for creative talent of the time, like DeMatteis, they figured they could get a "good five year run" out of that status quo. That's probably what we'd have gotten.

That's interesting. The initial Clone Saga story arc (that ends with Peter giving the mantle to Ben) made it abundantly clear that Peter really was the clone (at the time, I mean). There was no doubt about it if we simply went by what was established in the story itself.

But if you are correct, that means that even the writers themselves may not have actually bought into that idea.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

That's interesting. The initial Clone Saga story arc (that ends with Peter giving the mantle to Ben) made it abundantly clear that Peter really was the clone (at the time, I mean). There was no doubt about it if we simply went by what was established in the story itself.

But if you are correct, that means that even the writers themselves may not have actually bought into that idea.

Well, that quote needs to be framed in the proper context which I didn't give - DeMatteis said that in a very recent interview, promoting his Ben Reilly book that came out the same time Beyond did. At this point in time, we know how things work and how the reset button is an ultimate inevitability, so he has the benefit of hindsight.

Reading "Life of Reilly", you can tell that the writers had every last intention of moving forward with that direction, so I would say that they did buy into it. But a writer buying into his or her idea is always only ever step one, and it's a business, so if things fail to click with the audience or cause a mass exodus of sales, you need to damage control. DeFalco recounts he has Peter be distrustful of Seward Trainer in the exact issue he's revealed as a clone precisely to root a bit of a back door in case they'd need one (boy, were they going to, at that). But nothing so disastrous happened in the short term - the reversal came because of the editorial shakeups.

[Ubauba01]

Well, that quote needs to be framed in the proper context which I didn't give - DeMatteis said that in a very recent interview, promoting his Ben Reilly book that came out the same time Beyond did. At this point in time, we know how things work and how the reset button is an ultimate inevitability, so he has the benefit of hindsight.

Reading "Life of Reilly", you can tell that the writers had every last intention of moving forward with that direction, so I would say that they did buy into it. But a writer buying into his or her idea is always only ever step one, and it's a business, so if things fail to click with the audience or cause a mass exodus of sales, you need to damage control. DeFalco recounts he has Peter be distrustful of Seward Trainer in the exact issue he's revealed as a clone precisely to root a bit of a back door in case they'd need one (boy, were they going to, at that). But nothing so disastrous happened in the short term - the reversal came because of the editorial shakeups.

Ok, I understand. Thanks for the explanation.

[SturdyMike89]

From everything that I have read about the way that Marvel comics carried itself from about 1994 to 1998, it would have been an exercise in futility. You could not really get a good idea going at the time and long-range storytelling plans were changed at the drop of a dime sometimes with no warning to the creators. The best that could be hoped for was a solid run lasting until about 2000 when because of the videogame and upcoming movie Peter Parker would assume the role again.

[LordMikel]

If Marvel had been smart and really planned well, they could have had everything and made everyone happy.

Ben Reilly as single Spider-man.
Peter Parker as married Spider-man
Miles as teenage Spider-man.

[HypnoHustler]

How would it have affected the franchise if Ben Reilly remained the Sensational Spider-Man and replaced Peter?

I’ll say what I said last time this question was asked… even if the switch was successful (think Wally West) it probably would’ve reversed in time for the 2002 Raimi movie as they would want to go back to basics for the origin story.

[JTait]

It's an interesting question. The brief period with Ben as Spider-Man was pretty good and since Peter returned, Marvel have repeatedly tied themselves in knots trying to wriggle their way out of a status quo where Peter is married. Ben staying as Spider-Man would have enabled this, while avoiding ridiculous stories like OMD and the Mackie/Byrne era.

However, I can't imagine a situation where Peter Parker exists in the 616 MU as a civilian, so I imagine in the mid to long term this would have led to a situation with Ben as the mainstream Spider-Man in NYC, while a happily married Peter Parker is off crime-fighting somewhere else, possibly as the Scarlet Spider. Now that I've written it down, it doesn't actually sound too bad.

[Blanks]

Personally, If Ben had remained Spider-Man, I would not have stopped buying Spider-Man. PPSM issue 75 was the last issue I bought of Spider-Man until Brand New Day. That’s pretty much how long I gave up on the main Spider-Man book. But I get it; Marvel had to do what they felt they had to do. Still wish they didn’t kill Ben off though.

[bat39]

If they had stuck to their guns with Ben Reilly being the original Spider-Man, they would have to have him reclaim the Peter Parker name and identity. Even before the super-hero movie boom, the general public knew that Spider-Man's secret identity was Peter Parker, not a blond-haired guy called Ben Reilly.

Yeah, in the long run, you can't mess with the fundamentals of the character/franchise - especially not before a big push like the release of a blockbuster film.

DC realized this too with Superman in the mid-2010's...eventually, the Post-Crisis Clark and Lois had to be established as the 'real' Clark Kent and Lois Lane on Earth 0. They couldn't remain parallel universe doppelgangers 'Clark and Lois Smith' (or whatever) forever.