Ben Reilly: Spider-Man/Scarlet Spider Appreciation 2022

[doolittle]

It's because, to be brutally honest, they don't see the point of having another white male Spider-Man. I'm all for diversity and have no problem with Miles or Spider-Gwen or even Silk (I don't read their books, but have no problem with them co-existing), but I think that's what it essentially boils down to. So when they say he's too similar to Peter, it's not just about him being a clone necessarily.

I agree that that's their thinking, but I don't see any difference in having a monthly Ben book from featuring Wolverine in 20 books a month.

Well, off to cancel my preorders for ASM.

[Huntsman Spider]

I agree that that's their thinking, but I don't see any difference in having a monthly Ben book from featuring Wolverine in 20 books a month.

Well, off to cancel my preorders for ASM.

A very good point as well. Hell, when Logan was dead, they just brought in Old Man Logan to effectively take his place even though his clone-slash-genetically engineered daughter Laura Kinney was there, too, and had taken up the mantle of Wolverine, so what did that really say about Marvel's willingness to commit when they had the opportunity to make genuine good on all their talk? If they had the courage of their convictions on that subject, they would have been overexposing Laura the same way 616 Logan had been instead of confining her to her solo series (and Dennis "Hopeless" Hallum's All-New X-Men run).

Going back on topic, though, Peter is still the Spider-Man in the eyes of Marvel's readers, fans, professional talent, and execs/editorial, so almost any attempt at a permanent or semi-permanent replacement tends to fail. Ben had his shot back in the 90s and because many of the fans and readers (and even some of the creative talent) didn't take too kindly to being told that the Spider-Man they'd been reading or writing for the last twenty years since the end of the original Clone Saga was a "fake" --- a common strain of thought on the subject of clones and cloning, refusing to regard them as legitimate persons and individuals --- so he got killed off rather grotesquely and then turned to dust as "proof" that he wasn't a real person in the first place (speaking from in-universe context). Miles, originally from the Ultimate Universe, 15 years after Ben's death, was resented for a good while by a contingent of fans and readers that didn't take kindly to that world's Peter Parker being killed off, even if he came back a few real-world years later, and Miles's integration in the "main" or primary Marvel Universe has largely been predicated on him as the "junior" or "understudy" to Peter, along with his more unique sociocultural resonance.

What I'm trying to say is that there is this very strong sense with Marvel that there should be only one Spider-Man and that one Spider-Man should be "Peter Parker," not "Ben Reilly" or "Miles Morales." However, Miles is at least tolerated, if not mostly accepted, as a "secondary" Spider-Man for his sociocultural relevance and the idea that he can freshen the archetype of Spider-Man in ways that a literal clone of Peter, no matter how said clone is tweaked or modified, is perceived as unable to match. Ultimately, there may be potential in exploring Ben as "Peter gone wrong," since a number of Peter's major villains have existed as parallels to Peter, also representing what Peter could have been or become under the wrong circumstances or upbringing, though as Peter's motives for heroism are rooted in his unique complexities as a character, any "gone wrong" version of him should reflect those complexities as well, instead of just being a cackling caricature of a villain.

[Lukmendes]

Well, in addition to losing his memories and having mysterious reality altering goo, they also said removing his memories was causing more damage to his mind, due to the artificial nature of his memory implants causing a massive psychological collapse when they were messed with. So there's a lot more than just amnesia, I guess.

Even before he fell into the goo he was already thinking "Peter would feel bad, I don't feel a thing", so the goo possibly only amplified the damage his mind already had at the time.

It's still stupid as hell. I don't get why Ben can't be written as a dark, tragic, sympathetic villain instead of a full on monster. It's such dumb writing.

Yeah it's like this is silver age, can't have villains being anything besides pure evil, but we moved on from nonsense like this, and if Ben is gonna be a villain, shit, even being more like 90's Kaine would be acceptable, even if that Kaine was a mess too.

He's just generic evil. Underdeveloped and unnecessary, it appears to bring nothing new to the table when you could swap the dialogue with a lot of other foes of Peter

It would be a lot better if Ben was killed off and now Spidercide is the one around lol.

Lowe's reasoning that there is no place for Ben is the same way of thinking editorial had back during the Clone Saga, as shown in the Life of Reilly articles. Which would be fair if the setting was remotely similar to what it was back then. We have two permanent Spider-Men, two or three Spider-Women depending on the way you count them, there's been two comic book events and two major films about multiversal spider-people...

It would be more honest if he had just said they don't want to write him as Scarlet Spider or Spider-Man.

Funny thing is that, even back in the 90's they decided to introduce a third Spider-Woman, and then just a few years later they created Anya, and ASM had Ezekiel before that, so "too many Spiders" was never really a real issue lol.

It's because, to be brutally honest, they don't see the point of having another white male Spider-Man. I'm all for diversity and have no problem with Miles or Spider-Gwen or even Silk (I don't read their books, but have no problem with them co-existing), but I think that's what it essentially boils down to. So when they say he's too similar to Peter, it's not just about him being a clone necessarily.

Him being a clone with a similar personality does him no favors too, he only had a place back when Spidey was being written poorly, so Ben acted like Spider-Man "should" while Spidey was a moronic douchebag, with Peter stopping that nonsense, Marvel sees little reason for Ben to stay around, and they never bothered to branch him out, so either he's dead or a villain now.

Going back on topic, though, Peter is still the Spider-Man in the eyes of Marvel's readers, fans, professional talent, and execs/editorial, so almost any attempt at a permanent or semi-permanent replacement tends to fail. Ben had his shot back in the 90s and because many of the fans and readers (and even some of the creative talent) didn't take too kindly to being told that the Spider-Man they'd been reading or writing for the last twenty years since the end of the original Clone Saga was a "fake" --- a common strain of thought on the subject of clones and cloning, refusing to regard them as legitimate persons and individuals --- so he got killed off rather grotesquely and then turned to dust as "proof" that he wasn't a real person in the first place (speaking from in-universe context). Miles, originally from the Ultimate Universe, 15 years after Ben's death, was resented for a good while by a contingent of fans and readers that didn't take kindly to that world's Peter Parker being killed off, even if he came back a few real-world years later, and Miles's integration in the "main" or primary Marvel Universe has largely been predicated on him as the "junior" or "understudy" to Peter, along with his more unique sociocultural resonance.

Another thing that didn't help Miles much is that, while Ultimate Spidey resurrected, his characterization was bad, even though he was still being written by Bendis, he just showed up, randomly approved of Miles, and fucked off with MJ.

Twice I've told random people who I didn't even know they read Ultimate Spider-Man about Spidey's resurrection and how he left, their reaction was basically "What the fuck", it's just overall baffling, but it's not surprising, it's what Bendis does with his pet characters, and like Miles or not, he definitely was a pet character.

What I'm trying to say is that there is this very strong sense with Marvel that there should be only one Spider-Man and that one Spider-Man should be "Peter Parker," not "Ben Reilly" or "Miles Morales." However, Miles is at least tolerated, if not mostly accepted, as a "secondary" Spider-Man for his sociocultural relevance and the idea that he can freshen the archetype of Spider-Man in ways that a literal clone of Peter, no matter how said clone is tweaked or modified, is perceived as unable to match. Ultimately, there may be potential in exploring Ben as "Peter gone wrong," since a number of Peter's major villains have existed as parallels to Peter, also representing what Peter could have been or become under the wrong circumstances or upbringing, though as Peter's motives for heroism are rooted in his unique complexities as a character, any "gone wrong" version of him should reflect those complexities as well, instead of just being a cackling caricature of a villain.

The closest thing to a villain who can even have a "Peter gone wrong" mentality is Otto, and even then, it's only a superficial similarity, which is "they're both nerds", and have barely anything in common besides that.

Ben could kinda work if they actually put in the effort, but his interaction with Madelyne makes it sound like he's just another villain, and could be replaced by basically anyone, and maybe this will change, comic books don't have such permanent stuff, in Ultimate, it took a while for Maker to get the personality he currently has and there was even an attempt to make him stop being evil, so there is a chance that Chasm can end up becoming a more interesting villain later down the line, but considering how Marvel seems incapable of respecting Ben at all, I doubt this will happen, we might even get a scene where Otto beats him up and says he was a better evil Spider-Man than Ben.

[boots]

Ultimately, there may be potential in exploring Ben as "Peter gone wrong," since a number of Peter's major villains have existed as parallels to Peter, also representing what Peter could have been or become under the wrong circumstances or upbringing, though as Peter's motives for heroism are rooted in his unique complexities as a character, any "gone wrong" version of him should reflect those complexities as well, instead of just being a cackling caricature of a villain.

exactly this.

if they made peter go through a villainous arc, i'm sure they would attempt nuance and complexity in order to sell it to the audience and to respect the history of the character up to that point.

maybe they will with chasm as well? i won't be around to read it but i wish them the best and all that

[Huntsman Spider]

exactly this.

if they made peter go through a villainous arc, i'm sure they would attempt nuance and complexity in order to sell it to the audience and to respect the history of the character up to that point.

maybe they will with chasm as well? i won't be around to read it but i wish them the best and all that

Funny enough, they did have him go through a brief villainous turn in Maximum Clonage, where he partnered with the Jackal after he and Ben were tricked into believing that he was the clone all along in a fit of existential angst and despair, though he quickly saw sense by the end of that debacle. Sadly, I don't have much in the way of hope they'll be applying any of that same nuance and complexity I spoke of before to Ben's transformation into Chasm, however.

[Lukmendes]

Don't know who made this, I found it on 4chan.

N̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶s̶s̶ ̶K̶a̶i̶n̶e̶.̶

[boots]

Funny enough, they did have him go through a brief villainous turn in Maximum Clonage, where he partnered with the Jackal after he and Ben were tricked into believing that he was the clone all along in a fit of existential angst and despair, though he quickly saw sense by the end of that debacle. Sadly, I don't have much in the way of hope they'll be applying any of that same nuance and complexity I spoke of before to Ben's transformation into Chasm, however.

Yeah, I remember that and as you more or less say; Peter didn't put on a green and purple suit and call himself HOLE.

[JustLuke]

Ultimately, there may be potential in exploring Ben as "Peter gone wrong," since a number of Peter's major villains have existed as parallels to Peter, also representing what Peter could have been or become under the wrong circumstances or upbringing, though as Peter's motives for heroism are rooted in his unique complexities as a character, any "gone wrong" version of him should reflect those complexities as well, instead of just being a cackling caricature of a villain.

Ben could kinda work if they actually put in the effort, but his interaction with Madelyne makes it sound like he's just another villain, and could be replaced by basically anyone, and maybe this will change, comic books don't have such permanent stuff, in Ultimate, it took a while for Maker to get the personality he currently has and there was even an attempt to make him stop being evil, so there is a chance that Chasm can end up becoming a more interesting villain later down the line, but considering how Marvel seems incapable of respecting Ben at all, I doubt this will happen, we might even get a scene where Otto beats him up and says he was a better evil Spider-Man than Ben.

exactly this.

if they made peter go through a villainous arc, i'm sure they would attempt nuance and complexity in order to sell it to the audience and to respect the history of the character up to that point.

maybe they will with chasm as well? i won't be around to read it but i wish them the best and all that

I can only speak for myself, really, but I personally find making Ben Reilly a villain to be a fundamentally flawed idea and a complete misunderstanding of what makes the character great and interesting, imo.
The thing about Ben Reilly, at least to me, is that he's already lost everything at the start, he has no job, no friends, no family, no real life, he has essentially nothing. His whole life when you think about it, is one big tragedy. But the thing is, despite that, he didn't let that define him. It didn't consume him. He held his head high, remained positive, and kept doing the right thing in spite of all of that. He could've been a villain right after learning he was a clone, but he chose not to be. It showed that losing everything didn't have to be the end, that you didn't have to grow bitter and resentful, that it didn't have to make you into a villain. Ben Reilly, specifically 90s Ben was a character who wouldn't give in. That's why I just cannot accept what they've done to him despite all the story reasons they try and throw at me. I cannot support Ben just giving up. That's what this Chasm phase is, at the end of the day, it's essentially just Ben giving up. And I hate that, I really do. I hate it and I personally just cannot endorse it. Again, this is just me though.

[Sr. Bungle]

I can only speak for myself, really, but I personally making Ben Reilly a villain to be a fundamentally flawed idea and a complete misunderstanding of what makes the character great and interesting, imo.
The thing about Ben Reilly, at least to me, is that he's already lost everything at the start, he has no job, no friends, no family, no real life, he has essentially nothing. His whole life when you think about it, is one big tragedy. But the thing is, despite that, he didn't let that define him. It didn't consume him. He held his head high, remained positive, and kept doing the right thing in spite of all of that. He could've been a villain right after learning he was a clone, but he chose not to be. It showed that losing everything didn't have to be the end, that you didn't have to grow bitter and resentful, that it didn't have to make you into a villain. Ben Reilly, specifically 90s Ben was a character who wouldn't give in. That's why I just cannot accept what they've done to him despite all the story reasons they try and throw at me. I cannot support Ben just giving up. That's what this Chasm phase is, at the end of the day, it's essentially just Ben giving up. And I hate that, I really do. I hate it and I personally just cannot endorse it. Again, this is just me though.

Even Slott understood that

[boots]

I hate it and I personally just cannot endorse it. Again, this is just me though.

i think the majority (at least on this board) agree, but some of us are trying to be charitable and offer ways they could have done this with an iota more creativity and thought.

[Lukmendes]

I can only speak for myself, really, but I personally making Ben Reilly a villain to be a fundamentally flawed idea and a complete misunderstanding of what makes the character great and interesting, imo.
The thing about Ben Reilly, at least to me, is that he's already lost everything at the start, he has no job, no friends, no family, no real life, he has essentially nothing. His whole life when you think about it, is one big tragedy. But the thing is, despite that, he didn't let that define him. It didn't consume him. He held his head high, remained positive, and kept doing the right thing in spite of all of that. He could've been a villain right after learning he was a clone, but he chose not to be. It showed that losing everything didn't have to be the end, that you didn't have to grow bitter and resentful, that it didn't have to make you into a villain. Ben Reilly, specifically 90s Ben was a character who wouldn't give in. That's why I just cannot accept what they've done to him despite all the story reasons they try and throw at me. I cannot support Ben just giving up. That's what this Chasm phase is, at the end of the day, it's essentially just Ben giving up. And I hate that, I really do. I hate it and I personally just cannot endorse it. Again, this is just me though.

Hey I'm not saying this is a good idea either, current Ben is just being a lil' bitch instead of an actual hero.

The thing is that there are ways a character can have a fall from grace which, even if the idea isn't liked, you may think "I can see this happening", and while losing memories is a big reason to make someone traumatized (Plus whatever other mindfuck Ben is going through right now), the few we've seen of Chasm has him sounding like a generic villain instead of even minimally like Ben, or someone who had a personality.

Like I said, it could change and he'd become a more balanced villain, but most likely it won't, cause for Marvel Ben is the character equivalent of a public toilet.

Even Slott understood that

How? He's the guy who started this trend, the most positive thing Slott did was end Clone Conspiracy in a way that could make him stop being evil.

[Webhead]

The thing about Ben Reilly, at least to me, is that he's already lost everything at the start, he has no job, no friends, no family, no real life, he has essentially nothing. His whole life when you think about it, is one big tragedy. But the thing is, despite that, he didn't let that define him. It didn't consume him. He held his head high, remained positive, and kept doing the right thing in spite of all of that. He could've been a villain right after learning he was a clone, but he chose not to be. It showed that losing everything didn't have to be the end, that you didn't have to grow bitter and resentful, that it didn't have to make you into a villain. Ben Reilly, specifically 90s Ben was a character who wouldn't give in.

Yeah, 90's Ben essentially deconstructs the villain's lab mook/spawn character, in that he was a tragic creature created as a device and a tool to torment the hero, but ultimately outgrew his purpose.
So now his character development has been thrown all the way back to the original Saga. Once again he's just a device and a non-person.

[Malachi]

A very good point as well. Hell, when Logan was dead, they just brought in Old Man Logan to effectively take his place even though his clone-slash-genetically engineered daughter Laura Kinney was there, too, and had taken up the mantle of Wolverine, so what did that really say about Marvel's willingness to commit when they had the opportunity to make genuine good on all their talk? If they had the courage of their convictions on that subject, they would have been overexposing Laura the same way 616 Logan had been instead of confining her to her solo series (and Dennis "Hopeless" Hallum's All-New X-Men run).

Going back on topic, though, Peter is still the Spider-Man in the eyes of Marvel's readers, fans, professional talent, and execs/editorial, so almost any attempt at a permanent or semi-permanent replacement tends to fail. Ben had his shot back in the 90s and because many of the fans and readers (and even some of the creative talent) didn't take too kindly to being told that the Spider-Man they'd been reading or writing for the last twenty years since the end of the original Clone Saga was a "fake" --- a common strain of thought on the subject of clones and cloning, refusing to regard them as legitimate persons and individuals --- so he got killed off rather grotesquely and then turned to dust as "proof" that he wasn't a real person in the first place (speaking from in-universe context). Miles, originally from the Ultimate Universe, 15 years after Ben's death, was resented for a good while by a contingent of fans and readers that didn't take kindly to that world's Peter Parker being killed off, even if he came back a few real-world years later, and Miles's integration in the "main" or primary Marvel Universe has largely been predicated on him as the "junior" or "understudy" to Peter, along with his more unique sociocultural resonance.

What I'm trying to say is that there is this very strong sense with Marvel that there should be only one Spider-Man and that one Spider-Man should be "Peter Parker," not "Ben Reilly" or "Miles Morales." However, Miles is at least tolerated, if not mostly accepted, as a "secondary" Spider-Man for his sociocultural relevance and the idea that he can freshen the archetype of Spider-Man in ways that a literal clone of Peter, no matter how said clone is tweaked or modified, is perceived as unable to match. Ultimately, there may be potential in exploring Ben as "Peter gone wrong," since a number of Peter's major villains have existed as parallels to Peter, also representing what Peter could have been or become under the wrong circumstances or upbringing, though as Peter's motives for heroism are rooted in his unique complexities as a character, any "gone wrong" version of him should reflect those complexities as well, instead of just being a cackling caricature of a villain.

I appreciate you trying to articulate what is Marvels reasoning. We can poke holes in it every day but it’s good to try to see it from their point.

One big problem for me if I see it from that point of view is that I don’t see Ben as Chasm as something fresh. It has been done several times before and he is in just as a crowded scene as Chasm as he was as Scarlet Spider. Witch is ok if marvel is going to use him sporadically but then again if he was SS that would also hold.

[Refrax5]

I can only speak for myself, really, but I personally find making Ben Reilly a villain to be a fundamentally flawed idea and a complete misunderstanding of what makes the character great and interesting, imo.
The thing about Ben Reilly, at least to me, is that he's already lost everything at the start, he has no job, no friends, no family, no real life, he has essentially nothing. His whole life when you think about it, is one big tragedy. But the thing is, despite that, he didn't let that define him. It didn't consume him. He held his head high, remained positive, and kept doing the right thing in spite of all of that. He could've been a villain right after learning he was a clone, but he chose not to be. It showed that losing everything didn't have to be the end, that you didn't have to grow bitter and resentful, that it didn't have to make you into a villain. Ben Reilly, specifically 90s Ben was a character who wouldn't give in. That's why I just cannot accept what they've done to him despite all the story reasons they try and throw at me. I cannot support Ben just giving up. That's what this Chasm phase is, at the end of the day, it's essentially just Ben giving up. And I hate that, I really do. I hate it and I personally just cannot endorse it. Again, this is just me though.

Dude, absolutely. Ben was so inspiring because he was a good man in spite of everything he had suffered. He was basically unbreakable in spirit. Those stories had such a huge impact on me when I was young. I feel bad for kids who grow up with this cynical crap.

[rckstr1253]

Yawn another amazing Spider-Man 1 is coming out. Anyone tired of renumbering? Guess marvel is good at destroying Ben Reilly and giving us a reboot of Peter every couple of years. I know my local comic shop said marvel sales are way down when it comes to Spider-Man after the last few issues of beyond. Hope marvel takes a hint that their ideas are rehashed and boring.