Ben Reilly: Spider-Man/Scarlet Spider Appreciation 2022

[boots]

Like I said, Ben being crazy or villainous was all done by outside forces so he's largely blameless and doesn't even need a redemption arc. All they have to do is restore his mind and he's back to his old self without invalidating anything or coming up with some absurd, overly complicated retcon.

which is why that's terrible on its own merit. it removes all agency from the character, similar to hal and the yellow parawhatsismonster thing.

and for a character based on the concept of responsibility...handwaving it as outside forces is even worse.

Some retcons are necessary and make sense. Even the Peter thing made sense. This wouldn't. It's bad writing on every level.

sure, it's been bad writing the whole way through. you believe it can be redeemed, i think it's fine to sidestep it.

And these stories couldn't possibly have happened with Ben the way they did if he was Spidercide.

you keep saying that, but it wouldn't even be that hard to write. and my point about retcons is that it wouldn't be any harder to swallow than all the rest.

the high revolutionary retcon was used as an excuse by ben "haters" back in the day to say ben couldn't "possibly have happened"

superhero continuity matters as little or as much as we allow it to.

It would diminish Ben as a character more than anything else. That's the problem.

i could see an argument for it diminishing ben reilly as a "brand" further. as for the character? if he's not involved, he's not diminished.

It would remove most of Ben's time as Spider-Man to retcon stories that don't really need it. You can easily fix Ben without rewriting over half of his stories.

dude. i think at least one other person aside from me has pointed out it doesn't need to happen in the midst of JMD's mini, which seems to be a big part of your problem with it.

for what it's worth, i wouldn't like one that made half of ben's 90s stories not ben either, but the ones from clone conspiracy onwards? be my guest.

And yes. Wally accidentally killed a bunch of people, desecrated their corpses to stage a crime scene, framed two innocent people and then attempted suicide. It was very stupid and was quickly revealed to be the machinations of Savitar and Zoom messing with his powers and mind. They didn't suddenly say the Wally of the past 30 years was Chillblaine in disguise and the real Wally hasn't been seen since early in the Waid run.

sidestepping responsibility by blaming "machinations" instead of doing it through a retcon is better?

"i'm not responsible for their murder 'cos i was mindcontrolled"
"i'm not responsible for their murder 'cos it was an imposter"

they're the same picture.

[Refrax5]

which is why that's terrible on its own merit. it removes all agency from the character, similar to hal and the yellow parawhatsismonster thing.

and for a character based on the concept of responsibility...handwaving it as outside forces is even worse.

It would be incredibly hard to write because it would require gymnastics and convoluted storytelling that's ridiculous even by comic standards. The character has already been so firmly and definitively been established as being Ben by a literal cosmic entity and everything that followed proved it right that trying to write around it is beyond stupid. It can't work in any way that actually makes sense. Your whole argument seems to be that there's been some bad writing with the character, that even worse writing is not just acceptable, but preferable.



sure, it's been bad writing the whole way through. you believe it can be redeemed, i think it's fine to sidestep it.

You're also sidestepping a ton of the original Clone Saga that made people like Ben in the first place to do it. Which is unnecessary and entirely defeats the purpose.

you keep saying that, but it wouldn't even be that hard to write. and my point about retcons is that it wouldn't be any harder to swallow than all the rest.

the high revolutionary retcon was used as an excuse by ben "haters" back in the day to say ben couldn't "possibly have happened"

Yes, but this makes even less sense. Again, this idea you have that, "This was bad writing so let's just add more and more bad writing to fix it" seems really reductive.

superhero continuity matters as little or as much as we allow it to.

If a character is like Ben and they only exist in a relatively small amount of stories, negating those stories largely negates the reason the people care about the character at all.

i could see an argument for it diminishing ben reilly as a "brand" further. as for the character? if he's not involved, he's not diminished.

If you take away the bulk of his tenure as Spider-Man, his bond with Peter, his heroic sacrifice, etc...youre taking a huge part of his story and character development away. It absolutely diminishes him and his accomplishments.

dude. i think at least one other person aside from me has pointed out it doesn't need to happen in the midst of JMD's mini, which seems to be a big part of your problem with it.

That's been the basis of this theory. But the bulk of the problem is that it's covering controversial but at least logically consistent writing with absolutely terrible, stupid writing that makes no sense and accomplishes nothing. I also have a problem being told stories I spent time and money in were about a joke character that I don't even like. It's not just stupid, it's basically theft.

for what it's worth, i wouldn't like one that made half of ben's 90s stories not ben either, but the ones from clone conspiracy onwards? be my guest.

Even the ones where he's a hero, which is a sizable chunk of it? If continuity doesn't matter to you, why are you so hellbent on deleting stuff that you personally don't like and making an already questionable story even more convoluted and stupid?

sidestepping responsibility by blaming "machinations" instead of doing it through a retcon is better?

"i'm not responsible for their murder 'cos i was mindcontrolled"
"i'm not responsible for their murder 'cos it was an imposter"

they're the same picture.

Stale meme reference aside, in some cases, its necessary because it's the only way to plausibly have the character behave the way they are. He wasn't mind-controlled, either. Something tragic happened to him that made him a villain which is actually the case with a ton of Spider-Man villains. Making it an imposter is an even cheaper sidestep. He owns at least some of his bad behavior this way, but there's some room for redemption because he wasn't in his right mind. Ben dealing with the guilt and ramifications of it would be interesting because he would take responsibility for the whole thing, regardless of how much of it was truly his fault. This gives the character more depth and obstacles to overcome. As a person that has struggled with their own issues of guilt and regret, I would personally find that more meaningful than Ben showing up unchanged and saying it was his evil twin.

Again, you seem to equate all retcons or bad writing as equal. It really isn't. Ben's story is enough of a rollercoaster without adding more retcons and bad writing to it. It creates more problems than it solves by far.

The character could literally be fixed in an issue by just giving Ben his mind back. It's the simplest, least problematic solution. There is no logical reason to cling to this Spidercide idea besides stubbornness and a desire to erase stories you personally don't like. And yes, it would be way more difficult to swallow than the rest because of how absurdly convoluted and confusing it would have to be to even explain all the logical inconsistencies in the story that would exist by it being an entirely different person the entire time. It's a very, very dumb idea. It makes Peter David's Scarlet Spider series look like Ulysses in comparison.

[boots]

He did (Heroes In Crisis) but they retconned all that too and took the blame entirely off him, and now he's the current Flash and happily married.

classic superhero comic move

[boots]

Stale meme reference aside,

ha, mate.

is that how we're trying to score points now? ok.

in some cases, its necessary because it's the only way to plausibly have the character behave the way they are. He wasn't mind-controlled, either. Something tragic happened to him that made him a villain which is actually the case with a ton of Spider-Man villains. Making it an imposter is an even cheaper sidestep. He owns at least some of his bad behavior this way, but there's some room for redemption because he wasn't in his right mind. Ben dealing with the guilt and ramifications of it would be interesting because he would take responsibility for the whole thing, regardless of how much of it was truly his fault. This gives the character more depth and obstacles to overcome. As a person that has struggled with their own issues of guilt and regret, I would personally find that more meaningful than Ben showing up unchanged and saying it was his evil twin.

there's no obstacles to overcome when you have no agency or responsibility. trying to squeeze out 1/10 more agency and 1/20 more responsibility is really just splitting the thematic hair.

they're both generally terrible approaches to writing yet they're both features of superhero stories.

you can prefer one over the other, but they're both "dumb" in their own special ways. they're both narrative cop outs.

it's just...choose your favourite cop out flavour.

if we were to walk into a writer's room tomorrow to say:

i have this idea that a character who got turned to dust was brought back 27 times which sent him a bit evil so he tried to clone and kill everyone but failed after which he moved to vegas where he mucks around with the devil and the grim reaper realising he'd been pushed into being psychotic...but...get this...he loves it.

after that, he's back to being a hero so everything is ok...

but then he has his memories removed and goes back to being a villain.

but. this is all leading him to obstacles to overcome. it's meaningful.

we'd get chased out of the building

but that's just another day the office at marvel. which is kinda beautiful.

i get you hate the retcon idea, that's fine. i don't love it on any other level than the karmic irony but i'm not convinced the alternate solution of doubling down is any cleaner or more logical.

i think we've both made our stances clear, and we're now just doubling down ourselves

i'll just summarise that in order to accept ben in the first place, we had to accept a similar amount of logical inconsistencies and retcons. if that had been a deal breaker, ben would have remained in the 70s.

[Matt Rat]

dude. i think at least one other person aside from me has pointed out it doesn't need to happen in the midst of JMD's min

Case in point, the gap between Revelation Parts Three and Four, with Ben's capture and Osborn's reveal to Peter. The 'beaten' Ben he produces and gets sacrificed is the clone of a clone, and the real Ben's been sent to Europe.

[boots]

Case in point, the gap between Revelation Parts Three and Four, with Ben's capture and Osborn's reveal to Peter. The 'beaten' Ben he produces and gets sacrificed is the clone of a clone, and the real Ben's been sent to Europe.

yeah that was the common fanon window after revelations came out. it was also meant to explain why ben went all dusty

[Sr. Bungle]

Case in point, the gap between Revelation Parts Three and Four, with Ben's capture and Osborn's reveal to Peter. The 'beaten' Ben he produces and gets sacrificed is the clone of a clone, and the real Ben's been sent to Europe.

That's exactly the moment it should have happened.
Then again, I'm not holding my breath with this editorial team

[Sr. Bungle]

yeah that was the common fanon window after revelations came out. it was also meant to explain why ben went all dusty

It also could explain the mental issues

[Pav]

Case in point, the gap between Revelation Parts Three and Four, with Ben's capture and Osborn's reveal to Peter. The 'beaten' Ben he produces and gets sacrificed is the clone of a clone, and the real Ben's been sent to Europe.

yeah that was the common fanon window after revelations came out. it was also meant to explain why ben went all dusty

That's exactly the moment it should have happened.
Then again, I'm not holding my breath with this editorial team

That retcon option still remains. Maybe someday Peter will find "the real Ben" has been comatose all along.

It's actually kind of a nice security blanket.

-Pav, who still knows Jackal clones don't degenerate because they die; they die because they degenerate...

[Sr. Bungle]

Is Ben the Solid Snake of Spider-Man?

Darthfury tier question, I know

[Refrax5]

ha, mate.

is that how we're trying to score points now? ok.



there's no obstacles to overcome when you have no agency or responsibility. trying to squeeze out 1/10 more agency and 1/20 more responsibility is really just splitting the thematic hair.

they're both generally terrible approaches to writing yet they're both features of superhero stories.

you can prefer one over the other, but they're both "dumb" in their own special ways. they're both narrative cop outs.

it's just...choose your favourite cop out flavour.

if we were to walk into a writer's room tomorrow to say:

i have this idea that a character who got turned to dust was brought back 27 times which sent him a bit evil so he tried to clone and kill everyone but failed after which he moved to vegas where he mucks around with the devil and the grim reaper realising he'd been pushed into being psychotic...but...get this...he loves it.

after that, he's back to being a hero so everything is ok...

but then he has his memories removed and goes back to being a villain.

but. this is all leading him to obstacles to overcome. it's meaningful.

we'd get chased out of the building

but that's just another day the office at marvel. which is kinda beautiful.

i get you hate the retcon idea, that's fine. i don't love it on any other level than the karmic irony but i'm not convinced the alternate solution of doubling down is any cleaner or more logical.

i think we've both made our stances clear, and we're now just doubling down ourselves

i'll just summarise that in order to accept ben in the first place, we had to accept a similar amount of logical inconsistencies and retcons. if that had been a deal breaker, ben would have remained in the 70s.

Well, no, because Ben would still feel responsible, regardless of if it was his fault or not. It's not all that different from Bucky as Winter Soldier. It wasn't really his fault per se, but the trauma and guilt is very real to him.

And yeah, you definitely think all bad writing and retcons are equal, so why not just shovel more convoluted garbage onto it and effectively rip off the people that have been following the character for the past few years.

I get the impression you haven't actually read a lot of these stories or you would understand why it being someone other than Ben couldn't possibly make sense. But whatever, by your own admission you don't care about the character anymore, so why not ruin him further?

And, yes, it being his evil twin despite all the story reasons that it's impossible is a monumentally stupid idea. It's vastly worse than anything from the original Clone Saga. Again, your basic logic is, "One thing was handled badly, so why not just wrote something even worse because comics."

And again, everything you're suggesting is utterly pointless. You can fix it simply and just move on with logical writing. Your idea is more to just blow everything up with even more stupid writing and further retcons because you personally don't like about two years worth of stories you don't even seem to have read.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

https://monkeysfightingrobots.co/mar...-spider-man-4/

Issue 4 preview

I want to thank Jon DeMatteis for existing and giving us the best Ben we've seen since Ben Reilly Scarlet Spider #7, but I really can't deal with how he's writing Spidercide. I could take the big reveal in stride, and him changing how he behaves a little, sure, but "it's time for truth! For honesty! For Spidercide!" just reads like Micheline in a bad day writing Venom while he rescues a puppy.

The story's still nice and Ben's overall voice is near perfect, but, yeah.

[Reilly]

Can't express how much I love J. M. DeMatteis. Wish he was the main writer of Beyond or anything related to present Ben. Also, I love the art.

[Huntsman Spider]

Case in point, the gap between Revelation Parts Three and Four, with Ben's capture and Osborn's reveal to Peter. The 'beaten' Ben he produces and gets sacrificed is the clone of a clone, and the real Ben's been sent to Europe.

Sent to Europe with Peter and Mary Jane's baby daughter May, whose death by stillbirth was also faked just so Osborn could f*** with Peter even more. "You have no idea what I've taken from you!" Cue deranged cackling.

[boots]

Well, no, because Ben would still feel responsible, regardless of if it was his fault or not. It's not all that different from Bucky as Winter Soldier. It wasn't really his fault per se, but the trauma and guilt is very real to him.

And yeah, you definitely think all bad writing and retcons are equal, so why not just shovel more convoluted garbage onto it and effectively rip off the people that have been following the character for the past few years.

I get the impression you haven't actually read a lot of these stories or you would understand why it being someone other than Ben couldn't possibly make sense. But whatever, by your own admission you don't care about the character anymore, so why not ruin him further?

And, yes, it being his evil twin despite all the story reasons that it's impossible is a monumentally stupid idea. It's vastly worse than anything from the original Clone Saga. Again, your basic logic is, "One thing was handled badly, so why not just wrote something even worse because comics."

And again, everything you're suggesting is utterly pointless. You can fix it simply and just move on with logical writing. Your idea is more to just blow everything up with even more stupid writing and further retcons because you personally don't like about two years worth of stories you don't even seem to have read.

way too much straw manning, putting words in mouth and assumptions for me to continue

you also seem to be under the impression that this is "my idea" and getting mad about things that you're making up

anyway, enjoyed our chat