Clone Saga discussion

[Xwho]

I wasn't part of any of the decisions on that, so I don't know.

I assume it may have had something to do with clear reader dissatisfaction with that plan, but I don't know. If the reason for those choices are covered in the LIFE OF REILLY essays:

http://benreillytribute.x10host.com/LifeofReilly1.html

...then maybe it's in there.

But as I mentioned earlier, I've lived on the West Coast since 1990, and I wasn't there to witness any of this, nor was I one of the creators who worked on it.

kdb

I could like it if they had done the best to make it acceptable for people that Ben Reilly was the original.

They could have had the story shorter as it was intended, have Ben take on the Peter Parker name and kept most of the same supporting cast.

To Kurt, What do you think if they had done that?

[Kurt Busiek]

To Kurt, What do you think if they had done that?

I think I answered this earlier, didn't I?

I thought that too many of the creators and editors involved didn't have a problem with telling the readers that the Spider-Man they'd been reading about since issue 150 (or whichever) was a fake, because to them, it was the pre-150 Spider-Man that "mattered." But readers who started reading Marvel comics after 150 were generally unhappy to be told that the adventures they read happened to a guy who wasn't the "real" Peter, and was going to be replaced. It just felt like a big mess to me, and one where there just wasn't a way to make it work.

Even if they'd ended it sooner, I don't think it would have worked.

kdb

[marhawkman]

Actually, the same episode that revealed she was a clone was the one where she died, by literally evaporating while confessing that she loved Peter/Spidey as much as the real MJ did. Even at the age of 11, I could definitely feel Peter's pain there. Still can, to this day.

Technically... We see the tell that she's a clone as the dramatic cliffhanger ending to the previous ep. Pete was fighting someone and MJ suddenly reflexively fires a Hydro-man water cannon at the guy Pete was fighting. BOOM! Roll credits!

Or so I remember it.... or wait... no.. that's actually the pre-opening credits scene. So yeah just ONE ep where we know it's actually MJ the clone.

that was SUCH a dramatic episode! Who wrote the scripts anyways? *looks it up* Mark Hoffmeier? Hmm he wrote 15 eps of that series... nice... Oh wait, he wrote the ep where MJ mysteriously returned... it was Meg McLaughlin(10 eps) and John Semper(59 eps, most of the series) who wrote the ep where she's revealed to be a clone.

[David Walton]

I think Tom DeFalco's original plan for the Clone Saga, or at least the one he says he had in mind, would have worked best: establish Ben as the "original" which gives him preeminence for a few months, then the reversal with Pete's triumphant return and Ben shifting to his own book. But supposedly Tom never shared this with anyone else working on the Saga.

[Huntsman Spider]

Technically... We see the tell that she's a clone as the dramatic cliffhanger ending to the previous ep. Pete was fighting someone and MJ suddenly reflexively fires a Hydro-man water cannon at the guy Pete was fighting. BOOM! Roll credits!

Or so I remember it.... or wait... no.. that's actually the pre-opening credits scene. So yeah just ONE ep where we know it's actually MJ the clone.

that was SUCH a dramatic episode! Who wrote the scripts anyways? *looks it up* Mark Hoffmeier? Hmm he wrote 15 eps of that series... nice... Oh wait, he wrote the ep where MJ mysteriously returned... it was Meg McLaughlin(10 eps) and John Semper(59 eps, most of the series) who wrote the ep where she's revealed to be a clone.

And that someone was Hydro-Man, no less, mysteriously returned from evaporating in his debut episode . . . no, he was a clone, too.

I think Tom DeFalco's original plan for the Clone Saga, or at least the one he says he had in mind, would have worked best: establish Ben as the "original" which gives him preeminence for a few months, then the reversal with Pete's triumphant return and Ben shifting to his own book. But supposedly Tom never shared this with anyone else working on the Saga.

Hmm, that's a shame.

[boots]

I think Tom DeFalco's original plan for the Clone Saga, or at least the one he says he had in mind, would have worked best: establish Ben as the "original" which gives him preeminence for a few months, then the reversal with Pete's triumphant return and Ben shifting to his own book. But supposedly Tom never shared this with anyone else working on the Saga.

pretty much, though i think the bit tom didn't share or wasn't on the same page as the rest of the team was the "back door" aspect.


Tom: Our plan was to structure the clone saga like a three-act play. Act One would climax at or around Amazing #400 - when we revealed that Pete was the clone and Ben was the real guy. Act Two would last around three months and follow Ben's adventures. In Act Three, Peter would triumphantly return as the one, true Spider-Man. Mark and I were hoping the Spider-crew could make Ben a viable character during his turn in the spotlight, and we planned to star Ben in his own monthly title after Peter returned. It was kind of like what I had already done with Thor and Thunderstrike - two very different titles based on a single concept. Of course, our plan went into the trash the day I got fired, and Mark wasn't picked to succeed me.

Andrew: What do you remember the response being like from fans, regarding the clone saga? Did you see a change from when Ben Reilly was reintroduced as the story moved on?

Tom: The fans were intrigued, and they were responding to the story with a passion the Spider-office hadn't seen in my twenty years with the company. I think people didn't like Ben at first, but he slowly began to grow on them. I believe our plan was working - at some point the readers would have wanted Ben to have his own book.

greenberg's thoughts on that:

Tom D.'s mention of Thor and Thunderstrike brings back memories of a major trend (some would call it an epidemic) that was going on at Marvel at that time - namely, taking an established character and creating a "spin-off" version of that character. This spin-off would be very similar to the original character, yet different enough to justify its own existence and, hopefully, its own ongoing title. In addition to Thunderstrike being spun off from Thor, the USAgent was spun off from Captain America, War Machine was spun off from Iron Man, and the Fantastic Force was spun off from the Fantastic Four. So from a business standpoint, it made a certain degree of sense to try to do the same thing with Spider-Man. But creatively? Well, all I'll say is that THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA, IRON MAN, and FANTASTIC FOUR are still being published to this day, and all of the spin-off characters are either dead, in limbo, or limited strictly to infrequent guest appearances. There was a major reader backlash to this practice of "duplicating" existing titles, and it's easy to see why: the original versions - the classic Marvel heroes - could no longer be unique or special with other Marvel characters running around who looked similar to them and had similar powers and abilities. It's safe to say that an ongoing SCARLET SPIDER series would have been met with the same reaction, and would have ultimately suffered the same fate as all the other spin-offs.

tom's response:

As for his belief that a SCARLET SPIDER book would have eventually failed, he is entitled to his opinion. I certainly believe that the powers-that-were at Marvel would have eventually cancelled the book even if it was selling...just like they cancelled THUNDERSTRIKE and WAR MACHINE even though both books were profitable. Since I had access to the actual sales during that period, I can attest to the fact that at the time it was canceled THUNDERSTRIKE was actually selling more copies than both THOR and AVENGERS combined. Why were profitable titles like THUNDERSTRIKE, WAR MACHINE and all the 2099 books cancelled? The answer I was given was that the guy in charge of marketing had decided that these additional titles were hurting the core company franchises. He believed that the sales on THOR would go up as soon as THUNDERSTRIKE was cancelled, and AMAZING SPIDER-MAN would increase with SPIDER-MAN 2099 gone. Nice theory...but I still think it was nonsense.

which...i'm actually surprised thunderstrike hasn't been properly resurrected yet. i know there's been some beyond the grave and zombie-esque shenanigans but nothing stable

[Mister Mets]

pretty much, though i think the bit tom didn't share or wasn't on the same page as the rest of the team was the "back door" aspect.


Tom: Our plan was to structure the clone saga like a three-act play. Act One would climax at or around Amazing #400 - when we revealed that Pete was the clone and Ben was the real guy. Act Two would last around three months and follow Ben's adventures. In Act Three, Peter would triumphantly return as the one, true Spider-Man. Mark and I were hoping the Spider-crew could make Ben a viable character during his turn in the spotlight, and we planned to star Ben in his own monthly title after Peter returned. It was kind of like what I had already done with Thor and Thunderstrike - two very different titles based on a single concept. Of course, our plan went into the trash the day I got fired, and Mark wasn't picked to succeed me.

Andrew: What do you remember the response being like from fans, regarding the clone saga? Did you see a change from when Ben Reilly was reintroduced as the story moved on?

Tom: The fans were intrigued, and they were responding to the story with a passion the Spider-office hadn't seen in my twenty years with the company. I think people didn't like Ben at first, but he slowly began to grow on them. I believe our plan was working - at some point the readers would have wanted Ben to have his own book.

greenberg's thoughts on that:

Tom D.'s mention of Thor and Thunderstrike brings back memories of a major trend (some would call it an epidemic) that was going on at Marvel at that time - namely, taking an established character and creating a "spin-off" version of that character. This spin-off would be very similar to the original character, yet different enough to justify its own existence and, hopefully, its own ongoing title. In addition to Thunderstrike being spun off from Thor, the USAgent was spun off from Captain America, War Machine was spun off from Iron Man, and the Fantastic Force was spun off from the Fantastic Four. So from a business standpoint, it made a certain degree of sense to try to do the same thing with Spider-Man. But creatively? Well, all I'll say is that THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA, IRON MAN, and FANTASTIC FOUR are still being published to this day, and all of the spin-off characters are either dead, in limbo, or limited strictly to infrequent guest appearances. There was a major reader backlash to this practice of "duplicating" existing titles, and it's easy to see why: the original versions - the classic Marvel heroes - could no longer be unique or special with other Marvel characters running around who looked similar to them and had similar powers and abilities. It's safe to say that an ongoing SCARLET SPIDER series would have been met with the same reaction, and would have ultimately suffered the same fate as all the other spin-offs.

tom's response:

As for his belief that a SCARLET SPIDER book would have eventually failed, he is entitled to his opinion. I certainly believe that the powers-that-were at Marvel would have eventually cancelled the book even if it was selling...just like they cancelled THUNDERSTRIKE and WAR MACHINE even though both books were profitable. Since I had access to the actual sales during that period, I can attest to the fact that at the time it was canceled THUNDERSTRIKE was actually selling more copies than both THOR and AVENGERS combined. Why were profitable titles like THUNDERSTRIKE, WAR MACHINE and all the 2099 books cancelled? The answer I was given was that the guy in charge of marketing had decided that these additional titles were hurting the core company franchises. He believed that the sales on THOR would go up as soon as THUNDERSTRIKE was cancelled, and AMAZING SPIDER-MAN would increase with SPIDER-MAN 2099 gone. Nice theory...but I still think it was nonsense.

which...i'm actually surprised thunderstrike hasn't been properly resurrected yet. i know there's been some beyond the grave and zombie-esque shenanigans but nothing stable

I think the DeFalco Thor is overshadowed by other runs.
There's a general impression among comics fans that the great Thor runs were Lee/ Kirby and Simonson. In between is irrelevant. Since Simonson there was a brief run by Warren Ellis and Mike Deodato.

The Heroes Return Jurgen run had a solid reputation, even if Thor disappeared for a while after Disassembled. And then we've had good runs by JMS, Fraction (tying heavily into work by Gillen), Aaron and maybe Cates.

The Defalco run was seen as modern at the time, but now it's seen as more old-fashioned.

[boots]

I think the DeFalco Thor is overshadowed by other runs.
There's a general impression among comics fans that the great Thor runs were Lee/ Kirby and Simonson. In between is irrelevant. Since Simonson there was a brief run by Warren Ellis and Mike Deodato.

The Heroes Return Jurgen run had a solid reputation, even if Thor disappeared for a while after Disassembled. And then we've had good runs by JMS, Fraction (tying heavily into work by Gillen), Aaron and maybe Cates.

The Defalco run was seen as modern at the time, but now it's seen as more old-fashioned.

i barely read any of defalco's run, and personally i don't have any measure of its quality/status so i'm happy to take this at face value (though his big moment in the infinity gauntlet will always stay with me, which i think was more poignant for eric masterson's involvement).

i was more generally surprised by the revolving door of death at marvel and dc having not had thunderstrike stroll through yet. maybe it's not as rampant as some think.

[ZeroBG82]

I think Tom DeFalco's original plan for the Clone Saga, or at least the one he says he had in mind, would have worked best: establish Ben as the "original" which gives him preeminence for a few months, then the reversal with Pete's triumphant return and Ben shifting to his own book. But supposedly Tom never shared this with anyone else working on the Saga.

I don't disagree with DeFalco that a cleaner story would have been better.

But I disagree with the notion that Ben should ever have been revealed as the "original" Peter Parker. As a HUGE Ben Reilly fan, this is my biggest issue with the Clone Saga as a concept (as opposed to the execution, which turned into a whole different issue) and the hill I will die on. The genetic tests performed on Peter and Ben should have revealed that there was absolutely no way to tell which was the original and which was the clone. That they, and the audience would never, can never, know. This makes the distinction ultimately moot and emphasizes that it ultimately doesn't really matter. Ben is Ben and Peter is Peter. You don't have to lose the drama, because the two characters can argue until they are blue in the face about which is which and whether it even matters, while also maintaining the threat that each serves to the other's frame of reference about themselves.

Though I recognize that my opinion is born almost entirely from hindsight and the creative process and goals of the story kind of required the reveal, I still hate it.

[Frontier]

I don't disagree with DeFalco that a cleaner story would have been better.

But I disagree with the notion that Ben should ever have been revealed as the "original" Peter Parker. As a HUGE Ben Reilly fan, this is my biggest issue with the Clone Saga as a concept (as opposed to the execution, which turned into a whole different issue) and the hill I will die on. The genetic tests performed on Peter and Ben should have revealed that there was absolutely no way to tell which was the original and which was the clone. That they, and the audience would never, can never, know. This makes the distinction ultimately moot and emphasizes that it ultimately doesn't really matter. Ben is Ben and Peter is Peter. You don't have to lose the drama, because the two characters can argue until they are blue in the face about which is which and whether it even matters, while also maintaining the threat that each serves to the other's frame of reference about themselves.

Though I recognize that my opinion is born almost entirely from hindsight and the creative process and goals of the story kind of required the reveal, I still hate it.

I understand the appeal from a conceptual standpoint but I don't think the fandom as a whole could've rest without a more definitive answer. Which admittedly caused it's own share of headaches.

[boots]

I understand the appeal from a conceptual standpoint but I don't think the fandom as a whole could've rest without a more definitive answer. Which admittedly caused it's own share of headaches.

it worked for about 20 years after the 70s "clone saga"

it would have to be deftly handled in the 90s but they could have written enough plausible deniability for peter and readers to decide he's the original without removing all doubt

it would probably also have to be done within the 3 act structure defalco prescribed. by the time the 90s version ballooned into what many found a confusing mess, it did need a concrete conclusion

on the whole though, i think audiences are more open to ambiguity than it may appear

[David Walton]

it worked for about 20 years after the 70s "clone saga"

it would have to be deftly handled in the 90s but they could have written enough plausible deniability for peter and readers to decide he's the original without removing all doubt

it would probably also have to be done within the 3 act structure defalco prescribed. by the time the 90s version ballooned into what many found a confusing mess, it did need a concrete conclusion

on the whole though, i think audiences are more open to ambiguity than it may appear

I get what you're saying but I don't think fans would have been satisfied with not definitively knowing whether Peter or Ben was the original. And someone would have picked up the storyline and resolved it even if the original creative team didn't.

[Blanks]

Personal story from this fan, I boycotted Spider-Man entirely after they killed off Ben. Entirely. The next time I would bother to pick up a Spider-Man comic was the launch of Ultimate Spider-Man, and sone key issues of Amazing and the sister books during Civil War. I only started regularly buying Spider-Man after OMD, and didn’t fully buy until Slott became the main writer.

I’m only buying Amazing now to see what they do with Ben and this whole Chasm mess… and if they ruin him further, I’m fine with Spider-Man again (aside from Miles book) forever.

Ironically enough, the only versions of Peter Parker I ever really enjoyed was the 90’s cartoon Peter, Slott’s Peter, Andrew Garfield Peter, and Peter B. Parker from Spider-verse…. But Ben? Give me Ben Reilly any day.

[Toxin45]

Personal story from this fan, I boycotted Spider-Man entirely after they killed off Ben. Entirely. The next time I would bother to pick up a Spider-Man comic was the launch of Ultimate Spider-Man, and sone key issues of Amazing and the sister books during Civil War. I only started regularly buying Spider-Man after OMD, and didn’t fully buy until Slott became the main writer.

I’m only buying Amazing now to see what they do with Ben and this whole Chasm mess… and if they ruin him further, I’m fine with Spider-Man again (aside from Miles book) forever.

Ironically enough, the only versions of Peter Parker I ever really enjoyed was the 90’s cartoon Peter, Slott’s Peter, Andrew Garfield Peter, and Peter B. Parker from Spider-verse…. But Ben? Give me Ben Reilly any day.

Well looks like hallow’ eve might be Ben’s girlfriend Janine so chasm is gonna be here a long while and will never be spider-man or scarlet spider for a long time

[Huntsman Spider]

Personal story from this fan, I boycotted Spider-Man entirely after they killed off Ben. Entirely. The next time I would bother to pick up a Spider-Man comic was the launch of Ultimate Spider-Man, and sone key issues of Amazing and the sister books during Civil War. I only started regularly buying Spider-Man after OMD, and didn’t fully buy until Slott became the main writer.

I’m only buying Amazing now to see what they do with Ben and this whole Chasm mess… and if they ruin him further, I’m fine with Spider-Man again (aside from Miles book) forever.

Ironically enough, the only versions of Peter Parker I ever really enjoyed was the 90’s cartoon Peter, Slott’s Peter, Andrew Garfield Peter, and Peter B. Parker from Spider-verse…. But Ben? Give me Ben Reilly any day.

Speaking of the 90s animated series, what did you think of how the Spider Wars arc that concluded it handled its version of the Clone Saga and Ben Reilly's character overall?