Originally Posted by
boots
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