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.

[Tuck]

People weren't upset so much that Ben was replacing Peter as they were that the Spider-Man they'd been reading about for 20 years wasn't the "real" Spider-Man,

[Ubauba01]

People weren't upset so much that Ben was replacing Peter as they were that the Spider-Man they'd been reading about for 20 years wasn't the "real" Spider-Man,

You're right, I could have worded it better.

[Jman27]

People weren't upset so much that Ben was replacing Peter as they were that the Spider-Man they'd been reading about for 20 years wasn't the "real" Spider-Man,

pretty much this. Like if they never did that plot point and let Peter retire happily they would have been fine