Amazing Spider-Man #24 preview

[JoeWithoutFear]

Has anyone apologized to then Marvel Editor-In-Chief, Bob Harras, for ordering Ben Reilly's death during the Clone Saga yet? Because if this issue is any indication of the "Ben Reilly" we'll be getting from now on, then he was better off being "a pile of goo."

Stillanerd Reviews: Amazing Spider-Man (2015) #24

Hey did you write that article!? It's really good!!

[WebLurker]

Hey did you write that article!? It's really good!!

Yeah, I'll second that.

[John Ossie]

Interesting article as usual Stillanerd.

[stillanerd]

Hey did you write that article!? It's really good!!

Indeed I did, my good sir! And thank you for the compliments.

Yeah, I'll second that.

Interesting article as usual Stillanerd.

Thanks

[TheCape]

Has anyone apologized to then Marvel Editor-In-Chief, Bob Harras, for ordering Ben Reilly's death during the Clone Saga yet? Because if this issue is any indication of the "Ben Reilly" we'll be getting from now on, then he was better off being "a pile of goo."

Stillanerd Reviews: Amazing Spider-Man (2015) #24

Give this man a virtual cookie. you deserved it sir. Also love your blog, if always fun to read your articles.

[Orbus]

Why does Spidey carry the deaths of Mirage and Stilt Man on his conscious??? Mirage was killed twice, once by Scourge in Captain America and then later by Boomerang in Superior Foes (in both stories Spidey didn't even appear.) and Stilt Man was killed by the Punisher in the opening pages of War Journal volume 2 issue 1. Again, Spidey wasn't involved in anyway. Hell, Jack O'Lantern (Macendale) was murdered in prison by Roderick Kingsley, which again, is not Spidey's fault.

I think Slott was just resurrecting any character tangentially related to Spider-Man.

Well...yes. That's the real world reason but the in story reason is still that to some degree Peter does carry a sense of responsibility over deaths of his enemies regardless of whether he was involved or not. Peter has been characterized as being proprietary over his villains and I can see him feeling a sense of responsibility for what they do and what happens to them. As in I can see him thinking "if only I had tried harder x would be in jail and not killed by y".

Remember the 90s kicked off with an examination of whether Spider-Man was really the problem, that if not for him would they continue to fight? It quickly went on to suggesting that Peter was wrong to accept a pact with Venom which in a sense is accurate. After all you could argue every time that he has let the likes of Venom and the Punisher go free he's responsible for their killings.

Yeah, but not trying to murder people in the beginning doesn't mean Ben isn't evil, it means people are easily manipulated. Ben was going to take over the world. That was literally his endgame. To replace EVERYONE with clones who would need his drugs to stay alive. Sure, it means you never "die" in the sense that you stay dead, though as Ben himself noted, your body would still physically die and you'd still both experience all the pain and agony that came with that, and remember it. Like all megalomaniacs, he's convinced himself he's doing the world a favor. "Curing death." But really he just wants power and will do anything to get it.

He was content to play the peacemaker when people went for it willingly. But at quite literally the first moment in the story when that is no longer possible, he turns to genocide. Remember, once he's cloned you, you need his drugs to live, and would be under his absolute control. It's a classic story. As long as you think people will do what you want, you love them. As soon as it's clear they won't, kill them all. Dude is evil with a capital E. Hell, in all caps: EVIL. Alternatively, he's completely insane. Functionally the same thing when killing billions of people is your entire plan.

Keep in mind, he's already engaged in massive amounts of corruption, buying his way to power with the Jackal's New U tech. Which, not coincidentally, he has also stolen from the man he is coercing into slave labor. As Netflix's Daredevil pointed out "Another man's evil doesn't make you good." Just because the Jackal is a monster, it doesn't excuse what Ben has done. "Ben Reilly" is a genocidal maniac. If they're seriously going to attempt to redeem this character, they have their work cut out for them. Obviously pending anything that may or not be revealed about his mindset in Omega.

I'm not sure I look at things quite the same way. Sure, Ben has done some morally questionable things such as cloning Warren and not informing them who is the real one, using tech which isn't his etc but I see no evidence that he was planning to take over the world. The pills where the best solution to the degeneration problem, he wasn't characterized as doing this for him own personal financial or power gain but rather he wanted help people in his own way. Not entirely altruistic as he required compensation or favours so he could continue to do so but I see no evidence he was going to hold the pills over people. The fact that he was working on a clone body that would not degenerate at all would suggest that would be replacement for people he needed the pills.

But for the sake of argument let's say your interpretation is correct. Peter Parker did something very similar in the 90s saga in the crappy (even for those of us who liked the clone saga) Maximum Clonage. Peter joined forces with the Jackal to replace the entire population with clones, he even walked away as Spidercide and an army of Spider clones tried to kill Ben, no argued Peter Parker was irredeemable or future writers had their work cut out for them to portray him as a hero again. It was also Ben that fought to bring Peter back from the edge so if it was Slott's intention to have Ben slide into world conquering mode I'd have to agree with a comment earlier in the thread that Peter let his brother down by not extending the same courtesy. I understand why Peter may not fight to bring Ben back from the edge since in the end people started dying as a result of Ben's actions but the distinction between that and people going to die due to Peter's actions is pretty thin. Also worthy of note is that Peter had not gone through half as much traumatizing crap that Ben had in this story.

Great post ZeroBG82!

I had to look again....I was unsure about Ben's madness/evil...until the point after Ock (for it was he, with his nuttiness) flicked the switch to set the carrion virus to work and degenerate Ben's clones...but then Ben goes and extends this to beyond the clones and facilitates the signal worldwide via television and other means of broadcast.....that is homicidally, maniacally, psychopathically evil...

So I agree that we now have a massively altered character..Dan Slott has gone overboard and ramped up madness in the character and Ben is now far from that which fans of him know and love...a hero is now a villain...

Maybe I'll have to read again too but I don't recall that happening. The TV broadcast was promote New U. The signal being broadcast via the television was not Ben's intention.

[ZeroBG82]

I'm not sure I look at things quite the same way. Sure, Ben has done some morally questionable things such as cloning Warren and not informing them who is the real one, using tech which isn't his etc but I see no evidence that he was planning to take over the world. The pills where the best solution to the degeneration problem, he wasn't characterized as doing this for him own personal financial or power gain but rather he wanted help people in his own way. Not entirely altruistic as he required compensation or favours so he could continue to do so but I see no evidence he was going to hold the pills over people. The fact that he was working on a clone body that would not degenerate at all would suggest that would be replacement for people he needed the pills.

Yes, and Hitler made the trains run on time and Made Germany Great Again(TM). There's what a person says, and there's what a person DOES. You take the pills at face value. I don't. Yes, they're the best solution to degeneration. But they have only one source, and that is Ben himself Yes, he was apparently working to perfect a non-degenerating clone. But he HAD NOT SUCCEEDED YET. Ergo, every New U clone would, by definition, need his pills to live. The pills they could only get FROM HIM, AT HIS WHIM. Ben may not have even realized that his endgame is taking over the world. He's so completely unhinged that maybe it never dawns on him. Or maybe, as is so often the case, we're all the hero in our own story. But that is EXACTLY what he was trying to do. To make everything controllable, to never be in a position again where someone can do to him what Warren did. To always have the power and the upper hand.

Now, I'd maybe buy into the twistedly altruistic argument if Ben had recruited Peter to help him solve the degeneration so that they could save everybody. If he knew he had this process, but that it didn't work, and we can't use it until it's perfect. But he told everybody IT WAS ALREADY PERFECT. He lied. He manipulated. He was ALREADY USING IT to cheat his way to power and influence. This is why Slott failed so hard with this story. This Ben, as portrayed here, is not only irredeemable, he's so crazy that the thought of redemption should never even cross his mind.

Hence why I feel like PAD will likely approach the character in a little bit different way. Slott hasn't given him any depth to work with. Hasn't given him anything to build a narrative on but genocidal mania and hate. Even this story between him and the Warren Jackal is a story of hate. Of the hate that drives this Ben now, and moving forward. And I simply don't believe that's sustainable in an ongoing series, unless that series is about a villain. Layers and depth could redefine this version of the character into something more gray, more ambiguous. But that isn't what we've been presented with yet.

[Prof. Warren]

Hey did you write that article!? It's really good!!

Stillanerd Reviews: Amazing Spider-Man (2015) #24

It's actually terrible.

When the opening line is “Ben Reilly shouldn’t have come back”, you know it’s going to be an article full of short-sighted, poorly supported assertions. And sure enough, that’s what it is.

Based on a kneejerk reaction to one storyline, a character shouldn’t have come back – a suggestion that preemptively assumes that no one is ever going to do anything interesting with this character in the future. One of the all time great comic book writers is about to start a new solo title with Ben. One would rightly expect that PAD might have a few tricks up his sleeve in regard to Ben.

As for ASM #24 failing “miserably” in setting up Ben’s new book, how so? Just saying something “failed miserably” without anything to back that opinion up, it’s just an empty statement. Given that ASM #24 showed Ben not only liberating himself from his longtime tormentor and also freeing himself from living in Peter Parker’s memories, as a ghost in another man’s skin, I’d say it set up Ben’s new status quo quite nicely. You can debate Ben’s actions in CC but reckoning with his actions there will be fodder for PAD’s book. How interesting would it be if Ben simply returned as a straight-up good guy? Not very. Giving him a road to redemption is richer territory to mine and makes him less of a Peter clone and more his own man.

The other “complaints” in this article are basically the result of not waiting until the story is done before rushing to bitch about it. You commend the fact that we see more of the scope of the impact of Peter’s method of broadcasting the signal to halt the effects of the Carrion virus here but say that, well, it should’ve been shown in CC #5. Why? This is part of the story as well. When all this is read in collected form, will it matter if it was shown in CC#5 or ASM #24? No, of course not. Just as it didn’t matter that it happened in the issue that was released the week after CC#5.

Similarly, you admit that seeing what actually became of Ock in ASM #24, clears things up. Or, as you put it: “…Which no longer makes Doc Ock’s return seem a total waste of time like Clone Conspiracy #5 suggested” But did CC#5 actually make it seem like Ock’s return was a “waste of time” or was that just the hasty assumption of a reader eager to make a complaint? I’d say the latter is true in this case.

Would anyone with any experience reading comics ever actually think that the last we’d see of Ock was as a pile of dust in a lab? No, of course not.
And then there’s this odd assertion, trying to hang a fault on CC while simultaneously misreading it: “See, the biggest problem with The Clone Conspiracy, and with this comic specifically, is it assumes readers will see “Ben Reilly” as someone inherently good no matter what his actions “just because.”

Are we supposed to assume that we’re meant to see Ben as inherently good, no matter what his actions? No, not at all. He’s more complex than that and the story doesn’t depend on our feelings toward Ben in regards to whether he’s “good” or not. In fact, it depends on him being portrayed as morally flawed. If you’re saying that Ben, given his actions in this series, also deserved to have a burning house fall on him, that’s a curiously vehement response to a character who committed no egregious crimes in the course of this story. His judgment was suspect and his actions were perhaps “overzealous” but if you had to describe what he actually did in this story – would a fiery death be the actual punishment he deserved or is this again just the kneejerk negativity of the reviewer talking? You’d have a hard time putting Ben in jail if he ever stood trial for what he did in CC (he brought people back from the dead, healed their injuries, and usually was working to grant the wishes of grieving loved ones), never mind giving him punishment by death.

And with this passage:

“Besides, what purpose does it serve to have another supposed antihero with spider-powers? There’s already Kaine, who himself is Peter Parker’s clone with a darker edge, and whose legitimately more sympathetic. If the “proto-clone” is genetically identical to Peter, too, then Doc Ock already reclaims the mantle of a “Spider-Man” who’s actions are morally questionable. One can even argue that Venom satisfies this, also. So not only do we have a character whose transformation from hero to villain poorly executed, there’s no legitimate reason for him even still being around other than Marvel wanting another Spider-Man spin-off comic.”
…We just see another example of short-sightedness. “Why have this character?” “What purpose does he serve?”

Well, wouldn’t the character’s upcoming solo supply an answer to that? Not knowing the content, not knowing what direction the book will take, and just assuming ahead of time that there’s no reason for it to exist is the difference between a blogger and a comic book writer.

I could go through all the other daft nitpicks in this piece and explain those away too but, jeez, who has the time?

[SplinteringHeart]

Maybe I'll have to read again too but I don't recall that happening. The TV broadcast was promote New U. The signal being broadcast via the television was not Ben's intention.

Yes have a look at the end of CC #4..note "Jackal Emergency Broadcast System..", and the beginning of CC #5....

Jon

[WebLurker]

I could go through all the other daft nitpicks in this piece and explain those away too but, jeez, who has the time?

Not everyone shares your optimistic view of the story, huh?

[Vegeta]

Has anyone apologized to then Marvel Editor-In-Chief, Bob Harras, for ordering Ben Reilly's death during the Clone Saga yet? Because if this issue is any indication of the "Ben Reilly" we'll be getting from now on, then he was better off being "a pile of goo."

Stillanerd Reviews: Amazing Spider-Man (2015) #24

Very on point, great job on the review.

[theoneandonly]

well everyone will have different parameters for judging a story and will reflect in some measure his bias no matter how hard he tries as reviewer to be impartial so it is up to the reader to judge whether a review is strictly passing the test of objectivity or not and in this case a little bias may be reflected but it does not make the review terrible in my opinion as it has put forth some well articulated points along with some which may not be so discerning but on the whole it is well worth a read whether you agree with it or not.

[Prof. Warren]

Not everyone shares your optimistic view of the story, huh?

Not "optimistic" so much as even handed.

I didn't think CC was without flaws but there's a difference between genuine critical thinking and aggressive nitpicking.

[WebLurker]

Not "optimistic" so much as even handed.

I didn't think CC was without flaws but there's a difference between genuine critical thinking and aggressive nitpicking.

In subjectivity, people can be even-handed and still come up with different conclusions.

[Prof. Warren]

In subjectivity, people can be even-handed and still come up with different conclusions.

And some people exercise no subjectivity and make conclusions and judgments based on existing biases rather than on a clear examination of the material at hand.

The review in question is an example of that, lean on substantial arguments and heavy on aggressive fault-finding and on presumptive assumptions of authorial intent and critiques based on purely personal projections of future storylines rather than on fact.