Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 100
  1. #16
    Mighty Member Vworp Vworp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpyred View Post
    I wonder how many people would change their tune if they were killed and brought back to life multiple times because of a lunatic. How many of you would retain your attitude and self awareness and how many would probably become crazy too.
    Yeah, that's probably something you're just going to have to just keep wondering.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorIronman View Post
    Nobody is saying Ben should be fine, Ben should be a little damaged and maybe carrying around some baggage from that. However there is a huge difference between taking revenge against a psychotic scientist and going along with genocide and murder. Insanity is a cop-out in this story because there is some form of logic that goes along with the decision making. It's logic is heavily flawed and Ben just does it without warning or build up. He just ignites an apocalypse for no reason other than to make clones. How could 27 deaths make Ben;
    Use an Egyptian theme
    Resort to emotional blackmail
    Murder
    Attempted murder
    Grave robbing
    Forcing people to work for him against there will for pills to keep them alive
    Reviving someone who got the death penalty
    Reviving Massacre
    Bringing back known terrorists from the dead
    Releasing inmates from prison
    Willingness to let someone murder his brother over a disagreement
    Resorting to genocide for NO REASON
    Identity theft

    If we had seen the build up to this I may be more accepting but we only know Ben 27 in the context of Clone Conspiracy. Last we saw Ben he was a hero and all around nice guy, now we know he would do everything I listed and we lack context for this beyond him being a little unhinged after getting resurrected so many times. Insanity can't be an all around cop-out in story telling. That's how we get things like 90's Jackal.
    Exactly. It's possible that there was a way to write Clone Conspiracy and Ben's character in a way that was familiar, whilst still bearing the scars of what happened to him. But that's not the story Dan wrote. And it certainly wasn't the Ben that he wrote. CC's Ben didn't even have a mild echo of Ben's personality, not a single line of dialogue, not a single action, not a single solitary moment that felt in any way at all like this was a damaged Ben Reilly.

    Indeed, take out some of the personal stuff and you could have given any generic villain exactly the same dialogue that Ben had in this story and I doubt anyone would have suggested "Hang on, that sounds like something Ben Reilly would do/say".

  2. #17
    Radioactive! Spiderfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    New York-94
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vworp Vworp View Post
    He tried to apply it by committing worldwide genocide. Even taking into account his under-developed personality before he returned in the Clone Saga, that is a galaxy size chasm away from the character that took his name in Clone Conspiracy.
    Yea and...? I'm not defending his actions, just saying he was a (good intentioned) douche in the comics pre-Scarlet and now he's morally-ambiguous/villainous douche.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles To Go View Post
    ...Because nothing defines this era more than taking characters who have long grown past their factory settings and reverting them back to that.
    But he hadn't really grown past anything, he was struggling to create his own identity until Seward Trainor said "hey guess what Peter's the clone you're the real deal" and he just pretty much assumed Peter's persona/identity from there.
    Last edited by Spiderfang; 03-02-2017 at 02:30 PM.
    The city I once knew as home is teetering on the edge of radioactive oblivion

  3. #18
    Y'know. Pav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vworp Vworp View Post
    not a single line of dialogue, not a single action, not a single solitary moment that felt in any way at all like this was a damaged Ben Reilly.
    Slott had Ben echo his philosophy about life being in the living - not word for word from the scene in the 90s, but clearly meant to show that, despite the drastic changes, this is still Ben.

    -Pav, who thinks it was in the last issue of ASM...
    Last edited by Pav; 03-02-2017 at 02:41 PM.
    2019 Marvel Monthly Buys: Superior Spider-Man Runaways Absolute Carnage: Lethal Protectors Silver Surfer: Black Death's Head

    Closet full of comics? Consider donating to my middle school students! DM for details

  4. #19
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorIronman View Post
    Nobody is saying Ben should be fine, Ben should be a little damaged and maybe carrying around some baggage from that. However there is a huge difference between taking revenge against a psychotic scientist and going along with genocide and murder. Insanity is a cop-out in this story because there is some form of logic that goes along with the decision making. It's logic is heavily flawed and Ben just does it without warning or build up. He just ignites an apocalypse for no reason other than to make clones. How could 27 deaths make Ben;
    Use an Egyptian theme
    Resort to emotional blackmail
    Murder
    Attempted murder
    Grave robbing
    Forcing people to work for him against there will for pills to keep them alive
    Reviving someone who got the death penalty
    Reviving Massacre
    Bringing back known terrorists from the dead
    Releasing inmates from prison
    Willingness to let someone murder his brother over a disagreement
    Resorting to genocide for NO REASON
    Identity theft

    If we had seen the build up to this I may be more accepting but we only know Ben 27 in the context of Clone Conspiracy. Last we saw Ben he was a hero and all around nice guy, now we know he would do everything I listed and we lack context for this beyond him being a little unhinged after getting resurrected so many times. Insanity can't be an all around cop-out in story telling. That's how we get things like 90's Jackal.
    Most importantly here, Ben wasn't resorting to genocide. If you're someone who believes that they've conquered death and can restore anyone to life, you don't look at death the same way that the rest of the world does. Being killed repeatedly yourself only to be repeatedly 'reborn' might do that to a person. Ben had no intention of murdering the world, only in rebirthing them to a liberated new existence beyond death. A plan of action that many may object to but not quite the genocidal intention some want to label it as.

    As for the rest of these complaints - "Use an Egyptian theme"? Is this something beyond the scope of Ben's character? He's modeling his Jackal ID after the Egyptian God of the afterlife. It fits his agenda and his outlook. Not such a crazy leap.

    The rest are all easily filed under the ends justifying the means from Ben's admittedly twisted POV (such as grave robbing - not a nice thing to do but when you're looking for genetic material to clone sometimes you've just got to start digging - and reviving Massacre - wouldn't Peter's edict of "No one dies" include Massacre as well? If you're going to revive everyone who died under Peter's watch, you can't pick and choose).

    Special shout out, though, for including Identity Theft among Ben's transgressions.

    That's just too hilarious to include when you've also got attempted genocide on the list. "This guy's so bad he's attempted genocide, committed emotional blackmail, murder and oh yeah, IDENTITY THEFT!"

  5. #20
    Incredible Member Grim Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    633

    Default

    He isn't ruined, because if someday somebody else wants to use him in a different way all they need to say is "oh wait that was ANOTHER FAKE CLONEZZZZ" and reset him. That is one of the many annoying things about clone saga related stuff. Nothing really matters because MOAR CLONZZZ.

  6. #21
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    575

    Default

    I really don't want to say he's "ruined" cause that's a bit too hyperbolic for me but at this point i just have a hard time caring about what they do with the character going forward even if he is eventually "redeemed"

  7. #22
    Mighty Member Vworp Vworp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Most importantly here, Ben wasn't resorting to genocide. If you're someone who believes that they've conquered death and can restore anyone to life, you don't look at death the same way that the rest of the world does. Being killed repeatedly yourself only to be repeatedly 'reborn' might do that to a person. Ben had no intention of murdering the world, only in rebirthing them to a liberated new existence beyond death. A plan of action that many may object to but not quite the genocidal intention some want to label it as.
    Ben had every intention of murdering the world. As illustrated by his attempt to do exactly that. Regardless of his supposed intentions to subsequently bring everyone back (and let's not get into exactly how that would have worked with everyone in the entire world being dead, aside from himself and a maybe a handful of others), his plan was still to kill everyone. Or as Ben might have put it...



    Indeed, by bringing everyone back as 'reanimates', his plan was essentially to replace the human race with a brand new species. So no, that isn't 'labelling' something as genocide. It's the very definition of it.

  8. #23
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vworp Vworp View Post
    Ben had every intention of murdering the world. As illustrated by his attempt to do exactly that. Regardless of his supposed intentions to subsequently bring everyone back (and let's not get into exactly how that would have worked with everyone in the entire world being dead, aside from himself and a maybe a handful of others), his plan was still to kill everyone. Or as Ben might have put it...



    Indeed, by bringing everyone back as 'reanimates', his plan was essentially to replace the human race with a brand new species. So no, that isn't 'labelling' something as genocide. It's the very definition of it.
    A "brand new species"? No, clones are still human. And Ben didn't see his clones as replacements but something better than "the real thing."

    Genocide is about seeking to achieve a permanent end. It's about wiping an entire race off the face of the earth. That's not what Ben wanted to do. He wanted to prove that he had rendered the concept of death meaningless - his goal was not to exterminate life but rather to give immortality.

  9. #24
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vworp Vworp View Post
    Ben had every intention of murdering the world. As illustrated by his attempt to do exactly that. Regardless of his supposed intentions to subsequently bring everyone back (and let's not get into exactly how that would have worked with everyone in the entire world being dead, aside from himself and a maybe a handful of others), his plan was still to kill everyone. Or as Ben might have put it...



    Indeed, by bringing everyone back as 'reanimates', his plan was essentially to replace the human race with a brand new species. So no, that isn't 'labelling' something as genocide. It's the very definition of it.
    Thing is Ben didn't really view it as replacing people with clones but bringing back the dead, he believed they really were the originals brought back to life and frankly so did Peter by the end of the story. If the final Clone Conspiracy issue didn't make it clear that Peter had accepted the Gwen he was talking to as not just another version but the actual Gwen Stacy he knew then Omega makes it clear since Spider-Gwen picks up on it too.

    Also I still so no evidence Ben was planning any kind of genocide. He never said that he planned to kill the general populace just to replace them, just replace (or in his view bring them back) after they'd died naturally or prevent them from dying by cloning failing organs as we'd seen New U do. It wasn't Ben that broadcasted the degeneration frequency and he tried to stop it. Hardly the act of someone whose endgame was genocide.

  10. #25
    Fantastic Member jyamen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    267

    Default

    If the polls are any indication, most people thought this mini event was bad. This version of Ben has killed any interest I kind of had for his own book. The spider books need fresh blood from the top down, as this book should have been nixed at the editorial level. Not only was Bens character massacred, this notion that he's suddenly a master geneticist is eye rolling. Pete worked best as a DIY scientist, specializing in dirty electronic gadgets. This new version, whether its Tony Stark Light or moonlighting as a rejected Egyptian game design (ben) I'm pretty much over the Spider books outside of Miles.

  11. #26
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,320

    Post

    While I'm upset by how things turned out, I do not think the character has been ruined yet.
    "I'm sorry, but your story isn't adding up. I think your religion is a lie to keep my mouth shut."

  12. #27
    Better than YOU! Alan2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Ben had every intention of murdering the world. As illustrated by his attempt to do exactly that. Regardless of his supposed intentions to subsequently bring everyone back (and let's not get into exactly how that would have worked with everyone in the entire world being dead, aside from himself and a maybe a handful of others), his plan was still to kill everyone. Or as Ben might have put it...
    In the original clone saga, Peter Parker was going along with the original Jackal's plan to do exactly that when Peter thought he was the clone.

    So, if Peter was going to, why wouldn't Ben?

  13. #28
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jyamen View Post
    If the polls are any indication, most people thought this mini event was bad. This version of Ben has killed any interest I kind of had for his own book. The spider books need fresh blood from the top down, as this book should have been nixed at the editorial level. Not only was Bens character massacred, this notion that he's suddenly a master geneticist is eye rolling. Pete worked best as a DIY scientist, specializing in dirty electronic gadgets. This new version, whether its Tony Stark Light or moonlighting as a rejected Egyptian game design (ben) I'm pretty much over the Spider books outside of Miles.
    Except multiple stories stretching back to Amazing Fantasy #15 heavily imply Peter is gifted and would be a successful scientist if not for his duties as Spider-Man getting in the way. Now you can argue that actually succeeding in his chosen field takes something away the whole idea Spider-Man is as much a curse as a blessing which is a compelling part of the mythos then again actually being a gifted scientist takes something away from the supposedly popular everyman aspect. Everyone has their preferences on how these opposing elements are to be balanced. I concern myself too much with the internet on this one, if it was any reliable barometer then Amazing Spider-Man wouldn't routinely be Marvel's top selling title.

    Also Ben spent five years researching cloning with Seaward Trainer so it's hardly eye rolling that he would have a greater knowledge of the process than Peter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan2099 View Post
    In the original clone saga, Peter Parker was going along with the original Jackal's plan to do exactly that when Peter thought he was the clone.

    So, if Peter was going to, why wouldn't Ben?
    I stand by that there's no evidence that Ben was going to kill the general populace but even if that was the case this is a good point and honestly a mark against Peter for not fighting to bring Ben back from the edge as Ben had done for him in the 90s clone saga. I also feel compelled to point out that even after Peter Parker briefly went over to the dark side no one suggested that he was irredeemable or the character had been ruined.
    Last edited by Orbus; 03-02-2017 at 06:11 PM.

  14. #29
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    I can't say I'm interested in this whole 'antihero' direction they've taken him. I'm still a sucker for Bagley art, but I'll be approaching BR:SS with caution.

    Should also note, that although the marketing for the new series has given him this 'antihero' slant, his Clone Conspiracy characterisation has been straight-up villain.

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,700

    Default

    while i'm one of the cautiously optimistic ones regarding ben's new status quo, i have to say that if marvel didn't anticipate some form of backlash with this direction, then they were really short sighted. how significant that backlash is remains to be seen though
    troo fan or death

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •