wolvie2020 said:
Guys, don't you think by the sheer fact that the clone saga nearly killed the Spidey comic franchise that JQ would try and avoid it like the plague?
Not to mention the fact that JQ, Bendis and all the other main writers @ Marvel that are big comic fans absolutely hate most 90's comics? I mean, they killed Carnage in quite a simple way...
Not only that, JQ DID spend quite a long time trying to ignore the existence of the entire clone saga? The 1st time it got mentioned in a very long time was in Mark Millar's MK Spidey run a couple of times, 'cause he's a huge fan of continuity...
Seriously, don't get your hopes up, it won't be very good.
Also, some of you guys out there should go pick up, (UK Mag,) Comics International. PAD has a pretty interesting article in their about fan boys, and how we don't know what we want, and that makes it very difficult for writers.
He cites the modern internet both a help, and sometimes hinderance, but he does discuss his entire career in comics, and what it was like dealing not only with fan boys, but other writers and editors... It's quite interesting, as he shows that editors/writers/etc. all get confused about which direction to go, and argue amongst themselves a lot.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY, at the end of the article, he brings up what he says, is the ONE TIME, where he was completely right. He got the chance to write the Spider-Man/Spider-Man 2099 crossover, (seeing as he wrote some great Spidey, an created Spidey 2099.) And the Marvel gave him the choice if using either Peter or Ben, he chose Peter... His editor kept asking him if he was sure, as Ben had just replaced Peter, and told PAD that Parker wa now obselete. PAD believed that it was a huge error, 'cause he profusley believed that telling fans that the charachter that they've loved and followed for decades was all in vein would piss of people to no end. In his words, no matter what people argued about, fans had become emotionally invested in this character, and to do this, would make people pissed off and lose interest. Lo and behold, that happened, and PAD goes on to state in the article about how he was right, and Marvel were forced to go back to Peter.
So there you go, I don't know what else you want to speculate about, but that's what he said in the article. And this is not a big cheesy fake out Wizrd marketing mag, it's a bit of a serious Brit mag.
The only thing I can think about bringing Ben back in a serious fashion, would be to sort out the whole unmasking thing, which personally, I think couild work. Saying that, it would add to the gigantic convoluted mess that is the continuity of the clone saga. Not only that, (sorry guys, this is how the Marvel editorial generally feel, whether you like it or not,) the Marvel guys don't respect the story of the clone saga, thinking it was a moronic mess of a story due to guys in suits trying to control the writers thinking they know what they do. Bringing up Ben in a major way during Civil War would only make new 'mature' readers go back and pick up the Clone Saga out of curiosity. And clearly, if they hate the story, wouldn't they think it's a bad idea?
That's just my thoughts...
Wizard sure is a crappy magazine. Did anybody see the recent issue with Spidey and Iron Man fighting on the cover? It's a one-page article that says "Uh oh for Spidey!" That's the content. Genius editorial work, guys. There's no need for a Wizard what with the advent of the internet, and amazingly enough my prediction that Wizard would become obsolete the second comic creators, writers and artists could directly submit their work to their fans/readers, has not come to fruition. But whatever.
David says this stuff all the time, in interviews and books for the most part. He's 100% right, and he knows it. The fact of the matter is, he's very good at his job. He'd be a damn good EIC, since he pretty much knows how to keep 'em happy ('em being the fans) while still sell books people thought would be cutting edge, but meanwhile being pretty much the status quo.
There's no doubt in my mind "fans" don't know what they want. They want character exploration, they want interesting stories, but when a character changes, or "evolves" as part of what would normally be considered "character development" in any other form of literature, fans freak. But then again, when a character sits around and does the same thing over and over again ("I'm going to eat your brain because you made me lose my job as a bad reporter!"), people complain the character is stagnating. The underlying difference is, of course, that when Spider-Man "changes" (and webs himself into a cocoon and becomes "The Spider," for example), it's ridiculous and overdone and completely overly dramatized. This is due to a few things: lousy writing and overt exaggeration due to a misunderstanding of how serious a medium comic books can be and are. If you were orphaned at a young age and in your mid-to-late twenties your parents returned, but they were actually artificial life forms created to screw with you by your best friend who just died partly as a result of his conflict with you, and you had to watch them die before your eyes, and then the woman who raised you since the death of her husband (who you are responsible for, by the way) fell into a coma one or two days later, you might have a little breakdown. But because it's Spider-Man, you have to make that worth reading and seeing in cool poses and in the framework of super-humans. But for the fans, Spidey acted "totally out of character." He was violent, nasty, out of touch with reality, abusive toward loved ones, and had a serious sense of self issue. I think in times of stress, a person would certainly behave in at least some of these ways, even if they were as noble and responsible as a Peter Parker like person.
I went the long way of doing this, but this is just one example of how a character could change, but that change is rejected by fans because it seems out of character. The difference is, with good writers and intricate, well-written stories, character change can be handled brilliantly. Interestingly enough, with my Venom example, they've re-invented the Eddie Brock / Venom character at least four or five times. From his debut to the Lethal Protector, to amnesia Venom, back to killing Spider-Man, and then into cancer patient, alien symbiote living off adrenaline costume Venom, none of these changes a) worked quite right, or b) were accepted for too long. Why? Well, regardless of the writing and art (remember, Jenkins wasn't awful until the organics, to the fans), Venom is just a crappy character. His changes aren't really accepted because, in essence, the Eddie Brock/Venom character should never have been accepted. However, thanks largely in part to the connection to Spider-Man, the superficial dichotomy between Spidey and Venom as far as physical being and sense of responsibility, and the 90's "woah cool, Erik Larsen and McFarlane!" era, Venom garnered some major fan power.
Anyway, fans have problems with change and character. Reilly didn't work as a result, and I think some of the previous comments were right on the fact that Quesada DOES know that if he goes near the Clone Saga, he runs the risk of pissing off those fans who ditched the book when they turned their backs on the character of Peter Parker. However, I could be wrong. Notice in Avengers Dissasembled when Wanda gave everyone their worst nightmares to fight, and Spidey's in the back corner of the splash page fighting... three more Spider-Mans?!
It's still enough, I think, to bet that Ben's not coming back, at least not in the framework of Civil War. And for those who think FNSM is not a "high enough caliber book" to warrant the return of Reilly, because of Marvel's apprehension about the original Clone Saga, I'd be willing to bet he'd come in through "the back door," so to speak. You'd think Uncle Ben returning might be a big deal, and yet, here we are.
Anyway, sorry about that. I did go the long route.
t: 
