#And an actual somewhat-logical backstory for Jane

[softichill]

I have all sorts of ideas for a rewritten Jeff the Killer but I'm NOT AT THE WRITING LEVEL I'D LIKE TO BE and thus CANNOT COMMUNICATE MY IDEAS EFFICIENTLY

[ship-obsessions]

The 100 Season 6 Speculations

Okay, so first of all I want to say I’m loving season 6 so far. Give me all of the delinquent interactions. I’m also obsessed with the Bellarke crumbs they are ALREADY GIVING US and how their repressed feelings for each other were shown (although not directly) in 6x02. A while ago I saw on Twitter that a reviewer compared The 100′s 6x02 episode to Motel California in Teen Wolf and now I totally see it. The way the plant toxin affects the delinquents parallels the werewolves being affected by the wolf’s bane... and the focus on the main group of delinquents (specifically Clarke, Bellamy, and Murphy) parallels the focus on the original core 4 in TW (Scott, Stiles, Allison, Lydia). I absolutely LOVED the core 4 dynamic in TW and I’m already loving this trio dynamic between Clarke, Bellamy, and Murphy. Give me more episodes like this! (and maybe add Raven after her and Clarke make up).

That said, I watched the first two episodes when they were leaked, so I’ve been DYING for the next episode 6x03. (Note: I’ve also been streaming them again since they’ve officially aired, so I’ve watched each one like 4 times). Since new content is finally coming next week, I wanted to get out some of my random speculations for what’s coming up later this season even though we literally know so little about this new planet, these new people, the creepy children, etc.. Of course, being curious (like a psychopath), I went through all of the season 6 episodes on IMDb to see what (if anything) it could tell me. I’m sure someone else has probably already done this, but I found some interesting things I needed to put out there...

6x03 

We already have a name “The Children of Gabriel” as well as a description (Clarke tries to win over the leaders of Sanctum in order to let her people stay. Meanwhile, Bellamy, Octavia, and Echo discover a new threat while on a mission to retrieve the transport ship.), so we have somewhat of a gist of what is coming next week. I don’t think they will fully go into the backstory of these “children of Gabriel” but we obviously know the geneticist from the flashback was named Gabriel and the actor, Ian Pala, is only listed for 2 episodes on his personal page and one of those is Sanctum (uncredited). So I’d assume this means we won’t get another flashback of him specifically or the origins of his “children”. But I do think when Clarke meets Russell and the other people somehow this backstory/history (at least a shortened version) will be explained. We know that the episode titles are all explicitly mentioned or referred to in the episodes themselves somewhere, so that’s my reasoning there.

However, I noticed one other small thing in the cast list that stuck out as strange/interesting. Sarah-Jane Redmond’s character (aka the Sanctum hostage that tried to hijack the mothership) is named Taylee in 6x02 but Tilly in 6x03. At first I thought it could have been some kind of error (idk) but it’s listed the same way on her personal IMDb actor page. Is she playing twins?? Is there validity to this clone theory I saw floating around and read about in the Hypable review?? Either way, I’m definitely interested in whatever that’s about. 

Also, I’m excited to meet JR Bourne’s character this episode! We obviously know he is Russell Lightbourne but after all my research (lol I’m taking this WAY more serious than I ever took school), I’m wondering if he’s not just a descendant of the Lightbourne’s but is actually a clone or somehow has the same consciousness from Mr. Lightbourne (Josephine’s dad) in 6x02 (again saw this in the Hypable article around a similar flame storyline theory since Becca created Eligius tech as well). It’s worth noting that we don’t actually know the character’s real name and Sean Maguire is just credited as Mr. Lightbourne -- no first name. Hmmmmm

6x04

Again we have a name “The Face Behind the Glass” and a short description (Clarke embraces the traditions of Sanctum and tries to make amends for her past actions.), but not much else... (or do we??) This episode is probably where we will see Clarke dancing in the room painting and maybe even the lanterns floating in the sky (ie. Sanctum tradition?) -- I’m thinking several “happy” moments with her. I also have a theory -- going out on a limb here -- that it is where we could see the whole “flashback” scene of Clarke in Mount Weather from the trailer. It’s probably not an actual flashback but some kind of hallucination or psychosis thing again, (or maybe even a dream?) but maybe that is where the title comes from -- she’s literally looking at herself from behind the broken glass in MW’s contamination rooms. OR we’re not quite there yet and it’s referring to the stained glass-looking red window/door thing that Emori was trying to open before going crazy in 6x01. 

The kicker for me in this episode’s listing was Jordan Bolger’s credit as Shaw, who we all saw die in 6x01. In what capacity is he coming back? Maybe it’s Raven’s hallucination or even a dream? I could see them showing us her full reaction once she knows what really happened to him, but I’m not sure how or in what way he would come back at some point in the episode (I say “come back” because the actor will actually appear). It will be super interesting how the sci-fi elements work on this new planet. We’ve already seen the eclipse-induced psychosis but what other strange things will occur or happen to our characters? If they are all facing their demons (ie. Clarke with Mount Weather and Octavia with Blodreina) I wonder how those scenes will be played out.

6x05

Again Jordan Bolger is credited... is Miles Ezekiel Shaw back again??? What is going on? 

6x06 - 6x07

I didn’t really notice anything super strange in episode 6, but GUESS WHO IS CREDITED FOR EPISODE 7: none other than Chris Browning as Jake fucking Griffin. Maybe this is another flashback or memory or hallucination -- assuming by Clarke.

Note: Madi is not credited to appear in 6x06 or 6x08 so I’m thinking her “kidnapping” or whatever happens with the creepy person who is holding her captive in the woods happens in 6x07. Or maybe it’s even earlier in 6x05?

6x08

In episode 8, the cast list introduces 2 notable new characters: Josephine VII and Hope. Okay, so with Josephine VII it could be some descendant of the original Josephine Lightbourne in the 6x02 flashback, but it could ALSO be another hint at this clone and/or flame consciousness theory. But Hope... where have we heard that name before? Oh yeah, Diyoza’s unborn child. But Diyoza hasn’t even had her baby yet and in the promo trailers it looked like she was shot (and possibly killed?). Also, this actress who plays Hope is like 6 years old, not a newborn baby. It’s still weird to me though because what are the chances there is another character -- another child, no less -- with that same name Diyoza mentioned she was planning to give her baby. Just seems a little too coincidental to me.

6x09

Okay, I’m going out on a limb here, but THIS MIGHT BE THE ICONIC RAVE SCENE FROM THE TRAILER. Stay with me... I was originally thinking this would happen earlier in the series when I saw this in the trailer, probably like everyone else, but in the IMDb cast list there are 5 “dancers” credited. I mean it is more logical for a rave scene to happen early in the season (because usually all the good things or happy stuff comes in the first half of the season and NEVER this late), but what else would “dancers” be credited for??? The 100 doesn’t do dance numbers LOL. Anyway this idea has me shook because if it is this late in the season, there is a better chance that Bellamy and Echo have ended things by this point and that super short blurry speck in the bottom right corner of the rave dance scene could be Bellamy (you know what I’m talking about). Will they actually make my LIFE and have Bellamy and Clarke dancing at that rave together? Seems way too good to be true, but I had to throw the possibility out there. I mean who knows, my Bellarke-owned ass can always hope for the best. 

After the slim possibility of that amazing possibility, here’s a scary thought to consider (sounds kind of like the show itself), this is the last episode of the season that credits Lola Flanery as Madi... WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO HER. Does whatever experiment being done on her in the promo trailer kill her? Pls don’t hurt Clarke’s smol child.

6x10

So here is where I started low key freaking out because the cast list dwindles DRAMATICALLY for credits this episode. We only have Eliza as Clarke, Shannon as Jordan, and Luisa as Emori out of ALL of the main characters we know and love. Something major has to happen for everyone else to suddenly become absent from this episode. And I’m a little scared to know what that is.

6x11

Okay thank god, the main characters are all back on the credits list for this episode. ALSO there is a new actor credited as young Echo. OMG an Echo flashback?! Will we finally understand who she was and why she is the way she is? Will I even care to get invested in her this late in the game?

Also, IMDb lists that this is the episode Bob Morley directs!

6x12 - 6x13

Our other mains are gone AGAIN from the cast list. It’s back to only listing Clarke and Jordan among the characters we already know. WTF is going on. I need answers NOW. To reiterate, I’m saying that IMDb doesn’t list Abby, Bellamy, Octavia, Raven, Murphy, Echo, Kane, Madi, Miller, or Jackson in episode 10, 12, or 13 (+ Emori in 12 or 13).

I’m honest to god just hoping that IMDb isn’t fully updated with the entire cast list in these last episodes yet -- is that a thing? pls tell me it is -- because if we don’t have a finale that includes Murphy, Raven, or most of all, BELLAMY... I swear to God I will riot. Of course, I’m hoping no one dies (obvi), but now that we know there is a season 7, could J Roth be trying to kill us with some dramatic cliffhanger where Clarke and Jordan are separated from the rest of the group? (PSA: STOP SEPARATING CLARKE FROM EVERYONE). But if so, why would this absence of all of those other characters be TWO WHOLE EPISODES? And during the two part finale of all things. UGHHH my mind is spiraling, someone pls calm me down.

On the plus side, 6x12 lists Antonio Negret as the director for the episode and we all know he brought us the brilliant (yet angsty AF) episode 5x08 last season where Bellamy poisoned Octavia to save Clarke. But if Bellamy isn’t even in this episode WHY SHOULD I EVEN BOTHER CARING.

What’s left that I missed? Probably a lot LOL. I tried going back to watch what I might have missed from the extended trailer but I couldn’t find the video ANYWHERE. It’s like disappeared from YouTube (says it is “unavailable”). What is that about?

Anyways, the scene with everyone together in the house (standing at the bar, shot looking at us) has to be in one of the episodes where all main cast members are credited -- I don’t think it will be the next one so maybe 6x04 or 6x05? Same thought for the Madi/Clarke reunion, I feel like that is in the same episode. I also have no idea when in the season Bellamy is going to strangle Russell with Clarke and Murphy in the room (again my favorite new trio!). And that being said I’m confused on JR Bourne because he was all hyped up as a new character this season but he’s only credited in the next episode 6x03. Does the strangling take place next week? It can’t right? Because Bellamy is off with Echo and Octavia on the other mission and Clarke is the only one in the castle. Also if 6x04 is Clarke trying to embrace the traditions of Sanctum and make amends, there is no way she could do that the episode after Russell (the leader of Sanctum) is killed. 

Sorry for the crazy rambling and this long AF post, but I have so much on my mind after this speculation deep dive. I need to just go to bed.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Here is the thing about Ben Reilly in Clone Conspiracy.

Hypothetically the idea of someone who has to an extent led Peter’s life but who’s been so damaged that they are now a villain, but their villainous acts still come from a place of misguided altruism is an interesting idea. It really is.

But there are several problems with the way Slott realized this through Ben Reilly (for the sake of argument lets pretend Ben27 is the legit Ben Reilly) in Clone Conspiracy.

First of all the most glaring problem is that whilst this was not inherently a bad idea for a villain the fact is the character was being set up to be what all observations indicate to be a redeeming hero or anti-hero. Ben Reilly Scarlet Spider the series appears to be about someone not actually being a villain but at worst someone who’s doing bad things for good reasons.

And we’ve already had that before in the past with Spider-Man.

Superior Spider-Man.

Venom.

Kaine.

Some were better than others and they might’ve been different to Ben but the point is this is not a fresh idea, at least not entirely.

Worse is the that whilst up top I said this wasn’t inherently a bad idea for a villain, giving him his own series removes him as a villain in Spider-Man’s world. Like even if he is an outright villain it is meaningless unless he is actually actively going up against Spider-Man himself. 

Its one thing to follow Kaine on a redemption tour it’d be another thing to follow the adventures of Ben Reilly who is a bad guy but is deludedly thinking he is doing the right thing. That’s basically 90s Venom sans Marvel outright pretending he is actually a good guy. With Kaine, there was no delusion, he was genuinely trying to be good but stumbled and struggled along the way.

Then you have the fact that Ben in Clone Conspiracy just went full on evil mad scientist and tried to mass murder a lot of people. At best this is cliche, at worst this is a rip-off of the Jackal from Maximum Clonage, ever a good thing. It is also way too MUCH of a leap from who Ben was to how he is now. Maybe you could justify it on the grounds that he’s insane and therfore it is not unrealistic. But is it not a lot more interesting and rewarding if you can draw a clearer line between his life and experiences and his actions even if they are crazy.

Case in point. Doc Ock was bullied and belittled by many people growing up but his mother hammered into him how special and intelligent he was. And in fairness he was immensely smart lending validity to her claims, claims which would be taken to heart not just because he was a kid but because she was his mother and the person who gave him the most unrepentent affection throughout his life. Consequently Doc Ock is mentally and emotionally unhealthy because he is walking around beleiving himself to be superior to everyone else, has some proof that validates that belief, and has a burning desire to prove it to everyone who ever hurt him. When he loses his fiancee and his mother and is hurt in an explosion and on top of that gets clear PHYSCIAL power too he goes over the edge and lets his ego run loose. You could even argue his inhibitions are gone now. He wants to hurt the world as he has himself been hurt but also wants them to appreciate his genius and respect his power so he is never hurt and bullied again. This leads him to doing stuff like causing a nuclear meltdown in order to stop it or detonating a nuclear bomb to prove how dangerous he is even if it’d kill him too.

These are insane and irrational but by looking at Doc Ock’s life and by extension getting into his head you can understand how and why from his warped point of view he would do those things even if they do not entirely make sense.

Similarly you can understand why Ben Reilly would clone a load of dead people and even insist they are the real deal. MAYBE you could even understand why he’d try to kill Peter upon his refusal to ally with New U. But mass murdering people? No. That is just evil crazy bad guy does evil crazy thing because he is evil and crazy. 

And that isn’t the only example of that with ben. A shitton of his actions honestly do have to be explained via ‘he’s crazy’. Now arguably given his experiences this is not unrealistic but for the reasons I outlined above it is bad writing. 

From a creative perspective having a character be crazy generally isn’t enough as a justification for them doing anything and everything. You have to both be more specific and at least allude to a clearer line of reasoning between their mentality and their actions. You can even do that with the 1990s Jackal in Maximum Clonage. The idea and execution might’ve been godforsaken but it wasn’t like it made no sense for the Jackal to try and pull that plan. Miles Warren obviously has a God Complex and through his cloning can to all intents and purposes create and manipulate life itself. He effectively brough back a dead person, replicated a living person, replicated himself the very being who created those people and in characters like Spidercide he even managed to create something more powerful and dangerous than the original being it was based upon. The idea that he’d thus want to eradicate life and replace it with his own creations actually seems entirely logical from his own warped point of view. You can follow the line of reasoning once you understand the context of where he is himself coming from and the beliefs he holds.

However that doesn’t change how it was still a reductive direction to take the Jackal in both because of the concept he was originally created for and also the context of Spider-Man’s world. This applies to Ben as well.

To begin with the notion that Ben would attempt to make Peter feel better by bringing back all the people who’s died in his life is far less powerful coming from a place of twisted brotherly love as opposed to if Ben did in a sense think of himself as the real deal Peter Parker. If this was essentially yet another clone of Spider-Man, or maybe even someone who’d somehow come to beleive themselves to be Peter Parker and their actions were coming out of a warped perception or misinterpretation of who Peter was and Peter’s own thoughts and feelings that’d be a powerful examination of who Peter is. It’d highlight the guilt he feels but also showcase his ethics as this warped version of him crosses boundaries the real Peter never would.

But in the story as presented Ben Reilly basically ‘resurrects’ everyone for Peter’s sake not his own. His goal was to alleviate Peter’s guilt and was thus a step removed from being truly powerful. After all there is little to no emotional resonance to Ben Reilly resurrecting Jean DeWolff, someone he never even met, because he knows someone else feels sad that she died. Compare and contrast to the hypothetical that a clone of Peter believing itself to be Peter or at least acting out of warped emotions inherited from Peter brings back Jean DeWolff due to the tormenting memories he has of her? Way more poignant right? This isn’t even getting into how it makes little sense for Ben to resurrect VILLAINS who’ve died in Peter’s life like Bart Hamilton or Jason Macendale. These were not people Peter OR Ben had much of an attachment to, nor were they people who’s deaths’ either one felt guilty about.

But moving on perhaps the biggest problem with CC Ben Reilly is how his portrayal throws away everything Ben was before, aside from the vague idea he has a brotherly bond with Peter.

Sometimes these radical departures can work, but only when they are egrgiously additive, or because the original concept was so weak or things of that nature.

But compare this to Mary Jane’s character development from the 1980s. That worked with some ideas that’d been hinted at as early as ASM #122 at the very least. It also didn’t ground up change her to the point of her being unrecognizable. The development was a slow burn that came from realistic, common and organic stimuli. 

For Ben even if you take his experiences to be metaphorical for something that could happen in real life, he was essentially tortured into madness whereupon he acted little-nothing like he did before. Torture was more or less an in-universe soft rebooting of the character. It was too quick, too abrupt and at the same time too uncommon in real life to carry any true meaning. Even Peter Parker’s own change in personality in the pre-Clone Saga era (where he ran around referring to himself as ‘the Spider’) was a slower and more justified change from an execution point of view. 

To go back to Mary Jane, whilst she acted somewhat differently after we learned her backstory than she did before or back when she was originally created she could still do all the things she did before that made her popular but now with added dimensions. Dimensions which made her an even better match for Peter in all the ways she was before and more, thus adding to the narrative and enhancing the point of the series. It wasn’t a soft rebooting of her character as was the case with Ben.

But let us look at another point of comparison: Harry Osborn.

A good supporting character turned into a  great villain before that led to his destruction.

Why, might we ask, is this acceptable but Ben’s turn is not? To do that let us examine Harry’s character for awhile.

Well for starters Harry was not an invaluable supporting character and his history dating back to the 1970s and arguably even before that very much invited the idea of him going on a path of self-destruction. Thematically this made for a POWERFUL short term story arc that not only added more dimensions to him as a character and briefly provided peter with a true Goblin nemesis after so long (and one aruguably better than any before him). It also enhanced the overall mythology of the Spider-Man storyline as it paid off seeds planted long ago with Norman’s character.

Now sure, we briefly got a great villain with a fitting end, but lost a less good but still good supporting cast member. So was this not a reductive trade off? Or are villains just more important than supporting cast members. 

To the latter the answer is that some villains are more important than supporting cast members and some supporting cast members are more important than villains. Good villains are worth their weight in gold but Flash Thompson isn’t as important as Doc Ock and Otto isn’t as important as MJ. More on this later though.

For Harry his role as supporting character whilst good was not something invaluable to the series the way Peter’s relationship with MJ or Aunt May was. Harry’s primary role was that of Peter’s best male friend who had Daddy issues from his old man being a psychopath. Issues which by the way were hardly a constant in his history. Such a role could’ve been filled pretty adequately by Flash Thompson, especially after DeMatteis established he was abused by his father and like him had become an alcoholic. Substance abuse+Daddy issues+animosity turned friendship with Peter Parker. It sounds an aweful lot like Harry, even down to the idea of there being a cycle of abuse, something which was introduced to Harry’s story only in the mega arc which resulted in his destruction. And of course Harry’s ghost loomed over the series therafter and could’ve done so more had the writers made better use of it.

Although they weren’t really slouching as Harry’s death was a massive motivator for Norman Osborn’s return and renewed rivalry with Peter. Norman is the best Spider-Man villain there ever was so Harry’s death bringing him back is a pretty good trade off.

Furthermore Harry’s progression into villain (and by extension removal as a supporting character) and MJ’s own development were very much earned by the writers through a slow building narrative.

Now lets compare this to Ben’s case.

For Ben the change from what he was to what he is now was abrupt. Essentially one issue’s worth of torture broke his mind to allow him to be whatever the plot demanded of him. This is not an earned change.

But moreover it does not add to Ben’s character so much as wholesale changes it. 

Ben Reilly as well meaning yet ultimately unethical super villain seeking to take Peter’s mantra to extremes is an entirely different concept to Ben Reilly man who’s Peter Parker had his life gone down a different road, man who’s struggled to balance being Peter Parker and his own man and accept that he is entitled to his own humanity despite the circumstances of his birth. And above all man who truly loves Peter as his brother.

You could argue the same is true of Kaine but not really when you break his character down. Kaine was driven by physical pain and inadequacy to help Peter in violent ways and to hurt Ben out of spite. But he and Ben grew closer over the course of several stories and accepted one another as brothers. In a sense this is a great reverse pay off of Peter and harry’s relationship and makes a lot of sense to do when you consider Kaine’s animosity was wrapped up in Ben being the real Peter Parker and he himself just being a pale imitation of him. In light of Ben ACTUALLY being a clone after all Kaine and Ben’s relationship changing makes a lot of sense and is justified by virtue of Kaine originally being conceived of as an ongoing villain for Ben Reilly when Ben was going to be the lead character of the franchise. Since that wound up not being the case there is greater justification for Kaine’s role changing. And in a narrative where Ben didn’t even exist having Kaine become the Scarlet Spider is incredibly fitting.

Returning to ben though, not only does Clone Conspiracy radically alter him but it does so in such a way that really is unnecesarry.

The interesting and poignant character moments and ideas behind this villainous take on Ben Reilly could’ve been achieved as effectively had he been substituted with another character, perhaps another clone of Peter’s, perhaps even Spidercide, or perhaps someone who simply has come into the possession of Peter’s mind, memories and emotions.

Through all these methods you’d come out with the same interesting conception for a villain, that of someone who has a warped interpretation of Peter’s beliefs and is willing to go to unethical extremes to achieve them, not unlike Jason Todd when he was first brought back to life as the Red Hood. But you come out with this conception without throwing away Ben Reilly as we knew him.

Looking at Clone Conspiracy there were seldom any moments of true poignancy which required it to be Ben specifically rather than a generic clone of Peter’s. If the Anubis style Jackal had unveiled himself as simply another clone of Peter’s and explained his life of never ending death and abuse at the hands of the Jackal Peter might still have been sympathetic to his cause and briefly been tempted by his offer. After all it wasn’t really the fact that the Jackal turned out to be Ben that tempted Peter so much as the idea that he could bring back Uncle Ben. This hypothetical other clone of Peter might even have struck a chord with Peter by appealing to him as a brother reminding Peter of Ben, or perhaps might even have deliberately brought up Ben in an effort to make Peter sympathetic to him.

Now true, this would water down a dramatic reveal and reader’s emotional investment in the character since it is not one they already know. Similarly there would be less irony to Ben Reilly affecting a scheme not dissimilar to Miles Warren’s his creator.

However these aspects as presented were poorly executed, unnecessary or indeed could’ve still been dramatically effective even without it being Ben specifically in the role he was in.

Revealing Jackal to be a clone of Peter would still be a shocking twist even if it was a new clone instead of Ben. Indeed revealing this to be a reformed (in more ways than one) Spidercide could’ve still carried a shock for older readers.

The disintegration of Ben’s brotherly relationship with Peter and Kaine would’ve been mostly lost but few readers liked that in the first place and to make that point as an argument in favour of this being Ben is the equivalent of arguing there would be no weight to One More Day if it was not Mary Jane who Peter was parting ways with. 

Finally the irony of a clone of Peter affecting a plan and methodology not dissimilar to Miles Warren would not be devoid of irony even if it was not Ben Reilly. Like Ben this new clone could’ve been abused by the Jackal (Ben was abused in the back up stories of Power and Responsibility) and would still have a metaphorical father/son relationship with Warren. Potentially this new clone of Peter’s would also have Peter’s memories of the Jackal thus acting like him would still carry weight to it.

Indeed in this scene we see little reference to Ben’s own life rather than the memories and experiences he has in common with Peter.

Even if one were to argue that not making this villain Ben Reilly would nevertheless not be AS effective as going ahead with the story as was could one hand on heart say that the Ben Reilly we got in this story was worth trading in the one we used to have.

I already talked about what Ben was above but nothing else is it not more poignant to have a character who is a true brother figure for Spider-Man rather than another villain?

Spider-Man has lots of villains and lots of good ones at that. And whilst good villains are invaluable, the series clearly has never NEEDED one of the variety Ben provided in Clone Conspiracy, as potentially interesting as he was conceptually.

So the question is do we supplant an established well developed and multifaceted character with a unique and irreplaceable relationship with our hero with a mentally deranged yet interesting villain to join the ranks of Peter’s already substantial rogue’s gallery?

Or to put it another way should we get rid of Spider-Man’s one and only legitimate brotherly relationship and supplant it with another villain who knows his identity and who represents a corrupted friendship?

The answer is patently obvious.