|
Post by darthfury78 on Oct 1, 2014 16:37:13 GMT
I also doubt that Felicia will ever be restored to her Pre-OMD self as long as Slott's the writer of Spider-Man. If her status is restored, Slott will likely kill her off. I think that throughout the 6-issue story arc, it was more about the promotion of Silk, of which Slott wants to replace the Black Cat with as Spider-Man's partner. The whole crime boss concept for Felicia Hardy will not make her mother any safer. I think that Slott's idea will backfire on him badly.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Oct 1, 2014 18:24:15 GMT
You're giving all the elements to explain why Slott has done to the character what we've witnessed so far: - He doesn't like/know Felicia.
- He wants to promote Silk.
- He would like to see some girl-on-girl action. Maybe not the adult stuff, but who knows? (Ok, this one I'm assuming)
If he were to use, for example, Screwball (as has been suggested previously) then he would still have to contend, with shadow of the Black Cat as Spider-Man's stablished tandem. The way he's done it, he gets her out of the way, so his new creation can take her place, and gives them a chance to fight from the get go. If he also performs some character assassination in the process (or destruction, as said on the podcast), so be it. I'm still waiting to hear from someone, who thinks Felicia's actions, in the new ASM, are coherent. Or maybe I've read some post along those lines, but chose to ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by darthfury78 on Oct 1, 2014 20:18:53 GMT
You're giving all the elements to explain why Slott has done to the character what we've witnessed so far: - He doesn't like/know Felicia.
- He wants to promote Silk.
- He would like to see some girl-on-girl action. Maybe not the adult stuff, but who knows? (Ok, this one I'm assuming)
If he were to use, for example, Screwball (as has been suggested previously) then he would still have to contend, with shadow of the Black Cat as Spider-Man's stablished tandem. The way he's done it, he gets her out of the way, so his new creation can take her place, and gives them a chance to fight from the get go. If he also performs some character assassination in the process (or destruction, as said on the podcast), so be it. I'm still waiting to hear from someone, who thinks Felicia's actions, in the new ASM, are coherent. Or maybe I've read some post along those lines, but chose to ignore it. I feel that if Slott didn't like the Black Cat, all he had to do was not use her. Let some other writer use her instead. I once asked him if he considered using Jennifer Walters, Jessica Drew, or the Black Widow as alternates to the Black Cat, along with Betty Brant as an alternate to Mary Jane. He told me that he didn't want to use those characters in Spider-Man's world. What we're seeing is just a repeat of what Slott tried to do when he replaced Mary Jane with Carlie Cooper as Peter's love interest. Only this time, he decides to make the Black Cat into a hardcore villain and replace her with Silk, whose a carbon/repackaged copy of Ultimate Universe Jessica Drew. I seriously doubt that Silk would have made for a better partner than say the Black Widow or Spider-Woman, who would make for a great alternate to the Black Cat because both Natasha and Jessica are anti-heroes who would fit into Spider-Man's world with no problems from the readers whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Oct 1, 2014 20:44:00 GMT
If he had simply decided to just not use her, in the mind of many readers she would still be top choice as Spider-Man's partner, rather than Silk. I'm sure he was aware of that, even if his more straightforward answer didn't reveal any machinations. Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit?
As for Silk being a carbon copy of Ultimate Universe Jessica Drew… can you imagine how weird the "erotic" scenes of the last three issues, would've been in earth 1610?
Spider-Woman or the Black Widow as Spidey's partners? Marvel has avoided that for decades, never really understood why they would create similar female characters, only to try so hard to keep them apart. I see Black Widow as too Daredevil/Avengers based, but Jessica, of course. And any of the two before this Spider-bride, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by darthfury78 on Oct 2, 2014 1:48:47 GMT
If he had simply decided to just not use her, in the mind of many readers she would still be top choice as Spider-Man's partner, rather than Silk. I'm sure he was aware of that, even if his more straightforward answer didn't reveal any machinations. Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit? As for Silk being a carbon copy of Ultimate Universe Jessica Drew… can you imagine how weird the "erotic" scenes of the last three issues, would've been in earth 1610? Spider-Woman or the Black Widow as Spidey's partners? Marvel has avoided that for decades, never really understood why they would create similar female characters, only to try so hard to keep them apart. I see Black Widow as too Daredevil/Avengers based, but Jessica, of course. And any of the two before this Spider-bride, for sure. I think that the Black Widow might have been better received if she was part of Spider-Man's world as their contrasting views might have made for an interesting adventure between them. With Natasha's relationship with Daredevil, I felt that her partnership with him might have been a reflection of the sort of person that Spider-Man should be in her mind. Thus, Daredevil was just the mature and serious version of Spider-Man to the Black Widow. I think that the reason why their relationship ended badly was because they were way too similar; not sure about the killing aspect between them. If Natasha got to know the history of Peter Parker as well as his secret as Spider-Man, her views on him would change drastically because she'll understand that he's no different from her. I feel that the Black Widow should have been Spider-Man's first female crime fighting partner(followed by Jessica Drew and Felicia Hardy)dating back to the early 1970's..
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Oct 2, 2014 7:51:36 GMT
Weren't there also an age difference between the two of them? I know she was younger than Matt, but not that much.
|
|
|
Post by darthfury78 on Oct 2, 2014 13:20:13 GMT
Weren't there also an age difference between the two of them? I know she was younger than Matt, but not that much. Natasha was much older than Matt. Her origins goes back to the dawn of the Soviet Union in 1917. And she has a derivative of the super soldier serum in her body that makes her young. Thus, the Black Widow is much older than both Spider-Man and Daredevil.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Oct 2, 2014 14:50:11 GMT
Weren't there also an age difference between the two of them? I know she was younger than Matt, but not that much. Natasha was much older than Matt. Her origins goes back to the dawn of the Soviet Union in 1917. And she has a derivative of the super soldier serum in her body that makes her young. Thus, the Black Widow is much older than both Spider-Man and Daredevil. One of these days, I'll have to re-read all of the Avengers material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 9:30:57 GMT
Natasha was much older than Matt. Her origins goes back to the dawn of the Soviet Union in 1917. And she has a derivative of the super soldier serum in her body that makes her young. Thus, the Black Widow is much older than both Spider-Man and Daredevil. One of these days, I'll have to re-read all of the Avengers material. Ozy it was in the pages of cap and Black Widow (last series not the current) that it was revealed. It was relating to the Ice Pick protocol. So Natasha is similar in age to Captain America and yet people don't state age when its him and sharon. Could she have been good for spidey as a friend yeah Wolverine has learned to deal with his quirks and i can say i would enjoy hanging with Natasha more than i would with Logan. You should read the white tiger to get an idea of what Natasha can be like, i really like that book.
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Oct 10, 2014 15:11:54 GMT
Ozy it was in the pages of cap and Black Widow (last series not the current) that it was revealed. […] You should read the white tiger to get an idea of what Natasha can be like, i really like that book. Can you give me the marvel.wikia link for the first one? As for the second… so many comics to read, I went from Spider-Man, to Ultimate Spider-Man, to the Ultimate Universe and I'm currently stuck there. It's going to take me months, to finish that, before I move onto something else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 8:23:10 GMT
Hey Ozy (after i got your mail i had to pop over work was hectic for a while) I have to double check myself what particular issue it was but i think it was the fallen of son fall out.
|
|
|
Post by stillanerd on Apr 4, 2015 17:47:24 GMT
Slott sure messes up the sales pitch, when trying to explain Felicia's rage. Her "name" shouldn't be tarnished because she outed her, or because "The Spider" beat her; BTW, is everyone in the underworld referring to him that way, now? The only thing different about The Black Cat, is that she had a romance with Spider-Man, and everyone knows about it. They could certainly mock her because of that, but even then, I don't think every bad guy she crosses should be reminding her. As for her sudden interest in rising among the criminal element, if she's a professional thief who takes what she wants, why wasting efforts in becoming a mob boss? Is there something she wants that she can't steal, after all? Oh yeah, she wants her "name" back. Since when did she care about that? What "name" was that anyway? Slott just tries too hard to make the sell, and it feels forced. One other point I forgot to mention (which I actually did bring up in my Crawlspace review) was this: There is a point in which Black Cat allude to the illogical contradiction and double-standard when it comes to her rep during her meeting with Mr. Negative and Phil Urich/Goblin Knight, saying that they, too, were taken down by Spider-Man just like her. And while it's clear Slott intends this to have both villains side with her, he also winds undercutting Felicia's own narrative arc in the process. After all, if the only reason for why she's considered a laughing stock to the criminal underworld because she's a woman and they're not, then what the heck does she care about what some sexist criminals think?
|
|
|
Post by stillanerd on Apr 4, 2015 17:48:09 GMT
I guess you're basing the assumption that this is a sexist thing, on the "boy's club" reference. It could be, I haven't given it much thought, because I don't find it important. The issue here, and I read it in someone else's post, is that thieves try to keep a low profile. Felicia, being a thief, never showed much interest in her rep before, so whether she's doing it now because of feminist motivations, or whatever, isn't relevant. As a thief, you want to avoid confrontation, sure you can take pride in being the best at what you do, but fighting "The spider" was never in her job description. Losing a fight with him, can't damage her professional record. She's still every bit as good at stealing as she was before, I don't think anyone could challenge that. Her judgment in choosing lovers, though, gets seriously compromised, From that angle, she could be attacked by other criminals in the superhuman community, but only from the ones with the brain of a six year old. It could be argued, that she wasn't always a thief, that she's also had her crack at the masked adventurer life; but that was another character, the pre-OMD one. Oh, I totally agree, Ozy. My main point was that Felicia Hardy has always been a character who never cared what other people thought about her or was ever in the least bit concerned about her supposed "street cred." Here being a thief was always about self-interest and following in her father's footsteps. That's why, when Greg Weisman's Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon had her do a heel turn in the second to last episode of the series, it worked tremendously well because it stemmed from who she already was as a character, and, had the series continued, would've created a very interesting dynamic as she'd be torn between seeking revenge for her dad and her growing love for Spidey (a bit like Batman and Talia al Ghul along with Batman and Catwoman, sure, but it still worked). Granted, Black Cat in that show had a slightly different backstory than the Black Cat in comics, but it's an example of how turning Felicia Hardy into another antagonist/villain for Spidey can work as opposed to what's going on in the comics now.
|
|
|
Post by stillanerd on Apr 4, 2015 17:49:08 GMT
This is a rather complicated topic. How easy is the transition from thief to villain, among the super-powered community? One could be inclined to think that is easy to walk that distance, specially by looking at the large number of villains who started by simply trying to rob a bank. But let's look closer. Those characters weren't usually thieves to start with, they were people who obtained power either because they sought it, or because of an accident. Afterwards, they went into thieving as a logical way of profiting from their power. But even when they were robing banks, most of them weren't thieves, just villains robing banks. With all that, I want to say that I don't think is a good idea to turn Felicia (one of the few bona-fide thieves in MU) into a villain. Not only because there's already plenty of villains to choose from, but because it isn't psychologically credible. One of the other real thieves from Spidey's past, the Cat Burglar, was perfectly handled by Stern in PPSS. There, he was forced into villainy, showing how far that behavior was from his nature. But of course, comparing Slott to Stern isn't fair. Exactly! A lot of Spidey's rogues such as Vulture, Electro, Doc Ock, Mysterio, etc. were all guys who had professions in other fields such as business, science, engineering, etc. but due to circumstances beyond their control, whether it be an accident, lay off, or what have you, they used what powers, skills, or tech they acquired to turn to crime, either out of revenge or because they figured it was easy money. The exception were villains like Sandman who started off as a thief to begin with and, once he required his powers, became even more committed to robbing banks and the like because he figured "Who's gonna stop me?" And unlike Spidey, who learned the hard way the cost of abusing one's power, his villains were usually those who never learned, or refused to learn, Spidey's mantra of "with great power comes great responsibility," and you saw that a lot in Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's run. Very astute observation, Ozy. Well, to play Devil's Advocate a bit, I'm assume the idea for Slott turning Black Cat more down the path to being a super-villain is because he may figured Spidey needed more credible female villains, and figured since Black Cat was already there and her history with Spidey, he may have thought it was the most logical choice. That being said, her transition, I agree, has been way overboard and flat-out ridiculous. Not to mention, Screwball could have worked, too, given how SpOck's brutal attack on her and Jester. In any case, very good points.
|
|
|
Post by darthfury78 on May 16, 2015 6:31:57 GMT
I must say that overall the relaunch of Amazing Spider-Man is just depressing. I knew that issues 16 thru 18 wasn't going make the Black Cat any better. I am sick of Dan Slott's crappy storylines, as well as the fact that Spider-Man has become the most unbearable series thus far. Either this is a sign that Slott's lost interest in the series, or he just wants the reader to know how he really feels about writing the as it show that he's not loving Spider-Man/Peter Parker at all. This reinforces my belief that he's under contract with the Spider-Office, of which it's set to expire in 2016. The sooner Slott leaves the series the better as I feel that his interest is in the pages of Silver Suffer.
As for why Felicia destroyed her collection? It's because she's being mind controlled…LOL
|
|