Thread Drift: Dan Slott's Black Cat

[Dan Slott]

Agreed that people lost their sh*t over stuff (me included (superior)) but doesn't sound like people are really "losing their sh*t" over black cat.

I've seen YouTube videos of people seriously losing their sh*t over Black Cat's turn. What might merely "annoy" one person can make another person lose their sh*t. It's all relative.
Take the time we made Spidey lose his spider-sense "forever" (again, only 17 or so issues. And we all knew our end game on that).
Even if 99.999% of Spidey fans didn't have a problem with it, I can guarantee you that at least 2 Spider-Fans thought it was worst thing in the history of forever.
Seriously. 2 people who thought it was THE absolute worst moment in ALL of Spider-Man continuity. Sins Past? OMD? BND? Clone Saga? Skip, the child abuser from the PSA comic? The Spider-Man 3 movie? NONE of that caused these 2 specific fans any tsuris. ("Tsuris"? Google it.)
But losing Spidey losing his Spider-Sense?! THE GREATEST CRIME IN HUMANITY!
You NEVER know what someone's trigger is.

Sounds like people are just really annoyed how poorly the character is being written.

Oy.
Here in the real world, if ONE tragedy strikes someone-- they lose a job they've been at for decades, get in a car accident, possessions lost to a flood or fire...
Some people DON'T bounce back from it and are forever changed. Events happen and sometimes they change us-- no matter who we were or how we regularly acted BEFORE that personal tragedy.
I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here. This is a plain, simple truth.

Why shouldn't it be any different for comic book characters?

Felicia lost all she owned and worked for. She was sent to prison-- she lost her freedom. She lost her social position. She lost her "Felicia Hardy" life. She lost EVERYTHING.
And the thing that cost her all of that?
Her trust of Spider-Man. Her attraction to Spider-Man. That was her Achilles' Heel. EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T "REALLY" SPIDER-MAN. That's not what was at issue. It was that is was a vulnerability-- a way she let her own guard down-- THAT is what did her in.

And now all of THAT has changed her.
She is different now.
If NONE of that had happened-- AND she was being written this way, then I'd agree with you. The Felicia from all of those stories BEFORE Superior Spider-Man #21 would NEVER act this way.

But things have happened to her since then. And she acts and reacts to things differently now. And a BIG part of that is how her powers are acting now. The more she gives into her dark side, the more her bad luck powers are increasing. And for someone who, for a terrible moment, felt powerless-- she's now finding herself in a place where her power is growing-- and all she has to do is lean into it. THAT is who she is now. That is the path she's on.

[Mauled]

I have no idea what you're implying... :-P
Attachment 28151 Attachment 28152 Attachment 28153

What I do know, if you're too precious with a character, if you leave them in stasis, that leads to nothing but boring and predictable stories.
There are times when Batman was wearing zebra costumes, water-skiing with Superman, and punching robots... when he wasn't busy traveling back in time to team up with Vikings.
Then there are times when Batman fought only "street-level" bad guys in a tough noir setting.
And then there were times when he stepped down and let Dick Grayson wear the suit.
And yet, Batman's still here for us. (Except now he happens to be Jim Gordon in a bat-suit IN a robot suit.)
But you get the idea.

Some fans freaked out and lost their sh*t over "Hobgoblin" getting decapitated at the top of the Big Time run. Most fans didn't have a problem with it. They wanted to see where the story was going.
Some fans freaked out and lost their sh*t over Spidey losing his Spider-Sense "forever" (for a stretch of 17 or so issues). Most fans didn't have a problem with it. They wanted to see where the story was going.
Some fans freaked out and lost their sh*t over Kaine "dying" in Spider-Verse (even though we SHOWED HE WAS STILL ALIVE in the epilogue issue). Most fans... weren't insane and couldn't figure out why anyone would lose their sh*t over a character clearly-not-being-dead. And they wanted to see where the story was going.
A LOT of fans freaked out when Peter Parker "died" and was replaced by Doc Ock. Most fans... may have had a problem with it, but they wanted to see where the story was going. And a good 20,000 lapsed and new readers jumped on board because they wanted to see what the fuss was all about.

And a lot of people on this thread have lost their sh*t over Felicia's turn. I see a pattern of behavior here. It's not always from the same trigger-- but history's a pretty good indicator that if you have a little faith, hold on tight to the rail, and go along for the ride, you might just enjoy yourself by the time the car comes to a complete stop. :-)

You don't have to turn a character evil so not to leave a character in stasis.
Iv been reading some of the original Spider-man stories and Peter is very different then to say how he would be in the 70's and 80's onwards but he wasn't turned heel not kept in stasis. Why should it be any different for Felicia.

[oldschool]

You don't have to turn a character evil so not to leave a character in stasis.
Iv been reading some of the original Spider-man stories and Peter is very different then to say how he would be in the 70's and 80's onwards but he wasn't turned heel not kept in stasis. Why should it be any different for Felicia.

I think the point Dan is making is that change is what keeps characters relevant and interesting; I recall the ASM in the late 1970's and early 1980's being criticized for being kinda boring---the classic villains reappeared with little change, were beaten soundly and went into hiding until the next time. Peter's life changed very little (he finally graduated college after making up a gym credit! yay!) but the title was stale until Roger Stern arrived. Let's keep in mind that this was only 20 years in on the Spidey character; we are now dealing with 50+ years of stories (literally thousands by now) and so it really is incumbent for a good writer to turn things on their head every so often or he risks being accused of being boring----which, let's face it, is worse than crafting a storyline that some just don't like at all.

[Metamorphosis]

I have no idea what you're implying... :-P
Attachment 28151 Attachment 28152 Attachment 28153

What I do know, if you're too precious with a character, if you leave them in stasis, that leads to nothing but boring and predictable stories.
There are times when Batman was wearing zebra costumes, water-skiing with Superman, and punching robots... when he wasn't busy traveling back in time to team up with Vikings.
Then there are times when Batman fought only "street-level" bad guys in a tough noir setting.
And then there were times when he stepped down and let Dick Grayson wear the suit.
And yet, Batman's still here for us. (Except now he happens to be Jim Gordon in a bat-suit IN a robot suit.)
But you get the idea.

Some fans freaked out and lost their sh*t over "Hobgoblin" getting decapitated at the top of the Big Time run. Most fans didn't have a problem with it. They wanted to see where the story was going.
Some fans freaked out and lost their sh*t over Spidey losing his Spider-Sense "forever" (for a stretch of 17 or so issues). Most fans didn't have a problem with it. They wanted to see where the story was going.
Some fans freaked out and lost their sh*t over Kaine "dying" in Spider-Verse (even though we SHOWED HE WAS STILL ALIVE in the epilogue issue). Most fans... weren't insane and couldn't figure out why anyone would lose their sh*t over a character clearly-not-being-dead. And they wanted to see where the story was going.
A LOT of fans freaked out when Peter Parker "died" and was replaced by Doc Ock. Most fans... may have had a problem with it, but they wanted to see where the story was going. And a good 20,000 lapsed and new readers jumped on board because they wanted to see what the fuss was all about.

And a lot of people on this thread have lost their sh*t over Felicia's turn. I see a pattern of behavior here. It's not always from the same trigger-- but history's a pretty good indicator that if you have a little faith, hold on tight to the rail, and go along for the ride, you might just enjoy yourself by the time the car comes to a complete stop. :-)

It's like, on one hand, you as writers want the fan base engaged and invested in these characters, some of them over decades, and then you express shock and dismay when people react to changes they don't like?

There's a tendency for plots to fall through the cracks sometimes as well, and never get resolved, or resolved well. You mention the Kingsley beheading fake-out during Big Time. So why was Daniel ever in the costume in his brother Roddy's place to be beheaded by Phil in New York? Did Roddy do the Winkler on Daniel to get him to be another in a long line of dupes? Ok, but did he pump him full of goblin serum as well to give him super-strength (like the ability to tear a door off the wall in his encounter with Phil in the lair)? That's the kind of thing that would get covered these days in a four-page backup story, but didn't, and seemed to get lost in the run up to ASM #700.

In other words, if you're gonna do these kind of plots, it's nice to see some follow-through. Of course comic fans are going to pick these details apart. Unless ASM has simply become "make up your own plot".

[Ozymandias]

I think the point Dan is making is that change is what keeps characters relevant and interesting; I recall the ASM in the late 1970's and early 1980's being criticized for being kinda boring---the classic villains reappeared with little change, were beaten soundly and went into hiding until the next time. Peter's life changed very little (he finally graduated college after making up a gym credit! yay!) but the title was stale until Roger Stern arrived. Let's keep in mind that this was only 20 years in on the Spidey character; we are now dealing with 50+ years of stories (literally thousands by now) and so it really is incumbent for a good writer to turn things on their head every so often or he risks being accused of being boring----which, let's face it, is worse than crafting a storyline that some just don't like at all.

If the title was stale, the comics were stale. Stale as in "bad"?

[Celgress]

It's like, on one hand, you as writers want the fan base engaged and invested in these characters, some of them over decades, and then you express shock and dismay when people react to changes they don't like?.....

Excellent point my friend, if people dislike something no amount of complaining on the author's/creator's part will change their minds. If anything it will only encourage further dissent.

[MJS]

I've seen YouTube videos of people seriously losing their sh*t over Black Cat's turn. What might merely "annoy" one person can make another person lose their sh*t. It's all relative.
Take the time we made Spidey lose his spider-sense "forever" (again, only 17 or so issues. And we all knew our end game on that).
Even if 99.999% of Spidey fans didn't have a problem with it, I can guarantee you that at least 2 Spider-Fans thought it was worst thing in the history of forever.
Seriously. 2 people who thought it was THE absolute worst moment in ALL of Spider-Man continuity. Sins Past? OMD? BND? Clone Saga? Skip, the child abuser from the PSA comic? The Spider-Man 3 movie? NONE of that caused these 2 specific fans any tsuris. ("Tsuris"? Google it.)
But losing Spidey losing his Spider-Sense?! THE GREATEST CRIME IN HUMANITY!
You NEVER know what someone's trigger is.


Oy.
Here in the real world, if ONE tragedy strikes someone-- they lose a job they've been at for decades, get in a car accident, possessions lost to a flood or fire...
Some people DON'T bounce back from it and are forever changed. Events happen and sometimes they change us-- no matter who we were or how we regularly acted BEFORE that personal tragedy.
I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here. This is a plain, simple truth.

Why shouldn't it be any different for comic book characters?

Felicia lost all she owned and worked for. She was sent to prison-- she lost her freedom. She lost her social position. She lost her "Felicia Hardy" life. She lost EVERYTHING.
And the thing that cost her all of that?
Her trust of Spider-Man. Her attraction to Spider-Man. That was her Achilles' Heel. EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T "REALLY" SPIDER-MAN. That's not what was at issue. It was that is was a vulnerability-- a way she let her own guard down-- THAT is what did her in.

And now all of THAT has changed her.
She is different now.
If NONE of that had happened-- AND she was being written this way, then I'd agree with you. The Felicia from all of those stories BEFORE Superior Spider-Man #21 would NEVER act this way.

But things have happened to her since then. And she acts and reacts to things differently now. And a BIG part of that is how her powers are acting now. The more she gives into her dark side, the more her bad luck powers are increasing. And for someone who, for a terrible moment, felt powerless-- she's now finding herself in a place where her power is growing-- and all she has to do is lean into it. THAT is who she is now. That is the path she's on.

It would be great to see some of this actually on the page instead of having to visit a comic book forum to get an explanation. And be "see" I mean actually having it shown, not just told via expository dump.

[Pav]

I think I know the difference between the two but do you ?

Honestly, I've been thinking pretty deeply into the matter regarding the subtle differences at play. I feel relatively secure in my understanding of the terms, but I'd like to learn more about the intricacies of each that distinguish them from each other.

Also, thank you for reminding me that people hate condescension.

-Pav, who is as guilty as anyone...

PS: boots, I finally got to that article you posted. Interesting stuff - thanks for posting it.

[Mister Mets]

It would be great to see some of this actually on the page instead of having to visit a comic book forum to get an explanation. And be "see" I mean actually having it shown, not just told via expository dump.

How would anyone go about showing, and not telling, how a character's inappropirate response is similar to that of some (but not all) real people who respond poorly to a change in personal circumstances.

[Ozymandias]

Felicia lost all she owned and worked for. She was sent to prison-- she lost her freedom. She lost her social position. She lost her "Felicia Hardy" life. She lost EVERYTHING.
And the thing that cost her all of that?
Her trust of Spider-Man. Her attraction to Spider-Man. That was her Achilles' Heel. EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T "REALLY" SPIDER-MAN. That's not what was at issue. It was that is was a vulnerability-- a way she let her own guard down-- THAT is what did her in.

And now all of THAT has changed her.
She is different now.
If NONE of that had happened-- AND she was being written this way, then I'd agree with you. The Felicia from all of those stories BEFORE Superior Spider-Man #21 would NEVER act this way.

But things have happened to her since then. And she acts and reacts to things differently now. And a BIG part of that is how her powers are acting now. The more she gives into her dark side, the more her bad luck powers are increasing. And for someone who, for a terrible moment, felt powerless-- she's now finding herself in a place where her power is growing-- and all she has to do is lean into it. THAT is who she is now. That is the path she's on.

She was a thief and, even thought Spider-Man should've done, what Octavius did, he didn't. It wasn't her trust that sent her to prison, it was her life of crime, anyone could've apprehended her, and someone did. Wanting to channel her frustration on the wrong person, no matter what, shows the writer's hand all over it: she didn't have any status or identity to protect, she was never shown, as possessing all those objects, she later wanted to regain. In essence, the life Otto destroyed with that punch, was fabricated post-facto. The rest of the story, is a moot point.

[Mauled]

Honestly, I've been thinking pretty deeply into the matter regarding the subtle differences at play. I feel relatively secure in my understanding of the terms, but I'd like to learn more about the intricacies of each that distinguish them from each other.

Also, thank you for reminding me that people hate condescension.

-Pav, who is as guilty as anyone...

PS: boots, I finally got to that article you posted. Interesting stuff - thanks for posting it.

That's cool no problems

And we are all guilty of it at one time or another

[Mauled]

I think the point Dan is making is that change is what keeps characters relevant and interesting; I recall the ASM in the late 1970's and early 1980's being criticized for being kinda boring---the classic villains reappeared with little change, were beaten soundly and went into hiding until the next time. Peter's life changed very little (he finally graduated college after making up a gym credit! yay!) but the title was stale until Roger Stern arrived. Let's keep in mind that this was only 20 years in on the Spidey character; we are now dealing with 50+ years of stories (literally thousands by now) and so it really is incumbent for a good writer to turn things on their head every so often or he risks being accused of being boring----which, let's face it, is worse than crafting a storyline that some just don't like at all.

But there is a difference between developing the character and changing her fundamentally.
Felicia is the classic rouge with a heart of gold archetype. It's what makes her fun in the first place. Changing her into the Kingpin just doesn't work for the character and takes away that fun. It's different to say Tombstone. In the animated series cartoon the guy is just a street thug but in Spectacular he's a suave crime boss, hell even Spidey has a grudging respect for the guy. Yet it works for the character, with Felicia it just doesn't.

It's not like she was used a lot by Slott (sorry couldn't resist) or other writers beforehand.
Having her as a quasi boss/mentor figure on Silk does actually work and is change anyway, she just didn't need to be turned evil to do it. Which makes Silks decision to hang out with her stupid but that's an argument for another day.
If you are going to change Felicia why turn her evil anyway. Why not make her a full Avenger instead.
Finally like I said before while Marvel have got quite a few Male anti-heroes they don't have many female ones. Why wreck one of your most famous ones ?

[oldschool]

But there is a difference between developing the character and changing her fundamentally.
Felicia is the classic rouge with a heart of gold archetype. It's what makes her fun in the first place. Changing her into the Kingpin just doesn't work for the character and takes away that fun. It's different to say Tombstone. In the animated series cartoon the guy is just a street thug but in Spectacular he's a suave crime boss, hell even Spidey has a grudging respect for the guy. Yet it works for the character, with Felicia it just doesn't.

It's not like she was used a lot by Slott (sorry couldn't resist) or other writers beforehand.
Having her as a quasi boss/mentor figure on Silk does actually work and is change anyway, she just didn't need to be turned evil to do it. Which makes Silks decision to hang out with her stupid but that's an argument for another day.
If you are going to change Felicia why turn her evil anyway. Why not make her a full Avenger instead.
Finally like I said before while Marvel have got quite a few Male anti-heroes they don't have many female ones. Why wreck one of your most famous ones ?

While I agree with some of your points, the one that gives me pause is when you claim she is "the classic rogue with a heart of gold"; that happens to be my favorite period for Felicia but she hasn't been (consistently) portrayed as such in over 25 years. Like I said earlier, to my viewpoint she was never truly established as a character and her repeated appearances (often under different writers) were all differing, sometimes minor shifts in her character and sometimes major. So, again, where I think our viewpoints differ is when you state that Felicia had an established character and so this new turn is wildly out of character for her. While I don't necessarily like or dislike the new direction for her, I can't say that it is so outrageous that it bothers me (in the way that having, say, JJJ murder someone would). Lastly, while I think Slott's writing has it's ups and downs (and more ups for me), one thing that he has proven is that there is usually and endgame that we don't see coming whenever there is a wild left-turn in his writing so I am willing to go for the ride and see where this Felicia storyline leads us.

[Vworp Vworp]

It's like, on one hand, you as writers want the fan base engaged and invested in these characters, some of them over decades, and then you express shock and dismay when people react to changes they don't like?

This. All day.

It essentially breaks down to "We want to you to be invested enough in these characters to continue to buy the books they appear in. But we don't expect you to care when we fundamentally change a character's personality and make them the antithesis of what they were."

[Ozymandias]

While I agree with some of your points, the one that gives me pause is when you claim she is "the classic rogue with a heart of gold"; that happens to be my favorite period for Felicia but she hasn't been (consistently) portrayed as such in over 25 years.

Kevin Smith mini.