Do Spider-Man's villains suck?

[Agent Z]

Really what issue stated why he couldn't have made money legitimately through his tech? It seems like you are taking vague hints at something as being equal to a well-developed story. Also, is the story where he tried to murder 12 people for a crime boss an example of his rationality? It seems like the writers and many fans do not want to put a lot of effort into Shocker as a character.

Because ''robber'' is not a character, its an archetype. There is nothing wrong with starting with an archetype, but an archetype is not a compelling character in of itself if you do not add dimensions to it. Electro started off as an archetype but adding the self-esteem issues and dependent relationship with his mother added something to mix, he is not the most compelling character ever, but you have moved him beyond just being an archetype. Would it kill Shocker if he was moved beyond one-note robber archetype? What is wrong with expanding the character? I am not asking for a lot, if he is a thrill-seeker who likes to rob banks for the trill, that could be an explanation, its something and putting him in situations where he is pretty defined morally is more interesting then ''he is a robber, nothing else''.

You say Shocker has moved beyond this archetype, but has he? He believes in honor among thieves why was he ok with murdering 12 civilians?

He is supposed to be smart, but there are likely a ton of different legal and illegal ways that would net him more money than bank robbing would, so just saying he is a robber and that is it., really makes him less like a stale one-note character. and doesn't make him seem smart. His motives do not need to make perfect sense, but come on, the writers could try a little harder with the character to add some depth or cleverness.

Why are you so hung up on this one story where he tried to kill 12 people? It was an out-of-character moment. That's expected of a character that has been around for decades. 12 people is laughably tame for the average super villain anyway.

Just read Nick Spencer's Superior Foes if you want your questions answered.

[Alan2099]

Why are you stuck on the idea that characters have to be smart or clever to have personalities?

Can characters not be simple and straight forward? Can't they just do something because that's what they want to do?

There was actually a What if where the Living Laser was convinced to take a job at Stark Enterprises. Once he got his paycheck, he went mad and started attacking people. he had to be talked down and convinced that "this isn't like robbing a bank. You don't get to keep all your money." Why is the idea of a person that wants to keep all their money so far fetched?

[The Overlord]

Why are you stuck on the idea that characters have to be smart or clever to have personalities?

Can characters not be simple and straight forward? Can't they just do something because that's what they want to do?

There was actually a What if where the Living Laser was convinced to take a job at Stark Enterprises. Once he got his paycheck, he went mad and started attacking people. he had to be talked down and convinced that "this isn't like robbing a bank. You don't get to keep all your money." Why is the idea of a person that wants to keep all their money so far fetched?

Except how much taxes does Amazon pay? Really there are tons of ways someone can game the system and not pay taxes, so that argument does not work anymore, robbing banks is no longer that profitable, it is what dumb criminals do, not smart ones.

Because he invented his tech if he is a big dummy, how did he invent his tech? Shocker makes more sense in the cartoons, where he is some criminal of average intelligence, who is given his tech by some third party and he is taking all the risks using it, that makes more sense than Shocker somehow

At this point, the only supervillains who should still be robbing banks, are ones that are stupid (like Rhino) or thrill-seekers who just do it for fun, rather than profit.

Why are you so hung up on this one story where he tried to kill 12 people? It was an out-of-character moment. That's expected of a character that has been around for decades. 12 people is laughably tame for the average super villain anyway.

Just read Nick Spencer's Superior Foes if you want your questions answered.

And there are other supervillains who likely have not killed anyone or may even go out their way not to kill people.

I read Superior Foes and I do not think it does answer my questions, its crumbs of characterization for Shocker, not a full meal. Its good character work for Boomerang, but not really Shocker. Its a great Boomerang story, but not a great Shocker one.

And people often sited that story where he tried to kill 12 as one of Shocker's best stories, so how well defined is this character? You can even turn lemons into lemonade, maybe Shocker realized that trying to kill 12 innocent people was the wrong thing to do and goes out of his way not harm innocent people, it could be a character-building moment, a turning point for the character, he was at his lowest and decides to change because of it or just make him a scummy cold-hearted person who values money over human life, I prefer the more noble route, but making his professionalism seem really cold-hearted could work too, you can't have a character who is supposed to be professional and is written as a loser all the time. Define what his professionalism is and make an interesting story of it, no more half measures, where he is a professional loser, make his professionalism mean something, and say something about the character.

It seems like Shocker could be more dangerous as an inventor than a thief, perhaps he could look into ways to mass-produce his tech and sell it through organized crime to every petty criminal who wants an edge. He could get constant income, rather than the scraps he would make as a thief.

I do not see why it is a bad thing to give Shocker some more defined characterization, I think it would wonders for the character, I think it would make things interesting if he had a far better developed moral code and was something who is not as smart as Dr. Octopus, but more intelligent than Rhino and a contrast to other more murderous villains, Green Goblin and Carnage like to kill people for fun, but Shocker could have a moral code against harming civilains.

[Snoop Dogg]

You can be an idiot and learn how to make vibrators.

[The Overlord]

You can be an idiot and learn how to make vibrators.

Really, do random criminals with no education invent tech that can knock down a wall? And Shocker has been portrayed as intelligent in the past, but not consistently.

And if he is just another stupid greedy criminal, what is the difference between him and Rhino, Electro or Sandman? I think to make him smart, but not a super genius like Doc Ock is a good niche.

It seems like you guys are content with a student who delivers C level work, when he could be delivering A level work, with a little more effort. What is wrong with demanding more from a character who could do more?

I do not hate Shocker as a character, I think there is some great potential there for a really interesting villain who is really unique in terms of personality, a character defined by professionalism could be super interesting, if they tried to define and develop what professionalism means to him, that could make from some really great and unique stories. But potenial does not mean anything, if you do not apply it.

[Alan2099]

It seems like you guys are content with a student who delivers C level work, when he could be delivering A level work, with a little more effort. What is wrong with demanding more from a character who could do more?

Because some people in this world ARE C students. Some people have ONE good idea ... and that's it. Just because you invent something doesn't mean you're some super science genius, and even if you are really good at science it doesn't mean you aren't stupid in other areas or that you just can't see the big picture.

And why are you so hung-up on Shocker, of all characters? The guy has NEVER been a deep character, nor does he show signs of being deeper, morally conflicted, or even exceptionally bright. Why do you keep wanting to make him into something he's not?

And Yes, I am content with the way Shocker is shown to us. Not ever character needs to be some super big awesome threat or some emotionally touching character study. .

[The Overlord]

Because some people in this world ARE C students. Some people have ONE good idea ... and that's it. Just because you invent something doesn't mean you're some super science genius, and even if you are really good at science it doesn't mean you aren't stupid in other areas or that you just can't see the big picture.

And why are you so hung-up on Shocker, of all characters? The guy has NEVER been a deep character, nor does he show signs of being deeper, morally conflicted, or even exceptionally bright. Why do you keep wanting to make him into something he's not?

And Yes, I am content with the way Shocker is shown to us. Not ever character needs to be some super big awesome threat or some emotionally touching character study. .

Because people keep on saying he is unique due to his professionalism, which I think could be super interesting if someone tried to do something with it, how much Spidey villains are defined by professionalism?

There no bad characters, only bad writers, but you need to apply yourself to make a character good. Mr. Freeze was a crappy character till BTAS. Magneto was generic till Claremont. Heck, Vulture, Sandman, Electro, Rhino, and Scorpion are better defined than Shocker, not all of them are A-list villains, but there is something there. They are B-list villains, but all have a more defined personality than Shocker. You get more mileage out of Electro than Shocker, at least he is supposed to be an idiot and he has some personality beyond just greed.

But an A student who delivers C level work all the time is not really worth praising.

Well if that's the case, well then you may as make Shocker comic relief or a character who only exists to provide an action scene in the first issue of a story that moves to the real villain who does something more interesting or complicated after Spidey cleans Shocker clock. It seems Shocker, as you describe, is only a step above random nameless thugs Spidey beats up all the time. At that point, he wouldn't be a great character, he would be a plot device, therefor only good beginning action scenes or just being a random follower of a better villain.

He would a great plot device, but a weak character at that point, which is fine if all he is a plot device.

This is why Shocker works better in animation, I find it way easier to buy the character you are saying Shocker should be, if he was given his tech by someone else, rather than inventing it.

[Agent Z]

Because people keep on saying he is unique due to his professionalism, which I think could be super interesting if someone tried to do something with it, how much Spidey villains are defined by professionalism?

Not very much. Few of them can actually be said to have that trait.

[Electricmastro]

The most interesting Spider-Man villains:

Venom

Green Goblin

Doctor Octopus

Carnage

Mysterio

Electro

Sandman

Rhino

The Lizard

Vulture

Scorpion

Kraven the Hunter

[NC_Yankee]

Of course there are bad characters. How do I know? They never ( or rarely) return. Even Ditko had Paste Pot Pete. Remember the Living Brain, Man Mountain Marko or Jackpot? Then there are characters that seem to suck in every issue they appear ( like Jackal). No one ( not even Conway) can make him work.

[The Overlord]

Not very much. Few of them can actually be said to have that trait.

That is something that could be interesting and unique for Spidey's rogues gallery, if you develop it.

Is Shocker's professionalism a moral code that guides his actions and puts limits on himself or does it make him more cold hearted, where his pursuit of profit is just as ruthless and immoral as the actions of the worst Spidey villains, but he is pragmatic enough not to be blinded by revenge or is not blood thirsty, but will put money above human lives.

They are both valid ways to go, but defining Shocker's professionalism is better than not defining it.

I think putting Shocker in a situation where he has to choose between money and human lives could be interesting and would define what is professionalism actually is.

Look at the Mandolarian, that show featured a cool professional merc, who has to choose between money and his ethics and he chose his ethics.

[mathew101281]

The most interesting Spider-Man villains:

Venom

Green Goblin

Doctor Octopus

Carnage

Mysterio

Electro

Sandman

Rhino

The Lizard

Vulture

Scorpion

Kraven the Hunter

Kingpin
Mr. Negative
Hobgoblin

Are pretty interesting to.

[williamtheday]

Morbius has to suck...blood!

[Kaitou D. Kid]

A villain doesn't have to have a complex psychology to be good. They just have to relate to the hero in an interesting way.

The reason Spider-Man's villains are considered good is because most of them are dark reflections of him. They're working-class guys who gained their powers by accident and chose to become villains. Most of them also have an animal motif and the personality of a bully, which plays into the idea of Spidey being an underdog in an eat-or-be-eaten world. You can still write an essay on Spider-Man's villains even if their personalities are relatively straightforward.

[The Overlord]

A villain doesn't have to have a complex psychology to be good. They just have to relate to the hero in an interesting way.

The reason Spider-Man's villains are considered good is because most of them are dark reflections of him. They're working-class guys who gained their powers by accident and chose to become villains. Most of them also have an animal motif and the personality of a bully, which plays into the idea of Spidey being an underdog in an eat-or-be-eaten world. You can still write an essay on Spider-Man's villains even if their personalities are relatively straightforward.

I think if you make these characters more unique from each other (in terms of personality, rather than gimmicks) you make more compelling villains.

Like people here are saying Shocker is just some dumb greedy thug who got lucky and just wants a big score, what is he then, a less interesting version of Electro?

I think giving these villains more differentiate each other is better than not. Greedy thug is an archetype, not a character.

Like I think Shocker should be made more sympathetic and someone like Mysterio should be less sympathetic. Having some villains willing to cross that others won't is more interesting, not defining what are a character's lines are and just having them do whatever the writer feels like from story to story (ie. Shocker is supposed to be the most rational of the Spidey villains, but is okay with murdering 12 people).

If you are going to have villains who have been reoccurring since the 60s, I think you should develop them after a while, rather than trying to do the same old plot with them, over and over again, you can have a comic relief villain like White Rabbit rob banks and provide action scenes and just be there for action and a cheap laugh.

I am not saying every villain has to be a serial killer or a world conqueror (that would be silly), but I think some villains should be more murderous than others, Mysterio should not be in the same old ''greedy thug archetype'', I think he is a naturally unsympathetic character (considering his M.O is gaslighting and mind games) and should more actively unlikable compared to Shocker or Sandman. He should be more willing to resort to murder if his massive ego is bruised, while Rhino, Sandman, and Shocker would object to that and would only kill as a last resort, IMO. Have these villains not only playoff of Spidey, but have them playoff each other.

I have heard some people say Sandman was uninteresting as a hero but was he ever that interesting as a straight-up villain, no, he was just the same old greedy thug archetype. He was likely most interesting when he was criminal trying to reform. At this point, he should stay a villain, but with renounced redeeming qualities.