What should be done with the Shocker?

[The Overlord]

You keep trying to paint the guy into extremes.

You're basically going, "if he drinks and smokes why doesn't he do meth and cocaine?" "if he's okay with eating his roomates food, why doesn't he steal his identity?" "If he can get a job as a fry cook at Burger King, why can't become a Gourmet French Chef?"

Because he's not a guy of extremes. He's a crook but he's not a criminal mastermind. He made a gadget but he's not a technological genius. He's kind of a jerk, but he's not a complete immoral psychopath.

He's very much a blue collar nine to five style criminal. If you can't understand a person just being kind of a jerk without being an immoral monster I don't know what to tell you.

Frankly there's a lot more depth and realism in the version of Shocker we do have than the one-note, color-inside-the lines and don't break any of the cliches versions you keep pushing.

Bernie Madoff was a sleazy greed based person with no morals, he wasn't a serial killer or a dictator, but his greed still hurt people and he was a scum bag, where do think unlimited greed leads to? You describe Shocker as an amoral character and that's often where amorality leads to, we live in a world where the extremes happen, now more than ever, IMO. That's the logical outcome of greed and moral bankruptcy. Where is the line between someone who is a greedy jerk and morally bankrupt greed based monster? Because that's where that mindset can lead. You talk about unrealistic extremes, but the truth is stranger than fiction. I think a lot of greedy, morally bankrupt people get corrupted and can easily go to extremes, heck we see it all the corporate world, look at the 2008 meltdown. To me, the mindset you describe would promote extreme amorality, because I see people use that same logic to justify being very amoral.

If Shocker is greedy and morally bankrupt, what would stop him from becoming addicted to greed and becoming more corrupt over time? If he has no real moral center, why wouldn't that happen? Because this happens in real life. There are people who can start off as just jerks and become sleazy and immortal over time, if they have no morals and are driven solely by greed. I that outlook can easily become corruptive, so if Shocker does not go that far, it may be nice to give him a moral reason to do so.

Well, fiction is like real life, without the boring the parts and what you describe sounds boring to me. A villain who is kinda off jerk, has no real redeeming qualities, no real back story but can't have him go beyond generic villainy and can't have him go the sleazy route. There is no reason like or dislike this character, that sounds like a plot device, he is there to provide action scenes when Spidey stops him robbing banks and not much else. It's pretty generic villain type, no real redeeming qualities, but he is not really willing to go the extra mile in terms of villainous ambition.

You have a character where you do not want to give him redeeming qualities, but have him engaged in schemes that are so low stakes, that Spidey's time is best served elsewhere. If Shocker and Dr. Octopus are both on the loose, Spidey would be irresponsible not focus far more catching Ock, Gobby, Carnage, etc then catching Shocker. It seems like Shocker should be a low priority, catch him if you can and if no else who is more dangerous is on the loose as well. If you have a villain that so low stakes and you can't give him redeeming qualities to make up for that, that seems like pretty nothing villain.

I'm sorry, but sorry, but just greed is a boring motive and if you think greedy bank robbing villain isn't a cliche, then you maybe you are missing something. How many villains have robbing banks as their M.O? Heck, how Spidey villains have that as their M.O? That is the M.O for half of his rogue's galleries, with the big guns like Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, Venom, Carnage, etc breaking from that mold, so it's not like Shocker being a greedy bank robber is some unique niche that only can fill, that is a pretty full area.

People say he is compelling because of his rationality, but people seem to define his rationality in the most vague way possible. How is Shocker's greed different from the greed of villains like Electro, Rhino, Sandman, Vulture, etc. They are greed based villains, what makes Shocker unique? I think Shocker may stand out in say Batman's rogue's gallery, but Spidey's rogue's gallery, bank robbing gimmick villains are a dime a dozen.

Also, a lot of people in real life are jerks who are smart enough to not publically break the law, one doesn't lead to the other.

[Alan2099]

You say want a realistic character, but he can't have any of the boring parts and he has to be taken to the extreme and greed isn't a good motive for him.

I don't know what you want, but it's not a realistic character. Perhaps a dynamic character is more what you're looking for.

[The Overlord]

You say want a realistic character, but he can't have any of the boring parts and he has to be taken to the extreme and greed isn't a good motive for him.

I don't know what you want, but it's not a realistic character. Perhaps a dynamic character is more what you're looking for.

Who says I want total realism? I stand by that quote, if something is realistic and boring, its boring, lot of things are realistic and dull and I do not want that in fiction, also today's world of extremes, lots of things that were deemed unrealistic in the past would be realistic now. Realism is a tool in a toolbox, it's not be all and end all and it depends on things like context to make sense.

You do not think some of the extremes I have mentioned are realistic, I disagree, I see plenty of extremes in the real world, I think this stuff is realistic because I see stuff like this on news. Would you agree that we have often seen greed and a lack of morals to lead to people becoming extemely corrupt and amoral? Is that stufff, unrealsitc, if we see it in the real world?

And yes, I want dynamics to character over a realistic one, but one can inform the other, but I would choose dynamism over, but to me, a character's motives should have some interesting basis in reality, even if the setting is fantastic. Most good fiction does.

If Shocker is greedy, could we explore the concept of greed with him in more depth? If he has no moral center, what prevents greed from devouring his soul and him becoming sleazy and corrupt over time? Because that could happen. Maybe that's an interesting thing to say about the character?

To me, it just seems like fans and writers just want to tell the same old safe stories with him and to me, if you want a really dynamic, compelling character, you have to tell new stories with them, put them in new situations and say new things about them. Heck Magneto would still be a nothing bad guy if Claremont did not revamp him and I am not saying make him Magneto, I am saying you could do new things with him, rather then repeating the same tired story beats from the Silver Age with him.

You say Shocker is greedy, fine, tell me a new story with that, not the same old story. How far does greed go with Shocker? What prevents Shocker's greed from becoming corruptive and corrosive? I think we live in society that worships greed, so there are lots of interesting things to say about that, really if Shocker's motive is greed, why wouldn't he fit in? Greed is a boring motive, unless you are willing to go deep on it, IMO.

There are no bad characters, only bad writers, but that doesn't matter if the writers never try anything new with a character. I feel like a lot of these characters to me have the potential to be great, but writers and fans want to engage in nostalgic and tell same old stories with them, so guys like Shocker seems static characters, there is nothing interesting to say about character, because no one wants to take a risk with him and ultimately nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I want to love every character, but you can't tell the same story with the character and expect me to care about a while.

[The Overlord]

Just to show I am fair and not just hating for no reason, here's an interesting notion, why can't Shocker come up with a better criminal scheme then knocking over banks, something Rhino could think of.

What if Shocker made some portable shock wave generators and placed them at various points at the city. Now he can extort businesses and destroy their buildings if they do not pay him a fee, he could assassinate people without having to be in the same room as his target, he could even cut deal with failing businesses, destroying them so they can collect insurance and he can get a cut. So instead of risking his butt all the time, where he is a danger of getting punched by Spidey or killed by the cops or Punisher or something, he can get a constant flow of money, without having to leave his home. He is still a generic criminal guy, but at least you show off his intelligence and give him something new to do. This is a scheme that is too smart for Rhino, but something Dr. Octopus would think is beneath him. As a bank robber, he is trying to muscle in already crowded super villain field, but here he could carve out a niche for himself that would more profitable and would it kill him if the writers gave him a different type of plan? Is it really that hard to give him a different story, even slightly? It just seems like a bunch of nerd nostalgia that keeps Shocker just doing the same old thing, over and over again, instead of doing different, the writers and fans just want to tell the same old tired story with him, but maybe he could do something, at least somewhat different.

If a character is an idiot like Rhino, they can do the same thing over and over again, but a smart character like Shocker should learn from his mistakes and develop new tactics over time.

[Michael Watkins]

Okay, but does he find camaraderie among all other super villains or does he have standards? Would he hang out with Bullseye or find him repulsive? Would he work for the Red Skull?

I am not talking about making him more pitiable, I am talking about making more sympathetic by giving him a more defined moral code and one can have a more defined back story, without being a total sad sack. Would giving him a more defined moral code and making deepening his supposed ''rationality'' into something that is more concrete, really ruin the character?

Also if he is supposed to be smart, shouldn't have come with a better way to make money then robbing banks, because that is clearly not working? One last score will never equal a constant flow of cash.



But does his code of conduct mean he would be happy to work with Bullseye and would not care not if he murdered women and children during a job? Would he be fine with working for the Red Skull? What if the Purifiers hired him to blow up a mutant halfway house, that would kill several innocent mutants, including children, would he take the job? It would ruin the character to really define how far his greed would take and decide whether he has no standards or not. If he doesn't, that's fine, then ditch the rationality aspect and make him more slimy and sleazy, that would sell out his own grandmother for cash and make him a real back stabber. If he does have standards, play that up and make his rationality a far more defined moral code then what we have seen from. He has a real moral code, define it, if not, make him a sleaze bag or comic relief villain. If only cares about money, he should sell out other villains, that could make him an interesting wild card, if cares about things, besides money, well then play that up.

Also if he is so greedy, why doesn't he come up with a criminal enterprise then robbing banks, which really only stupid criminals do at this point, bank robbery is way less profitable nowadays:

https://careers.workopolis.com/advic...their-efforts/

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trad...ry?id=23056521

There is very little money in robbing banks, its high risk, low reward, one ink pack could ruin your whole score. If Shocker was really driven by greed, he should change his tactics. There are far more profitable crimes that yield far better results then bank robbery, so Shocker's greed motive does not make sense if he is picking such an unprofitable criminal career.



Hey man, if you do not like my posts, do you not have to respond to them. I am just posting on topics I think are fun and interesting and I am not breaking any rules in doing so. Also, I am just going to respond to you in one block, rather than multi-quotes. I do not dunk on these characters to be mean, I do it because I think they could be something better, if the writers took more chances with them, rather playing it safe all the time. Heck DC changes their villains and makes those changes stick (will Sinestro ever go back to his Silver Age characterization)?

Also is Shocker just a comic relief , why do they give him serious stories like when he tried to kill 12 jury members, that's not a funny story. I do not complain about White Rabbit, because she is a comic relief character.

Everyone's hypocrite on some level, that doesn't mean Shocker can't try to have a moral compass that is more defined ''I am greedy, therefore I rob banks''. Why not give him a Tony Montana where he refuses to do something for moral reasons. Tony Montana is a bad guy, but he could not directly kill women and children and that is a move that ultimately cost him his life. Bad guy, but had some standards. Would giving Shocker more standards really ruin the character for all time? Is the character that fragile

And if he is greedy, why doesn't he pick a better career, either legal or illegal, that is more profitable then robbing banks?

https://careers.workopolis.com/advic...their-efforts/

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trad...ry?id=23056521

If he supposed to be smart, smart enough to invent his tech, why is he in a criminal career that is a dead end? There never will be a final score, because some nerd hacker with a laptop can clean the banks out without going near them, that guy can make more money then Shocker ever would.


Also Shocker becoming a Maggia leader does not feel earned (he got lucky and found Silvermane's head, he did not slowly rise through the ranks) and if Shocker is worried about Scrouge or Punisher blowing him away, why is he still acting like an idiot and robbing banks in a colorfully costume, instead of coming up with something more intelligent instead? A dumb criminal aims for one big score, the smart criminals try to create a constant flow of cash. So is Shocker smart or dumb?

If Shocker is supposed to be a comic relief character, then fine, never make him the center of any story and just have Spidey pants him when he tries to rob a bank, I have no problem with that, as long as it is consistent. If he supposed to be a serious villain, would there be any harm into putting more work into the character?

Shocker would avoid Bullseye. The latter is a psychopath.
The subway story was a mistake.
Herman doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to be a mob boss. He lacks the killer instinct. He's anxiety prone. His brief flirtation with that came after being betrayed and humiliated by Boomerang.
Instinctively he avoids leveling up because it would make him a target.
He's a low level criminal who was just smart enough to develop a costumed gimmick. That gets him into the bar with no name and just enough name recognition to feed his ego.
In a way, he has exceeded expectations.
Characters like Shocker are needed for contrast.

[Ramsay Snow]

Shocker would avoid Bullseye. The latter is a psychopath.
The subway story was a mistake.
Herman doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to be a mob boss. He lacks the killer instinct. He's anxiety prone. His brief flirtation with that came after being betrayed and humiliated by Boomerang.
Instinctively he avoids leveling up because it would make him a target.
He's a low level criminal who was just smart enough to develop a costumed gimmick. That gets him into the bar with no name and just enough name recognition to feed his ego.
In a way, he has exceeded expectations.
Characters like Shocker are needed for contrast.

It's also realistic, which kind of goes against Overlord's critique.

I know a guy who's essentially a real-life drug dealer version of Shocker. He makes enough to get by and do what he wants (To a minimal degree), but he could easily make 10x the money he brings in. He has the connections, and he knows enough people to sell to. He avoids going that route because he's paranoid about being targeted by the cops, and also going through any possible drama higher level drug dealers go through.

[The Overlord]

Shocker would avoid Bullseye. The latter is a psychopath.
The subway story was a mistake.
Herman doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to be a mob boss. He lacks the killer instinct. He's anxiety prone. His brief flirtation with that came after being betrayed and humiliated by Boomerang.
Instinctively he avoids leveling up because it would make him a target.
He's a low level criminal who was just smart enough to develop a costumed gimmick. That gets him into the bar with no name and just enough name recognition to feed his ego.
In a way, he has exceeded expectations.
Characters like Shocker are needed for contrast.

There you go, that's all I want, defining the character. I am not asking for the moon. Define his rationality, does it have a moral element or is it just pragmatic psychopathy?

If Shocker has a moral core, it should be explored more, because if he is only motivated by greed and has a no moral code, what would prevent him from becoming a total scum bag? Put Shocker in situtations where he has to choose between greed and morality, that is an intetesting.

It's also realistic, which kind of goes against Overlord's critique.

I know a guy who's essentially a real-life drug dealer version of Shocker. He makes enough to get by and do what he wants (To a minimal degree), but he could easily make 10x the money he brings in. He has the connections, and he knows enough people to sell to. He avoids going that route because he's paranoid about being targeted by the cops, and also going through any possible drama higher level drug dealers go through.

Except he robs banks in a colorful costume, he already attracts cops and super heroes, not to mention killers like the Scourge. Heck Punisher could blow him away if he is unlucky one day. What he is doing is actually pretty dangerous, is some bank score worth it if Punisher blows his head off? He was afraid the Scourge, it seems that he should be more afraid of Punisher.

Would it really kill the character to add some moral standards? Shocker trying not to kill people could put him in contrast with other more murderous villains.

[NC_Yankee]

Who says I want total realism? I stand by that quote, if something is realistic and boring, its boring, lot of things are realistic and dull and I do not want that in fiction, also today's world of extremes, lots of things that were deemed unrealistic in the past would be realistic now. Realism is a tool in a toolbox, it's not be all and end all and it depends on things like context to make sense.

You do not think some of the extremes I have mentioned are realistic, I disagree, I see plenty of extremes in the real world, I think this stuff is realistic because I see stuff like this on news. Would you agree that we have often seen greed and a lack of morals to lead to people becoming extemely corrupt and amoral? Is that stufff, unrealsitc, if we see it in the real world?

And yes, I want dynamics to character over a realistic one, but one can inform the other, but I would choose dynamism over, but to me, a character's motives should have some interesting basis in reality, even if the setting is fantastic. Most good fiction does.

If Shocker is greedy, could we explore the concept of greed with him in more depth? If he has no moral center, what prevents greed from devouring his soul and him becoming sleazy and corrupt over time? Because that could happen. Maybe that's an interesting thing to say about the character?

To me, it just seems like fans and writers just want to tell the same old safe stories with him and to me, if you want a really dynamic, compelling character, you have to tell new stories with them, put them in new situations and say new things about them. Heck Magneto would still be a nothing bad guy if Claremont did not revamp him and I am not saying make him Magneto, I am saying you could do new things with him, rather then repeating the same tired story beats from the Silver Age with him.

You say Shocker is greedy, fine, tell me a new story with that, not the same old story. How far does greed go with Shocker? What prevents Shocker's greed from becoming corruptive and corrosive? I think we live in society that worships greed, so there are lots of interesting things to say about that, really if Shocker's motive is greed, why wouldn't he fit in? Greed is a boring motive, unless you are willing to go deep on it, IMO.

There are no bad characters, only bad writers, but that doesn't matter if the writers never try anything new with a character. I feel like a lot of these characters to me have the potential to be great, but writers and fans want to engage in nostalgic and tell same old stories with them, so guys like Shocker seems static characters, there is nothing interesting to say about character, because no one wants to take a risk with him and ultimately nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I want to love every character, but you can't tell the same story with the character and expect me to care about a while.

I cannot believe a lot of the comments concerning Shocker. He is an okay villain, fine the way he is. He is not Doc Ock, Green Goblin or Mysterio, but he is not Kangaroo, Gibbon or Chameleon either. I will comment on a few points. 1: There are no bad characters, only bad writers. Not true: Alpha ( Slott), Living Brain ( Lee & Ditko), and Mindworm ( Conway) come to.mind when talking bad characters. 2: Living in a society that worships greed. This is not new. Remember " Greed is good" ( Gordon Gekko). Not to mention long before Spider-Man was created Oscar Wilde said "Every society honors a particular class.. In America it is the criminal class." 3: Making changes for the sake of change usually turns out badly (see Clone Saga, Sins Past and OMD for example). Since you mentioned Magneto, what was done with Magneto is now taking douche bags like Ock and Doom and trying to make them.sympathetic. Has anyone forgotten those two have tried to murder thousands if not millions. These two men are geniuses who know exactly what they are doing, unlike say Rhino who lacks the intelligence to be fully aware of their actions, and needs someone to listen and understand him ( which Spider-Man once did taking off his mask and by talking)..Which got Rhino to stop his rampage.

[The Overlord]

I cannot believe a lot of the comments concerning Shocker. He is an okay villain, fine the way he is. He is not Doc Ock, Green Goblin or Mysterio, but he is not Kangaroo, Gibbon or Chameleon either. I will comment on a few points. 1: There are no bad characters, only bad writers. Not true: Alpha ( Slott), Living Brain ( Lee & Ditko), and Mindworm ( Conway) come to.mind when talking bad characters. 2: Living in a society that worships greed. This is not new. Remember " Greed is good" ( Gordon Gekko). Not to mention long before Spider-Man was created Oscar Wilde said "Every society honors a particular class.. In America it is the criminal class." 3: Making changes for the sake of change usually turns out badly (see Clone Saga, Sins Past and OMD for example). Since you mentioned Magneto, what was done with Magneto is now taking douche bags like Ock and Doom and trying to make them.sympathetic. Has anyone forgotten those two have tried to murder thousands if not millions. These two men are geniuses who know exactly what they are doing, unlike say Rhino who lacks the intelligence to be fully aware of their actions, and needs someone to listen and understand him ( which Spider-Man once did taking off his mask and by talking)..Which got Rhino to stop his rampage.

But is Shocker a villain who should have a couple of issues centered around him as the villain who drives the plot or should he be a throwaway villain who Spidey defeats at the beginning of an issue before the real threat appears or maybe shows up as a throwaway goon in a team up an issue? He is a character or some plot device that exists only to provide action scenes and get punched by Spidey? Because yeah, if he supposed to be a serious villain who can carry an arc, he needs to be more then okay (because okay means he is a generic character who the writers put no real effort into). If he is just a plot device, fine, keep him as is, if he is supposed to be a character, then there is a lot of room for improvement. Does Shocker's rationality have a moral dimension or is it just self interested psychopathy?

Killinger tried to kill millions of people in the Black Panther movie, but they developed his backstory enough that, while you wouldn't agree with him, you can understand why he became that way? Meanwhile, what did Shocker do, wake up one morning and decide to rob banks for the rest of his life?

Why not make Shocker a real commentary on greed and how it can corrupt people and make them immoral, rather then saying he is greedy and he robs banks, end of character, If society worships greed and Shocker is driven by greed, is Shocker really an outlier and how far does his greed go compared to any sort of morals he has? Look at say Breaking bad, that is a story about a lovable loser who gets corrupted by greed and becomes an amoral psychopath over the time, does Shocker have any moral code and if not, what prevents him from becoming totally immoral and corrupt due to greed? See I am asking a relevant character question, is that so bad?

Here's an interesting question, does Shocker always put greed above human life? If Shocker was offered a job with a huge payday, but it involved harming children, would he take it? Because willingness to harm children or not, put guys like Walter White and Tony Montana on different moral paths. Heck, the Wire contrasted more moral with more ruthless criminals. Saying ''comics are not supposed as sophisticated as those shows and movies'' ignores how storytelling in the media, in general, has become.

If you want a villain to carry an arc (even a small 2 or 3 issue one), he needs to be dynamic. I think the whole ''the character is okay'' argument is based on nerd nostalgia, where people just want the same old story from the 60s, where Shocker robs banks and Spidey stops him, we have seen for decades. I think the character is not broken, but decided and static, something can stop working if you never bothered to maintain and improve it.

Am I asking for the moon or do I think it's reasonable to do something new with a character, rather than repeat the same old tired story beats? Is there really no new stories you can do with Shocker? I think you can, but if you demand so little from the character, fine, maybe he should be a plot device rather then a character.

[NC_Yankee]

[QUOTE=The Overlord;4257055]But is Shocker a villain who should have a couple of issues centered around him as the villain who drives the plot or should he be a throwaway villain who Spidey defeats at the beginning of an issue before the real threat appears or maybe shows up as a throwaway goon in a team up an issue? He is a character or some plot device that exists only to provide action scenes and get punched by Spidey? Because yeah, if he supposed to be a serious villain who can carry an arc, he needs to be more then okay (because okay means he is a generic character who the writers put no real effort into). If he is just a plot device, fine, keep him as is, if he is supposed to be a character, then there is a lot of room for improvement. Does Shocker's rationality have a moral dimension or is it just self interested psychopathy?

Killinger tried to kill millions of people in the Black Panther movie, but they developed his backstory enough that, while you wouldn't agree with him, you can understand why he became that way? Meanwhile, what did Shocker do, wake up one morning and decide to rob banks for the rest of his life?

Why not make Shocker a real commentary on greed and how it can corrupt people and make them immoral, rather then saying he is greedy and he robs banks, end of character, If society worships greed and Shocker is driven by greed, is Shocker really an outlier and how far does his greed go compared to any sort of morals he has? Look at say Breaking bad, that is a story about a lovable loser who gets corrupted by greed and becomes an amoral psychopath over the time, does Shocker have any moral code and if not, what prevents him from becoming totally immoral and corrupt due to greed? See I am asking a relevant character question, is that so bad?

Here's an interesting question, does Shocker always put greed above human life? If Shocker was offered a job with a huge payday, but it involved harming children, would he take it? Because willingness to harm children or not, put guys like Walter White and Tony Montana on different moral paths. Heck, the Wire contrasted more moral with more ruthless criminals. Saying ''comics are not supposed as sophisticated as those shows and movies'' ignores how storytelling in the media, in general, has become.

If you want a villain to carry an arc (even a small 2 or 3 issue one), he needs to be dynamic. I think the whole ''the character is okay'' argument is based on nerd nostalgia, where people just want the same old story from the 60s, where Shocker robs banks and Spidey stops him, we have seen for decades. I think the character is not broken, but decided and static, something can stop working if you never bothered to maintain and improve it.

Am I asking for the moon or do I think it's reasonable to do something new with a character, rather than repeat the same old tired story beats? Is there really no new stories you can do with Shocker? I think you can, but if you demand so little from the character, fine, maybe he should be a plot device rather then a character.[/QUOTE
Comic books and the movies and TV shows they come from are supposed to be entertaining and escapism from what is going on in the World. Hollywood and the entertainment industry has forgotten that lesson while looking for the "Deeper Meaning of Life." After a long day at work, school etc most people do not want to hear 24/7 of Trump or Ocasio-Cortez and their ideas ( or those opposing them) rammed down our throats. From a personal perspective I bought MLB Extra Innings just so I can spend a few hours watching the Yankees. Baseball ( along with the NY Islanders, Penn State sports, the Steelers and yes, Spider-Man) are escapism. You want those you like to win, to emerge victorious, and the enemy ( again it could be the Red Sox ot Green Goblin) to get their ass kicked. Shocker is essentially the Minnesota Twins for Spider-Man: You want them to lose, but they can never be the Red Sox or Orioles.

[Snoop Dogg]

[NC_Yankee]

No one says comics should operate in a vacuum, but when Stan wrote that, there was no such thing as the internet and news only channels like CNN. Fox News and MSNBC, so the need is not there. It was basically a different universe. Back to Shocker:"Maybe the best way to look at Shocker is by comparing him to Kingpin. Fisk was a nice enemy for Spider-Man, but never on tbe level of Goblin or Ock ( just like Shocker). But for Daredevil he is Goblin or Ock.

[Michael Watkins]

There you go, that's all I want, defining the character. I am not asking for the moon.

good. because the moon won't help you. reading the books will help you. it's always going to circle back around to your unwillingness to do the research. you diss the character and expect fans to, what, win you over with impassioned speeches? you'll just ignore any evidence that contradicts your premise.

Except he robs banks in a colorful costume, he already attracts cops and super heroes, not to mention killers like the Scourge. Heck Punisher could blow him away if he is unlucky one day. What he is doing is actually pretty dangerous, is some bank score worth it if Punisher blows his head off? He was afraid the Scourge, it seems that he should be more afraid of Punisher.

he defeated the Punisher in Superior Foes of Spider-man. Castle and how the criminals felt about him came up several times in the story. they are all very aware of how fragile their existence(s) are. i guess what you're not getting is that they have already committed to costume villainy. their self worth is tied into it. quitting because the Punisher exists is as bad as being killed by the Punisher.

[phantom1592]

I like Shocker as is. If anything I want MORE characters to be motivated by simple greed. The idea of getting a power or schtick and instantly trying to make some money off it is what a LOT of people would do. Murder is too extreme. Vengeance is overrated... Not everything has to be about saving the city or ruling the world... Sometimes a guy just wants to get rich and retire on an island somewhere.

The BIG personal revenge stories should be reserved for the BIG enemies... the Goblins and Doc Ocks and maybe Kraven… but Shocker? He's the guy you arrest on your way to stop the REAL villain of the month. And personally I don't think they should be 'hero-specific'. There's no reason that Spider-man should be the main guy to catch him every time... it's just as likely that Hawkeye or Daredevil are passing by when he blows the wall off a bank.

[jetengine]

I wouldnt mind a storyline or mini-series where Herman goes full mercenary. Alternatively a "Bar with no name" series that uses him as the viewer. Captain Nazi Killington turns up looking for recruits, Shocker and a few black/gay patrons beat the **** out of him and fling him out. If he wants that kind of crap Hydra are always hiring. Also him being snarky about how the Sinister 6 etc have lost their vidion and are too focused on revenge or taking over the world.