What should be done with the Shocker?

[The Overlord]

I think I have expressed some misgivings about the Shocker in the past, but I think it's useful to look at the character and see if there is anything that can be improved upon.

Here's my problem with Shocker, he is a really generic villain with a dull motive (greed is a pretty dull motive) and there really is no reason to find him compelling. People keep on saying that he is unique because he is motivated by greed rather revenge, but is that really that unique among Spidey villains? Many of them: Electro, Sandman, Rhino, etc care for more about profit then revenge, is that doesn't make Shocker stand out. Besides that, the character is given no real depth, heck the writers can't decide whether he is a serious villain or not. Shocker's supposedly rationality, doesn't seem to translate into any real morals (Shocker was willing to kill 12 innocent people for a paycheck), so it does not seem that compelling or interesting.

To me the easiest way to make a villain more compelling is to make a villain more evil or sympathetic and with Shocker I would go sympathetic, because at this point I do not think there is sympathetic about Shocker's endless quest for ''one last score'' and I see no reason to care about it, because the writers have not done the work to make me care whether Shocker fails or succeeds. Giving him a more defined moral code would help the character. You can also give him a more defined back story and explain why he is a criminal, where did he get his skills and why can't he use them to earn a legitimate living. If the writers cannot do that, maybe he should just be a comic relief villain or a villain Spidey defats before the real villain of the story appears, to make him more then that, requires the writers and fans demanding more from the character.

[PCN24454]

I think Shocker’s ok. Not all villains should be masterminds or pitiable. That would arguably make him even more generic.

Maybe they could play up his technological-know-how.

Having him show camaraderie amongst other supervillains should be enough.

[Kurolegacy]

Honestly I find it’s a bit of a missed opportunity that his stint with the Thunderbolts and then Rogue acting as a character witness for him after Secret Empire. It’s a shame both basically went nowhere.

[Michael Watkins]

I think I have expressed some misgivings about the Shocker in the past,

yes. yes, you have.

To me the easiest way to make a villain more compelling is to make a villain more evil or sympathetic

doesn't work. as a Doom fan, you should know that. They always return to form (even characters like Magneto). A character would have to be really broken for that to stick.

and with Shocker I would go sympathetic, because at this point I do not think there is sympathetic about Shocker's endless quest for ''one last score'' and I see no reason to care about it, because the writers have not done the work to make me care whether Shocker fails or succeeds.

He’s a villain. You can’t have him succeed. Better to find something else to like about the character. Shocker is someone that I like. I appreciate his insecurities, his loyalty to his friends, and his sense of humor. The writer’s (especially nick spencer) have done the work. All that you have to do is read. Herman has had more focus issues than most lower-tier villains. Long time readers remember his crisis of confidence over Scourge. I certainly remember him trying to rocket to the top of the Maggia when he came across Silvermane’s head.

Giving him a more defined moral code would help the character.

Help him become a hypocrite. Show me someone with a moral code. I’ll show you someone who has broken it.

You can also give him a more defined back story and explain why he is a criminal, where did he get his skills and why can't he use them to earn a legitimate living.

Being a master safe cracker is the kind of the skill that isn’t conducive to legitimate earning.

If the writers cannot do that, maybe he should just be a comic relief villain

Soooo remain himself? Great idea. It’s why the character has an appreciation thread, afterall.

requires the writers and fans demanding more from the character.

I demand more of these threads. They read like you’re altering a form letter. Surprise me every once in awhile.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...revamp+villain

[Michael Watkins]

If you have actual ideas on how to make Shocker better, please post them in the Revamp a Villain thread.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...revamp+villain

[SuperiorIronman]

There really isn't anything wrong with Shocker as a villain because greed on its own is a perfectly fine motivation. His whole shtick is robbing people using shock blasts. He's basically the quilted version of a safe-cracker and that's fine as far as rogues go. Shocker really is a sort of blue collar criminal in an age where everybody has to have complicated backstories, tragic pasts, **** retcons, or be a serial killer. Shocker is a guy who made a quilted costume to help him open safes with shockwaves because he likes money and he likes what he does.

Sometimes its really that simple.

He does have a code of conduct, and if I'm not mistaken that was brought up as late as Superior Foes. Now if it's writers not really caring about him, well he's not primetime material despite him being a great villain, and he's more happy to have enough money to enjoy himself than taking over the world. The guy occupies a spot in Spider-man stories that are basically lost on the Slott era Spider-man.

[Michael Watkins]

There really isn't anything wrong with Shocker as a villain because greed on its own is a perfectly fine motivation. His whole shtick is robbing people using shock blasts. He's basically the quilted version of a safe-cracker and that's fine as far as rogues go. Shocker really is a sort of blue collar criminal in an age where everybody has to have complicated backstories, tragic pasts, **** retcons, or be a serial killer. Shocker is a guy who made a quilted costume to help him open safes with shockwaves because he likes money and he likes what he does.

Sometimes its really that simple.

He does have a code of conduct, and if I'm not mistaken that was brought up as late as Superior Foes. Now if it's writers not really caring about him, well he's not primetime material despite him being a great villain, and he's more happy to have enough money to enjoy himself than taking over the world. The guy occupies a spot in Spider-man stories that are basically lost on the Slott era Spider-man.

^I agree with this. Herman's a pretty level-headed guy when compared to the rest of the "sinister syndicate." I think he's one of them that invests his money, irrc. he's just a simple guy with a talent for safe-cracking. and that's why the others are able to take advantage of him. but he's also dependable muscle and has plenty of friends within the villain community. I like characters like that (Whiplash, Mirage, etc).

[The Overlord]

I think Shocker’s ok. Not all villains should be masterminds or pitiable. That would arguably make him even more generic.

Maybe they could play up his technological-know-how.

Having him show camaraderie amongst other supervillains should be enough.

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.

There really isn't anything wrong with Shocker as a villain because greed on its own is a perfectly fine motivation. His whole shtick is robbing people using shock blasts. He's basically the quilted version of a safe-cracker and that's fine as far as rogues go. Shocker really is a sort of blue collar criminal in an age where everybody has to have complicated backstories, tragic pasts, **** retcons, or be a serial killer. Shocker is a guy who made a quilted costume to help him open safes with shockwaves because he likes money and he likes what he does.

Sometimes its really that simple.

He does have a code of conduct, and if I'm not mistaken that was brought up as late as Superior Foes. Now if it's writers not really caring about him, well he's not primetime material despite him being a great villain, and he's more happy to have enough money to enjoy himself than taking over the world. The guy occupies a spot in Spider-man stories that are basically lost on the Slott era Spider-man.

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.

yes. yes, you have.


doesn't work. as a Doom fan, you should know that. They always return to form (even characters like Magneto). A character would have to be really broken for that to stick.

He’s a villain. You can’t have him succeed. Better to find something else to like about the character. Shocker is someone that I like. I appreciate his insecurities, his loyalty to his friends, and his sense of humor. The writer’s (especially nick spencer) have done the work. All that you have to do is read. Herman has had more focus issues than most lower-tier villains. Long time readers remember his crisis of confidence over Scourge. I certainly remember him trying to rocket to the top of the Maggia when he came across Silvermane’s head.

Help him become a hypocrite. Show me someone with a moral code. I’ll show you someone who has broken it.

Being a master safe cracker is the kind of the skill that isn’t conducive to legitimate earning.

Soooo remain himself? Great idea. It’s why the character has an appreciation thread, after all.

I demand more of these threads. They read like you’re altering a form letter. Surprise me every once in awhile.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...revamp+villain

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?

[SuperiorIronman]

The thing of it is that Shocker just likes what he does. He may not like the people he hangs out with nor would he work for someone like Red Skull or Doctor Doom without being strong armed into it, but at the end of the day the kind of criminals he hangs out with (lower tier people usually) are his people. While he may not like them as much, they are his kind of people and that leads to various partnerships and working relationships.

He's a big name sure, but Shocker is more at home robbing a bank than he is taking over New York or the world. The thing you gotta remember is that he's a career criminal and was good at robbing banks beforehand. He developed the gauntlets in prison not only to escape but to make his work easier because he just can't function in regular society. Whether that's for thrills, not being able to hold a job with his record, maybe both, he just likes what he does.

That's what got me in the Ultimate universe because he was treated as a joke by comparison to every other hulking monster who just wanted to maim or takeover. Shocker is the kind of muscle you can call for a big job, but he's also the guy who at any other day is looking to crack safes or shake down whoever he can find.

[The Overlord]

The thing of it is that Shocker just likes what he does. He may not like the people he hangs out with nor would he work for someone like Red Skull or Doctor Doom without being strong armed into it, but at the end of the day the kind of criminals he hangs out with (lower tier people usually) are his people. While he may not like them as much, they are his kind of people and that leads to various partnerships and working relationships.

He's a big name sure, but Shocker is more at home robbing a bank than he is taking over New York or the world. The thing you gotta remember is that he's a career criminal and was good at robbing banks beforehand. He developed the gauntlets in prison not only to escape but to make his work easier because he just can't function in regular society. Whether that's for thrills, not being able to hold a job with his record, maybe both, he just likes what he does.

That's what got me in the Ultimate universe because he was treated as a joke by comparison to every other hulking monster who just wanted to maim or takeover. Shocker is the kind of muscle you can call for a big job, but he's also the guy who at any other day is looking to crack safes or shake down whoever he can find.

But that doesn't answer my question, there are some jobs Shocker would not do and are there villains Shocker would have a moral problem with? Would Shocker have a problem doing a job with a psycho like Bullseye who goes out his way to kill innocent people?

If the Purfiers hired him to blow up a mutant half way house and kill innocent mutants, including women and children, would he do it? Shocker could work for anti mutant groups who would wary of hiring criminals with powers, so he would have less competition if he wanted to take jobs from them, would be willing to do real dirty work.

To me there is the interesting questions no one wants to answer with him, people keep on saying he is rational, but what does that rationality actually mean? Does it give him a sense of morality or does it make him a scum bag who would sell out his own grand mother? Both are fine approaches, but instead they are trying to do this half measure that I do not think works, IMO.

Also if he just likes money, why is he still robbing banks, when as the links I have posted previously have noted, nowadays, bank robbery is a really unprofitable crime, really this focus on bank robbers seems like a another dated aspect of the MU. Some dork with a laptop can scam more money from the banks then Shocker would get trying to rob them.

[Digifiend]

He's not dumb. His most recent appearance, he decided to go to New Jersey, as there's less superheroes there. Unfortunately for him, Ms Marvel is based there - of course, this happened in her book.

[Alan2099]

Also if he just likes money, why is he still robbing banks, when as the links I have posted previously have noted, nowadays, bank robbery is a really unprofitable crime, really this focus on bank robbers seems like a another dated aspect of the MU. Some dork with a laptop can scam more money from the banks then Shocker would get trying to rob them.

Shocker isn't some dork with a lab top. He's a guy that blows things open, takes the money and runs.

Why does he still do that? Because that's what he knows how to do and what he's good at it. Nothing in any of his appearances that I've seen shows he's good at computers or scamming people. The fact that we haven't seen shocker hired for the really scummy jobs or working with complete psychopaths should tell you that it's not something he wants to do, or else he would have done so by now.

Why do you need a character to be super-deep when some people really are shallow and simple.

[SuperiorIronman]

But that doesn't answer my question, there are some jobs Shocker would not do and are there villains Shocker would have a moral problem with? Would Shocker have a problem doing a job with a psycho like Bullseye who goes out his way to kill innocent people?

If the Purfiers hired him to blow up a mutant half way house and kill innocent mutants, including women and children, would he do it? Shocker could work for anti mutant groups who would wary of hiring criminals with powers, so he would have less competition if he wanted to take jobs from them, would be willing to do real dirty work.

To me there is the interesting questions no one wants to answer with him, people keep on saying he is rational, but what does that rationality actually mean? Does it give him a sense of morality or does it make him a scum bag who would sell out his own grand mother? Both are fine approaches, but instead they are trying to do this half measure that I do not think works, IMO.

Also if he just likes money, why is he still robbing banks, when as the links I have posted previously have noted, nowadays, bank robbery is a really unprofitable crime, really this focus on bank robbers seems like a another dated aspect of the MU. Some dork with a laptop can scam more money from the banks then Shocker would get trying to rob them.

Shocker's rationale is that he treats it as a job.

Shocker knows what he can do and is ultimately fine with that. He treats it as a profession even if said profession is breaking into banks or being hired muscle.

Think of it like this;
You work at a grocery store and you enjoy doing it. You might not always like the management, but you do have a group of people or kind of people you like working with. The job doesn't pay as much as others would, but you like what you do and for the most part the people you do it with, and what money you do get is enough to make ends meet.

That is pretty much how Shocker views what he does.
In Superior Foes he (if I remember correctly) even had an apartment. He does his thing and goes home like any other person, the thing is that his job is robbing people.

And banks do carry money. They are required to do so and while it isn't massive amounts, it's enough for an engineer who likes breaking things. Robbing a bank is still a lucrative crime as bank robbers still exist.

[The Overlord]

Shocker isn't some dork with a lab top. He's a guy that blows things open, takes the money and runs.

Why does he still do that? Because that's what he knows how to do and what he's good at it. Nothing in any of his appearances that I've seen shows he's good at computers or scamming people. The fact that we haven't seen shocker hired for the really scummy jobs or working with complete psychopaths should tell you that it's not something he wants to do, or else he would have done so by now.

Why do you need a character to be super-deep when some people really are shallow and simple.

But again, how much money would that really get you in today's economy? There are reasons why bank robbery is in decline, it's one of the least profitable crimes you can commit, yeah, people still do it, but that's the stupid criminals who do that. Really if you think robbing banks is the path to easy street in 2019, you are just an idiot.

Also if he just going to be greedy and that's it, frankly just make him amoral at a point and that his rationality just a form of elevated psychopathy, where he will screw over his employers and fellow villains for a paycheck. He wouldn't be a bloodthirsty maniac like Bullseye, but he just is sleazy at that point, up the sliminess with him, have him betray and backstab people for selfish reasons, if he is motivated solely by greed, he shouldn't care about other villains. But again, he should play a lot of angles, not just be content with a dead end bank robbing career. You say Shocker is not a computer guy, but he did invent his tech, so why can't he use

If he just doing for fun and is a thrill seeker, you can't have him freak out over the Scourge, if he is just an adrenaline junkie, he should see that as an interesting challenge and if he is just a greedy scum bag, he should just lie low, there is no reason for me to sympathize with Shocker worrying about the Scourge, when he is just some scum bag, I do not care about his well being, so make him more confident and up the scum bag factor with him.

And you can say ''well it's comic, it doesn't have to make sense'', by that logic Peter Parker should not have financial difficulty problems, but clearly, that has been a plot point, so real economics apply, sometimes to the Marvel Universe. So by that logic, shouldn't Shocker diversify his criminal career and work on other ways to make money?

And you do not think Shocker's tech couldn't have civilian uses? A mining company could use it. Again, why is robbing banks the most profitable Shocker can think of doing, vs. a million other legal or illegal things he could do instead.

If Shocker is just a scum bag with no morals, the lovable loser aspect they try to take with him does not. A greedy morally bankrupt person lends themselves far easier to being slick and sleazy, rather then a lovable loser, because morally bankrupt people are not lovable and I think slimy characters can be fun in certain context, but a character had to own that to make it work. If Shocker's suppsoed be a serious, meancing, greed based, morally bankrupt villain, well then up his competence and up the slime factor, otherwise, just make him a joke villain who Spidey pants after he tries to rob a bank. If he has no real redeeming qualties, have him own it.

Shocker's rationale is that he treats it as a job.

Shocker knows what he can do and is ultimately fine with that. He treats it as a profession even if said profession is breaking into banks or being hired muscle.

Think of it like this;
You work at a grocery store and you enjoy doing it. You might not always like the management, but you do have a group of people or kind of people you like working with. The job doesn't pay as much as others would, but you like what you do and for the most part the people you do it with, and what money you do get is enough to make ends meet.

That is pretty much how Shocker views what he does.
In Superior Foes he (if I remember correctly) even had an apartment. He does his thing and goes home like any other person, the thing is that his job is robbing people.

And banks do carry money. They are required to do so and while it isn't massive amounts, it's enough for an engineer who likes breaking things. Robbing a bank is still a lucrative crime as bank robbers still exist.

So if Shocker's job entailed murder of women and children for a buck (which guys like the Purifiers would hire him to do), would he do it? If yes, well then ditch the lovable loser angle with him and try to make him compelling due to being slimy and sleazy, where he is a villain you love to hate, because a moral vacuum and will do anything for money and that should include betraying other villains. You can't have a sleaze bag who isn't willing to sell out his friends. If it's just a job to him, does seem like a form of psychopathy, so at that point, just ditch any moral code he has, because it will seem irrelevant.

But how many successful modern bank robbers are there? How money does not get caught right away? How many of them make a profit and how many of them actually smart criminals at this point?

Well frankly, he has no real morals and will do completely evil things just for money, well then just make him sleazy or make him comic relief. If you make him sleazy, up his confidence, up his competence, make him dangerous due to how amoral he is. If he is willing to kill innocent women and children, he has no reason to be loyal to anyone, especially after Boomerang tired to kill him twice, if he is a guy who sells out his grandmother for a buck, why wouldn't he backstab other villains to get ahead? Unless he has a defined reason to be loyal, frankly agreed based wild card is more fun. Give him better, more intelligent criminal schemes, he doesn't have to be a mastermind, but he should come up with a better plan then Rhino, Rhino can think of smash and grab operations, if Shocker's supposed to be smarter then Rhino, he should come up with a better plan then Rhino. He doesn't have to be a mastermind, to come up with some better then the most basic crime any idiot can commit.

If he has no moral center, I have no reason to care about his well being, ditch the confidence issues (they work better for Electro anyway) and make him more slick and corporate. He isn't a lovable loser, he is slimy corporate type A-hole contractor who sells his own grandmother. There, now you have a blueprint for a character that is unlikable, but at least is consistent and could be fun in the right context. I would still give him back story, but if he has no moral center, stop with the lovable loser, it only works if I have reason to empathize with that character and I have no reason empathize with Shocker if he is morally bankrupt.

He's not dumb. His most recent appearance, he decided to go to New Jersey, as there's less superheroes there. Unfortunately for him, Ms Marvel is based there - of course, this happened in her book.

If he is so smart, why can't he come up with a criminal scheme then the same dead-end bank robbery career that has been going nowhere? Really smash and grab operations are something Rhino could

I swear Shocker makes more sense in animated adaptions where he is an average career criminal who is given his tech by a third party, rather then him developing it himself.

[Alan2099]

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.