Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Then I don't agree that Superior Foes of Spider-Man was a good Shocker story, good Boomerang story, yes, good Shocker story, no. Unless we are saying it's fun story that Shocker is in, but doesn't tell us anything new about the character.

It's fine for the Shocker, but him saving Silvermane and becoming a more important figure in the Maggia, doesn't really tell me anything new about the character, it's a fun story, but its not a real character study for him, IMO.

Edited by Overlord on Nov 29th 2020 at 9:56:52 AM

I didn't even say it was a good story for Shocker either. Because he's not the main character of it.

It's a story where he gets a moment in the sun, sure, but that's not the same thing.

I personally don't really care what motivates villains beyond how they act as foils for the heroes. Spidey villains like Boomerang, Shocker, Green Goblin, etc. share the common characteristic of not owning up to their mistakes and taking responsibility. While Spidey's whole thing is Comes Great Responsibility.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 1:55:15 AM

I think Shocker going from being easily pushed around to taking out the fucking Punisher counts as enough focus for me.

But even if they didn't go as in depth on his backstory, he still got focus as more than a guy who gets beat up. And that's good enough as a semi important gets. Not everyone is Kraven the Hunter.

I disagree, I think Batman's rogue's gallery is considered the best because his villains tend to have the most fleshed-out personalities.

Let's face it, in comic book movies, they revamp the villains to make them more dynamic, Vulture had a personal connection to Spidey and was mad that Tony Stark screwed him over. Take that stuff away and the movie loses something.

Okay, I am just saying you still do that and give more complex or challenging stories, heck forget his backstory, can anyone tell if he has any standards that would temper his greed? Give him something besides the surface level stuff.

Edited by Overlord on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:02:39 AM

Not really? If anyone's a main character in that series, it was Boomerang.

Vulture being connected to Stark set a bad precedent of making Spidey villains Tony Stark villains instead. It took away Peter's relevance. The MCU in general had an issue with everything revolving around Tony Stark.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:03:17 AM

Maybe, but people still love the Vulture in that film. Dr. Octopus was made way more sympathetic than he usually is in the films and it worked for me.

Doc Ock's "the tentacles made me do it" thing in the movie didn't really impress me. Seemed like a cheap way to make him sympathetic.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:09:05 AM

Ock's wavered on how much the tentacles actually affect him. The only thing the movie really changed is how nice he was before the accident.

The PS 4 game's Doc Ock was a more compelling character and remained true to the roots of being an embittered Mad Scientist. Even then, that's in large part due to having a more personal connection to Peter Parker himself and ties into Peter's general desire to find a father figure to replace Uncle Ben (something that can be seen in pretty much all Spidey media).

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:09:43 AM

Doc Ock's one of those characters who's been interpreted many, many ways over the course of his history, so I wouldn't say any really stand out even if Alfred Molina's a great actor. They dropped the ball at the end, but Ultimate Spider-Man's sickly ock who hated Norman Osborn was really cool, and one of the only times Ock got to be the main villain over Norman.

It worked for me, I liked the ending where Ock gave up his own life to correct his own mistake. It's more interesting than what was done with most of MCU Phase 1 and 2 villains.

Frankly, if I had my way, I would make Shocker more actively sympathetic in the comics and make Mysterio more actively unsympathetic. I think a good rogues gallery should a good scale of sympathetic to unsympathetic villains.

Edited by Overlord on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:15:45 AM

...What is the subject, here? Just double-checking.

....Mysterio's supposed to be sympathetic? Aside from maybe being able to relate to him being a failed actor, nothing about the guy is good. Dude literally drove Daredevil insane.

It's about how having people who are just greedy is unrelatable and makes them less human, or something.

Edited by Joshbones on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:16:53 AM

I kind of think it's dangerous to think that shallow and awful people aren't realistic or human. Turns out a lot of real life shitty people aren't all that different from villains as shallow as Captain Planet villains.

Shit, just look at all of the op-eds out there trying to analyze Trump voters and making them out to be sympathetic or some crap.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:20:23 AM

No, I just think his schemes make him too generic sometimes, his schemes should be scary mind games, not generic get rich quick schemes where he is defeated by Power Pack.

We were talking about villains who got character development in comics and went into villain motivations in general.

I was listening to a Behind the Bastards episode that said the type of people like that tend to be already wealthy, rather than members of the lower classes, that wealth makes people lose their empathy. Really Kingpin or Lex Luthor is better greed-based villains than Shocker or Trapster.

Edited by Overlord on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:28:58 AM

Sometimes, simplicity is the best option. Shocker isn't less interesting just because he doesn't have any grand philosophical goals beyond getting paid and he has shown he has ethical standards. He's a Punch-Clock Villain who does what he does for money and isn't a sadist or terrorist. That is enough.

That's just the problem with being a character in a shared universe. You appear everywhere, and sometimes have low points. Mysterio is supposed to be a threatening and menacing character. There's literally an alternate future where he tricks Wolverine into killing all the x-Men.

Stuff like that is why we get Doombots and Thanos clones.

Though one could also argue that the emotional detachment necessary for a Punch-Clock Villain to think of their crimes as simply a day job is kind of chilling.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:26:49 AM

Okay, but would it kill the character to put him in a position where he has to choose between money and not doing something really immoral? Those are kinds of things that say things about characters like that. If he is not a sadistic terrorist, surely establishing some standards for the character would be a good thing.

Edited by Overlord on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:27:42 AM

I love when villains aren't threatening. AMAZING MARY JANE has Mysterio and MJ make a movie about his life and it's hilarious.

I also loved Squirrel Girl's Kraven the Hunter. I hated when he was retconned to be a clone and killed off.

It seems more like you just want the villains to be antiheroes instead. Because your idea of interesting always seems to come back to making them more heroic and sympathetic.

At the same time, it does stretch the suspension of disbelief to make these villains completely harmless. At the end of the day, even the silliest of them are dangerous to people who don't have super powers. It's the fixation with the heroes most of them end up developing that keeps them from doing more harm. It's the "lightning rod" analogy basically.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:32:38 AM

I prefer the term Anti-Villain. I don't know, I think just making Shocker have more defined morals than the more murderous monsters like Carnage and Green Goblin could make more unique. But then again, if Shocker is just an amoral scumbag and the only difference between him and Carnage and Gobby is he is more pragmatic and cares about money over human life, that could work too, if you make him more consistently cool and clever.

Edited by Overlord on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:34:32 AM

He wasn't retconned to be a clone, that was the real Kraven. They even show a squirrel when he talked about how he tried to be a better person.

But in general, people really don't get that being a joke out of universe doesn't translate to in-universe. Like, MODOK is a little man in a chair, but he's still a very serious character.

Edited by Joshbones on Nov 29th 2020 at 10:37:10 AM

The Gwenpool comic actually made a point of illustrating that, given that Gwenpool's whole thing was being an "out-of-universe" character ending up in the Marvel verse. She initially treats MODOK as a joke...and then he incinerates her friend right before her eyes.

You should always Beware the Silly Ones. Bringing this to real life politics again, I think this is also something that we should remember when it comes to actual people. Just because someone's a total boor and worthy of ridicule, doesn't mean they can't also be extremely dangerous.

Edited by M84 on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:40:55 AM

Speaking as a guy who writes a supervillain series, my general idea is that every supervillain should have an ideology that makes sense to them.

I actually have this line in my latest book when the protagonist is talking to a Punisher Expy.

"In general, when you're a supervillain, you quickly learn to tell the difference between the guys who kill for money and the guys who kill because they like it. You, my friend, are one of the latter."