Underused Marvel characters

[The Question]

Stuff Overlord said

Sorry, I'm just kind of sick of picking apart quotes. Gets tedious. I will sum up my point.

1. The personality I'm describing isn't a sadist psychopath. Being a sadist psychopath is a very specific type of behavioral disorder, which involves a completely lack of empathy or understanding of social boundaries and a desire for power and dominance through pain. That's not what I'm describing. Misanthropy is not psychopathy or sociopathy. Those are either an inherently inborn trait or a trait conditioned from early childhood, respectively, where a person is simply unable to conceive of other people's feelings or needs. It simply doesn't register with them. Misanthropy is not a behavioral disorder, it is a worldview, one saying that people suck in general. Some sociopaths are misanthropes, but not all misanthropes are sociopaths. Misanthropes, even misanthropes who like hurting people, are still capable of remorse and feelings of guilt, because misanthropy is not a behavioral disorder, it is a general worldview. Worldviews are not set in stone and can be contradicted by gut feelings, such as fear and guilt. Someone who thinks humanity sucks as a whole can still recognize that some teenager he killed wasn't a bad person and wasn't hurting him or anyone else, and can thus feel bad about it.

2. I think the fact that his actions have shown contradictions prove that he is a layered character. Real people have contradictory behavior, and his contradictions do follow a line of behavioral logic.

3. It may be true that what I'm talking about has been done better with other villains. I don't necessarily agree, but that's a reasonable argument to make, one largely based on preference. That does not, however, mean that The Trapster is one dimensional. It may mean he's a cliche, and a cliche that's been done better before, but being a cliche doesn't make a character one dimensional, it just makes them a cliche. His personality is layered and fairly well developed. It's just also slightly derivative. A character can be both.

4. Magneto is absolutely pathetic. He things he's right, he has a tragic backstory he has good intentions, boo ****ing hoo. He still kills people. He still has royally ****ed up his family for the sake of his cause. He still leads a violent crusade that only has the potential to make things better for mutants in the short term, is fueled by anger and a lust for vengeance, and ultimately just creates more violence and misery in the world. He is absolutely pathetic. In someways more so than The Trapster, because he's so full of himself that he'll never realize it.

5. Here's my general opinion of The Trapster: I think he has potential. Maybe you're right, maybe I have been projecting a bit of how I'd like to see him handled. But the fact is, I don't think he's an inherently broken character. I don't think he needs a lot of fixing. I think, largely by accident, he's developed a fairy consistent and fleshed out personality that I personally find interesting and think, in the right cast of characters, would make for an interesting character piece about super villains. I think the reason he's been ignored by writers isn't that he has a lame personality, but because he has a lame gimmick and they think he's stupid because of that. I don't think having a detailed backstory explaining why he is the way he is is that important, but I do think a little bit more of a history for him would be nice. I think he has a lot of potential, and he doesn't need to be fundamentally altered to be an interesting villain. Just be put in the right setting with the right cast and the right focus.

6. Dude. You were on AT4W. I'm arguing with an internet celebrity.

 

[The Overlord]

Sorry, I'm just kind of sick of picking apart quotes. Gets tedious. I will sum up my point.

1. The personality I'm describing isn't a sadist psychopath. Being a sadist psychopath is a very specific type of behavioral disorder, which involves a completely lack of empathy or understanding of social boundaries and a desire for power and dominance through pain. That's not what I'm describing. Misanthropy is not psychopathy or sociopathy. Those are either an inherently inborn trait or a trait conditioned from early childhood, respectively, where a person is simply unable to conceive of other people's feelings or needs. It simply doesn't register with them. Misanthropy is not a behavioral disorder, it is a worldview, one saying that people suck in general. Some sociopaths are misanthropes, but not all misanthropes are sociopaths. Misanthropes, even misanthropes who like hurting people, are still capable of remorse and feelings of guilt, because misanthropy is not a behavioral disorder, it is a general worldview. Worldviews are not set in stone and can be contradicted by gut feelings, such as fear and guilt. Someone who thinks humanity sucks as a whole can still recognize that some teenager he killed wasn't a bad person and wasn't hurting him or anyone else, and can thus feel bad about it.

But why does he have a misanthropic view? You can be born a psychopath, but you are not born misanthrope. Where did it come from?

This why I don't like the stuff you described with Trapster, because it has no explanation.

2. I think the fact that his actions have shown contradictions prove that he is a layered character. Real people have contradictory behavior, and his contradictions do follow a line of behavioral logic.

Well in this case I find the contradictions just annoying then interesting.

3. It may be true that what I'm talking about has been done better with other villains. I don't necessarily agree, but that's a reasonable argument to make, one largely based on preference. That does not, however, mean that The Trapster is one dimensional. It may mean he's a cliche, and a cliche that's been done better before, but being a cliche doesn't make a character one dimensional, it just makes them a cliche. His personality is layered and fairly well developed. It's just also slightly derivative. A character can be both.

I don't think its well layered because there is no explanation for it.

The thing seems to boil down:

Trapster: I hate myself and everyone else and will use my glue to make people suffer. Ha, ha, ha!

Me: Why?

Trapster: I dunno.

That's lame in my opinion.

Again The reason why I think this theme of self loathing is done better with other villains is because more is done with it and its explained better: Chameleon hates himself because he was born out of wedlock, treated like a servant instead of a family member by his Russian gentry family and Kraven beat him up all the time as a child, Electro hates himself because he was raised by a mother who was over bearing and had a dependency relationship with her, Mr. Fear III turned his own self loathing to jealous hatred of Matt Murdock because he was the Big Man on campus when they were in school, Whiplash was actually stated to be a maniac depressive and he was disowned by his own parents when he came to his home town, Abomination's transformation reflects his own secret self loathing, thus his appearance gives him more reason to hate himself. the Scorpion hates himself because he foolishly agreed to subject himself to an experiment for money and this experiment, affected his sanity. Harry Osborn hated himself because his father was Norman Osborn.

I think those are better examples of themes of self loathing within a villain, which is why I'm not impressed with Trapster having it, because it doesn't go anywhere, its never explained and unlike the examples I mentioned. Again not only I have seen it before, I have seen it done way better, so I'm not interested in an inferior version of theme I have seen done better, unless there is some twist to it that makes it different then those other examples. Its been done and each time its been done better.

Plus is that all Trapster has going for him, I can at least say those other villains have other things going for them besides a self loathing complex.

4. Magneto is absolutely pathetic. He things he's right, he has a tragic backstory he has good intentions, boo ****ing hoo. He still kills people. He still has royally ****ed up his family for the sake of his cause. He still leads a violent crusade that only has the potential to make things better for mutants in the short term, is fueled by anger and a lust for vengeance, and ultimately just creates more violence and misery in the world. He is absolutely pathetic. In someways more so than The Trapster, because he's so full of himself that he'll never realize it.

I think that's debatable, it depends how you define "pathetic". I still think he is more interesting villain then Trapster.

5. Here's my general opinion of The Trapster: I think he has potential. Maybe you're right, maybe I have been projecting a bit of how I'd like to see him handled. But the fact is, I don't think he's an inherently broken character. I don't think he needs a lot of fixing. I think, largely by accident, he's developed a fairy consistent and fleshed out personality that I personally find interesting and think, in the right cast of characters, would make for an interesting character piece about super villains. I think the reason he's been ignored by writers isn't that he has a lame personality, but because he has a lame gimmick and they think he's stupid because of that. I don't think having a detailed backstory explaining why he is the way he is is that important, but I do think a little bit more of a history for him would be nice. I think he has a lot of potential, and he doesn't need to be fundamentally altered to be an interesting villain. Just be put in the right setting with the right cast and the right focus.

1. I don't this interesting because I have seen it before and done better, I don't think its interesting. The reason why he needs a back story is because that in of itself is overdone and has been better each time I have seen it else and again the other times I have seen it. Giving a back story gives his actions a better explanation then "I hate myself and others for.....no reason." Because frankly I think that's just lame.

I think Spider-Man would be kinda of a lame character if he had no back story and his guilt complex had no explanation.

2. That gimmick is pretty lame.

6. Dude. You were on AT4W. I'm arguing with an internet celebrity.

Thanks, let me take a bow.

 

[Manic]

Quite frankly, I'm impressed that Paste Pot muthalovin' Pete could spark such an in-depth conversation.

 

[Cuyan]

 

[Franklin Richards]

Quite frankly, I'm impressed that Paste Pot muthalovin' Pete could spark such an in-depth conversation.

But why does he have a misanthropic view? You can be born a psychopath, but you are not born misanthrope. Where did it come from?

This why I don't like the stuff you described with Trapster, because it has no explanation.

I don't think its well layered because there is no explanation for it.

The thing seems to boil down:

Trapster: I hate myself and everyone else and will use my glue to make people suffer. Ha, ha, ha!

Me: Why?

Trapster: I dunno.

I got one.


What if he were homosexual and still in denial? Perhaps he's always had feeling for men. When he was a child his mother would dress him in womens clothes because she always wanted a daughter. He turned inward. Denying all of his true feelings in his youth. Introverted and alone he turned to science. His mental health turns ugly as he develops severe OCD and begins using his glue to adhere items to each other. Sometimes in sequences of four. The lie that is his life will not go away however and he violates one of his trapped victims. He descends even further.

It finally culminates into an infatuation with the Wizard. But he dare not admit it. To anyone. Including himself.


Time to glue stuff together.

 

[The Overlord]

I got one.


What if he were homosexual and still in denial? Perhaps he's always had feeling for men. When he was a child his mother would dress him in womens clothes because she always wanted a daughter. He turned inward. Denying all of his true feelings in his youth. Introverted and alone he turned to science. His mental health turns ugly as he develops severe OCD and begins using his glue to adhere items to each other. Sometimes in sequences of four. The lie that is his life will not go away however and he violates one of his trapped victims. He descends even further.

It finally culminates into an infatuation with the Wizard. But he dare not admit it. To anyone. Including himself.


Time to glue stuff together.

Okay I kinda like that, it actually gives an explanation for Trapster's actions. I don't think I heard of that particular twist to explain this kinda of behavior in a comic, the closest thing is Pied Piper happened to be gay and he was a super villain, but that had nothing to do with his motive.

The thing is though I wouldn't have Trapster rape anyone, I don't think that suitable for Spider-Man and especially the Fantastic Four. It would just be jarring to have Spidey fight a mad scientist and then a rapist.

 

[chamber-music]

Lila Cheney is due for a revitalization. Teleporting thief/rock star - she could be made cool again (possibly for the first time lol)

She should be in the new mutants or something.

Most of the characters I like have featured quite well recentley.

Luke Cage
Pym
Blade
War Machine
Dr Strange
Cable

Would love Chamber back in an X-book and Pete Wisdom in something like X-Force. Alot of villains we have not seen in sometime could do with showing up in alot of Marvels comics.

 

[The Question]

Stuff Overlord said

I don't know why he's the way he is. No one does. It's been firmly established that his backstory is kind of vague. I'm simply pointing out that he is the way he is, and that his personality, over the years, has developed into a fairly layered and three dimensional one.

Having a backstory that explains the character's motivation =/= the character having a layered, three dimensional personality. Not at all. It explains how he got to the point where he's at, but what gives him a layered personality is... well, having a layered personality. Having drives and world views that are more complex than "I am angry at this person thus I shall kill them" and behavioral patterns that follow complex psychological patterns that make sense. The Trapster has that in spades. His personality is well defined, fairly well established, and has stayed relatively consistent between writers (as far as less popular comic book characters go).

What he lacks is a detailed backstory. That is a legitimate complaint, but it is different than saying that he doesn't have a deeper, well defined personality, 'cause that ain't true.

Now, personally, I don't think he needs much more of a backstory. Way I see it, he started out as an intelligent yet mean spirited ******* who made a couple of really stupid choices, and as a result allowed his life to spiral out of control into this self destructive cycle where he is now this angry criminal schmuck. I think most of his anger and misanthropy came from his life sucking after he became a criminal, but he just wasn't self aware enough to realize that his own actions were making his life worse, or better yet he did realize on some level but didn't want to admit it, so it fueled his anger which fueled his criminal behavior. This might be a bit of projecting the way I would write the character onto the character, but the fact is that it's a pattern his life has followed, at least in the simplest terms: Jerkass does a jerkass thing to better himself with no intention of becoming a career criminal, gets screwed, becomes a career criminal afterwards.

How did he become the simple, mean spirited ******* he started out as? I don't know. I honestly think it doesn't matter, because there are a lot of intelligent yet mean spirited *******s out there who's stories of how they became mean spirited *******s just really aren't that interesting. Usually they were picked on in school or had parents who weren't abusive and were just kind of mean.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Let's see...

Thomas Fireheart (Puma)
Hobie Brown (Prowler)
Mr. Sinister
The Jackal

Trapster did actually have this backstory in a team up I think where he quit the business fell in love with a nurse and retired. The wizard wanted him back so he made it seem like the Ghost Rider killed her which brought him back. Really if you wanted to beef up trapster it's pretty easy. He already has adheasive abilities just use the converse and have him also equipped with corrosives. It does come down to writing though. If you think about it trapster is actually pretty powerful. Spider-Man's webbing would be deadly as hell if he used it to kill.

 

[Dread]

Off the top of my head, I am thinking The Shroud. He's basically a cross between Batman and the Shadow and his gimmick used to be pretending to be a super-villain (even running his own gang of bizarre crooks, the Night-Shift) in issues of AVENGERS WEST COAST ages ago. He last popped up during CIVIL WAR alongside Julia Carpenter, but beyond the Weapon Omega arc in the last volume of MARVEL COMICS PRESENTS, he hasn't done diddly besides hang out with her in Canada.

Considering that DARK REIGN has been about Osborn staffing the ranks with villains pretending to be heroes, I do see this as a sort of missed opportunity for him. Shroud could have had an angle similar to the GREEN HORNET TV show; vigilante who allows the world to think he is a mobster so he retains negative P.R. that he uses to intimidate. Diamondback is sort of serving that role in AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE, someone who has been on both sides of the coin, but some other book probably could have used Shroud effectively for Dark Reign. I mean, even Grim Reaper and the Lethal Legion got a mini out of it, for heaven's sakes. Shroud's been a vigilante, but he's also fought enough super-heroes that his rep should always be shady, no one ever knowing what side he ever really is on. He's an F-Lister but I always liked him. With Bendis justifying how "everyone is the hero in his own story" for DARK AVENGERS, it seems like a missed opportunity for Shroud. Shroud's the undercover narc of superheroes; his core ideal is to destroy crime from within, but how far is too deep? I've always felt his premise was interesting, just poorly handled (much like "Venom: Lethal Protector" was in the 90's).

 

[The Overlord]

I don't know why he's the way he is. No one does. It's been firmly established that his backstory is kind of vague. I'm simply pointing out that he is the way he is, and that his personality, over the years, has developed into a fairly layered and three dimensional one.

Having a backstory that explains the character's motivation =/= the character having a layered, three dimensional personality. Not at all. It explains how he got to the point where he's at, but what gives him a layered personality is... well, having a layered personality. Having drives and world views that are more complex than "I am angry at this person thus I shall kill them" and behavioral patterns that follow complex psychological patterns that make sense. The Trapster has that in spades. His personality is well defined, fairly well established, and has stayed relatively consistent between writers (as far as less popular comic book characters go)..

Fine maybe he does have personality, but maybe I don't like it particularly, maybe because I have seen the self loathing criminal thing done way better with several other characters, because they actually explain it or build in an interesting direction, which hasn't been done. They explained why Chameleon had a self laothing complex or why Whiplash

It's kinda like Superboy Prime has personality, but overall he still sucks as a character or Wizard has personality but frankly it sucks too, he comes off as a total Smug Snake who is like a fifth rate Dr. Doom who is far more annoying and obnoxious, only when they took him in a new direction and made him go crazy did I find him the least bit interesting.

What he lacks is a detailed backstory. That is a legitimate complaint, but it is different than saying that he doesn't have a deeper, well defined personality, 'cause that ain't true.

Now, personally, I don't think he needs much more of a backstory. Way I see it, he started out as an intelligent yet mean spirited ******* who made a couple of really stupid choices, and as a result allowed his life to spiral out of control into this self destructive cycle where he is now this angry criminal schmuck. I think most of his anger and misanthropy came from his life sucking after he became a criminal, but he just wasn't self aware enough to realize that his own actions were making his life worse, or better yet he did realize on some level but didn't want to admit it, so it fueled his anger which fueled his criminal behavior. This might be a bit of projecting the way I would write the character onto the character, but the fact is that it's a pattern his life has followed, at least in the simplest terms: Jerkass does a jerkass thing to better himself with no intention of becoming a career criminal, gets screwed, becomes a career criminal afterwards.

How did he become the simple, mean spirited ******* he started out as? I don't know. I honestly think it doesn't matter, because there are a lot of intelligent yet mean spirited *******s out there who's stories of how they became mean spirited *******s just really aren't that interesting. Usually they were picked on in school or had parents who weren't abusive and were just kind of mean.

I think like the suggestion of making him self hating gay man better then all of that, because seems more unique then anything you have said.

Again I don't find of any that interesting, because I have seen this done before, quite a few times and every time it was done better, so frankly I need more of an interesting twist for me to care at this. Personality I don't think the personality you described is interesting enough for me to care about it by itself without a good back story.

 

[The Question]

Fine maybe he does have personality, but maybe I don't like it particularly, maybe because I have seen the self loathing criminal thing done way better with several other characters, because they actually explain it or build in an interesting direction, which hasn't been done. They explained why Chameleon had a self laothing complex or why Whiplash

It's kinda like Superboy Prime has personality, but overall he still sucks as a character or Wizard has personality but frankly it sucks too, he comes off as a total Smug Snake who is like a fifth rate Dr. Doom who is far more annoying and obnoxious, only when they took him in a new direction and made him go crazy did I find him the least bit interesting.




I think like the suggestion of making him self hating gay man better then all of that, because seems more unique then anything you have said.

Again I don't find of any that interesting, because I have seen this done before, quite a few times and every time it was done better, so frankly I need more of an interesting twist for me to care at this. Personality I don't think the personality you described is interesting enough for me to care about it by itself without a good back story.

Fair enough. It honestly doesn't bother me that it's been done before because, guess what? A lot of violent criminals are that way because they're self loathing misanthropes with weak wills. It's archetypical, not cliche.

And, honestly, him being a self hating gay would just seem really gimmicky to me. And it's no less overdone than simply having him be the schmuck that he is. Yeah, he is kind of a blank slate. I think that's a good thing. It gives the writer a lot of opportunity to give him a ton of character development.

 

[The Overlord]

Fair enough. It honestly doesn't bother me that it's been done before because, guess what? A lot of violent criminals are that way because they're self loathing misanthropes with weak wills. It's archetypical, not cliche.

But again I think its been done better in those other cases.

In those other cases, I can can see either why the villain hates himself (like Chameleon) or showing circumstances that feed into the self loathing complex that prevents them from reforming (Whiplash being disowned by his parents when he tried to reform.)

The problem is not only have I seen this before, the problem is the other times I have seen it is done way better.

Without a good back story, Trapster with a self loathing complex seems vastly inferior to all those characters who I cited have the same condition.

I mean does this self Loathing complex Trapster go anywhere, because Electro trying to kill himself then anything Trapster has done. It seems it go nowhere.

I mean has Trapster ever gotten character development ever? At least with a back story you can have some character development or even a character, which is more interesting then "I hate myself, I hate the world and I will use glue to make people suffer.....for no particular reason. Ha, ha, ha!"

And, honestly, him being a self hating gay would just seem really gimmicky to me. And it's no less overdone than simply having him be the schmuck that he is. Yeah, he is kind of a blank slate. I think that's a good thing. It gives the writer a lot of opportunity to give him a ton of character development.

I never heard of a self hating gay man super villains and to me what you are suggesting just sounds really bland, it does not sound like stuff of exciting tales. I think the self hating gay man super villain is way more unique then what you have here.

I plus you have described this personality to other super villains. Let me ask, what is Stilt-Man's personality and how is it different from you described for Trapster?

 

[The Question]

But again I think its been done better in those other cases.

In those other cases, I can can see either why the villain hates himself (like Chameleon) or showing circumstances that feed into the self loathing complex that prevents them from reforming (Whiplash being disowned by his parents when he tried to reform.)

The problem is not only have I seen this before, the problem is the other times I have seen it is done way better.

Without a good back story, Trapster with a self loathing complex seems vastly inferior to all those characters who I cited have the same condition.

I mean does this self Loathing complex Trapster go anywhere, because Electro trying to kill himself then anything Trapster has done. It seems it go nowhere.

I mean has Trapster ever gotten character development ever? At least with a back story you can have some character development or even a character, which is more interesting then "I hate myself, I hate the world and I will use glue to make people suffer.....for no particular reason. Ha, ha, ha!"

You're missing my point entirely. He hasn't gotten as much character development as others. That's why I'm advocating for writers to use him, so he can get more development. I think he has a lot of potential, and already has a decently developed personality to be a good starting point.

Also, a backstory doesn't necessarily mean you'll get great character development, or is it necessary for it. I can think of several characters who went through a great deal of character development with very limited backstories. Detailed backstories are useful tools, and you seem to like them a lot, but they're not a necessity for writing a good character.

Also, I'm not totally understanding what you mean by "it's been done better." You say Whiplash was disowned by his parents... why is that inherently better than a simple self destructive cycle that's entirely Pete's fault?

I never heard of a self hating gay man super villains and to me what you are suggesting just sounds really bland, it does not sound like stuff of exciting tales. I think the self hating gay man super villain is way more unique then what you have here.

Unique doesn't make it good. Adding some psychological sexual hang ups like being a closeted gay, it's a cheap way of doing character development. Quick, easy, full of shock value, and meant to fast forward through actually thought out character development. And I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone analyze a literary villain or historical figure and say "it seems quite likely that they were actually gay." It's a gimmick. A substitute for actual character development. Actual character development doesn't require gimmicks or fancy and unique twists or backstory retcons. Just taking a character as they are and putting them through situations and struggles where they come out a little different on the other side. Everything else is just window dressing.

I plus you have described this personality to other super villains. Let me ask, what is Stilt-Man's personality and how is it different from you described for Trapster?

I don't know. They're both mooks, they're both similar in the types of crimes they commit and their status in the Marvel world. I always got the feeling that there were subtle differences in how they were characterized. Stilt-Man always struck me as being a bit more timid, a bit more whiny. More of an angry, scrawny little nerd vibe to him. Also he's always seemed a lot more harmless. They've got a lot in common, but they also always seemed like pretty different people to me.

 

[fifthfiend]

Darkhawk was my go-to for this but we're in a golden new Darkhawk-filled era

Even if it is stupid no-space-mobsters Darkhawk

 

[fifthfiend]

I never heard of a self hating gay man super villains

It's called the Republican Party.

 

[Ion Kenshin]

I'm sure this was said already but....just about any of the LGBT ones.

 

[Anubis]

...Legendary Go Bot Trannys?

 

[Ion Kenshin]

Lesbian Gay Bi Transgendered.

 

[roach]

any X-men that is not Cyclops, Emma or Wolverine

 

[The Overlord]

You're missing my point entirely. He hasn't gotten as much character development as others. That's why I'm advocating for writers to use him, so he can get more development. I think he has a lot of potential, and already has a decently developed personality to be a good starting point..

Except I don't think that personality in of itself is that interesting. I don't find it interesting in the slightest and likely would choose to pick up another book with a more interesting super villain and just not buy a book with him in it.

If all Trapster is some annoying whiny *****e bag who isn't particularly sympathetic or scary or anything, why would I want to read a story about a villain who, at the end of day, is just some whiny loser? That sounds more annoying then interesting. I would rather read about a villain who is terrifying or sympathetic on some level, then be subjected to that.

I wouldn't find him interesting or find him compelling, all I would think is, this guy is an idiot, he could have super rich but instead he traded a trophy wife for a cell with a big convict named Bubbha, for no real reason. I can't take him seriously as a villain as long as that is not addressed.
That just makes me annoyed at the character, more then anything else.

Also, a backstory doesn't necessarily mean you'll get great character development, or is it necessary for it. I can think of several characters who went through a great deal of character development with very limited backstories. Detailed backstories are useful tools, and you seem to like them a lot, but they're not a necessity for writing a good character.

Also, I'm not totally understanding what you mean by "it's been done better." You say Whiplash was disowned by his parents... why is that inherently better than a simple self destructive cycle that's entirely Pete's fault?

And was Magneto a better or worse character when he got a back story? What about Dr. Doom or the Red Skull?

A small number villains

Because it shows Whiplash trying to reform but circumstances like his parents disowning him actually shows why he contiues to loathe himself and why he is in a cycle.

To me that's more interesting than Trapster who got a pardon and still decided that being a really bad excuse for a criminal was better then potentially making millions of dollars, for no reason.

You say Trapster made a stupid decision and was trapped in a life of crime, but you still haven't told me why? Why did he take all the time to take to get a Masters Degree, but he throws away all that work on one of the dumbest super villain schemes I think of, a scheme that only had any chance of success because the military is almost completely useless in comics, otherwise he would have been dead.

You really haven't explained why he does any of this, your answers are pretty vague. I mean hell, I know tons of people with inferiority complexes who would jump at the chance to have something they could market and make a ton of cash legitimately.

So Trapster just having an inferiority complex doesn't really address anything, because just having an inferiority complex doesn't make one a criminal.

Unique doesn't make it good. Adding some psychological sexual hang ups like being a closeted gay, it's a cheap way of doing character development. Quick, easy, full of shock value, and meant to fast forward through actually thought out character development. And I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone analyze a literary villain or historical figure and say "it seems quite likely that they were actually gay." It's a gimmick. A substitute for actual character development. Actual character development doesn't require gimmicks or fancy and unique twists or backstory retcons. Just taking a character as they are and putting them through situations and struggles where they come out a little different on the other side. Everything else is just window dressing.

I still find what you suggest for trapster to be completely dull and I frankly I think the gay thing is way more interesting.

I have seen villains who were self loathing in the past and all them were better then what you described with Trapster.

Again I think that just makes Trapster annoying more then anything else.

I don't know. They're both mooks, they're both similar in the types of crimes they commit and their status in the Marvel world. I always got the feeling that there were subtle differences in how they were characterized. Stilt-Man always struck me as being a bit more timid, a bit more whiny. More of an angry, scrawny little nerd vibe to him. Also he's always seemed a lot more harmless. They've got a lot in common, but they also always seemed like pretty different people to me.

But again it seems like this is "well he's a self loathing *****e bag", is the default characterization you try to give to almost all of these villains who has no motive for their crimes, its like you are repeating yourself.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

any X-men that is not Cyclops, Emma or Wolverine

Yes. Also, any X-Man who is Beast. The world needs more Beast.

 

[The Question]

I think the difference between you and I is that I honestly don't give a **** if a villain is terrifying or sympathetic. Both of those are directly related to their role as a villain, and I've always seen that as secondary to them being a more developed character.

But again it seems like this is "well he's a self loathing *****e bag", is the default characterization you try to give to almost all of these villains who has no motive for their crimes, its like you are repeating yourself.

It's the motivation they've developed over the years. I'm just going off of what's there. The fact of the matter is, there aren't a million different reasons why someone would turn to crime. In most cases, it's because the person is an angry *****e with very little self awareness and usually some other issues with norman socialization. I honestly think that having a lot of different characters coming from the same basic place potentially makes for much better characterization. For me, at least, it's not the broad strokes of characterization or backstory that make characters interesting, it's the subtler differences.

Way I see it, it's because characters like The Trapster and Stilt-Man are somewhat blank slates who've still managed to develop somewhat consistent and multi-dimensional personalities over the years makes them perfect choices to be used more. In my mind, what makes a character bad is someone who's completely devoid or personality and depth. Even though it hasn't been much, and he's not particularly sympathetic in the classic sense, Trapster does have some personality and depth. At least enough to work with, and a lot more than some bad guys. He may not be especially scary or impressive or possessing of the street smarts, but with the proper writer, nothing would make me happier than seeing him and a group of other career criminal blue color schmucks sitting around and talking between heists.

 

[fifthfiend]

...Legendary Go Bot Trannys?

I'd buy it.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I'd buy it.

Me three.