Underused Marvel characters

[RAMORE]

Both are great examples how about Morph. The guy who can copy powers thats what he does how cool is that?

 

[NDX]

...why isn't Scarecrow acting like a psychopath...

Because he's more than just a raving lunatic. He can be very methodical with his actions as shown in the current Vengeance of the Moon Knight series and his time as the best villains of the 90s Ghost Rider series. That time helped establish his character as someone very dangerous and deranged, but very smart, and that what really made him dangerous.

In most of the Hood stories he is shown as a nobody, but at least in Moon Knight he's being written the best he's been since Ghost Rider Annual 2 back over a decade ago.

As for characters I would like to see used again:

The Shocker - Always liked this character. Still think a lot can be done with him.

Death's Head - Who doesn't love skyscraper sized freelance peacekeeping agents?!

Death's Head II - I know he's still out there, dammit! Make something of him already! Sometimes I really miss MarvelUK.

And for the hell of it, the Midnight Sons, the real Midnight Sons, somehow make a return. A new mystic 9 based off of whose left of the Darkhold Redeemers, the Nightstalkers, Morbius and the Spirits of Vengeance. Can always add new characters to replace those who are dead (Louise Hastings and Frank Drake, last I checked, I think Hannibal King came back to life). And a Lilith that is the mother of all demons again, not the battery she was made out to be in Captain Britain and the MI-13.

 

[The Overlord]

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.

Unless he is supposed to be comic relief, I don't see why would give two craps about a story where the villain is just a whiny loser, that's why I don't like Superboy Prime, he's just a whiny loser and everything he does is annoying, even in a good story like the sinestro Corp wars, he is just annoying.

In a movie I wouldn't want the villain to be a whiny loser, unless its supposed to be a comedy. I don't think something like that is the stuff of good villains. I don't think Silence of the Lambs would have been a good movie if Dr. Lecter was just a whiny loser.

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.

Except there are a lot of reasons why people become criminals: poverty, lack of education, being a born a psychopath, being a sociopath due to one's environment (abusive parents, bad neighborhood), drug or alcohol abuse, falling into the wrong crowd to feel accepted and if we include terrorists as criminals they do it because they think they are right. So yeah, there are a lot of reasons why someone becomes a criminal. Most criminals don't bother getting a Masters Degree and then becoming a criminal, unless they are psychopath, they join a group like the mafia or become a white collar criminal, but I haven't heard of someone getting a Masters Degree and just robbing a bank.

Plus I know people with inferiority complex who aren't criminals and if they had something that could make them millions legitimately, they would waste no time trying to patent it.

Also I don't think any of the "subtle differences" you have given Trapster, are interesting, at all. You know what maybe he does have a personality, but I don't see why its compelling or interesting in the least.

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.

Superboy Prime has a personality and he is still a bad character. To be a good character I think you need to have a compelling personality, not just one that exists.

Also fine he has a personality, but you haven't explained why its compelling for a villain or why he has an inferiority complex. I find it just dull by itself, without especially without a back story to explain it.

I think all those other villains I mentioned who loathe themselves are far more interesting because they give reasons why they loathe themselves or they present circumstances that feed into a cycle of self loathing and prevent them from reforming.

All of that is more interesting then "Trapster is a self loathing *****e......for no real reason".

 

[The Question]

Stuff Overlord said.

Again, you're asking me to explain why he's the way he is when it's been clearly stated several times that his backstory from before his first appearance is sorely limited. I'm only going off what we've actually seen.

A few points I do want to touch on: You mention poverty and poor education as reasons people turn to crime. That's not accurate. There are plenty of people who are poor and poorly educated who are decent, law abiding people. Poverty and poor education don't make people criminals, they create environments in which people can develop behavioral patterns and psychological problems that make them criminals. The fact of the matter is, in a vast number of cases, which poverty and poor education may have been starting factors, the reason life long criminals remain that way is because of patterns of thinking. Poverty, by itself, is not what motivated hardened criminals. It's a factor, but it's a lot more complex than that.

And about the whiny loser thing: You're right, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't have worked if he was a whiny loser. Because Silence of the Lambs was about a highly intelligent serial killer helping an FBI agent catch another serial killer. The story wouldn't have worked because that's not what the story was about. I think your idea of how characters can be used in fiction is kind of limited.

Also, when has it ever been said that The Trapster is whiny? Whiny implies that he's constantly complaining about his problems. He is a loser, no question about that, but I don't think I've ever heard him whine.

 

[fifthfiend]

Man, whole lotta words in this thread arguing about the Trapster.

I mean, the Trapster.

Paste Pot Pete, for ****'s sake.

 

[The Question]

Man, whole lotta words in this thread arguing about the Trapster.

I mean, the Trapster.

Paste Pot Pete, for ****'s sake.

I am a strong advocate for recognizing the potential awesomeness of lame super villains. If no one did, Flash's rogues wouldn't be what they are today.

 

[fifthfiend]

Neither would Killer Moth.

Uggggggggggggggggggggggggh

 

[The Question]

Neither would Killer Moth.

Uggggggggggggggggggggggggh

Honestly, I preferred him pre-Charaxes. I thought he was really interesting in Batgirl: Year-One, especially his dynamic with Firefly. Charaxes is actually a good example of why a lot of writers fail at beefing up second string villains. They try to make them cool with power upgrades or changes in M.O. that are really just shallow gimmicks, when what they really need is some good character development and the proper setting.

 

[The Overlord]

Again, you're asking me to explain why he's the way he is when it's been clearly stated several times that his backstory from before his first appearance is sorely limited. I'm only going off what we've actually seen.

Well the problem is you seem to be dismissing that as a problem, which is why I keep on brining it up. You say its not necessary, but I think its a really big problem.

How am I supposed to get into the character, when there really is no explanation why the character became a criminal in the first place. I find that annoying.

Its not like Trapster is the Joker and been mysterious adds to his mystique. Even Joker had a back story that was hinted at.

A few points I do want to touch on: You mention poverty and poor education as reasons people turn to crime. That's not accurate. There are plenty of people who are poor and poorly educated who are decent, law abiding people. Poverty and poor education don't make people criminals, they create environments in which people can develop behavioral patterns and psychological problems that make them criminals. The fact of the matter is, in a vast number of cases, which poverty and poor education may have been starting factors, the reason life long criminals remain that way is because of patterns of thinking. Poverty, by itself, is not what motivated hardened criminals. It's a factor, but it's a lot more complex than that.

Yeah and they are people with inferiority complexes who aren't criminals, what's your point?

There are tons of self hating *****es who never become criminals, they just become jerks. There tons of completely angry and miserable people who don't break the law, they just work within the law and try and make others unhappy as they are through methods that are cruel, but completely legal.

Just saying he's a self hating *****e doesn't really explain why he is a criminal. Why is he a criminal and not just law abiding jerk?

And about the whiny loser thing: You're right, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't have worked if he was a whiny loser. Because Silence of the Lambs was about a highly intelligent serial killer helping an FBI agent catch another serial killer. The story wouldn't have worked because that's not what the story was about. I think your idea of how characters can be used in fiction is kind of limited.

How many serious movies feature a loser villain though?

Also, when has it ever been said that The Trapster is whiny? Whiny implies that he's constantly complaining about his problems. He is a loser, no question about that, but I don't think I've ever heard him whine.

If he isn't whining, how would he express himself?

And personally I still don't why the personality you described Trapster as having is compelling. I don't think a character having a personality in of itself makes that character interesting, a character could have an annoying personality, sure the character has a personality, but I still wouldn't like the character because their personality makes them annoying.

Honestly, I preferred him pre-Charaxes. I thought he was really interesting in Batgirl: Year-One, especially his dynamic with Firefly. Charaxes is actually a good example of why a lot of writers fail at beefing up second string villains. They try to make them cool with power upgrades or changes in M.O. that are really just shallow gimmicks, when what they really need is some good character development and the proper setting.

Except most people liked Calculator better when he changed his M.O.

 

[Fantasyartist]

In addition to underused characters, there are also plotlines that could be better developed but usually never are- such as why was Dmitri Bukharin so anxious to capture Magneto in the X-Men vs Avengers mini series!

Terry