Underused Marvel characters

[CantThinkOfAName]

I heard he was killed in Thunderbolts. Is this the case?

 

[Manic]

Jack Holyoak

Yeah, nobody's heard of him. He was an apprentice of Doctor Strange, and worked as a sidekick of Doc Samson for a while. He's a young sorcerer who's powerful enough, but has a habit of casting the wrong spells. He's a more humorous character than anything.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I heard he was killed in Thunderbolts. Is this the case?

It is indeed. But with the cosmic comics doing their own thing and resurrecting plenty of cosmic characters, it'd be stupidly easy to bring him back. I hope DnA remember him at some point. I mean, they clearly dug his sister.

 

[The Overlord]

There are plenty of criminals out there who are smart enough to make a lot more money and have much better lives than they do. Turns out, if everyone who was a criminal was really reasonable and had a pragmatic and sensible approach to how they lived their lives, we'd have very few criminals. Most hardened criminals aren't in it because they had no other choice, there are other psychological and social factors that push them towards crime. The Trapster's not one dimensional. Everything I've seen where they try to make him a fleshed out character paint him as an angry, self loathing piece of **** who's too messed up to deal with the world so he just lashes out at it by stealing things and hurting people and getting involved in big super villain schemes, each time digging himself an even deeper hole and convincing himself he can't climb out and thus doing it more. That's not one dimensional at all, that's actually pretty layered for a 60s gimmick villain. It's pretty pathetic, but then almost all villains are pathetic in some way, seeing as how evil is inherently pathetic.

There are tons of self loathing villains like that, from Electro and Whiplash and frankly those characters are way more fleshed then Trapster, because they touch upon their back stories. Trapster doesn't seem to have any back story besides inventing super glue and being evil for no reason. There is no real origin for him, its like he just woke up one day and became evil. That's why he's pretty lame.

Most harden criminals are that because they grew up in bad neighborhoods, had bad parents and didn't have access to the same educational and economic opportunities as other people. Most criminals don't invent tech that could instantly make them millionaires, plus Trapster had to have had some higher education to get the knowledge invent this stuff in the first. That's why his whole character, there is no real explanation why he is a criminal and why doesn't he just change his identity and not be a criminal any more. Assuming a new false identity seems pretty easy to do in the comics, so why hasn't he done it?

I actually always thought that The Trapster and The Shocker were kind of interesting to pair up, because they're really similar, but have both cultivated somewhat distinct personalities. The Trapster, first of all, has proven to be more outwardly homicidal than The Shocker on numerous occasions. Also, The Trapster has shone to be much more weak willed and misanthropic, while The Shocker comes off as more snarky and cynical and more inclined to tell someone to shove it up their ass. I always thought that they'd make good cast members of a comic about a bunch of old Spidey villains forming a crew to pull heists. The cast could be The Shocker, The Trapster, The Vulture, The Spot, and The Rhino. Make it a MAX title, give it a sci-fi crime noir feel, it'd be cool.

Shocker is another character that seriously needs to be fleshed out. You say that he is less likely to hurt innocent then your average villain, but in his most recent appearance in the Spider-Man comic, he took a job to kill an entire jury that was going to put away some crime boss, so he seemed willing to kill a lot of people in that comic.

So does Shocker kill people or not?

I don't know. I thought he quit the Superhero game when Osborn took over.

He went to prison in the Lethal Legion mini.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Sounds like a great opportunity for some lucky writer.


As far as PPP being a one trick pony. Anyone care to list all the heroes and villains who have one trick? Here I'll start with my favorite.


The Human Torch.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Double post.

 

[The Overlord]

Sounds like a great opportunity for some lucky writer.


As far as PPP being a one trick pony. Anyone care to list all the heroes and villains who have one trick? Here I'll start with my favorite.


The Human Torch.

One I would argue fire is a way better gimmick then paste.

Two I don't being a one trick pony is an excuse for being a one dimensional character, Human Torch is a far more fleshed character then Trapster.

Captain Cold the Flash villain, is a one trick pony, but he is far more fleshed out then Trapster, because they gave him a back story and added some sympathetic elements to him.

I think if you want Trapster to go beyond been seen as D-list villain by almost everyone, you should expand his character, give him a back story, give him more elements to his character. Right now he isn't scary or sympathetic, he is too unlikable to sympathetic and too silly to be scary, I just don't see how he is compelling as a character at this point. Fleshing out Trapster would do more for him then finding some contrived way for him to beat Spidey.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Ideas are the start of storytelling. Just because you start with an idea of matching one against the other doesn't automatically make it contrived.


I'd like to see the Trapster take on a more macabre mentality. Spidey wakes up with a baby glued to his back or something.

I'd pay 3 bucks for that comic.

 

[The Overlord]

Ideas are the start of storytelling. Just because you start with an idea of matching one against the other doesn't automatically make it contrived.


I'd like to see the Trapster take on a more macabre mentality. Spidey wakes up with a baby glued to his back or something.

I'd pay 3 bucks for that comic.

Considering Spidey has defeated foes far more powerful and intelligent then Trapster, it seems like it would take of plot induced stupidity Spidey's part for that to work. How would Trapster be able to glue a baby on Spidey's back without waking him up? What did Trapster capture Spidey, if so how?

And again just making Trapster beat up Spidey doesn't make him an interesting character. It doesn't flesh out the character.

I don't think just making him macabre make him better, Dr. Light being turned into a rapist was a pretty bad turn for the character ultimately. Considering how goofy he was in the past, there is a good likelihood for Trapster becoming more macabre to just seem jarring instead of interesting.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Yeah. Didn't I start this convo with the statement, "Sounds like a great opportunity for some lucky writer."? Do I have to fill in the details?


As for Spidey getting defeated... um I seem to remember Spidey getting beaten by an old man with wings.

 

[The Overlord]

Yeah. Didn't I start this convo with the statement, "Sounds like a great opportunity for some lucky writer."? Do I have to fill in the details?

You don't have to, but it is kinda fun to speculate.

As for Spidey getting defeated... um I seem to remember Spidey getting beaten by an old man with wings.

Of course Vulture has superior speed, strength and reaction time to PPP, not mention being air born makes him far more dangerous then PPP. Plus really in terms of power Vulture is a low end threat to Spidey, the only times I remember he really beat Spidey was in ASM 2 and 7 where Spidey was just starting out, which is a tad more forgivable then now.

 

[The Question]

There are tons of self loathing villains like that, from Electro and Whiplash and frankly those characters are way more fleshed then Trapster, because they touch upon their back stories. Trapster doesn't seem to have any back story besides inventing super glue and being evil for no reason. There is no real origin for him, its like he just woke up one day and became evil. That's why he's pretty lame.

He doesn't need to be a highly details backstory for him to have a fleshed out personality. The way he acts suggests the behavioral patterns I mentioned. We know he first turned to crime because he thought it would be an easy way to make a huge score and probably stick it to his boss. His general attitude suggests a fairly misanthropic world view, so he probably did it more out of spite than a desire for wealth. And then he started digging himself deeper and deeper and starting lashing out more and more. Is it pathetic? Kinda. But bad people are bad people because they fail in some way at being a well adjusted human being.

But, really, if it's such a huge problem that he doesn't have much of a backstory, well, guess what? If he was used more, he'd probably get one.

Most harden criminals are that because they grew up in bad neighborhoods, had bad parents and didn't have access to the same educational and economic opportunities as other people. Most criminals don't invent tech that could instantly make them millionaires, plus Trapster had to have had some higher education to get the knowledge invent this stuff in the first. That's why his whole character, there is no real explanation why he is a criminal and why doesn't he just change his identity and not be a criminal any more. Assuming a new false identity seems pretty easy to do in the comics, so why hasn't he done it?

Why? Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard after two years. Steve Jobs dropped out after one semester, and continues auditing classes in calligraphy. A lot of inventors were just working class shmucks who cobbled something together to make their jobs easier and it just turned out to be freaking brilliant. He could have just had a natural aptitude towards chemistry, it happens.

As far as the ****** childhood thing goes:

A) Trapster has shown to be someone who probably comes from a thoroughly blue collar background.

B) There are plenty of bad people who became that way later in life. It's not just about economic or education opportunities. They're a factor, but what's more important is the lessons and examples they were given about morality while growing up, as as well as how much positive emotional stimulation they received. Most lower class people aren't hardened criminals, and there are plenty of evil bastards who have always been financially well off. Hell, most serial killers in history have been thoroughly and pretty comfortable middle class.

Shocker is another character that seriously needs to be fleshed out. You say that he is less likely to hurt innocent then your average villain, but in his most recent appearance in the Spider-Man comic, he took a job to kill an entire jury that was going to put away some crime boss, so he seemed willing to kill a lot of people in that comic.

So does Shocker kill people or not?

Well, I didn't read that. Up until now he's usually been portrayed as a career criminal who's more interested in making money than hurting people and only ever showed an inclination towards lethal force when facing super heroes or other bad guys.

 

[Anubis]

Thing is, characters don't start out fleshed out. They get there eventually through good writing, and actual use. I hate to have to repeat myself, cuz I feel like I'm quoting Alan Moore in just about every thread, but there are no bad characters, just bad writing, or in Trapster and a number of other individuals case, lack of writing at all.

 

[The Overlord]

He doesn't need to be a highly details backstory for him to have a fleshed out personality. The way he acts suggests the behavioral patterns I mentioned. We know he first turned to crime because he thought it would be an easy way to make a huge score and probably stick it to his boss. His general attitude suggests a fairly misanthropic world view, so he probably did it more out of spite than a desire for wealth. And then he started digging himself deeper and deeper and starting lashing out more and more. Is it pathetic? Kinda. But bad people are bad people because they fail in some way at being a well adjusted human being.

But, really, if it's such a huge problem that he doesn't have much of a backstory, well, guess what? If he was used more, he'd probably get one.

What boss, he was stealing from as military facility, that he didn't work at.
Why is he so spiteful? If he became a millionaire legitimately, he would have a lot more power to bully people around with, he foreclose on people's houses or use his trophy wife to make people jealous, all of that makes way more sense then robbing banks.

Also if his plan was to make a quick buck, why didn't he at least try market his glue after he got a pardon in Avengers # 15? If his plan was to make a quick buck, it didn't work and he got a pardon, why didn't he just give up on it at that point.

You really haven't given me a reason why he decided to be a criminal or even he chose to remain a criminal after he got a pardon, that's why the character makes no sense. He was already in prison after the pardon, so he would have released how nasty it was, so he shouldn't have been in hurry to go back to crime.

The whole he's self loathing argument is pretty lame considering there is no explanation for it, that theme has been used before and better by other villains, like Electro, Whiplash and Mr. fear III, so its not unique and its been done better with other villains.

Anyone you slice trapster really does fit into this trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutLexLuthorACheck

Why? Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard after two years. Steve Jobs dropped out after one semester, and continues auditing classes in calligraphy. A lot of inventors were just working class shmucks who cobbled something together to make their jobs easier and it just turned out to be freaking brilliant. He could have just had a natural aptitude towards chemistry, it happens.

Notice how neither Bill Gates or Steve Jobs decided to be criminals after they invented something that can make them rich, they decided to market it, that's what everyone would have done. Bill Gates didn't just start robbing banks for no reason.

As far as the ****** childhood thing goes:

A) Trapster has shown to be someone who probably comes from a thoroughly blue collar background.

B) There are plenty of bad people who became that way later in life. It's not just about economic or education opportunities. They're a factor, but what's more important is the lessons and examples they were given about morality while growing up, as as well as how much positive emotional stimulation they received. Most lower class people aren't hardened criminals, and there are plenty of evil bastards who have always been financially well off. Hell, most serial killers in history have been thoroughly and pretty comfortable middle class.

Most serial killers want to kill people, something society will never approve of, Trapster wants money and if he made his money legitimately society would laud his actions. Robbing banks is stupid way for him to make money when he has a legitimate way to make money and had two chances to do it, you think after the pardon, he would decide just patenting this stuff would be a better way to make money?

Bullseye makes more sense as a character because he wants to kill people, so he can never be anything but a criminal.

Does Trapster have a mental illness or something, is he like the Riddler or something? Because they haven't stated that, so it seems like his character is just a bunch of guess work.


This is why the character is not fleshed out, any you slice it, the initial motive doesn't make sense.

Well, I didn't read that. Up until now he's usually been portrayed as a career criminal who's more interested in making money than hurting people and only ever showed an inclination towards lethal force when facing super heroes or other bad guys.

Well he tried to kill off an entire jury, so that's out the window.

Thing is, characters don't start out fleshed out. They get there eventually through good writing, and actual use. I hate to have to repeat myself, cuz I feel like I'm quoting Alan Moore in just about every thread, but there are no bad characters, just bad writing, or in Trapster and a number of other individuals case, lack of writing at all.

True enough, but little things like trapster not having a motive that makes sense makes him a pretty lame

He has some problems that need to be addressed before he can get out of the D-list status.

yes there are no bad characters only bad writers, but if a character written well and still falls into the same traps, like Trapster not having a motive for being a criminal, people will not thing much of the character.

 

[Anubis]

I disagree. If somebody took the time to play with the character like Q was talking about, that's motive enough. Maybe that's not enough for you, but a guy whose just too much of a f**k up to make anything of himself works for me.

 

[The Overlord]

I disagree. If somebody took the time to play with the character like Q was talking about, that's motive enough. Maybe that's not enough for you, but a guy whose just too much of a f**k up to make anything of himself works for me.

I don't find that interesting concept for a villain in of itself unless you make some interesting stories out of it, like when Electro tried to kill himself, that was interesting. What interesting stories do you with trapster being a f**k up, is he going to continue robbing banks with glue or they going to have story where he does something else?

People kinda want their villains menacing, not pathetic, unless its a very creepy pathetic with like Buffalo Bill. Buffalo Bill was pathetic, but he was a menacing character. Trapster just seems pathetic and not menacing at all.

 

[Anubis]

Well, you brought up Captain Cold recently. Now, that's a guy who became a villain for, pretty much no reason. He had an abusive father, so, he became a super villain who really dislikes cops. Not much of a motive. Doesn't stop him from being one of the most awesome villains in comics. If anything it proves you don't need a motive. Everybody doesn't have to have been Holocaust survivors, or Nazi's, or horribly disfigured in some random industrial accident. Some guys are just *****e bags. Motive is meaningless, it's what they do that matters.

 

[Anubis]

Double Post

Google, Criminal behavior.

 

[THANOSRULES]

Characters I want to see more of...

-Red Wolf
-American Eagle (done so well in Tbolts)
-Psionex, they keep popping up in backdrops..which is cool.
-Star Thief
-Midnight Son (from Silver surfer)
-on that note..Silver Surfer
-That green Herald Dominus? I forgot his name from Last Planet Standing
-MC2 characters in general
-Prodigy, he's not featured enough
-Battle Star
-Firestar, what is so flawed with this character that she is backburnered?

 

[Anubis]

Rom the Space Knight

 

[The Question]

What boss, he was stealing from as military facility, that he didn't work at.

Oh, my mistake.

Why is he so spiteful? If he became a millionaire legitimately, he would have a lot more power to bully people around with, he foreclose on people's houses or use his trophy wife to make people jealous, all of that makes way more sense then robbing banks.

You're expecting a criminal to do something that makes sense. Serious crimes don't make sense. There's no reason to do it unless you're a ****ed up person.

Also if his plan was to make a quick buck, why didn't he at least try market his glue after he got a pardon in Avengers # 15? If his plan was to make a quick buck, it didn't work and he got a pardon, why didn't he just give up on it at that point.

Maybe he just enjoys hurting people and stealing things. There are plenty of career criminals who had the skills to be successful, law abiding people, but decided not to because they had some desire to hurt society.

You really haven't given me a reason why he decided to be a criminal or even he chose to remain a criminal after he got a pardon, that's why the character makes no sense. He was already in prison after the pardon, so he would have released how nasty it was, so he shouldn't have been in hurry to go back to crime.

The whole he's self loathing argument is pretty lame considering there is no explanation for it, that theme has been used before and better by other villains, like Electro, Whiplash and Mr. fear III, so its not unique and its been done better with other villains.

Yeah, it's been done better, but I'm not saying The Trapster is the greatest villain ti ever live. I'm saying that he doesn't inherently suck and has potential. Being a self loathing misanthropic *****ebag is plenty of a reason to be a criminal. Why is he a self loathing misanthropic *****ebag? I don't know. As you said, he doesn't have much of a backstory. But a character doesn't need to have a detailed backstory to be well rounded. The Trapster is pretty well rounded. Is he a pathetic schmuck? Yes. But he's a layered, three dimensional pathetic schmuck, one who's actions do follow a form of logic. Not the kind of logic that says "everything he's done is perfectly sensible for a person to do," but "everything he's done follows a pattern of behavior that makes sense from a psychological perspective."

Anyone you slice trapster really does fit into this trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutLexLuthorACheck

You do realize that TVtropes isn't a list of hard and fast rules for writing (because hard and fast rules for writing don't exist), but simply common elements in fiction that can be played with and are useful to be aware of, right?

Notice how neither Bill Gates or Steve Jobs decided to be criminals after they invented something that can make them rich, they decided to market it, that's what everyone would have done. Bill Gates didn't just start robbing banks for no reason.

Notice how you completely avoid my point. Inventing something awesome =/= college education.

Most serial killers want to kill people, something society will never approve of, Trapster wants money and if he made his money legitimately society would laud his actions. Robbing banks is stupid way for him to make money when he has a legitimate way to make money and had two chances to do it, you think after the pardon, he would decide just patenting this stuff would be a better way to make money?

Maybe it's about more than money. In the past he's proven to be a weak willed, angry, misanthropic ******* who hates himself and takes it out on others. Yeah, he wants money. But he also wants to buck the system because **** the system. It actually makes a lot of sense. Especially if you look at his hero worship of The Wizard. The Wizard is a lot of the things you've mentioned. He's a brilliant scientist who's invented amazing technology that could make him rich, but instead uses it to commit crimes. Why? Because he thinks being a super villain is awesome. And he's really good at it. Then you have The Trapster. Angry, hates himself, hates the world, and very very intelligent. On some level, maybe not consciously, I think he might want to be like The Wizard. This old school mad scientist arch criminal, getting illicit riches and showing society what for. Except he's a lot worse at it, will never amount to more than a small timer or hired muscle as a criminal, and that fuels his anger. It works. It's pathetic, but it works.

Bullseye makes more sense as a character because he wants to kill people, so he can never be anything but a criminal.

Does Trapster have a mental illness or something, is he like the Riddler or something? Because they haven't stated that, so it seems like his character is just a bunch of guess work.

It's really not guesswork. He's followed a pretty clear pattern over his career. It's not spectacular or amazing, but it's there.

This is why the character is not fleshed out, any you slice it, the initial motive doesn't make sense.

I don't think it's as big a problem as you make it out to be.

Well he tried to kill off an entire jury, so that's out the window.

Not necessarily. The best comic writers don't just resign themselves to incongruities, they work with them. This can be played with. Maybe, when The Shocker took the job, times were hard for him. On the run, living in ratholes, last few jobs didn't go well, got the snot beat out of him by the cops recently, lots of stuff piling up. Maybe he got the offer, and being angry and depressed, just thought "**** it, I don't give a **** anymore" and went for it. It could make for some interesting character work if you paired him up with some more well known murderous villains. Could show him regretting it a lot and trying to distance himself from his more homicidal comrades, even though he knows he almost became just like them.

People kinda want their villains menacing, not pathetic, unless its a very creepy pathetic with like Buffalo Bill. Buffalo Bill was pathetic, but he was a menacing character. Trapster just seems pathetic and not menacing at all.

Villains are inherently pathetic. Being evil means that you have in some way failed to be a well adjusted human being. In my mind, I don't necessarily want my villains to be menacing. i just want them to be well written characters.

 

[The Overlord]

Oh, my mistake.



You're expecting a criminal to do something that makes sense. Serious crimes don't make sense. There's no reason to do it unless you're a ****ed up person.

No but there should some method to their madness.

Maybe he just enjoys hurting people and stealing things. There are plenty of career criminals who had the skills to be successful, law abiding people, but decided not to because they had some desire to hurt society.

Again that's big maybe, at this point it seems like there is a lot guess work

If he likes hurting people, why didn't he become a serial killer, why did he become a thief?

Yeah, it's been done better, but I'm not saying The Trapster is the greatest villain ti ever live. I'm saying that he doesn't inherently suck and has potential. Being a self loathing misanthropic *****ebag is plenty of a reason to be a criminal. Why is he a self loathing misanthropic *****ebag? I don't know. As you said, he doesn't have much of a backstory. But a character doesn't need to have a detailed backstory to be well rounded. The Trapster is pretty well rounded. Is he a pathetic schmuck? Yes. But he's a layered, three dimensional pathetic schmuck, one who's actions do follow a form of logic. Not the kind of logic that says "everything he's done is perfectly sensible for a person to do," but "everything he's done follows a pattern of behavior that makes sense from a psychological perspective."

Electro, Whiplash and Mr. Fear III are not the best villains in the world, but they are better fleshed out characters then him, because they actually show why those guys hate themselves or explore that concept in a better way. With Electro you saw he had a dependent relationship with his mother, who always undercut his self esteem, with Whiplash when he tried reform his parents disowned and Mr. Fear's self loathing turned to jealousy and later a psychotic hatred of Matt Murdock. All of those are more interesting variations of the same theme given to Trapster and they are more interesting because they are given more depth.

If this is the theme of his character, then really explore it and do really interesting, some off hand illusions to do it now and again are not good, especially since amny other villains explore that theme better then him.

Frankly I don't Trapster's personality is so well developed that he doesn't need a back story, I think his personality is so underdeveloped he does need one explains better, how are we supposed to know what makes him tick when he has no viable back story to explain his actions.

Frankly the character seems like he is a rut, all he is a generic costumed criminal or just a member of the Frightful Four, he comes off more as a plot device then a character. If a character is a rut and doesn't seem to go anywhere, he's broken and you need fix him.

I'm not saying don't use him, I'm saying fix the character, get him out of his rut and do something new with him.

You do realize that TVtropes isn't a list of hard and fast rules for writing (because hard and fast rules for writing don't exist), but simply common elements in fiction that can be played with and are useful to be aware of, right?

But I find it a useful tool and that trope in particular is one of my pet peeves.

Notice how you completely avoid my point. Inventing something awesome =/= college education.

Actually his bio on Marvel says he has a Masters Degree in science: http://marvel.com/universe/Trapster

So what he took the time to get a Masters degree but didn't patenting his glue. If he was so impatient that he had to get quick buck right away to

Maybe it's about more than money. In the past he's proven to be a weak willed, angry, misanthropic ******* who hates himself and takes it out on others. Yeah, he wants money. But he also wants to buck the system because **** the system. It actually makes a lot of sense. Especially if you look at his hero worship of The Wizard. The Wizard is a lot of the things you've mentioned. He's a brilliant scientist who's invented amazing technology that could make him rich, but instead uses it to commit crimes. Why? Because he thinks being a super villain is awesome. And he's really good at it. Then you have The Trapster. Angry, hates himself, hates the world, and very very intelligent. On some level, maybe not consciously, I think he might want to be like The Wizard. This old school mad scientist arch criminal, getting illicit riches and showing society what for. Except he's a lot worse at it, will never amount to more than a small timer or hired muscle as a criminal, and that fuels his anger. It works. It's pathetic, but it works.

He isn't good at it though, remember the time he is stopped by Baxter Building's security system. How much

He hates himself, why? He hates the world, why? Also he doesn't seem to think being a super villain is awesome, whether wise wouldn't he be happier in life? None of these questions are answered. He did he just wake up and decide to evil one day? Ultimately he comes off as being evil for no reason.

Its pretty lame there is no explanation for any of this, he is not a strong character not to have a back story

It's really not guesswork. He's followed a pretty clear pattern over his career. It's not spectacular or amazing, but it's there.

It needs a lot of work to be interesting.

Not necessarily. The best comic writers don't just resign themselves to incongruities, they work with them. This can be played with. Maybe, when The Shocker took the job, times were hard for him. On the run, living in ratholes, last few jobs didn't go well, got the snot beat out of him by the cops recently, lots of stuff piling up. Maybe he got the offer, and being angry and depressed, just thought "**** it, I don't give a **** anymore" and went for it. It could make for some interesting character work if you paired him up with some more well known murderous villains. Could show him regretting it a lot and trying to distance himself from his more homicidal comrades, even though he knows he almost became just like them.

Maybe, but if they don't do anything about it just makes Shocker look inconstient, especially since he seemed to be having fun menacing people there.

Villains are inherently pathetic. Being evil means that you have in some way failed to be a well adjusted human being. In my mind, I don't necessarily want my villains to be menacing. i just want them to be well written characters.

But think most people want the villains to be menacing on some level. I don't think the first Halloween movie would have worked if Michael Myers wasn't menacing.

Plus I wouldn't call Doom or Magneto pathetic.

When Iron Man called the controller pathetic, its because he had so much contempt for the Controller's appalling actions. The Controller was pathetic, but also vile and menacing. That's more interesting pathetic then Trapster who just isn't as compelling.

Well, you brought up Captain Cold recently. Now, that's a guy who became a villain for, pretty much no reason. He had an abusive father, so, he became a super villain who really dislikes cops. Not much of a motive. Doesn't stop him from being one of the most awesome villains in comics. If anything it proves you don't need a motive. Everybody doesn't have to have been Holocaust survivors, or Nazi's, or horribly disfigured in some random industrial accident. Some guys are just *****e bags. Motive is meaningless, it's what they do that matters.

Captain Cold is a better defined character then Trapster and having a back story is often better not having one.

Captain Cold is a criminal because he is thrill seeker and adrenaline junkie and Captain Cold is not just a *****e bag because he has a code of honor and rules about what he will and won't do. Plus stories like Rogues Revenge and the story where he avenges his sister put him in more of sympathetic light, both of those are better character spot lights then anything Trapster has done.

Trapster just lacks the elements that would make him a fully fleshed character, if you are going to use again, you should try to get the character of his useless and tell a new interesting, because he is kinda of broken and needs fixing.

 

[The Question]

No but there should some method to their madness.

And there is a method to Trapster's madness. I've explained it. It's pretty clear. Misanthropic world view + anger + self loathing + lack of self awareness + weak will = pathetic life of crime.

Again that's big maybe, at this point it seems like there is a lot guess work

It's the traits he's shown pretty consistently over at least the last 20 years.

If he likes hurting people, why didn't he become a serial killer, why did he become a thief?

That's... that is so much not how the world works I don't even know where to begin.

There are plenty of criminals, criminals who's main goal is money and refer to themselves as thieves, still have an underlying desire to harm others and have a tendency to get way more violent than necessary on jobs. The Trapster, by the way, has killed people before and has committed other crimes than theft, usually alongside the Frightful Four. Serial killers are a very specific type of criminal, and not all criminals who enjoy bringing the pain are serial killers. Also, staling hurts society and the economy, so symbolically it's still hurting people.

Electro, Whiplash and Mr. Fear III are not the best villains in the world, but they are better fleshed out characters then him, because they actually show why those guys hate themselves or explore that concept in a better way. With Electro you saw he had a dependent relationship with his mother, who always undercut his self esteem, with Whiplash when he tried reform his parents disowned and Mr. Fear's self loathing turned to jealousy and later a psychotic hatred of Matt Murdock. All of those are more interesting variations of the same theme given to Trapster and they are more interesting because they are given more depth.

If this is the theme of his character, then really explore it and do really interesting, some off hand illusions to do it now and again are not good, especially since amny other villains explore that theme better then him.

Again, giving the reasons for their personalities doesn't give them more depth, it just gives them more of a backstory. I'm not saying that they shouldn't explore Pete's backstory. They really should. But that doesn't mean he's not a well developed character.

Frankly I don't Trapster's personality is so well developed that he doesn't need a back story, I think his personality is so underdeveloped he does need one explains better, how are we supposed to know what makes him tick when he has no viable back story to explain his actions.

He does not have an underdeveloped personality. He has a layered and fairly distinct personality. What he does have is an underdeveloped backstory, as I have pointed out several times. There is a difference.

Frankly the character seems like he is a rut, all he is a generic costumed criminal or just a member of the Frightful Four, he comes off more as a plot device then a character. If a character is a rut and doesn't seem to go anywhere, he's broken and you need fix him.

I'm not saying don't use him, I'm saying fix the character, get him out of his rut and do something new with him.

Yeah, the character is in a rut. But nothing needs to be fixed besides using him more and giving him more character focus. He's in a rut because people think he's lame for having a silly gimmick. That's all.

But I find it a useful tool and that trope in particular is one of my pet peeves.

It's not always bad. I mean, if the character is specifically designed to not give a **** about making money deliberately and only wants to be a certain kind of super villain, it's all good.

Actually his bio on Marvel says he has a Masters Degree in science: http://marvel.com/universe/Trapster

So what he took the time to get a Masters degree but didn't patenting his glue. If he was so impatient that he had to get quick buck right away to

Okay.

He isn't good at it though, remember the time he is stopped by Baxter Building's security system. How much

He hates himself, why? He hates the world, why? Also he doesn't seem to think being a super villain is awesome, whether wise wouldn't he be happier in life? None of these questions are answered. He did he just wake up and decide to evil one day? Ultimately he comes off as being evil for no reason.

Its pretty lame there is no explanation for any of this, he is not a strong character not to have a back story

1) I specifically mentioned that he's not good at it.

2) You're really missing my point. Human behavior rarely follows objective logical reasoning. "He doesn't seem to think being a super villain is awesome, wether wise wouldn't he be happier in life?" So, explain addicts to me. Like, not drug addicts. People who are addicted to gambling, or sex, or things like that. People who lack self awareness (which is a sadly large number) will attach themselves to completely self destructive behaviors that only prove to ruin their lives, and instead of realizing that their behavior is screwing up their lives, they simply get depressed and engage in those behaviors more because it offers some kind of comfort of emotional release. It happens All. The. Damn. Time. The Trapster's lifestyle is a classic self destructive cycle. It isn't a sensible way to live your life, but from a psychological standpoint it makes sense, as in it's something people actually do.

Maybe, but if they don't do anything about it just makes Shocker look inconstient, especially since he seemed to be having fun menacing people there.

It is inconsistent. Good writers deal with inconsistencies to make stories better.

But think most people want the villains to be menacing on some level. I don't think the first Halloween movie would have worked if Michael Myers wasn't menacing.

Plus I wouldn't call Doom or Magneto pathetic.

Doom and Magneto are totally pathetic. Magneto can't let go of his anger, to the point where he leads a violent crusade that has destroyed his family and, in the long term, only serves to make the world a worse place. Doom is so obsessed with building his Utopian empire where he's top dog that he often neglects actual opportunities to make the world better in a non military or violent manner, and he's so crushed by his own insecurities that he has this nightmarish rivalry with an otherwise decent human being that's only brought him and his loved ones nothing but pain. They're both very pathetic people, they just act dignified.

 

[The Overlord]

And there is a method to Trapster's madness. I've explained it. It's pretty clear. Misanthropic world view + anger + self loathing + lack of self awareness + weak will = pathetic life of crime.

It's the traits he's shown pretty consistently over at least the last 20 years.

That's... that is so much not how the world works I don't even know where to begin.

There are plenty of criminals, criminals who's main goal is money and refer to themselves as thieves, still have an underlying desire to harm others and have a tendency to get way more violent than necessary on jobs. The Trapster, by the way, has killed people before and has committed other crimes than theft, usually alongside the Frightful Four. Serial killers are a very specific type of criminal, and not all criminals who enjoy bringing the pain are serial killers. Also, staling hurts society and the economy, so symbolically it's still hurting people.

Except it doesn't come across in a lot of his stories, was it mentioned in the Thing mini when he and the Sandman were together in robbery?

Also if he enjoys hurting people so much why did he feel bad when killed that teenager? Why did he care then? Why didn't just say screw, killing people is fun?

You seem to be describing him as a sadist psychopath, but that's doesn't gel with what we have seen from him.

How often has this been mentioned besides in an obscure Spidey story from the 90s?

Again, giving the reasons for their personalities doesn't give them more depth, it just gives them more of a backstory. I'm not saying that they shouldn't explore Pete's backstory. They really should. But that doesn't mean he's not a well developed character.

He does not have an underdeveloped personality. He has a layered and fairly distinct personality. What he does have is an underdeveloped backstory, as I have pointed out several times. There is a difference.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but I don't think its layered, I think its dull and cliched, because I have seen it done and I have seen done way better before, with Electro, Whiplash and Mr. Fear III and that is because they used their back stories to explain it and it came as way more developed then anything Trapster has done. So it seems like a cliche to me at this point. Oh also I remember a Spidey issue from the 90s where Scorpion dealt with this, so that's another time I have seen this theme.

The personality you described for trapster doesn't interest me in the slightest, so unless they add a back story that actually explains all this well, I don't see why I or anyone who isn't already a fan of trapster would care.

This whole personality you described is frankly overdone, it seems like the same personality type everyone gives to a villain with no motive, in of itself it doesn't seem very compelling. So if that's Trapster's personality, I don't think its done very well.

Yeah, the character is in a rut. But nothing needs to be fixed besides using him more and giving him more character focus. He's in a rut because people think he's lame for having a silly gimmick. That's all.

That's because that's the way he comes off in a lot of his stories.

It's not always bad. I mean, if the character is specifically designed to not give a **** about making money deliberately and only wants to be a certain kind of super villain, it's all good.

Again that's been done better with better super villains like Bullseye, who they do a way better job of explaining why he is a criminal and why he doesn't care about money.

Okay.

Ok, it contradicts the idea that he was a criminal because he was mentally unstable and impatient.

If he was as unhinged as you make him out, how did he get the patience to go through a Masters program?

That makes no sense what so ever. Its a huge contradiction.

1) I specifically mentioned that he's not good at it.

2) You're really missing my point. Human behavior rarely follows objective logical reasoning. "He doesn't seem to think being a super villain is awesome, wether wise wouldn't he be happier in life?" So, explain addicts to me. Like, not drug addicts. People who are addicted to gambling, or sex, or things like that. People who lack self awareness (which is a sadly large number) will attach themselves to completely self destructive behaviors that only prove to ruin their lives, and instead of realizing that their behavior is screwing up their lives, they simply get depressed and engage in those behaviors more because it offers some kind of comfort of emotional release. It happens All. The. Damn. Time. The Trapster's lifestyle is a classic self destructive cycle. It isn't a sensible way to live your life, but from a psychological standpoint it makes sense, as in it's something people actually do.

But that doesn't come across in a lot of his stories, so it seems really underdeveloped .

It is inconsistent. Good writers deal with inconsistencies to make stories better.

Unless they don't do anything with it, though I wonder if you are projecting things on the character that aren't really there.

Doom and Magneto are totally pathetic. Magneto can't let go of his anger, to the point where he leads a violent crusade that has destroyed his family and, in the long term, only serves to make the world a worse place. Doom is so obsessed with building his Utopian empire where he's top dog that he often neglects actual opportunities to make the world better in a non military or violent manner, and he's so crushed by his own insecurities that he has this nightmarish rivalry with an otherwise decent human being that's only brought him and his loved ones nothing but pain. They're both very pathetic people, they just act dignified.

I think that's debatable and they still are better characters then Trapster. I think the fact Magneto actually thinks he is right, has a tragic back story and has good intentions makes him way less pathetic then Trapster.

Heck I think a C-list character like Controller is better character then trapaster, in that he actually comes across as an immoral psychopath who likes hurting people for very petty reasons.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Rom the Space Knight

It's been ever so slightly illegal for Marvel to use him for the past, like, 20 years. And then Annihilation: Conquest seems to have killed off all his Spaceknight buddies.