Homecoming Who should reboot villain be? (Poll Version)

[BatsDC]

I hope they do use Shocker. An ideal character for Spidey's first movie. Let him grow as a hero before he gets to the real heavy hitters.

 

[Spider2099]

Maybe they can go the TSSM route and make Shocker one of the Enforcers. That way it's not just Spider-Man fighting one minor bad guy in a movie.

 

[BatsDC]

Maybe they can go the TSSM route and make Shocker one of the Enforcers. That way it's not just Spider-Man fighting one minor bad guy in a movie.

I suggested that a few pages back. Shocker, Ricochet and Ox would be good villains for the reboot. Have them employed by Tombstone after Spider-Man starts interfering with his criminal activity.

 

[Spider2099]

I suggested that a few pages back. Shocker, Ricochet and Ox would be good villains for the reboot. Have them employed by Tombstone after Spider-Man starts interfering with his criminal activity.

That would be cool. And if not Tombstone then maybe Kingpin or Silvermane.

 

[The Overlord]

As I said earlier. I'm not actually pushing him as the main villain. I merely stated that hypothetically he could work easily enough with the right story. There are a couple of quick examples off the top of my head the type progression his story could have in the post you quote.

You have not really explained how Shocker would escalate over the course of a film.

Also saying Shocker could carry a film without explaining how is kinda of an easy statement make. I could say Big Wheel could carry a film on his own, but I think its fair if people ask how he could and have doubts whether he could.

I never found any of Spider-man's villains to be scary either and I don't know why you're hung up on sympathy since we've had five films already where they've played that angle.

Green Goblin or even Carnage can be scary in right circumstances.

Also I didn't find Norman Osborn sympathetic in Spider-Man 1.

If you have a villain that is neither sympathetic nor scary or creepy or evil to the point the audience really hates the character, what makes them compelling? Why should I care about Shocker as the main villain of a movie?

If you are going to have a villain who is unsympathetic, you may as well go in the opposite direction and make him really unsympathetic. If the villain is unsympathetic, but just robs banks and doesn't do anything that makes him really scary or creepy or anything, why should I care? I don't like him because he is unsympathetic, but I have no reason to hate him either because he is just a petty thief, I shouldn't be neutral towards a villain in a film, that is the makings of a bland villain.

I'm not really interested in this nonsensical 'victimless crime' perception you seem to have with bank robberies or your own personal hang up that they aren't compelling. Many would argue that Spider-man versus the angry nerd would be far less compelling. If you don't find bank robberies compelling then that's fine for you.

There is nothing wrong with Spidey foiling a bank robbery in the course of the film, in the beginning or the middle of the film, but the villain needs more to his MO then just that to carry a film. Dr. Octopus robbed a bank in the middle of the second movie, but that is not all he did. His actions escalated towards a climax.

This why Shocker is best used henchman, he just not compelling enough to be a main villain, if he just a henchman, then he can be just the guy who tries to blast Spidey and that is it. Frankly I never really found Shocker compelling in the comics.

And like I said, bank Robbery is not the common place crime it used to be, nowadays its a major risk for a small reward, its easier to use a laptop to break into the bank's mainframe and steal the money electronically. Really nowadays only idiots rob banks and they usually get caught in a matter of days, if they are not caught on the scene. Shocker can make more money with his laptop then he could with his super villain outfit.

Really Shocker is just not epic enough to be the main villain of a film, I think if he were, then that movie would have the same problem Star Trek Insurrection had, where it felt like a rather bland TV episode rather then a film.

I suggested that a few pages back. Shocker, Ricochet and Ox would be good villains for the reboot. Have them employed by Tombstone after Spider-Man starts interfering with his criminal activity.

Well that would fine, that would make Tombstone the Big Bad of the film and have Shocker and these other guys henchmen.

 

[Morbius]

I am beyond excited for the moment when a villain or villains is/ are announced.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Shocker is nothing like Electro in personality, nor in powers/abilities though. He uses vibration blasts which is nothing like electricity.

Frankly, care would need to be taken to make it clear. When I watched the 90s Spider-Man cartoon, I certainly thought he had the same power. It looked like electricity, his name is Shocker, which carries the image of electric shock, and there wasn't an Electro character until the very end to compare it to. I will say Spectacular Spider-Man did a better job of making them visually distinct. I think it's fair to say that a general audience could tell them apart, but it's incorrect to say they would automatically tell them apart. I think there is a risk that they are too similar.

 

[Spider2099]

I don't think people would confuse Shocker with the Electro we were given in TASM2 though.

 

[The Infernal]

You have not really explained how Shocker would escalate over the course of a film.

Like I said in my brief examples. Shocker could start off as a simple bank robber and be foiled by Spidey. At that point it could turn into a vendetta where he tries to hunt down Spider-man or maybe he lures him out for a confrontation.

Or he could be a bank robber who is determined to move up in the world and plan bigger heists. Maybe he gets word of some Oscorp tech he can either sell or incorporate into his suit and gauntlets or whatever. A final confrontation at Oscorp over some MacGuffin could easily make a good set piece. It could be in part a sort of anti-heist film.

Also saying Shocker could carry a film without explaining how is kinda of an easy statement make. I could say Big Wheel could carry a film on his own, but I think its fair if people ask how he could and have doubts whether he could.

Well I gave a couple of brief examples, but you seem determined not to see the possibilities and say "where's the escalation?".

Green Goblin or even Carnage can be scary in right circumstances.

Also I didn't find Norman Osborn sympathetic in Spider-Man 1.

If you have a villain that is neither sympathetic nor scary or creepy or evil to the point the audience really hates the character, what makes them compelling? Why should I care about Shocker as the main villain of a movie?

If you are going to have a villain who is unsympathetic, you may as well go in the opposite direction and make him really unsympathetic. If the villain is unsympathetic, but just robs banks and doesn't do anything that makes him really scary or creepy or anything, why should I care? I don't like him because he is unsympathetic, but I have no reason to hate him either because he is just a petty thief, I shouldn't be neutral towards a villain in a film, that is the makings of a bland villain.

I'd say maybe you're over thinking it, but from your posts it's more like you're fixated on certain viewpoints and can't see anything past that. You've made an entirely arbitrary decision that anyone who doesn't fit into the tragic case or maniacal psychopath. It's not such a binary dilemma. There are other types of characters. Personally I don't see the problem with the simplicity of a determined bank robber if they have an interesting personality and the stakes are raised in confrontation with Spider-man.

Also bank robbery is not petty theft. It's grand larceny.

There is nothing wrong with Spidey foiling a bank robbery in the course of the film, in the beginning or the middle of the film, but the villain needs more to his MO then just that to carry a film. Dr. Octopus robbed a bank in the middle of the second movie, but that is not all he did. His actions escalated towards a climax.

This why Shocker is best used henchman, he just not compelling enough to be a main villain, if he just a henchman, then he can be just the guy who tries to blast Spidey and that is it. Frankly I never really found Shocker compelling in the comics.

You keep jumping to conclusions without exploring the possibilities (and that's without mentioning your particular hang up with bank robbery). At no point have I or anyone here said that Shocker must simply rob banks all the way throughout as though he has no character arc or doesn't even change behaviour after confrontations with Spider-man.

And like I said, bank Robbery is not the common place crime it used to be, nowadays its a major risk for a small reward, its easier to use a laptop to break into the bank's mainframe and steal the money electronically. Really nowadays only idiots rob banks and they usually get caught in a matter of days, if they are not caught on the scene. Shocker can make more money with his laptop then he could with his super villain outfit.

This is such a silly point to make really. One I don't think you really know anything when it comes to the world of crime and have just fixated on this. Secondly as I've tried to point out is that it's not relevant if bank robbery is an every day occurrence. Neither is a guy threatening to turn people into giant lizards, but it is the kind of thing Spider-man is known for tackling.

I doubt that's going to change any time soon because someone thinks they're out of fashion. That's hipster Spider-man you're thinking of.

Really Shocker is just not epic enough to be the main villain of a film, I think if he were, then that movie would have the same problem Star Trek Insurrection had, where it felt like a rather bland TV episode rather then a film.

Honestly if you don't find Shocker interesting that's all fine. You don't need to. I'm not doing this to shove my opinion down your throat, but I don't understand how you can be so fixated on certain concepts you can't see past what you've already built up in your imagination.

 

[The Joker]

Shocker is nothing like Electro in personality, nor in powers/abilities though. He uses vibration blasts which is nothing like electricity.

But his vibro shots look nothing like electricity so I don't understand why people would mistake him like that.

I don't think people would confuse Shocker with the Electro we were given in TASM2 though.

Exactly. The electricity and shock effects would look different. They should make them have different sound effects, too. I love how the TSSM ones sounded. Make it something like that. Gave them a different color and shape to Electro's power blasts, too:

 

[Oscorp]

I'd love if they'd give the vibro blasts the sound effects with some heavy bass mixed in so you almost can feel the vibration!

 

[The Overlord]

Like I said in my brief examples. Shocker could start off as a simple bank robber and be foiled by Spidey. At that point it could turn into a vendetta where he tries to hunt down Spider-man or maybe he lures him out for a confrontation.

Well how ruthless would he be in this vendetta, how fair would he take it? Would he be willing to endanger several people to kill Spidey? That would at least raise the stakes a bit.

Or he could be a bank robber who is determined to move up in the world and plan bigger heists. Maybe he gets word of some Oscorp tech he can either sell or incorporate into his suit and gauntlets or whatever. A final confrontation at Oscorp over some MacGuffin could easily make a good set piece. It could be in part a sort of anti-heist film.

If Oscorp is run by scummy people, would that tech be worse off in Shocker's hands? Heck Shocker is ripping off Norman Osborn, its a unsympathetic crook ripping off an even more unsympathetic crook. How are those big stakes? What is he going to do with that tech that makes stopping him an exciting climax for Spidey.

The whole anti heist film doesn't work, because in a heist film the robbers are the protagonists, we get to see their personal lives and maybe see them care about each other.

You want Shocker to be unsympathetic? Does that mean he has no loved ones, he is never humanized at all, he has no one he cares about besides himself? If you are going to give a villain no redeeming qualities and only commit robberies, I don't see any reason to care about.

That is a big problem with in comics, he has no real back story, so it just seems like he woke up one morning and starting robbing banks. He is just not a very interesting character and half the time they portray him as a loser in the comics anyway, so even the writers don't seem to respect him. This is why he just would not make a good main villain for a film, but he could work as a henchman, where he is not carrying the film. Doesn't that role fit him better?

Well I gave a couple of brief examples, but you seem determined not to see the possibilities and say "where's the escalation?".

I think you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, there are tons of other villains who are far easier to fit into an escalating 3 act movie with an exciting climax. Not every villain is cut out to be the main villain in a film.

I'd say maybe you're over thinking it, but from your posts it's more like you're fixated on certain viewpoints and can't see anything past that. You've made an entirely arbitrary decision that anyone who doesn't fit into the tragic case or maniacal psychopath. It's not such a binary dilemma. There are other types of characters. Personally I don't see the problem with the simplicity of a determined bank robber if they have an interesting personality and the stakes are raised in confrontation with Spider-man.

And how is this unsympathetic Shocker compelling anyway? Would he have any personality traits beyond being greedy? How he is menacing if all he does is commit robberies?

Also bank robbery is not petty theft. It's grand larceny.

I'm more interested in Spidey saving lives then chasing after some marked, insured bills. Really the way Shocker is presented in the comics, he seems like someone the cops can deal with if they were not written as totally incompetent.

You keep jumping to conclusions without exploring the possibilities (and that's without mentioning your particular hang up with bank robbery). At no point have I or anyone here said that Shocker must simply rob banks all the way throughout as though he has no character arc or doesn't even change behaviour after confrontations with Spider-man.

Okay but how would he change over the film? You said you don't want him to be sympathetic, does he become morally depraved through out the film? Does he become so obsessed with revenge he is willing to kill or endanger several innocent people to get it?

If you have a villain that is total unsympathetic and doesn't have an interesting back story and generally commits robberies, I'm not sure where you take that character but down and make them worse.

This is such a silly point to make really. One I don't think you really know anything when it comes to the world of crime and have just fixated on this. Secondly as I've tried to point out is that it's not relevant if bank robbery is an every day occurrence. Neither is a guy threatening to turn people into giant lizards, but it is the kind of thing Spider-man is known for tackling.

I doubt that's going to change any time soon because someone thinks they're out of fashion. That's hipster Spider-man you're thinking of.

Except the Marvel Universe always tried to reflect the real wold to some degree, otherwise Reed Richards technology should have made the Marvel Universe into a sci fi wonder land that is completely foreign to us. Plus the Marvel Universe reflects the changing world doesn't, people have Iphones in the modern MU right? Why wouldn't there be cyber crime in the Marvel Universe and why wouldn't it over take regular bank robberies?

I find the lazy villain who robs bank for an easy buck an uninteresting cliche that doesn't lead to compelling villains, foiling bank robberies should be something heroes do at the beginning of a story, before the real plot kicks in.

Honestly if you don't find Shocker interesting that's all fine. You don't need to. I'm not doing this to shove my opinion down your throat, but I don't understand how you can be so fixated on certain concepts you can't see past what you've already built up in your imagination.

Well we all have our preferences, but the why you describe Shocker, he just seems like some jerk, you want him to have no sympathetic qualities, yet you don't want him to do anything really evil, so really he is just jerk. I don't think some guy who is just jerk and nothing else, is compelling enough to carry a film by himself, that seems more like a henchman.

Well let's face it, it is very unlikely that Shocker will ever be the main bad guy in a film, ever. Again its way easier to use him as a henchman then as the Big Bad, look at the poll on this thread, I'm not sure how people on thread would find him compelling enough to carry a whole film by himself. I doubt the film makers would see the same potential you see in the character, enough to have him carry a movie.

 

[Oscorp]

One thing I like about Shocker is that he's not a psychopathic and ruthless maniac. Yet he's also not one of those sob story villains. He's a man who had potential but who feels he has to rely on crime to make himself a living. He doesn't seek out to kill people, actually he'd avoid that if possible. He'd kill Spider-Man though if that's what it takes to succeed in whatever plan he's involved in, or if that's what he's hired to do.

 

[Spider2099]

One thing I like about Shocker is that he's not a psychopathic and ruthless maniac. Yet he's also not one of those sob story villains. He's a man who had potential but who feels he has to rely on crime to make himself a living. He doesn't seek out to kill people, actually he'd avoid that if possible. He'd kill Spider-Man though if that's what it takes to succeed in whatever plan he's involved in, or if that's what he's hired to do.

Agreed. It would be refreshing to see him in a Spider-Man movie.

 

[The Overlord]

One thing I like about Shocker is that he's not a psychopathic and ruthless maniac. Yet he's also not one of those sob story villains. He's a man who had potential but who feels he has to rely on crime to make himself a living. He doesn't seek out to kill people, actually he'd avoid that if possible. He'd kill Spider-Man though if that's what it takes to succeed in whatever plan he's involved in, or if that's what he's hired to do.

Well I don't think that epic enough to be the main bad guy of a film, there is no real stakes in film that all there is to the Shocker. Plus Shocker did try to commit mass murder in the Unscheduled Stop story line, so the writers are not consistent with him. All this seems to point to Shocker being better as a henchman, rather then the main villain. Again I have no problem with Shocker as a henchman, but I don't think he has enough juice to be the Big Bad of a film. If he was the main villain of a film, what would be the stakes be, would he be doing anything besides thievery? Again, this is why Shocker is better in an supporting role, he can support a stronger bad guy's plan and then provide a few fight scenes for Spidey, no heavy lifting on Shocker's part.

Shocker doesn't sob story be sympathetic, maybe give him some ethics or some loved ones or something, give him a real character trait beyond greedy villain. What are his character traits beyond being greedy? Like I said half the time the writers treat him a joke, so even the writers don't seem to respect him. Also why does Shocker feel he have he has make a living through crime, why can't he use his scientific skills to make a living? Like I said Shocker has no real back story in the comics, so I don't get his motives, without a real back story it seems like Shocker just woke up one morning and started robbing banks, that is not very compelling. That is pretty one dimensional, can't he be given some other character traits.

Shocker might have been a total joke in the Ultimate Universe, but they at least gave him a back story, that explained why he was a criminal and made him a little sympathetic, to me that was more interesting then what we get for Shocker in the 616 universe.

 

[Oscorp]

Oh I don't think anyone really thinks of Shocker as main villain material. He could be the villain who stands for the main action scenes, but he's basically a henchman level villain. That doesn't mean he couldn't have great scenes and be an enjoyable villain though. Think of Scarecrow in Batman Begins.

It's not about being greedy, it's about changing the life situation in desperate ways. There are people not living up to their potential everywhere, making irrational choices in life for various reasons. A criminal using his inventions in criminal ways to make quick cash instead of getting involved in business is a very believable and real motivation.

There are many theories on what makes people act criminally, and I won't get into them. But it's definitely not like Herman woke up one morning and started robbing banks, that's oversimplifying the characteristics of the current Shocker we know and love. We already know he has a criminal history pre-Shocker.

 

[Spider2099]

Shocker would make a great side villain IMO. I wouldn't put him front-and-center but put him under Kingpin or whatever and I think he works out great. Batman Begins had Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow together, so I could see a similar combo happening with Kingpin and Shocker.

 

[The Overlord]

Oh I don't think anyone really thinks of Shocker as main villain material. He could be the villain who stands for the main action scenes, but he's basically a henchman level villain. That doesn't mean he couldn't have great scenes and be an enjoyable villain though. Think of Scarecrow in Batman Begins.

Well I was arguing with the Infernal as to whether Shocker can carry his own film or not.

It's not about being greedy, it's about changing the life situation in desperate ways. There are people not living up to their potential everywhere, making irrational choices in life for various reasons. A criminal using his inventions in criminal ways to make quick cash instead of getting involved in business is a very believable and real motivation.

I disagree, most career criminals do not have inventions or scientific abilities, they come from poor areas, with bad schools and broken homes, sure they may have they have the raw potential to something great, but they have never been given proper tools to do so. So they fall into crime because they feel like they have no other option because they don't have proper tools to succeed. If Shocker can invent things, does he not some tools other criminals lack, so why he can't he use those tools to succeed? Whenever they adapt Shocker to animation, he is usually a criminal who is given his technology by a benefactor, which really makes more sense then him inventing it. If Shocker is just a career criminal, where did he get the education to become an inventor? Was he robbing houses at night and going to MIT during the day?

There are many theories on what makes people act criminally, and I won't get into them. But it's definitely not like Herman woke up one morning and started robbing banks, that's oversimplifying the characteristics of the current Shocker we know and love. We already know he has a criminal history pre-Shocker.

Well maybe the writers go into Herman's back ground and apply one of these theories to him, rather then just vaguely hint at a back story. The character has been around for almost 50 years, I want to see his back ground at this point, if you are going to use a character for 50 years, I think its only fair that we learn new things about him, rather then just using him in the same old stories over and over again. I would like to know about Herman before he became the Shocker, that actually gives him a new story, rather then repeating an old one.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Shocker is a good Sinister Six candidate too for further down the line.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

One thing I like about Shocker is that he's not a psychopathic and ruthless maniac. Yet he's also not one of those sob story villains. He's a man who had potential but who feels he has to rely on crime to make himself a living. He doesn't seek out to kill people, actually he'd avoid that if possible. He'd kill Spider-Man though if that's what it takes to succeed in whatever plan he's involved in, or if that's what he's hired to do.

This is the version I'd like to see. And if they incorporated the Montana Shocker personality from TSSM into the character, that'd be a plus, imo.

He doesn't have any 'change the world' goals or isn't a sympathetic villain by any stretch so, yeah, he'd be a breath of fresh air as far as villains go.

 

[Oscorp]

I agree with your second paragraph, many criminals act the way they do because of the context of their lifes such as living conditions. There are several reasons why Shocker could come from a poor area and still have the skills to invent such gadgets. The stuff he created his prototype out of actually ain't his own, it's from the prison. He'd need money to get the material though after the prison break to invent the real stuff, hence the continuation of his criminal career. He could realise how much easier it is to rob banks with his new invented gadgets and be inclined to continue the criminal path instead of going the business route (in which talent alone often isn't enough in the harsh reality), simply because it's easier for him and because that's the way HE knows and where he's most used to. People when given options most often chose the easiest and quickest one. That's believable and very real. That's how I interprete Shocker's background and motivations.

Don't missunderstand me though, I agree with you that I'd like to see more of his background in the comics. It doesn't have to be present in a film though.

 

[The Overlord]

I agree with your second paragraph, many criminals act the way they do because of the context of their lifes such as living conditions. There are several reasons why Shocker could come from a poor area and still have the skills to invent such gadgets. The stuff he created his prototype out of actually ain't his own, it's from the prison. He'd need money to get the material though after the prison break to invent the real stuff, hence the continuation of his criminal career. He could realise how much easier it is to rob banks with his new invented gadgets and be inclined to continue the criminal path instead of going the business route (in which talent alone often isn't enough in the harsh reality), simply because it's easier for him and because that's the way HE knows and where he's most used to. People when given options most often chose the easiest and quickest one. That's believable and very real. That's how I interprete Shocker's background and motivations.

Well prisons generally don't have the type electronic tech that can be turned into a super weapon, so Shocker without any real education and without a real lab or technical setting, was able to create brand new technology? This Shocker seem really naturally gifted, to the point I'm wondering why he didn't get a scholarship somewhere or something. I know we are talking about comic books, but from a matter of internal logic and consistent characterization that does not make a lot of sense. Like I said if they gave him a back story, that shows me why he became a criminal, I would like the character better.

I want to like Shocker, but I don't think the writers give me enough to work with. I don't think he even has a consistent personality, sometimes he is formidable foe, other times he is a loser. For this talk about him being Spidey's most rational, sane and professional foe, he tried to commit mass murder in the Unscheduled Stop story and I have seen people say that was his best story. When we say he is a sane and rational villain, what does that mean? Does he have ethics, standards and if so what are they? If someone hired him to kill a rival and their entire family, would Shocker say no? Give the character more dimensions then have been generally presented for the last 50 years and I think it would raise his profile, rather then just doing the same old stories with him.

But like I said, cyber crime is easier then bank robbery and if Shocker can invent this tech, you are telling me he couldn't learn how to hack a bank's mainframe while watching cartoons from home. Cyber crime is the new go to for the lazy criminal, it is far more profitable then the high risk low reward bank robbery has become. Shocker being a bank robber because its easy, to me doesn't work in today's digital age. So give Shocker more character driven stories, rather then another story where he robs a bank and Spidey beats him up, give him something new to do.

Don't missunderstand me though, I agree with you that I'd like to see more of his background in the comics. It doesn't have to be present in a film though.

That is true, I am more complaining about Shocker in the comics, because he has been around for 50 years and there are still a lot of big unanswered questions with him. Though how much of his personality should show through? Someone like Riptipe was a henchman and he had no personality. Again how much Shocker's sanity, professionalism and rationality affect his choices? Is there an order he would disobey? You could pair him up with a far more psychopathic henchman and have him react to this other character. Or he could just be some one dimensional jerk henchman, which is fine as well. Would Shocker be an actual character or just some guy who is there to provide fight scenes? If his professionalism and sanity translated into a form of morality, its easier to make him into a developed character, other wise one dimensional jerk henchman seems like the best route.

 

[CaptainWagner]

One thing I like about Shocker is that he's not a psychopathic and ruthless maniac. Yet he's also not one of those sob story villains. He's a man who had potential but who feels he has to rely on crime to make himself a living. He doesn't seek out to kill people, actually he'd avoid that if possible. He'd kill Spider-Man though if that's what it takes to succeed in whatever plan he's involved in, or if that's what he's hired to do.

He's a lot like Captain Cold, really. Just a blue collar criminal who got frustrated working in the confines of industry and turned his mechanical ingenuity to crime. My proposed arc for him was to introduce him in Movie 1, as Mysterio's "tech help". After his boss gets captured, he hires himself out to Kingpin, builds the Shocker tech, and leads The Enforcers. I don't think he would work with The Sinister 6, though, as he couldn't care less about "revenge".

 

[The Infernal]

Well how ruthless would he be in this vendetta, how fair would he take it? Would he be willing to endanger several people to kill Spidey? That would at least raise the stakes a bit.

It really depends. I was only speaking in broad strokes that potentially Shocker could work as a solo villain. I could go either way on that, but personally I've always seen Shocker with some semblance of a code of honour (though honour may be putting it a bit strong). Also raising the stakes doesn't simply need to be threatening hostages or Spider-man's friends and family. There are other ways to escalate a story.

If Oscorp is run by scummy people, would that tech be worse off in Shocker's hands? Heck Shocker is ripping off Norman Osborn, its a unsympathetic crook ripping off an even more unsympathetic crook. How are those big stakes? What is he going to do with that tech that makes stopping him an exciting climax for Spidey.

This is the same thing with your odd hang up on bank robberies. You know most people watching Spider-man stop a bank robbery aren't going to be shouting at the screen "don't do it, Spidey! Those bills are insured and bankers are unsympathetic these days", right? Does it really matter if Shocker is 'less evil' when it comes down to it? It's still going to be used for criminal purposes. You seem to think that the whole world has to be at stake or Peter's friends and loved ones have to be personally threatened to 'raise the stakes'.

The whole anti heist film doesn't work, because in a heist film the robbers are the protagonists, we get to see their personal lives and maybe see them care about each other.

Pretty sure previous movies had scenes set in the villains own personal life.

You want Shocker to be unsympathetic? Does that mean he has no loved ones, he is never humanized at all, he has no one he cares about besides himself? If you are going to give a villain no redeeming qualities and only commit robberies, I don't see any reason to care about.

Not sure about sympathetic, since again, I was was only talking in broad strokes. But largely I'm just referring to that he needn't be a sob story like previous villains. He could be a charismatic thief with a very loose sense of honour that audiences could find likeable in some ways. Or he could be a ruthless self made villain that takes down anyone in his way. I could go either way to be honest.

I think what could be interesting about Shocker is the straightforwardness of him being a bank robber. He's a street level villain who in the comics has shown himself to be able to defeat Spider-man and be a real challenge for him to overcome.

There are also some parallels to him and Spider-man in that they are both self made characters and are both geniuses in some way. It's just that Shocker used his intellect for criminal purposes while Spider-man sought to use his to stop people like Shocker.

There's nothing wrong with having a story more focused on the more street level Spider-man stories rather than the over the top take over the world type schemes. It needn't be 'epic' to be good and entertaining. Shocker is also an interesting villain visually and can provide a thrilling fight so it's not like you'd be lacking for set pieces if that's all you're concerned about either.

That is a big problem with in comics, he has no real back story, so it just seems like he woke up one morning and starting robbing banks. He is just not a very interesting character and half the time they portray him as a loser in the comics anyway, so even the writers don't seem to respect him. This is why he just would not make a good main villain for a film, but he could work as a henchman, where he is not carrying the film. Doesn't that role fit him better?

Does he really need a big backstory though? The character seems to work as is for many. I'm all for delving more into the character, but I don't think he works any better if we find out his parents hugged him too much or too little. Can't he just be a guy who's out to make money for himself regardless of the cost?

Agreed about the writers though. Shocker hasn't always had the best treatment. Electro's the same in that regard too, but you can always find stories of many villains or other characters where writers clearly haven't given two thoughts about how to use them and just had them there as some kind of fodder. A character shouldn't be defined solely by their worst portrayals.

I think you are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, there are tons of other villains who are far easier to fit into an escalating 3 act movie with an exciting climax. Not every villain is cut out to be the main villain in a film.

Not saying there aren't easier villains to adapt. Just saying Shocker could potentially be a solo villain. I mean if he's good enough to provide all or most of the action as a henchman then why not cut out the puppet master altogether and develop Shocker more as a character?

And how is this unsympathetic Shocker compelling anyway? Would he have any personality traits beyond being greedy? How he is menacing if all he does is commit robberies?

Sympathetic or unsympathetic doesn't preclude Shocker from having more to his character than one quality. Greed could be what drives him but that doesn't necessitate him being defined by it. Also as I've said previously robberies wouldn't be all he does. I never said he would still be trying to knock off the local bank in the third act after previous confrontations with Spider-man.

I'm more interested in Spidey saving lives then chasing after some marked, insured bills. Really the way Shocker is presented in the comics, he seems like someone the cops can deal with if they were not written as totally incompetent.

Well that's personal preference. That something isn't personally compelling to you doesn't mean it isn't compelling to others.

Except the Marvel Universe always tried to reflect the real wold to some degree, otherwise Reed Richards technology should have made the Marvel Universe into a sci fi wonder land that is completely foreign to us. Plus the Marvel Universe reflects the changing world doesn't, people have Iphones in the modern MU right? Why wouldn't there be cyber crime in the Marvel Universe and why wouldn't it over take regular bank robberies?

Again you have some odd fixation that robberies are out of fashion and that cyber crime is so easy. One I don't think bank robberies are equitable to characters having an Iphone and secondly robberies still happen because it's far easier for people to acquire a gun and rob than it is to learn the technical skills needed for hacking and overcoming professional safeguards. Movies and tv just make it look easy.

Also a cyber crime Spider-man story would be harder to pull off since you would also need a physical threat which a computer nerd doesn't generally present. A violent bank robber with a supersuit does that far more easily. It could make an interesting thriller, but you'd be struggling for that 'epic' set piece battle.

That you feel it is irrelevant or lazy is entirely your perception.

Well we all have our preferences, but the why you describe Shocker, he just seems like some jerk

I didn't really describe him (at least not until this post). I mentioned a couple of quick examples of an overall story in which he could potentially work. You jumped to all the conclusions yourself about his character.

Well let's face it, it is very unlikely that Shocker will ever be the main bad guy in a film, ever.

Probably. Who knows? Just making a point that he could. Let's just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[The Overlord]

He's a lot like Captain Cold, really. Just a blue collar criminal who got frustrated working in the confines of industry and turned his mechanical ingenuity to crime. My proposed arc for him was to introduce him in Movie 1, as Mysterio's "tech help". After his boss gets captured, he hires himself out to Kingpin, builds the Shocker tech, and leads The Enforcers. I don't think he would work with The Sinister 6, though, as he couldn't care less about "revenge".

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I think Captain Cold is a better written character, because he has sympathetic qualities. Captain Cold has rules about not killing women and children and he has loved ones that he cares about like his sister. Heck, Cold has a back story. You can have a sympathetic villain who doesn't have a sob story, just give them some moral standards and loved ones.

Really does Shocker have any moral standards or is he just some scum bag who would do anything for money? Is there job he wouldn't take for moral reasons?

Again if Shocker is supposed to be sane and professional, shouldn't he gave some sympathetic aspects? Like I said it one story he was willing to kill 12 innocent people for money, is that in character for him?

So if he appears in a film, would he be some greedy scum bag who would anything for money or would he have some moral standards? Those are questions about a villain that interest me, what their morality is.