What Makes a Villain Transcend the Ordinary?

[14 of spades]

Hey folks,

 

If you compare the various villains who are counterpart to a superhero, there are some that that simply transcend "banality" and become stars in themselves. Yet, there are many superhero titles where the villains never quiet make it.

 

Consider the two great DC superheros - Batman and Superman. Anyone on the street will recognize Joker, Riddler, Penguin or Catwoman. Ask them for a Superman villain and they MIGHT be able to give you Lex Luthor... but for a second villain??? What was the difference in the 60 years between these two titles?

 

For Marvelites - consider the legend of the Green Goblin. Spidey also has Kingpin, Punisher, Venom to his credit. Then consider some other superheroes whose villain never made much of namesake....

 

What makes a "good" villain? Obviously - it isn't necessarily success of the superhero himself - as witnessed by the difference between Batman and Supes.

[deathlok]

The films play a huge part in villain recognition.

 

Your example of Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face, etc. all appeared in Batman fims.

 

So taking your Superman example, only General Zod and Lex Luthor would be recognizable to the public. It's not like Brainiac or Metallo or Mxplztplx (sp?) appeared in films.

 

Same with Spider-man, Doc Ock and Green Goblin are big names now due to the films.

 

Same with Dr. Doom, Magento, Sabretooth, Mystique, Bullseye, and Kingpin.

[14 of spades]

The films play a huge part in villain recognition.

 

Your example of Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face, etc. all appeared in Batman fims.

 

So taking your Superman example, only General Zod and Lex Luthor would be recognizable to the public. It's not like Brainiac or Metallo or Mxplztplx (sp?) appeared in films.

 

Same with Spider-man, Doc Ock and Green Goblin are big names now due to the films.

 

Same with Dr. Doom, Magento, Sabretooth, Mystique, Bullseye, and Kingpin.

 

isn't your argument a bit circular? it's BECAUSE those villains are recognized, that they were put into the movies.

 

how about within any given superhero lore, why did GG become successful, whereas Elektro didn't (relatively). for instance, i don't consider Doc Ock to be of the same stature as GG, despite ASM 2.

 

in any case - i don't think anyone will claim Superman's top 4 villains can match in recognizibility to Batman's top 4. Movies or not, both have been around for over 65 years. why the difference?

 

i'm not limiting this discussion to characters the general public must recognize - within comicdom is fine.

[followtheleader]

My opinion is that it's due to solid writing and/or healthy character development. I think we are seeing, what people once thought as lame villians, becoming very interesting. DC is absolutely stealing this market right now and dominating Marvel with it. Flash's rogues have long been considered lame-o's. A dude in a parka with a gun that spews ice?!! But they are some of the sweetest villians today due to Geoff Johns. Just my opinion.

[deathlok]

I don't think it's circular at all. Prior to the movies I doubt the villains would have been known to the public at all.

 

Name another high profile villain that hasn't appeared in films.

[The Brain]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

[deathlok]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

[The Brain]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

[deathlok]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

[greggy]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

[deathlok]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

[greggy]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

[The Brain]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

 

Ok Rick, I will play. NO !!!!! HE IS NOT A THREAT!!! IS NOT A DANGER!!!!! POSES NO REAL DAMAGE AND IS

 

THEREFOR NOT A VILLIAN THAT WILL EVER TRANSCEND THE ORDINARY!!!!!! HOPE THAT CLEARS IT UP.

[Mephisto]

The films play a huge part in villain recognition.

 

Your example of Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face, etc. all appeared in Batman fims.

 

So taking your Superman example, only General Zod and Lex Luthor would be recognizable to the public. It's not like Brainiac or Metallo or Mxplztplx (sp?) appeared in films.

 

Same with Spider-man, Doc Ock and Green Goblin are big names now due to the films.

 

Same with Dr. Doom, Magento, Sabretooth, Mystique, Bullseye, and Kingpin.

 

I think the Batman show with Adam West, even though it went off the air in 1968 is perhaps an even bigger reason people recognize those villains. Most people have seen that show a sometime during their childhood whether it was when it first aired or in reruns. I know all the characters before I really read comics or the movies came out by watching the show in reruns in the very early 90s.

The iconic Superman show from the 50's that many people ahve seen really didnt have these people. And even shows like later ones like Lois and Clark didn't have Supes Villains appearing several times a month (except Lex) the way they did on Batman.

[deathlok]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

 

Ok Rick, I will play. NO !!!!! HE IS NOT A THREAT!!! IS NOT A DANGER!!!!! POSES NO REAL DAMAGE AND IS

 

THEREFOR NOT A VILLIAN THAT WILL EVER TRANSCEND THE ORDINARY!!!!!! HOPE THAT CLEARS IT UP.

You don't read many comics do you? You make that obvious if you think there are only a handle full of villains that pose a threat to heroes.

 

Perhaps you should stick with beanie babies before you hurt yourself.

[deathlok]

The films play a huge part in villain recognition.

 

Your example of Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face, etc. all appeared in Batman fims.

 

So taking your Superman example, only General Zod and Lex Luthor would be recognizable to the public. It's not like Brainiac or Metallo or Mxplztplx (sp?) appeared in films.

 

Same with Spider-man, Doc Ock and Green Goblin are big names now due to the films.

 

Same with Dr. Doom, Magento, Sabretooth, Mystique, Bullseye, and Kingpin.

 

I think the Batman show with Adam West, even though it went off the air in 1968 is perhaps an even bigger reason people recognize those villains. Most people have seen that show a sometime during their childhood whether it was when it first aired or in reruns. I know all the characters before I really read comics or the movies came out by watching the show in reruns in the very early 90s.

The iconic Superman show from the 50's that many people ahve seen really didnt have these people. And even shows like later ones like Lois and Clark didn't have Supes Villains appearing several times a month (except Lex) the way they did on Batman.

 

I should have said films/tv, but I figured most of you would have concluded the correlation between the two.

 

Yes, you prove my point that the media has generated knowledge of these villains to the point where the general public is aware of them.

 

Again, is there a villain among the elite that hasn't been featured in films/tv?

[deathlok]

Okay I thought of a couple.

 

Can it be assumed that Sinister and/or Apocalypse are villains that have transcended the ordinary?

 

If we can agree on this, then it can also be agreed that they have not appeared in TV/Films (although let's omit the cartoons for arguements sake.)

 

Do we honestly feel the general population knows who these two villains are?

[Aces]

The threat, danger, or damage they pose our hero. Thats what makes a villain transcend the ordinary.

 

 

 

Thanks Rick, this proves my point.

 

So because he poses a threat to Spider-man, you think the Walrus transcends the ordinary?

 

Ok Rick, I will play. NO !!!!! HE IS NOT A THREAT!!! IS NOT A DANGER!!!!! POSES NO REAL DAMAGE AND IS

 

THEREFOR NOT A VILLIAN THAT WILL EVER TRANSCEND THE ORDINARY!!!!!! HOPE THAT CLEARS IT UP.

You don't read many comics do you? You make that obvious if you think there are only a handle full of villains that pose a threat to heroes.

 

Perhaps you should stick with beanie babies before you hurt yourself.

 

Now this is the old deathlok!

 

Nasty, ill-tempered, and down right mean!

 

Now where is the Major and BOC so we can get the old school up and running...?

[THE_BEYONDER]

[14 of spades]

I don't think it's circular at all. Prior to the movies I doubt the villains would have been known to the public at all.

 

Name another high profile villain that hasn't appeared in films.

 

so movie = famous, right?

 

umm... what was the name of the villain who appeared in Batman Begins???

 

gee... i forgot.