What Makes a Villain Transcend the Ordinary?

[14 of spades]

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.

 

you're getting warmer here... the 1960s had that show which i think went a long way to establishing those villains. and the 1950's superman show didn't really establish villains. but.... that's still not addressing the point.

 

IF superman had cool villains to boot - as in appearing in his first 150 issues or so, they WOULD'VE appeared in the 1950s films. but he didn't, so they didn't.

Batman, however DID have such cool villains, and they were subsequently aired in the TV show.

 

so getting back to the main point - why are some villains "cool" whereas others are just eventually forgotten? what's the specific difference?

[Alex DeLarge-migration]

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.

 

VENOM?

[Sal]

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.

 

you're one literal SOB, ain't ya?

 

I think Brain's definition of "threat" is slightly different than yours. technically, the Walrus is a "threat" in the sense that he's in violent opposition to Spider-Man. but there's no one who actually thinks Spider-Man would be nervous meeting him in a dark alley.

 

of course, i think Brain's premise is flawed, so i really won't go into any more detail.

 

my take is that villians who actually recieve some character development from the writers, as opposed to being archetypal mirrors in which the hero's goodness is reflected - see basically any Superman villan from the forties to the eighties - makes a big difference. one trick ponies like Sabretooth are interesting for a while, but sooner or later you need some real three-dimensionality to them. like Magneto, for instance

[Alex DeLarge-migration]

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.

 

VENOM?

 

Also KRAVEN?

[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.

 

then how do superheroes become famous?

 

do they become famous the same way that their villains become famous?

 

they need a movie?

 

then who heard of spiderman before the spiderman movie came out?

 

see the pattern time...

 

Spidey - GG

Batman - Joker

Superman - Luthor

Daredevil - Kingpin

FF - Dr. Doom

XM - Magneto

 

all the villains are the superheroes MOST recognized enemy. (Dlok - i'm not limiting this to public recognition - comicdom is fine)

 

further, all the villains starred in the superhero's FIRST FILM. coincidence? is it coincidence? or wouldn't u, as a director intending to shoot a successful movie, select an A-list enemy rather than choose some NOBODY enemy, thereby making him well-known? if that were case, all the above villains were unknown until their movies came out.

 

kinda don't really buy that...

 

[Norrin_Radd]

Batman vs the Joker

Superman vs Lex Luthor

 

Those are the two villian matchups people know best and have known the longest.

[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.

 

so movie = famous, right?

 

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

 

gee... i forgot.

 

I never said the movies make the villains famous, just that it makes them known to the public. Batman Begins had Scarecrow as the villain, which I'm sure the public recognizes, although he doesn't have an outlandish natural appearance as previous villains have.

[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.

 

VENOM?

 

Also KRAVEN?

 

Great examples, Alex. 2 Villains that are known throughout comicdom, that are established Arch-villains. Yet, how many people on the street would know who they are?

 

Now, if 14ofSpades is alluding to the premise that there are some villains in comics that are more feared or memorable than others, then I can understand that. However to use the main villains of a hero is an unequal example.

 

I think the biggest factor in making a great villain is that they have to pose a threat in a variety of ways. When you have a villain that is a one-trick pony, say with one power only, then it gets old. Especially when the hero learns how to defeat the villain.

 

Another factor is that the villain has to pose a threat not only to the hero but also to society. If the villains threatens citizens then the hero must deal with the villains quicker before he harms innocents.

 

there are more criteria I think, but I have to go to work right now.

[tilleycs]

Back to the original question (which is a great one, btw), I'd say that character development over time is THE biggest element. One of the most effective aspects of development is to bring out something about the villain that explains why they do what they do, and why they are the way they are. Relatability is a big factor.

 

For example, once it was revealed that Dr. Doom's mother was being held prisoner by Mephisto, you understood more why he was so obsessed with completing his experiments in college and was so beligerent toward Reed Richards when he attempted to correct Doom's miscalculations. And why he was so tortured in spirit. Once you found out that Frank Castle's wife and children were murdered in a gangland crossfire, you could understand why he became the Punisher (who was a villain when he first appeared).

 

Sub-Zero's love and longing for his wife shows a soft side. Reading about The Joker being abused as a child sheds a little light on his madness.

 

There are a lot of villains I don't like simply because I can't connect with any aspect of their character, positive or negative. Kang is the first one to come to mind. Been around for a long time, but I have no interest because I don't think I can connect with anything about him. He's never done anything for me.

 

Showing their admirable qualities also works, because you're more drawn to sympathetic villains. I think people are drawn to Dr. Doom because he does have a nobility about him, and he is a man of his word (although he can be very tricky/shrewd in *how* he words things). His betrayals hurt because you really *want* to trust him, even though you know it's going to happen sooner or later. You don't understand why he's such an ego/megalomaniac, but you're drawn to him at the same time.

 

Having villains who are the antithesis of the hero is effective. The Joker's humor, although sometimes violent, is the antithesis of Batman's serious, brooding nature. With Spider-Man, it's the opposite, because Spidey provides the humor. The Red Skull's loyalty to the Third Reich was the polar opposite of Captain America's love for his country. Sinestro's selishness to Hal Jordan's blind faith in the Guardians. Etc, etc.

 

Longevity, IMO, is the biggest telling factor. I'm not completely up on all the current goings-on, but I'd guess that most major villains in both companies today are the same ones from the Silver and Bronze ages (and the Golden Age, in some cases - I know the Red Skull was brought back in Cap's re-re-re-relaunch. And isn't Solomon Grundy still around?).

 

Man, sorry for the long analysis. Whew! Great question, though.

[Norrin_Radd]

Good post, Chris.

 

 

Back to the original question (which is a great one, btw), I'd say that character development over time is THE biggest element.

 

I agree. However, most of the villain characters created in the last 70 years are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts that can't really be developed.

 

I think supervillains like The Joker, Lex Luthor, Green Goblin, Dr Doom stand out because they have a Moriarty-like quality. They come up with creative, complex plans to bring about the demise of their foes. I think that's what makes them more interesting than the run-of-the-mill filler bad guys.

 

 

 

 

And isn't Solomon Grundy still around?).

 

Yes. I recently skimmed a comic he was in (Green Arrow?). Didn't really care for it. As usual, the character has strayed way too far from the original GA/SA Solomon Grundy for my taste.

 

I've only recently gotten to read a few of his GA appearances (BA reprints). He was always one of my favorite members of the Legion of Doom on Super Friends.

[*paull*]

Another reason is that the villian has a valid reason for wanting to target the hero, and it's usually a tie-in to how they became a villian in the first place (Dr. Doom, Joker, Lex Luthor, etc).

 

The villians that just happen to be evil characters and want to harm the hero aren't as interesting.

[micmack]

What about Hobgoblin? Not in the movies.... yet....

Very popular, no matter who it is?

[PovertyRow]

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

 

I believe the single most compelling trait of a transcendent villain is compassion and the ability to empathize.

[tilleycs]

Good post, Chris.

 

Thanks! I was afraid it was too long for anyone to have enough interest to read. I skip overly long posts sometimes.

 

I agree. However, most of the villain characters created in the last 70 years are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts that can't really be developed.

 

True. But I wonder if a majority of them were created to just fill an issue or two. How many of them were created on the fly or at the last minute, I wonder? Or created using the spaghetti principle (throw it against the wall and see what sticks)? I have no idea, just thinking out loud. I'm not sure if they have the time or manpower to develop every villain into a superstar.

 

I think supervillains like The Joker, Lex Luthor, Green Goblin, Dr Doom stand out because they have a Moriarty-like quality. They come up with creative, complex plans to bring about the demise of their foes. I think that's what makes them more interesting than the run-of-the-mill filler bad guys.

 

Moriarty...can you explain the reference? I'm ignorant on that one. Definitely agree with the rest of your paragraph. I don't know where some of the writers got their ideas, but MAN have they given us some good stories over the years.

 

I've only recently gotten to read a few of [solomon Grundy's] GA appearances (BA reprints). He was always one of my favorite members of the Legion of Doom on Super Friends.

 

Same here. I loved the whole line-up, and the way they matched up the heroes against their signature villains (with the exception of The Joker). The GA was way before my time, but the Challenge of the Super Friends is one of my all-time favorite cartoons. I never knew that Giganta was a GA villain, either, until I got the CSF box set and listened to the commentaries by Waid and Johns. It's nice to hear that these guys are big fans of the characters, just like us.

[Timulty]

Whoa, Tex? Empathize? Dude, can't empathize with the Joker. The closest that I ever empathized with him was in "The Killing Joke". The villain one bad hombre. Two-Face...yepper, that guy you can empathize because of the whole good guy gone bad. I think, it is the level of evil that can be conveyed through the character. Not just a character who can bomb a building but one who bombs the building the Hero's Aunt Martha lives in. A villain, that has can match the hero and go one further so to speak.

[deathlok]

Back to the original question (which is a great one, btw), I'd say that character development over time is THE biggest element. One of the most effective aspects of development is to bring out something about the villain that explains why they do what they do, and why they are the way they are. Relatability is a big factor.

 

Sorry, way off base here. Never in my life have I related to a villain's life, nor a hero's life for that matter.

For example, once it was revealed that Dr. Doom's mother was being held prisoner by Mephisto, you understood more why he was so obsessed with completing his experiments in college and was so beligerent toward Reed Richards when he attempted to correct Doom's miscalculations. And why he was so tortured in spirit. Once you found out that Frank Castle's wife and children were murdered in a gangland crossfire, you could understand why he became the Punisher (who was a villain when he first appeared).

These are not qualities that make a great villain. It just makes you understand a villain more. The villain still has to have the traits necessary to make him a great villain.

Sub-Zero's love and longing for his wife shows a soft side. Reading about The Joker being abused as a child sheds a little light on his madness.

Again, so what. Besides with retcons, back stories change, but the villain is still great.

There are a lot of villains I don't like simply because I can't connect with any aspect of their character, positive or negative. Kang is the first one to come to mind. Been around for a long time, but I have no interest because I don't think I can connect with anything about him. He's never done anything for me.

So you are making you're arguement based upon subjectivity. Just because you can't connect with a villain, they are not a great villain?

Showing their admirable qualities also works, because you're more drawn to sympathetic villains. I think people are drawn to Dr. Doom because he does have a nobility about him, and he is a man of his word (although he can be very tricky/shrewd in *how* he words things). His betrayals hurt because you really *want* to trust him, even though you know it's going to happen sooner or later. You don't understand why he's such an ego/megalomaniac, but you're drawn to him at the same time.

There is some basis to this. Having a villain who is conflicted, poses an interesting character development. The same could be said for Magneto.

Having villains who are the antithesis of the hero is effective. The Joker's humor, although sometimes violent, is the antithesis of Batman's serious, brooding nature. With Spider-Man, it's the opposite, because Spidey provides the humor. The Red Skull's loyalty to the Third Reich was the polar opposite of Captain America's love for his country. Sinestro's selishness to Hal Jordan's blind faith in the Guardians. Etc, etc.

This is a common trait among many protaganists, simply to have an opposing antagonist. It doesn't make for a great villain, but it does offer an easy opponent. Just look at Bizarro/Superman, Flash/Zoom, Venom/Spider-Man, etc.

Longevity, IMO, is the biggest telling factor. I'm not completely up on all the current goings-on, but I'd guess that most major villains in both companies today are the same ones from the Silver and Bronze ages (and the Golden Age, in some cases - I know the Red Skull was brought back in Cap's re-re-re-relaunch. And isn't Solomon Grundy still around?).

Longevity done correctly plays a factor. There are a lot of villains that have been around for a long time, but have not garnered greatness in the villain community. For example, Wonder Woman's nemisis, Cheetah, she has been around for a long time, but isn't that feared.

Man, sorry for the long analysis. Whew! Great question, though.

even though I disagree with your points, good discussion.

[Norrin_Radd]

For example, Wonder Woman's nemisis, Cheetah, she has been around for a long time, but isn't that feared.

 

Well, no not now. She's dead! Not much to fear there.

 

Unless she came back to life as a zombie, perhaps.

[PovertyRow]

Whoa, Tex? Empathize? Dude, can't empathize with the Joker. The closest that I ever empathized with him was in "The Killing Joke". The villain one bad hombre. Two-Face...yepper, that guy you can empathize because of the whole good guy gone bad. I think, it is the level of evil that can be conveyed through the character. Not just a character who can bomb a building but one who bombs the building the Hero's Aunt Martha lives in. A villain, that has can match the hero and go one further so to speak.

 

Nay, varlat! I am not asking you to empathize with the villain. I am saying a villain that can empathize and feels compassion, but continues on his evil way.

[deathlok]

For example, Wonder Woman's nemisis, Cheetah, she has been around for a long time, but isn't that feared.

 

Well, no not now. She's dead! Not much to fear there.

 

Unless she came back to life as a zombie, perhaps.

 

When did she die? She was just in Villains United.

[Norrin_Radd]

Good post, Chris.

 

Thanks! I was afraid it was too long for anyone to have enough interest to read. I skip overly long posts sometimes.

 

 

It took a couple passes to digest it all.

 

 

I think supervillains like The Joker, Lex Luthor, Green Goblin, Dr Doom stand out because they have a Moriarty-like quality. They come up with creative, complex plans to bring about the demise of their foes. I think that's what makes them more interesting than the run-of-the-mill filler bad guys.

 

Moriarty...can you explain the reference? I'm ignorant on that one.

 

Moriarty. He was Sherlock Holmes' fiendishly clever nemesis. Never saw any of the movies or TV shows? Or Star Trek TNG?