Martinex1: I am looking forward to the weekend, and pondering a set of questions related to comics. There are definitely more than two questions today, but there are two themes. Perhaps you can help me out with your input. Allow me to explain...
QUESTION 1: This set of questions is related to villainy in comics. I've realized that outside of the core books I purchased I often gravitated toward books where I liked the villain (in the entertainment sense). And counter to that, if a villain did not intrigue me I often hesitated even when buying my must-have books. So what makes a good villain? Can a villain outstay his welcome and appear too frequently? What would make you give a new villain a chance? And how do villains like Dr. Doom excel while others fail. How did Dr. Doom become more popular or recognizable than a guy like Kang? Who captures your attention and why?
QUESTION 2: There seem to be different levels of threats within comic books: the personal threat, the street level crime, the grand conspiracy, the cataclysmic natural disaster, and the cosmic existential threat. Perhaps there are even more. Which do you prefer and why? Do you lean toward the personal story or the cosmic crisis?
10 comments:
Great questions! Two profound to be addressed on a lazy Friday afternoon while getting kids back to school!
Generally speaking, I tend to need a little action... and it doesn't need to be an existential threat. (I weary of these massive multi-dimensional / cross-over / reboot the universe plots.)
Generally speaking, I prefer a villain who seems plausible like Kingpin, Doom, Gladiator, Stiltman etc. who don't really have special powers to the extreme because they seem to be more realistic and clever in some way.
That being said, I loved, loved, loved Stan and Jack's Inhuman and Surfer/Galactus stories in the FF so I will have to say I am a walking bag of contradictions.
Cheers All! TGIF!
HB - I feel your sentiments about Bill Everett and his art! I remember his passing announcement in Stan's Soapbox and feeling the pain though I was only like 11 at the time in 1973.
I like Brother Blood in the New Teen Titans. He's a tough physical threat to battle, but also his charismatic speeches have a powerful influence on the masses. It touches on a real life truth about slick words and mob mentality, but doesn't get too specific-- perfect for a comic story!
Well, Venom started out as somewhat interesting, but quickly became overused. I think Magneto was eventually overused. So was the Joker; if he's Batman's archnemesis, an appearance should feel special, but when he appears two or three times a year (and loses every time) it's hard to take him seriously.
As for the second question, it's a mixed bag. With Marvel I tended to prefer the "street level" stuff: Spidey, DD, Power Man/Iron Fist, Shang Chi, Moon Knight. But at DC, I went for the bigger picture: JLA, All-Star Squadron, Titans, LSH, Infinity Inc. (Except for Batman, but then he's, well, Batman.)
Brother Blood Is a good one Garett. I had not thought of him but I think you nailed the description.
Mike W. I am with you on the overuse. I brought up Dr. Doom because that is how I felt particularly during the Byrne FF years. During that era Doom seemed to be everywhere all the time: Dazzler, X-Men, etc. I didn't like it. Watered him down.
I also always felt there were so many "big bads" why couldn't they use others like Kang, Immortus, Nefaria, Mandarin - anybody else? I think it diminished Doom. And others did not get elevated.
I like both ranges of the story spectrum - street crimes to galactic threat. But I probably like the down-to-Earth stories better. I think it leaves more room for personality development and human interaction which I find more compelling. The big threat is good once in a while - in other words "very infrequently". And even within those I prefer the character driven story - Thanos in Avengers Annual, Galactus stories in FF, Korvac, etc.
I think the movies may run into s problem ultimately by not varying their type of villains and escalating to big events too quickly. For me it is less about the spectacle and more about the feeling. That goes to today's topic as well. The Beetle can generate a good personal crime story; it doesn't always have to be a universe demolishing extravaganza.
As for myself, I think you may have answered your own question as to what makes a good villain, Martinex, in that a good villain is one which intrigues me. So in theory every villain has that potential given the right writer ... even Kiteman!
That being said, the Riddler always held my interest, regardless of writer, simply because the very premise of a person who gives riddle hints about their crimes makes me say, "Huh?"
The question of what would make me treat a new villain seriously is pretty interesting. Without doing a deep dive, I picked up a couple of issues of the JSA to see more of Johnny Sorrow. His look was what first drew my attention and his backstory sunk the hook. He wasn't an obvious cynical knockoff of an existing character, either hero or villain. It's sort of what they say is the weakness of the films now, i.e. each villain is the mirror image of the hero.
1. For me one of the most important factors for a good villain is his/her motivation. The thing that makes Doctor Doom a great villain is that his motivation is clear. He want's to rule the world, and he will crush anyone who stands in his way. Electro wants to rob banks to get money. The Kingpin wants power and influence, etc. I also like bad guys who are real bad guys, and not sort of good/bad guys.
A villain like Kang never really interested me because he was too powerful, but he didn't really use his power to it's best ability to achieve his goals. For example, he could manipulate time, so if he wanted to get rid of his enemies (like the Avengers) he could just travel back in time and kill them all as children. Or he could just keep coming back in time until he won. So, why doesn't he do any of those things? It makes his methods and motives unclear, and makes him kind of a boring villain.
That's also why I never liked stories that involved things like the Cosmic Cube or the Infinity Gauntlet. Once the villain has possession of one those items he's basically a God, and he's won. End of story. So, then the only way the writer can have the heroes win is if the villain decides not use his power to erase from existence because of "reasons". It's that kind of "deus ex machina" sort of thing that I am not too fond of.
2. I mostly like the street-level type of villains and stories that you find in books like Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Batman. A good old fashioned robbery, or gang war, or murder mystery or something like that.
I also enjoy a good "end of the world" type villain story as well, but too much of that kind of thing can get a little tedious after a while. Especially of the villain is too all-powerful.
William, I liked your take on Kang. That interests me. I mentioned Kang because he was a favorite villain from my youth. But I base that on only a few things - 1) Avengers run #69 to #71 (more to say on that in a minute). 2) in my mind he seemed like the Avengers most powerful villain alongside Ultron and 3) he made a memorable appearance in the Avengers novel.
As a villain though I am drawn to his early motivation to impress Ravonna and later to resurrect Ravonna. In the aforementioned tales (69 to 71) he gambled with the Grandmaster for the power of life and death. His motivation was to save Ravonna, but in the end was so incensed that he chose instead to kill the Avengers. I found that so strangely twisted and vile that I loved him as a villain - as long as he had some motivation beyond fighting the Avengers ( otherwise what you say becomes absolutely true). I honestly have skipped over some other Kang stories because of that time-skipping power and how it can destroy any realistic tension.
I also was kind of questioning who the main villain is for the Avengers.
The FF obviously has Doom and Galactus, X-Men have Magneto, Spidey has quite a few, Batman - Joker, Thor-Loki, etc. Ultron was decent but he also often underwhelmed me and was fairly one-note. So Kang was always my "next in line" for the A team, but perhaps Zemo and his team is a better choice. Thoughts?
Zemo early on for sure, but Ultron seemed to become their go to Villain. But I agree with you Martinex, underwhelming.
Selenarch, I agree a good creative team can make any villain a fun romp.
As for my type, street level for the most part. If I saw a cover with the Wrecking Crew on it ,I was buying!
Interesting questions...
1. Yes, villains can certainly be oversused. On the other hand, sometimes repeated use of them can be particularly effective. Kang is my number one choice, based primarily on the Celestial Madonna/ Vision origin/ Legion of the Unliving/ Western arcs. I still recall Vision's reaction on learning of Kang's repeated returns: "Again! This is getting monotonous". Now that's realistic dialogue. But it was cool, and it made sense given Kang's time travel capabilities, to see him keep coming back for more.
2. I like all kinds of stories, but prefer down to earth personal ones. Perhaps that's why Spidey was always my favorite. Not off battling Galactus or Kang, he kept busy with Kingpin and Ock. The early Ditko tales, with Spidey battling lowlevel thugs and hoods, really set the tone for the book. Daredevil was much the same. And of course, the great drama of the Spider-Man /Green Goblin stories involved the mutual personal conflict between the two. Nothing earth-shaking, just solid human dramatics.
Post a Comment