|
|
Post by Outrajs on Jul 28, 2017 17:30:35 GMT -5
Maybe the only villains who are really evil for the sake of being evil would be the ones like Marvel's Mephisto who more or less embody the Judaeo-Christian concept of metaphysical Evil. Even Loki in Norse mythology, even though he was instrumental in bringing about Ragnarok, can be seen from another POV as also an instrument of change and renewal and therefore not simply Evil. I always felt for Loki. Being #2 to Thor his whole life. Never receiving as much love or attention...he would have followed Thor to the end of the universe and back if only he was treated as if he wasn't the spare. Was he evil? No. Was he a villain? I would still say no. |
|
bran
Full Member
Posts: 227 
|
Post by bran on Jul 28, 2017 20:59:16 GMT -5
man you don't even have to dig into gold/silver/bronze age to get plenty of mustache-twirlers. they twirl and twirl and twirl... uuuh
in the latest DKR installment you have army of Superman, let's call them Super-Men. they are minuscule in size, trapped inside the jar. Ant-Man/scientist restores them to their actual size, and gives them freedom. since they lost their home-world they decide to take the Earth. makes perfect sense, so far. the first thing they do - they demonstrate their almost limitless power, and take out the biggest obstacle in the same stroke, their hommie Superman. at that point half of humans fear them, some are worshiping them already as new gods and so on. all they have to do is just take the resources, best land, rivers, mountains whatever, and just start with living. spare submissive humans (and enslave them) take out rebellious and problem makers. right? wrong!
instead - they just hover, and hover and hover some more, and conspire with some complicated divide-and conquer strategies... that's their job - to be villains!
hovering and conspiring is their set "goal".
divide-and-conquer is legit military strategy when fighting contemporary (1) and human (2) enemy! they are so superior force they don't need any of that. sure they would encounter some resistance on case to case basis, but nothing two or tree of them can't handle (like the first and seconds neighbor - one takes France and Belgium, the other Germany and Denmark etc. so they guy from Finland calls "hey, help me out I've got some lil' rebels here"...).
there seems to be 2 general patterns that writers follow when it comes to villains. I am not talking specifically about comics here. those (writers) that believe that humans are inherently good tend to have villains who are evil for the sake of being evil and they want to inflict their evil doings on their victims, to damage/kill/corrupt. these villains know they are villains and they see themselves as such.
the second approach is that villains don't see themselves as villains. their beliefs/ideas in their eyes are not only legit but often exceptionally humane and noble.
personally I prefer the second, existential approach but the bottom line is - both can work in hands of good writers.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 28, 2017 21:05:34 GMT -5
Then there's X-men villain syndrome. If you flesh out your villains too much they become sympathetic enough that they don't work as villains: So if Magneto, the Juggernaut, Emma Frost and Mystique all turn good, you don't really have any good villains left! Which is why X-men comics today are all "I'm Evil Shovel Man! C'mon out here, mutants, and I'ma hit you with my shovel! My shovel of evil!" (At least I assume. What else can you do when you don't have any decent bag guys?) You fight other heroes over minor point of philsophy, obviously. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 28, 2017 22:46:22 GMT -5
Maybe the only villains who are really evil for the sake of being evil would be the ones like Marvel's Mephisto who more or less embody the Judaeo-Christian concept of metaphysical Evil. Even Loki in Norse mythology, even though he was instrumental in bringing about Ragnarok, can be seen from another POV as also an instrument of change and renewal and therefore not simply Evil. Maybe some of the Grant/Breyfogle Batman villains, like Cornelius Stirk and zsasz? |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 29, 2017 16:51:46 GMT -5
My favorite motivation - and one that's sadly disappeared after the Silver Age - is villains who do it for the applause. Abra Kadabra during the Infantino run originally traveled back in time just to be appreciated as a magician. Even after that when he was trying to get revenge on the Flash it was still all about the performance.   |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 29, 2017 16:52:13 GMT -5
Then there's X-men villain syndrome. If you flesh out your villains too much they become sympathetic enough that they don't work as villains: So if Magneto, the Juggernaut, Emma Frost and Mystique all turn good, you don't really have any good villains left! Which is why X-men comics today are all "I'm Evil Shovel Man! C'mon out here, mutants, and I'ma hit you with my shovel! My shovel of evil!" (At least I assume. What else can you do when you don't have any decent bag guys?) You fight other heroes over minor point of philsophy, obviously. Ha! It's nice to know that some things never change at Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 30, 2017 5:42:50 GMT -5
egg foo young. great thread/topic, btw  |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 30, 2017 5:48:23 GMT -5
henry peter gyrich.
i may be a half-crip beloved by many 'creative folks', but gawd help him if he ever met me at the back of a Dublin pub when i had my crip-stick in hand, even on a bad-movement-day.
i'd clean that sucker's clock. even if he was in his 30's prime and me being as old and cripped as i am now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jul 30, 2017 6:15:43 GMT -5
egg foo young. great thread/topic, btw Egg Fu. No "young." Cei-U! The yolk's on you! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 30, 2017 6:22:03 GMT -5
Maybe the only villains who are really evil for the sake of being evil would be the ones like Marvel's Mephisto who more or less embody the Judaeo-Christian concept of metaphysical Evil. Even Loki in Norse mythology, even though he was instrumental in bringing about Ragnarok, can be seen from another POV as also an instrument of change and renewal and therefore not simply Evil. I always felt for Loki. Being #2 to Thor his whole life. Never receiving as much love or attention...he would have followed Thor to the end of the universe and back if only he was treated as if he wasn't the spare. Was he evil? No. Was he a villain? I would still say no. The movie incarnation is what you describe, but the comic version was a bad guy from the word go. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 30, 2017 6:25:23 GMT -5
I was always amused by Graviton. At the beginning when He got his powers his only goal was to bang every woman in America.  |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 30, 2017 6:35:54 GMT -5
egg foo young. great thread/topic, btw Egg Fu. No "young." Cei-U! The yolk's on you! no, the addition of 'young' was intentional, not accidental. as my favoured brand of humour is Pauly Fenech/John Cleese/Spike from 'the Goons/'Auntie Jack'. as to say, 'mostly british, non yank'. Aussies with taste will verify why you, dear heart, would adore 'Auntie Jack'. check her/him/shim out in any way you can  |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 30, 2017 16:28:07 GMT -5
My favorite motivation - and one that's sadly disappeared after the Silver Age - is villains who do it for the applause. The Jester - who appeared in Daredevil 42-45, just a couple issues before the pages I posted - saw "masked criminal" as an extension of his acting career. And Bill Finger's version of the Penguin always seemed to view crime as performance art. The Post-Crisis Prankster still did this. It may be a less popular motive today, but it's still out there. That's cool! That's my favorite villain motivation. (I didn't know there was a post-Crisis Prankster. It is incredibly hard to believe that the post crisis Prankster isn't a psycho killing pedophile, but I guess it's possible that DC didn't it him.) |
|
|
|
Post by Outrajs on Aug 1, 2017 11:12:22 GMT -5
He also understood why it was impossible for them to honor it. If someone owes you something, and you know they can't pay it through no fault of their own, you don't show up to cause trouble about it unless you're expecting some other kind of recompense. Why assemble a costume, wreck havoc, and attempt to murder people if you don't actually want something from them? Textbook lawful evil. "It doesn't matter that what I'm asking for is impossible, all that matters is that YOU owe ME, and you did not pay up!" For more examples consult page 1-46 of your local paper, or watch C-SPan for an hour. Okay, herein lies the problem. The original deal was for a feather, yes? Why is it evil to want what is promised? If they had promised a feather every year, why didn't they stockpile some? Why didn't they save the species when it was endangered? Why not try and make a different deal? Why not write in a clause in the beginning in case something like that happened? Why weren't they proactive in seeking out these people when they learned the bird was extinct to head this off at the pass? You make a deal with your employer over your paycheck. If they were unable to pay you would you be okay with that? No, you wouldn't. You would demand you receive what your deal was. Did he go about it in an extreme manner? Yes. But it doesn't exactly make him a true villain either. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 1, 2017 11:37:02 GMT -5
Kilgrave the purple man was used to great evil effect by Brian Michael Bendis. After the epiphany he got in an old Marvel team-Up Annual (written by Frank Miller), he decided that trying to conquer New York of whatever was a stupid plan. Since his power is to force people to willingly do what he says, why bother conquering anything? He can ask for anything already, and it will be given to him!
He would have been simply amoral had he not developed a taste for psychological torture and humiliation. His goal then became to please himself by hurting others, which is a pretty good litmus test for being evil.
|
|
