Why new super villains don't work out

bluebeast

Well-Known Member
"There comes a time in the lives of most comics fans where their favorite character gets horribly raped by Jeph Loeb. This is only natural, and nothing to be afraid of. Loeb is a part of life, and the best thing to do is just to accept it and move on."

I like this guy.
 

E

Moderator
Excelsior Club
"There comes a time in the lives of most comics fans where their favorite character gets horribly raped by Jeph Loeb. This is only natural, and nothing to be afraid of. Loeb is a part of life, and the best thing to do is just to accept it and move on."

I like this guy.

That's hysterical. :lol:
 

Void.M

Well-Known Member
I always figured the main problem are overly anal Fanboys that don't give them a chance in the first place.

Besides, there have been alot of good new villains.

weather you choose to accept them is another thing entirely.
 

The Overlord

Well-Known Member
I always figured the main problem are overly anal Fanboys that don't give them a chance in the first place.

Besides, there have been alot of good new villains.

weather you choose to accept them is another thing entirely.

Yes Carnage's problem is no one gave him a chance, not because he sucks.

How many good new villains have there been in the past 15 years? Can you name some of them?
 
Last edited:

Gemini

Well-Known Member
most villains don't work because of two main effects

A) Job everyone in sight syndrom I.E. Vulcan

B) Wedged into continuity becoming this master villain for the last 40 years I.E. Romulus
 

Void.M

Well-Known Member
Yes Carnage's problem is no one gave him a chance, not because he sucks.

How many good new villains have there been in the past 15 years? Can you name some of them?


See regardless of your feelings for Carnage the guy does have a fanbase. So that's not gonna fly junior.

Again, it's mainly because of anal fanboys.
 

ourchair

Well-Known Member
I have a theory that involves the difference in the time periods which Silver Age villains and post-Bronze Age villains were introduced, but not in the way you'd ordinarily think.

Will post it as soon as I get to the office.
 

The Overlord

Well-Known Member
See regardless of your feelings for Carnage the guy does have a fanbase. So that's not gonna fly junior.

Again, it's mainly because of anal fanboys.

Britney Spears has fans it doesn't make her a good singer.

Care to explain how carnage is a good character, an evil twin of an evil twin?

Also you haven't named any new good villains yet
 

SSJmole

Face-Punching As Foreign Policy
Britney Spears has fans it doesn't make her a good singer.

But she is a good singer. I may hate like 99% of her music but she's still good at it. It's not like she sings like rejects from American idol. She CAN sing , She HAS had huge selling albums.

It's like I don't like Elton John however I can still see he's a great musician.

Also you haven't named any new good villains yet

I named a good new villain.
 

ourchair

Well-Known Member
Re: Carnage, is he a decent villain or not?

I think the perceptual problem lies in whether having a fanbase is equivalent to being a quality villain.
 

Void.M

Well-Known Member
Britney Spears has fans it doesn't make her a good singer.

Care to explain how carnage is a good character, an evil twin of an evil twin?


Thing is she is a good singer and weather something is good or bad is purely subjective and depends on taste.


Unless your saying your opinion is the only right one.
 

TwilightEL

Well-Known Member
Re: Carnage, is he a decent villain or not?

I think the perceptual problem lies in whether having a fanbase is equivalent to being a quality villain.

I think that's one of the central dichotomies in comics today: is success making a good story or making money?

I think villains are just another aspect of the most popular heroes that it's hard to change. Sure, it's hard to make a new villain for Spider-Man or Superman or Batman, but it's also next to impossible to make a new friend or a new boss or new costume or new hairstyle work for them. Mainstream comics are always resistant to change. People just notice villains more.

Not that that article isn't dead on--I'm just saying that the resistance to change applies to villains, just like it applies to costumes or love interests. Both the reasons in that article and this resistance are reasons why new villains frequently fail.

Runaways was founded entirely on new villains--the Pride, the Gibborim, sort of Alex. The young X-men title whose name I can't remember introduced some new villains. I can't think of many smaller titles or the new villains they've introduced right now, but my point is that just as non-flagship titles can introduce new love interests or kill heroes, they also have greater success with villains.

I say villains should have to work their way up to the big time. Take some new guys from a less-popular title and start making them bigger threats in a logical way that treats past appearances and characterization with respect.

Another idea--make a new villain pop up in a few different titles and fight a few different heroes. See who they have chemistry with and which title the fans like them best in. Once you've picked the hero they go with, get a writer and artist who work well with the hero to write a story arc in which the new villain and the hero acquire a logical personal vendetta against each other.
 

E

Moderator
Excelsior Club
Re: Carnage, is he a decent villain or not?

I think the perceptual problem lies in whether having a fanbase is equivalent to being a quality villain.

An important point to remember.

Vanilla Ice was once a multi-platinum selling "musician".
 

Zombipanda

My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
I think that's one of the central dichotomies in comics today: is success making a good story or making money?

I think villains are just another aspect of the most popular heroes that it's hard to change. Sure, it's hard to make a new villain for Spider-Man or Superman or Batman, but it's also next to impossible to make a new friend or a new boss or new costume or new hairstyle work for them. Mainstream comics are always resistant to change. People just notice villains more.

Not that that article isn't dead on--I'm just saying that the resistance to change applies to villains, just like it applies to costumes or love interests. Both the reasons in that article and this resistance are reasons why new villains frequently fail.

Runaways was founded entirely on new villains--the Pride, the Gibborim, sort of Alex. The young X-men title whose name I can't remember introduced some new villains. I can't think of many smaller titles or the new villains they've introduced right now, but my point is that just as non-flagship titles can introduce new love interests or kill heroes, they also have greater success with villains.

I say villains should have to work their way up to the big time. Take some new guys from a less-popular title and start making them bigger threats in a logical way that treats past appearances and characterization with respect.

Another idea--make a new villain pop up in a few different titles and fight a few different heroes. See who they have chemistry with and which title the fans like them best in. Once you've picked the hero they go with, get a writer and artist who work well with the hero to write a story arc in which the new villain and the hero acquire a logical personal vendetta against each other.

Agreed. On pretty much every point. I just think it's a little sad we didn't see the Pride stretched out a little longer. The opportunity to delve into each villain and have the Runaways take them down one by one could have been incredibly rewarding.

I think one of the major problems is we retroactively look back at these characters as being awesome coming out of the gates. That's not the case. There are very few villains that weren't initially rather silly and stock. Same case with thee heroes. Characters like Batman and Superman were pretty much oversimplified riffs of stock character types. The major changes to the characters that we look back as changing the characters were typically done for frivolous editorial or shock value reasons. It's only with the insight of strong writers looking back at these traits and recasting a reasoning behind them that the characters gain the depth that allow us to respect them as strong characters.

Just look at what Warren Ellis did with Venom. Like any character, villains need a period to find their voice, and that usually requires a smart writer looking back at the character and finding a way to tie together their silly inconsistencies into something that's a strong concept.
 
Last edited:

Gemini

Well-Known Member
The problem with Carnage is that Cletus Cassaday was a more interesting character before he became Carnage

I'm not saying that Cletus was an exceptionally good character or anything, but his life before the symbiote was always something that piqued my curiosity

didn't he like kill his Grandmother or something? really if they left him as a non-super-villain, and moved him over too Daredevil or something else he could have become something interesting

Too me the main problem with the symbiotes has always been that the characters were so much more interesting before the symbiote, then they always become these one-note kill spider-man villains
 

The Overlord

Well-Known Member
Thing is she is a good singer and weather something is good or bad is purely subjective and depends on taste.


Unless your saying your opinion is the only right one.

Wow the "everything is subject" argument. No, that's not a fallacy.

Okay, here is the problem with your argument, you are relating popularity with quality. Just because Dukes of hazard made money as a film, doesn't make it a good film.

Can you provide more objective proof, like exaplaining why he is a good character.

Also you persoanlly haven't named any good villains introduced in the last 15 years.

But she is a good singer. I may hate like 99% of her music but she's still good at it. It's not like she sings like rejects from American idol. She CAN sing , She HAS had huge selling albums.

It's like I don't like Elton John however I can still see he's a great musician.



I named a good new villain.

Fine let but it another way, she can sign, but 99% of her songs are garbage and are not quality songs, yet she is still popular, does that make her.

Also I was asking Venom Mendez for examples and one example in past 15 years is not encouraging.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top