-
[QUOTE=ed2962;3198760]I remember Chris Claremont saying saying something to the effect of the villain should actually be more powerful than the hero otherwise what's the point?[/QUOTE]
It'a why people like Iron Man and Black Panther have unused rogues galleries sitting in limbo collecting dust. A good portion should at least be as powerful as the hero.
-
[QUOTE=Redjack;3198713]If given the shot? I dunno. I'd probably spend some time building him a real Rogue's Gallery of both old and new villains. I'd give him adversaries that could actually beat him. My feeling is the villains should actually be better than the heroes and that heroes should have to work hard for every win. Personally, I'd downplay the mystic stuff. That's never interested me much wth T'Challa. My feeling about him is that he's constantly dancing between HERO and KING and the two jobs don't always go in the same direction. He's basically always going to be letting someone down, no matter what he chooses.
I haven't given the comics version much thought in that way because, once Marvel chose Mr. Coates, I knew it would be unlikely I'd ever get to write him.[/QUOTE]
[B]As long as it was Don McGregor level's of craziness it would be an interesting take. That is one of the good Things about Tchalla is that there are many aspects to focus on. Personally I like the technology/Uber prep that Priest focused on and the larger then life aspect Hudlin showed. Less spiritual, more modern with a acknowledgement of tradition as well. But at the Same time though Villains Should give the heroes work, I think it's Also important to have Villains that the hero can beat without him having to dig deep. Basically have atleast a couple arcs (depending on how many stories you wanted to tell) that went Like Priest the client, or Hudlin's WiTBP.
There is suspense but for Priest he had Tchalla fully outsmart Mephisto and knocked him down in one punch and ripped his heart out. That was cool. Hudlin having T'Challa handily best Klaw and his crew and exact revenge (even though he came back Which is fine, I like that dynamic that Tchalla is always haunted by the fact that he can't fully Avenge his father because Klaw can't be killed) but they also showed T'Challa losing. Something most writer's seem to forget, it that heroes can lose at the end of an arc or have a Pyrrhic victory sometimes.
As for writing BP I guess I am a little confused as to why Coates getting the job means you can't ever write BP? If you expressed an interest, I am confused how you couldn't get a BP series as well, or be able to take over after Coates leaves?[/B]
-
[QUOTE=ed2962;3198760]I remember Chris Claremont saying saying something to the effect of the villain should actually be more powerful than the hero otherwise what's the point?[/QUOTE]
[B]If I were writing a bp Book and I was telling 10 different stories, my ratio would be 2 clear cut wins you know he completely and utterly won, 4 losses (this include Pyrrhic victories) 3 hard earned victories that required the hero to dig deep, and finally an open up for interpretation and debate on who actually won.
At best a heroes win/loss ratio should be 6/10 at most[/B]
-
[QUOTE=XPac;3198736]Yeah, it's supposed to hard. That's why I never understood why books upgrade heroes power levels so much. Why make it easier for heroes to beat people who they'be already beaten at their previous power levels a dozen times before.
Villains need to be more powerful and scarier. After awhile we just stop believing they actually have a chance of winning, and that just takes the fun out of the fights.[/QUOTE]
You know what's even scarier?
The fact that to date, T'Challa hasn't had a clearly unambiguous victory over any of his opponents post Hudlin/Liss, (regardless of power levels.) and even worse, there are some readers who have zero problem with T'Challa being nerfed to such a degree that he needs to be hand held from one pyrhic "victory" to another.
As I've stated previously, the fact that post Secret Wars II, all of T'Challa's in character appearances have occurred during guest star spots in other characters as well as sporadically within the now defunct Ultimates 2 book where T'Challa tamed the White Tiger God and channelled it's power to take on cosmic entities.
Ewing actually followed through from where Hickman left off post SW II, whilst Coates chose to carve a swath of destruction through the BP mythos leaving the sordid mess of rape camps and stereotypical African violence in his uncreative wake.
Strong villains are all well and good but heroes who can rise to the occasion against all odds to overcome said powerful enemies, is infinitely much more satisfying.
-
[QUOTE=Ezyo1000;3198801][B]If I were writing a bp Book and I was telling 10 different stories, my ratio would be 2 clear cut wins you know he completely and utterly won, 4 losses (this include Pyrrhic victories) 3 hard earned victories that required the hero to dig deep, and finally an open up for interpretation and debate on who actually won.
At best a heroes win/loss ratio should be 6/10 at most[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, you want to see the hero do some awesome stuff, but you don't want things to be too easy for him all the time. And the best stories should always give you some food for thought.
-
[QUOTE=ed2962;3198949]Yeah, you want to see the hero do some awesome stuff, but you don't want things to be too easy for him all the time. And the best stories should always give you some food for thought.[/QUOTE]
The beauty of the system is if you make the villain awesome, you'please usually make the hero more awesome too because 99% of the time the hero beats the villain in the end. This, the more awesome the villain, the more awesome the hero will look when he beats the villain.
Investments in the villains are effectively investments in the hero too. But it seems lately it's just something overlooked. It's like Thanos and Doon are the only villains allowed to consistently look good these days.
-
I'm starting to worry just a bit about the movie. Not much, but the Inhumans show going down in flames made me think of something. Like that show we're also getting a movie where the heroes are part of a monarchy and the villain is a revolutionary who wants to change things. Every single review or reaction I've seen has had people saying they find the villains far more sympathetic and likable than the actual heroes, and I have a slight worry something similar might happen with Killmonger if the conflict isn't handled properly.
[QUOTE=ed2962;3198760]I remember Chris Claremont saying saying something to the effect of the villain should actually be more powerful than the hero otherwise what's the point?[/QUOTE]
This is why while I get people clowning a bit on Marvel having the hero fight his own evil counterpart for like the 20th time in the Black Panther movie, I see why they gave Killmonger his own suit.
-
[QUOTE=Holt;3198986]I'm starting to worry just a bit about the movie. Not much, but the Inhumans show going down in flames made me think of something. Like that show we're also getting a movie where the heroes are part of a monarchy and the villain is a revolutionary who wants to change things. Every single review or reaction I've seen has had people saying they find the villains far more sympathetic and likable than the actual heroes, and I have a slight worry something similar might happen with Killmonger if the conflict isn't handled properly.[/QUOTE]
I think it depends on how they handle it.
Like, with the Inhumans, the sense I'm getting from reviews is it's hard to empathize with the Royal Family because they're all aloof and a proponent of the less then savory elements of Attilan's culture, which is why more people side with Maximus.
I expect more people will be able to empathize with and understand T'Challa then they have with the Inhuman royals, like they already have in [I]Civil War[/I], and the Wakandan Monarchy will probably not be showcased in as controversial a light. T'Challa will also probably seem like much more a traditional hero then the Royal Family have been on the show, so he'll be easier to root for.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Killmonger's revolutionary motivation is just another masquerade for him really wanting to be king himself.
-
[QUOTE=ed2962;3198949]Yeah, you want to see the hero do some awesome stuff, but you don't want things to be too easy for him all the time. And the best stories should always give you some food for thought.[/QUOTE]
[B]Which is All the more confusing why people would act like Hudlin's panther was a Mary Sue. Priest and Hudlin balanced it out pretty well in terms of win loss ratio. Hudlin gave more wins but the losses were clear as well .[/B]
-
[QUOTE=XPac;3198975]The beauty of the system is if you make the villain awesome, you'please usually make the hero more awesome too because 99% of the time the hero beats the villain in the end. This, the more awesome the villain, the more awesome the hero will look when he beats the villain.
Investments in the villains are effectively investments in the hero too. But it seems lately it's just something overlooked. It's like Thanos and Doon are the only villains allowed to consistently look good these days.[/QUOTE]
[B]I think the Real problem is that a Villain will get a good showing in one story or in the book they originate from, but then get jobbed on a different book, Case and point klaw. Nigh cosmic level being gets jobbed in splash pages, and beaten by gold balls and moon girl... So what happens is when they get a good showing in their original book. It makes the hero look weak for struggling to beat them when other c-d Listers best then with ease. Hence why I say Klaw should be an Avengers level threat. And when he shows up in BP, it's very rare, and it's a big deal. Other then that only Avengers use him to Keep him from. Being jobbed by nobodies or people way below his weight class [/B]
-
[URL="https://twitter.com/Stelfreeze"]From Brian Stelfreeze's Twitter.[/URL]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNSPiTbX4AAUrT-.jpg[/IMG]
-
[QUOTE=Ezyo1000;3199009][B]Which is All the more confusing why people would act like Hudlin's panther was a Mary Sue. Priest and Hudlin balanced it out pretty well in terms of win loss ratio. Hudlin gave more wins but the losses were clear as well .[/B][/QUOTE]
A lot people say "Mary Sue" when they've decided before hand to not like a character, but are too lazy to read the title and form an opinion based on the material.
-
[QUOTE=ed2962;3199035]A lot people say "Mary Sue" when they've decided before hand to not like a character, but are too lazy to read the title and form an opinion based on the material.[/QUOTE]
Or really any character who isn't a white male that dares perform the feats white dudes in fiction usually get to do.
-
[QUOTE=Holt;3198986]I'm starting to worry just a bit about the movie. Not much, but the Inhumans show going down in flames made me think of something. Like that show we're also getting a movie where the heroes are part of a monarchy and the villain is a revolutionary who wants to change things. Every single review or reaction I've seen has had people saying they find the villains far more sympathetic and likable than the actual heroes, and I have a slight worry something similar might happen with Killmonger if the conflict isn't handled properly.
This is why while I get people clowning a bit on Marvel having the hero fight his own evil counterpart for like the 20th time in the Black Panther movie, I see why they gave Killmonger his own suit.[/QUOTE]
There should be somewhat of a balance act going on. You shold ideally to some degree and like a good villain, even if you don't agree with thrm. But you don't necessarily want the hero looking bad in the process.
Overall I'm not worried about it yet. The movies have all gotten the job done so far, even as the TV side of things has tended to have more mixed results.
-
[QUOTE=ed2962;3199035]A lot people say "Mary Sue" when they've decided before hand to not like a character, but are too lazy to read the title and form an opinion based on the material.[/QUOTE]
Really I think at times characters like BP (or say Batman) should be written like Mary Sues. Not all the time of course, but put them on this pedistol so when they get knocked off it's a big deal. Priest balanced that perfectly. His T'Challa was ridiculously uber, yet got the crap beat put of him too. With the right balance you can do both.