Superman's rogues gallery appreciation

[Kuwagaton]

I should rephrase that: I think it sort of works for Batman while also taking some of the fun out (when a guy who wrote a million Batman comics couldn't think of why another character he wrote extensively shouldn't kill Joker, sounds like a problem). I remember the death of Jason where he's all mad but won't tell Clark or Gordon, and I'm not really sure why people roll with that. Superman would get peed on for swallowing such a loss.

[Ascended]

As I recall, he didn't swallow the loss when Toyman killed Cat's son. He got real pissed, stopped him, didnt kill the mentally ill psychopath, then made sure he was locked up. Just like every other hero with every other villain.

And I'm not advocating the idea of Toyman straight up murdering minor supporting characters in every appearance. Everyone has their big "breaking the Bat/killing Superman" moment and that was Toyman's. But Toyman's body count and actions, while horrible and gruesome, are really just a pale shadow of what most other rogues are guilty of. We feel Toyman's particular brand of evil more because it's real and closer to home, but Mongul has raped and murdered entire *planets* and no one is calling Clark out for it.

[Kuwagaton]

Well, we did see karma as Mongul was killed and thrown away. Before that he had Warworld confiscated and before that he was stuck in a dreamworld for the end of the continuity. You can blame Clark though for him getting Warworld in the first place. That was once entirely Superman's fault.

I kinda shouldn't bring up Joker because however much we love Lex, it's still a different level. But that's just it. Joker has all of these cute plushies and stuff but he beats children to death with crowbars. Batman can fell the League but somehow this character is so popular that he gets out to do more of the same and the unstoppable Batman can't move the object or whatever. Adam Grant wasn't any sort of victim to be blamed on Superman or Cat... or poor Joe in that case. But if this regular old British dude would go and do that half as much as the Joker it would be awful. I think they can make him back into that but he'd have to appear so very rarely. And then bring back my Jack or the Japanese Toyman for the Arcade (from X-Men. Or Mojo? That's where I would eventually take it) style villain.

[marhawkman]

Faora and Ursa are historically different in the comics... or they were. Outside media has been interchanging names for a catch all female Kryptonian and the current lack of Faora probably still plays into it. Assuming the New 52 Faora became Ursa after Reborn.

Fusing to me just cuts off too many routes. You can always keep the tradition as mentioned, just using whichever character and maybe even ignoring the other one. There's something unique to like about every character imo and as we've seen with the actual Superman, fusion tends to dull qualities.

I don't find them that interchangeable. Especially given that one of the had a romantic relationship with Zod and the other didn't.

Simply having one defined as "Zod's lover" changes things a lot. Then there's Car-Vex and Mala(DCAU). Car-Vex is interesting since, while she's affiliated with Zod, she's not exactly a fanatical follower, and kinda joined because it fit her goals. She's also more heroic than most of Zod's associates.... Which is actually WHY she ended up doing that massacre. She'd heard that General Lane was working on an anti-Kryptonian virus so she snuck into his facility. When she got exposed to it she went full murder-blitz, and ripped apart a few dozen humans with her bare hands. She ended up dying when the virus eventually left her so weak she couldn't stand any more. It was kinda like a heroic sacrifice, except she failed, and killed a bunch of people.

The only thing that made Mala distinctive was that she had a character arc where she pretended to reform while figuring out how to release Zod from the Phantom Zone.

[Tzigone]

Everyone has their big "breaking the Bat/killing Superman" moment and that was Toyman's.

I kinda think one "break" per hero should be the rule, not one per villain.

I kinda shouldn't bring up Joker

I actually think the Joker has been way too "big" in actions for a while. A few deaths when he shows up works for me. The mass attacks don't, as a general rule. It requires me to suspend my disbelief too much that no one else has done anything about it. He doesn't have the power or invulnerability of some of the big aliens or metas. SEAL Team Six, a few cops, or Joe Blow on the street could end him with a bullet, and if I think about it more than momentarily, it's a hard sell that no one has.

I don't know how I feel about Toyman or how fatal he should be. I don't know him well enough. I kinda feel like there have been some points where they've tried to up the "evil" factor on several villains while completely ignoring prior characterization (they've done the reverse and added sympathetic undertones to some nonsensically, too). I like bit more consistency in general nature or for us to see the either gradual change or event that prompted change. And then for the change to stick.

[Kuwagaton]

I don't find them that interchangeable. Especially given that one of the had a romantic relationship with Zod and the other didn't.

Simply having one defined as "Zod's lover" changes things a lot. Then there's Car-Vex and Mala(DCAU). Car-Vex is interesting since, while she's affiliated with Zod, she's not exactly a fanatical follower, and kinda joined because it fit her goals. She's also more heroic than most of Zod's associates.... Which is actually WHY she ended up doing that massacre. She'd heard that General Lane was working on an anti-Kryptonian virus so she snuck into his facility. When she got exposed to it she went full murder-blitz, and ripped apart a few dozen humans with her bare hands. She ended up dying when the virus eventually left her so weak she couldn't stand any more. It was kinda like a heroic sacrifice, except she failed, and killed a bunch of people.

The only thing that made Mala distinctive was that she had a character arc where she pretended to reform while figuring out how to release Zod from the Phantom Zone.

Right, the comics are pretty simple about that difference between them. Faora was a master martial artist who hated men, definitely including Zod as she wiped him out. The three versions since are arguable with those traits, but aside from one being married to Kru El you can't really get confused. Among other traits comic Ursa has been the mother of Zod's son time and again.

Superman II, though, loosely adapted Zod and put Ursa where we probably should have had Faora. Especially since she was seen to be single. Man of Steel basically had Ursa but called her Faora. Smallville had Faora as Zod's lover. When it comes to live action or cartoons, you can go with either name and run any traits.

I actually was just reading Superman Adventures on Friday. It is comfortably ahead of Ending Battle IMO, when it comes to wanting to see villains for Superman as you'd see them with some other hero, lined up and everything. Kicks off with that great wraparound cover I can't seem to find online. The first trade has Mala, but I haven't seen the cartoon itself in some years.

[Vordan]

What I liked about 90's Toyman was that he was such a twisted, sick f*ck. We really have nothing like that in the Super-rogues; even the monsters like Parasite are actual, literal monsters, while Toyman was just a bastard of a human being. I think they could have gotten a whole lot more mileage out of him than they did. His methods are so oddly low-end advanced Clark's senses are essentially worthless; like the guy uses such common components for his "toys" Clark can't trace them because they're just everywhere. It was a intriguing challenge, I thought.

And the guy was truly mentally ill, so it's not like Clark can just toss him into the Zone or any of the other solutions Clark might entertain with his more....classically evil....foes. And I dont think him being a recurring threat would make Clark look bad. All the other villains do that, all the Arkham inmates do that, it's never been a problem. Toyman was one of those foes you didn't want to see every other storyline but I don't think him sticking around would've been any more damaging than Mongul or any other villain doing the same.

I think Clark's rogues gallery needs a villain like this. I think it forces Clark to confront a different kind of evil, and it's something so incredibly simple and human.....I maintain that 90's Toyman was one of the best things the Super-books have done in forty years, and he was so far ahead of the curve it'll be another ten years before people realize what he had to offer.

Yeah I agree. I don’t think Toyman should be about enormous body counts or be a pedophile like some writers have tried to edge him up as, but I do believe Toyman should have a pettiness and viciousness that befits his rather Man child status. As much as Lex he should call into question Superman’s faith in humanity.

Blanque I feel was also perfectly suited for this role, as his “mad artist” leanings have potential if someone can bother to use him again.

[marhawkman]

Right, the comics are pretty simple about that difference between them. Faora was a master martial artist who hated men, definitely including Zod as she wiped him out. The three versions since are arguable with those traits, but aside from one being married to Kru El you can't really get confused. Among other traits comic Ursa has been the mother of Zod's son time and again.

Superman II, though, loosely adapted Zod and put Ursa where we probably should have had Faora. Especially since she was seen to be single. Man of Steel basically had Ursa but called her Faora. Smallville had Faora as Zod's lover. When it comes to live action or cartoons, you can go with either name and run any traits.

After looking it up on the wiki, the Donnerverse version of Ursa was the original. Honestly I'm not sure why the Donnerverse has so many original characters in the first place. They're not individually bad, but it makes everything a little "off". Some of it was apparently due to script rewrites. They basically took the original script ideas and turned them into confetti before the finished movie was done. This meant that the basic character ideas ended up getting massively changed and given a new name. Ursa and Non were seemingly given backstories derived from classic Phantom Zone characters, but after they were massively tinkered with the writers changed the names. They did the same sort of thing in 3 and 4 too. 3 has a supercomputer villain who makes mechanical bodies to fight Superman. But unlike Eradicator or Brainiac it's not an alien, it was created on Earth. 4 has a genetically altered clone of Superman, but it's not Bizarro. So the original version of Ursa was a reworked version of Faora, then when she was adapted into the comics they reworked her into being Zod's lover/loyal henchwoman. I'm not sure WHY later films/TV shows want to use the Donnerverse version over the comic book version. Especially since she doesn't have much detail to her backstory.

An interesting backstory is why I liked Car-Vex though. The comic book version joined team Zod because she felt he was right to oppose the policies of the ruling council and that deposing them was the only way to save Krypton. Which kinda makes her an anti-villain/hero more than a proper villain. Then again, that version of Dru-Zod was RIGHT about everything but the viability of an armed insurrection. So he fits the anti-villain template too. (Dru-Zod in Man of Steel is like that too.)

One of the more interesting things about Syfy's Krypton series is that Vex was one of the ruling houses on Krypton, and that Kal-El's(Superman) grandmother was Lyssa-Vex. It's not really clear how closely related Car-Vex is to Lyssa-Vex though.

I kinda think one "break" per hero should be the rule, not one per villain.

I actually think the Joker has been way too "big" in actions for a while. A few deaths when he shows up works for me. The mass attacks don't, as a general rule. It requires me to suspend my disbelief too much that no one else has done anything about it. He doesn't have the power or invulnerability of some of the big aliens or metas. SEAL Team Six, a few cops, or Joe Blow on the street could end him with a bullet, and if I think about it even more that momentarily, it's a hard sell that no one has.

This is an aspect of Batman that writers fudge too often for it to be good story telling. Superman and WW villains often have powers that make it impossible for the cops to defeat them. "Street level" villains are presumably NOT. Therefore when writing "street level" criminals you need to explain why the cops aren't handling it themselves.

I don't know how I feel about Toyman or how fatal he should be. I don't know him well enough. I kinda feel like there have been some points where they've tried to up the "evil" factor on several villains while completely ignoring prior characterization (they've done the reverse and added sympathetic undertones to some nonsensically, too). I like bit more consistency in general nature or for us to see the either gradual change or event that prompted change. And then for the change to stick.

Toyman has a gimmick that lends itself to being a gag villain. Also he's an evil genius type and not a fighter. So it's really just down to what gadgets he's built recently. Which is a characterization thing. He's really not into killing for the fun of it, but... he's not opposed to killing people.

[TheRay]

Bring back Imperiex.

Seconded. Lord Imperiex resurfacing would be interesting, but this time I'd like to see him on the same side as Darkseid.

[daBronzeBomma]

One of the reasons, aside from their unmatched consistency and longevity and exposure, that the Batman rogues are so successful is the idea that each of them somehow represents a warped aspect of Batman himself.

Can the same be applied to Superman and his rogues?

And if so, what is breakdown?

Which Superman villain to which Superman aspect?

[Tzigone]

One of the reasons, aside from their unmatched consistency and longevity and exposure, that the Batman rogues are so successful is the idea that each of them somehow represents a warped aspect of Batman himself.

I have actually only recently heard this idea (haven't really done DC discussion much until recently), and I can't say I agree with it. Not in that it was as aspect present originally, or even in the earlier post-COIE era, anyway.

[Vordan]

Yeah later writers have drawn some comparisons between the two but Batman’s villains don’t all neatly match up. Clayface and Batman don’t really have anything in common except “trauma”. Ditto for Mad Hatter. Now obviously you can draw parallels between Clark and his villains if you’re really committed, but really what Clark’s villains need is simply to be used more. The more they show up the more potential to establish some depth and explore their relationships to Clark.

If I had to name a unifying theme for Clark’s Rogues it would be “pulp scifi” lol. He’s got the mad scientists, alien invaders, criminals armed with tech, higher dimensional beings, robots, etc.

[Kuwagaton]

There's an interesting pop psych that goes into looking at Batman's villains (and those for Spider-Man, but the classic ones have a back up zoo theme just in case) except yeah... it can only go so far with Freeze, Croc, and the like. I'd say a cornerstone for Superman villains would be how he relates and empathizes with them. At least the bigger ones there, too. Compare how he treated the little finger Superman to Lex, how he tried to find ways to help Schott and Henshaw, his general silver age hijinx to Mxy, red kryptonite phases to Bizarro, his almost Brainiac like slide in For Tomorrow, his Parasite state before the fall of metropolis, and so on

[Vordan]

There's an interesting pop psych that goes into looking at Batman's villains (and those for Spider-Man, but the classic ones have a back up zoo theme just in case) except yeah... it can only go so far with Freeze, Croc, and the like. I'd say a cornerstone for Superman villains would be how he relates and empathizes with them. At least the bigger ones there, too. Compare how he treated the little finger Superman to Lex, how he tried to find ways to help Schott and Henshaw, his general silver age hijinx to Mxy, red kryptonite phases to Bizarro, his almost Brainiac like slide in For Tomorrow, his Parasite state before the fall of metropolis, and so on

Damn that’s a really great analysis of Supes’ mindset in For Tomorrow, makes me want to go reread the story in that light. I really need to track down “Fall of Metropolis”, never read it, but Supes being in a “parasite state” makes me extremely curious tor was it.

[marhawkman]

Yeah later writers have drawn some comparisons between the two but Batman’s villains don’t all neatly match up. Clayface and Batman don’t really have anything in common except “trauma”. Ditto for Mad Hatter.

Also, you have to remember that it's only true in hindsight after decades of attrition where the less interesting characters got killed off or ignored by later writers.

Now obviously you can draw parallels between Clark and his villains if you’re really committed, but really what Clark’s villains need is simply to be used more. The more they show up the more potential to establish some depth and explore their relationships to Clark.

If I had to name a unifying theme for Clark’s Rogues it would be “pulp scifi” lol. He’s got the mad scientists, alien invaders, criminals armed with tech, higher dimensional beings, robots, etc.

Well, when people hang out with Superman too much.... this happens:

No that's NOT the only time. Well, it's the only time one of them wore THAT costume, but not the only time that he's talked his enemies into becoming allies.