Why are villains written like antiheroes these days.

[mathew101281]

Are villains these days too grey? Writing experts would tell you that the more ambiguous you make you villain the better. But when you look at all the popular supervillains they are almost always the more Capital E evil villains. I thing you really need both.

[LordMikel]

I agree. There has been a trend to make villains more relatable. Personally I think it makes for sucky villains.

[marhawkman]

I agree. There has been a trend to make villains more relatable. Personally I think it makes for sucky villains.

that and people seem to not want to write people doing ANYTHING that's actually evil. One of the animated Lex Luthor versions(Superman: Doomsday ) was.. exceptionally evil. But the corporate sort of evil SoB and not the crazy serial killer kind.

Lex did several different KINDS of evil in that movie.

1: Illegal mining operation that unleashed Doomsday from the stasis pod he was contained in.
2: After Doomsday went rampant Lex decided to hide the evidence... and killed everyone but himself who knew... including his personal assistant Mercy Graves.
3: steals Superman's body after Doomsday fights him.
4: stores Superman in stasis while making a clone army.
5: tortures the one working clone he bothered to activate.
6: does experiments using the other clones.... who die.
7: tries to force his working clone to kill the original.

Then there's early on the REALLY evil thing, something... not the supervillain kind of evil. He's reading emails at his desk when Mercy is about to tell him about how Doomsday wrecked his illegal mine. then he makes a comment about how he now has a cure for some disease, but decides it's unprofitable to market a cure, and decides to not release it, and instead market a treatment using the research data he acquired that will instead of curing the disease delay it's effects indefinitely... as long as it's taken daily. Yeah.... THAT kind of evil. The sort people ponder IRL daily.

[king81992]

The villains who actually deserve the antihero treatment never get the opportunity and chance at redemption, while the ones with zero redeeming qualities are pushed as antiheroes and receive undeserved free passes from writers/fans.

[Restingvoice]

They're not that many... Harley, Ivy, Clayface, Killer Croc, Killer Shark, Kite-Man, Killer Frost, Pied Piper... and not all of them last long... Cheetah's back to villainy pretty quick, Luthor too
Most Batman villains are mentally ill so a more complex and sympathetic portrayal is understandable, while The Rogues are supposed to be likeable anyway, don't know about the rest

Btw grey doesn't necessarily mean antiheroes. Antiheroes are heroes with non-traditional heroic qualities, such as torturing villains. I think you meant anti-villain too? Villains who don't do things just for the sake of evil and chaos, but has understandable motivation and standards, don't harm people willy-nilly, and are willing to help heroes if necessary?

[John Venus]

People like seeing the good in bad people and the bad in good people.

Villains who are flawed and have good and bad qualities are compelling to read about because it makes them unpredictable and you don't know whats going to happen next.

[Baron of Faltine]

They're not that many... Harley, Ivy, Clayface, Killer Croc, Killer Shark, Kite-Man, Killer Frost, Pied Piper... and not all of them last long... Cheetah's back to villainy pretty quick, Luthor too
Most Batman villains are mentally ill so a more complex and sympathetic portrayal is understandable, while The Rogues are supposed to be likeable anyway, don't know about the rest

Btw grey doesn't necessarily mean antiheroes. Antiheroes are heroes with non-traditional heroic qualities, such as torturing villains. I think you meant anti-villain too? Villains who don't do things just for the sake of evil and chaos, but has understandable motivation and standards, don't harm people willy-nilly, and are willing to help heroes if necessary?

Resting voice you're the....voice of the reason...OK...I need a break.

[Baron of Faltine]

I agree. There has been a trend to make villains more relatable. Personally I think it makes for sucky villains.

With some work. And an understandable villain, even a mild sympathetic one, does not means a justifiable or forgivable one. As best batman story say, of one read till the end and don't speed read through it not everyone who has a bad day decide to see the world burn, sometimes is just your fault.

[godisawesome]

Are villains these days too grey? Writing experts would tell you that the more ambiguous you make you villain the better. But when you look at all the popular supervillains they are almost always the more Capital E evil villains. I thing you really need both.

The key, I think, is that the more human you make your villains, the better they are… with the thing that’s inconsistent being how much the writer avoids falling into a trap of ignoring how humans can still be monsters or clear antagonists and criminals, or giving into the desire to use “protagonist-centered-morality” for them.

A good example would be those well-written Lex Luthor stories, like The Black Ring. He’s still a horrible, horrible person, and the book in fact bases it’s climax off that, even though it does a good job telling his story first. The Zooms/Reverse-Flashes are excellent examples of the same principal of a human monster.

It’s with tragic monsters that people struggle, because you’re always one writer giving-in away from the character becoming a kind fo Byronic Anti-Hero you expect the audience to cheer because their the protagonist. Poison Ivy is a prime example of that.

[mathew101281]

The key, I think, is that the more human you make your villains, the better they are… with the thing that’s inconsistent being how much the writer avoids falling into a trap of ignoring how humans can still be monsters or clear antagonists and criminals, or giving into the desire to use “protagonist-centered-morality” for them.

A good example would be those well-written Lex Luthor stories, like The Black Ring. He’s still a horrible, horrible person, and the book in fact bases it’s climax off that, even though it does a good job telling his story first. The Zooms/Reverse-Flashes are excellent examples of the same principal of a human monster.

It’s with tragic monsters that people struggle, because you’re always one writer giving-in away from the character becoming a kind fo Byronic Anti-Hero you expect the audience to cheer because their the protagonist. Poison Ivy is a prime example of that.

I’m not sure that’s true though. The Joker is the most popular villain there is and he isn’t relatable at all.

[Rac7d*]

Are villains these days too grey? Writing experts would tell you that the more ambiguous you make you villain the better. But when you look at all the popular supervillains they are almost always the more Capital E evil villains. I thing you really need both.

You can’t sell a villain who really a villain without somone worse to antagonize them
Villains can’t succeed in destroying or taking over the world that’s a franchise killer
A villain can’t be rewarded for succeeding with heinous acts

It’s bad for character like poison Ivy who can’t be the lgbt rep for DC and evil so she sits in the middle doing nothing

[Robotman]

I have no problem with giving villains more layers. Understanding why they do what they do can being pretty interesting when done right. “Every villain is the hero of their own story.”

I dont think writers should delve too deep and deconstruct villains to an obnoxious extent. But I think it’s kinda boring to just say they were born evil and that’s that.

of all the DC villains who have been given a more sympathetic background, only Black Adam, Poison Ivy, and Harley have crossed over to the “anti-hero” status. Sinestro, Cheetah, Luthor, etc are portrayed as pure villains most of the time. There are bad guys that do good things because they have bombs in their heads but that’s different.

[Dred]

I think there's a misunderstanding on what an anti-hero is here. And anti-hero is someone who does good (heroic) things, but has less than moral/evil motivations and attitudes(the anti). Harley, as an example, hasn't been an antihero in awhile and is basically fully heroic at this point. Someone who does heroic things for heroic reasons is a hero, even if Harley's a little wacky/insane while doing it. The most common antihero trope is someone who takes down villains not because they're doing bad things, but because it's easier to kill them and they're in their way.

A lot of villains are becoming more like Anti-Villains, people who do bad things (villainous things) but presumably have good reasons to do so and their actions will lead to something good happening (the anti). Writers have, rightfully so, wanted more nuanced villains and a lot of time that comes with giving them a moralistic motivation and goal. Though someone can still be a full on villain (doing bad things for a bad cause) while still believably thinking they're in the right -- Ra's Al Ghul is a good example of this. Or Luthor, who's goal is to do a bad thing (beat Superman) for a bad reason (because he thinks Superman is bad for the world) -- but we know why he thinks his bad reason is important and it's inherently coherent.

[king81992]

I think there's a misunderstanding on what an anti-hero is here. And anti-hero is someone who does good (heroic) things, but has less than moral/evil motivations and attitudes(the anti). Harley, as an example, hasn't been an antihero in awhile and is basically fully heroic at this point. Someone who does heroic things for heroic reasons is a hero, even if Harley's a little wacky/insane while doing it. The most common antihero trope is someone who takes down villains not because they're doing bad things, but because it's easier to kill them and they're in their way.

A lot of villains are becoming more like Anti-Villains, people who do bad things (villainous things) but presumably have good reasons to do so and their actions will lead to something good happening (the anti). Writers have, rightfully so, wanted more nuanced villains and a lot of time that comes with giving them a moralistic motivation and goal. Though someone can still be a full on villain (doing bad things for a bad cause) while still believably thinking they're in the right -- Ra's Al Ghul is a good example of this. Or Luthor, who's goal is to do a bad thing (beat Superman) for a bad reason (because he thinks Superman is bad for the world) -- but we know why he thinks his bad reason is important and it's inherently coherent.

Disagree with Harley being heroic.

Ra's is peak hypocrisy the character, everything he does is about maintaining his own immortality and gaining more influence, all the noble ideals he spouts are a cope.

Lex claims Superman is bad for the world and uses that as an excuse to antagonize him, but the real reason is that Superman's way of life proves Lex's philosophy to be wrong and he can't stand that.

[Rac7d*]

I think there's a misunderstanding on what an anti-hero is here. And anti-hero is someone who does good (heroic) things, but has less than moral/evil motivations and attitudes(the anti). Harley, as an example, hasn't been an antihero in awhile and is basically fully heroic at this point. Someone who does heroic things for heroic reasons is a hero, even if Harley's a little wacky/insane while doing it. The most common antihero trope is someone who takes down villains not because they're doing bad things, but because it's easier to kill them and they're in their way.

A lot of villains are becoming more like Anti-Villains, people who do bad things (villainous things) but presumably have good reasons to do so and their actions will lead to something good happening (the anti). Writers have, rightfully so, wanted more nuanced villains and a lot of time that comes with giving them a moralistic motivation and goal. Though someone can still be a full on villain (doing bad things for a bad cause) while still believably thinking they're in the right -- Ra's Al Ghul is a good example of this. Or Luthor, who's goal is to do a bad thing (beat Superman) for a bad reason (because he thinks Superman is bad for the world) -- but we know why he thinks his bad reason is important and it's inherently coherent.

Where does Deahtroke fall

He see's himself as the hero of his own story
but we the audience and everyone around him knows he's a murder and crazy for justify his acts
Even when he does accept what he does "its just buisness" He has his crazy revenge plot that make no sense, abuse of his children, and finally, his treatment of tara markov, but he gets rewarded, with multiple solo series, video game appearances, live action work, His own solo animated movie.

why does it work for, how is Slade Wilson the true breakout character of the teen titans?