Does A Reoccurring Rogues Gallery Lose Its Charm Over Time?

[Biff Pow!]

I actually liked the businessman Luthor because he presented a problem Superman can't easily defeat- corporate and political corruption. And that's always relevant, unfortunately.

But even he needed a big takedown story and to be cycled out of the villain rotation for awhile, too.

[Mister Mets]

There are some problems. If you add up all the encounters between the heroes and their archenemies, it gets ridiculous, especially how the villains are supposed to be permanently beaten.

It also makes things tougher for new readers when the hero has a backstory with the villains. I suspect one reason procedural TV shows get new audience members is that new characters allow new viewers an entry into the world of the series.

That said, the reality is that if you have introduced new villains in every Batman story, they're unlikely to be as interesting as the A-listers in the rogues gallery.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

There are some problems. If you add up all the encounters between the heroes and their archenemies, it gets ridiculous, especially how the villains are supposed to be permanently beaten.

It also makes things tougher for new readers when the hero has a backstory with the villains. I suspect one reason procedural TV shows get new audience members is that new characters allow new viewers an entry into the world of the series.

That said, the reality is that if you have introduced new villains in every Batman story, they're unlikely to be as interesting as the A-listers in the rogues gallery.

Would those new ones be reoccurring?

What makes law and order and all other tv shows so boring is most of them involve culprits that are one shot while in comic books the villains are often reoccurring unless it's the punisher for most of his, vigilante the dc version of punisher, etc.

[Agent Z]

Would those new ones be reoccurring?

What makes law and order and all other tv shows so boring is most of them involve culprits that are one shot while in comic books the villains are often reoccurring unless it's the punisher for most of his, vigilante the dc version of punisher, etc.

I think one-shot villains can be interesting and memorable as well as reoccurring ones. In fact, I think Nolan not using the Joker in the third film was a brilliant move.

[Vic Vega]

Yeah, these days a Joker story is basically "Which supporting cast member is he going to do something horrible to this time?" There are exceptions, but very few.

The writers have hit on the "Joker menaces/maim members of the Batfam to get a reaction from the fanbase" formula and are sticking to it.

It works because any member of the Batfam who doesn't have or can't carry thier own series is cannonfodder.

They can scare the fanbase by having Joker menace Spoiler in a way that doesn't if its just Joker with a sniper rifle atop Gotham Tower shooting Gothamites.

[Mister Mets]

Would those new ones be reoccurring?

What makes law and order and all other tv shows so boring is most of them involve culprits that are one shot while in comic books the villains are often reoccurring unless it's the punisher for most of his, vigilante the dc version of punisher, etc.

New villains won't be recurring until they pop up again.

The writers have hit on the "Joker menaces/maim members of the Batfam to get a reaction from the fanbase" formula and are sticking to it.

It works because any member of the Batfam who doesn't have or can't carry thier own series is cannonfodder.

They can scare the fanbase by having Joker menace Spoiler in a way that doesn't if its just Joker with a sniper rifle atop Gotham Tower shooting Gothamites.

Joker is also well-represented in the best Batman stories.

[Bad Wolf]

Certainly they can get worn out but a good writer can always put a new spin on them. John Rozum did a great Scarecrow story a few years back ("Absolute Terror") that finally had the character doing something different than usual. If not totally new, than at least lesser seen.

[mathew101281]

Coming up with good villains is one of the hardest things to do in comics. Most creative teams have trouble coming up with one or two good new villains in an entire run. I don't know what they would do if they had to constantly create new ones.

[Pinsir]

Coming up with good villains is one of the hardest things to do in comics. Most creative teams have trouble coming up with one or two good new villains in an entire run. I don't know what they would do if they had to constantly create new ones.

During the Silver Age a new villain was introduced nearly every comic. This in an era where the storylines were more or less wrapped up in one comic.

When Poison Ivy first appeared in 1966, she didn't appear in another comic until 1978, then after that she appeared periodically every 2 years. Now she appears all the time.

[Zero Hunter]

I think it is the fact that editors keep such a strangle hold on their villains that is the main problem. Back in the old days you would see them branch out and you would see a Spidey villain fighting Daredevil or Captain America. Now it seem like editors horde their toys and don't let any other editors or writers use them.

Plus the "every new writer wants to write the classics" mindset really has made some franchises pretty stagnent over the last 20 years. Doom and Galactus are pretty much just pale jokes of what they used to be form decades of over use in the FF books. Same with how the Phoenix has been used to death over in the X-books. I would much rather see a writer dust off some old character that has not been used in a long time and do something new with them instead of seeing an A list villain being used over and over. It has been show many times that old villains with some minor tweaks can become great characters again. Just look at someone like the Calculator.

When someone like Doom or the Red Skull used to show up you knew it was going to be a big story. Now they have both been so overused that you don't even really care anymore.

[Kieran_Frost]

Yes, it can become stale (over use of Doom happened towards the end of the 00s) BUT a heroes without a recurring rogue gallery suffers far more. You need big villains, you need an ultimate nemesis. Batman without Joker doesn't work. Spiderman and Batman have the two best recurring rogue galleries and they are the two biggest solo heroes. Those are not mutually exclusive coincidences.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

Yes, it can become stale (over use of Doom happened towards the end of the 00s) BUT a heroes without a recurring rogue gallery suffers far more. You need big villains, you need an ultimate nemesis. Batman without Joker doesn't work. Spiderman and Batman have the two best recurring rogue galleries and they are the two biggest solo heroes. Those are not mutually exclusive coincidences.

It becomes stale if there is no effort done at all to update the super villains or have them do something different. While doctor doom has tired to take over the world and get rid of the fantastic four it's not like he's only shot a rocket launcher metaphorically speaking.

Doctor octopus has tried to marry aunt may to inherit a Island, assembled the sinister six to destroy spider man, and multiple other infamous acts that have made doctor octopus a creative versatile mastermind.

[tombo]

I read somewhere that this was the reason Judge Death was created for Dredd, as Dredd tended to kill his villains, so they needed a way to have a recurring villain.

[DangerRoom]

I think Batman has a great rogues gallery, even though he has a lot of lame villains. These bad guys have been around for a long time, and I think we all get excited each time Joker pops up.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

I read somewhere that this was the reason Judge Death was created for Dredd, as Dredd tended to kill his villains, so they needed a way to have a recurring villain.

Also can judge dredd kill someone that is already dead?

So does punisher which is why it's astounding barracuda, The Russian, others I may be missing lasted far longer than the chumps he's killed easily.
Also jigsaw which I assume he thinks the disfigured face is punishment enough why he doesn't kill him.