Overused Marvel Villains

[MindofShadow]

When is the last time Doom has been used as a VILLAIN? Scott Lang?

He seems used more as an Anti/reluctant hero as of late... not really a true, big bad, steal the cosmic power Doom.


Same with Loki... bad, evil Loki has been gone for awhile until just recently, where the only thing he has done is laugh and troll new Loki.



Sabertooth and Mystique have been overused a bit I would say. Especially since the X-Men have so many interesting villains they could be using.

[Iron Maiden]

Doom's become so overused that he's ceased to be a character. He's a set of arrogant catch-phrases doing cameos. If he were a real actor, I'd accuse him of phoning it in in his old age.

I think it depends on the writer. Certainly Fraction and the Allreds were more interested in writing a silver age throwback for example during their FF/Fantastic Four run. Hickman is one of the few of the newer writers that seemed to get him, along with Ed Brubaker. Brubaker could do a dead on serious version in Books of Doom yet do a slighty loopy yet still dangerous version in Winter Soldier.

[Shinglepants]

It does get a little boring when its just the same characters getting the spot light time and again. Like others have said, one of the reasons I'm liking Original Sin so much is because of the villain involved. The Orb front and centre of the big event? Hell yeah!

Doom, Galactus, Mystique etc need to take a backseat for a while.

Moonstone, Mr. Negative, Anti-Man, Attuma, Scramble, Lightmaster, Spot, Baron Blood, Dreadknight, King Maker, Cyber, Grey Gargoyle, Doomsday Man, Khan etc.

Sure, some of the above might be more A-List than others, used more recently, dead etc but the point is Marvel have a whole stable of villains they don't use nearly enough.

[Sutekh]

Moonstone, Mr. Negative, Anti-Man, Attuma, Scramble, Lightmaster, Spot, Baron Blood, Dreadknight, King Maker, Cyber, Grey Gargoyle, Doomsday Man, Khan etc.
Sure, some of the above might be more A-List than others, used more recently, dead etc but the point is Marvel have a whole stable of villains they don't use nearly enough.

Definitely Moonstone. It would be neat to see her as an actual mastermind, and not just the chick who sleeps with the mastermind.

Grey Gargoyle has always been a quirky favorite of mine as well, especially in the old days when he was terrorizing the starlanes with a crew of alien space pirates. That's just whacky fun there. Why should teen Cyclops get all the space pirate action?

More U-Foes (and not just as jobbers seen in the back of a big fight getting schooled) and Red Ghost and Madame Masque. More Mole Man and Controller and Mentallo and Fixer and Taskmaster and Tiger Shark! Graviton is an insanely heavy hitter, when he's in the mood. Diablo can crap out a city full of Hulks as a *distraction.* The Leader is about a hundred times smarter than Richards and Doom combined, let alone sixth tier 'geniuses' like Octavius, and really should get some credit for that.

[Zartan's Brother]

I'd love it if Marvel scaled back their typical approach to villains from the past several years. No more "_______ Hero is the villain" stories for a while. Give Doom, Galactus, Loki, and Norman Osborn a rest for sure. I wouldn't mind a general move towards giving the top enemies of any given hero/team a break. Feature the scrubs!

[SpOck]

The Phoenix and Galactus are the only ones I want to stay away for a long time. While I wish more obscure villains (such as one of my favorites, the Purple Man, who I believe will be showing up in Daredevil soon) would get a bigger push, I think Slott and Hickman are doing/will do interesting things with Osborn and Doom, respectively. I agree with whomever said that Diablo and Attuma should come back. They're interesting villains who I don't believe we've seen in a while.

EDIT: The Red Skull and Sabretooth can go away for a while too, but that's clearly not happening.

[Iron Maiden]

When is the last time Doom has been used as a VILLAIN? Scott Lang?

He seems used more as an Anti/reluctant hero as of late... not really a true, big bad, steal the cosmic power Doom.


Same with Loki... bad, evil Loki has been gone for awhile until just recently, where the only thing he has done is laugh and troll new Loki.



Sabertooth and Mystique have been overused a bit I would say. Especially since the X-Men have so many interesting villains they could be using.

I think the villain's brand gets watered down when they are used with a C-lister like Scott Lang. Doom does work well as the villain against a wide variety of heroes so that tends to work against him at times. I recall a story that Joe Sinnott told where Jack Kirby got ticked off when Stan used Doom as the villain in Daredevil. And that is another problem. Many writers will say they are a big fan of the character and want to have their shot. A writer like Hickman wanted to do more with Doom than just have him tangle with Reed so he had him tangle with the Council instead... and developed the bond with Valeria. So he can be the big bad but also be a supporting character.

Of course, then there's the occasion when a writer wants to lampoon said villain and have them lose to Squirrel Girl. She's got a lot of crazy notches on her belt. I mean...Thanos??? Ninety-nine percent of the time the villain is going to lose anyway so the challenge is to have that happen yet still make him/her a worthy opponent for the next one on their dance card.

[cadet]

I agree that Doom, Loki, and Norman Osborn are overdone, as well as "Insert female hero who can't handle having power and goes evil as a result" (ie Scarlet Witch or Phoenix).

There are plety of minor villians that could use the spotlight or be used more effectively (ie Grim Reaper's revamp). I'd like to see more Moonstone, Dr. June Covington, Purple Man, Satannish etc.

[Draegwolf]

Doom's problem is that nobody really knows how to use him and over the years he's become more or less a joke and everyone knows it, Osborn should have never come back in my opinion nor should he have achieved the notoriety he presently has since the fact is he's bat **** insane and would have never been allowed in a position of power. Loki has been handled better but I haven't really kept tabs on him all that much so I can't give an informed opinion.

I do think that they should go away from all the so called A-List villains like 3 mentioned above, Red Skull, Apocalypse, Sabertooth, Mystique, Phoenix, Galactus, Thanos, etc. until they can find ways to fix them. Marvel should focus on taking some of its lesser known villains and finding ways to expand on them and make them out to be more of a threat, and I don't mean taking a stupid character like Orb and having them fluke out because there is no way that I can take that character seriously as he presently is.

Also quit turning villains that are supposed to be major players/badasses into whiny push overs and/or simple henchmen, it happened with Mac Gargan when he was Venom and it's what's happening to Vengeance and Shocker now

[neonrideraryeh]

When is the last time Doom has been used as a VILLAIN? Scott Lang?

He seems used more as an Anti/reluctant hero as of late... not really a true, big bad, steal the cosmic power Doom.

It's kind of what seems to happen to villains who have been around such a long time. They gain too much depth and get enough sympathetic fans and start to be portrayed heroically. Unless they are irredeemable like Red Skull, they'll start to do more anti-hero things as they get more focus on them. Writing villains with that focus seems to be difficult for many writers. The best course of action is to have the secondary villains gain more presence and do evil stuff.

[cadet]

It's kind of what seems to happen to villains who have been around such a long time. They gain too much depth and get enough sympathetic fans and start to be portrayed heroically. Unless they are irredeemable like Red Skull, they'll start to do more anti-hero things as they get more focus on them. Writing villains with that focus seems to be difficult for many writers. The best course of action is to have the secondary villains gain more presence and do evil stuff.

Instead of "Die a hero or live long enough to be a villian" Marvel's philosophy seems to be "Be a villian that gets popular enough, live long enough to be made into an anti-hero"

[neonrideraryeh]

Instead of "Die a hero or live long enough to be a villian" Marvel's philosophy seems to be "Be a villian that gets popular enough, live long enough to be made into an anti-hero"

Clever way of summing it up, seems about right

[Fringe Division]

I don't think your post is in the realm of what the OP is seeking. This is not a "characters we don't like" thread. This is about tried and true villains. How many appearances as a villain does she have? Certainly not as many as say, Rogue who started out as a villain.

Wasp has never been part of a villain team, plotted to take over the world or killed any puppies. And your charge of racism is baseless.

Sure, every time Wasp speaks about mutants as a group, it's hateful, but my pegging her as a racist is totally baseless.

[The Overlord]

Definitely Moonstone. It would be neat to see her as an actual mastermind, and not just the chick who sleeps with the mastermind.

Grey Gargoyle has always been a quirky favorite of mine as well, especially in the old days when he was terrorizing the starlanes with a crew of alien space pirates. That's just whacky fun there. Why should teen Cyclops get all the space pirate action?

More U-Foes (and not just as jobbers seen in the back of a big fight getting schooled) and Red Ghost and Madame Masque. More Mole Man and Controller and Mentallo and Fixer and Taskmaster and Tiger Shark! Graviton is an insanely heavy hitter, when he's in the mood. Diablo can crap out a city full of Hulks as a *distraction.* The Leader is about a hundred times smarter than Richards and Doom combined, let alone sixth tier 'geniuses' like Octavius, and really should get some credit for that.

The thing is, not only do some these villains need more panel time, but they need more interesting and new stories. Too often, non A-list villains are stuck doing the same things they were doing back in the Silver Age, they never get a new story or any character development even though they have been around for 50 years. If non A-list villains are just going to do the same things they have been doing for the past 50 years and never develop as characters, no one has any reason to want to see them again.

Look at say Red Ghost, the Berlin wall fell over 20 years ago and he still acts like a cliched commie mad scientist. Really shouldn't the writers take him beyond that point? What kind of character was he, an idealist who actually believed in communism or just an opportunist scum bag who only wanted a position of power in the USSR. I actually think the former is far more interesting then the later, lots far left wingers became disillusioned with communism after the fall of the USSR and became anarchists, which is the new major ideology of the far left movement, it is far more relevant then old school communism, at least on the streets and in protest movements. This could make Red Ghost a villain who has some legitimate points, but uses bad methods to achieve his goals. Or if you want to make him just an opportunist, you make work for the current Putin regime in Russia or became he can become a Russian ultra nationalist. There is a million things that more interesting then making some generic mad scientist or Cold War relic, but the writers don't want to try anything with him.

So I agree with giving more obscure villains more panel time, but the writers have got to do something new and interesting with them. I have seen some people say guys like the Wrecking Crew and Wizard are overexposed, but when is the last time of consequence or had any sort of character spot light. Give some of these guys better stories and more character spotlight and then people will want to see them again, of course they seem overexposed when all you do is repeat the same stories with them.

Even guys like Magneto and Kingpin started off as B-list villains, it took some character development and better stories before they became A-list characters.

I think the villain's brand gets watered down when they are used with a C-lister like Scott Lang. Doom does work well as the villain against a wide variety of heroes so that tends to work against him at times. I recall a story that Joe Sinnott told where Jack Kirby got ticked off when Stan used Doom as the villain in Daredevil. And that is another problem. Many writers will say they are a big fan of the character and want to have their shot. A writer like Hickman wanted to do more with Doom than just have him tangle with Reed so he had him tangle with the Council instead... and developed the bond with Valeria. So he can be the big bad but also be a supporting character.

Of course, then there's the occasion when a writer wants to lampoon said villain and have them lose to Squirrel Girl. She's got a lot of crazy notches on her belt. I mean...Thanos??? Ninety-nine percent of the time the villain is going to lose anyway so the challenge is to have that happen yet still make him/her a worthy opponent for the next one on their dance card.

DD is hardly a C-list villain, but I do agree with Jack Kirby, he is not a good fit with DD. In his Silver Age appearance in DD, Doom came off kinda stupid and had plan that made no sense and was really easy foil, it seemed like a bad showing. Of course that same story had Trapster defeat Daredevil in hand to hand combat and at this point, that would just seem laughable, DD defeats armies of ninjas, Trapster is not in DD's league when it comes to fighting at this point and since DD was retconned to train to with a supreme ninja master as young man, Trapster would never be in DD's league when it comes to fighting. I think that was just early story, before they had the characters figured out, so its easy to just ignore it.

I DD has a potentially good rogues of suitable street level villains (DD makes far more sense fighting Bullseye or Bushwacker then Doom). Certain villains shouldn't fight certain heroes, at least not on a regular basis. Thanos shouldn't lose to Spidey on a regular basis.

[Dabrikishaw]

Basically any villain that started as a villain but eventually became an antihero or was a heroic female that lost control of her powers is overused.