Non-Evil Supervillains

[Michael Watkins]

Yeah he recreated the world the way he wanted to. But without him there would be no world. Sure he is the Villain but is he all about being evil? Nah.

I'd argue that seeing someone wield ultimate power gives you the most honest look at their personality. I have no doubt that Doom doesn't see himself as evil (it's a silly label, anyways). but his actions make him seem kind of monstrous. saving the world means less than nothing if you turn it into hell. he was very much an Old Testament God. life was, generally, not better for people. and, in the end, he admitted that Reed would have done a better job of it.

[The Overlord]

The punch clock working class villains are one category. "Hey, I gotta make a living and I have this quilted brown and yellow super suit, so I'm gonna rob a bank" type guys and gals.

But I don't think these types of villains are naturally sympathetic, why should I find a super villain who robs banks and have no redeeming values sympathetic? Sure they are less evil then serial killers or genocidal dictators, but bank robber villains in of themselves are not sympathetic, robbing banks isn't sympathetic, but it is not menacing either.

People say Shocker is sympathetic, but there is one story where he tried to murder 12 people just for a pay day, how is he sympathetic and how is that not evil? He is an attempted mass murderer.

I think these bank robber villains need more developed personalities to be truly sympathetic, give them real motives rather then woke up one morning and started robbing banks (why is Trapster a criminal, he could have used his paste to make money legally) and they need more developed personalities then "Mwa, ha, ha! I'm the greedy bank robbing villain!''

Bank robbery is a crime in decline in the real world, hacking into a bank's mainframe will net you more profits then physically trying to rob it, so why are all these guys still trying to rob banks? It takes more then a villain not being a serial killer to be truly sympathetic.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/14/today...r-to-find.html

I think super villains should act more like modern criminals and less like criminals from the 1960s.

[Matternativ]

I'd argue that seeing someone wield ultimate power gives you the most honest look at their personality. I have no doubt that Doom doesn't see himself as evil (it's a silly label, anyways). but his actions make him seem kind of monstrous. saving the world means less than nothing if you turn it into hell. he was very much an Old Testament God. life was, generally, not better for people. and, in the end, he admitted that Reed would have done a better job of it.

That is true. I guess the whole evil and good thing really depends on the point of view.

[Schrecken]

Yeah, but if you are just sitting in some abandoned warehouse using a computer to hack the bank, no one gets to see your awesome super villain costume. Plus, It's much more fun to blow stuff up. Bonnie and Clyde shooting up the place is much more entertaining than "LeetHaXoR21" sitting in his underwear watching a progress bar load.

When you have shock gauntlets to blow off doors, metal arms to wreck up the place, energy blasts to vaporize the screaming bank tellers and armor that bullets bounce off of, It's much more fun to do it with some style. You can rob a bank and get away with nothing, but people are gonna remember your day of havoc more than some guy that hacks a couple million dollars from a bank. Plus, you can't hack gold bars, or get the pleasure of covering yourself in all that sweet cash you just got. Or have a diamond shower immediately after the robbery.

[The Overlord]

Yeah, but if you are just sitting in some abandoned warehouse using a computer to hack the bank, no one gets to see your awesome super villain costume. Plus, It's much more fun to blow stuff up. Bonnie and Clyde shooting up the place is much more entertaining than "LeetHaXoR21" sitting in his underwear watching a progress bar load.

When you have shock gauntlets to blow off doors, metal arms to wreck up the place, energy blasts to vaporize the screaming bank tellers and armor that bullets bounce off of, It's much more fun to do it with some style. You can rob a bank and get away with nothing, but people are gonna remember your day of havoc more than some guy that hacks a couple million dollars from a bank. Plus, you can't hack gold bars, or get the pleasure of covering yourself in all that sweet cash you just got. Or have a diamond shower immediately after the robbery.

1. And how would they plan not to get beat up by random super heroes and sent jail, because that is what happened the last 534 times that was tried? If they still in the warehouse, the heroes will never bother them and they will get away with that "one last score" they have yammering about for 5 decades and you will not be remembered as some loser who failed hundreds of times and was too stupid to quit.

2. How is any of this morally complex or sympathetic? Why should I care whether the villain robs a bank or not, the banks are slimy and the villain is some one dimensional greedy jerk, I have no reason to care whether the villain succeeds or fails in their task, heck I barely have a reason to care if the hero stops him, it seems like there a million more productive things he could be doing instead. None of this interesting to me, because its just an excuse for the same giant fight scene in a bank we have seen since 1961, it doesn't tell me anything interesting or new about these villains, it just recycles the same story from the 60s. Frankly there are more real stakes to a hero stopping a serial killer then a bank robber, stopping a serial killer saves lives, stopping a bank robber saves the bank's insurance rates.

Let's compare Shocker to Captain Cold, they are both greedy villains who rob banks, but Cold has loved ones he cares and a code of ethics he sticks to, Shocker barely has any personality beyond greed or cowardice, which one of these villains is better? Why not put Shocker into real moral dilemma, have a crime boss hire Shocker to kill a rival and his family, so Shocker could agree and get some easy money or refuse and have some moral principals. There, I have actually written a new story for Shocker and tried to expand his character, rather telling the same old cliched story everyone uses with him.

I don't know why Marvel fans and writers ask so little from their villains that they demand they remain the same one dimensional bank robbers from the 1960s, instead of evolving into more complex characters? Being a bank robber over a serial killer isn't sympathetic, it is the least a villain could do more morally, so I say ask more from such villains in terms of moral complexity.

[Michael Watkins]

1. And how would they plan not to get beat up by random super heroes and sent jail, because that is what happened the last 534 times that was tried? If they still in the warehouse, the heroes will never bother them and they will get away with that "one last score" they have yammering about for 5 decades and you will not be remembered as some loser who failed hundreds of times and was too stupid to quit.

2. How is any of this morally complex or sympathetic? Why should I care whether the villain robs a bank or not, the banks are slimy and the villain is some one dimensional greedy jerk, I have no reason to care whether the villain succeeds or fails in their task, heck I barely have a reason to care if the hero stops him, it seems like there a million more productive things he could be doing instead. None of this interesting to me, because its just an excuse for the same giant fight scene in a bank we have seen since 1961, it doesn't tell me anything interesting or new about these villains, it just recycles the same story from the 60s. Frankly there are more real stakes to a hero stopping a serial killer then a bank robber, stopping a serial killer saves lives, stopping a bank robber saves the bank's insurance rates.

Let's compare Shocker to Captain Cold, they are both greedy villains who rob banks, but Cold has loved ones he cares and a code of ethics he sticks to, Shocker barely has any personality beyond greed or cowardice, which one of these villains is better? Why not put Shocker into real moral dilemma, have a crime boss hire Shocker to kill a rival and his family, so Shocker could agree and get some easy money or refuse and have some moral principals. There, I have actually written a new story for Shocker and tried to expand his character, rather telling the same old cliched story everyone uses with him.

I don't know why Marvel fans and writers ask so little from their villains that they demand they remain the same one dimensional bank robbers from the 1960s, instead of evolving into more complex characters? Being a bank robber over a serial killer isn't sympathetic, it is the least a villain could do more morally, so I say ask more from such villains in terms of moral complexity.

do you know enough about marvel villains to pass judgment? it's easy to cherry pick a few villains who lack substance. but the Hood has a family. Titania and Absorbing Man are a real married couple. Wizard became so obsessed with legacy and predestination that he cloned himself. Power Broker kept up with the times by creating a supervillain App. all of that stuff is out there for anyone willing to look.

[Schrecken]

Shocker has actually spared spider-man on one occasion when he could have easily wasted him. and he turned on Ock to help the Guardians of the galaxy after they saved him.

Plus, he was awesome in "Superior Foes". He's not super multi-layerd, but he's not paper thin. I don't need every villain to have a sob story about how daddy beat them or deep psychological issues or whatever.

[The Overlord]

do you know enough about marvel villains to pass judgment? it's easy to cherry pick a few villains who lack substance. but the Hood has a family. Titania and Absorbing Man are a real married couple. Wizard became so obsessed with legacy and predestination that he cloned himself. Power Broker kept up with the times by creating a supervillain App. all of that stuff is out there for anyone willing to look.

Except no one has red every issue with every villain ever, but I can say this, there is no cohesive plan with most of these villains, stuff gets introduced and then dropped and they go nowhere as characters.

Let me ask you simple question about Wizard, why is he a super villain? Because he was a successfully famous business man and yet he decided to capture Human Torch because he was bored? How is that compelling or logical, what was his plan here, keep Torch as a pet and hope no one comes looking for him? For an evil genius, he is not very bright. Also what was the deal with that mental breakdown he had, it came and went and told is nothing about the character, because it was not explored in real way. With this mental breakdown, he kept on yammering about God, what was that about? Was he religious at one point in his life and decided to become religious again after he realized his life as a super villain has been a failure? Why was Wizard working for the Hood right after Civil War? Sure the clone story is okay, but it doesn't change the fact that Wizard is generally a badly written villain, without defining motives or direction.

Heck Bendis seemed to forget the Hood's family when he wrote him as pure evil gangster guy.

Titania and Absorbing Man have their moments, but even they fall into generic villainy at times, like She-Hulk issues where Titania is trying to kill her because she's the bad guy.

Look at Vulture, at point he had a daughter in Shield that he was protecting, that went no where. He had a sick grand son he was providing for, that went nowhere either. The writers forget these things and stick him back to square one.

I actually thought DC was doing better with their villains, putting them in new exciting directions on villains and sticking with them, at least until New 52. It seems like at Marvel, the fans and the writers demand a lot of these characters remain in the same boxes they were created in back in the 1960s.

Shocker has actually spared spider-man on one occasion when he could have easily wasted him. and he turned on Ock to help the Guardians of the galaxy after they saved him.

Plus, he was awesome in "Superior Foes". He's not super multi-layerd, but he's not paper thin. I don't need every villain to have a sob story about how daddy beat them or deep psychological issues or whatever.

Didn't Shocker spare Spidey only because his employers paid him double to do so, that is hardly a moral choice and if he is so moral, why did he agree to kill 12 people for some psychopathic crime boss? Plus he takes jobs from genocidal scum bags like the Friends of Humanity, is there anyone he wouldn't work for?

I read Superior Foes and Shocker just felt like a comic relief goof ball then a truly fleshed out villain, it didn't really tell me why Shocker didn't just use his intellect to make money legitimately, rather then being a 3rd rate criminal who doesn't even have the respect from this allies. If Shocker is just supposed to be comic relief, why bother even writing serious stories about him, why not have Spidey give him a wedgie 3 pages into a story, before the real villain shows up?

I'm not asking much here, I'm asking that if a villain is supposed to serious, the writers give him or her a defined personality and make them compelling, bank robbing super villain is not a character, its an archetype. If a villain is supposed to be comic relief, then make him or her as ridiculous as possible and don't try to base an arc around them. I think trying to write a villain as serious in one story and then total comic relief in another, just makes for a muddled and confused character, pick one or the other.

[Michael Watkins]

Except no one has red every issue with every villain ever, but I can say this, there is no cohesive plan with most of these villains, stuff gets introduced and then dropped and they go nowhere as characters.

Let me ask you simple question about Wizard, why is he a super villain? Because he was a successfully famous business man and yet he decided to capture Human Torch because he was bored? How is that compelling or logical, what was his plan here, keep Torch as a pet and hope no one comes looking for him? For an evil genius, he is not very bright. Also what was the deal with that mental breakdown he had, it came and went and told is nothing about the character, because it was not explored in real way. With this mental breakdown, he kept on yammering about God, what was that about? Was he religious at one point in his life and decided to become religious again after he realized his life as a super villain has been a failure? Why was Wizard working for the Hood right after Civil War? Sure the clone story is okay, but it doesn't change the fact that Wizard is generally a badly written villain, without defining motives or direction.

Wittman has the same issue as Doom and most other mastermind types. they have large fragile egos. Wizard could have been a steve jobs-level brand. but he was born into a time where there were shinier more interesting things to look at. he feels cheated/robbed of his destiny. couple that with his obsessiveness and you get a villain. each defeat makes it that much more important to defeat the Fantastic Four. if he ever did, he'd soon realize that his problem is internal.

Heck Bendis seemed to forget the Hood's family when he wrote him as pure evil gangster guy.

Titania and Absorbing Man have their moments, but even they fall into generic villainy at times, like She-Hulk issues where Titania is trying to kill her because she's the bad guy.

Look at Vulture, at point he had a daughter in Shield that he was protecting, that went no where. He had a sick grand son he was providing for, that went nowhere either. The writers forget these things and stick him back to square one.

yeah, villains aren't exclusive to one writer. so stuff gets dropped occasionally. same thing happens with the heroes. just look at the thread asking about Jane Foster's son and estranged husband. Hood's family and Titania's relationship received coverage in the Illuminati series that no one read. did you support it?

[The Overlord]

Wittman has the same issue as Doom and most other mastermind types. they have large fragile egos. Wizard could have been a steve jobs-level brand. but he was born into a time where there were shinier more interesting things to look at. he feels cheated/robbed of his destiny. couple that with his obsessiveness and you get a villain. each defeat makes it that much more important to defeat the Fantastic Four. if he ever did, he'd soon realize that his problem is internal.

Lex Luthor has a fragile ego, but he was smart enough to keep his assets and be one of the most important corporate tycoons in the DCU, he is a way bigger deal in his universe then Wizard is in his.


Wizard could have been the Lex Luthor of the MU, instead he's a 3rd rate Doom wannabe with way fewer accomplishments and a stupid phallic helmet.

Wizard could actually be really dangerous if he used asymmetrical warfare and targeted civilians in an attempt to demoralized the FF, rather then taking on the FF on head on all the time, he is not even close to being an intellectual match to Reed one on one. Also the Frightful Four just seem sad nowadays, the FF usually beat them in terms of power, intelligence and team work, the FF seemed to have outgrown the Frightful Four a long time.

Wizard's ego is far greater then his abilities, so he always makes the same mistakes, he never forms a Frightful Fourteen and just uses superior numbers to win, as long as he sticks to Frightful Fours, he will always lose the same way. Why not have him over come his ego a bit and become more dangerous in the process, using more ruthless and pragmatic tactics, rather then self defeating tactics that feed his ego, but do little else? Wizard is in a rut, why not develop him into a more cunning and dangerous enemy, rather then leaving a stale character who will always lose the same way, because he can never realize his flaws and adjust his tactics, it has become boring.

yeah, villains aren't exclusive to one writer. so stuff gets dropped occasionally. same thing happens with the heroes. just look at the thread asking about Jane Foster's son and estranged husband. Hood's family and Titania's relationship received coverage in the Illuminati series that no one read. did you support it?

I don't read every comic ever, I'm pretty sure there are comics you didn't read that were good, so unless you have read every comic ever, this argument goes nowhere. You can't just say "well this villain got some good characterization in some mini series hardly anyone read, so it doesn't matter that they are generic bad guys in all the main title" that is not how the comic book industry works, one good story and a bunch of lackluster ones do not make for a great villain, you have to consistently write them well, not once and a while.

Also DC before new 52 had plans for villains and a lot of those plans stuck even after New 52.

Captain Cold remains a criminal with a moral code, he doesn't try to kill 12 civilians to get rich, Catman has remained a member of the Secret Six and a anti hero, they didn't put him back as a generic criminal. Black Hand became an avatar and they stuck with that, they didn't make him a generic super villain again.

Imagine if Magneto's switch from a generic bad guy to a full on Anti Villain only happened for one story and was forgotten. He would be a nothing character, instead of one of the greatest, most compelling villains in the MU.

I don't see why fans and writers ask so little from most Marvel villains, I'm really not asking for much.

[dragonmp93]

Except no one has red every issue with every villain ever, but I can say this, there is no cohesive plan with most of these villains, stuff gets introduced and then dropped and they go nowhere as characters.

Let me ask you simple question about Wizard, why is he a super villain? Because he was a successfully famous business man and yet he decided to capture Human Torch because he was bored? How is that compelling or logical, what was his plan here, keep Torch as a pet and hope no one comes looking for him? For an evil genius, he is not very bright. Also what was the deal with that mental breakdown he had, it came and went and told is nothing about the character, because it was not explored in real way. With this mental breakdown, he kept on yammering about God, what was that about? Was he religious at one point in his life and decided to become religious again after he realized his life as a super villain has been a failure? Why was Wizard working for the Hood right after Civil War? Sure the clone story is okay, but it doesn't change the fact that Wizard is generally a badly written villain, without defining motives or direction.

Heck Bendis seemed to forget the Hood's family when he wrote him as pure evil gangster guy.

Titania and Absorbing Man have their moments, but even they fall into generic villainy at times, like She-Hulk issues where Titania is trying to kill her because she's the bad guy.

Look at Vulture, at point he had a daughter in Shield that he was protecting, that went no where. He had a sick grand son he was providing for, that went nowhere either. The writers forget these things and stick him back to square one.

I actually thought DC was doing better with their villains, putting them in new exciting directions on villains and sticking with them, at least until New 52. It seems like at Marvel, the fans and the writers demand a lot of these characters remain in the same boxes they were created in back in the 1960s.

Didn't Shocker spare Spidey only because his employers paid him double to do so, that is hardly a moral choice and if he is so moral, why did he agree to kill 12 people for some psychopathic crime boss? Plus he takes jobs from genocidal scum bags like the Friends of Humanity, is there anyone he wouldn't work for?

I read Superior Foes and Shocker just felt like a comic relief goof ball then a truly fleshed out villain, it didn't really tell me why Shocker didn't just use his intellect to make money legitimately, rather then being a 3rd rate criminal who doesn't even have the respect from this allies. If Shocker is just supposed to be comic relief, why bother even writing serious stories about him, why not have Spidey give him a wedgie 3 pages into a story, before the real villain shows up?

I'm not asking much here, I'm asking that if a villain is supposed to serious, the writers give him or her a defined personality and make them compelling, bank robbing super villain is not a character, its an archetype. If a villain is supposed to be comic relief, then make him or her as ridiculous as possible and don't try to base an arc around them. I think trying to write a villain as serious in one story and then total comic relief in another, just makes for a muddled and confused character, pick one or the other.

Well, that's how the X-men ran out of decent villains, and why their current rogue gallery is made up of the Inhuman, the Avengers, the Purifiers and the US government.

Lex Luthor has a fragile ego, but he was smart enough to keep his assets and be one of the most important corporate tycoons in the DCU, he is a way bigger deal in his universe then Wizard is in his.


Wizard could have been the Lex Luthor of the MU, instead he's a 3rd rate Doom wannabe with way fewer accomplishments and a stupid phallic helmet.

Wizard could actually be really dangerous if he used asymmetrical warfare and targeted civilians in an attempt to demoralized the FF, rather then taking on the FF on head on all the time, he is not even close to being an intellectual match to Reed one on one. Also the Frightful Four just seem sad nowadays, the FF usually beat them in terms of power, intelligence and team work, the FF seemed to have outgrown the Frightful Four a long time.

Wizard's ego is far greater then his abilities, so he always makes the same mistakes, he never forms a Frightful Fourteen and just uses superior numbers to win, as long as he sticks to Frightful Fours, he will always lose the same way. Why not have him over come his ego a bit and become more dangerous in the process, using more ruthless and pragmatic tactics, rather then self defeating tactics that feed his ego, but do little else? Wizard is in a rut, why not develop him into a more cunning and dangerous enemy, rather then leaving a stale character who will always lose the same way, because he can never realize his flaws and adjust his tactics, it has become boring.





I don't read every comic ever, I'm pretty sure there are comics you didn't read that were good, so unless you have read every comic ever, this argument goes nowhere. You can't just say "well this villain got some good characterization in some mini series hardly anyone read, so it doesn't matter that they are generic bad guys in all the main title" that is not how the comic book industry works, one good story and a bunch of lackluster ones do not make for a great villain, you have to consistently write them well, not once and a while.

Also DC before new 52 had plans for villains and a lot of those plans stuck even after New 52.

Captain Cold remains a criminal with a moral code, he doesn't try to kill 12 civilians to get rich, Catman has remained a member of the Secret Six and a anti hero, they didn't put him back as a generic criminal. Black Hand became an avatar and they stuck with that, they didn't make him a generic super villain again.

Imagine if Magneto's switch from a generic bad guy to a full on Anti Villain only happened for one story and was forgotten. He would be a nothing character, instead of one of the greatest, most compelling villains in the MU.

I don't see why fans and writers ask so little from most Marvel villains, I'm really not asking for much.

Well, the fancy hacker that robs banks sounds boring, Danielle Cage with a taser would be enough to stop him/her.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Daredevil #63 Apr 1970
"The Girl--Or the Gladiator?"
Gladiator, feigning innocence, lures Matt and Foggy to prison

and tries to make a break for it;

DD has to face down his old foe

instead of trying to stop Karen from leaving for California.

Letter to the editor from comics writer Martin Pasko.

Script by Roy Thomas, pencils by Gene Colan, inks by Syd Shores

[marshal88]

sandman

[Dreaded Porcupine]

A

the majority of working class marvel villains are non-evil; your Sandmans, Beetles, Hypno-Hustlers, etc. when I started reading, Beetle/Abner Jenkins was my favorite. and it was because my first encounter with him involved him desperately wanting to be liked by his criminal co-workers but also having to betray them. seeing a villain have to struggle with his own conscience was fun to see. I prefer the D-Listers. they tend to have more personality than some of the take-over-the-world types (who rarely self-reflect). it's also fun (sometimes) to see a villain start out as kind of sympathetic but become evil due to circumstances. my example would be someone like Hydro-Man or Living Laser. Laser (one of my top 5 favorites) was originally just a lovesick borderline personality-disordered individual. but losing his human form (his sensory perception w/ it) drove him nuts. something similar happened when Hydro-Man realized that he was virtually immortal. he started casually drowning people and not in the course of committing a crime.

I agree with you Michael. My favorites are the D-listers as well. Abe Jenkins is a great example. From the Beetle to the Masters of Evil to Mach I-X to the Thunderbolts to now a bonafide superhero. Look at Boomerang. He’s hanging with Peter Parker these days. Roger Gocking the Porcupine is now a full fledged good guy in Spider-Woman.

[danielsan52]

Volcana. What ever happened to her??