Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities The law of diminishing villainous returns...

...or why did they have to keep bringing him back?

Talking over in the Avengers thread, thoughts turned to Thanos, and the fact that the more he was uised...the weaker the stories got, or at least the resolutions to those stories.

Some villains can survive in the ever repeating cycle of comic books. I think that the businessman Luthor was a great character in that he could manipulate things behind the scenes and operate in the shadows, while maintaining a pristine image in the public. Some are just plain old crooks who are dumb enough to keep going after the same hero. Most of Spider-Man's and Flash's Rogues come to mind.

Characters like Venom, Thanos, Korvak, etc. In my opinion, loose something every time they appear. Magneto, while a compelling character drives me nuts because every few years he switches sides,.

When a character that should by all rights beat the heroes without a problem continues to rear their ugly heads and continually get beaten, you have to come up with something like Thanos's self hatred that allows the heroes to keep defeating him because he really does not want to win.

Dr. Doom is a great character with a ton of potential that has been used and abused over the years. Retconning defeats out of existence by saying they were Doombots years later is sloppy writing. It takes away from what the hero(s) that beat him accomplished.

I have more that I feel should have been retired long ago...but what are some of yoour thoughts on this?

Anyone you think that should have been a one (or maybe two) shot villain?

Do you think I'm wrong? Why?

...and why does the Joker still live and breath in the DCU? A Mass murdering psychopath with no hope for rehabilitation that has killed thousands in a variety of countries should not be among the living...but maybe that's another thread.

You could probably add Darkseid to this list.

I think that one reason you have reoccurring villains is that they bring in sales. You have a good story with a good villain, people are more likely to buy another issue featuring that villain. Another reason is that new writers want to do their take on the villain. Some of which can be good, some of which can be bad.

The downside to not having reoccurring villains is that the rotating slew of villains that the hero fights blur into indistinctness.


I don't think reoccurrence is the problem, but overuse is. And overuse is also a problem with cartoon superheroes. OMG the villain the Teen Titans just fought is Deathstroke. OMG the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are fighting Shredder again.

I think the reason Darkseid became this post-Crisis was because of the lack of villains that could fight toe-to-toe with Superman. I think Darkseid has regained credibility due to respectful handling in the DCAU cartoons and comics in the '00s. I knew someone whose favorite villain was Thanos. I think he became Captain Marvel's main villain simply because his personality is more interesting than a lot of the other Cosmic types.

In my opinion, power is only half of a villain's appeal. I know plenty of people who say the Joker is their favorite villain. Batman has an extensive Rogue's Gallery, but the Joker takes center stage because he is the hero's exact opposite.

Dev, the Batman-Joker thing is one of many, many things that drives me nuts about the Bat-verse. I wish they'd swipe the driving idea behind Matt Wagner's Grendel, and treat the "Joker" as a force or malign spirit that possesses people. When one version is destroyed, the spirit eventually always finds a new host to inhabit.

A lot of Legion fans complain that the team has no villain of the Joker's caliber, but I think having that kind of villain is a mixed blessing at best.

My idea for the Joker is that he's actually already one of the undead, so attempts to kill him off are doomed to failure. Interestingly, writers in the Golden Age were actually concerned about this very problem, which is why they made him less homicidal after his first couple of appearances.

Wow- both Cleome and EDE's Joker ideas are awesome, and either would help me stomach the character more.

Those are more palatable and logical ideas for the Joker, although I'm so tired of seeing him that I wish they'd just take a two year break with the character.

It must be hard to top some of these villains; what do you do for an encore after Joker, Darkseid or von Doom? Creators seem to just increase the atrocity level; even that has a breaking point (for me, at least). And I think we're all tired of galactic threats as well.

A lot of villains depend on shock value, doing things that are just too horrible and revolting. The ones who are devious and scheming, like Lex Luthor, have more staying power for me.

I agree with FC and Emily; a threat doesn't have to be galactic or particularly powerful in order to make the story compelling. Remember when Cosmic Boy faced the crooks who fireballed his family? In terms of numbers endangered, the threat was small, but making it personal made the story stand out.

Death doesn't even have to be part of the equation. Nobody died in the Universo Project, but the violation of all those Legionnaires' minds made it one of my favorite stories (and Universo actually took over the Earth for a while, a feat few villains have accomplished).

Power is not the main thing here though. It's the villain comes in and does whatever and is invariably defeated...only to return again and do the exact same thing.

How many times has Thanos been out to extinguish half the life in the galaxy? He many times can Trigon come back to threaten all of reality? When do repeat offender villains become a joke? Not because they are lame per se...but how many times can you go to the well? This can easily apply to characters like Ra's Al Ghul. He has grandiose plans...but is always defeated. I'm not trying to say that the villains need to win or be killed...maybe it is just over exposure that is the problem...thus the law of diminishing returns every time they appear.

I've been thinking about it, and I think there are basically three categories of villains a hero can be dealt with.

1. One or A Few Main Villains- A character may have many villains, but only a few manage to gain a hold upon the writer/audience. This is most notably seen in characters such as Superman and Wonder Woman, who cannot easily be beaten physically. On further thought, it can also be seen in books such as Daredevil in which the villains control large amounts of minions.

2. Pantheon of Villains- The character has many villains that gain a hold on the audience, but naturally some villains are more popular and thus used more often than others. The most obvious example is Batman Rogue's Gallery. While characters such as Kite-Man may appear every once in awhile, the core of the gallery consists of villains like the Riddler, Poison Ivy, and Scarecrow. Of that pantheon, the Joker is arguably the archenemy.

3. Forces- These vary from the drug-dealers in street-level books and the invading alien armies in cosmic books. While the group often has a leader that falls into one of the above types, these characters usually only make one appearance and there is little to distinguish them from each other. Forces can be used in comic books as an allegory for real world events; like the Kree-Skrull War was inspired by the Cold War.

It is tiring seeing villains rehash the same schemes over and over again...Especially when they fight solo heroes. At least if they fight a team, the writer can use different team members for the next encounter.

Emily, those categorizations make a lot of sense. How about villain teams, I guess they'd fall under pantheon of villains as well?

Overuse is the main problem. Each time a super-villain is used it should be something special.

This is most important when re-using an old villain. The current creative team has an obligation to past creators and fans to treat that old character with respect. In the Silver Age, a character like the Melter or the Unicorn was a serious, major super-villain in the stories they appeared. In later years, some writers need a 'villain of the month' and incorrectly use them. That leads to future writers and fans labelling them as 'B-lister' when that wasn't always the case.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be some easily beaten super-villains: however, creators should make their own ones then or re-use super-villains who were always as such.

Another problem is lazy writing where (A) a writer wants the hero to beat someone quickly in the first 8 pages or so or (B) the writer wants the hero to battle a whole random grouping of villains. When that happens, it cheapens the menace of the villain. The other extreme is that once that super-villain is reduced to C-list status, an even newer writer might long for the glory days of when the villain was taken seriously and so incorrectly assumes the best way to do that is have said villain start murdering, raping and committing atrocities.

What's needed on these series is an editor with a firm hand. When a creator wants to use an established villain, they better have a damn good argument for it. Otherwise they should create their own new ones.

Regarding the Joker and why he still exists in the DCU:

Oftentimes on message boards I've read where posters actually blame Batman for the Joker's crimes because he has not killed him (not here by Dev specifically). In my view, this is totally wrong. It is not Batman's responsibility to kill a man, even one as vile as the Joker who I think most people might agree no longer has the right to live. That responsibility lies entirely on the jusice system and the people of Gotham City.

In fact, I think the view should be totally reversed. I think it should be Batman who is totally perplexed and irritated that Gotham and its criminal justice system *still* haven't executed the Joker for his crimes.

Thanks Cobie, that is actually the point that I was trying to make. The authorities (Gotham, State, Federal) have done nothing but throw this man in an asylum that he continually escapes from...without trying to do more. (No Salvation Run doesn't count)

I do not want my heroes being Judge, Jury and Executioner )there are a few exceptions to that rule...but they are sometimes considered villains as well - Punisher, various mercs that straddle the fine line between hero and villain at times. THat should very well be uip to the authorities.

Of course, then you run into other problems as well if you are able to successfully take villains off the board in a realistic way. But like Cobie said...any writer that wants to use The Joker, Mongul or some other established villain, should have one hell of a story to tell.

I agree with Quis's point, above. The Joker is still around because he sells. Other popular villains also get reused because they sell.

[SPOILER WARNING: The rest of this post discusses the movie "The Dark Knight." While I could put this in a spoiler field, I think it's safe to say that a four-year-old movie has been seen by everyone who wants to see it. In any case, you've been warned.]

I was thinking about this while watching "The Dark Knight" for the fourth time a few months ago. At the end of movie, Batman defeats the Joker by flipping him off a high-rise building. If comics-related stories had any semblence of reality, the Joker would have gone splat! on the pavement below. End of story. But this is comics (whether its on the printed page or not), and Batman is, well, Batman, so he saves the Joker's life by shooting his bat-cable (or whatever it's called) around the falling Joker's leg. (Again, thinking real world: there's a 99.99999999 percent change Batman would have missed.)

And, then, while he's hovering upside down, the Joker tells Batman, "I have a feeling you and I are destined to do this forever" or words to that effect. No other line in a movie better sets up sequels (ironic, since Heath Ledger's untimely death curtailed any chance of the Joker making a return engagement) or explains why the Joker didn't (and never will) go splat: Because he's popular. Because he sells.

The question then becomes, is it possible to do something truly new with a villain who has been used and abused to death (figuratively speaking)? I think the examples given above in this thread show that it's not likely. Cold as it may sound, Ledger's death probably did the Batman movie franchise a favor: Since the Joker can't be used again in this version of Batman (unless some unthinking wonk tries to recast the role), Ledger's performance stands out for what it is: truly frightening, disturbing, and brilliant. Further appearances would likely have been watered down or strained his credibility past the breaking point.

Over at TV Tropes they call this 'Villain Decay.'

In the first appearance of a villain, they usually get a big splashy intro, and kick a lot of butt, to establish how badass they are, and in subsequent appearances, they get less and less impressive. Newer writers eventually use them as fodder to establish how badass *their* new villains are (Juggernaut getting thrown to earth to herald the coming of Onslaught, for instance).

The shadow demons of Crisis on Infinite Earths suffered massive villain decay. They were *terrifying* and nothing protected against them, sliding past force fields, energy barriers, armor, etc. and killing anyone they touched, no matter how tough they thought they were. One touch and people would be blasted apart.

More recently, they've been shown wrapped around people with no super-human durability or
defenses, and not only aren't they not blasted apart, they don't even seem to be hurt.

Brings up an interesting topic (which is not completely related to this thread's topic...) - have heroes' stands on capital punishment been explored? Would any heroes break a villain out of jail in order to save their lives?

It was established that both Wally West and Hal Jordan are pro-capital punishment in the past.

The premise of a hero breaking out a villain so he's not executed is a fascinating one though! I'm shocked it hasn't been done before!

Thanks for the info, Cobie. Know of any heroes who are firmly against capital punishment?

Hey! If that idea ever gets used, I should be credited Maybe this is something we can use in the novella... (off-topic)

Heh...heh...you have no idea what's coming up after...keep that thought in mind.

I never bought or read it, but I know there was a Batman GN (don't know the title) based on a similar idea a few years ago: The Joker is on death row for a murder he didn't commit. Batman sets out to find the real killer before the Joker can be put to death.

I don't think the Joker was broken out by Batman, but the premise is close to what you refer to. Apparently, the obvious moral dilemma as to whether he should have just let the Joker die is explored as well.

Heh.

[snip]

Honestly, I have fonder memories of that story than of Great Darkness. I wish I could break it out of mothballs again and see how it holds up.

Dog knows, I really miss stories where there was drama without bodies piled up all over the freakin' place!

Cobalt Kid wrote:
"Overuse is the main problem. Each time a super-villain is used it should be something special."

During Paul Levitz' 2nd run on the book (when he work ed with Pat Broderick, Keith Giffen, Steve Lightle, Greg LaRocque, and many others), it seemed to me he was determined in certain cases to bring back old villains and do ONE-- "GREAT"-- story about them, a story that would be the BEST and most memorable story that villain had ever appeared in. The most obvious instances were "The Great Darkness Saga" and "The Universo Project". In both cases, the story had a long build-up, went on for several chapters, and tended to have long-term effects after. When you have a LOT of villains, there's no need to keep bringing any of them back over and over and over... just make sure EACH one you bring back, you have a REALLY GOOD story that it worth bringing them back for.


"What's needed on these series is an editor with a firm hand."

With corporate-owned series, this is especially true. NO one creator or team of creators have control over a series, so SOMEBODY has to. In this day and age where editors become disposable replaceable employees like everyone else... well, you can see the chaos that's resulted. LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES was one of the saddest victims, with no less than 2 "editors" (and in this case I use the word loosely!!) getting FIRED off the book during the "Five Years Later" era (one of those within 4 months of taking the job!!!).


"Otherwise they should create their own new ones."

Just yesterday, someone at another board mentioned that "the big two" have lots of very creative people quite capable of creating their own SERIES, loaded with tons of new characters. But "the big two" seem to prefer, instead, to continue publishing new stories of characters created GENERATIONS ago.

If they acted like "real" publishers (publishing, rather than OWNING, series), maybe more of those new series would have abetter chance to make a real dent in the marketplace.

"I really miss stories where there was drama without bodies piled up all over the freakin' place!"

You just reminded me of a story I wrote back in high school. My hero was having a shoot-out with an army of thugs-- on a stairway-- and as the bodies began to pile up, he became concerned that if they piled any higher, he might have trouble getting out of the building. (Yeah, it was intended as a comedy... a SICK comedy, but a comedy all the same.)