Should more villains have more expanded back stories?

[THANOSRULES]

If zemo's characterization can be forgot..anybodies can

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Ugh, don't even get me started on Zemo's situation.

The beauty of it, though, is that Taskmaster can still be a blue collar villain with simple motivations regardless. You could almost argue that FVL made that origin tailor made to be omitted or not mentioned much or even ignored by subsequent stories, and that's okay. You could argue the most essential cog is the source of Taskmaster's power and a real name, which, again, doesn't have to come up again.

For the record, Christos Gage has played with that angle in AVENGERS ACADEMY, especially since Finesse is heavily suspected as being his daughter. Of course, Echo from DAREDEVIL and NEW AVENGERS has essentially the same ability without a similar source, so who knows.

So your reasoning for why Van Lente's backstory to Taskmaster is good is because it can be ignored? Um... okay, I guess we agree after all, then.

 

[Dread]

So your reasoning for why Van Lente's backstory to Taskmaster is good is because it can be ignored? Um... okay, I guess we agree after all, then.

My reasoning is that FVL's story can be used to make Taskmaster more sympathetic, or ignored if someone just wants him to be a stock bad-ass who still fails to actually defeat any noteworthy character (as he is typically written) and it won't be out of character.

 

[The Overlord]

My reasoning is that FVL's story can be used to make Taskmaster more sympathetic, or ignored if someone just wants him to be a stock bad-ass who still fails to actually defeat any noteworthy character (as he is typically written) and it won't be out of character.

Now I see a necessity of using a villain as just a plot device sometimes, because the hero is getting story that focuses a lot on him or her. There have been many great stories where the villain is just a plot device and the drama comes from the hero's plight. The problem is, when the villain is always used in that role, they often become bland and uninteresting. Sometimes its good to give a villain more development and that can lead to more stories. Its a bit of a difficult balance, with the villain playing a different role from story to to story, but it can be done.

 

[THANOSRULES]

I never really thought of old school Taskmaster as not being developed out of any real editorial choice in order to define his character as mysterious...I just think he was a C-lister who didnt get much "page time" and got the treatment and limited characterization befitting one of such status.

 

[chamber-music]

Not every villlain needs a backstory but lot need some characterization.

Sympathetic backstories are can be overplayed if every villian has one. I like that some villians are just bad because they are horrible people to begin with.

 

[shiva666]

I think all characters should have a life (well maybe not all automatons) and therefore some back ground. For one all that criminal crap doesn't really work anymore, not in the 21st century corporate new world order. When legal is not right, is the villain a hero for not obeying?

 

[The Overlord]

Not every villlain needs a backstory but lot need some characterization.

Sympathetic backstories are can be overplayed if every villian has one. I like that some villians are just bad because they are horrible people to begin with.

There are tons of psychopathic villains who are villains just because they are sadistic psychopaths. Guys like Purple Man, Bullseye. Mr. Hyde, etc.

The whole "the villain is a villain because he or she is a horrible person" only works if he or she does truly horrible things. If the villains goals are truly contrary to the law, then there is a good reason for them being villains and killing people for fun is contray to the law.

However villains who rob banks aren't "horrible people" there are far worse things to do in the world then rob banks. The goal of robbing banks is to make money and society is about making money, so the villain has tech or powers that allow to make money legitimately, why do they make their lives harder by robbing banks in a city full of super heroes? Horrible people need horrible goals to work as threatening villains.

 

[LeoKragg]

Should more villans have more expanded back stories?

I get that the Marvel I grew up on on is long dead. But I seem to remember a day when a bunch of explaination and back story wasn't needed. All this going back to the past is one of the things that is killing Marvel, connecting things/characters/events that don't need to be connected . Back in the day we liked a little mystery, A hint. So, I vote "No". Especially after the whole Wolverine /James Howlett/Bone claws garbage- God forbid, we don't need any more of these types of set in stone origins by some writer going off on a bad idea villan, hero or otherwise.