The backstories and motivations of the ‘bad guys’

[Gillis]

Something that I was considering after watch Angelina Jolie as the titular character Maleficent. It is a rather interesting interpretation because it shows a character that we have thought of as the main villain since 1959 in a different light.

Some of the people have been critical of this, suggesting that the ‘evil witch’ did not need a backstory. Instead, it was enough to know that she was just ‘plain evil’. However, I tend to disagree with that statement since the Nolan Batman Trilogy.

The Joker did not have a backstory or any motivations, the only reason that he was put on the planet was to cause death and suffering. The comics (and the movies) have a running gag where he tells a different story each time, making him just as menacing (if not more) while still leaving the Joker's identity in mystery.

My question is, what do you prefer? Do you prefer your evil to have a good backstory and motivation (making it easier to connect) or do you prefer a malevolent force that solely seems to exist in order to cause chaos and death?

_______________

The complete Marvel reading order - http://cmro.travis-starnes.com

 

[Mad Ones]

I like complicated characters, like Magneto. Joker is the best example of a character that's evil for the sake of evil, but usually that type of character isn't as well developed as the Joker.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I like them in both flavors. Sometimes it's good to have villains that are indeed, complex and challenging to the hero in more ways than just physically.

And.... Sometimes you just want a powerful force of evil that the hero must defeat without a moment of hesitation.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[KevanG]

Most of the bad guys have the 'origin' of they got powers/invented tech and just said '**** social norms. I want money!' and just went bank robbing despite certain abilities being able to generate more money in a month than they could steal in a year.

Look at Electro, he could work for the power company and earn millions annually basically just kicking up the existing current and channeling through his body to make it even more powerful. Mysterio could be the greatest special effects guy to ever exist in movies but by the time movies wanted what he was able to do he was blacklisted because he was a crazy **** and decided wearing a fishbowl on his head would make him respected.

There are a lot of bad guys who already have a crap ton of money so they either do it to gain power (Norman Osborn) or out of boredom (The Vulture).

If you give them a tragic backstory then there should usually be some sort of redemption option down the line. Look at the Rhino (I'm using a lot of Spider-Man villains for some reason ) He came to America to earn money for his family back home. He was stuck in his suit for a long time and eventually he did stop being the Rhino after a stint in prison and even met up with a woman and they moved in together. It ended badly because of some jackass who wanted the Rhino name and refused to just take it when offered by the original without a fight. It was actually a really sad run in the series as you really got to feel bad for the Rhino since all he had was her. It was somewhere around The Amazing Spider-Man #625 if you wanted to read it.

 

[CaptainWagner]

-It really depends on the tory you want to tell. For some stories, a villain doesn't need a backstory, the Joker is a perfect example. Other times you can tell great stories that are elevated through the villains past and motivations. The Rhino arc Kevan mentioned is a great example.

 

[jonathancrane]

It's on a case by case basis.

As for Joker, I thought the Killing Joke declaration worked well for the film, but don't want to see it again. Red Hood or bust...preferably Zero Year Red Hood. Or AO Red Hood.

 

[BLACKVULCAN]

cool! i am game
i dig em both! i dig the ones like you mentioned.. Joker ( which is arguably one of the great characters in literature) with his "all it takes is one bad day" to Galactus who is above the concepts of good and evil and "Galactus just is!".
i will say that usually the bad guys without any backgrounds are the standard run of the mill "villain of the week" who nobody cares about and forget while the ones with fleshed out motivation are the ones people remember and want to see again!
everybody went bonkers when Hal Jordan went bad (it took just one bad day for him)to me it was a honest progression of what might happen to someone who lost everything and everybody they cared for. i though DC has some big ones for taking an A-Lister and turn him bad, something it took Marvel along time to try.
I dig all the angst that Magneto has and you can see that is what drives him but i also dig the Absorbing man who just wants to drink and have money to party. in a way they all have motivation even if its just to have babes and money besides the loftier ones like Mags
just my 2 cents!

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Both are valid. It depends on what the creators want to do with the characters. The Joker doesn't need a backstory because he's meant to be larger than life; he's an embodiment of chaos, so chaining him to one specific origin kind of limits him and brings him back down to earth. On the other hand, Magneto would be a much weaker character if not for his backstory as a Holocaust survivor who tragically becomes a new Hitler. So it's all about the characters and how best to fully realize the themes they represent.

 

[KevanG]

If we have run of the mill mooks like the Enforcers with no pasts that's fine because all they do is be thugs and get beaten up but if we want to have interesting characters we need to connect to them or they need to just be amazing and blow us away.