What is better: Evil Villains or sympathetic villains?

[Nirvana]

Pure evil, the sympathetic villain **** that Marvel does needs to stop.

 

[Arach Knight]

Pure evil, the sympathetic villain **** that Marvel does needs to stop.

Yep...because we all know Sinster has a heart of gold underneath his callous exterior. I mean, why else would he slaughter an entire community of underground mutants (prior to recent and stupid retcons)? We might as well Green Goblin on that list. Nice guys at heart always drop their nemesis loved ones off of bridges. I believe i'm being saracastic enough...which I should refrain from...but I feel like your statement borders on hyperbole. Marvel does have more sympathetic villains than DC does, but at least they are believable (Superboy Prime was the worst attempt at a sympathetic villain, next to Cyborg Superman). And Marvel still has a library of characters that are pretty much evil for evil's sake.

 

[Vanguard07]

Darkseid killed Orion, when they fought at the end of Countdown.

Wow, so two of my three favorite DC characters got killed and I had no idea.
Shame.

Did Orion at least go out with a good showing?

(For the record my three favorite DC characters have always been: Orion, Martian Manhunter and Wally West)

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

I don't feel sorry for The Joker, I did when he turned into The Joker, he JUST found out his wife and his unborn child were killed then he was muscled to continue into something he had no point on doing, all so they could use him as a scapegoat. Then he jumped into a polluted river which caused pretty bad damage to his face. How can you not feel sorry for him then? He had one hell of a bad day. After that though, you can no longer feel bad for him, he takes it out on everyone around him.

As for Two-Face. I feel sorry for him, although he CHOSE to stay as Two-Face, he still has more of a sympathetic case over The Joker's.

 

[BrianWilly]

Wow, so two of my three favorite DC characters got killed and I had no idea.
Shame.

Did Orion at least go out with a good showing?

Uhh.

...

Sort...of?

 

[Kitsune]

I don't feel sorry for The Joker, I did when he turned into The Joker, he JUST found out his wife and his unborn child were killed then he was muscled to continue into something he had no point on doing, all so they could use him as a scapegoat. Then he jumped into a polluted river which caused pretty bad damage to his face.

You realize that was just a story he made up.

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

What is the TRUE definitive story then? It seems, even though TKJ was made up, everyone runs with that as what happened.

 

[Kitsune]

What is the TRUE definitive story then? It seems, even though TKJ was made up, everyone runs with that as what happened.

The implication is that the Joker comes with a different story every time and that even he didn't know for sure..

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

The implication is that the Joker comes with a different story every time and that even he didn't know for sure..

That still doesn't answer the question on why they use what happened in TKJ, and not just say he made it up and doesn't know himself..

 

[Brotha-Man]

I think the answer to this question really depends on the character you apply it too.

What I mean by that is if you got a bad ass with a bad ass storyline then give him the evil villain statis. If you got a villain who, apparently, didn't want to be a villain by his back story then make him sympathetic.

Now, on the other hand, a really good villain is always evil. Look at the nazi's in moves. They make good evil bad guys because they were pure evil. Not sympathetic.

So i guess in the long run it all matters where your going with the character.

But if your making a character, and you want him to be called a villain then make him evil. Pure and simple.

 

[The Question]

That still doesn't answer the question on why they use what happened in TKJ, and not just say he made it up and doesn't know himself..

Three reasons:

1) The way it was presented in TKJ (shown in flashback) shows that if that story isn't true, it's not because he made it up. Hell, he never even talked about it in the comic. It means that his mind fabricated it as a result of his insanity. That just makes it seem more likely to be true to a lot of people, who at least can say that he wasn't lying about it because, at the time at least, he himself thought it to be true.

2) Since The Killing Joke, many writers have used that origin, either overtly or subtly, in their characterization of The Joker, lending credence to it's legitimacy.

3) A lot of people just think it's a cool origin story that makes the character more compelling.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I wish the Joker still didn't have an origin. I like him without one. He's like a living ghost story--an unstoppable embodiment of chaos.

 

[The Question]

I wish the Joker still didn't have an origin. I like him without one. He's like a living ghost story--an unstoppable embodiment of chaos.

I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, I love to see exactly how a character got from point A to point B. Especially a villain. That psychological arc fascinates me. On the other hand, some characters, like The Joker, are helped by an air of mystery about them. That's kind of why I like the idea that even he can't tell between the truth and the fantasies, and any story he tells you could thus be a simple dillusion on his part.

 

[Anubis]

Well, at this point it is a mystery again. As per the last origin story they did on him during Countdown or whatever.

 

[Mutagen]

I wish the Joker still didn't have an origin. I like him without one. He's like a living ghost story--an unstoppable embodiment of chaos.

I agree. The Joker's better that way.

 

[Arach Knight]

Joker is sometimes better as both. Sometimes it is nice to see where he came from. It isn't that it is necessarily a motivation as much as it is a way to understand how he arrived at this juncture. Other times howevere, it is fun to see this living enigma. He eludes all knowledge. He is unable to be traced. He has an almost ethereal nature.

 

[Nichol]

I would say Doom is more noble than sympathetic per say.

Doom is not noble. Doom is the furthest thing from noble. Would a noble man send a child to Hell? Kill his true love and wear her skin as armor? Imprint his own personality over that of his adopted son so as to cheat death? Doom knows how to play to a crowd; he knows he's impressive and badass and cool, and he knows that those things are seductive and that people will want to believe he's a good guy, deep down inside. Doom is not good and Doom is not noble. He's facist, he's obsessive, and he's utterly without mercy. If Doom shows signs of nobility it's either part of a scheme or just because it amuses him. Even when he takes over the world and creates a utopia -- which he's done several times -- he always gives it up and lets the world descend back into a ****hole because he gets bored. Even the Latverians he only cares about insofar as their apparent well-being and health reflects well on him. Doom is all EGO, capitol letters, all the time.

Namor falls into the Well-Intentioned Extremist camp, alongside Magneto when he's well-written. Namor is a king, and has responsibilities, and puts his people first. He's also arrogant and violent and not above chasing Sue Storm's very-married tail.

Cackling, kitten-eating maniacs tend to be boring -- I mean, really, does anyone actually care about Carnage? Anyone? At least Venom has personality and a twisted sense of right and wrong. And giving a supervillain an interesting backstory can be far and away the best thing that ever happened to them. Kang was your standard world-conquering supervillain until the Iron Lad retcon, which established him as someone who's instincts led him towards heroism, but found himself doomed to play the role of villain.

 

[Mutagen]

Edit.

 

[Mutagen]

Doom is not noble. Doom is the furthest thing from noble. Would a noble man send a child to Hell? Kill his true love and wear her skin as armor? Imprint his own personality over that of his adopted son so as to cheat death? Doom knows how to play to a crowd; he knows he's impressive and badass and cool, and he knows that those things are seductive and that people will want to believe he's a good guy, deep down inside. Doom is not good and Doom is not noble. He's facist, he's obsessive, and he's utterly without mercy. If Doom shows signs of nobility it's either part of a scheme or just because it amuses him. Even when he takes over the world and creates a utopia -- which he's done several times -- he always gives it up and lets the world descend back into a ****hole because he gets bored. Even the Latverians he only cares about insofar as their apparent well-being and health reflects well on him. Doom is all EGO, capitol letters, all the time.

Namor falls into the Well-Intentioned Extremist camp, alongside Magneto when he's well-written. Namor is a king, and has responsibilities, and puts his people first. He's also arrogant and violent and not above chasing Sue Storm's very-married tail.

Cackling, kitten-eating maniacs tend to be boring -- I mean, really, does anyone actually care about Carnage? Anyone? At least Venom has personality and a twisted sense of right and wrong. And giving a supervillain an interesting backstory can be far and away the best thing that ever happened to them. Kang was your standard world-conquering supervillain until the Iron Lad retcon, which established him as someone who's instincts led him towards heroism, but found himself doomed to play the role of villain.

One can be merciless at the same time be noble. Doom has noble and good qualities about him, he has a sense of honor. Maybe not currently, but he's been written in a positive manner some, if not a lot, of the time.

I also like to point out that if he were more a galactic type of villain, not that he isn't at times, I like to think he would make Earth under his rule like he did with Latveria. He loves things that are personal and connect with him, like his mother and home country. He generally cares for his citizens too, who's he really trying to impress anyway? He thinks he's the greatest anyway.

I don't know what it is about him that he doesn't like to be fully in control at all times, maybe it makes for an interesting dynamic to have some tiny level of free will and still have people love him. It's just to him, it's stupid to think that he isn't the best, so why let people go on thinking that way? That's why he seems to come as a fascist at times, but the country is an enforced monarchy, the laws are just strict is all, and it works.

Boredom isn't also the only reason why he gives up control of the planet, their are always things wrong with this supposed "paradise," like Neo in the Matrix, he could rule the planet or make it a utopia in the Matrix, but it isn't real. Not a great example though.

I also care about Carnage too, but he has flaws and there's no point defending him to a person he doesn't connect to.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I like Carnage. He's basically Marvel's Joker, only not as clever.

 

[November Rain]

I too have thought of carnage as marvel's joker, i'm really surprised his profile hadn't been raised to fit in with this train of thought....

It would be also nice to see how the carnage symbiote isn't really as menacing as others unless only combined with kletus...

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Both are great. Think about it, evil Villians are interesting because of their motives and what's going on inside their heads. Sympathetic Villians, on the other hand, are interesting because of their goals and hwat they will do to people/things to get what they want. For example, Spider-Man 3's Flint Marko/Sandman. Flint marko needed money to find a cure for his daughter and that's the only thing he concentrated on. It's like everything around him dissapears and there is just his duaghters health left. He doesn't want trouble, but he'll do what he must to get what he wants.

Overall, both types of Villians are really interesting in every sense of the word.

 

[Arach Knight]

I would discuss Doom, but he seems to have spoken for himself. As for Carnage, I think he is a great villain. Or at least he used to be. During Maximm Carnage, you got a full view of Cletus' nihilistic view of existence. To him, human desire is the ultimate freedom. By killing with no remorse, you essentially embrace that freedom. That is the mind of Cletus Kasady. He is like Thanos (also a nihilist) if Thanos weren't so pensive all the time.

 

[Muze]

i like evil heroes.