• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Which came first-the superhero or the supervillain?

Fantasyartist

Civilian
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
481
Reaction score
0
Points
11
By almost any reckoning it was the superhero, but the villains(Dr.Doom, Magneto, Dr Octopus, Mandarin)m weren't far behind!
Anybody think as I do?

Terry
 
The hero is made so he can fight bad things.
A villain is born in this.
 
Galactus was around before the big bang. Therefore evil came first.
 
I don't think Galactus is really considered 'evil' anymore is he? Isn't he suppose to mostly be just like a force of nature now?
 
Last edited:
I don't think Galactus is really considered 'evil' anymore is he? Isn't he suppose to mostly be just like a force of nature now?
not really sure. Haven't read the recent stuff but last I read he was still the world devourer.
 
From the perspective of the avarage Marvel citizen, all the weird stuff - including supervillains - followed the advent of the superhero.

That's one thing I would've done differently in the Ultimate U. Let NYC be ravaged by Doc Ock and Sandman and co. before Spider-man is born to make a stand.
 
not really sure. Haven't read the recent stuff but last I read he was still the world devourer.

Well, yeah, he still does that, but I think now he's treated more of just more of a force of nature without any particular lean to good or evil. He's still destroying worlds and such, but it's just kind of the order of things as opposed to him doing it just to be evil
 
Galactus is generally accepted to be an essential part of the cosmos now and is not really malevolent, as a villain would be; he simply does what he has to to survive. For one thing, we know fro Fantastic Four that his death would weaken... something... enough to allow Abraxis, an actually malevolent cosmic entity of even greater power than Galactus, to return to the universe and screw things up. We also just learned in Beta Ray Bill: Godhunter that even at his weakest, Galactus' death would be a universal catastrophe in a physical sense: the release of his energy would wipe out everything within a huge area (can't remember the exact number of light years). Various comics have hinted at other really bad things that would result from his death as well.
From the perspective of the avarage Marvel citizen, all the weird stuff - including supervillains - followed the advent of the superhero.

That's one thing I would've done differently in the Ultimate U. Let NYC be ravaged by Doc Ock and Sandman and co. before Spider-man is born to make a stand.
I imagine the first supervillain, if he emerged without superheroes and were at least somewhat competent, would rule the world until superheroes showed up. That could be an interesting story.
 
Last edited:
The first that came to mind when I read this topic was:
f_jnoi6kolhr7m_a2499bc.jpg

.

I think that an entirely competent super villain would destroy any superhero. They are just willing to take those risks.
 
Very interesting question. Sure we can look at the first appearances of comics heroes, but we can actually take this a little deeper as well. While we can ask who Supes fought in his first issue, we can also look at older mythologies that these comics are inspired by.

It seems that most ancient myths start with the creation of the world by a being, or beings of some higher power. After creating the world, these gods created existence as we saw it back then. Somewhere along the way one or all of those who were in the higher power got jealous, and they started to create havoc. It was then that a hero(or heroes) would rise to defeat this new villain, and stories about that hero(es) would be told throughout generations.

When we examine this it is easy to say that the hero came first, because usually the hero would be an already established character. Whether it be Zeus or God, the hero was there around the time of the beginning when the villain was still one of the "good guys." Here's where things start to get more subjective. Does what the hero did before defeating the villain count as heroism? Does creating the world count as an heroic act? If you believe so, then the hero came before the villain. I personally believe that the villain came first, because without a villain there would be no hero. Creating existence and fighting against nature is not heroic in my mind. It's something to commend, but I don't see nature as a villain. God creating the earth in the Abrahamic religions is not heroic to me, it's when he foils Satan from fully corrupting mankind is when he became a hero. When he did that he was saving people from harm, and that's what heroes do in my definition of the term.
 
The Villain came first. The Hero rose up to do battle with the villain. In most cases though, the majority of the rogues gallery comes after the hero. Now the key thing is that the first villain isn't the generic bad guy. He's the Lex Luther. He was already bad but the newly appointed superhero came and changed the bad guys status.
 
The Villain came first. The Hero rose up to do battle with the villain. In most cases though, the majority of the rogues gallery comes after the hero. Now the key thing is that the first villain isn't the generic bad guy. He's the Lex Luther. He was already bad but the newly appointed superhero came and changed the bad guys status.

Yes, kinda like the Batman Begins 'escalation' concern Gordon asked him about: The villain up's their game to become a Super-villain and you wind up with the Joker (at least that's how they done it in those movies).

In Marvel though I think Doctor Doom was already Doom (in armor and had taken over Latveria) before the FF even went into space.
 
But Doom wasn't really a supervillain then. He was a benevolent tyrant with a grudge against some random American scientist. If Reed hadn't gone to space and become Mr. Fantastic, Doom would've probably murdered him and gotten on with his life. So depending on how you look at it, Reed becoming a superhero could still be what drove Doom to supervillainy on the scale he engages in now.
 
But Doom wasn't really a supervillain then. He was a benevolent tyrant with a grudge against some random American scientist. If Reed hadn't gone to space and become Mr. Fantastic, Doom would've probably murdered him and gotten on with his life. So depending on how you look at it, Reed becoming a superhero could still be what drove Doom to supervillainy on the scale he engages in now.

True. The FF's debut could be seen as the final component in taking Doom over the edge. That being said the Moleman was presumably already planning his shenanigans before the FF went public so I guess he would be a better example.

Thinking about it though I cant really think of any hero who became one specifically to face any given super villain. They mostly become one to fight crime or do good in general and the super baddies that fill up their rogue's gallery all come after.

Maybe something like Ghost Rider would be an exception to that rule?
 
Could Ghost Rider really be called a superhero? He's more of an anti-hero. Although he was certainly created after his villains. Heaven created the Ghost Rider to destroy the demons that were already messing with humanity.
 
How about Captain America( who was intended to be for the Western allies what the Red Skull was for the Third Reich), or the Crimson Dynamo/Titanium Man for the USSR?

Terry
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,687
Messages
21,787,130
Members
45,616
Latest member
stevezorz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"