Which Marvel villains are 3 dimensional, 2 dimensional and 1 dimensional?

[The Overlord]

Which villains are 3 dimensional, 2 dimensional and 1 dimensional?

Someone like Magneto seems 3 dimensional to me, while villains like the Wizard and trapster (I know I pick on them a lot) seem very one dimensional. Some one like Electro seems two dimensional, often written as just a petty thug, one and a while the writers give us something more to his character, like the time he tried to commit suicide.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'd call Loki pretty 3-dimensional. His motivations are a complex, often contradictory web that runs the gamut from incredibly petty daddy issues to full-on megalomania. There's also a lot of conflicted feelings regarding Thor, whom he both hates and loves for being basically the only person in Asgard who didn't immediately hate him growing up, and Odin, whom he despises but also desperately wanted acceptance from.

 

[bored]

Magneto's definitely three-dimensional. As is Baron Zemo (the current one).

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, he was before the last Captain America arc... mumble, grumble, grumble

 

[Dread]

A lot of "one dimensional" villains are villains who are either:

- Too new and thus haven't been in many stories
- Villains often used as minions and haven't been fleshed out much, if at all, in a very long time.
- Villains who are the victims of poor writing.

With villains, repeat appearances and the amount of time they've been around, as well as whether a particular writer has fancied them, matter greatly. Look what having Bendis behind them has done for Purple Man or Hood? On the other hand, Dr. Demonicus isn't anyone's poster child for excellent writing these days.

 

[The Overlord]

A lot of "one dimensional" villains are villains who are either:

- Too new and thus haven't been in many stories
- Villains often used as minions and haven't been fleshed out much, if at all, in a very long time.
- Villains who are the victims of poor writing.

With villains, repeat appearances and the amount of time they've been around, as well as whether a particular writer has fancied them, matter greatly. Look what having Bendis behind them has done for Purple Man or Hood? On the other hand, Dr. Demonicus isn't anyone's poster child for excellent writing these days.

Sure, but there tons of characters who show up on a regular basis and the writers don't bother to do anything with them beyond recycling stories from the Silver age.

I don't look forward to forward to any Frightful Four stories, because Wizard and Trapster have been around forever and have reminded shallow, one dimensional characters with flimsy motives and no real sense of menace. Every Frightful four story seems like a bad retread of their Silver age tales rather then a new story and no has bothered to make these characters compelling. the characters get used all time and several writers have had a chance to improve those characters, but no one really has done anything to make those characters more compelling. Every Frightful Four story feels like a chore because of this. If they are not going to write innovative stories with them, maybe the Frightful Four should be retired.

The Wrecking Crew also seem to be little more then plot devices nowadays, so maybe they should be retired unless a writer can think of purpose for them besides being beat up at the start of the comic.

 

[Dread]

The Wrecking Crew are a clear case of villains being used as minions, or to provide a random battle. Rhino and Absorbing Man often fell into that category. There's nothing preventing anyone from writing a good Wrecking Crew story, and I have read a few. But by and large they're just brutes to fight.

Most times, Whirlwind has been similar. But in the last issue of AVENGERS ACADEMY, Christos Gage addressed the fact that he used to be obsessed with Janet Van Dyne to revive the idea that he was, basically, a super-villain stalker. It was brief, but likely the most fleshing he's had in at least a decade.

I do agree about the Frightful Four. They usually hinge on how well the Wizard is being treated, and most times he's basically yet another arrogant yet evil super genius. I do like how he's attempted to clone sons for himself in Hickman's FF run, and that the Four took one of them in. The rest of the Frightful Four, though, are often full of "minion" villains like Trapster, or Hydro-Man, or Sandman, or Titania, or whoever is in the mood. Once, a former wife and child for Wizard, Salamandra and Cole, were introduced for him and the angle was to try to duplicate the Four's dynamic, only with baddies, but that's mostly fallen off.

Still, almost any villain in theory is just waiting for some writer to handle them well in a story.

 

[fifthfiend]

Still, almost any villain in theory is just waiting for some writer to handle them well in a story.

In fairness I don't think one-dimensional necessarily means a villain hasn't been handled well, some villains work okay as just like "here's this villain, here's his basically straightforward shtick."

Although even as I say it I suppose even the more gimmicky guys work best if you give 'em at least like, two entire dimension's worth of characterization, if only because it makes them more interesting to bounce jokes and **** off of. Like looking outside Marvel, I'd say the Venture Brothers does really phenomenal, hilarious two-dimensional villainy (Monstroso!)

OH, okay here is a villain who basically is and should always be one dimensional:

MODOK!

I mean, it's right in the name! MODOK needs heartwrenching pathos or whatever the **** like an organism that is only for killing needs things that aren't killing.

Or like, the Red Skull! Because man if you ever try and show me the other, more human side of Red Skull's personality then just like... **** you. Seriously that is the Red Skull, he is Nazi *******ry embodied, you do not get to try and make me give a **** about him as a person.

 

[Dread]

I suppose MODOK and Red Skull are good example of villains who don't need a "sensitive" side. Although what exactly Red Skull seeks besides "pure evil" is hard to define. At any rate, it seems his daughter Sin is set to take up the mantle.

I am aware of your point, and perhaps the point of this was to determine the differences between villains who are consistently well fleshed, like Magneto, or ones that had potential, like Rhino, or one-note expendable minions, like, oh, Thermo or the Death-Throws or the Power Tools or Triple-Iron or Mutant Force or General Wo or no end of one off baddies.

On the other hand, look at Johnny Guitar. He, alongside Dr. Sax, were one and done DAZZLER villains. Then Christos Gage decided to spend half an issue fleshing out Johnny and basically adding to his backstory to the point where he died, it actually was a tragedy. Even Rhino was close to this territory until that TANGLED WEB "Flowers for Rhino" story got attention.

 

[greenrage36]

Interesting thread..especially since we still have the 'most eviiiiillllllllll' one going as well...

I think Loki was an excellent choice for the 3-dimensional category. My first two picks were either him or Magneto.

For 2-dimensional I'll go with Galactus: you have quite a bit of back-story on him and can understand why he does what he does, yet it is pretty common that when he shows up you have an idea why he's there...

For 1-dimensional..geez, we could go with Carnage, or even Wendigo. If they pop in for a good time at the hero's expense, its cut-and-dried how its gonna go down.

My $.02....

 

[chiefchirpa]

3 Dimensional: Doom, Magneto, Loki, Zemo, Knaufs' Mandarin, Kingpin.
2 Dimensional: Red Skull, the Leader, Sabretooth, Eddie Brock Venom.

 

[GyLocke]

I would say Magneto is at least four dimensional, he goes through so many life altering experiences. Homicidal maniac one second, noble leader the next, racist killer again. There's such thing as too much character development.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Wouldnt an actual 1-dimensial villain be AIM sentry or HYDRA sentry that likes any persona and is just there are a faceless human extra, not the Wrecking Crew and the like, who are actually 2-dimensional.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

3 Dimensional: Doom, Magneto, Loki, Zemo, Knaufs' Mandarin, Kingpin.
2 Dimensional: Red Skull, the Leader, Sabretooth, Eddie Brock Venom.

1-dimensional: Fraction's Mandarin.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I would say that most of Marvel's major villains are 3 dimensional with Magneto, Dr. Doom, Loki, the Kingpin, Norman Osborn, etc.

 

[Franklin Richards]

1 Dimensional

Galactus

 

[The Question]

It depends entirely on the writer. Classifying characters as two dimensional or three dimensional or whatever only really means anything in self contained works. In a novel with a clear beginning, middle, and end with no sequels, if a character is one dimensional, then that's it. There are no other chances. So it's a valid criticism. But in a shared universe like Marvel, well, it really doesn't mean anything. Every character has the potential to be as layered or shallowed as possible, and depending on the story they're in or the writer who's using them this week, they very well could be.. Characters like The Rhino or Sandman or The Trapster, usually used as pretty cut and paste mooks, have been in stories where they had a lot of pathos and a nuanced personality. Characters like Magneto or Doom or Norman Osborn, characters who are usually written with layers and layers of feelings and experiences shaping who they are, have been in more than a few stories where all they did was stand in a corner and twirl their figurative moustaches. So, really, it's les of a question of how deep or shallow any of these characters are, and more of a question of how much of a tendency individual writers have towards using characters in a deep or shallow manner.

Also, I want to say that one dimensional and pure evil arenot synonims. A character can be socially devient in every way imaginable but still have a well developed, well rounded personality.

 

[Havok83]

The Maurarders are pretty much one dimensional. Probably one of the most one dimensional group. They have one motive and thats kill, kill, kill. They dont think for themselves and pretty much do whatever they are told. They are clones so I guess that was apart of their programming. They are nothing more than minions

 

[Harlekin]

Well, he was before the last Captain America arc... mumble, grumble, grumble

Just another facet of Zemo, really. He's changed, he's become an almost good guy, but he can still be petty. I don't necessarily want him to be a bad guy again, but in the context of the arc, it definitely worked IMO.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

It really, really didn't for me. Easily the worst arc I've read in Brubaker's run.

 

[The Overlord]

It depends entirely on the writer. Classifying characters as two dimensional or three dimensional or whatever only really means anything in self contained works. In a novel with a clear beginning, middle, and end with no sequels, if a character is one dimensional, then that's it. There are no other chances. So it's a valid criticism. But in a shared universe like Marvel, well, it really doesn't mean anything. Every character has the potential to be as layered or shallowed as possible, and depending on the story they're in or the writer who's using them this week, they very well could be.. Characters like The Rhino or Sandman or The Trapster, usually used as pretty cut and paste mooks, have been in stories where they had a lot of pathos and a nuanced personality. Characters like Magneto or Doom or Norman Osborn, characters who are usually written with layers and layers of feelings and experiences shaping who they are, have been in more than a few stories where all they did was stand in a corner and twirl their figurative moustaches. So, really, it's les of a question of how deep or shallow any of these characters are, and more of a question of how much of a tendency individual writers have towards using characters in a deep or shallow manner.

Also, I want to say that one dimensional and pure evil arenot synonims. A character can be socially devient in every way imaginable but still have a well developed, well rounded personality.

Except if a character has written as as almost consistently dull for over 40 years, has extremely shallow motives for his or her actions and why this villain is supposed to menacing is mystery, then the villain is simply not compelling.

It takes more then a flash of characterization once a decade to make a interesting character, one mildly interesting story from the 80s does not make an interesting character. Characterization has to be consistent. Sure maybe a writer can take a 1 one dimensional character and make him or her interesting, but until that happens the character is one dimensional.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I think some of the one-dimensional villains/characters, if used right, could have a dramatically powerful effect on the story: case in point, if someone like say Rhino (okay so he's TECHNICALLY two-dimensional) is used as a plot device rather than an evolving character, you really feel like you're reading about a force of nature. Doomsday from DC was one-dimensional his...um...original...run... (no pun intended, honest) but see how crazy that was? It was brilliant! I really want more writers to explore those grounds.

Another group of Marvel villains, who I think are one-dimensional, are the Sentinels. Despite an utter lack of characterisation, those monolithic gulag-esque non-entities drive home the concept of ignorance to nigh-Galactus levels of creepy.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I love Carnage because he's so one-dimensional. Sometimes you just really need a psychopath who's immune to logic and only wants to kill people. Pure evil for your hero to fight.

 

[The Overlord]

I love Carnage because he's so one-dimensional. Sometimes you just really need a psychopath who's immune to logic and only wants to kill people. Pure evil for your hero to fight.

Except Carnage lacks any sort of style or cleverness that makes a pure evil villain entertaining. He so dull, every story is the same, Carnage slaughters civilians in a public place, Spidey stops him, repeat about a hundred times.

Plus unlike Red Skull who has interesting back story to explain his evil, Carnage is evil because he is serial killer and he is a serial killer because he is evil. Bullseye willingness to work for others means you can fit in into several different stories, with Carnage its always the same story.

 

[The Question]

Except if a character has written as as almost consistently dull for over 40 years, has extremely shallow motives for his or her actions and why this villain is supposed to menacing is mystery, then the villain is simply not compelling.

No. Then it's just a bad trend. The first writer to use a character doesn't do much with them, and all of the subsiquent writers get it in their heads that there's nothing to be done with the character, or are just too lazy, or need a random shallow mook and pick someone who's usually depicted as a random shallow mook. Every character has the potential to be a well developed individual.

It takes more then a flash of characterization once a decade to make a interesting character, one mildly interesting story from the 80s does not make an interesting character. Characterization has to be consistent. Sure maybe a writer can take a 1 one dimensional character and make him or her interesting, but until that happens the character is one dimensional.

But it's not an inherent flaw of the character.