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

[The Overlord]

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.

Potentially doesn't really mean anything unless its applied. A student who has potential but doesn't apply himself will still get bad grades. The character is one dimensional unless someone actually realizes any sort of potential and think for some villains potential would only come from a total revamp. I don't see a lot of potential in a character with shallow motives, dull stories and no real menace, there is no inherent potential there, unless a new writer throws a curve ball with.

Look at Wizard, how are his motives different from Dr. Doom's, it seems like his villainous career is based on him trying to prove he is more intelligent then Reed Richards, except that That's a large part of Doom's motive, so how is Wizard not just a poor man's Dr. Doom? He is like Doom, without the pathos, compelling back story or menace and frankly no one, either fans or characters in the comics believe he is an equal to Doom or reed, so its impossible to buy him as threat to the FF. There is no way Reed would be outsmarted by this doofus without poor writing at this point. Almost every story with him is the same, he forms the frightful Four to destroy the FF, you read one story like that, you have read them all.

The only thing in the last 30 years that made him even even remotely compelling is his recent mental break down, but no one has followed up on it. It takes more then a flash of characterization every 20 years to be considered a 3 dimensional character. You have to follow up on it. Why did Wizard have a mental break down, how has it changed him? If these questions are not addressed, the story will soon be forgotten.

Also giving Wizard a better back story then "Mwa, ha, ha! I will kidnap the Human Torch just because I am bored, even though he is friends with the most intelligent man on Earth who will likely find me out and have no idea what would actually do with captured Human Torch". Because that back story sucks.

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

It doesn't make stories featuring that character any more compelling.

 

[The Question]

Potentially doesn't really mean anything unless its applied. A student who has potential but doesn't apply himself will still get bad grades.

Yes. But the difference between a flat character and a poor student is that the flat character doesn't actually exist. They have no control over how they're written. It's a failure of the writers, not the character.

The character is one dimensional unless someone actually realizes any sort of potential and think for some villains potential would only come from a total revamp. I don't see a lot of potential in a character with shallow motives, dull stories and no real menace, there is no inherent potential there, unless a new writer throws a curve ball with.

Having shallow motives doesn't make a character one dimensional. Real people in the real worldoften have very shallow motives for doing what they do, but they're still very complex. A three dimensional character is simply a character with many facets and layers to their personality.

Look at Wizard, how are his motives different from Dr. Doom's, it seems like his villainous career is based on him trying to prove he is more intelligent then Reed Richards, except that That's a large part of Doom's motive, so how is Wizard not just a poor man's Dr. Doom? He is like Doom, without the pathos, compelling back story or menace and frankly no one, either fans or characters in the comics believe he is an equal to Doom or reed, so its impossible to buy him as threat to the FF. There is no way Reed would be outsmarted by this doofus without poor writing at this point. Almost every story with him is the same, he forms the frightful Four to destroy the FF, you read one story like that, you have read them all.

How does The Wizard lacking pathos or a compelling backstory mean that no-one buys that he's on par with Reed in terms of intelligence? I totally buy that he's smart enough to mess everyone's **** up.

Anyway, yeah, his motivation does share some things in common with Dr. Doom. So what? Bullseye's motivations share some things in common with both Doctor Doom and Carnage, but they're all able to co-exist. Doom doesn't have dibs on wanting to prove that he's smarter than the protagonists. That's actually a pretty common motive with a lot of bad guys.

You are right, The Wizard is usually written poorly, only being used when the writer needs a generic mad scientist. But he doesn't need a complete revamp to make him interesting. Just flesh out his personality. Figure out what he likes, what he dislikes, how he reacts to certain situations as opposed to other situations. The groundwork has already been laid with his various apperances, writers just need to work with that. Same thing for making him stand out and seem more thretening. Play up the fringe genius angle. Wizard seems to be very much the counter cultural, cyber-terrorism for the sake of proving he can do it type. Play up that angle that's already present, and it will help distance him from the more political Doom.

The only thing in the last 30 years that made him even even remotely compelling is his recent mental break down, but no one has followed up on it. It takes more then a flash of characterization every 20 years to be considered a 3 dimensional character. You have to follow up on it. Why did Wizard have a mental break down, how has it changed him? If these questions are not addressed, the story will soon be forgotten.

Again, I'm not saying that he's been consistently written as a three dimensional character. I'm saying that the fault is entirely that of the writers, and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from writing The Wizard as a compelling, three dimensional character without making that many changes.

Also giving Wizard a better back story then "Mwa, ha, ha! I will kidnap the Human Torch just because I am bored, even though he is friends with the most intelligent man on Earth who will likely find me out and have no idea what would actually do with captured Human Torch". Because that back story sucks.

Not really. It's just kind of incomplete. We don't really know how he got to that point. But I think the kind of person who would do that would be a very eccentric brand of sociopath, which I think is potentially very interesting.

It doesn't make stories featuring that character any more compelling.

It doesn't. But it's entirely because the writers are being lazy. Not the fault of the character at all.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Carnage is evil because he is serial killer and he is a serial killer because he is evil.

That's nigh-Iago levels of malice! The one that's meaningless. I think it only makes the character more interesting. And It's not like there's only one possible scenerio for him - you stretch that absurdity to a point where Spidey realizes that "He's doing it simply for the sake of it" and told in a well-written story, and you have The Joker only with a more menacing punchline to what's black and white and red all over...

 

[The Overlord]

Yes. But the difference between a flat character and a poor student is that the flat character doesn't actually exist. They have no control over how they're written. It's a failure of the writers, not the character.

It doesn't make the characters in question any more compelling. Potential is worthless unless its applied, that's where I was going with my student comparison.

Having shallow motives doesn't make a character one dimensional. Real people in the real worldoften have very shallow motives for doing what they do, but they're still very complex. A three dimensional character is simply a character with many facets and layers to their personality.

Except a lot of people in the real world are boring and I wouldn't want to read about them. This is fiction, spice things up a bit. Don't make a character bring and use the excuse that some people are boring in the real,

How does The Wizard lacking pathos or a compelling backstory mean that no-one buys that he's on par with Reed in terms of intelligence? I totally buy that he's smart enough to mess everyone's **** up.

No the fact that the character isn't presented as being as smart as Reed makes him not as smart as reed, I see no evidence tat wizard is Reed's league, his tech is not nearly as impressive as Reed's or Doom's and frankly Doom and Reed are smartest men alive, then I see a bunch of people who come after Doom and Reed and Wizard wouldn't even be in top ten of smartest people. I never thought Wizard was a believable intellectual threat to Reed, unless the Reed is written as idiot. Is Wizard more intelligent then Leader, Iron Man or even Ant Man or Dr. Octopus? If not, he is not in Reed's league.

Wizard is More believable as a street level villain then a threat to the FF.

Anyway, yeah, his motivation does share some things in common with Dr. Doom. So what? Bullseye's motivations share some things in common with both Doctor Doom and Carnage, but they're all able to co-exist. Doom doesn't have dibs on wanting to prove that he's smarter than the protagonists. That's actually a pretty common motive with a lot of bad guys.

I think Carnage sucks, is brining up him will not be convincing at all.

Is Bullseye a poor man's Dr. Doom? Because that's what Wizard is, every time I see i think his plot is like something they would do with Doom but thought it was too lame and give to Wizard, Bullseye is not just a pathetic clone of Dr. Doom, Wizard is.

You are right, The Wizard is usually written poorly, only being used when the writer needs a generic mad scientist. But he doesn't need a complete revamp to make him interesting. Just flesh out his personality. Figure out what he likes, what he dislikes, how he reacts to certain situations as opposed to other situations. The groundwork has already been laid with his various apperances, writers just need to work with that. Same thing for making him stand out and seem more thretening. Play up the fringe genius angle. Wizard seems to be very much the counter cultural, cyber-terrorism for the sake of proving he can do it type. Play up that angle that's already present, and it will help distance him from the more political Doom.

Wizard being less political then Doom in of itself doesn't make him even remotely interesting.

What ground was laid down and where, has anything in past stories told whether he has moral standards or just a complete psychopathic monster? Has any past stories told his of his upbringing, his family or they just bunch of lame stories with lame plans to humiliate the FF?

Again, I'm not saying that he's been consistently written as a three dimensional character. I'm saying that the fault is entirely that of the writers, and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from writing The Wizard as a compelling, three dimensional character without making that many changes.

Except the mental break down was by far the most interesting that happened to the Wizard in the last 30 years.

Not really. It's just kind of incomplete. We don't really know how he got to that point. But I think the kind of person who would do that would be a very eccentric brand of sociopath, which I think is potentially very interesting.

Except he comes off as an annoying weenie, not a sociopath. Humiliating the FF isn't a very scary goal, is he supposed to be a sociopath who isn't menacing or scary? It seems like a sociopath who kills civilians like Bullseye is far more menacing., because he can succeed in that goal, while Wizard will never do what Doom and Galactus have failed to do.

The back ground is so incomplete that it damages the character, if Wizard has didn't kidnapped the Torch and got caught, he could have been a Lex Luthor Level threat, a villain with the vast resources of a corporate empire that FF couldn't defeat with regular means because it be hard to prove in a court of law that Wizard is a criminal and the FF couldn't just punch and give to the cops. Instead he is a weenie that FF beat and send to prison all the time.

It doesn't. But it's entirely because the writers are being lazy. Not the fault of the character at all.

Again it doesn't make the characters worth reading about, which is all I care about, I don't care about potential, I care about results. I see more potential in a character like Bushwacker then I do with Wizard.

That's nigh-Iago levels of malice! The one that's meaningless. I think it only makes the character more interesting. And It's not like there's only one possible scenerio for him - you stretch that absurdity to a point where Spidey realizes that "He's doing it simply for the sake of it" and told in a well-written story, and you have The Joker only with a more menacing punchline to what's black and white and red all over...

Except he lacks any sort of style or creativity and every story with him is the same, it makes him dull.

 

[The Question]

Okay, let me try and explain my point again. And let's get away from The Wizard specifically, we're losing sight of the bigger picture:

Wether or not a character is three dimensional is a criticism or praise that is only applicable to a specific story. In Arthur Conan Doyle's books, as well as many adaptations, Sherlock Holmes is a three dimensional character. In that episode of Batman The Brave and The Bold, he's two dimensional at best. A character, a name and a basic personality and concept, is not by itself three dimensional or not. It can only be written that way.

So, back to The Wizard. Has he been in stories where he's had no depth? Many times. Has he been in stories where he's had some depth? Rarely, but yes. Is he a two dimensional character? In many stories, yes. In others, no.

I'm not saying that he is thus the deepest character Marvel has ever written. I am saying that criticizing him as a flat character is only applicable to individual works and writers. It is not an inherent flaw of the character. Every character has the potential to be as flat or round as possible. Doctor Doom can be written as a one dimensional nobody and Carnage can be written as the evil hamlet.

 

[The Overlord]

I understand that. But potential will never be applied when people assume that it's because the characters are inherently unappealing. The responsibility is entirely that of the writers.

Again I don't care because I only care whether the character is compelling, not if they have potential be. Keep your potential and call me when me when its actually applied.

People may be boring in terms of how they live their lives, but everyone is complex and layered. That's my point. Shallow motivation =/= shallow character. They still might not do anything interesting plot wise, but that doesn't automatically mean that they're a one dimensional character.

Except shallow motives often make for a shallow character unless, is the character is supposed to be alien, supposed to scary because he is mysterious and so evil he cannot understand him, like Michael Myers. Michale Myers comes off as scary because we cannot understand his motives, that's scary, unlike Wizard who comes off as an annoying *****e. 9 times out of ten shallow motives mean shallow characters.

Then all you have to do is have him create some better inventions. Or better yet, draw attention to the potential that the gear he already uses has (gravity manipulation's actually kind of a big deal). Simple fix. Not an inherent flaw of the character.

Except it makes Doom and Reed seem less unique, if a pathetic Man Child and attention ****e like Wizard is now in Reed and Doom's league, its hard to believe someone who comes off as a pathetic Paris Hilton wannabe is that league. What would Wizard be smarter then Leader or Iron Man now, because that's what you have to be to be in Reed or doom's league.

My point was simply that characters don't have "dibs" on certain motivations.

And my point is some characters are poor man's versions of other characters and those characters are not fun to read about.

I never said that. I just said that there are plenty of things inherent within the character that can distance him from Dr. Doom.

Like what? It seems like the only substantive difference is Doom has more pathos, everything else is mere window dressing, including everything you mentioned. Establishing moral differences seem more interesting then just Wizard is non political and therefore difference. Wizard being more ruthless and insane and doing things that doom would never do seems far interesting, then wizard just being non political, that's why I like the mental break down, it made Wizard seem like a creepy, menacing foe, instead of just an annoying one.

You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying that his moral outlook or backstory have been given great detail. They haven't. But look at all of his appearances. We see what he wants, how he goes about trying to get what he wants, how he carries and presents himself, how he communicates with others, things he likes and dislikes. These things have been established. None of them need to be changed to give the character depth. You simply need to go deeper with what's already been established.

What he wants is lame and uninteresting though, generally I have seen what wants and I still don't care, wanting to humiliate the FF in of itself isn't hat interesting. I don't care what has been established so far, because I think its all garbage.

1: Your opinion. I've never read it, I can't comment.

2: That's something of a logical fallacy. Let us accept, for a moment, that his mental breakdown, a big change, was the most interesting thing to happen to him in years. That does not mean that now the only thing that can make him interesting is a huge change. That does not rule out more subtle forms of character development. The only thing it says anything about is itself.

With character development that actually happened is more important then stuff that could have happened, but didn't. That story was better then anything you have described. Wizard having a break down and actually being creepy rather then oboniox is far more interesting then Wizard being "not political".

Maybe you should read the story in question.

There are sociopaths who aren't violent murderers or rapists. They're just horrible people who don't care about anyone else.

So instead of being a scary sociopath, he is a sociopath who acts like a completely annoying weenie, who has no character attributes beyond being obnoxious? He has personality similar to Paris Hilton, he doesn't work as a serious villain with kind of personality, its something that just comes off as comical. Wizard is a pretty lame sociopath. If Wizard is not menacing or scary sociopath, what's the point, it just makes him seem like a loser, rather then someone to be feared.

So then a writer should give him a backstory and maybe change up the routine with the stories he's in. Problem solved.

Except if they don't do that and just make more lame Frightful four stories, then the problem isn't solved, the problem isn't solved until that happens.

Okay, let me try and explain my point again. And let's get away from The Wizard specifically, we're losing sight of the bigger picture:

Wether or not a character is three dimensional is a criticism or praise that is only applicable to a specific story. In Arthur Conan Doyle's books, as well as many adaptations, Sherlock Holmes is a three dimensional character. In that episode of Batman The Brave and The Bold, he's two dimensional at best. A character, a name and a basic personality and concept, is not by itself three dimensional or not. It can only be written that way.

Sherlock Holmes is a way better character then Wizard, especially in terms of concept, Sherlock Holmes doesn't wear a pink jump suit and phallic shaped helmet.

Except with sherlock Holmes they are different versions of the character you can draw upon, with wizard even in other media he still sucks. Sherlock Holmes is a way better character then Wizard.

Saying every character has potential is like saying everyone is "speical" its a meaningless statement in of itself.

So, back to The Wizard. Has he been in stories where he's had no depth? Many times. Has he been in stories where he's had some depth? Rarely, but yes. Is he a two dimensional character? In many stories, yes. In others, no.

I'm not saying that he is thus the deepest character Marvel has ever written. I am saying that criticizing him as a flat character is only applicable to individual works and writers. It is not an inherent flaw of the character.

Yes. But that's not his fault. It's the fault of the writers. It's the writers who rehash the same stories over and over again. It's the writers who are too lazy to do anything with the character.

No its the fault of the concept, Carnage has established since day one that he believes that "planning" is contrary to his chaotic philosophy and refuses to do so, which means every story with Carnage is the same. Carnage butchers people in public places because that's all he wants to do and that gets really boring, because that's all he does and frankly it doesn't work in a light hearted title like spider-Man, its like putting a rapist in a JLA comic, it doesn't work. You have to change the character's concept to get him out of his rut.

 

[The Overlord]

Okay, let me try and explain my point again. And let's get away from The Wizard specifically, we're losing sight of the bigger picture:

Wether or not a character is three dimensional is a criticism or praise that is only applicable to a specific story. In Arthur Conan Doyle's books, as well as many adaptations, Sherlock Holmes is a three dimensional character. In that episode of Batman The Brave and The Bold, he's two dimensional at best. A character, a name and a basic personality and concept, is not by itself three dimensional or not. It can only be written that way.

Irrelevant just because a character could be 3 dimensional doesn't mean they are, a student doesn't get good grades for having potential and not applying himself doesn't get good grades. Unless you write a really compelling outline that explains how the character reaches his or her potential I don't care.

I care about results not potential, I don't giver a flying fig. I get your point, I don't think its relevant because its based on things that could happen, not based on things that have happened.

So, back to The Wizard. Has he been in stories where he's had no depth? Many times. Has he been in stories where he's had some depth? Rarely, but yes. Is he a two dimensional character? In many stories, yes. In others, no.

When has he been two dimensional? And frankly two dimensional is a far cry from 3 dimensional.

A character who is one dimensional most of the time and 2 dimensional rarely is hardly worth reading about.

I'm not saying that he is thus the deepest character Marvel has ever written. I am saying that criticizing him as a flat character is only applicable to individual works and writers. It is not an inherent flaw of the character. Every character has the potential to be as flat or round as possible. Doctor Doom can be written as a one dimensional nobody and Carnage can be written as the evil hamlet.

Except its part of character that carnages doesn't want to do anything besides butchering people in public places, with Carnage the concept is the problem, its dull.

 

[The Question]

Irrelevant just because a character could be 3 dimensional doesn't mean they are, a student doesn't get good grades for having potential and not applying himself doesn't get good grades. Unless you write a really compelling outline that explains how the character reaches his or her potential I don't care.

I care about results not potential, I don't giver a flying fig. I get your point, I don't think its relevant because its based on things that could happen, not based on things that have happened.

But the potential is what matters. Because he's not confined to a single story, because he exists in a shared universe and isn't owned by any one author, he can always be written well. He is not, inherently, a bad character. Edward Cullen is a lost cause. The Wizard is not, nor are any Marvel characters.

And I can't write a compelling outline. And outline means nothing. Execution is everything. I could write an outline for a story where he became a bigger threat, or did something different, but that wouldn't make him a more well rounded character, that would just be a better plot. The two things are not the same.

When has he been two dimensional? And frankly two dimensional is a far cry from 3 dimensional.

A character who is one dimensional most of the time and 2 dimensional rarely is hardly worth reading about.

He's usually two dimensional. A two dimensional character is a character who has a definite and recognizable personality and role in a story. A one dimensional character would be a nameless background character or a random monster.

Except its part of character that carnages doesn't want to do anything besides butchering people in public places, with Carnage the concept is the problem, its dull.

There's far more to a character than what kind of plot they would engage in. There are a lot of different ways that a villain can be developed as a character than the way in which they menace the hero.

 

[The Overlord]

We got seriously off topic here. My point was never that The Wizard is a super deep character and you should give him a chance. I never really wanted to talk about specific characters in the first place. My point was simply that saying a character is one dimensional is a criticism of the writers, not the character. That when you have a cyaracter that exists within a shared universe and doesn't belong to any one writer, all you can say is that in some of, or many of, the character's stories, that character has been written very flatly. Characters are not inherently flat. There are no bads characters, just badly written ones. Any character concept can be used to create a well developed person that would be, for whatever reason, interesting to read about.

Except you can say that about anything, you can say that if a movie is bad, its the fault of the people who made it, not the movie itself. Sure that's true, it doesn't make the movie good, a movie that had potential to be good isn't the same as a movie that is good.

That's not true. If a character just wants something very basic and petty, that doesn't mean a writer can't make them a well rounded individual.

Yeah it helps if that type of character is evil or scary or creepy or menacing or has a position of authority that makes him hard to defeat, not some obnoxious dork in pink spandex with a phallic shaped helmet.

Like I said Wizard could have been a Lex Luthor level villain to the FF, instead he is D-list evil genius because he gained a criminal record just because he kidnapped. For someone who is supposed to be smart, Wizard comes off as an idiot.

Reed and Doom aren't unique. There are dozens of mad scientists and evil overlords in fiction. I don't see why it would matter if a writer tried to make The Wizard's tech more impressive.

No Doom and Richards are unique in the Marvel universe in that they are on an intellectual level that separates them from the rest of the MU, that's a huge theme in the FF comics. making Wizard an equal completely under mines that, you might as well say dr. Octopus is equal and Spider-Man are equal to them and having Spidey and Doc Ock invent time machines. Taking away something special from Reed and doom to make Wizard seem cool is very bad writing.

You are completely missing my point. I wasn't saying that having the Wizard be not political makes him the colest guy ever. All I was saying is that there are ways to distance him from other Mad Scientist characters.

It makes him a bit different, it doesn't make him compelling, you make a character different from another by having one character having pizza as their favorite food and another has stake as their favorite food, its a difference, it doesn't make the characters compelling.

QUOTE=The Question;19214861]
And how can you say that story was better than anything I described? I wasn't describing stories. I was just pointing out aspects of the character that can be played with. Execution is everything..[/QUOTE]

Because you have given an detailed outline that expands any of the completely vague ideas you have put forward, unlike a story in a comic that was published? I can say a comic that was written has better execution then your vague ideas. Maybe you should read the story in question and see if its good. A vague idea is not a story and I'm going to think a story is better then a vague idea.

1: Drawing comparisons to Paris Hilton is completely absurd..

That's how Wizard comes across as, a childish attention ****e, I don't see much to his motives beyond a childish need for attention.

2: That's a pretty big false dillema. Either a character is a scary, menacing sociopath or they're a loser. First of all, all sociopaths are losers. And second, you can work the sociopath angle for more than just scares.

Like what?

Look at Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, he was a loser, but was scary as hell, you get a real sense of menace from him. Is Wizard scary like that or is he just an obnoxious loser?

No, you don't. You just have to be a lot more creative, approach things from a different angle. Writers have all sorts of options for portraying characters. They can to first person narratives, second person narratives, flashbacks, flashforwards, alternate universe/era settings, put them together with other characters to se how they play off of each other. There's a lot more to having a character being an interesting participant in the plot or three dimensional (the two, BTW, are not the same thing) than just their plans and MO. That's a very linear view of storytelling.

Except carnage only works together others once and he doesn't play off characters, him trying to kill almost everyone he meets means he can't play off them. He will never join the Sinister six because he will just try kill them, its hard to have him play off people when he seems to have no interest in interacting with others.

It doesn't change the fact the main story between Carnage and Spidey will always be the same, there is variety in his stories and they can't just give him flash backs or flash forwards in every story he appears in in every story he appears in.

There is a flaw in the character concept, not all characters are created equal.

Also, Spider-Man? Light hearted? A series that had a murder be partially the responsibility of the main character in the very first story? Harry Osborn's drug addiction? School shootings? Death of Captain Stacy? Death of Gwen Stacy? Heck, Norman Osborn is a much more horrifying barnd of homicidal maniac than carnage.

And the classic silver age Spidey, which considered the best era of Spidey by some, isn't light hearted for the most part? The Silver age established the tone for Spidey and it was light hearted, besides Uncle Ben being killed I can't think of anything rally dark in say the first 20 issues. Are you forgetting that a lot of the "dark" stories from the 90s sucked because they tried to make Spidey darker then he is?

 

[The Question]

Except you can say that about anything, you can say that if a movie is bad, its the fault of the people who made it, not the movie itself. Sure that's true, it doesn't make the movie good, a movie that had potential to be good isn't the same as a movie that is good.

But that's kind of my point. A movie that had the potential to be good but wasn't good... there's no hope for that film. It already happened. But characters in the Marvel universe, their future is open ended. Someone writes a terrible story with Spider-Man in it, well, just wait 'til next month to see if something better comes along. Comparing a Marvel character to a bad movie doesn't work. Comparing one story a Marvel character was in to a bad movie does.

 

[The Overlord]

But the potential is what matters. Because he's not confined to a single story, because he exists in a shared universe and isn't owned by any one author, he can always be written well. He is not, inherently, a bad character. Edward Cullen is a lost cause. The Wizard is not, nor are any Marvel characters.

I don't care about potential unless its realized, if its not realized, its worthless. You can say a movie or a book or a TV show could have been good, but if it doesn't live it to its potential a movie is worth seeing and a book is not worth reading. Star Trek TNG had potential and realized it after a few shaky seasons, Voyager ad potential and never realized it, making it an awful show. If Voyager was till on today and had the potential to be better, but never realized it, would be a good show or a bad show? Wasted potential actually makes something worse, not better. Star trek Voyager existed in a shared universe and was written by several different people and Neelix was an awful character through out the series.

Saying something has potential is a pointless statement, everything has potential, but the difference between something that is good and something that is bad, is makes use of its potential and the other doesn't.

And I can't write a compelling outline. And outline means nothing. Execution is everything. I could write an outline for a story where he became a bigger threat, or did something different, but that wouldn't make him a more well rounded character, that would just be a better plot. The two things are not the same.

You claim to be a writer, you can write a fan fic that spells out how you think the character can meet his potential, its better then a vague ideas.

He's usually two dimensional. A two dimensional character is a character who has a definite and recognizable personality and role in a story. A one dimensional character would be a nameless background character or a random monster.

No, I consider someone who is two definitional to actually have something beyond the are bones of personality, that's all Wizard has, all he is an obnoxious *****e, there no surprises no other facts to his personality, its very one dimensional. At least Electro can surprise you now and again, Eelctro trying to commit suicide, gave his personality s facet beyond greedy thug, it wasn't 3 dimensional, but it was better then being one dimensional. Wizard's personality is no more compelling then some random thug.

There's far more to a character than what kind of plot they would engage in. There are a lot of different ways that a villain can be developed as a character than the way in which they menace the hero.

Yeah, but if you have a villain who si annoying, one dimensional and not menacing, you don't want to read about him, no matter how much hypothetical potential he has.

Captain Cold was kinda a bland character before Johns expanded his personality a fair bit and made him more a threat to Flash in the process, for a villain to serve the most basic story function, they have to be menacing. I think having a action film where the villain poses no believable threat to the hero, makes for a dud.

 

[The Overlord]

But that's kind of my point. A movie that had the potential to be good but wasn't good... there's no hope for that film. It already happened. But characters in the Marvel universe, their future is open ended. Someone writes a terrible story with Spider-Man in it, well, just wait 'til next month to see if something better comes along. Comparing a Marvel character to a bad movie doesn't work. Comparing one story a Marvel character was in to a bad movie does.

Except if Spidey was a consistently written as a bad, his series would be canceled and he would be forgotten. A villain has the luxury of not having to carry a title like a hero does, but if a villain has never shown potential before, why would a reader spend his limited cash on story with him, unless he somehow knew he was going to be good in this story, first impressions are everything, all the potential in the world doesn't make the average reader want to buy the issue with a character who has never really shined. See that's why the story with Wizard having a mental break down was important, get someone buzz, people were touting Wizard in that story, it was more compelling then any story with him the past 30 years. It got him noticed and give people a reason to pick up a book with him in it. It made him compelling, something he he never was for since the end of the 60s. That's why I don't mind the occasional curve ball with a villain, when it its broke, you fix it.

Its not even that I hate the Wizard, but wasted potential just makes a story worse not better, I actually was kinda hopeful when Wizard was in the hood's gang of super villains that he would be doing something different, that he joined to try to take over, that he decided an army of villains was better then just for. You could have a battle of wits between the two, with Wizard having superior book smarts and Hood having more street smarts. But instead of that, Wizard was just acting like the Hood's mindless lackey for. The wasted potential made the story worse not better and the story left such a sour taste my mouth that didn't care how much potential the Hood had, I was sick of him and his Villain Sue ways.

 

[The Question]

Except if Spidey was a consistently written as a bad, his series would be canceled and he would be forgotten. A villain has the luxury of not having to carry a title like a hero does, but if a villain has never shown potential before, why would a reader spend his limited cash on story with him, unless he somehow knew he was going to be good in this story, first impressions are everything, all the potential in the world doesn't make the average reader want to buy the issue with a character who has never really shined. See that's why the story with Wizard having a mental break down was important, get someone buzz, people were touting Wizard in that story, it was more compelling then any story with him the past 30 years. It got him noticed and give people a reason to pick up a book with him in it. It him compelling, something he he never was for since the end of the 60s. That's why I don't mind the occasional curve ball with a villain, when it its broke, you fix it.

I never said that people should buy the comics with that character in them. I was simply saying that the round or flatness of a character reflects only on the writer and that particular story that they're in, and no character is inherently and irridemanly flat and static.

 

[The Overlord]

I never said that people should buy the comics with that character in them. I was simply saying that the round or flatness of a character reflects only on the writer and that particular story that they're in, and no character is inherently and irridemanly flat and static.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that wasted potential makes a bad story even worse, if potential is realized it makes a story good, if its wasted a bad story becomes worse and someone is less likely to care about the characters in that story, it was really hard to care about Spider-Man in the 90s when the majority of the stories were garbage, the wasted potential made those stories even worse. Frankly potential is double edged sword.

This why I really didn't like the Hood and his army super villains, that story line had a potential, but did it realize it? No. It was just mediocre story, but the fact that it wasted so much potential made me really dislike it. Just having potential isn't enough for me, because if the potential is wasted, I'm going to really dislike the story.

 

[The Question]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that wasted potential makes a bad story, if potential is realized it makes a story good, if its wasted a bad story becomes worse and someone is less likely to care about the characters in that story, it was really hard to care about Spider-Man in the 90s when the majority of the stories were garbage, the wasted potential made those stories even worse.

I never said wasted potential didn't make for a bad story. And I never said that this trend didn't exist. In fact, I pointed it out. My point was simply that it's stupid and professional writers should know better.

Frankly potential is double edged sword.

Not really

This why I really didn't like the Hood and his army super villains, that story line had a potential, but did it realize it? No. It was just mediocre story, but the fact that it wasted so much potential made me really dislike it. Just having potential isn't enough for me, because if the potential is wasted, I'm going to really dislike the story.

But I'm not talking about stories. I'm talking about characters. And in the context of a huge shared universe like Marvel, they are two very different things. If a story is bad, a story is bad. You can't go back and change it. If a character is written poorly, guess what? They get another chance next month, with a different writer.

 

[The Overlord]

I never said wasted potential didn't make for a bad story. And I never said that this trend didn't exist. In fact, I pointed it out. My point was simply that it's stupid and professional writers should know better.

Sure but if a character is in a story with a lot of wasted potential, you are less likely to care about the character in the future.

I gave the Hood a chance when Bendis was writing him, I gave him several chances and there was glimmers of potential here and three, Bendis writing him as a Villain Sue made him not care, heck it made think about how the potential is being wasted in this story and the fact the Hood is being made to look at cool at the expense of other characters made him dislike him, I have no reason to give him a chance if that is my first impression of him, do I?

Not really.

Yes it is, otherwise wasted potential wouldn't make a story around a character worse, it would have no effect. That's why I don't care about potential unless its realized, because if its wasted the story will be worse for it and the character will go from just being flat to getting on your nerves. I have been burned by a lot of stories that had a lot potential and turned to be crap and such stories make care less about the potential of the characters in them. People were way less likely to give superman Prime a chance after all the crappy stories he was, despite Geoff Johns trying to make the character better, the wasted potentially and the fact that character was annoying made it too little too late for a lot of people.

Just because character has the potential to be 3 dimensional, doesn't make them 3 dimensional.

But I'm not talking about stories. I'm talking about characters. And in the context of a huge shared universe like Marvel, they are two very different things. If a story is bad, a story is bad. You can't go back and change it. If a character is written poorly, guess what? They get another chance next month, with a different writer.

Except no one may read next months story if you made the character in it really annoying and alienate any potential fan base he might have.

Except why would people give the character another chance if everything they have seen the character is at best dull and at worst, completely annoying? Yeah the Marvel universe is ongoing but a reader's patience is limited, if you have potential and don't realize you have blown it, a lot of people won't give you another a chance. Why would people give the time of day to a character who has done nothing but waste potential on the off chance they realize it this time. If the character just wastes potential, then maybe there is something wrong and if one is going to fix or give any indication they will fix it, then I why should I care? Its hard to care about a character when the writers don't.

Saying characters have potential is a meaningless statement, it means nothing. I know this and I don't care, I get your point, I just don't agree its relevant unless the potential has a follow through. You could argue Lance Bass has the potential to be a great musician as long as he alive, but considering the crap he has released in the past, I why should I care about his potential, there is no evidence he would ever be a good singer. There is ongoing Star Wars novesl, a whole expanded universe that's ongoing, would you seek out a novel about Jar Jar Binks because he has the potential to be a good character? Considering how flawed that character concept is, I wouldn't.

 

[The Question]

Saying characters have potential is a meaningless statement, it means nothing. I know this and I don't care, I get your point, I just don't agree its relevant unless the potential has a follow through. You could argue Lance Bass has the potential to be a great musician as long as he alive, but considering the crap he has released in the past, I why should I care about his potential, there is no evidence he would ever be a good singer.

Lance Bass is a real person, not a fictional character. Any pattern he falls into is his own fault. Any pattern a fictional character falls into isn't theirs, it's the fault of lazy writers. That was my only point.

There is ongoing Star Wars novesl, a whole expanded universe that's ongoing, would you seek out a novel about Jar Jar Binks because he has the potential to be a good character? Considering how flawed that character concept is, I wouldn't.

I've actually heard quite a lot of praise for at least one Jar Jar Binks centered story in the EU.

But, anyway, you're missing my point. I never was advocating for a reader to spend their money on a comic just because a character might be better. It's really their choice what to buy. I was simply saying that you can't classify a fictional character that exists in a shared universe in several stories written by several authors as an inherently flat or round character. Simply as a character that is generally written in a flat manner or generally written in a round manner. Or about 50/50 of both.

 

[Doomed_hero]

the villians demensions really depend and play on the hero they are matched against. Magneto's history and past allow to fit inot the context of what the X-Men are and the overall moral of the comic, while juggernaut comes off as one demensional cause his power is magic in nature and his arc really doesnt attach itself to the overall narritive of the X-Men comics.

SAme with Spider-man, a stry od a man struggling to make a living while learning harsh lessons and gorwing, as oppose to Norman Osborn who has all the money in the world but will fall since he never learns from his harsh methods.

The best and most fleshed out characters are the one who connect to the moral of the plot. You can create a really cool villian, but if there is not a connection to that base then the overall theme of that villian tends to get lost. It is not to say some villains cannot be made into 3 demesnsional characters if a writer is ambitious enough, however most will stick with the dooms, Magnetos, and the Osborns cause they connect most to the narritive they are trying to tell.