Should Marvel do more to raise the profiles of their villains?

[The Overlord]

It seems like recently the super villains of Marvel have been overshadowed by hero vs. hero conflicts, should Marvel do more to raise the profiles of its super villains? Also I'm not just talking about using guys like Dr. Doom again, I am also talking about doing some new interesting things with some of their B-list villains. Frankly it seems like DC has been making better use of their villains for the last decade then Marvel has.

 

[Dread]

Off the top of my head, ASM #697 introduced an interesting angle to Roderick Kingsley, the original Hobgoblin.

Spoiler

He essentially sets up "super villain franchises" in other states and countries to reap profits off crime by having people don identities he establishes in an area and then offer him kickbacks. Among them are identities who have been used many times, such as Blaze, Tumbler, Hitman, Blue Streak, and yes, Hobgoblin.

 

[chamber-music]

A similar supervillain franchise thing has been done before I think Dread. They did it with the royal flush gang with various franchises in different states. Sort of like a Bloods and Crips associates franchise.

I think it would be cool to see some B-list villains get upgraded and used as bigger threats. I liked when they made Norman Osborn a big threat to the entire Marvel heroes and not just Spider-Man or had the Hood set up a criminal empire.

 

[shiva666]

1-They need to stop using cool villains as the next anti-heroes (Even Galactus sounds like a nice guy now)

2- Upgrades. Between Doom, Fixer, Tinkerer, Mad thinker, etc,etc... these brains could each pick tech villains and boost them.

3-all these aliens out there, some really hate hearth, not just skrulls.



redesign-rethink... presto!

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Off the top of my head, ASM #697 introduced an interesting angle to Roderick Kingsley, the original Hobgoblin.

Spoiler

He essentially sets up "super villain franchises" in other states and countries to reap profits off crime by having people don identities he establishes in an area and then offer him kickbacks. Among them are identities who have been used many times, such as Blaze, Tumbler, Hitman, Blue Streak, and yes, Hobgoblin.

I've always liked Hobgoblin, and was pleased with this angle.

He always seemed like more of an a**hole and less of a super-villain, and so I think this fits his personality. It makes his actions less evil and more prickish and self-serving which totally fits his character.

Also

Spoiler

You have to wonder whether this ties into ASM #700. Perhaps Peter decides to license Spider-Man

 

[JewishHobbit]

I have this idea for Demogoblin that's unlike anything Marvel's ever done and MAJORLY plays up the character. I'm holding onto it in case my writing career picks up enough to actually write for Marvel. I'm not holding my breath, but you never know.

Though, it makes the character more a force of nature than a better villain... so I suppose that could defeat the purpose of this thread.

 

[Aesculapius]

Doom is a special case. I like him far more as an antihero than I do an outright villain. His bonding with the Fantastikids has led to some outstanding character development. Honestly, in my own "If I were in charge of Marvel" fantasies, I would pair him with Dr. Strange a whole lot more... Course I'd also use pre-nerf Dr. Strange, lol.

I do think Spider-Man needs knocked back a few notches (probably why they are disappearing Parker again for a bit.) His fights against petty gangsters in earlier comics were more interesting than a lot of the supervillian fights he has anymore.

It is really good to see Hobgoblin getting some love. He has been a hopeless jobber for too long, like a lot of Spidey's rogue gallery.

I do think that decay of villain badassery is a problem Marvel will always have to face, given the fact their stories don't end, and you can't have them all kill off main characters that will only be brought back too often because even that gets ridiculous. Marvel really just needs to keep villains seasonal in a way, just so we can still appreciate when they pop up again, and they will pop up again because Marvel stories have a beginning, middle, and no end.

 

[Lord]

I mostly agree, by creating so many hero vs hero conflicts they have made the heroes look bad.

 

[Quasimod0]

Marvel Ultimate alliance did a great job with doom, if anyone remembers that.

 

[SuperFerret]

Best way to do it at this point is for the villains to shake up the status quo. Give Doom a year of successfully conquering Europe. Have the Sinister Six destroy Queens. Have Wilson Fisk successfully run for governor of New York. Something relatively big, with actual repercussions.

 

[JewishHobbit]

They sorta did that with Osborn and Dark Reign.

And as always, it'd just be the next status quo until the next event.

 

[Baramos]

They might actually have to create more villains...sure each hero or group has one or two supervillains that are recognizable but the only really in-depth, compelling rogues gallery belongs mostly to Spider-Man, and I guess all the bad mutants in X-Men. For interesting villains in most of the other comic books I can name them off on one hand for each hero...

(DC has a similar problem, of course--the most compelling rogues' gallery is Batman's.)

 

[chamber-music]

I don't think they need to come up with new villains just better utilize the ones they have.

When Magneto first showed up in 1963 he was nothing more than a craven maniacal would-be world conqueror, preaching mutant superiority and the fundamental “rightness” of mutant rule. He felt because mutants were physically superior, they deserved to inherent the earth. However, despite his great power, he was not impressive as a character. One Marvel writer referred to the character as “a poor man’s Dr. Doom.”

When Chris Claremont took over the flailing X-Men title in 1975, he decided to apply the maxim “A protagonist is only as interesting as his or her antagonist” and started developing Magneto into a more three dimensional and impactful character. Magneto the power-mongering cad was exchanged for Magneto the revolutionary. His hysterical rantings smoothed into the focused eloquence of political fanaticism. Then in 1981, Claremont took the final step and at last provided the audience with Magneto’s personal motivations: He was a Holocaust survivor, the last of a large family wiped out by the Nazi’s.

Looks what Geoff Johns did when he reformed the Flash rogues. He expanded their backstory, gave them more depth, explored their relationship with the flash, used their powers in intresting and more dangerous ways all of left The Flash with one of the best rogue galleries in comics.

Grant Morrison, Alan Moore and many other writers have managed to take supervillians that many writers thought were a joke revamp and revitalise them.

Alot of new supervillains seem to be weak versions of characters we have seen before. I think perhaps some writers lack some imagination.

 

[Lord]

That's right, no mather what Stan Lee says his Magneto wasn't that similar to Malcolm X, almost every villain was a joke in a story or two, writers can just find imaginative ways to use them.

 

[IFryKids]

I have this idea for Demogoblin that's unlike anything Marvel's ever done and MAJORLY plays up the character. I'm holding onto it in case my writing career picks up enough to actually write for Marvel. I'm not holding my breath, but you never know.

Though, it makes the character more a force of nature than a better villain... so I suppose that could defeat the purpose of this thread.

I'd be interested in that. I really liked Demogoblin.

 

[JewishHobbit]

So did I. I was actually thinking through another idea I had regarding a book I tentatively saw as a "Deadly Foes of Spider-Man" comic when I thought bigger of Demogoblin. It actually includes a lot more than just the Spidey mythos and involves such characters as Charlotte Jones, Ishmael Ortega (from the District X comic staring Bishop), Lucifer, the Sentry, the Goblin Force (from the Mutant X book), the Living Tribune, Thanos, and Death. And that's just in the first year

 

[The Overlord]

I don't think they need to come up with new villains just better utilize the ones they have.

When Magneto first showed up in 1963 he was nothing more than a craven maniacal would-be world conqueror, preaching mutant superiority and the fundamental “rightness” of mutant rule. He felt because mutants were physically superior, they deserved to inherent the earth. However, despite his great power, he was not impressive as a character. One Marvel writer referred to the character as “a poor man’s Dr. Doom.”

When Chris Claremont took over the flailing X-Men title in 1975, he decided to apply the maxim “A protagonist is only as interesting as his or her antagonist” and started developing Magneto into a more three dimensional and impactful character. Magneto the power-mongering cad was exchanged for Magneto the revolutionary. His hysterical rantings smoothed into the focused eloquence of political fanaticism. Then in 1981, Claremont took the final step and at last provided the audience with Magneto’s personal motivations: He was a Holocaust survivor, the last of a large family wiped out by the Nazi’s.

Looks what Geoff Johns did when he reformed the Flash rogues. He expanded their backstory, gave them more depth, explored their relationship with the flash, used their powers in intresting and more dangerous ways all of left The Flash with one of the best rogue galleries in comics.

Grant Morrison, Alan Moore and many other writers have managed to take supervillians that many writers thought were a joke revamp and revitalise them.

Alot of new supervillains seem to be weak versions of characters we have seen before. I think perhaps some writers lack some imagination.

I think back in the 60s Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the other big writers were more focused on making interesting heroes then interesting villains, with a few big exceptions like Doom, Red Skull, etc. Back then heroes with real flaws was revolutionary and so that was the focus, I don't blame Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the rest for focusing more on making interesting heroes and having some of the villains be one note. Plus I think people tended to see villains as just "the bad guy" rather then their own characters, back in the 60s.

The problem is, at this point the heroes have been well established and a lot of villains have never progressed beyond their one note characterizations from the Silver Age. I like Stan and Jack, but respecting their legacy is the way to go, not being so slavish devoted to it, that we can't have any change.

I usually don't like big retcons, like Spidey no longer being married, but I don't mind smaller ret cons, like ones that give villains a better back story or more characterization. Or even have an event that changes a villain, like what happened with "Coyote" in the Daredevil book. I think you can take a kinda of lame villains and try to make him interesting with a little effort. I think there are tons of B-list and C-list villains you revamp either by giving them more interesting back story or having an event happen to them that changes their outlook. Also if you make a change, you have to stick with it and more then one writer has to stick with this change. Hickman had Wizard go through a mental break down recently, but we haven't gotten a good explanation of why Wizard had a mental break and every other writer besides Hickman seems to be ignoring it.

 

[chamber-music]

Well said Overloard

I think improving villains and expanding their backstory actually makes the heroes more intresting because it can change the dynamic of their relationship.

Supervillains like the Joker, Green Goblin, Loki, ect have a strange bond with their superhero arch-enemies which makes them more compelling.

 

[Thwip!]

I think back in the 60s Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the other big writers were more focused on making interesting heroes then interesting villains, with a few big exceptions like Doom, Red Skull, etc. Back then heroes with real flaws was revolutionary and so that was the focus, I don't blame Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the rest for focusing more on making interesting heroes and having some of the villains be one note. Plus I think people tended to see villains as just "the bad guy" rather then their own characters, back in the 60s.

The problem is, at this point the heroes have been well established and a lot of villains have never progressed beyond their one note characterizations from the Silver Age. I like Stan and Jack, but respecting their legacy is the way to go, not being so slavish devoted to it, that we can't have any change.

I usually don't like big retcons, like Spidey no longer being married, but I don't mind smaller ret cons, like ones that give villains a better back story or more characterization. Or even have an event that changes a villain, like what happened with "Coyote" in the Daredevil book. I think you can take a kinda of lame villains and try to make him interesting with a little effort. I think there are tons of B-list and C-list villains you revamp either by giving them more interesting back story or having an event happen to them that changes their outlook. Also if you make a change, you have to stick with it and more then one writer has to stick with this change. Hickman had Wizard go through a mental break down recently, but we haven't gotten a good explanation of why Wizard had a mental break and every other writer besides Hickman seems to be ignoring it.

Nicely put Overlord, my hat is in permanently doffed position

 

[shiva666]

Which villains you guys think should be updated/redesigned/rewritten how and why?

curious...