Comic Book Villains

[Seil]

Hey Two-Face! Show me how to punch a guy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2StmvbLb4c8&NR=1)

This will eventually devolve into a "Who will the villain in the next Batman flick be," but before we get to that, why not look at:

Darkseid, who's... well, kinda gloomy. He doesn't have nearly as much fun with his work as, say, (http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3900000/Darkseid-dc-comics-3977526-1024-768.jpg) Lex Luthor. (http://www.funnycorner.net/funny-pictures/5526/funny-demotivational-pictures/lex-luthor.html) Magneto's pretty rad, too. (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs14/f/2007/060/c/a/Magneto_by_RyanKinnaird.jpg)

A lot of comic book villains, or movie villains - how the non-comic book readers know them - aren't really villains anymore. Sure, a lot of them do evil or bad stuff, but at the same time they're doing it fora greater good - Magneto is trying to save mutants! Mr. Freeze is trying to save his wife! Luthor is... well, Luthor.

Villains - are they really villains? Who is the best villain? What was their best era, costume or appearance? And will they be in the next Batman movie?

[Magus]

Luthor in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel tried to justify his criminal activities with opposing the alien menace of Superman who he considers hypocritical and unearthly, though it was pretty good at pointing out that Lex Luthor is...well, just trying to justify his criminal activities. He's sort of rendered as being a tragic figure via the comic even if there's no real way you can say he isn't almost entirely evil. Joker sort of tried to do that, but I think they were aware it was impossible to make the The Dark Knight-style Joker seem even mildly sympathetic so they stuck in Johnny Frost as the narrator, who is an interesting antihero..

They have attempted to make the Joker sympathetic a few times, mostly in The Killing Joke. Most of the best Batman villains are mildly sympathetic, it makes them more interesting. You already mentioned Two-Face and Mr. Freeze, there was also one of the Clayfaces, I mentioned the Joker as well. They tried to make Scarecrow sympathetic recently as well by showing his abused childhood. All the villains that are just totally evil (Black Mask, The Penguin [in the comics, I mean, not Batman Returns], etc.) aren't really as interesting.

My favorite villain would be hard to identify, I enjoy most of the Batman villains, even the ones that aren't as interesting because they are totally evil (Black Mask isn't as interesting but holy shit is he evil).

[Aerozord]

because thats human nature. Not even Hitler thought of himself as evil. Its what gives characters depth is how they got there. Even complete sociopaths can be justified by mental illness or belief in amorality. The only thing that makes them evil is that average person in our modern society finds what they do morally questionable.

[tacticslion]

because thats human nature. Not even Hitler thought of himself as evil. Its what gives characters depth is how they got there. Even complete sociopaths can be justified by mental illness or belief in amorality. The only thing that makes them evil is that average person in our modern society finds what they do morally questionable.

I was with you until you mentioned what makes a person evil. It's not societal, and it's not relative. There is an absolute standard of good and evil. The problem is that all people are (to some extent) evil, just as we all (to some extent) have the propensity and desire to be good. Further complicating things is that we can get confused over what is right and wrong by constant exposure or mental illnesses. Even the most twisted, corrupt, and maddened entity, who worships "evil" as a concept, and seeks to promote it, does so out of some sense of "this is what is right" - no one believes that they are completely wrong, or if they do, they justify it somehow, even if it's as shallow as "someone will stop me" or "I've got to prove this point". When we do good, we justify it. When we do evil, we justify it. Only one of those things are good. You were right that it's human nature to do so.

Really, it comes down to how closely we can identify with the villains motiviations. The closer a villain comes to being comprehensible, the more tragic they become. Mr. Freeze doesn't really want anything wrong. He doesn't want to commit crime, and he doesn't want to harm people, per se. What he wants is for his wife to live, or, barring that, for those who killed her to have justice brought upon them. The methods he uses - because he feels he must - are reprehensible, but to him, regardless of what he sets out to do, he does all in the name of "justice". No act becomes unthinkable, nothing too heinous, for his justice shan't be denied.

Many books, movies, and comics (especially the silver age) have shallow villains. They're evil just because (I love Silver Age Lex: originally a good friend and ally of Supermanboy wanted revenge because a random chemical accident caused by Lex's studies for Supermanboy's sake caused Lex to lose his hair), and they don't really care otherwise. Usually this is the "insane" villain. Similarly, however, some have written exceedingly well-crafted "human" villians we can relate to. Most villains have a "noble" goal in mind, and to them, the end justifies the means. Often, however, from such earnest origins, villains "grow" into villiany, simply because, like MacBeth, they figure "I've waded half way through this river of blood", so they might as well finish. Others simply can't see that their means aren't noble - they're too steeped in their way of thinking to be able to think beyond it, one of the historic causes of war and strife in humanity. Either way, human.

[DarkDrgon]

my favorite villain is completely unsympathetic, and is pretty much a complete dick. Bullseye has never had a reason for his actions (at least, in none of the DD I've ever read)

[Magus]

He's a mercenary, he gets paid for assassinating people. He's therefore greedy for money and amoral. Very human! Not really sympathetic, but pretty human...

[walkertexasdruid]

Maybe they should bring Harley Quinn into the next Batman Movie. Arkam Assylum figures prominently in this series of movies, she was the Joker's psychiatrist.

Best villain, hmm... Well Apocolypse is a pretty significant villain that has been left out of the X-Men movies so far. He is only their most formidible opponent. ;)

[CABAL49]

Best villain, hmm... Well Apocolypse is a pretty significant villain that has been left out of the X-Men movies so far. He is only their most formidible opponent. ;)

Wouldn't the movies need to bring Jean and Scott back then? Or we could just pretend the third movie never happened.

[bluestarultor]

Wouldn't the movies need to bring Jean and Scott back then? Or we could just pretend the third movie never happened.

I think the third movie pretty much killed the possibility of a fourth. Not in that it didn't leave things wide open for one, but in that people will probably flood the theaters with torches if they make one.

[Token]

I thought we were doing that already.

[Lithp]

Good & evil are not absolute. Let's take killing a human, for example.

Is it wrong to kill someone?

What if that someone is trying to kill you, a friend, or a relative? What if that someone is a maniacal dictator currently running a genocide? If you can think of ANY scenario that suddenly makes killing okay, then it's not absolutely evil.

As for the newest Batman movie--try not to get Topic Whiplash, by the way--I'd personally like to see mobster Penguin & realistic Poison Ivy.

[Magus]

Smells like bullshit, since they didn't even post a pic of the casting grid, but here we go with the latest Batman 3 villain rumor:

The Riddler verified by leaked casting grid, supposedly, maybe (http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/07/20/excl-studio-casting-names-the-riddler-as-batman-3-villain/).

Still not sure where they'd go with the Riddler in the plot. Still think it needs a femme fatale villain in order to create any tension within Batman's character and psyche. But anyway, probably fake rumors ahoy!

[tacticslion]

Proceeding to threadjack!
Good & evil are not absolute. Um, no, they are.
Let's take killing a human, for example.

Is it wrong to kill someone?

What if that someone is trying to kill you, a friend, or a relative? What if that someone is a maniacal dictator currently running a genocide? If you can think of ANY scenario that suddenly makes killing okay, then it's not absolutely evil.
What you are doing here, is confusing a certain action with its context. While some actions are inherently wrong, others depend on the context in which it is performed. Again, let's look at sex. Is sex wrong? No. In fact, it's a good, excellent thing, and a perfect way to express love and a desire for intimacy and closeness. Mix sex in the context of, say, non-consent, and suddenly what is a pure, good, and even holy act, becomes reprehensible, vile, and sullied.

In both the cases of sex and killing, the context is terribly, terribly important. Both require a large amount of responsibility on the part of the person who performs the action. One is highly desirable in the appropriate context in life, the other is good to avoid if at all possible. If it isn't possible to avoid it, then it isn't possible.

BACK ON SOME SEMBLANCE OF TOPIC

This is one of the things that make villains into villains: they perform many of their actions outside of the appropriate context or perform actions that never have an appropriate context. This is evil. Sometimes they think they have justifications, but they willfully harm the innocent with the guilty.

[Lithp]

If context matters, then it isn't absolute.

a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.

Non consent is an exception. Self-defense or the defense of others is an exception. If "context" can exempt something that is ordinarily right/wrong, then the rightness/wrongness of that something is not an absolute.

Words. They have meanings.

[tacticslion]

If context matters, then it isn't absolute.
...
Words. They have meanings.

Indeed. I agree. Words have meanings. You're conflating different things to make your point, however.

Killing, while terrible, isn't absolutely evil. Sex, while wonderful, isn't absolutely good. Good, however, is absolute. Evil is also absolute. Sex is an entire group of actions, not just one. One set of that group of actions - rape - is absolutely evil, and is not justifiable under any circumstances. Absolute. Context is irrelevant.

You identify "killing" and "sex" as a single action - neither are. Both are complex series of actions which have good and evil elements within their umbrella. The good and the evil, however, are themselves absolute (ex "self defense" and "rape"), even if the broader collective of various actions that can lead to "similar" results (i.e. "killing" and "sex") are not.

Anyway, I'm done with this for now. I'm exhausted, haven't slept much, and am probably not making my points clear. If I have time/remember, I might come back later. Sorry if I've been unclear.

[Magus]

Please, Socrates already covered all this, though I'm not sure what his final analysis was. Probably that there are absolutes of good and evil but also that they are probably unknowable. Also he liked to have sex with underage boys, like many Greeks. This is the conundrum of attempting to talk about philosophy! In a thread about comic books, no less!

Anyway, Batman beats people up which is torture but it's okay 'cause he's Batman. Also he uses the Dick Cheney defense of probably not causing any permanent damage, maybe. Really this is a definite moral minefield Batman is walking through here. They should introduce a character that he wants to torture but they have a weak heart and would have a heart attack and he'd be breaking his no-kill rule. This would create definite conflict in the plot!

Also the movie should have a batmobile that is not a tank.

EDIT: Actually I'm not sure if Batman really has any moral qualms about torturing people for information at all as he seems to have never brought it up, it's only the killing people thing.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Indeed. I agree. Words have meanings. You're conflating different things to make your point, however.

Killing, while terrible, isn't absolutely evil. Sex, while wonderful, isn't absolutely good. Good, however, is absolute. Evil is also absolute. Sex is an entire group of actions, not just one. One set of that group of actions - rape - is absolutely evil, and is not justifiable under any circumstances. Absolute. Context is irrelevant.

You identify "killing" and "sex" as a single action - neither are. Both are complex series of actions which have good and evil elements within their umbrella. The good and the evil, however, are themselves absolute (ex "self defense" and "rape"), even if the broader collective of various actions that can lead to "similar" results (i.e. "killing" and "sex") are not.

Anyway, I'm done with this for now. I'm exhausted, haven't slept much, and am probably not making my points clear. If I have time/remember, I might come back later. Sorry if I've been unclear.

I think I get what you're saying. Actions are open to interpretation while the concepts of good and evil, by their very nature, are absolute.

[Lithp]

Actually, assault is considerably different from torture. I don't think that Batman would torture people for information, but The Dark Knight showed him using harsh interrogation techniques. Although that was REALLY stretched by barricading the room & beating the crap out of Joker.

Anyway, I'm not sure about Socrates, but Aristotle had this idea that ethics was about being a good citizen, being happy, & finding a mean in everything you do. Almost everything. He said that some things don't admit to a mean like, coincidentally, murder.

The problem is, one would have to first define what good & evil are, which is kind of a bitch.

[Magus]

Batman's uses "enhanced interrogation tactics" and not torture, eh?

Oh, well, I'd trust Batman's use of torture over Tricky Dick Mark II's any day of the week, he's Batman!

Actually beating the crap out of Joker was torture by any stretch of the definition (well MOST people's definitions), that's why Gordon went "OH CRAP" and tried to break in to stop him. I'd say dropping Maroni was torture, too. I think those are the only cases of torture in the movies and they are possibly explained by Batman flipping out and almost breaking his rules completely because he's desperate. I kind of wish the moral quandary had been brought up there like it was for the phonetapping scene, which was overblown if you ask me. If you're going to comment on the political situation in America under Bush I think the torture would've been a better thing to talk about than the wiretapping.

[Lithp]

Like I said, REALLY stretched in The Dark Knight. I kinda forgot Moroni.

In his defense, though, both the Joker & Maroni technically had the ability to fight back. Additionally, he stopped when it became clear that he wasn't going to get information out of Maroni.

Perhaps I should rephrase it that Batman isn't SUPPOSED to use torture?

[Magus]

Yeah, I just don't know if he ever brought it up that he's against torture or okay with it or whatever. I mean in the comics, obviously the movies don't have enough time to explore all the facets of the character. I just wondered if anybody who read a lot of the comics knew if he was against torture or not, since the movies don't follow everything about Batman to the letter, anyway.

Yeah, I forgot that the Joker wasn't tied up or anything, maybe that's Batman's loophole.

[walkertexasdruid]

Ooh, I know, how about the Ventriloquist? A physically weak man who, through his terrible psycholigical problems, is able to get criminals to do his bidding. When Batman catches him, he can blame it on the doll. I guess Batman could obliterate the doll, which would crush the man without physically harming him. It could make for a pretty creepy movie. ;)

[Lithp]

That does sound like a good idea. I still have my heart set on Penguin & Poison Ivy, though.

[Magus]

I think about the time people can take a crime boss talking through a ventriloquist dummy will be about the time they reboot the franchise with more "magical" elements, which would probably be for the best so we can have Clayface or Mr. Freeze or any of the other various "unrealistic" villains.

[Lithp]

The animated movie thing had a good "realistic" Killer Croc. Presumably, they could darker-&-edgier anything.

[Magus]

Yeah, in the Joker: The Dark Knight graphic novel Killer Croc is a gangbanger with some skin condition that is also a cannibal for Joker (to get rid of unwanted bodies). It'd easily translate to screen. But a guy with a freeze gun is probably harder to pull off. Plus Nolan said he isn't doing Mr. Freeze.

They could do Firebug, he just has flamethrowers. But they should probably go with a more major villain.

[Lithp]

Oh, it would certainly take creativity. This is what I meant, though:

Killer Croc-Half crocodile.

Realistic Rendition-Skin condition, mental patient, cannibal.

Not the same, but it achieves the same basic effect. So, maybe Freeze accomplishes his ice shtick some other way?

Although, I will admit that this is a purely hypothetical statement that thrives in a vacuum of information.

[walkertexasdruid]

Your idea for Killer Croc is very interesting, and the current movie makers definitely like really dark subject matter for Batman to deall with. Another option could be the Mad Hatter, Gotham City has shown that it has advanced technology, so small devices designed to control people's minds are not that far-fetched in these movies.

[Seil]

What's the take on Reptile for that Mortal Kombat thing? Harlequin baby cannibal?

[Nique]

Villians are always corrupted power in some form - Luthor is smarter than, well, everyone so that is pretty much his justification for everything. Usually, anyway. Some iterations protray him as more buisness-minded and schemeing rather than focus on the mind-boggling inteligence.

But yeah, overall, Luthor is a solid villain.

I'd like to see them make up their minds about Poison Ivy - I mean, her whole schtick is too confusing. She's an environmentalist or eco-terrorist metaphor, laregly, but I mean, she also teams up with the arguably materialist Catwoman becuase....?

[Kyanbu The Legend]

I always saw that team-up as nothing more then Fan Service.

[Nique]

Right but I mean, her worldview doesn't really allow it, does it? She's not feminist so much as... plant-ist? Also why the hell are they teaming up with Harley she has... I mean she has done some things.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

It didn't make much of any sense when I saw it in Batman: TAS. And by your response I'm confident it didn't in the comics either.

The only reason that comes to mind is that they may not have had much of a choice and or figured Bats wouldn't expect them to team up.

[Lithp]

Your idea for Killer Croc is very interesting

Wish I could take credit for it, but it was in an animated film meant to bridge the gap between Batman Begins & The Dark Knight. Personally, I think it was a bit surreal for that, but whatever.

I'd like to see them make up their minds about Poison Ivy - I mean, her whole schtick is too confusing.

That's comics for ya. But this is exactly why I want to see her in the next Dark Knight movie. She's so over-the-top & unrealistic that it makes it THAT much more interesting to see her made darker & more "realistic."