ARE VILLIANS BETTER THAN HEROES?

maybe a bad choice of words. but i am interested a little. being here has intensified my attraction but yeah, i was interested a little before i came here.

I'll give Doom his credit but have we forgotten about one of the most motivated villains ever?

THE CAPED CARLITO wrote:

WELL DC ANYWAY.
THE JOKER DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY OR GAGETS OR THE TEAM BATMAN HAS AND YET HE'S ALMOST ONE A FEW TIMES AND SAME GOES FOR THE OTHER VILLIANS. LOOK AT LEX. JUST A HUMAN AND HE'S ALMOST TAKEN DOWN A GOD-LIKE MAN. WHAT IF THE VILLIANS HAD WHAT THE HEROES HAD? WOULD SUPERMAN AND BATMAN WIN IF LEX HAD SUPER STRENGTH SPEED AND ALL THAT CRAP AND IF THE JOKER HAD A TRILLION DOLLARS AND HAD HIS OWN SIDEKICK?

I'M JUST SAYIN'

No, but they are cooler...

I've always thought the bad guys were cooler looking than the good guys (for the most part).
Who the Hell wants Duke or Shipwreck when you can have Destro or Cobra Commander?

The only villian I find more interesting then any hero is Zoom.

That guy genuinely creeps me out.

WONDERFUL character!

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

Jim! wrote:

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

Although I feel like Zoom defies that definition.

He is an entirely new type of villian. That's why I love him.

minimalist wrote:

The only villian I find more interesting then any hero is Zoom.

That guy genuinely creeps me out.

WONDERFUL character!

mini.....



Zoom is my favorite villian.

minimalist wrote:

Jim! wrote:

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

Although I feel like Zoom defies that definition.

He is an entirely new type of villian. That's why I love him.

Exactly he just wants to make the Flashes better heroes.


Constantly trying to "help" them improve.

GreatWhiteNinja wrote:

minimalist wrote:

The only villian I find more interesting then any hero is Zoom.

That guy genuinely creeps me out.

WONDERFUL character!

mini.....



Zoom is my favorite villian.

Zoom zoom zoom

Shadowrenderer wrote:

Jim! wrote:

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

& that's why I prefer heroes, they still win even tho their hands are somewhat tied.

Plus I just don't get the motivation of villains.

They win because they have to. That's how a story works, with very few exceptions. It hardly seems to the credit of the heroes that they have an insurmountable advantage.

And it's not as though villains are homogeneous in their motivations.

yeah, i dont know if i look at which character is most interesting or i want to understand more. for me its just the psychoness of a character. theres nothing really to get. he'/she's crazy. thats it. its funny.

Shadowrenderer wrote:

True Believer wrote:

Shadowrenderer wrote:

Jim! wrote:

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

& that's why I prefer heroes, they still win even tho their hands are somewhat tied.

Plus I just don't get the motivation of villains.

They win because they have to. That's how a story works, with very few exceptions. It hardly seems to the credit of the heroes that they have an insurmountable advantage.

And it's not as though villains are homogeneous in their motivations.

I never said all villains have the same motivations, I said I don't understand them.

& isn't the point often about how hard the hero must fight to overcome the odds?

But the conclusion is forgone. They always, eventually, overcome the odds. So, the fact that they win despite "having their hands tied" isn't really to their credit because they're always going to win.

And I don't understand how you you can't understand any villains motivations when they're so varied.

Shadowrenderer wrote:

True Believer wrote:

Shadowrenderer wrote:

True Believer wrote:

Shadowrenderer wrote:

Jim! wrote:

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

& that's why I prefer heroes, they still win even tho their hands are somewhat tied.

Plus I just don't get the motivation of villains.

They win because they have to. That's how a story works, with very few exceptions. It hardly seems to the credit of the heroes that they have an insurmountable advantage.

And it's not as though villains are homogeneous in their motivations.

I never said all villains have the same motivations, I said I don't understand them.

& isn't the point often about how hard the hero must fight to overcome the odds?

But the conclusion is forgone. They always, eventually, overcome the odds. So, the fact that they win despite "having their hands tied" isn't really to their credit because they're always going to win.

And I don't understand how you you can't understand any villains motivations when they're so varied.

Ok so I've yet to understand any villains motives.

Except maybe the Riddler...



& the struggle to overcome the odds is integral to many hero stories. Sometimes it's what makes him/her the hero.

I never disputed that. My question was how does that quality make them better than villains.

Shadowrenderer wrote:

True Believer wrote:

Shadowrenderer wrote:

True Believer wrote:

Shadowrenderer wrote:

True Believer wrote:

Shadowrenderer wrote:

Jim! wrote:

I think villians always have more appeal. They are planners, they have goals and asperations, they are proactive and they live outside the mainstream so laws don't get in their way. Heroes tend to be reactive, they are always behind the curve, because they have to figure out in a short period of time something a villian may have spent months or years planning. They have to live within the constraints of society. Much tougher road being the hero.

& that's why I prefer heroes, they still win even tho their hands are somewhat tied.

Plus I just don't get the motivation of villains.

They win because they have to. That's how a story works, with very few exceptions. It hardly seems to the credit of the heroes that they have an insurmountable advantage.

And it's not as though villains are homogeneous in their motivations.

I never said all villains have the same motivations, I said I don't understand them.

& isn't the point often about how hard the hero must fight to overcome the odds?

But the conclusion is forgone. They always, eventually, overcome the odds. So, the fact that they win despite "having their hands tied" isn't really to their credit because they're always going to win.

And I don't understand how you you can't understand any villains motivations when they're so varied.

Ok so I've yet to understand any villains motives.

Except maybe the Riddler...



& the struggle to overcome the odds is integral to many hero stories. Sometimes it's what makes him/her the hero.

I never disputed that. My question was how does that quality make them better than villains.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuum... cos I said so?


there are many villains who had to overcome great odds to get anywere. Magneto had a terrible upbringing & then had his family killed in front of him.

Then again Spidey is inderectly responsible for the death of his uncle.

I think my point is really what you do with the hardships/trials. heroes are nobler (is that a word?) so in my book they're better.



imo

Fair enough, but it seemed like you were making a different point altogether, before.

Though even the nobility of the characters is up for debate. Spider-Man simply wants no one to get hurt, which is a noble goal. But someone like, say, Magneto actually wants to make life better for people.

Who's to say that's not noble?