is Superman's lack of a decent rogues gallery the Silver Age's fault?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (44 of them)
> it pales next to Batman and spidey of course

I don't really buy this. A handful really great villains is all anybody gets, and more than most. Seriously, to take Spidey I always though Green Goblin wasn't very interesting, so you start with Doc Ock, then there's Kingpin, Lizard, and after that even 'classic' villains like Scorpion, Vulture and Electro are pretty lame. On the other hand, you can hardly compare the mood and themes of Spidey and Supes for reasons that are too well known to bother rehashing here.

100% CHAMPS with a Yes! Attitude. (Austin, Still), Saturday, 2 September 2006 17:46 (eighteen years ago) link

i don't buy this just cuz i think luthor is one of the best baddies ever

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 2 September 2006 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah totally! and batman doesn't even have that many decent villains beyond the famous 4 - i mean, mr freeze?

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 2 September 2006 21:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, I'd be careful not to mistake the fact that Spider-Man and Batman's rogue galleries are so famous (largely due to their tv series and toy lines) to be an indication of their intrinsic quality in relationship to Superman's key villains. Lex Luthor is really one of the best villains ever, and that's almost enough. Unless the comics are totally ridiculous, Superman isn't even that interesting if he's not playing off Luthor or Batman or Lois, and that's not an accident.

Matthew Perpetua! (Matthew Perpetua!), Saturday, 2 September 2006 22:25 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, I don't buy any of that in return! :)

Spidey has a great group of villains - you missed out on Kraven and Venom (who might suck now due to overuse, but was pretty creepy when he first started showing up), for instance. Also, I think we should establish here a diference between villains who might have crap powers or origins, but which are nonetheless useful, and ones who are just plain bad characters. Many of the characters in, say, "Villains United" are pretty crap as far as powers go; they're second ringers, *but* because Simone was good at writing them, they've become interesting characters nonethless. So yeah, characters like Elekrto, Mysterio and the Vulture are pretty lame on paper, and certainly not particuarly scary - but I'd argue that they're still good villains, because I remember Spidey stories where their character and underdog status was used to make them more interesting, more human, and thus (of course) establish a good paralell with ol' underdog Parker himself. Compare that to, say, the Toyman, who's never (to my knowledge) been written in an even remotley interesting way. So he's rubbish not because he has a stupid gimmick and is hopelessly outmatched in a fight against supes, he's rubbish because he never adds anything to the story.

In other words, I don't think that a good rogue's gallery has to consist exclusively of particuarly brilliant or threatening individuals.

As for Batman, I don't even know who the "famous four" would be! The bad guys in Batman aren't consistently well written obv, but then I can't think of many who haven't been totally awesome at least once or twice in stuff I've read/seen. Joker, Two-Face, Ras Al' Ghul, Scarecrow, Poison Ivy, Man-Bat, how can you fuck with that? Mr.Freeze and the Mad Hatter were pretty awesome in the animated series; even the Penguin has had his moments, like his stint as a "Godfather" type figure in post-"No Man's Land" Gotham.

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 2 September 2006 23:15 (eighteen years ago) link

And sure Luthor's great, but not greater than the Joker!

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 2 September 2006 23:16 (eighteen years ago) link

pretty tight race there.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 3 September 2006 00:11 (eighteen years ago) link

they're pretty similar characters though; luthor's power is that he's super-smart and rational and the joker's power is that he's super-smart and irrational.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 3 September 2006 00:12 (eighteen years ago) link

Luthor wins for his "you deminish human achievement" vs joker's "i am deformed and murderous" (do any other super villians have admirable motives?)

Slumpman (Slump Man), Sunday, 3 September 2006 00:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Slocki OTM re: Joker and Luthor. I think they are both really great, and perfect for their respective arch-enemies.

Joker's motive isn't that he's "deformed," his motive is that his id has run completely wild and he is the ultimate sociopath.

Matthew Perpetua! (Matthew Perpetua!), Sunday, 3 September 2006 00:42 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah it's a tight race, I'm just sayin' basing your defence of Superman's villains *solely* on Luthor is sort of weird - sure he's a great arch-enemy to Superman; the Joker is a great arch-enemy to Batman, and that doesn't prevent bats from having other interesting villains, too!

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Sunday, 3 September 2006 09:51 (eighteen years ago) link

well it's more like how can you say superman doesn't have very good villains when he has one of the BESTEST. although maybe that's why!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 3 September 2006 12:14 (eighteen years ago) link

also maybe cuz luthor's super-braininess is the perfect foil to supes' super-strengthiness it makes other superman villains kinda redundant? even "brain"iac in that light. cuz superman is so omnipotent that it's pretty hard to threaten him, thus the need for non-villain plot devices.

s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 3 September 2006 12:15 (eighteen years ago) link

I think the reason I grew up as a Bat-fan from childhood was his villains - the best ever (even though I can't stand Ra'as Doo Daa). The fact that the Joker is STILL really great as a villain, despite hundreds of shitty stories by crappy writers, is something of a surprise.

James Morrison (JRSM), Monday, 4 September 2006 08:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Pro-Joker: His arc in Gotham Central. It makes the rest of the run look warm and fuzzy (despite the fact that issue 1 scene 1 is "superhero kills cop"): whenever he's onscreen there's the feeling that he could kill everyone at any time.

Pro-Luthor: ASS#5, duh. Even if it is just teasing out the details from a few pages in #1.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 4 September 2006 10:40 (eighteen years ago) link

#5 for real! It's kind of amazing I've never seen a "Clark visits Luthor in Prison" story before. Surely there must have been a few before now? Although I can't imagine them being any better.

100% CHAMPS with a Yes! Attitude. (Austin, Still), Monday, 4 September 2006 10:43 (eighteen years ago) link

It would have been merely fantastic without the eyebrow pencil. Have we had a thread on 'Great bald characters that Grant Morrison hasn't written yet' yet?

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 4 September 2006 10:50 (eighteen years ago) link

Uh, George Costanza...

100% CHAMPS with a Yes! Attitude. (Austin, Still), Monday, 4 September 2006 10:59 (eighteen years ago) link

You know the way some superheroes are matey with their villains, even though they are always beating them up and putting them in jail? Do you get that with Superman and Luthor (other than in that GM comic)?

I always like when villains play the "But we're buddies!" card, in such a way that you know they would KILL the hero if conditions were reversed (cf Doctor & Master in The Sea Devils).

DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 September 2006 13:19 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't think you even get that in that GM comic, Luthor probably has a half-dozen ways to kill Superman in his cell, except his arrogance doesn't let him recognize that bumbling Clark is him. Tho yeah it is very Superman for him to continually believe in the rehabilitation of Lex.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 4 September 2006 14:03 (eighteen years ago) link

Well... I was thinking of that kind of one-sided friendship, where the hero has a sense of mateyness to the villain, while the villain just wants to kill the hero.

I like Luthor as a villain... he has a real air of nastiness to him, particularly when he is done as the billionaire plutocrat villain. John Byrne did some great stuff with him.

It occurs to me - the Earth 2 Luthor must be way sharper than the evil one we are used to, because the Crime Syndicate would just kill him if they ever got the chance, something evil Luthor does not have to worry about.

DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 4 September 2006 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link

Re: JB's Luthor

OTM. I think nearly everything that happened to Superman for like five years after the Man of Steel relaunch could be traced back to Luthor.
Was just reading in Fingeroth's Superman on the Couch about how villains, by design, MUST be more interesting than the hero. With the hero representing/defending the status quo, the villain represents a threat to such. Which is, y'know, the definition of cool.

The thing about Silver Age Supes is that there was no clean break with the Golden Age stuff. So by the late 50s/early 60s, we can sort of assume that in 20+ years, Superman has pretty much put a lid on every significant threat to law & order. So Superman must face threats of either the benignly trivial (Lori Lemaris tries to trick Supes into proposing to Lois Lane) or the awesomely cataclysmic (Brainiac is putting ENTIRE CITIES into bottles!).

Plus, remember that by the time Superheroes came into vogue again after about a decade in the wilderness, Superman had survived by adapting to the fashions of the day, especially romance comics, and downplaying the Super-ness of Superman.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 00:40 (eighteen years ago) link

With the hero representing/defending the status quo

Er...

Paging Doctor Tuomas! (afarrell), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 08:31 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, not all superheroes defend the status quo (for example, the X-Men probably want to change it, ultimately), but Superman definitely does.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 09:01 (eighteen years ago) link

The X-Men just want to survive unti the status quo changes around them! But yes, nice not reading the quote there, Tuomas.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 10:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Huh?

Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 10:56 (eighteen years ago) link

One of the very likeable things about Mark Waid's current version of the Legion is that they are most definitely doing everything they can to change the status quo of their era.

Matthew Perpetua! (Matthew Perpetua!), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 12:19 (eighteen years ago) link

It's funny, my knowledge of the DC/Superman universe still comes mainly from some collectible cards given away with Weetabix in the late 1970s, so I am still FASCINATED by the whole Kaldor in a bottle thing, or Lori Lemaris, or any of the lamer villains I remember reading about on them.

Is it a thing with Luthor, say, that he has been done badly in the films - portrayed as a bit of a joke - so people do not think of him as a serious villain?

DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 20:00 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't know if he was ever portrayed very seriously ANYWHERE until Elliot S. Maggin's Last Son Of Krypton.

Kit (kit brash), Tuesday, 5 September 2006 20:20 (eighteen years ago) link

Was just reading in Fingeroth's Superman on the Couch about how villains, by design, MUST be more interesting than the hero. With the hero representing/defending the status quo, the villain represents a threat to such. Which is, y'know, the definition of cool.

Yeah, I don't agree with this at all. Doesn't every comic based around a villain sell terribly? Are any of Spider-Man's villains more interesting than Peter Parker? Are any of Batman's villains besides the Joker (and maybe Ra's) interesting?

Which doesn't mean that they're not good villains - Spider-Man and Batman both have great rogues galleries. But when Doc Ock is robbing a bank, that doesn't seem like he's a rebel who's fighting against the status quo to me.

The Yellow Kid (The Yellow Kid), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 00:33 (eighteen years ago) link

are you saying that in your neighbourhood banks being robbed is the status quo?

Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 02:22 (eighteen years ago) link

maybe I didn't articulate well enough:
Fingeroth, speaking in generalities about action heroes, asserts that the Hero emerges when the status quo is threatened, takes necessary action to preserve s/q, then recedes until the next threat. The Action Hero ARCHETYPE (Fingeroth notes that Batman and Punisher are exceptions to this--though Batman and Punisher are part of the CENTRAL Action Hero Archetype of the last, what 35 years? Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Rambo, etc.) is essentially a reactive character, while the villain (in the Lex Luthor/Dr. Doom worldbeater archetype) is the one instigating change/revolution.
In a serial adventure series, the hero has to essentially remain static (though, Spider-Man was a dambuster on this rule), in order to always be there, ready to face the next threat. Therefore the dynamics of the series are provided by the villains. Fingeroth talks about Stan Lee talking about Bullpen sessions and how discussion of villains was always the key thing.
Though, thinking about it (and typing about it), it occurs to me that the change didn't really come from the villains as characters, the change manifested itself in the villains. IE, Doc Ock changes into the Vulture becomes Sandman, etc. The hero is constant, the villains are inconstant.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 02:34 (eighteen years ago) link

and, yeah, Fingeroth totally makes some remarkable leaps of logic, even mentions FASCISM!, which all seems a lot less novel in the post-ILC univorn.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 02:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Are depth of backstory and depth of rogue's gallery inversely related? Just wondering.

M. V. (M.V.), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 03:00 (eighteen years ago) link

But when Doc Ock is robbing a bank, that doesn't seem like he's a rebel who's fighting against the status quo to me.

Er, "status quo" doesn't necessarily mean oppression/fascism, and fighting against doesn't necessarily mean rebellion in the political sense. Spider-Man tries to uphold the status quo of law and order, and Doc Ock is threatening it by doing crimes, but that doesn't Doc Ock is a revolutionary trying to bring about a better world. Or, take Dark Knight Returns for another example: in it Batman is the rebel fighting against the status quo, but he's also a leader of his own fascist militia - so it's Batman's idea of an order against a different kind of order.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 06:02 (eighteen years ago) link

but in spidey's world street crime IS the status quo! and indifference to it is what got his uncle killed!

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 12:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Also, surely Luthor, as a bloated billionaire plutocrat, is also the status quo?

DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 14:23 (eighteen years ago) link

Who are you calling a bloated billionaire plutocrat!

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 14:35 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah... luthor... kingpin... they all run game in comic book world.

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:04 (eighteen years ago) link

We need a hero who not only rebels against the status quo but also against the band Status Quo.

Vic F (Vic Fluro), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:06 (eighteen years ago) link

That is a rockist position.

DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:08 (eighteen years ago) link

Surely it's anti-rockist as Status Quo were rockin' all over the world, requiring an international coalition of superheroes to stop their nefarious deeds? Much like Millenium but with a pub rock group instead of the Manhunters.

Vic F (Vic Fluro), Wednesday, 6 September 2006 15:21 (eighteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.