Reinvent that Campy villain

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Isn't that the current version?

I wouldn't know. Form the rest of my comment you can see that I'm actually trying to get familiar with the character and his wild changes of appearance.

I don't think campy is inherently wrong. And I wasn't really proposing to get rid of the campiness of forgotten characters, just the bits that would be considered lame and wouldn't work in modern stories. Morrison loves creating campy stuff, however, he adds really cool aspects to make some contrast. For instance, I love Egghead, but the egg-puns gotta go. I wouldn't change the Turtle Man, he doesn't seem campy of forgotten to me, he seems to have evolved with the times.

I originally said the rere are four aspects: appearance, powersr/abilities, m.o., personality, there's no need to change what is working fine.

btw, I agree Prometheus is Wrath. Furthermore: Wrath is Killer Moth.

[AdamYJ]

A good example of a reinvention. Current Black Hand has absolutely nothing in common with the original Black Hand. Not in terms of powers, personality, motivation, etc. He's an entirely different beast.

But I liked the old Black Hand. I like the stuff that makes old villians silly, goofy or (in the OP's words) campy. I mean, does every villian have to be remade into something scary. Can't we have any villains that are silly but effective?

[sobek]

Calendar Man- The world’s most organized man, Julian Day sees the world differently from all the other seven billion people on this planet. His mind works in a different way to everyone else, he completely structures every second, minute, day, week, month and year in his mind, he doesn’t just plan weeks in advance, he plans years in advance, decades in advance, laying down the seeds for crimes that won’t come into fruition for years to come. Everything he does is part of a massive, beautiful plan he has inside his head, when he’s captured and sent to Arkham it’s not because his plans failed, it’s because he wants to be captured, because it’s part of his bigger plan. Julian Day doesn’t live in the present, he lives in world of endless possible futures, all of which he’s prepared for. Special events and dates during the year tend to be corner stones in his plans, and he often uses them as dates for his crimes, hence his name. He is so meticulously organized he puts Batman to shame. He scares the entire population of Gotham city, they know he has the entire city rigged to explode, all he has to do is click his fingers and gang wars will erupt across Gotham as plans he laid down years ago are activated. Appearance wise he should look like the version from Arkham Asylum (not Arkham City) that you see in the character files, which was a really good costume design.

I've got a few more ideas that I'll post later.

[sobek]

Heres some more:

Parasite: The living embodiment of greed. Motivated by a constant hunger and need for energy, little more than a walking mouth, and a metaphor for what happens when we let greed consume us. As he absorbs more and more energy he grows larger and larger, fatter and fatter, and his mouth grows too. The Parasite was once a man named Rudy Jones, a lazy and greedy worker at S.T.A.R labs, he wasn’t happy with his job and pay, and intended to rob a vault in the building, which he believed contained either money or valuable research he could sell, before quitting. However the vault actually contained a unique form of radioactive waste recovered from a spaceship, and the massive dose of unknown radiation mutated him into the Parasite, his greed became more than just something in his mind, it became his body.

Riot: A young, insane criminal who sees life as a videogame, committing mass murder to get kill streaks and creating havoc across metropolis for bonus points. For Riot life is a violent game, to him murder is fun and crime is entertainment, his crimes are like Grand Theft Auto rampages. Riot has the ability to make copies of himself (hence his name).

Count Vertigo: A fascist and monarchist, the complete parallel to the liberal socialist Green Arrow. He despises Green Arrow’s beliefs and country, and also hates him for imprisoning him in an American jail, which he sees as a disgrace, he hates that he’s been forced to live in lower area of society without the privileges his become used to.

The Rogues: A group of blue collar, average Joe super villains. The Rogues is essentially their Trade Union.

The Brotherhood of Evil: The Brotherhood aren’t just simple criminals, they don’t want anything material, there not simple bank robbers or thief’s, they’re fighting against society and law itself, trying to cause the collapse of order and government, creating a new era of anarchy and crime, were everyone is free and might makes right, a world where crime is law. Similar to the Doom Patrol the Brotherhood is made up of super powered freaks rejected by society, but instead of using their powers for good and earning the trust and respect of the public, they’re fighting back against the world that rejected them.

[carabas]

Can't we have any villains that are silly but effective?

An effective villain is a scary villain. Villains are bad guys. And they're supervillains, silly comes with the uniform.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

But I liked the old Black Hand. I like the stuff that makes old villians silly, goofy or (in the OP's words) campy. I mean, does every villian have to be remade into something scary. Can't we have any villains that are silly but effective?

Read the op again. Carefully.

I don't think villains need to be scary, overly violent, psychotic, etc. JLI proved that there's even room in good storytelling for some that are not even effective (Manga Khan, the Injustice League) or menacing. They just need to have a proper niche. Which i mtly what I did with my examples.

The problem, when much change is needed, is this. Killer Moth and King Tut were just as menacing as the Joker or the Penguin when they debuted, nly the later evolved and foun important niches in modern stories while the former didn't. If you place Moth and Tut just as we saw them in the 60s in a mosern Batman story, they are going to look like ineffective village idiots ad village idiots don't get to star in modern Batman stories. Their roles need to be modified. Tut needs to be more like a modern crime boss and Moth needs to be more like a modern hitman, which are the cores of their characters. Moth can keep most of his appearance, and Tut could even show his full costume in a couple of scenes as he shows fanatism, but that's about it.

Btw, Tut was recently reinvented in a highly effective way, and he even got a very interesting partner. But I still preffer the fat, overly dramati dude, who I think can be used in the new continuity.

An effective villain is a scary villain. Villains are bad guys. And they're supervillains, silly comes with the uniform.

Yes and no. Mostly no. A good villain just needs to make a great challenge. J. J. Jameson is a fantastic villain in that sense. Rupert Thorne manipulated the entire political system of Gotham against Batman. Glorious Godfrey uses the power of public opinion. Daredevil's Turk was just a 2-bit loser, Mxyzptlk just takes away Clark's peace, Bizarro just puts people at risk ithout ill intention, the Riddler just cares about the mental challenge. And a character doesn't even need to be a complete villain to have a recurring role. There are snitches, dealers, dirty cops, corrupt politicians, rat hole owners, and -why not? village idiots.

Calendar Man- The world’s most organized man, Julian Day sees the world differently from all the other seven billion people on this planet. His mind works in a different way to everyone else, he completely structures every second, minute, day, week, month and year in his mind, he doesn’t just plan weeks in

Awesome. I liked that one a lot. Very creative.

[carabas]

Yes and no. Mostly no. A good villain just needs to make a great challenge. J. J. Jameson is a fantastic villain in that sense. Rupert Thorne manipulated the entire political system of Gotham against Batman. Glorious Godfrey uses the power of public opinion. Daredevil's Turk was just a 2-bit loser, Mxyzptlk just takes away Clark's peace, Bizarro just puts people at risk ithout ill intention, the Riddler just cares about the mental challenge. And a character doesn't even need to be a complete villain to have a recurring role. There are snitches, dealers, dirty cops, corrupt politicians, rat hole owners, and -why not? village idiots.

JJJ is an antagonist, not a villain (at least when he's not creating supervillains). That's a big difference.

Rupert Thorne is a pretty scary villain. One of the most effecive in the Animated Series, far surpassing most of the Rogues Gallery. Glorious Godfrey was never silly at first. He was originally the representation of religion in the pantheon of the New Gods.
Mxy can do anything. He's one of Superman's scariest rogues, especially the silver age version...

[Desaad]

But I liked the old Black Hand. I like the stuff that makes old villians silly, goofy or (in the OP's words) campy. I mean, does every villian have to be remade into something scary. Can't we have any villains that are silly but effective?

That's fine. I'm a big Green Lantern fan and I personally did not like the goofiness of Black Hand (or Sonar, for that matter) but I'm not saying that Johns' reinterpretation of the character was perfect, just that it's a perfect example of a reinvention of a character, ie fits the definition perfectly.

I think it was a fine reinvention, myself, an improvement certainly, but not to any degree that makes me care if he is ever seen again or not.

But it makes a nice contrast; Black Hand was REINVENTED. Sinestro was simply turned into a more three dimensional, compelling character, but all the fundamental characteristics of the character are exactly as they once were, even the personality. There is just a little bit more to him, as Johns did with Black Adam.

[MentalPace]

How about this Batman villain from the 50's, Thor?




From wikipedia:

Henry Meke is proprietor of a small museum featuring replicas of mythological curios. One night, a meteorite smashed through a window, hit the Hammer of Thor, and disintegrated. The hammer began to glow and Meke reached out to examine it. After touching the hammer, he was transformed into the mighty Thor himself. The metamorphosis is repeated during thunder storms. Thor then began a quest to finance the building of a temple to Odin by robbing banks.

A guy that can turn into Thor and wield his hammer. Interesting concept. A few minor tweaks and it has some potential. Too bad nobody's ever tried to do something with it since. Oh well.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

JJJ is an antagonist, not a villain (at least when he's not creating supervillains). That's a big difference.

Rupert Thorne is a pretty scary villain. One of the most effecive in the Animated Series, far surpassing most of the Rogues Gallery. Glorious Godfrey was never silly at first. He was originally the representation of religion in the pantheon of the New Gods.
Mxy can do anything. He's one of Superman's scariest rogues, especially the silver age version...

Well, sure, Jameson is rather an antagonist, that doesn't mean that he's not a fantastic enemy cappable of taking the spotlight. And that's my point enemies don't have to be villains, just antagonist are ok. They can be just as entertaining.

Sorry I didn't specify, I only meant Rupert in Strange Apparitions an maybe the Conway era. In BTAS he's completely another deal, closer to Falcone.

Never said Godfrey or any of them were silly, just not scary/psychotic/ultra violent, just like Thorne, Jameson, MX and the rest that I mentioned.

I think that by scary, you mean threatening. And my point is that there are many ways to be a threat a lot doesn't need the enemy to be murderous. Jameson is the best example. He would never kill Spiderman, but makes him fight for his image and even his secret identity, that's pretty threatening to the status quo and makes great drama. They could easily use the Human Eraser that way, Batman might finally have what he needs to take down the Penguin or Thorne, but the work of an enemy like that might make the job practically impossible.

Characters don't need to fall within perfectly evil or perfectly good to be entertaining, actually, it's quite the opposite.

[Ontir]

I've been thinking about Dr. X & Double X for awhile now, as a Jungian concept.
I'd like to see X as a well-meaning guy who has accidentally manifested his animus and is being dragged, quite unwillingly, along a terrifying ride thru a swath of destruction and mayhem.

[carabas]

Well, sure, Jameson is rather an antagonist, that doesn't mean that he's not a fantastic enemy cappable of taking the spotlight. And that's my point enemies don't have to be villains, just antagonist are ok. They can be just as entertaining.

Sorry I didn't specify, I only meant Rupert in Strange Apparitions an maybe the Conway era. In BTAS he's completely another deal, closer to Falcone.

I have absolutely no familiarity with that one, and I have no clue what "Strange Apparitions" is.

Never said Godfrey or any of them were silly, just not scary/psychotic/ultra violent, just like Thorne, Jameson, MX and the rest that I mentioned.

Glorious Godfrey is plenty scary and psychotic, from his very first appearance (although not very violent - his converts on the other hand...). He was a televangelist-style priest who brainwashed people into being goons for Darkseid.

I think that by scary, you mean threatening.

I think by scary I mean scary. Glorious Godfrey was not much of a threat. Things like Mxy, who have no concept of human morality, and no limits on their powers, are pants-wettingly scary.

And my point is that there are many ways to be a threat a lot doesn't need the enemy to be murderous.

Sure, but being murderous and being scary aren't exactly the same.

Jameson is the best example.

Jameson is one of the silliest characters in the history of comics and is incapable of being considered a threat. He's the comic relief. Ultimate version excepted. He's a pretty cool character.

Characters don't need to fall within perfectly evil or perfectly good to be entertaining, actually, it's quite the opposite.

Sure. But effective villains are scary. Villains are bad people. People who are effective at being bad are scary to be around. This says absolutely nothing about their entertainment value. When a villain who looks and acts silly manages to be effective in his vaillainy, he will become scary nonetheless. See also Joker.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Man! If you like BTAS, Strange Apparitions is a must. The Laughing Fish and The Strange Secret of Bruce Wayne both came from that run. This series is an important link between silverage Batman and that of Miller, Barr and Grant. It introduced Rupert Thorne, Silver St. Cloud (she's very similar to Vicky Vale in the 89 movie) and redefined Hugo Strange and Deadshot. Great stuff.

We're having a bit of a trouble with words. I actually have the same vision on Godfrey. Only when I say psychotic I mean violent and insane, like Mr. Zsasz and Cornelious Stirk, which was the trend during the early 90s. I wouldn't call GG scary, you wouldn't wet your pants i front of him like you would in front of Cornelius, Zsasz, Joker, Croc, Scarecrow or even some versions of the Penguin when he loses his temper (think DeVito, when he bits that nose). That's what I mean by scary, a villain that would make average Joe wet his pants. Mx is "scary" in that his powers are impressive (just like Superman might be considered "scary"), but, save WHTTMOT, he's never violent and has a decent temperment, even when he's angry.

Who said effective villains are scary? Luthor isn't scary. Even when he's in supervillain costume you can walk in front of him unfraid knowing that it's unlikely for him to harm you. Not the same with Zsasz, Joker, Croc or even Ivy or Harley. Yet Luthor, as the enbodyment of greed, pride an envy is perhaps the ultimate DC villain. There's Ozzymandias, Magneto, Kingpin, the Rogues. All terrific enemies, none make me feel like I'm 4 ft away from a gian white shark facing me. They are more like dogs, only scary if you have to fight them.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

The Bookworm - Mostly like Johnny Witts, a brilliant strategist that gets his name because he's always reading boks on his i-pad or at the library. The guy know everythig about the way the city works.

The Cavalier - A stylish hitman/enforcer with an English (or French?) accent. He's actually in the same line of work of Killer Moth, so an asociation like they had in the silverage would only be natural. I'd just change the m.o. a bit an the costume, but his personality, hair and beard shoud stay the same.

Dee and Dum - No changes just make them recurring henchmen of the Joker.

Captain Stingaree - I'd merge him with Enrique el Gancho from BTAS. So that he's the resident sea smuggler.

I think a graphic novel about many of those characters might be interesting. Kinda like Oceans Eleven: The Egyptian (King Tut) hires Johnny Witts and the Bookworm to steal from the Gotham city museum and a after the gig is over they are only half paid, so they gather a gang of specialists including the Human Eraser, the Gateaway Genius, Roxy Rocket, the Cluemaster, Clayface II and Killer Croc to steal back from him.

[carabas]

Man! If you like BTAS, Strange Apparitions is a must. The Laughing Fish and The Strange Secret of Bruce Wayne both came from that run. This series is an important link between silverage Batman and that of Miller, Barr and Grant. It introduced Rupert Thorne, Silver St. Cloud (she's very similar to Vicky Vale in the 89 movie) and redefined Hugo Strange and Deadshot. Great stuff.

Wel, I still don't know what it is...

We're having a bit of a trouble with words. I actually have the same vision on Godfrey. Only when I say psychotic I mean violent and insane,

When I say psychotic, I just mean psychotic. Words have meanings, and psychotic doesn't mean violent.

I wouldn't call GG scary, you wouldn't wet your pants i front of him like you would in front of Cornelius, Zsasz, Joker, Croc, Scarecrow or even some versions of the Penguin when he loses his temper

You seem to equate "scary" with "this guy is going to perform aggravated violence on you right now". I do not. Scary is lot more than the threat of violence or looking mean or monstrous.
I mean, Godfrey... There's a guy that can take your free will away by talking to you. That's a lot scarier to me.
Mxy... Who cares if he's completely non-violent. He's still an nigh-omnipotent, careless being that would change you into a newt or a streetlight for no reason other than that it might be funny or annoy Superman.

(think DeVito, when he bits that nose).

That was just silly as far as I'm concerned.

Who said effective villains are scary? Luthor isn't scary.

I said it, and Luthor can and has been plenty scary. It's been a while since he was an effective villain though.

[QUOTE]Even when he's in supervillain costume

you can walk in front of him unfraid knowing that it's unlikely for him to harm you

.Really? The guy that killed a few hundred random guys with a punch of a button, on a whim, because he was pissed off at the universe during "52"?