Has DC done more with their villains then Marvel has?

[carabas]

Which one is 826 about again?

[LunarMoon]

Which one is 826 about again?

It was the Christmas issue, written by Paul Dini, in which The Joker kidnaps Tim Drake and takes him on joyride throughout Gotham.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

It was the Christmas issue, written by Paul Dini, in which The Joker kidnaps Tim Drake and takes him on joyride throughout Gotham.

Dine at his best. I really enjoyed his run on etective. His books after that missed something.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Two posts in the topic, as well as the second post in the thread, mentioned that The Joker was DC's best villain, which is an extremely common sentiment. Straight out the door, I wanted to voice my opinion on said sentiment. Also, Detective Comics 826 did a good Joker, but that does not compare to the consistently good writing demonstrated by the likes of Sinestro or The Rogues.

I really like the Joker, but mostly in other media. My favorite would be the short tempered, classic-comedy-loving version of the DCAU, then the more sanguine anarchist of Dark Knight, but also Nicholson's and Romeroes. In the comics, he's just too sick an not as clever. However, Englehart and Dini's version is just like the DCAU one.

I'm more of a Penguin fan though. Not the crime lord wuss of most of the modern comics, but Meredith and DeVito's spot-grabbing, greedy bastrd with a bigger-than-life personality. The Eric Cartman of Batman's gallery. The Penguin is the type of crimial Batman meant to fight (greed-based corruption) while the Joker and Catwoman, for very different reasons are what he didn't expect. The Joker does what he does just for the sake of messing with people, while Catwoman is actually a good person. The unexpected part of the Penguin, the version I mean, is that he's not a coward, despite his flaws, he becomes extremely violent when threaten. Check the 66 movie, he's the only boss that doesn't hide wen he needs to fight. And DeVito, the BTAS version or any pre-Crisis version are just like that. Too bad nobody really knows how to write him anymore. However, he was great in Penguin Triumphant and Breyfogle's run.

[Shingen]

Marvel still has villains? Almost every event has their heroes fighting other heroes.

+1. I generally think Marvel has better villains on average than DC, while DC has higher high points, so to speak. But I think DC has made up a lot of ground because the villains are so prominent as opposition, as opposed to the hero vs hero fighting at Marvel. Upthread someone mentioned that DC has reinvoigorated villains in the New 52, and I agree to that point as well. Black Manta and Grodd are two that I think have been very nicely done in their new incarnations.

If Marvel gets on track with all the villains being introduced/brought back in NOW! then they can reclaim the mantle. But the damn heroes got to sign a peace treaty.

[nightrider]

+1. I generally think Marvel has better villains on average than DC, while DC has higher high points, so to speak. But I think DC has made up a lot of ground because the villains are so prominent as opposition, as opposed to the hero vs hero fighting at Marvel. Upthread someone mentioned that DC has reinvoigorated villains in the New 52, and I agree to that point as well. Black Manta and Grodd are two that I think have been very nicely done in their new incarnations.

If Marvel gets on track with all the villains being introduced/brought back in NOW! then they can reclaim the mantle. But the damn heroes got to sign a peace treaty.

Agreed. I don't think Marvel has better villains, but I think plenty of Marvel villains especially the X-men ones are very grounded and ones that you can relate to. Many of Marvel's villains may not be villains just because they're evil, but that they are villains by circumstances. But Marvel has not been doing much to their villains for the past decade, so much so that plenty of DC's villains that were previously silly and c-list all kinda turned into characters that you can empathise with.
As of now, theres no competition that DC's villains are given almost twice as much exposure as Marvel villains. Over the years I grew to love DC's villains so much more than Marvel's villains.

[R0NIN]

Well, if I were to take out Batman's villains, then it'd only be right for you to take out Spider-Man's villains. Does the fact that so many of DC's great villains just happen to be Batman's villains make them any less tied to the rest of the DCU? I remember more than a few times that Bat-Villains have gone up against other heroes in the DCU. Joker proved to be a pain in the ass for Superman during Emperor Joker. Ra's al Ghul took down the entire JLA in Tower of Babel and went up against Superman and Wonder Woman as well in Trinity. Poison Ivy just tangled with the Birds of Prey, with Mr. Freeze soon to be going up against them as well.

No I'm not trying to say Batman's villains aren't tied to the DCU. Though I disagree and think if you take them out of Batman's corner of the DCU they aren't as good. Whereas Spider-man's villains are constantly being shifted about.

Many on the list you wrote are good though. But there are a few there that aren't worth mentioning. At least IMO.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

Agreed. I don't think Marvel has better villains, but I think plenty of Marvel villains especially the X-men ones are very grounded and ones that you can relate to. Many of Marvel's villains may not be villains just because they're evil, but that they are villains by circumstances. But Marvel has not been doing much to their villains for the past decade, so much so that plenty of DC's villains that were previously silly and c-list all kinda turned into characters that you can empathise with.
As of now, theres no competition that DC's villains are given almost twice as much exposure as Marvel villains. Over the years I grew to love DC's villains so much more than Marvel's villains.

So True. There's also the matter of their ferocity. I mean who wants to go up against this crew by themselves?

[ngroove]

Batman does not have the best villains in DC. That reward belongs to The Flash's Rogues, most of whom are morally complex, well developed characters in their own right. Likewise, I'd place Black Adam, Sinestro, and the members of the Secret Six above The Joker with little thought. Ocean Master also seems to be heading in that direction, based upon his depiction in the current Aquaman run.

?????????????
Flash may have had one (short-lived) live action series, that may have used a few of them, but he has yet to have a bigger, more mainstream known, TV series, or movies.

[tony ingram]

?????????????
Flash may have had one (short-lived) live action series, that may have used a few of them, but he has yet to have a bigger, more mainstream known, TV series, or movies.

"Best" and "more well known to the general public" are not necessarily the same thing.

[Zeeguy91]

No I'm not trying to say Batman's villains aren't tied to the DCU. Though I disagree and think if you take them out of Batman's corner of the DCU they aren't as good. Whereas Spider-man's villains are constantly being shifted about.

Many on the list you wrote are good though. But there are a few there that aren't worth mentioning. At least IMO.

I don't know about that. I still think they're pretty effective when they go up against other heroes, even outside of Batman's "circle." However, you touch on an interesting point. One of the things that make the Bat-villains so great is that over the years, they have become tailored to Batman's own personal insecurities, even if it wasn't their original purpose. These pathological fears on Bruce's part are actually one of the reasons why it is easy to create villains for Batman. For example, the Riddler symbolizes Batman's fear of not being smart enough or of just being outsmarted. Likewise, the Joker contrasts Batman's mission for control of his emotions and behavior by embodying unfettered chaos and insanity. Even the most recent addition to Batman's rogues, the Court of Owls (and Owlman) refute Batman's own feeling that Gotham is "his city", that he knows it like the back of his hand. Therefore, to introduce a group that, A) has operated in the shadows of Gotham without him ever knowing; and B) shows him a side of Gotham that he never even knew existed, is a very powerful concept. The best villains are the ones that reflect something that is actually inside the hero themselves. Therefore, there's a reason that many of Batman's villains are insane. Its because Batman himself is so close to insanity.

This means that these villains are obviously most effective when going up against Batman. Now, as to whether the fact that they are so well suited to Batman makes them ineffective against other heroes, I don't know about that. However, I could see why you would think that.

[Zeeguy91]

"Best" and "more well known to the general public" are not necessarily the same thing.

While I definitely agree that "best" and "more well known" aren't the same thing, they do somewhat go hand in hand. If a villain becomes more developed and more layered in the comics themselves, then they are also more likely to be adapted into different media, such as TV shows, movies, video games, etc. Likewise, if a villain is spotlighted in something, say a movie, than that may attract writers and artists to try and reinvigorate that character and include them in more stories.

[Mark_S]

If you look at marvel comics over the past few years you see the skrulls showing up as villains after the civil war main event and now the Red Skull showing up after Avengers versus X-men. In many ways the marvel villains exist as a way for the marvel heroes to make up after a crisis where they all hate and fight each other. Even the Frightful Four were basically brought in after civil war to put the Invisible Woman in peril so that she and Reed could patch things up. Villains seldom get to pursue their own agendas because they need to be there to bring the heroes together.