Campy Villians vs Serious Villians

[KimagureMachibuse]

when it comes to comic book villians or villians in general which are the type you prefer?

[drauch]

Mmmm, this one raises some interesting arguments. Or maybe just rants! Aren't comic book villains now the serious ones? BITD with comics it was usually silly stuff; they were just bad dudes who loved fuckin' shit up, nothing to it. Today's comics and movies all try to humanize them in some way. Hell, look at the Joker now. He used to just cause mayhem and make people laugh to death and shit, and now he's this damaged genius with a weird relationship with Batman. I hate that shit. I've never really cared for superheroes in the first place, but I hate how serious it all is now, like there has to be a rationalization to why they're evil, usually from loss or a disfigurement or whatever. This usually hardly makes them sympathetic, because the caped goober still has to take him down anyway after the whole teary-eyed cause-of-evil reveal. What dichotomy! I dunno man, I just can't do the whole capes and tights and everyone flies around stuff. I can't take that serious.

Bring me back some Eggman, baby.

[NYN]

Since ancient plays villains are only in servitude to let the boring heros shine, being even more intorable. So my answer would be neither. I reckon most peeps know only the kind of overexposed "Batdogs Loony Bin" and "Stan Lee presents: The Nightschool of Villainy" with very few memorable in between.

Is a villain redeemable and why should anybody care?

I kinda like those who make the heroes look like lunatics or bullies. They expose them.

Top o' my head Arnold Wesker aka The Ventriloquist aka Scarface: silly, campy, disturbing mental enough, and STOP-HITTING-THE-'TARD all in one.

Onomatopoeia. A sicko who kills and only talks phonetically. As in B00M, drip, drip, tick-tock. A creation by one Kevin Smith, but don't hold that against it...

Mr Bloom of more recent losers seems to talk and dress like any angsty teen and is over-talky, yet I will state I find much of his ramblings approachable. At least to expose myself to myself. And I can appreciate that. (last thing I read is that he considers himself a shy pooper OR IS THAT JUST A PLOY??!!)

[BIL]

It's all about tone. Characters are just another part of an artist's palette. If they know what they're doing, they'll employ camp or gravity as needed.

Sometimes I blast thoroughly homo EBM, other times only the most blistered-black Quebecois death metal will do. Doesn't mean I like fruity singers over X-TREEEM sandblasters, or vice-versa.

Generally speaking, I like works (books, films, audio dramas, whatever) to commit. If you're gonna do silly and quippy, great. Don't expect me to give a shit beyond simple passing pleasures. There's an entire subgenre of melodramatic Whedonesque shite I'm routinely implored to take very, very seriously indeed. lmao no imma watch Darkman. "BUHHH SOOPERMAN DIED WAHHH" My dog died when I was in middle school. He's still fucking dead. Superman and Starscream died around the same time and I can't get away from either of the cunts. Don't worry about it, they'll be back once the Super Friends gather up the dragon's balls, or whatever the fuck. 3;

[pegboy]

Does emperor palpatine count as campy or serious?

[BIL]

Palpy is pitch-perfect, just like most of the first two-and-a-half SW films. Evil and dangerous motherfucker with a healthy dose of mirth.

Michael Corleone, another evil crime boss, has no mirth what-so-ever. He didn't pursue power for the sake of it like Palpy, but because not doing so would've seen his family's destruction. Mike's miserable, Palpy's a riot, both are splendid company in their respective films. Good stuff.

[BryanM]

If something's a straight up monster that eats people, I prefer it to be a straight up monster or something that eats people.

I don't like people being 'villains'; I prefer antagonists to have their own motivations that may or may not lead to major conflict with the protagonist. Yeah, I strongly prefer ambiguity, arguments, and psychological shit.

If everything is going to end in a fistfight with Dwayne the rock Johnson over and over, why do you even need a beginning or middle, just do the stupid fight and let me keep ~70 minutes of my life please.

Palpatine

He's as camp as it gets. The Penguin has more depth. A serious villain wouldn't be fussing around with this one apprentice, sitting on a throne going "something something darkside", being evul just to be evils. In a serious setting, Palpatine would be a dumbass who got himself killed when he was 13.

They're very, very silly children's movies. The Jedi have their little academy where they use the cowardly power of friendship to bolster their forces. The sith (read: one guy and one chump with the disposable canon fodder card), destroy this army of overpowered magic ninja samurai by throwing some shit robots and clone babies at them.

In rational fiction, villains need rational motivations. It could be revenge, gathering souls, feeling superior to others, etc, but it helps if there was some actual purpose they aspire to, and some reason they are the way they are. Palpatine seems to want to be emperor solely so he can receive TPS reports of planets being exploded. If his canon in-universe motivation really is just to see planets of people who won't pay space taxes to him get exploded, he should be right there pushing the button himself! Having all the fun! Not letting his subordinate enjoy it all instead!

As you all know, Star Wars only gets much much worse if you try to shoehorn in logic to it.

[Stevens]

Cobra Commander is the best villain ever. He's a genius and a fool.

[mamboFoxtrot]

I hate how serious it all is now, like there has to be a rationalization to why they're evil, usually from loss or a disfigurement or whatever.

It's kinda odd really, if you think about it. The push to give villains more "human"/"believable" motivations often doesn't get paired with an equal push to give villains more reasonable goals. So they'll still want to blow up the ocean or implode the universe, but now for a reason that will just seem comedically petty by comparison. In a way it can make the villains seem even more unhinged than the usual "just wants to watch the world burn" explanation. The only thing crazier than, say, abducting children and forcibly training them to become master spy/thief/ninjas to help you in your plot to capture a time deity and use it towards your own ends is doing all that to... reunite some animal with its mom that you saw die in an avalanche decades ago...

[BryanM]

It's just vestigial residue from the Star Wars scaffolding every blockbuster uses. There has to be a bad guy. He has to want to destroy the world or whatever. Violence has to be sanitized, especially the violence your good guys use. You don't want your hero chopping people up while they bleed and beg for mercy.

In the real world, the actual motivations of those with power and those seeking it is sex, drugs, money, social status and pressure from family and coworkers to provide them those things as well. All those elements slash box office revenue, sexual stuff especially. Sexual motivations are inherently exclusionary; not everyone is into the same stuff at the same intensity. And straight up poison if your goal is to make a franchise that lasts a long time; you want something "family friendly". Religion, Pokemon, Star Wars etc, all get their fangs into children when they're young then drain them for the rest of their lives.

The Boys series is basically the opposite of mass market Marvel superhero stuff. Those of you unaware, here is a 10 second clip to explain its vibe. Full of gross sex, gruesome violence, everyone's an asshole (anyone who is not an asshole is quickly transformed into one due to their environment); it's wonderful.

[DMC]

Do evil spirits counts as villains?


I like some level of mystery in my villains, the uneasiness of not knowing their full motive makes them more impactful, but maybe it's just that it suits horrors.

[Ed Oscuro]

I always enjoy that "villein," originally a term of abuse for peasants, has been corrupted into applying to especially foppish characters who wear capes and probably own their own fleets.

Cobra Commander is the best villain ever. He's a genius and a fool.

Roughly the same as every other '80s Saturday morn cartoon villain, like Mumm-Ra, Skeletor, etc. but it's a fun type. Did Cobra Commander have a "I could actually win but I'm not that evil" episode?

Personally a big fan of the '60s Hanna-Barbera casts, especially the Space Ghost villains (Moltar, Zorak, and Brak), and also the Johnny Quest villains like Heinrich von Fruelich - a WWI flying ace who has his own castle in the Andes. They don't make 'em like that anymore, do they?

For my money, the best cast of ne'er-do-wells in a single work are still the bad guys from Resident Evil 4. Perfect mix of feigned sophistication, wacky quips, and blood-curdling evil.