Comic Book Resources

I pretty much agree with you. The one exception being Johns’ run on The Flash. I think as long as Rogue’s Galleries are used right and not all that often, then no worries……… I just doesn’t happen a lot.

The first time I remember someone referring to a “Rogue’s Gallery” was in regards to the Flash’s group, specifically the ones created by Fox and Broome when the character was relaunched in the early 60’s.

I don’t disagree with you; I mean, geez, it’s always seemed to me ridiculous that after the 27th asswhipping Spidey administered to Electro or somebody, that he’d move on and get into a less stressful and painful line of work. But speaking as a longtime comics reader, there’s always that one time when someone like Len Wein and Walt Simonson can take a character like Calendar Man and write a kickass story about him. It’s the exception rather than the rule, I know, but the possibility is always out there and is mighty hard to resist…

Besides, what else would publishers do? “Joey Q, I can’t come up with a fresh new X-Men badguy this month! What now?” Joey Q: “Oh well, we just won’t publish an issue this month. Who’ll miss that money? Not us!”

Great point about too many writers wanting to do “The definitive _______ story!”

And, though I’m sure you just picked him at random, Two Face is actually an excellent example of a character who has suffered for it.

I’ve often wondered about the origin of the term “Rogues Gallery” too. I know it has been around for awhile. I often think of it in relation to The Flash because his villains actually use the name to refer to themselves, but Dick Tracy also came to mind very quickly when I saw the title of the article. That has to be one of the first instances in popular fiction where the villains became as integral to the dynamic of the story as the hero and heroine did.

I agree it also creates many problems too. There was a period there where to create a new Spider-Man villain, it felt like the writers just looked in a zoology guidebook and picked another animal to theme a villain around. (”Let’s see, we’ve done the Vulture, the Tarantula, and the Grizzly…what about the titmouse, have we done The Titmouse yet?”)

I also know more than a few Batman fans cynical about how Arkham Asylum has a revolving door for its security measures.

And just like how fans often reject new heroes or new incarnations of heroes, they have also gotten stubborn about accepting new villains unless they make a very dramatic impression, such as Venom or Sabretooth.

But the plusses are always evident too, in cases where villains like the Joker and Catwoman became tremendously popular in their own right. Sales would go up when they appeared on the covers, resulting in more stories and exposure. So I can easily see where rogues galleries in comics became the norm for that reason, though your point about recycling characters in a non-collector era is an interesting point too.

For me personally, I always appreciate a good Rogues Gallery. I think having those running fueds/duels with recurring villains can be a great asset to a character as long as the stories do something more than just rehash the same plotlines over and over again. For example, I like some of the progress that Waid and Johns have started to make with the Flash’s rogues gallery, after years of stale bank robbing stories over and over again.

Rogue’s gallery is a sign that the stories will never change. I don’t even bother reading most comic books today (right now it’s just Fell, Freak Angels and manga) because nothing changes. The Batman faces the Joker, beats him, send him to Arkhan, he escapes, rinse and repeat. Ditto for the Flash’s rogues, Spider-Man villains, Lex Luthor, Dr. Doom, any other recurring villains. Nothing is permanent, except bad storytelling and simplistic plots. The whole industry fixes this game, the companies just want easy profits, they won’t dare to risk and lose, the authors know that whatever they write will be retconned, forgotten, ignored in a couple of years anyway, the fans just want more of the same.

I think you might have missed another reason for the use of recurring villains: the villains have fans.
I was reading the FF Omnibi, and I was really struck in the letters pages by how people responded to the villains. People literally demanded that certain popular villains return; they mocked the use of othre villains.
At this point, the use of specific villains becomes a part of the book’s popularity, and the company need beware NOT using them.
So, yes, the use of recurring villains can stifle creativity. On the other hand… why write the FF if you’re not interested in Doom? He seems like vital part of the book, in his own way.

the difference between Alan Grant’s villains and Grant Morrison’s villains, i think, is that the subsequent writers of Batman used Alan Grant’s villains. It seems like everyone who followed Morrison on JLA and X-Men has gone out of their way to avoid the villains he created, like Solaris, the U-Men, and Sublime.

I love Hobgoblin in that poster. He clearly thinks he’s at a Sabbath concert.

I think the problem is actually twofold:

For the more popular Rogues Galleries like Batman or Spider-Man, they have revolved through their own a loooot of times and need some fresh blood. In Spidey’s case that’s really difficult, since the end result is that we just reuse the name (Female Dr. Octopus, anyone?) or create some loser in body armor that’s supposed to be a hot new rogue. I think Spidey went through guys like that for months at a time. You know the kind I’m talking about – the color scheme is black and another solid color, usually shaped into rectangles all over their body, mostly a headmask except for stupid-looking goggles, oh and a gun.

For other heroes I think the problem is creating new and exciting Rogues. In Blue Beetle’s case, he hasn’t needed a Gallery since the overall plot has been towards his primary enemy – the Reach. But who can name Ms. Marvel’s archnemesis? Who are the regular villains that Robin is supposed to face? Nightwing had an OKAY Rogue’s Gallery for awhile, but the only two that were remotely interesting were that one woman who could control cloth and that one former police officer turned bondage queen.

A good Gallery should have a multitude of different personalities and motivations. For example, not to toot my own horn here, but in my webcomic I’ve already set up a few villains and have more on the way – Darkbringer, the ultimate nemesis to him. A religious fanatic who believes in a literal darkness creature that will conquer the world. The Gentleman – supposedly the resurrected spirit of Jack the Ripper and various other killers who murders in order to show society its own corruption and evil. Scarlet Baroness – A master thief with a personality disorder who lives for the thrill of the chase and the triumph of outwitting everyone.

Like most things, the issue isn’t the CONCEPT, it’s the EXECUTION.

Greg: Do fans berate Marvel and DC editors demanding the return of Mirror Master or Kobra or Loki?

Stephane: I think you might have missed another reason for the use of recurring villains: the villains have fans.

Exactly. In the recent relaunch, Thor was barely back before fans started panting after Loki. It gets less obvious the further down the villain food chain you go, but every villain has a fan or two. For example, there’s a guy on CBR’s Marvel forum who posts mournful essays every few months that nobody’s revived the Enchantress yet. You get people who hated Bendis’s DAREDEVIL run because he didn’t use Bullet, Bushwacker, Jester, and Mr. Fear (or when he did, he didn’t use them “right”).I agree that some writers go to, say, the Dr. Doom or Joker well far too often, but you can’t say they don’t know what their audience wants.

It depends on the characters, really.

Some villains have a lot of potential, and you want to see more of them. Others are so one-dimensional, you don’t care if you never see them again. This can happen to BOTH new and established characters.

Personally, if I were a comics writer, I would begin by looking at a hero’s established foes, and ask myself “Are any of this worth revisiting?”; Then I would ask myself, “OK, what hasn’t been done in these series?” and create new characters based on that. Then I would decide in what order the villains, new and old, would show up.

One thing I must point out: sometimes a Rogue’s Gallery is more than just a list of villains. Sometimes they become part of the series’ setting. This is very much the case with Batman. Most of his villains are *no* match for him; they are there because they complicate (or help) things. The Penguin, for example, works better as a Mob Boss -something Bats hates, but grudgingly accepts is part of the Gotham landscape- than as clownish bank robber. The Riddler works better as an Information Seller, Poison Ivy as a man-hating High Dilettante, etc.

You’re all over the place with this article.

Some of your complaints have little to do with the concept of a Rogue’s gallery;
Most of what you don’t like are editorial problems. I will concede to those editors that the degree of violence, controlling hot-shot writers, who can’t leave the f’ing past alone, or hacks who can only rewrite what they read before are all difficult problems.
Also, one used to see stories with new villains or no villains all the time. If in past 20 years such stories are fewer and far between, it is because stories themselves are now fewer and far between. Tis the horror of decompression. Don’t like this villain in that book, or that storyline? Too bad! He/She/it will be there for the next six months If said book, is lucky enough to be written and drawn by people with a work ethic, if not, then years. (Jesus H Christ! think about that! Years!)

The idea of a Rogues’ Gallery helped create depth, not uniformity.

I see no evidence it stifles, creativity. The Batman, Spider-man, and Flash titles spit out new villains all the time. If anything, it adds incentive to create a new villain, since a writer can get royalties from their creation. It may make it harder on people who want to create similar villains, like say…oh, I don’t know… a Scarecrow knock-off who eats body parts, but that would only lead to writers making the villain more ”extreme,” leading to a higher body count-the villain must slaughter more people or people who mean a great deal to the hero.

Unfair mocking aside doesn’t your complaint about not using Stirk, destroy your argument against rogue’s galleries? You like him and you want to see him again. Same as many people feel about other baddies. I would, also, assume you don’t want to read the same story you read before with Stirk, so one would hope continuity is enforced by wise editors to prevent that.

Also…
It was Geoff Johns, not Waid who did things with the Flash’s rogues. Waid, famously didn’t use them, though what he did was far more… what’s the word? Excessively esoteric? Inside? wonkish? inbred? than any rogue’s gallery.

It was not cool to discover Ultron was behind the whole Annihilation thing.

Iron Fist, Daredevil, Captain America, Moon Knight, Uncanny X-Men, Blue Beetle, Batman, Catwoman are all using a gallery, or trying to build one. Hell, some of these books are using galleries so old that even my fanboy storehouse of useless knowledge is taxed. Perhaps you are just not familiar with some, though I don’t see how in some of these cases, unless you just started reading this month.
Invincible, Noble Causes, Dynamo 5 are Big 2 knock-offs, so I don’t care.

“’Rogues’ Galleries are part of the reason superhero comics remain a somewhat juvenile genre. “ You say this like it’s a bad thing.

This article seems nutty. Rogues Galleries are good when used well, and bad when used poorly. Check out “Batman: The Animated Series” and tell me there’s anything wrong with having a stable of villains.

The problem, obviously, is that no one was ever supposed to buy a comic, month in, month out, for thirty years. And if you do, you can’t expect it to remained geared to your narrative standards that whole time. In fact, one would hope your narrative standards have changed radically in that time.

The value of a rogues galleries is when it allows us to examine the hero without being so obvious all the time. (Of course some writers will use this to hit us over the head.)

There’s a reason many of Batman’s villains wind up in Arkham. (Well, a writer’s reason and a character reason.) By seeing how Batman goes up against them we can examine him in light of the crazies and it when done well it can be a study in obsession. At one point the “Is Batman really crazy?” storyline was overdone though–so it works both ways.)

Many of Spidey’s best villains are scientists–and this examines the role of science in society and fears people have of it. It also is one way to stress the great responsibility theme. Peter is a scientist, essentially, and he uses his scientific abilities & knowledge for good, not evil. What happens when those abilities are sued for evil?

Flash? Well since he is basically a one gimmick hero-(but in the right hands, still a rounded out character), his rogues are one gimmick villains mostly.
Yet this examines the relationship of speed vs whatever. Admittedly not as good a theme, but then the stories were lighter in tone, and not as intense as Batman can be or even Spidey (But Spidey does lighthearted quite well too.)

When used properly, recurring villains are essentially part of the cast of the book, a set of characters who develop in their staccato appearances just as do the heroes. The best villains — Doctor Doom, Magneto, etc. — are such worthwhile antagonists thematically and in lot terms that refusing to use them essentially means using a (usually inferior) character with all their basic traits. And recurrence can likewise allow richer and more interesting conflict to drive the stories: try imagining Frank Miller’s Daredevil with the stipulation that Bullseye and the Kingpin can’t be used after their initial appearances and see how far you get, for instance.

When the villain is an arbitrary or uninteresting foil to the hero, they’re lousy as a one-off or as a recurring antagonist. A strong villain concept is going to work as a strong character concept — villains are characters, after all — and only a fool throws away a strong character. It would be too damned easy to rattle off the great stories that have been written which work precisely because they have recurring villains in them, villains who have been built into proper characters by being in a rogues gallery.

The problem, to my mind, is the idea that all superhero stories require villains in the first place. One of the more interesting points regarding Bendis’s Daredevil was that the post-Kingpin villains were basically ciphers, broadly interchangeable gangster mooks there to keep the action simmering and the crime noir present while the actual conflicts of the title character were almost entirely internal or legal. Heck, the “Out” arc arguably doesn’t have a villain in it period. Likewise, it’s not as if villains really mattered in, say, Civil War past the opening act with Nitro — note that the miniseries simply forgets he exists once he’s done his big bang bit.

The idea of the rogues gallery tends to occur pretty organically in most comics anyway. You come up with a good villain who has more than one good story in them, then another, and so on, and eventually any series with even halfway decent writers will have a stable of solidly-conceived villains that pop up whenever someone thinks they’ve a good story for them. It’s a product of innovation, not an enemy to it. And there is something to be said for the texture a rogues gallery can add to a comic. A good villain, hackneyed as it is to say, tends to reveal some facet of the protagonist and these revelations can be mined successfully over long periods. A gallery of rogues in turn provides a sort of shorthand for the book’s feel, its hero, and so forth. It adds other colors, other hues to the fictional space within which the hero’s exploits take place.

In the cases of some of the titles you mention — Batman especially, perhaps — the rogues have become a set of second-order archetypes, concepts that would be replaced in substantially similar form if the specifics were ditched. (In a certain sense, this already happened with some Batman foes, like the Joker, who is as much an index of the tone of Batman stories through the decades as Batman’s own portrayals.)

There are perfectly good stories to be told about conflicts between heroes and villains, and those do tend to work best when the villain is a recurring one — the weight of history, the ability to develop the conflict beyond the physical matchup or the moment of the story, and so on are all quite useful for good writing. But there are stories in which the villains should either be absent or one-off ciphers, because the fight scene isn’t the site of the major conflict or story action anyway. Like any other story element or extant concept, they can be used hackishly; this doesn’t mean that they are themselves hackish.

“Rogues” is not possessive in the term, by the way; it’s 19th century policemans’ shorthand for “gallery OF rogues,” the same way “pencil salesman” is shorthand for “seller/salesman OF pencils.” After all, the gallery doesn’t belong to the rogues, it’s a gallery containing them (or their images). The Pinkerton Agency in the 1800s actually had picture files of recidivist criminals on hand for ID purposes, and these were called rogues galleries. That’s where the term comes from, and why it probably did first find application in comics with archetypal copper Dick Tracy.

The largest problem is one that the article pinpoints, and that’s the fact that too many writers are reusing villains without thinking about how they’re going to use them. I remember Erik Larsen bitching about the Scorpion constantly returning to fight J Jonah Jameson and Spider-Man ad nauseum, and he even tried to get rid of Venom, with no real success. (Hell, they made it worse by creating CARNAGE!)

Much like the same problems with characters being unable to age and change, villains get stuck in the same recurring roles and patterns that readers are accustomed to and comfortable with seeing.

The origin of the term, rogues gallery, according to wikipedia…

In 1850, Allan Pinkerton founded the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Pinkerton devised the Rogues’ Gallery — a compilation of descriptions, methods of operation, hiding places, and names of criminals and their associates.

Inspector Thomas Byrnes of the late 19th century New York City Police Department popularized the term with his collection of photographs of known criminals, which was used for witness identification. Byrnes published some of these photos with details of the criminals in Professional Criminals of America (1886).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogues_gallery

One theory I heard from an acquaintance of mine (he posts as “Banana Oil” at 3rdcoastcomics.blogspot.com) specifically about Moon Knight is: MK is basically “Marvel’s Batman.” If you’re writing MK you don’t want to use your good ideas for villains because you want to save them for if/when you get to write Batman, so MK ends up with a bunch of lame-ass recycled villains because no one wants to write any new ones.

[JMS] tried to create some new villains for Spider-Man instead of trotting out the freakin’ Vulture yet again.

Anybody see the new “Sensational Spider-Man” series this weekend? Guess who the first villain was. Hint: it wasn’t JMS.

Without Rogues’ Galleries, comics would be more juvenile, not less. Adventure stories without recurring villains tend to be like cliched TV cop shows: criminal-of-the-week stories where the good guy defeats the villain in 45 minutes, and then we’re off to a new villain next week. And those tend to be more gimmicky and/or generic than any established villain.

There WAS a time when comic book superheroes had a lot less reliance on the rogues’ galleries element: the 1940s and 1950s, and those stories were incredibly juvenile, with heroes always fighting generic gangsters or aliens or scientists.

That doesn’t mean a writer shouldn’t create new villains. Hell, I’m all for it. But said new villains, if they’re good, will be recurring, and become part of the “Gallery”, at least while the writer’s run lasts, and sometimes well after that.

The Joker became more bloodthirsty not because the writers didn’t know what to do with him, but because he’s been changed to adapt to the times. Just like Batman. As for Norman Osborn and Gwen, the solution to dumb ideas isn’t to rely less on Rogue’s Galleries, but to have firm editors willing to say no to dumb ideas.

IMO, most of the best runs in superhero books never dispense with the concept. Grant Morrison actually used many established villains in his JLA run (Luthor, Darkseid, Queen Bee, Ivo and Tomorrow) and also expanded on already existing concepts (like the 5th-dimensional imps or martians or Starro).

I do agree he didn’t do it in his X-Men run, but we have to consider that what Morrison tried to do in X-Men was revolutionary in more ways than one, and not using many established villains was perhaps only a consequence of this: Morrison was writing the X-Men not as a superhero series, but as a science-fiction speculation on mutation (physical, moral, social), generational conflicts.

They can’t all be like Morrison. Actually, most times when a writer tries so completely reinvent a franchise, he draws flak from fans for changing too much stuff around. I’m thinking of Bruce Jones’ run on Hulk, more X-Files conspiracy than superhero adventure, not many supervillains, but not as fondly remembered by most as Peter David’s or Bill Mantlo’s, who did use the established villains. Greg Pak did have considerable more success with the Hulk as alien gladiator, still, it’s a gamble. JMS’s run on Spidey with all the magical background was certainly novel, but had as many detractors as fans.

Dispensing with the galleries usually means the writer is trying to re-invent the whole concept of a certain superhero, and THAT is even more risky than trying to come up with the “definitive” story about some classic villain.

A quick note that kind of expands in a different direction on comment #18. I don’t know the ecomonics as much as I should but this is one of the first generation of comics writers who wantd to BE comics writers. And if you wanted to write comics, you tended to be a fan growing up. Now this leads into the problems as far as “I want to do THIS definitive story” or “My Goblin will be as good or better than HIS Goblin” but it also comes from another unexpected comic creation:

creator owned books.

Why take the time and effort to create a unique, deep, original villain (or hero for that matter), slap him in a Spidey book and lose all rights to him forever? When, you can a) take a character like Venom or the Hobgoblin, write them well (if you are a good writer) than use that fame to launch your own original comic with all of your original good ideas? Which, in the long run, will garner you more money, rights, and control than anything you would put into a DC or Marvel book?

And again, seeing as this generation of writers has grown up as fans and heard some of the (arguable) horror stories of writers/artists who did create a character than have to change them when they wanted to use them later, why would you even go through the hassle?

But that’s the shift I see coming in the next 10-20 years. People who have been fans since they were kids will be older or finally get out of it (I’m talking about 40-50 year olds who will be phasing out for one reason or another) and you’ll have a generation of readers who don’t have as strong an attachment to these older characters (or at least, less will have the attachment).

Or you won’t have readers and you will just HAVE to try new things.

My ONLY problem with Rogues’ Galleries is that it sometimes keeps a good character from being used in a new and interesting way.

It means that editors can hold on to a villain and keep them out of let’s say, any book that’s not a bat-family title.

Many people have fond memories of the God of All Comics’ JLA, and he didn’t use a lot of established villains.

Rene already touched on this, but I’d like to reemphasize just how many existing villains (or variations on existing villains) Morrison used in his run:

T.O. Morrow
Professor Ivo
The Key
Neron
Abnegazar, Ghast, Rath
Injustice League
- Lex Luthor
- Joker
- Circe
- Mirror Master
- Dr. Light
- Ocean Master
Darkseid
Starro
Shaggy Man/Wade Eiling
Queen Bee

And I’d say it’s up for debate whether to count the spontaneously villainous versions of Quisp and Triumph.

A good rogues gallery rules, but it certainly shouldn’t be overused.
I really enjoyed McDuffie’s FF until he brought in Doom.
His use of the Frightful Four (Five) was a good example of recycling villains from a rogues gallery. (He included Klaw because he was T’Challa’s archnemesis. This enabled him to nicely mix rogues galleries.)
His Doom story, however, left a bit to be desired. Millar has already said he’s going to use Doom, but I can really wait a long time before I see him again (especially as he’s also in Mighty Avengers now).

The real problem with new villains is that to establish themselves right off the bat if they’re going to be used again. They’ve got to be be as bad or worse than the guys who have been around for 40 years or more. Otherwise, why would a hero with years of experience have so much trouble with some new guy? This leads to things like Bane and Doomsday, where the highpoint of their career is in their first outing. They’re never going to top that, and there’s not much point to using them again.

For better or worse, rogues galleries tend to define the kind of threat a hero will face.

Superman, by and large, goes up against criminal masterminds with the power and genius to conquer the world. Batman hunts down lone psychopaths. Spider-Man’s foes (with the exception of the Kingpin) are lone mavericks who are quite powerful but never seem to develop a long-term strategy — much like Spider-Man himself.

Captain America and the Flash both have terrific rogues’ galleries because there’s a variety of threat levels. That allows the writers to keep things interesting: they can follow the recent Red Skull three-parter with a one-off fight against Batroc the Leaper.

My favorite use of a rogues gallery was in William Messner-Loebs’ “Flash.” Some of the villains reformed (Captain Cold, Golden Glider). Some reformed to the point they became Flash’s closest friends (the Piper, Chunk). A few became deadlier than ever: Grodd, Abra Kadabra.

This played into the overall theme of the book: carrying on a character’s legacy while allowing some elements of the character to evolve. And it made the Flash seem like an effective hero. It’s interesting when villains come back, but unless the villain is essentially invincible (Doom or Darkseid), it also raises the question of how useful the hero’s efforts really are.

[...] March 10, 2008 in comic books, comics, entertainment, rogues gallery, super villains, villains by hookakat1 Tags: comic books, comics, entertainment, rogues gallery, super villains, villains http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/03/09/the-concept-of-rogues-galleries/ [...]

I’ve never thought of Rogues Galleries being a problem. I think it’s more of a problem for the long-term health of a superhero book when the character DOESN’T have a good Rogues Gallery.

Nightwing was on his way to one when Chuck Dixon was writing the book – Blockbuster, Lady Vic, Double Dare, Torque – and okay, yeah, the Trigger Twins – but subsequent writers didn’t do much with them from what I could see.

It’s got to be tough writing a book like Iron Man where he’s only got one or two really memorable villains.

I’ve always found it kind of lame that villains are so often tied to a specific hero and or a specific town. How many times does the Toyman or Metallo get their asses kicked by Superman before they decide to go to another town? Sure with the Joker you can argue he’s crazy and has a fixation on Bats. Similarly with Lex Luthor you can argue that he sees Superman as the only obstacle in his way. For the vast majority of supervillains though it just stretches credibility too far to have them all obsessed with specific superheroes.

“Why take the time and effort to create a unique, deep, original villain (or hero for that matter), slap him in a Spidey book and lose all rights to him forever? When, you can a) take a character like Venom or the Hobgoblin, write them well (if you are a good writer) than use that fame to launch your own original comic with all of your original good ideas? Which, in the long run, will garner you more money, rights, and control than anything you would put into a DC or Marvel book?”

There are a lot of presumption in this post, but I would say the biggest one is that you can make as much money without DC/Marvel as with them.

I think the problem with Rogue’s Galleries is not just their existence but really how they’re used, who is part of it, and how big it is. They don’t have to be fantastic characters but they should each add something. I think one of the strengths of Batman: The Animated Series was that the uses of the villains would often vary from episode to episode and they had a pretty big group to build on. Additionally, there were plenty of times where the villain was a bit incidental to the overall plot such as the Scarecrow in “Over the Edge” or Poison Ivy in “House and Garden”. Plus the mixing and matching episodes like “Harley and Ivy” and “Almost Got ‘Im”.

While one could certainly argue that villains should get tired of losing, they’re not mentally stable in most cases and plenty of normal people get addicted to things they fail at.

I also think there’s a strong argument for them in cases like the Flash’s Rogues especially as portrayed by Johns. While the backstories were a bit overdone, I enjoyed seeing an exploration of guys who treated supervillainy as a job for the most part and having “co-workers” really gives a weight to the characters as a group and individuals.

If I can accept that people dress up in silly costumes and that heroes and the system don’t just kill these guys, I can certainly buy the idea that heroes keep tangling with the same people. I think that a focus on moving forward and continuing to expand the galleries is good but I still enjoy seeing a recurring villain if they aren’t overused. It’s what happens in serial storytelling. If it’s done right, you get good stories that feel more real because we have a better handle on the characters.

One of my personal favorite stories with Doc Ock is Spider-Man Unlimited #3 and it’s flashback to Octavius as a kid. Showing that he was treated in much the same way as Peter Parker but turned out the opposite played on the big themes of spider-man and would have had much less punch with some brand-new villain.

I prefer to see the protagonists of a comic face an established, tried and tested villain than a (usually rubbish) ‘freak of the week’ character. More often than not it reads like derivative Mary-Sue/self-insertion/RPG character fanfic. Most established titles have more than enough archetypical rogues (who could be further developed) without some ego-serving writer inserting his or her own.

“I’ve always found it kind of lame that villains are so often tied to a specific hero and or a specific town. How many times does the Toyman or Metallo get their asses kicked by Superman before they decide to go to another town?”

Some things you just have to accept, jccalhoun. For instance, I can’t think of many valid reasons for a supervillain to wear a colorful costume. It would make far more sense for a criminal to try to be inconspicuos.

If you want a “logical” explanation you can say that costume supervillains are all egomaniacs that really, really want to be the center of attention. I suppose that also could explain why they don’t move to some out-of-the-way city. Subconsciously they do want to battle the big heroes.

Some earlier posters have already touched on the Grant Morrison JLA thing, but continuing that train of thought he used the Injustice League early on in his run and then built back up to a rematch at the end of his run. Pretty straightforward use of the arch-enemy concept really.

Rene, that is not always the case. I know Marvel is incestuous with the way villains and heroes appear all over the place in all sorts of books. The DCU used to be that way too. I just re-read an old Adventure Comics from the 1970’s where Wonder Woman goes up against Killer Shark. In the story she states that this villain has gone up against Green Lantern, Flash, and Superman.

Now things are different. I think it’s a marketing thing. In addition to the hero now the villain too can turn a buck – make the villain iconic then sell his/her action figure.

I like to see arch-villains and such recur but not incessantly because they lend a sense of doom to the hero – oh you THOT you defeated me? Guess again!

But after too long you either get the ‘been thru the ringer and back to iconic status’ baddie, or the ‘always upping the ante’ baddie. For instance, the boring as hell Loeb/Lee run on Batman used just about every iconic Batman villain there is…yawn. When the Mad Hatter turned up a few years back in Tec, his MO was the same but now he’s a cold-blooded killer. Yet the Prey story from LOTDK featuring both Hugo Strange and the Scarecrow was great – both characters played themselves but with a different twist, primarily because of the late arrival of Catwoman.

I also like to see new villains if they are used in challenging ways. Again, using Batman, in some issue from the late 90’s he battled a crazy post office worker and almost got choked to death. I am not lying. But then he battled a cursed soldier in Gotham Knights for three issues and I thought it really challenged the Batman to explore some of his reason for being.

But yes, because villains have fans, then they are reused. I know when I see Amazo pop-up, I always check him out.

I think that I disagree wholeheartedly with this article. Most specifically with the idea that using an established villian is less creative than coming up with an all new one.

Writing a Batman story and writing a Batman / Joker story that hasn’t been done (or at least overdone) before are two very different things. And, I think that the second is the more difficult one. Maybe that is why so many otherwise good writers fail. And, maybe that is why you think that it is easier.

As a writer, I think it is essential to the setting to have recurring villians. It allows for the heroes to have the moment of success without overwhelming success. It establishes that the heroes of the story aren’t omnipotent, which is the implication if everyone they combat is always handed a swift, sound, and permanent defeat.

Theno

Alan Grant did create some good bat-villains, but I question including Anarky on the list. Once you get past his first couple of appearances, he very quickly deteriorates into the Character Who Delivers the Inarguable Message, who all the other characters are deeply shaken up by or secretly admiring of.

Ugh.

(Worst example was his “Batman Adventures” fill-in.)

I read all the comics just to see if anyone mentioned this before me but apparently no one saw this, although it’s quite obvious.

I agree with your argument that a rogues gallery can limit creativity, and you list a few (certainly not all) of the ways this is so. But what about the protagonist itself? You think recurring villains are the only thing making most superhero comics juvenile? Try ready two hundred issues of a series and have nothing actually change. That’s not only repetitive and boring, but after a few dozen issues you notice that you’re reading the same story with the parts rearranged. The reasons we love a hero or villain are the same reasons their stories devolve into juvenile rehashing of the same old garbage.
Most superhero comics maintain their popularity because their characters slowly and subtly adapt to to times (the Batman of today is not my grandfather’s Batman) but within any given generation the characters maintain a flat veneer to which we can turn and say, “at least Superman hasn’t changed!” But that’s not a good story. You’d hate a ten thousand page book where by the end much has occurred but nothing is different, why do we let our comic books get away with it?
You may disagree because of some unjustified love of your favorite heroes, but I’m done. Unless there’s a certain creator working on a book it’s unlikely I’ll pick up anything put out by DC or Marvel anymore because the X-Men, Superman, the JLA, Captain America–their time has passed. All they do now is create a pathetic stereotype of comic books and I think it’s just demeaning that people who love the medium fall pray to the charms of business as usual.

That being said I’m reading Brubaker’s Iron Fist because it’s telling a great story that has next to nothing to do with the Marvel Universe, I’ll probably read Final Crisis to see what Grant Morrison means when he rambles on about the DCU as a living entity, and I still–wit hesitance–read some Ultimate Universe titles. The rest of my pull list consists of creator owned works that are telling an actually story, and have an ending, even if the ending is seventy or two-hundred issues in.

[...] –Greg Burgas shares his thoughts on rogues’ galleries. [...]