Hacker News Reader

Comment by judge2020 | Hacker News Reader

judge2020

Unfortunately it typically results in a boring story, since you know the all powerful being is going to win and get awarded for saving the city with little personal conflict involved, besides by having to choose between saving the damsel in distress or saving the city (which is nullified when you consider his ability to go super-speed/freeze time). The most that can come from these stories is a villain that has a unique madness, or uses unique methods to achieve their goals.

View on HN

I once read an interesting article from a comic book writer arguing that villains are inherently more interesting than heroes - because villains plan, build, and create, and can do so for any of infinite motivations, whereas a hero typically just reacts to things a villain has done, and does so for basically the same reasons as any other hero.

I can't find the source or remember the author unfortunately..

I saw the same take in other contexts, and it made a lot of sense.

Basically, heroes having superpowers is the core of the issue: they are by definition above everyone else, and are in a position to topple the world order to push their objectives.

Assuming they want to make the world a better place, they’d probably succeed in being a kind of messia, and if they can reach their goal the story ends and the franchise is done (alternatively new heroes are born within the same franchise, but it’s another line)

Assuming they want to fix the world in a way that is problematic, or are straight evil from the start, they’ll fit in the villains slot.

In the end, the only path for overpowered heroes keep a series going on is for them to keep the status quo eternally. It can be explicited or the series might just never progress towards its end goal, but that’s a basic necessity for a superhero series to have any longevity.

The interesting side effect of that is, these heroes will often live in deeply flawed societies with rampant crime and/or inegalities, villains will usually have a back story justifying their anger but extreme means to solve it, and the heroes will still be there to stop that villain but neatly keep that rotten status quo.

I kind of see the group that Doctor Strange is a part of as planning, building, and creating an organization dedicated to protecting Earth from invasion.

A lot of heroes are basically shown as superpowered police officers. Which is obviously a reactive job (outside of PSAs, community watch, and other such things). Militaries are more creative and active, and less reactive, so the heroes in military-like (or war-like) settings are more like the villians, only for good or order.

Modern superheroes overwhelmingly protect the status quo, villains challenge it and the only way the writers can make them obligatorily evil is have them kill people for no reason. Try noticing it, a lot of villains are really quite admirable apart from random, illogical, shoehorned-in violence.

I’ve heard many actors say this too.

And if you play D&D or various RPGs you might also discover that the “evil” characters have so much more potential for interesting storytelling.

Sturm Brightblade had a very interesting character arc in the extended Dragonlance Chronicles. It can be done if you really try.

In general, there's a device to sketch out a compelling villain; Take your hero with all its motivations and remove the moral compass.

I've always defended the much-disliked fake Mandarin character from Iron Man 3, Trevor Slattery, on the basis that he is basically the man Tony Stark would've been were it not for the latter's genius and indomitable will. Both characters share the same vices: women, booze, and a vastly overinflated ego, but Slattery is weak and allows himself to be pushed around by greater, sinister forces. Whereas Stark not only refuses to be pushed around, but he does have that inner moral compass, even if ruthlessly following his own ethics leads to trouble (that whole Ultron initiative, for instance).

The "moral compass" usually being "is portrayed favourably" vs "is not portrayed favourably", while doing basically the same actions.

as in no hesitation towards their goals.

I've been listening to the companion podcast to The Last Of Us and the theme of the show was basically described as asking the question "What's the most terrible thing you would do for love?"

The show gets around the thing your describing by having almost everyone technically be the villain and justifying their villainy in any number of ways.

Lex Luther had my interest when he claimed to be able to turn a sand pile into an atomic pile while in prison. LL was always my favorite villain.

I would disagree on the whole. I assume most stories – film, video games, television, comics, literature, etc. – end with the protagonist victorious in some way. I care more about the journey, and Superman stories take me on enjoyable (and many times, emotional) journey's for the most part.

At the risk of my recommendation itself being a spoiler, I can recommend the movie “Fallen” with Denzel Washington.

An excellent film.

This is why I only read comics or graphic novels with a single story line that ends. Greed renders superhero comics meaningless. Publishers don't want to stop making money from these characters, which means they can't stop telling stories, which means events in the plot sooner or later are undone and have no impact on future events. Why should I give a shit if Robin gets killed by a space alien if he's going to be resurrected, or time travel will undo it, or the comic jumps timelines, or the comic is simply rebooted? It reduces the stakes and the drama to zero.

If you were to tell publishers "you've got five years and after that you can never use any of these characters ever again" those would be some incredible comics worth reading!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com