Does Marvel have any truly evil characters?

[hedrap]

My thoughts wandered over to parallel/comparative Marvel/DC villains, and I couldn't think of any truly evil Marvel characters.

By evil, I mean actions, not declarations. Mephisto is declared evil, but like Loki, it's more theatrical, like Faust. The Red Skull is technically evil because we associate him with Nazis, but his actions have little connections to Nazism and are more aligned with Magneto, Doom and the other megalomaniacs. Then you have the Galactus, Thanos and the cosmic forces.

DC has it share of comparable villains in those categories, but mainly because of Batman, they have some truly evil ones. Put aside Joker, and what does Marvel have that's equal to Mr. Szasz or Conrnelius Stirk? Stirk's goal is to literally eat beating hearts.

If Batman is the key character, is Marvel's deficiency due to not having a true equal? Punisher is as close as Marvel gets, but if you read the original Vigilante series, you see how...Marvel?...Marvel's approach to a vigilante really is. Vigilante dealt with some ugly characters, Punisher sometimes, maybe does and even then it's couched.

Where Batman and Vigilante are of the same coin, DC also has Spectre. The Ostrander/Mandrake run is gospel to me, because it showed the desire for vengeance on every scale imaginable; Serial killers, warfare, truly evil demons...where is that in Marvel?

...So is this Marvel's strength and weakness when it comes to movies? Their strength in that that heroes are dealing with theatrical scale issues so it fits movies easily, but also their weakness in that no villain is an actual threat? As much as I liked Doctor Strange, the interest was in how Strange was going to defeat Dormmamu not if he was. Same thing for Winter Soldier, Avengers, IM...no real threat existed for the heroes, only process. The movie with the biggest threat was Civil War, because it was hero v hero and they all had a stakes value...for Marvel Studios. How meta is that? The story outcome was uncertain because Marvel couldn't afford to lose these actors/characters. It had nothing to do with Baron Zemo's plot.

At the same time, isn't this what's also hurting DC? The desire to not be seen as an MCU knock-off made them take their one advantage, Batman, and wash the entire DCU in it. But not everyone has evil villains like Batman, so we get megalomaniacal characters like Zod and Luthor turned "evil" and it falls flat because that's not why the characters worked. They could have easily placed Joker and/or Riddler in BvS over Luthor, and Brainiac for Zod and it would have made more sense because the stories called for those kinds of villains.

Feel free to chime in...

[thunderbolt]

Good points, the only one that comes to mind even close is Norman Osborne/Green Goblin. That guy is pretty darn rotten.

[johnnystorm]

I think you could say some of the lesser villains count as evil. Hate-Monger, Blackheart, Baron Zemo.
It's not so much that the villains aren't evil, it's more Marvel's insistence on using writers with very liberal agendas who feel a need to justify every action a character takes. Plus Marvel also has to give EVERY character good or bad their own solo series deserving or not.

[hedrap]

T-Bolt: I never thought of Goblin as the Joker equivalent on a character level as he's usually portrayed as "What If Lex was the Joker", but if they wanted a Batman-level villain, he would work.

Johnny: I agree. Marvel likes to make villains ambiguous. Kingpin and Bullseye could have been Batman-esque characters, but the over-complicated backgrounds diluted both.

[enyawd72]

How is Red Skull NOT completely evil? There's absolutely nothing ambiguous there...the guy has zero redeeming qualities.

I don't feel Marvel villains are any less of a threat because they're not "pure evil" since the stakes have been quite high in nearly all the films, as have been the casualties. Casualties and how they're dealt with being the focus of both Civil war and BvS, although it was handled far more thoughtfully in Civil War. As for the notion that it's all process, name one superhero film ever where you go in NOT knowing the hero is going to win. They always win. BvS being the only real exception with the death of Superman, but as we all know, he isn't going to stay dead, so how much weight did his "death" actually carry? Not much. The only real question at this point is how they're going to bring him back.

But back to the villains... I think DC's villains are just as ambiguous as Marvel's, and I see that as a good thing. Evil is complicated. What makes a person do evil things? Is it because they were wronged somehow? Do they have a skewed version of morality/ethics? I truly believe many times people who commit evil acts think they're justified in some twisted way. Look at some of the most sadistic tyrants in history. Bin Laden and Hitler both thought they were perfectly justified in their actions and did not see themselves as evil, but as saviors. Others are insane. Is someone who's insane responsible for evil acts they commit? If so how much so? Take the Green Goblin...early on Norman Osborn suffered amnesia and displayed two distinct personalities...so is the Green Goblin truly evil? He's murdered for sure, but was HE really responsible? What about the Joker? If he's truly insane just how responsible is he for his actions?

Definitely a fascinating topic...

[LordMudd]

If you really watched BvS you saw the dirt start to rise in that last split second of film of the casket.


CCC.

[thunderbolt]

T-Bolt: I never thought of Goblin as the Joker equivalent on a character level as he's usually portrayed as "What If Lex was the Joker", but if they wanted a Batman-level villain, he would work.

Johnny: I agree. Marvel likes to make villains ambiguous. Kingpin and Bullseye could have been Batman-esque characters, but the over-complicated backgrounds diluted both.

The thing about the Joker, is he evil or just an unhinged homicidal maniac? Is he mental illness taken to the furthest level? Osborn seems a bit more evil, he hounded Peter Parker and his loved ones once he knew his secret ID,(leading to the Death of Gwen) later when he became head of SHIELD he really had a dark agenda, even had the Punisher chopped to bits by Daken (who might really be a good candidate for evil).

[enyawd72]

If you really watched BvS you saw the dirt start to rise in that last split second of film of the casket.


CCC.

I think I was either asleep, bored, or just didn't care by that point...LOL. I can't even remember. I'll have to watch it again someday. I think it's a movie best watched at home where you can take breaks.

[Jorge Galvan]

the BADOONS, killed every lifeform in the galaxy leaving only Charlie-27, Martinex, Yondu, Nikki, their respective race's survivors, (until future story lines).

[Hector]

How is Red Skull NOT completely evil? There's absolutely nothing ambiguous there...the guy has zero redeeming qualities.

Yeah, he's pure evil...Red Skull co-existing next to Hitler, is all the proof you need. Some are just trying to outright strip all evilness within the Marvel universe at all costs. Red Skull murders, that's evil, period.

Mephisto not evil, just theatrical? The dude kept swapping with Satan for Johnny Blaze's soul, come on now...if that's not evil, I don't know what is. Marvel's own description of Mephisto; Mephisto is an extremely powerful immortal demonic entity possessing magical powers and abilities gained by manipulation of the forces of magic.

Anyone who murders is evil, Green Goblin, Kingpin, Sebastian Shaw, Dr Doom, heck, Dark Phoenix...and on, and on...

We are nitpicking here. You are a villain, you kill to gain, control, enjoy, rage, lust, vengeance for all the wrong reasons, etc...yes, you are evil.

Someone like Thanos is evil...as he wants to control everything, and will kill for his goals, that's evil.

Galactus is not evil though, he's just hungry, lol...

[MIB41]

The biggest problem I see in the DC universe is the simple fact there is not much contrast between good and evil. Let's look at Marvel. Both Parker and Norman have moments when they feel cheated in life. A choice is made how they will handle that matter and thus opposite sides of a value system are formed. That at least establishes the motivations. When I look at something like BVS, it's completely convoluted. You have both sides of a stated conflict (born more from paranoia than principle) killing people but for their own reasons. If you took their costumes off, no one would know who the good guys were supposed to be.

Now I will say allot of what we've seen of villains on the Marvel side lately has certainly leaned on a more supernatural level to support and/or justify the excuse to put together an ensemble cast of heroes. Marvel dug themselves a bit of hole with what I call the 'Avengers affect'. Even though we as comic fans can make a distinction in the Marvel universe that one film is about a team and other films must be more singular with their heroes, the general public is not conditioned to those parameters. If the new expectation is multiple heroes per film then that's what they want to see. And unfortunately that is what is happening. Civil War looked more like an Avengers movie than Age of Ultron did. It almost defeats the purpose for an Avenger's film at this point. And the truth is I don't know how you can back track out of that rabbit hole once you've gone down it.

Even with reboots like Spider-man in play (AGAIN), they've already inserted Tony Stark as the co-creator of Parker's Spidey persona which, I've got to tell you, is not remotely captivating to me. It's so far removed from the source material, it sickens me because it's just a ploy to invite the same kind of ensemble attitude into the stories. This again takes me back to the villain perspective considered here. What will they do now with Spider-man's arch enemies? Are they going to all be fashioned to be so powerful Spider-man always needs help?

So, for me, Marvel needs to dial down some of the fantastical situations in the singular films so these heroes can have their own moments where the line crossed between them and the villain are more defined and have less to do with a show and more to do with character driven stories where you can examine the issues of right and wrong. Otherwise they all begin to look and feel the same. DC on the other hand needs to get away from the one-size-fits-all 'Watchmen affect' where the heroes are as unlikable as the villains. For me there always needs to be a good contrast. I think that's another reason why Deadpool played so well. Even though Deadpool plays more in the vein of an anti-hero, his arch nemesis (who also made him) was a total arse-wipe. You couldn't help but hate him. But in terms of appearances he could not have been more vanilla, which really makes the point. It's easy to root for your hero when you have someone who is truly unlikable. That contrast embellishes the hero and allows him or her to shine. Without that all you have is allot of CGI artistry trying to arouse an emotional moment out of you. Harder to do these days since the novelty of over-the-top scenery is the standard anymore.

[TrekStar]

What about Morbius?

[C.H.O.A.M.]

Carnage?

[Starroid Raiders Dagon]

So much right in MIB41's post. I have seen enough of the aliens, demons, elementals as fodder to bring together a group of heroes to form a team.
I think there are lots of instances of characters doing evil things, but I think it becomes problematic when fans and writers get an affinity for that character and try changing them into heroes or anti-heroes while embracing their heinous past. You arent changing Dr. Light!
Thanos has accomplished genocide and caused others to inadvertently kill entire species on other planets, but I cant dislike the character with way Starlin writes him. I'll never forget Baron Karza' appearances in early Micronauts where he had Rann' father hanging naked and strangling Rann' mother in a pretty graphic depiction. You would have a hard time getting me to start liking him.

[hedrap]

^ok, CHOAM. Carnage might be it. I keep going back to Bullseye.

Since Red Skull seems to be the litmus, let me follow up on that.

Skull's evil because Hitler made him, so guilt by association. But what has the character really done? His WW2 history is straight warfare. After that, it's all Cosmic Cubes, mind-control and robots. Even his assassination of Rogers wasn't an assassination. If he was evil, why would he bother trapping Roger's spirit/soul/whatever in a cosmic cube dimension? I think my favorite evil Skull act was in the 80's, where some nefarious plot ended with Skull's goals to burn the original Constitution. The idea was if the document didn't exist, the country wouldn't either. That's not evil, that's being an *******.

Let me try it this way...has any Marvel villain been as close to evil in their actions as Max Von Sydow's Ming? "Clytus, I'm bored", "Fall on your sword", Flash's execution, Concubine Dale...or how about James Earl Jone's Thulsa Doom? His first onscreen act is beheading a woman while holding her son's hand.

Jorge mention the Badoons and that reminded me of the Omega Men comic. Good God, the aliens in that were reprehensible and Lobo became famous because he scalped a main character.

I feel Tom and Star are probably on the right track. A writer's affinity for a villain can make them kewl, such as White Skull and that whole "Good/Bad Role Reversal" Marvel storyline. The irony is the Ultimates stuff was supposed to revise the characters into more plausible actions, but they made a Dr Doom who was evilness was being a cyborg goat.