Comic Book Question of the Day
Posted on July 5th, 2008 at 09:03am by Mark
Which offers greater narrative possibilities: The supervillian who never seems to die (or seems to die, but reappears months or years later)? Or the supervillian who dies but whose mantle of villiany is taken up by his progeny?
3 Comments Add your own
1. AB | July 6th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I can think of plenty of examples of the unkillable supervillian, but the only example of the latter I can think of is the Green Goblin (and I’m not even sure if Norman Osborn stayed dead — or even died for that matter). This scenario seems more common on the super-hero side of things, don’t you think?
2. chris k. | July 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I think the progeny story lines get really boring. Baron Zemo tries to resurrect his father and Harry Osborn can’t deal with his daddy issues.Â
/snore
But the seemingly unkillable villain or the ones that always manage to escape from Arkham or S.H.I.E.L.D.’s custody has more of a history (The Joker is almost 70 years old!) and therefore more “narrative possibilities.”
3. Nick | July 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
In my mind the unkillable supervillain leads to more narrative possibilities. It is also the superior route to take because the continuity allows for better character development over time.
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed