Would you like to see some villains get their own monthly series? (Surely, I'm not the only one?)

I'll say yes, though only a select few could hold an ongoing.

Not many are suitable for an ongoing.

Joker (or an Arkham Asylum type thing), Doom, Luthor and Magneto all deserve one.

@Gambit1024 said:

Joker (or an Arkham Asylum type thing), Doom, Luthor and Magneto all deserve one.

Agreed, except for Lex. Arkham Asylum would be a winner...

I voted yes because of these guys:

Written by Geoff Johns. Make it happen, DC.

The Rogues would be freaking awesome.

Yes. I've been dreaming of a Superboy Prime ongoing for a very long time.

I'd like to see an ongoing Lex Luthor book in the same style of Brave and the Bold and Marvel Two-In-One. Each month Luthor would team up with a different villain (or the occasional hero) and wreak havoc (and occasionally save the world).

I would like to see Magneto getting his own series.

Norman Osbourne had a pretty good mini not long ago that I think could be extended. A Bullseye series would be pretty cool too.

I would enjoy Darkseid so I could see what the God of Evil does in his spare time like maybe golfing or putting a cat in a tree also like stated something with Superboy prime because I really enjoyed how he was written in SCW.

I'de like to see a Thunderbolts team with these guys in it:

Taskmaster

Sabretooth

Moonstone

Speed Demon

Sebastian Shaw

Hobgoblin

Yes, but it has happened in the past: Doom or Venom got their mini series on the Marvel side and I think we can say that Atrocitus is getting his nowadays on the DC side with the Red Lantern Corps

Joker use to have one. Doom kindof had one (Supervillain Team Ups, was always Doom plus guest villain (usually Namor)). Both only lasted about 30 issues or so. Of course, we are talking about way back in the 70s for both series.

I'm pretty sure Deadpool was still considered a villain in the mid-90s, when he first got his series. Now he's pretty much full-on Hero (Albeit a Punisher-like, no qualms against killing type hero). I think that more or less illustrates the reason why villain books tend not to work. As much as we may love certain villain, it's ultimately hard to root for someone doing evil on a monthly basis, and if they stop doing evil, they essentially stop being a villain.

As a result villain mini-series work well (and pretty much every A-list, and some B-list, villains have had a mini-series at some point), but long-term ungoing monthly mini-series do not, no matter how popular said villain may be.

Yea, I think that idea that a villain can only hold an ongoing if he becomes a good guy is false

@Gambit1024 said:

Joker (or an Arkham Asylum type thing), Doom, Luthor and Magneto all deserve one.

This. Magneto for me especially.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Yea, I think that idea that a villain can only hold an ongoing if he becomes a good guy is false

They have to be in the morally grey, otherwise the book would have to be non-canon or set in its own universe (as other publishers where there is no established universe it is much more common to get a villain ongoing)

The simple fact of the matter being that you think these villains are cool but if you were to actually read a comic featuring the stories from their perspective, it would get pretty boring seeing them get locked up and defeated all the time, there's no character development. The key to any good ongoing comic is character development, true, many comics get by without it but they aren't good either. So if a villain is just pure evil, there's no development. You could have a book that ends in someone becoming evil, or have a villain as the secondary protagonist but otherwise you have to go with a villain who is kind of good (which most of the popular villains are). Even Joker shows an indication he's good in the stories of his that are considered essential like The Killing Joke for example.

Lucifer was a series featuring for all intents and purposes a villain, but it worked because there was character development and he wasn't always a villain. Having set the ongoing back when he was just busy being Lord of Hell and not changing his style for millions of years would be so boring and never have lasted.

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Yea, I think that idea that a villain can only hold an ongoing if he becomes a good guy is false

They have to be in the morally grey, otherwise the book would have to be non-canon or set in its own universe (as other publishers where there is no established universe it is much more common to get a villain ongoing)

The simple fact of the matter being that you think these villains are cool but if you were to actually read a comic featuring the stories from their perspective, it would get pretty boring seeing them get locked up and defeated all the time, there's no character development. The key to any good ongoing comic is character development, true, many comics get by without it but they aren't good either. So if a villain is just pure evil, there's no development. You could have a book that ends in someone becoming evil, or have a villain as the secondary protagonist but otherwise you have to go with a villain who is kind of good (which most of the popular villains are). Even Joker shows an indication he's good in the stories of his that are considered essential like The Killing Joke for example.

Lucifer was a series featuring for all intents and purposes a villain, but it worked because there was character development and he wasn't always a villain. Having set the ongoing back when he was just busy being Lord of Hell and not changing his style for millions of years would be so boring and never have lasted.

I don't agree with this, I don't believe in absolute evil or absolute good ether. You don't have to show the bad guy getting beat all the time because you don't have to have them fight good guys or at least popular good guys. A Darth Vader ongoing is perfectly feasible with him going about killing Jedi.

Not really. I mean if you follow the exploits of an evil team in a monthly series, they are bound to do more good than harm.

You can't have kids thinking that doing what villains do is the right thing, now.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Yea, I think that idea that a villain can only hold an ongoing if he becomes a good guy is false

They have to be in the morally grey, otherwise the book would have to be non-canon or set in its own universe (as other publishers where there is no established universe it is much more common to get a villain ongoing)

The simple fact of the matter being that you think these villains are cool but if you were to actually read a comic featuring the stories from their perspective, it would get pretty boring seeing them get locked up and defeated all the time, there's no character development. The key to any good ongoing comic is character development, true, many comics get by without it but they aren't good either. So if a villain is just pure evil, there's no development. You could have a book that ends in someone becoming evil, or have a villain as the secondary protagonist but otherwise you have to go with a villain who is kind of good (which most of the popular villains are). Even Joker shows an indication he's good in the stories of his that are considered essential like The Killing Joke for example.

Lucifer was a series featuring for all intents and purposes a villain, but it worked because there was character development and he wasn't always a villain. Having set the ongoing back when he was just busy being Lord of Hell and not changing his style for millions of years would be so boring and never have lasted.

I don't agree with this, I don't believe in absolute evil or absolute good ether. You don't have to show the bad guy getting beat all the time because you don't have to have them fight good guys or at least popular good guys. A Darth Vader ongoing is perfectly feasible with him going about killing Jedi.

But Darth Vader was good, that's why it would work. Why didn't you at least say Darth Sidious?

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Yea, I think that idea that a villain can only hold an ongoing if he becomes a good guy is false

They have to be in the morally grey, otherwise the book would have to be non-canon or set in its own universe (as other publishers where there is no established universe it is much more common to get a villain ongoing)

The simple fact of the matter being that you think these villains are cool but if you were to actually read a comic featuring the stories from their perspective, it would get pretty boring seeing them get locked up and defeated all the time, there's no character development. The key to any good ongoing comic is character development, true, many comics get by without it but they aren't good either. So if a villain is just pure evil, there's no development. You could have a book that ends in someone becoming evil, or have a villain as the secondary protagonist but otherwise you have to go with a villain who is kind of good (which most of the popular villains are). Even Joker shows an indication he's good in the stories of his that are considered essential like The Killing Joke for example.

Lucifer was a series featuring for all intents and purposes a villain, but it worked because there was character development and he wasn't always a villain. Having set the ongoing back when he was just busy being Lord of Hell and not changing his style for millions of years would be so boring and never have lasted.

I don't agree with this, I don't believe in absolute evil or absolute good ether. You don't have to show the bad guy getting beat all the time because you don't have to have them fight good guys or at least popular good guys. A Darth Vader ongoing is perfectly feasible with him going about killing Jedi.

But Darth Vader was good, that's why it would work. Why didn't you at least say Darth Sidious?

Anakin was good, Vader never was

I think the lesser known villians would do better at holding their own series. someone like Constrictor, Taskmaster or Deadshot. I think it would be cool if they brought back the villain team-up series as well.

@Jonny_Anonymous: I don't want to spoil anything but have you ever seen Return to the Jedi?

Paul Cornell's run on Action Comics having Lex as the main character was epic! So I'd like a Lex ongoing written by him.

• Sinestro (Written by Johns)
• Darkseid
• Eclipso
• Ra's al Ghul and the League of Assassins
• Bullseye (written by Brubaker)

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous: I don't want to spoil anything but have you ever seen Return to the Jedi?

the end ten minutes of goodness in Return of the Jedi does not a good guy make

@SmashBrawler: Definitely this! Makes sense seeing how they aren't out-an-out killers...just looking for the score. =]

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Yea, I think that idea that a villain can only hold an ongoing if he becomes a good guy is false

They have to be in the morally grey, otherwise the book would have to be non-canon or set in its own universe (as other publishers where there is no established universe it is much more common to get a villain ongoing)

The simple fact of the matter being that you think these villains are cool but if you were to actually read a comic featuring the stories from their perspective, it would get pretty boring seeing them get locked up and defeated all the time, there's no character development. The key to any good ongoing comic is character development, true, many comics get by without it but they aren't good either. So if a villain is just pure evil, there's no development. You could have a book that ends in someone becoming evil, or have a villain as the secondary protagonist but otherwise you have to go with a villain who is kind of good (which most of the popular villains are). Even Joker shows an indication he's good in the stories of his that are considered essential like The Killing Joke for example.

Lucifer was a series featuring for all intents and purposes a villain, but it worked because there was character development and he wasn't always a villain. Having set the ongoing back when he was just busy being Lord of Hell and not changing his style for millions of years would be so boring and never have lasted.

I don't agree with this, I don't believe in absolute evil or absolute good ether. You don't have to show the bad guy getting beat all the time because you don't have to have them fight good guys or at least popular good guys. A Darth Vader ongoing is perfectly feasible with him going about killing Jedi.

Love Darth Vader. Possibly the greatest character ever devised?! Ghost Prison was great...just sad it had to end =[

Yes,why not ?

Joker ongoing is horrible ideea. what makes his character geat is the NOT-KNOWING. he`s like a shadow. 
BRING BACK SECRET SIX.(i cant be the only one missing it)..i miss Catman

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous: I don't want to spoil anything but have you ever seen Return to the Jedi?

the end ten minutes of goodness in Return of the Jedi does not a good guy make

But they actually do, if you wanted to prove he was evil, Anakin would have been a better example. You don't get internal monologues from Darth Vader but seeing how things ended, clearly he had good guy in him all along. Which is exactly my point. The thing I think you aren't understanding is the idea of an ongoing monthly series. You can do a profile of villain very easily and its been done many times and no good has to be shown but for any story to have any value there needs to be a struggle between good and evil which is why comics started becoming morally grey in the 80's and have remained so ever since (before this, comics were about the art and nobody cared about the writing which is why plenty of older comics nobody even knows who wrote them just who drew them, the stories were crap if held up to any actual reading material, the worlds unrealistic and marketed to children).

A stand-alone story can feature a character of any sort and it can work, if you want an example of a comic about someone with no redeeming factors look no further then that one issue of Alan Moore's Swamp Thing through the eyes of the serial killer. But, if a story is to feature a character and their most inner sanctum (that is their internal monologues), the only way it will be work as a monthly is if the character can have some sort of struggle.

Now the real world is quite obviously morally grey, always has been, always will be. Therefore, most characters are as well whether they be heroes or villains (from Sinestro to Batman to John Constantine to Spawn to anyone who has ever been in an X-Men comic to The Shade to Han Solo to Darth Vader to Thanos to whoever else). The only difference between heroes and villains is one has the tendency to take one path while the other has the tendency to take the second but they consider them both. Therefore, the most popular heroes have done the wrong thing and the most popular villains have actually done good things.

That said, the reason you can have an ongoing featuring a character like Superman who is treated like a true good guy most of the time but not a series where someone is a pure villain all the time is because it takes strength to resist the blurring lines between god and evil whereas it takes being weak of character and primal in nature to give in completely to the bad. Therefore the former can be interesting if done right. The latter can only work if it is a period in the character's life (Anakin/Vader) as opposed to all of it you see unless they are a secondary character.

If you think a 100-issue series wherein every issue all Darth Vader does is kill some Jedi and feel no remorse is interesting, I think you'd be alone in that. A nice four-issue series, sure, but an ongoing would just get stale. A character that doesn't have to struggle is not one whose head is worth being in for more than a moment.

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@The_Runaway said:

@Jonny_Anonymous: I don't want to spoil anything but have you ever seen Return to the Jedi?

the end ten minutes of goodness in Return of the Jedi does not a good guy make

But they actually do, if you wanted to prove he was evil, Anakin would have been a better example. You don't get internal monologues from Darth Vader but seeing how things ended, clearly he had good guy in him all along. Which is exactly my point. The thing I think you aren't understanding is the idea of an ongoing monthly series. You can do a profile of villain very easily and its been done many times and no good has to be shown but for any story to have any value there needs to be a struggle between good and evil which is why comics started becoming morally grey in the 80's and have remained so ever since (before this, comics were about the art and nobody cared about the writing which is why plenty of older comics nobody even knows who wrote them just who drew them, the stories were crap if held up to any actual reading material, the worlds unrealistic and marketed to children).

A stand-alone story can feature a character of any sort and it can work, if you want an example of a comic about someone with no redeeming factors look no further then that one issue of Alan Moore's Swamp Thing through the eyes of the serial killer. But, if a story is to feature a character and their most inner sanctum (that is their internal monologues), the only way it will be work as a monthly is if the character can have some sort of struggle.

Now the real world is quite obviously morally grey, always has been, always will be. Therefore, most characters are as well whether they be heroes or villains (from Sinestro to Batman to John Constantine to Spawn to anyone who has ever been in an X-Men comic to The Shade to Han Solo to Darth Vader to Thanos to whoever else). The only difference between heroes and villains is one has the tendency to take one path while the other has the tendency to take the second but they consider them both. Therefore, the most popular heroes have done the wrong thing and the most popular villains have actually done good things.

That said, the reason you can have an ongoing featuring a character like Superman who is treated like a true good guy most of the time but not a series where someone is a pure villain all the time is because it takes strength to resist the blurring lines between god and evil whereas it takes being weak of character and primal in nature to give in completely to the bad. Therefore the former can be interesting if done right. The latter can only work if it is a period in the character's life (Anakin/Vader) as opposed to all of it you see unless they are a secondary character.

If you think a 100-issue series wherein every issue all Darth Vader does is kill some Jedi and feel no remorse is interesting, I think you'd be alone in that. A nice four-issue series, sure, but an ongoing would just get stale. A character that doesn't have to struggle is not one whose head is worth being in for more than a moment.

Again, I say I don't believe in absolute evil and absolute good also not every comic needs inner monologues

@SmashBrawler said:

I voted yes because of these guys:

Written by Geoff Johns. Make it happen, DC.

I would love to see that happen (even better with Zoom).

@Twentyfive said:

Not really. I mean if you follow the exploits of an evil team in a monthly series, they are bound to do more good than harm.

You can't have kids thinking that doing what villains do is the right thing, now.

If they made it a dark and gory enough comic they wouldn't have to worry about kids and it would suit certain villains better