Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Serious question.

Do the outfits and designs of the villains of comics just look silly/dumb to you?

If so, which villains in particular?

I know Big G has gotten a fair amount of guff about his pink and purple outfit but I think, given what and who he is, it's not that terrible. He's a unique cosmic being from another era of comics and he should retain this appearance.

But what do you all think? Not just about Big G but villains of comics in general?

P.S.
This flash inspired the topic.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/273218

Did you just say 'guff'?
...

Big G looks awesome. Thanos looks cool. Darkseid's a big poopy pants.
So, based on that logic... 1/3 villains look dumb.

Some do,some don't,and a good artist can make just about any villian look imposing.

But...personally,i'd have to say Thanos and Darkseid are pretty bad on average,the whole towering behemoths of infinite power gimmick gets lost amongst the mini-skirt and bright yellow shoulder pads.

And Classic Loki......Looked like he belonged to the village people.

Yes I did.

I'm not gonna lie, alot of the new gods have really bad costume designs.

Black Racer is pretty high on that list. Who was the first guy to use the flaming head look? Dormammu or Ghost Rider? Mephisto's design kinda sucks.

it really depends on the artist. Darkseid and Mephisto both have kinda poor designs, but whoever did the art for Rock of Ages, and whoever did the art for Truimph and Torment made them both look terrifying.

I don't like any costume with trunks on the outside of the pants, unless it's underwear and then only if it's Quailman.

Armor is okay because it's in separate parts for mobility. Typical comic body armor is cheating because it usually look like regular fabric. Sorry, Batman.

Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
I don't like any costume with trunks on the outside of the pants, unless it's underwear and then only if it's Quailman.

Armor is okay because it's in separate parts for mobility. Typical comic body armor is cheating because it usually look like regular fabric. Sorry, Batman.

But..but.. Kevlar weave !

Originally posted by Martian_mind
a good artist can make just about any villian look imposing.

Steal my answers will you!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!!!!!!!

Almost ANY character can be slightly redesigned to look like an utter badass given a good artist.

Look at the Iron Fist's metamorphosis.

When I first saw Sinestro he looked like a complete and utter dick.

Originally posted by Soljer
Almost ANY character can be slightly redesigned to look like an utter badass given a good artist.

Look at the Iron Fist's metamorphosis.

He looks less badass then before.

Lack of Yellow Collar =

Originally posted by Alfheim
When I first saw Sinestro he looked like a complete and utter dick.

He still does.

Moreso.

Originally posted by Citizen V
He looks less badass then before.

Lack of Yellow Collar =



never was a big fan of the collar and slippers.

as many have said, an artist can make or break how a character (whether hero or villain) looks.

however, Sinestro is one major villain who always looks crappy...but I think that was the intent when he was created

Originally posted by Black Adam
never was a big fan of the collar and slippers.

You should be, how do you think Rand gets all his poon? It's the collar/slippers, gets them every time.

Originally posted by Citizen V
He looks less badass then before.

Lack of Yellow Collar =



Oh, don't give me that shit.

Some people drew that collar as two foot tall. That had to go.

Deadpool's reaction to Danny when he met him? Pretty much identical to EVERYONE'S reaction to Danny when they first see him. .

Originally posted by Soljer
Oh, don't give me that shit.

Some people drew that collar as two foot tall. That had to go.

Deadpool's reaction to Danny when he met him? Pretty much identical to EVERYONE'S reaction to Danny when they first see him. .

Yeah, but Deadpool = Fail.

The collar is WIN INCARNATE.

If you can't accept that, then you obviously aren't as much as a pimp as Danny Rand was to rock that collar for a good few decades.

Originally posted by Shin_Nikkolas
Serious question.

Do the outfits and designs of the villains of comics just look silly/dumb to you?

If so, which villains in particular?

I know Big G has gotten a fair amount of guff about his pink and purple outfit but I think, given what and who he is, it's not that terrible. He's a unique cosmic being from another era of comics and he should retain this appearance.

But what do you all think? Not just about Big G but villains of comics in general?

P.S.
This flash inspired the topic.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/273218

Serious answer...

No.

Big G was along with other great villains were created during the silver age of comics. Jack Kirby made the character to illustrate his story of good vs. evil.

Just because a bunch of idiotic pimple face teens don't find the characters to look "cool" because their costume "suck" doesn't mean the villains look stupid. Read the story first worry about how they look dead last.

If we go by the "stories suck because the characters look stupid". Then we can't consider Watchmen a great comic because the characters look stupid. People that care more about a costume looking cool are people who still stuck in the Comic book era of the 90's. Yeah, we all know how well that end it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Serious answer...

No.

Big G was along with other great villains were created during the silver age of comics. Jack Kirby made the character to illustrate his story of good vs. evil.

Just because a bunch of idiotic pimple face teens don't find the characters to look "cool" because their costume "suck" doesn't mean the villains look stupid. Read the story first worry about how they look dead last.

If we go by the "stories suck because the characters look stupid". Then we can't consider Watchmen a great comic because the characters look stupid. People that care more about a costume looking cool are people who still stuck in the Comic book era of the 90's. Yeah, we all know how well that end it.



...

If I'm reading this right, you are saying the stupid looking villains don't look stupid because the story is good? Character design and plot can be examined separately you know.

I don't think I really very often pay attention to how 'cool' or 'lame' a character looks, honestly...you just kinda get used to seeing it in comic books.

But when you step back and examine their design alone? It's pretty painfully obvious that they're just...odd.

http://i13.tinypic.com/6kfrs0o.jpg

Case in friggin point.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin


...

If I'm reading this right, you are saying the stupid looking villains don't look stupid because the story is good? Character design and plot can be examined separately you know.

Exactly the design of the character is used for "ficitional" purposes. Case in point...The Joker becomes the Iranian ambassador in Death in the family. So because he looks like a creepy clown the plot is flawed? Of course not, you have to pass the point of how a character looks like to get into how the story is going.

Other cases...Big G can't devour huge planets because he is wearing a pink costume? Darkseid can't fight Orion because he is wearing a kilt? Flattop can't shoot at Dick Tracy because his face looks stupid? You need to get pass that...what's important is how the story is told.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Exactly the design of the character is used for "ficitional" purposes. Case in point...The Joker becomes the Iranian ambassador in Death in the family. So because he looks like a creepy clown the plot is flawed? Of course not, you have to pass the point of how a character looks like to get into how the story is going.

Other cases...Big G can't devour huge planets because he is wearing a pink costume? Darkseid can't fight Orion because he is wearing a kilt? Flattop can't shoot at Dick Tracy because his face looks stupid? You need to get pass that...what's important is how the story is told. you missed srank's point...he's saying that you can appreciate a character while still criticizing how they look

Originally posted by Master-Borg
you missed srank's point...he's saying that you can appreciate a character while still criticizing how they look

Pretty much

Originally posted by Master-Borg
you missed srank's point...he's saying that you can appreciate a character while still criticizing how they look

Yeah, it's a good point. My point is that as a reader you need to look over how the character looks and concetrate on how the story will evolve. You can't get stuck on how the character look or else you'll missed the tale.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Yeah, it's a good point. My point is that as a reader you need to look over how the character looks and how the story will evolve. You can't get stuck on how the character look or else you'll missed the tale.

Anyone who judges the merits of a story on how "cool" a character looks is sure to miss out on some fantastic works. Case in point, my brother refuses to read Watchmen because the art and character design so offend his senses that he doesn't care how great people tell him the story is.

Originally posted by Alfheim
When I first saw Sinestro he looked like a complete and utter dick.
A friend of mine said Sinestro was like someone going crazy in a CAW.

"Look, I can give my guy elf shoes! And a giant head! And he's PINK!"

For those who don't know, CAW is Create a Wrestler that comes with most of the newer wrestling games.

Originally posted by Val
http://i13.tinypic.com/6kfrs0o.jpg

George Perez or Bryan Hitch draws this picture, everyone looks much better.
I'm tired of how Jim Starlin draws everyone with a feral dog face. Only works on Thanos, because his mug isn't pretty.

I always though the Anti - Monitor looked stupid.

Originally posted by roughrider
George Perez or Bryan Hitch draws this picture, everyone looks much better.
I'm tired of how Jim Starlin draws everyone with a feral dog face. Only works on Thanos, because his mug isn't pretty.
Actually I think Hitch drawing that image makes it worse. Couple his hyper realistic style with those designs and they look all the more silly.

Besides, there's no artist on the planet who can save Orion.

http://mrgreenscomics.com/catalog/images/Electro_mini_bust.jpg
Yowzer.

Originally posted by Val
Actually I think Hitch drawing that image makes it worse. Couple his hyper realistic style with those designs and they look all the more silly.

Besides, there's no artist on the planet who can save Orion.

Check out what Orion looks like without Motherbox fixing his face. http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellow24az.jpg

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Check out what Orion looks like without Motherbox fixing his face. http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellow24az.jpg How does that fix him?

He looks like a damn zombie... or Mark McGwire...

Orion would need some HUGE retooling in order to be palatable.

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Check out what Orion looks like without Motherbox fixing his face. http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellow24az.jpg
His real face looks better than that damn helmet.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Serious answer...

No.

Big G was along with other great villains were created during the silver age of comics. Jack Kirby made the character to illustrate his story of good vs. evil.

Just because a bunch of idiotic pimple face teens don't find the characters to look "cool" because their costume "suck" doesn't mean the villains look stupid. Read the story first worry about how they look dead last.

If we go by the "stories suck because the characters look stupid". Then we can't consider Watchmen a great comic because the characters look stupid. People that care more about a costume looking cool are people who still stuck in the Comic book era of the 90's. Yeah, we all know how well that end it.

Just on the point of Galactus being made to illustrate Jack Kirby's story of Good Vs. Evil....

that's not really at all the backstory of the creation of Galactus. Even from his first appearance, it was stressed that it was not a conflict of good versus evil. It's pretty well established in Stan and Jack's original FF versus Galactus story that Galactus is not evil- he's a cosmic force. Stan Lee just said the words "I want the FF to fight a cosmic God" and Kirby designed Galactus.

Darkseid- that's a character designed to be evil. But I'm pretty sure Kirby never intended for Galactus to be perceived as evil, or even "bad."

and I don't think the OP ever really meant to say that stories are poor , like in your Watchmen analogy, because villians have poor designs. he was making an aesthetic argument, not a quality argument. The two don't really have anything to do with each other.

http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0711/14/whatifc.htm

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Check out what Orion looks like without Motherbox fixing his face. http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellow24az.jpg

That's messed up. But you can see the resemblence to Darkseid more. Never heard of Mother Box altering his image. Even in the past, he's looked like a working-class Irish boxer. Can't it make him look prettier? And why wear the helmet at all, then?

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0711/14/whatifc.htm
That neckerchief ain't helping.

Originally posted by tjcoady
Just on the point of Galactus being made to illustrate Jack Kirby's story of Good Vs. Evil....

that's not really at all the backstory of the creation of Galactus. Even from his first appearance, it was stressed that it was not a conflict of good versus evil. It's pretty well established in Stan and Jack's original FF versus Galactus story that Galactus is not evil- he's a cosmic force. Stan Lee just said the words "I want the FF to fight a cosmic God" and Kirby designed Galactus.

Darkseid- that's a character designed to be evil. But I'm pretty sure Kirby never intended for Galactus to be perceived as evil, or even "bad."



You know something that is a very good point there...I can't argue agaisn't that POV.

The only thing I could counter argue with that is that Galactus was no evil per se. But more like a cosmic force that could become evil. Meaning that what we humans see as evil...to Galactus it's nature. I must say Kirby really was philosophical about his characters.

Props to ya.

Originally posted by Val
http://i13.tinypic.com/6kfrs0o.jpg http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=9788041

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You know something that is a very good point there...I can't argue agaisn't that POV.

The only thing I could counter argue with that is that Galactus was no evil per se. But more like a cosmic force that could become evil. Meaning that what we humans see as evil...to Galactus it's nature. I must say Kirby really was philosophical about his characters.

Props to ya.

thats what you have to love about Kirby. Even the concepts that today look silly and absurd- the stories and the characters still have such great depth of meaning. There's a reason Kirby is the King.