How does the Mad Titan fit in the super villain pantheon?
I believe we can all agree that from all the things Infinity War gave us, the most satisfactory one is Thanos.
Damn, it took 10 years for Marvel to actually give us a villain worthy and even superior to his heroes.
But how does Thanos place himself in the pantheon of Villains? How does Thanos positions himself in comparison to other iconic villains like Heath Ledger's Joker, or Darth Vader, or Darth Sidious?
P.D: This thread is meant to discuss Thanos personality, charisma, and fearsome he is as a villain (Not how powerful he is).
To me personally Thanos is definitely Marvel's best villain and worthy of being in par with big guns like The Joker (TDK), or Darth Sidious/Darth Vader.
He's definitely the best villain Marvel has done so far. One of the running criticisms of the Marvel movies is that the villains are usually pretty forgettable. Thanos is what a villain needs to be. He believes he's the hero of his own story.
I would not be surprised if in 30 years he's looked at by that generation in a similar way Darth Vader is looked at today.
I never claimed Thanos was a hero. I said he himself believes he is one, in his madness. Basically he thinks what he's doing is right and noble. Darth Vader surely thinks the same thing. He thinks he's doing the right thing. In both cases, they're wrong. But they think they're right.
Vader definitely didn't think he was a hero. At first he did before he got the suit, but after he lost Padme I think he realized he was wrong, and at that point it was too late.
You can have a decent villain without giving him [SPOILER - highlight to read]: a pussy goal like bringing balance to the universe as if you're some cosmic cleaning lady it's really depressing that this weaksauce [SPOILER - highlight to read]: excuse of a goal passes up as a valid motivation. It really shows how MCU fans were villain starved.
Kang is a man's true villain. Don't give a phuck, be like Kang.
Thanos was an amazing villain except that his "wipe out half the universe" notion is pure Hollywood pseudo-philosophy nonsense and doesn't make any sense. Overpopulation on Earth is already overstated - the idea that the civilizations we see in the MCU are in danger of running out of the universe's resources is just asinine. You can support literally quintillions+ humans through the energy in our star system alone with technology within our own laws of physics, lol.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
He may not seem relatable to you simply because you have a neuro-typical mind. It's like trying to understand a serial killer's or a sadist's motivation. Hitler's motivation were just as flawed, and yet... he's a real human being who is part of our history. So why is it so hard to imagine a cosmic Hitler?
Just to clarify, im not saying his motivations are valid, just that it's not hard to imagine an organic being having flawed motivations and ideologies. And i don't see how Kang is supposed to be a unique villain given that his shtick is basically to conquer every time period, just like countless other villains.
Yeah, let's always assume that "I don't get it" because it cannot probably just be the character was lazily written. Their mind work different so we don't understand it is a trope for badly explained or conceived motivations
Kang is a metaphor of dramatic heroism, not only he goes around doing what he thinks he needs to do as a Conqueror (he's playing a role) but he's also our very own future that ends badly. He also works as a literal take on dictators trying to erase the past to fit the narrative of their own power. He's also a human that got enough technology to essentially become a god, but instead of using it for prosperity he decided to wage pontless wars.
Kang is also an actual winner, he already conquered the future. What he does he does for glory not out of greed.
Obviously you can write Kang as a non-interesting entity too, personally I think Thanos is a fun and developped character himself [SPOILER - highlight to read]: but that the MCU gave him the short end of the stick with his lame motivation
Right. Hitler performed literal genocide on the Jews and nearly conquered Europe based on a pseudo-scientific ideology and yet you're crying about a fictional character having flawed ideologies and motivations? Who are you to say what passes as valid motivations for individuals? There are people who torture their daughters and rape them in dungeons for 30 years, apparently they have valid motivations behind their actions and act on them, but Bentley over here would say that a fictional character cannot have such lazy motivations.
Individuals can have all kinds of weird and disgusting motivations, it's important to portray that they really believe what they're doing is true. And the movie succeeded in that regard.
Seeking the thrill of battle for conquest is a more valid motivation than trying to make the universe a better place because... Kang?
In the comics, Thanos' motivation for killing half the universe is because he loves a cosmic lady. Better yet, we're shown in his origins how he goes from world to world killing and slaughtering women and children just because "it's not enough" for his lady death. Even killing his homeworld and cutting up his mother piece by piece when he was 12 (because he was a sadist). These motivations you can understand, yes?
@Insane Titan: Kang's uber manliness makes you too insecure mate.
Yeah, let's delve into the difference between Works of fiction where we assume things are justified due to the choices of an author and the Randomness of the Whole creation. That'll settle our discussion in two minutes...
So among those myriads of disgusting/unexpected/weird motivations we pick the more enticing and estimulating ones, the ones that fit to describe the kind of evil portrayal we choose. I'm not shooting down your observation about belief, it simply has little to do with providing an actually deep motivation.
I already explained how Kang ticks and why his choices make sense from a storytelling perspective. Kang's quest is not about having a [SPOILER - highlight to read]: Obsesive Compulive fixation for balance or any made up scaling of personal morality, it's about becoming a legend, literal history, becoming the stuff of tales. It goes to explain a lot of his thrill seeking character and his willing to go in a quest to achieve greatness.
My point is not about understanding things (it's you who brought that up). For me twisted people having twisted goals doesn't mean writers get a pass for writting goals that aren't great for storytelling.
We're arguing different points. Your problem with this is relatability. Which has nothing to do with being justifiable (realism), or at least not in the context im arguing for. Thanos' motivations are not relatable to you so you want a better motivation for the sake of better story telling, i completely understand where you're coming from. So this becomes a matter of pure subjectivity at this point.
Eh, i remember it specifically being described that Kang's motivation for conquering other eras and entire galaxies, in fact, is solely because of thrill seeking. So you could just as easily say he has a compulsive fixation for thrill seeking. Conquest and becoming a legend is a by-product of that obsession with thrill seeking.
Kang literally enslaves trillions of people for his thrill seeking motivations, but he does get a pass, right? Because apparently, that's not "twisted" at all.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 30th, 2018 03:27 AM
envy and jealousy, weak
