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

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.

Josh Brolin did a hell of a job.

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 a pussy goal like bringing balance to the universe as if you're some cosmic cleaning lady it's really depressing that this weaksauce 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.

Originally posted by Bentley
You can have a decent villain without giving him a pussy goal like bringing balance to the universe as if you're some cosmic cleaning lady it's really depressing that this weaksauce 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.

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.

Originally posted by operator616
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 but that the MCU gave him the short end of the stick with his lame motivation

envy and jealousy, weak

Originally posted by Insane Titan
envy and jealousy, weak

You would hype a carebare if it looked like Thanos

Originally posted by Bentley
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


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.

Originally posted by Bentley

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.


Seeking the thrill of battle for conquest is a more valid motivation than trying to make the universe a better place because... Kang?

Originally posted by Bentley

Obviously you can write Kang as a non-interesting entity too, personally I think Thanos is a fun and developped character himself but that the MCU gave him the short end of the stick with his lame motivation

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.

Originally posted by operator616
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.

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...


Originally posted by operator616
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.

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.

Originally posted by operator616
Seeking the thrill of battle for conquest is a more valid motivation than trying to make the universe a better place because... Kang?

I already explained how Kang ticks and why his choices make sense from a storytelling perspective. Kang's quest is not about having a 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.


Originally posted by operator616
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?

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.

Not even top 10 honestly. In DC/MCU he is near the top but if we are talking all movies. Nowhere close

Originally posted by Bentley

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.


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.

Originally posted by Bentley

I already explained how Kang ticks and why his choices make sense from a storytelling perspective. Kang's quest is not about having a 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.

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.


Originally posted by Bentley

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.

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.

Originally posted by operator616
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.

I wouldn't say it's relatability actually. I don't care about Thanos beinng relatable or not (it's better if we understand what he wants, but that's a fraction of what motivations need to be), I don't think he should necessarily fit a mentality that people would identify with. I think his goals and motivations should make for a richer storytelling.

Yes, I was under the impression we are not exactly arguing about the same thing since my last reply.


Originally posted by operator616
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.


Nah, that's just lowering Kang to the level of some Batman villain. He has actually shown several times that Conguest and risk are not the essence of what he does, he often goes against his own nature for his higher purposes. But Kang has been writen in a lot of ways and by lots of people, so I get why you would have that impression.


Originally posted by operator616
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.

I don't care about the morality of the characters, it's all about the potential of tales and situations they bring up. There is a lot of potential to build from Kang's motivation and background, by your own admission he has trillions of enemies out there... Or does he also have adorators in those numbers? Is he always the Invader or at times the Liberator?

Thanos is probably the best MCU villain to date. Other good ones include Killmonger, Obadiah Stane, Red Skull, Loki, brainwashed Winter Soldier, Zemo and Vulture to name a few. Ultron is also good (not as good or as fleshed out as I wanted but still pretty good).

Anyway, it won't matter because when the MCU finally released Dr. Doom, he'll be the best

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
Thanos is probably the best MCU villain to date. Other good ones include Killmonger, Obadiah Stane, Red Skull, Loki, brainwashed Winter Soldier, Zemo and Vulture to name a few. Ultron is also good (not as good or as fleshed out as I wanted but still pretty good).

Anyway, it won't matter because when the MCU finally released Dr. Doom, he'll be the best

Is just that you can't compare Doom with Thanos. Not really.

Is like comparing the Joker with Darkseid.


Doom is the intellectual and evil-hatred villain. Thanos is pure death, he just loves killing and conquering. Though MCU Thanos is much different than Comics Thanos.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Is just that you can't compare Doom with Thanos. Not really.

Is like comparing the Joker with Darkseid.


Doom is the intellectual and evil-hatred villain. Thanos is pure death, he just loves killing and conquering. Though MCU Thanos is much different than Comics Thanos. No, Joker is nothing like Darkseid. You can compare Doom and Thanos in the comics however. They are alike in MANY ways.

1. Supremely intelligent
2. Super Powerful
3. Resourceful
4. Speech patterns somewhat similar
5. Both act in mysterious ways. Have both played Hero and villain when the mood suits them.
6. Oh, and they look badass (that's important )

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
No, Joker is nothing like Darkseid. You can compare Doom and Thanos in the comics however. They are alike in MANY ways.

1. Supremely intelligent
2. Super Powerful
3. Resourceful
4. Speech patterns somewhat similar
5. Both act in mysterious ways. Have both played Hero and villain when the mood suits them.
6. Oh, and they look badass (that's important )

Agree. But characterwise they are different.

Doom is more like the evil dude whose constantly looking to surpass the heroes. He's also got an obsession with Reed just like Joker has an obsession with Batman. Doom is the cheater and is always looking for ways to outsmart his opponents.

Thanos is just the Mad Titan. He aint bad because he wants to surpass someone, or cause he hates Earth and it's heroes. He is just bad. He just enjoys killing and massive genocide. He loves Mistress Death and everything (Or at least) he does is due to her. Thanos is just insane.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Agree. But characterwise they are different.

Doom is more like the evil dude whose constantly looking to surpass the heroes. He's also got an obsession with Reed just like Joker has an obsession with Batman. Doom is the cheater and is always looking for ways to outsmart his opponents.

Thanos is just the Mad Titan. He aint bad because he wants to surpass someone, or cause he hates Earth and it's heroes. He is just bad. He just enjoys killing and massive genocide. He loves Mistress Death and everything (Or at least) he does is due to her. Thanos is just insane.

Thanos really is Doom's intellectual superior due to him actually being able to live with the fact Reed will always be smarter than both

Originally posted by Bentley
Thanos really is Doom's intellectual superior due to him actually being able to live with the fact Reed will always be smarter than both Meh. Reed is a dude. Doom is a MAN. It's like Iron Man had a baby with Doctor Strange....wait this is starting to get weird....

Greatest villain of all time. Bar none.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Agree. But characterwise they are different.

Doom is more like the evil dude whose constantly looking to surpass the heroes. He's also got an obsession with Reed just like Joker has an obsession with Batman. Doom is the cheater and is always looking for ways to outsmart his opponents.

Thanos is just the Mad Titan. He aint bad because he wants to surpass someone, or cause he hates Earth and it's heroes. He is just bad. He just enjoys killing and massive genocide. He loves Mistress Death and everything (Or at least) he does is due to her. Thanos is just insane. I wouldn't say Doom is a cheater. There's been plenty of moments where he could have decisively beaten every hero against him and won the story but didn't because it was too easy or beneath him in some way. Dooms entire character revolves around his arrogance. He knows that he is the smartest and most capable being in the multiverse. He talks down to gods. His entire motivation is to prove his superiority, win decisively through his own capabilities, and become the best version of himself. Reed is his fixation just because Reed is the only one who really matches him in terms of intelligence, and even beats him out at times (though Doom has outdone him at multiple instances, and usually only loses because Reed has help). Doom doesn't want to surpass anyone because he already knows he's the best. It's just a matter of dealing with those who would dispute that.

Agreed that him and Thanos are different. They are similar in some respects (definitely enough to be compared), but the core of their characters are completely different. Doom always does what he does for himself, going so far as to sacrifice those loves in pursuit of his own interests. Thanos always has an outside motivator, whether it's to please lady death (love) or to save the civilizations of the universe (utilitarianism).

Anyway, Thanos is the best MCU villain so far. The Russos did him justice. I hope he's not beaten too cleanly in the next movie. At least one of the big Avengers needs to go down.

Thanos has set a very high bar