Talk:Supervillain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

OR[edit]

This whole article wreaks of original research and a lot of it. I propose to completely erase the Personality Types section because that seems to be the most arbitrary. The Foils and Common Traits sections respectably still need to be debated on further.Stupidhumanzz 08:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


May I ask what the "SuperVillain Studios" link at the bottom has to do with the subject?

Nothing that I can see: I've removed it Turnstep 13:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Arachnos[edit]

May I ask why Arachnos is listed under the "parodies of supervillains" section? I don't see him as a parody at all. There's nothing funny, ironic, or even humorous about him. He's just a regular old supervillain. I'm going to move his entry up to the ordinary supervillains section for now, but before anyone moves it back, I would like an explanation as to why he belongs there. Shralla 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Personality Types[edit]

First of all, good job on this subtopic. Now my questions: #1. Who came up with all this, and how? Are there sources to cite, or is all original? #2. Isn't "beast" a subset of "fallen", and therefore redundant? --Lionelster 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How well known?[edit]

I just removed what I considered to be a fairly obscure villain (Naraku) from this list - while they may be well known in certain anime circles, they don't seem to be at the level of the rest of the list. Some others seem questionable too, but I was wondering if others had input on where to draw the line. To me, "well-known" means that a typical [wo]man-on-the-street may have heard of them, or at least has heard of their hero nemesis. So Lex Luthor, Dr. Octopus, and Darth Vader clearly qualify, but what about Revolver Ocelet, Valentina, and Queen Beryl? Those are just examples: I'd like to clarify some guidelines and not get bogged down in any specific names. I also am trying to avoid this turning into a giant list of every super-villain ever created: the current list is almost getting large enough to create a separate "list of supervillains" page, but I don't know if that is worthy of its own page considering we already have a list of villains. Turnstep 00:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as modern (last 10 years) villains go, Naraku and Revolver Ocelot are pretty well known as Inuyasha is currently a very popular feature on the very popular Adult Swim program series, and the MGS series is a premeir title. Ocelot is somewhat of a mascot for Sony.

That's not to say that I don't understand what you're saying. All these Warcraft and manga characters are pretty obscure but Naraku and Ocelot are as well known as just about any anime or VG villain around today. In 20 years when the kids are all grown up, I'm sure Ocelot will be as well-known as Doctor Octopus. Naraku is really only notable as an anime villain though. They have some contemporary iconic value. They're just a generation or two ahead of you.68.166.68.84 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed Krang from the list of evil geniuses since the Shredder is already there, more recognizable and from the same mythos. I replaced some guy with Revolver Ocelot in the "Minion" list as he's an older more recognizable video game villain. Once I find replacements I'm going to remove most of the Warcraft characters. WoW may be very popular but unless you own the game or play it regularly none of the characters are familiar or recognizable at all. I repaced two obscure Warcraft characters as examples of "fallen". I included Archagel. Can someone link it to got to the comic character? I'm not sure how to type the vertical line.

I removed Mister Sinister and Carnage from the list of notable SV's as Apocalypse, Magneto, and Thanos are more recognizable villains in the Marvel universe and already on the list. I removed Lord Recluse and Bishop as they're too obscure a reference. I'm going to put Naraku and M. Bison on the list because they're probably the most reognizable examples of Anime and VG villains respectively. Edit: I'm going to replace M. Bison with King Koopa. Are there any anime villains who deserve the spot more than Naraku? I think it's important to list notable villains from different forms of media so I think there has to be at least one anime villain on the list. 68.166.68.84 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

POV[edit]

  • I'd prefer to remove it entirely. Doesn't seem to go with the rest of the article anyway. Turnstep 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed that section and the POV tag. --Ezeu 20:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Most Dastardly... Q?[edit]

Star Trek's Q as a supervillain does not quite work for me. Mainly because he did not really have any desire to rule the Federation. Typically he would harass the Enterprise-D and Voyager crews, usually to get some type of point across. True, in All Good Things... he put Picard through that test, but that wasn't his doing, it was the Q Continium, in fact, he even helped Jean-Luc out. But, I'm not quite willing to take him off. What do the rest of you guys think?

Agreed- he does not exhibit enough of the supervillain characteristics to qualify, IMO. He's more mischevous than evil, certainly has no cartoonish desire to "rule the world", never fights a "superhero", and doesn't have an outlandish supervillain costume. Turnstep 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm taking Q out.

Not every supervillain has to be "cartoonish" or desire to "rule the world".

He has "superpowers" and he uses them to antagonize the heroes. I'm not going to go out of my way to put him back in but he's certainly a villain.

I don't think Q is a supervillian at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.17.234 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Horror[edit]

I am removing (again) the stars of horror movies, such as Jason, Freddy Kruger, etc. These clearly do not fit the definition of a supervillain, so please do not re-add them without discussion here as to why you think they do. Typically, supervillains are cartoonish characters who want to take over the world and are pitted against one or more superheroes. I cannot see how "Jason" from Friday the 13th qualifies for that at all. As a more general request, please be stingy in what gets added to this list - it is probably too long for the page already. Turnstep 13:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


While Jason, Chucky et al are more "monsters" than supervillains, I do think some horror figures qualify. Freddy Kruger is more than just a lumbering killer, his mastery of the dream world gives him the status of an overlord He's not as refined as Doctor Doom or Dracula, but he is reasonably powerful, and strategically creates "death traps". Would Hannibal Lecter warrant a spot on the list? His scope isn't that vast, but let me put it this way; He'd fit right as a Batman adversary, in some respect. Skyblade

Jason is most certainly a supervillain. He has various "superpowers" and he uses them to do harm to the protagonists. 68.166.68.84 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Third party needed[edit]

Another anonymous IP has just re-added a bunch of entries. I'll refrain from reverting it right away, and assume that this is the same person who keeps re-adding entries such as "Chucky" to ths list. Would anyone else care to comment on this (in regards to the "horror" section above, and to a lesser extent to the "well-known" qualification)? I don't want to turn this into an edit war by reverting again, but on the other hand, the latest revert is by an anonymous IP whose sole two edits have been on this page in the last few hours, with nary a edit summary in site. Turnstep 06:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


This book maybe a good sources of info if anyone can get their hands on it [1] Dwanyewest (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Talbot[edit]

Someone (anonymous IP) keeps re-adding Glenn Talbot, who appears to be a villain (and not even a supervillain) from the Hulk comic book. In addition to not being a supervillain, he is not "well-known". Not only would the average person on the street not know who he is (as opposed to say, the Hulk himself), M. Talbot does not even have his own page on Wikipedia. Therefore, he does not belong on this list. Dissenting opinions welcome below. Turnstep 17:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Are Magneto and Darth Vader supervillians?[edit]

I would question the inclusion of Magneto and Darth Vader (and Vader's screenshot) in the list of supervillians. Both characters are too ambiguous to qualify, IMO, and would be more accurately classified as anti-heroes. Magneto is an ideologue, but his goal isn't something as nebulous as "world domination", it is to protect mutants from persecution. Magneto often worked with the X-Men, and even led Xavier's school for a while. It's common for supervillians to occasionally team up with the superhero to defeat an even greater evil (a plot probably inspired by the real history of World War II), but Magneto's sympathy for Xavier's idealism goes beyond that. As for Vader, George Lucas sees him as a tragic hero, not a villain - and the whole premise of Return of the Jedi was that there was still good in him and that he was not irredeemably evil. Firebug 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a tough call. While both eventually evolved into more of an anti-hero, they both definitely started as supervillains, and certainly would be most likely recognized by the average person as such. Although maybe not so much Magneto on reflection, as the first X-Men movie (most people's first intro to Magneto I would imagine) did give a detailed backstory and explanation for his actions. Vader may have had some "good" in him, but a) it was not shown at all in the first two movies and b) this does not disqualify one from being a supervillain, IMO. I would certainly support replacing the Vader picture with someone more "supervillainy" however. Turnstep 14:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to remove Magneto from the list because (a) he's much more ambiguous than the other cases, and (b) as you point out, many people first saw Magneto in the X-Men films where he was more of a sympathetic character (especially in X2). Other popular media, such as the 1990s Fox X-Men cartoon (which featured a very sympathetic portrayal of Magneto except for the first two episodes) also reflect this. If anyone has an objection to this removal, please discuss further on the talk page. Firebug 20:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Magneto should stay on the list. He was still a villain in the aforementioned movies. He is more ambiguous and complex than, say, Doctor Doom, but he is still the arch-nemesis of the X-Men and the ying to Xavier's yang. In X2 he tried to kill all humans, which is pretty supervillainous, IMHO. Simon Beavis


Indeed. Many supervillains are capable of benevolence. For instance, Doctor Doom's protection of his country. Magneto's a terrorist, and many terrorists have understandable frustrations but deplorable methods.


Nice arguments. Maybe we should await the X3 movie before adding Magneto to the list. With regard to Darth Vader, I would say that he rather performs the role of a general in Star Wars. Of course he's a villain but he's hardly a mastermind. If you wanted to give a Star Wars example in the wiki, then this should be Palpatine/Darth Sidious, imho. Virtually all (if not all, I haven't counted yet, I must admit) traits mentioned are applicable to him. Scathane 09:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Now you guys are just being silly. Magneto was a premier supervillain for years until his "ambiguity" came to light. That is how he's known and his portrayal in the films is proof-positive. Moral ambiguity doesn't disqualify a super-villain. Same with Darth Vader. Let's not over-analyze this. This sin't a Marvel or Star Wars page to debate the merits of the villains. 68.166.68.84 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be ridiculous, of course Magneto and Darth Vader are Supervillains.


        • Magneto is not a supervillain. If anything, he is an anti-hero. He has moral principles. He sees himself as defending his people (mutants) against forces that want to destroy them. Consider -- would a French resistance figher in WW 2 -- who firebombed Nazi forces -- be a hero? Or a villain?

The stem article's definition of supervillain requires a criminal intent -- which is probably correct. Supervillains have crass motivations -- they want to steal large sums of money or priceless objects. They can have power motivations -- they want to rule the world. They can have revenge motivations. But saving one's people from utter destruction is not usually one of them -- even if that motivation leads to conflict with the goody-goody, always obey the law superhero types. Even Batman breaks the law -- for good purposes! Thus, even if he is sometimes cast in stories where he has a typical supervillain motivation -- overall, Magneto is NOT a supervillain. He is an anti-hero.

Darth Vader is a villain -- there is no doubt. He works for the dark side -- he joined the Emperor in overturning the rule of law. He has a typical crass supervillain motivation.

Galactus -- however -- should not be on this list. Galactus is not even a villain, let alone supervillain. He has no crass motivation. He barely even cares whether the planets he consumes have beings on them or not. The fact that he needs to consume worlds to live doesn't make him a supervillain -- even if it puts him in conflict with superheroes like the Fantastic Four. The fact that the FF have managed to convince him to leave Earth alone should be proof that he is simply a force of nature, not a supervillain. Is the wind a supervillain? Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Paring Down the List[edit]

Okay, so keeping the list at its tightest...

Dracula, Dracula, Darth Vader, Lex Luthor and the Joker could be recognized by anyone. Moriarty is recognizeable. Blofeld is known by the average man on the streets, (though more by looks then name--I bet two out of three would think he was called "Dr No". Khan is very well known. Voldemort, Magneto, Doctor Doom, Skeletor, and Shredder are not quite as famous, but have appeared in enough media to be recognized by at least a reasonable number of people.

Characters that I think are too obscure to belong on the list are Kang and John Sunlight. Davros might be pushing it, but I figure he might be more recognizeable in England. Bullseye and Sandman are pretty expendable. They're really more thugs/hired killers than criminal masterminds. Syndrome could be included on the parody list, but on the main list? His media appearance is downright scarce. Personally, I'm wondering if there should be medium crossover requirements. Finally, Batman has four archenemies on the list, which I think is pushing it. Many hardcore fans prefer Two-Face, but he's the least recognizeable of the four villains mentioned. I'm a little ambivalant about Braniac, but he does play a part on Smallville, though some may argue Zod has played a larger role in Superman media. But whittling down the comic book superivllain list. (Not counting Loki, who has served as a public domain villain)

Brainiac Doctor Doom, Doctor Octopus Green Goblin The Joker The Kingpin Lex Luthor Magneto The Penguin Red Skull Riddler

We have three villains for Batman, two and a half for Spider-Man (sharing one arch-foe with Daredevil) and two for Superman, pretty much giving more than one arch-foes for the three most well-known superheroes. We have Marvel Comics's two big bad guys. I'm not married to the Red Skull being on the list, but I'm not going to argue for or against him being on it.

Finally, I was surprised to see Fu Manchu and Saruman removed. Saruman I could sort of understand, considering the prestige nature of Lord of the Rings, but Fu Manchu should definately be put back on. I wonder if Hannibal Lecter should be included? I'm not going to add him, but he does have the cadence and quirkiness of many supervillains...what stops him is his scope. In fact, Mason Verger probably acts more like a quintessential supervillain, but including him is against the point, since he's not as well known.

Vader: Villain or henchman?[edit]

Vader is what i would call a super-hunchman. In many moderns tales of good vs evil, the main villain has an army of henchmen and one very special "superhenchman" who is similar to the henchmen but has special abilities and the ability to think.

by this standard, Sauron is the super-henchman of Melkor Demong 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Cool...[edit]

You know, I have a question. Why do a few of you people think you should control the entire Supervillain page? The whole point of Wikipedia is to look at different points of view, which is what makes it so different from an Encyclopedia.com. When everyone can put in their input, new thoughts, ideas and info can be shared.

I think a lot of you need to quit editing away other people's input. I understand if it's something stupid, like "Supervillains Suck" or something, but come on... erasing everything a person says because you don't agree with it, or you don't think anyone else will understand it!

In any case, back off a little bit. Yeesh.

  • Ah, come on, for some this is the only way they can feel important. Let them pretend they are needed.

I think we can dispense with the bitchiness, Mr Unsigned Comment. The people who work on this page are only debating their points of view to come to fair solutions on how to run it. Anyway someone suggested adding Hannibal Lector to the list. Well I think this is fair despite this fact that he doesn't have superpowers. After all look at the Joker and Moriarty.

Anon

External links[edit]

It seems to me that this article could use some external links. Is there a reason there are none? RoyRedersn17 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This link is from a reputable website discussing a book about the history of supervillians i wish it would stop being removed. [2]

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the link is more about the book rather than about the subject of the article. You might wish to consider incorporating the book itself as a "Further reading" entry. (Feel free to ask if you have questions about this.) --Ckatzchatspy 00:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dark Lord redirects here[edit]

Why? -Black Omnimon 21:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Because those fools deleted the Dark Lord article (as well as the Dark Lord category) so as the Dark Lord character trope could vaguely be described as a supervillain personality type the bosses decided to have it redirect here whenever somebody typed it in. -Anon

But a "Dark Lord" isn't the same as a supervillian, a Dark Lord is often a main antagonist in many medievel themed fictional works, and coudl be considered The supervillian instead of just some random supervillian. Black Omnimon 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. And 'vaguely' isn't good enough for a redirect. Perhaps 'blatantly', but 'vaguely' isn't. A Dark Lord is massively more powerful than a supervillain. Three-Tail 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't agree more.

Anon

White Witch[edit]

Could whoever keeps removing the White Witch from the Dark Lord section please give a reason as to why?

Hi there.I think an explanation is needed indeed.You see,the White Witch already appears in two categories:'Dark Lord' and Born-and-Bred'.But it is impossible to be in two categories at once.I am not familiar with the works of Mr.Lewis but judging from the 'White Witch' article it seems that she's more like the Born-and-Bred.If you think that she should be in the 'Dark Lord' section then please give a reason too.Yours thruly,Dimts 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I was just thinking, why not be in two categories. I mean the White Witch was brought up to be evil on the planet she came from (Charn) and she is also a Dark Lord as she is a fantasy villain of near-omnipotence who plots domination of the world with the help of her army of devoted servants and followers. That's my humble opinion anyway.

You seem to be familiar with the Narnia universe.So,check the 'Dark Lord' and the 'Born-and-Bred' categories.The section which is more close to the description of this disputed character...will get her.Dimts 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Well known" POV tags[edit]

Well known is inherently POV - until there's a popularity contest, there's no definitive say of measuring such a claim. CovenantD 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed[edit]

This article has turned into a dumping ground of Original Research, uncited claims and POV. The discussion above about the White Witch shows that characters are being added to descriptions based on the reasoning of editors. I suggest a complete rewrite of the entire article, with close attention to documenting every claim that is made. CovenantD 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration of the Dark Lord[edit]

The concept of a "Dark Lord" I think merits its own disambiguation page, if not an article. Not only is it an autonomous concept, but many people have also been dubbed"dark lords," e.g., George Lucas, the guy who designed the electronics systems for early Jaguars... I think there is more to be said Mr Anthem 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. I think the Dark Lord character trope deserves its own article and perhaps its own category. I'd do them myself only I'm not registered so I don't have the power.

Anon


And a supervillain pertains almost exclusively to the comic book industry. A supervillain can be any type of villain. I mean look at Kingpin. He's a crime lord. He's got no special powers. And could very well be a real person. But he's still considered a supervillain because he's in comics. A dark lord and supervillain are not the same thing. So I think Dark Lord should go back to having its own article. Three-Tail 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Would you care to do the honours, good sir?

Anon

Heh, uh, not particularly. I guess I'll try. I'll just copy the old info from somewhere. Trust me, there's alot of sites with hold articles that have been merged recently. Mergings I disagree with completely. I mean, I thought the goal was to offer as much information as possible, not to merge and cut it all to half.Three-Tail 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh you wimp.

Anon


I know XP.Three-Tail 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Orochimaru of Naruto technically is more like a Dark Lord or Fallen than criminally insane. Could someone move it? 24.61.48.7 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'll do that right away.

Anon

Oh by the way you'll notice I've created a category for Dark Lords.

YourLord

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, it's been deleted. Perfect.

YourLord

Speaking of Dark Lords, some of the characters have really got to be relocated. for instance, although King Bowser did have a role similar to a dark lord in the original super mario bros (which even then it is more comparable to King Zant anyways), due to some quirks in present day Bowser (i.e. his more comical villain role) he really shouldn't be listed as a dark lord under there, otherwise, pretty much every supervillain should be considered a dark lord due to their thirst for world conquest. Megatron, see above, though he did try to manipulate a sacred object for his own uses in the 2007 movie. so my point is that a villain in that article who is tied to the creators of said villain who have comic relief villain roles (by that, i mean that the creators of said villain made the villain that way, meaning that games like the CDi Zelda games don't count) should not be listed as dark lords. Did Palpatine, Voldemort, White Witch, Sauron, Darth Vader, Sauron, Ganondorf, Dimentio, Black Doom or Maleficent even have comical villain roles from their creators. No, so any villain that was a comical villain to begin with or even a villain who was originally a dark lord but was downgraded to comical villainry should be relocated. Also, they really should keep the Category of Dark Lords as well as the category of female dark lords in there.

I don't think whether or not a character is a dark lord should be defined by whether ot not they are comical. After all many dark lords do have a sense of humour and can be amusing. For instance Voldemort, Scar, The Master, the Sheriff of Nottingham (as portrayed in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. But yes, I see what you're getting at.

Speaking of Dark Lords, would Chernabog be considered a demon or a dark lord? He is a demon, but he rules his own realm. Actually, come to think of it, so does Neron and Mephisto...BWANASIMBA 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Demon and Dark Lord categories are pretty much the same thing.

Wtf?[edit]

Happened to the article? Like, all of it except for the origins section has been erased! This is an outrage!

Anon

It's not "an outrage" - it is just cleaning up an uncited, unverified, mess. --Ckatzchatspy 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What citations and verifications do you hope to get for an article on supervillains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.175.37 (talkcontribs)
Simply put, if there are no available references, the material cannot be included. However, I would be very surprised if such references do not exist for a reasoned examination of the concept of a supervillain. --Ckatzchatspy 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If you mean academic references, then I seriously doubt it. The best references on something like comic book mythology come from obscure fan-produced publications and the fans own analyses. Most of us would trust the fans original research over the "official" research of an academic.206.192.18.13 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
What you say you trust, however, isn't what qualifies under Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability. The old version of the article demonstrated why, as well, since it was nothing more than a collection of whatever villains editors wanted to add to the list. No citations, no verifiability, nothing. --Ckatzchatspy 07:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just bad sportsmanship. It was a fun list. Restore it. The unverifiability rules are broken so often anyhow. This was a quirky aspect to the wiki. Besides which, it is actually not hard to verify -- as supervillianesses need only to exist in comics and TV/Film in order to qualify. Just because one user doesn't like it, it goes? (129.96.112.105 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

The Master[edit]

Which category do you think the Master from Doctor Who should go into? Because he could fit into "The Dark Lord", "The Evil Genius", "The Sociopath" or "The Demon."

Anon

Well there won't be any need to worry about it now as all the categories have been erased along with all my hard work.

Unfair! (129.96.112.105 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

UBL[edit]

Osama is the first real one. Underground bases. Sleeper cells. Technology. World domination objective etc. like a proper Bond villain. The article should say so.--81.105.243.17 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Provide reliable evidence and citations to justify notability then by all means do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Try to prove you're unbiased why you're at it. (129.96.112.105 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Where's the article?[edit]

Apparently this page is supposed to be the list of female supervillains but there's nothing here. Where's the list? 203.211.74.185 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC) It appears to have been deleted. Vote to restore!(129.96.130.207 (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Non comic-related villains[edit]

The definition of supervillain excludes IMHO, Darth Vader, as other villains in SF and literature. The Super-villain as the word says, is the nemesis of the Super-Hero. As we don't talk about Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia as superheroes, we shouln't consider Dart Vader or Palpatine as supervillains, but just as villains or archenemies. In other words this article should be related only to comic supervillains, like Doctor Doom, Magneto, Lex Luthor and many more. They have more in common, in terms of features and personalities, than all movie or literature related evil characters.--Doctor Dodge (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker count as "super" already since they have telekinesis. Think you can get that by lifting weights, learning Asian martial arts, running laps, doing situps, reading Soldier of Fortune, etc.? Darth Vader already closely resembles Doctor Doom anyway, exclusive of his telekinesis. Also, George Lucas made Star Wars based on his affection for Flash Gordon, a newspaper comic strip.00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Enda80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enda80 (talkcontribs)

John Devil[edit]

Why would he be the first supervillain? How about the evil queen from snow white? or the big bad wolf (the freaking animal was able to speak)? Faust. Then there are Ares, Set, Loki. The Cyclops from the Odyssey. Medusa. Ramses II, Herod.--20-dude (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Joker and Lex Luthor[edit]

Joker and Lex Luthor are the two most recognizable characters in pop culture? Maybe in DC comics but what about Doctor Doom and possibly even Green Goblin Venom and Magneto etc.Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Female Supervillains[edit]

"List of Female Supervillains" should not redirect to this page. It should be its own page. 70.157.236.232 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

About citations and vagueness in definition of "Supervillain"[edit]

Now yes, I'm pretty sure you guys have found the lack of citations a problem in itself, but the main beef I have is how this results in the precise parameters for supervillainry becoming awfully sketchy.

Part of the problem lies in the currently in-use citations themselves. Not all of them are really focused on the supervillain concept itself, and none of them give anything close to an actual working definition for "supervillain"; even those that do focus on the supervillain concept go about as if the reader is already perfectly familiar with what a supervillain is. That also makes their current use as citations dubious in regards to context within the article.

If readers were to go solely from what can be gleaned from both the article in its current form and the citations, they would infer that the supervillain concept is apparently most prevalent in comic books, where it was pretty much codified. I'm not disputing this or anything, but the reader must know why this is the case. More specifically, why is it that villains in other mediums who are practically identical to supervillains (i.e. Sauron, Palpatine, Ganon) are never considered such either in their respective articles or elsewhere (Palpatine is mentioned as such on this article, but the citations don't back that up in any way)? I mean, we have a "List of comic book supervillains", but no "List of (insert other medium here) supervillains". For what reason?

Abodos (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see this is a article that can be expanded. Feel free to do so. − Jhenderson 777 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious alt title[edit]

Can any source confirm that "supervillainess" is more common for females than simply "supervillain"? As far as I know "villain" is not male-exclusive. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)