Is Dr. Doom the greatest comic book villain of all time?

RedVejigante

Member
Aug 18, 2018
1,083
Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that the Joker is more well-known in mainstream pop culture. But the fact that the Joker has happened to have far more TV and movie appearances than Doom doesn't mean that he's inherently a better character.
 

Spinluck

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
7,389
Florida
As someone who wasn't introduced to Marvel through comics, it really sucks that all I had of Doom growing up ass old Marvel cartoons and the F4 movies from Fox where they were keeping Chris Evans away from what he was truly destined for.
 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,146
You want to get into the politics of making movies based on comic book characters....to discredit a comic book character?

By that logic Jennifer Walters is a whack comicbook character....hell Kate Bishop is shit.

Immortal Hulk is an eisner nominated book...but because no movies are based on it, The Immortal Hulk must be trash tier.

Whats your actual argument...cuz Doom has no good movie appearances....the Comicbook character is shit?
Wouldnt that hurt a bunch of characters who havent had good movie appearances?
Pretty much all of Image Comics lineup hasnt had a good live action appearance, does that kill all those characters?
The majority of the characters you mentioned like Kate Bishop, and specifically the Immortal version of Hulk, haven’t even been around that long to warrant multiple interpretations . Doom has been around for decades and has at least three iterations on the big screen, and they’ve all sucked. I hope and pray they get number 4 right, but until they do, he’s not the greatest villain of all time. Joker has great villainous interpretations across pretty much All forms of media. Doom just has the comics.

Are you seriously judging how good a character is written based off if there's movies about them or not? Lmao
Not entirely, but like I said above, it’s just further proof of how much range and relevancy the character has when he has stellar, villainous interpretations across multiple forms of media.
 

Sibersk Esto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,619
Yes

He a fucking mad scientist sorcerer dictator. He's prideful and arrogant, but carries himself with nobility and a sense of honor, tempered by a severe inferiority complex. He's versatile enough to bounce off almost any character he interacts with. He has some of comics' greatest dialogue. His backstory is basically Batman tragic and it's easy to see what he stands for just from that.

He's capable of being funny, terrifying, sympathetic, and awe inspiring without skipping a beat.





 

JetmanJay

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,146
I mean, shit, maybe we’d need to define what “greatest” really means, but with Dr. Doom, you could prostrate yourself before him, claim he’s the greatest leader ever, and submit yourself eternally to the cog of Latveria, and he’d let you live, serve him, and do that.

Get on your knees before The Joker doing the same, and maybe he’ll squirt mustard in your eye, kick you in the nuts, cut your finger off, and send you on your way in a chicken costume. Then again, maybe he’ll cut every limb of your body off piece by piece, stick flowers in the openings and call you a pot. Then if he’s feeling really funny, he’ll go after your parents, friends, family, coworkers, and do the same to them. And if he’s an omnipotent Emperor Joker, he’ll instantly do the same to everyone with your first name, then turn the flowers to Daisy’s because Harley likes them.

If these villains were real, I’d be afraid of Doom. But I would be shitting my pants and crying to be crossing paths with a real life Joker. He represents random, evil, chaos, on an unprecedented level.
 

mjc

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,436
It's interesting seeing TV and movie appearances determine the overall metric we judge villainy by.

Joker has a run up there for sure, Doom is also quality. I might lean towards Doom only because he's been written into such a character spectrum that it makes him a lot more interesting to me. He's been written as a buffoon, an egomaniac, a genius, a villain, an anti-hero, well versed in technology and magic, just a lot of stuff. Not to say the Joker isn't nuanced, but I enjoy Doom more I suppose.
 

Rackham

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,658
Doom seems like an author's self insert for every time they want a cool anti hero/villain that people would be. He's pretty lame imo.

Joker is an icon and an actual villain.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,023
The majority of the characters you mentioned like Kate Bishop, and specifically the Immortal version of Hulk, haven’t even been around that long to warrant multiple interpretations . Doom has been around for decades and has at least three iterations on the big screen, and they’ve all sucked. I hope and pray they get number 4 right, but until they do, he’s not the greatest villain of all time. Joker has great villainous interpretations across pretty much All forms of media. Doom just has the comics.



Not entirely, but like I said above, it’s just further proof of how much range and relevancy the character has when he has stellar, villainous interpretations across multiple forms of media.
What you're talking about is about contracts, licensing agreements, casting, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of a character. Marvel had its first successful movie in 1998 but that doesn't mean that all of their characters were shit until then.
 

RedVejigante

Member
Aug 18, 2018
1,083
Doom seems like an author's self insert for every time they want a cool anti hero/villain that people would be. He's pretty lame imo.

Joker is an icon and an actual villain.
What? Doom is also iconic. An what does "being an actual villain" mean? Couldn't you just as easily argue that the reason no one has done the obvious thing and put a bullet in the Joker's head is because writers think he's a super-kewl villain that they want to keep around?
 

Rackham

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,658
What? Doom is also iconic. An what does "being an actual villain" mean? Couldn't you just as easily argue that the reason no one has done the obvious thing and put a bullet in the Joker's head is because writers think he's a super-kewl villain that they want to keep around?
If you're a villain, I don't think writers should constantly be trying to make you a sympathetic character. Joker is a villain through and through. Joker's mortality has been questioned multiple times by authors and in universe characters. It's part of his mystique. His origins are unknown. He is a force of chaos in the DC universe.

That's not to say that villains who are sympathetic are bad, but when they're constantly written as the bestest smartest stronkest around, it's even worse than a clown with a plot armor- imo.
 

RedVejigante

Member
Aug 18, 2018
1,083
If you're a villain, I don't think writers should constantly be trying to make you a sympathetic character. Joker is a villain through and through. Joker's mortality has been questioned multiple times by authors and in universe characters. It's part of his mystique. His origins are unknown. He is a force of chaos in the DC universe.

That's not to say that villains who are sympathetic are bad, but when they're constantly written as the bestest smartest stronkest around, it's even worse than a clown with a plot armor- imo.
But that's the thing, Joker is an archetype. An incredibly effective and iconic archetype, but still an archetype, not a character. And let's not pretend like there hasn't been plenty of media throughout the years trying to portray Joker as a tragic or sympathetic figure. Hell, we have an upcoming feature film trying to do exactly that. And I frankly don't see how a villain with in-universe explanations for how smart and capable they are is somehow worse or more offensive than a completely human multiple mass murderer in greasepaint who hasn't by this point been either executed by the state or left for dead in a ditch by the multiple vigilantes that operate in within his world.

By this point in time, Joker takes far greater levels of suspension of disbelief to get invested in than Doom.
 
Last edited:

Rackham

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,658
But that's the thing, Joker is an archetype. An incredibly effective and iconic archetype, but still an archetype, not a character. And let's not pretend like there hasn't been plenty of media throughout the years trying to portray Joker as a tragic or sympathetic figure. Hell, we have an upcoming feature film trying to do exactly that. And I frankly don't see how a villain with in-universe explanations for how smart and capable they are is somehow worse or more offensive than a completely human multiple mass murderer in greasepaint who hasn't by this point been either executed by the state or left for dead in a ditch by the multiple vigilantes that operate in within his world.

By this point in time, Joker takes far greater levels of suspension of disbelief to get invested in than Doom.
I don’t think we can say for sure that the movie will try to portray him as sympathetic since it’s not out yet but there’s not really a long list of media trying to convince you that he is.

I don’t think joker is completely human. Maybe he is. I hope the new 3 Jokers book that’s coming out sometime in the next decade demystifies him a little bit.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,639
But that's the thing, Joker is an archetype. An incredibly effective and iconic archetype, but still an archetype, not a character. And let's not pretend like there hasn't been plenty of media throughout the years trying to portray Joker as a tragic or sympathetic figure. Hell, we have an upcoming feature film trying to do exactly that. And I frankly don't see how a villain with in-universe explanations for how smart and capable they are is somehow worse or more offensive than a completely human multiple mass murderer in greasepaint who hasn't by this point been either executed by the state or left for dead in a ditch by the multiple vigilantes that operate in within his world.

By this point in time, Joker takes far greater levels of suspension of disbelief to get invested in than Doom.
The title is who is the greatest villain, not most rounded character. A villain does have to have great depth to be effective or iconic. Before the prequels, Vader was just a dude in cool armor and a mask. Yet, he instantly became a classic villain because he's an effective antagonist. Likewise, The Joker has always been the perfect foil to Batman, representing his polar opposite, his perpetual battle with madness and need for order and control.

Doom can have all the tragic backstory he wants and depth and sympathy, but that does not mean he is a better villain. A villain should be judged on how they test our hero/protagonist. Otherwise, you're arguing about a whether A character is better than B character, not whether they are a better villain.
 

RedVejigante

Member
Aug 18, 2018
1,083
I don’t think we can say for sure that the movie will try to portray him as sympathetic since it’s not out yet but there’s not really a long list of media trying to convince you that he is.

I don’t think joker is completely human. Maybe he is. I hope the new 3 Jokers book that’s coming out sometime in the next decade demystifies him a little bit.
Sure, maybe the upcoming movie wont ultimately try to portray him as sympathetic, but it is undeniably trying to provide him with more of a backstory beyond "evil villain". And lets not forget that one of the seminal Joker stories, written by one of the greatest writers in the medium of comics, was all about making Joker a tragic figure.
 
Last edited:

RedVejigante

Member
Aug 18, 2018
1,083
The title is who is the greatest villain, not most rounded character. A villain does have to have great depth to be effective or iconic. Before the prequels, Vader was just a dude in cool armor and a mask. Yet, he instantly became a classic villain because he's an effective antagonist. Likewise, The Joker has always been the perfect foil to Batman, representing his polar opposite, his perpetual battle with madness and need for order and control.

Doom can have all the tragic backstory he wants and depth and sympathy, but that does not mean he is a better villain. A villain should be judged on how they test our hero/protagonist. Otherwise, you're arguing about a whether A character is better than B character, not whether they are a better villain.
I could equally argue that the question is who is the greatest villain, not the one with the most mainstream media exposure. Do to various circumstances, Joker has had greater TV/movie representation that has made him more iconic in the minds of mainstream audiences than Doom. This doesn't make him a better or more effective character.

And I'd argue that Doom tests his relative heroes far more than a human murder clown who by all accounts should be dead twenty times over.
 

RedVejigante

Member
Aug 18, 2018
1,083
I'd also argue that Doom is the perfect foil to the nature of the modern marvel universe. He believes that science and magic should be in the service of subjugation and domination, in direct opposition to forces like the FF, or Iron Man, or Dr. Strange. He is a villain who works across multiple titles and genres, as opposed to Joker, who is a hobo murder clown.