He's not even a fucking doctor.
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?
Are you seriously judging how good a character is written based off if there's movies about them or not? Lmao
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? 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?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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.