|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 10, 2005 18:30:50 GMT -5
<sigh> right that is what makes him evil, how does that make him a lesser evil. sides apokolips isnt a villain all itself, that doesnt work. sorry.
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Dec 13, 2005 18:03:30 GMT -5
Then what exactly does make Joker evil? You also seemed to have ignored my point that by removed all the inhibitions in any person, we could make that person as bad if not worse than the Joker.
As for Apokolips, it all depends on the nature of the planet. If it's just a chunk of rock that radiates evil then it's not a villain but if it does possess some level of sentience then there's no reason why it can't be a villain. The fact that not all the people on Apokolips is evil coupled with the fact that the rulers of the planet have always been the most evil ones suggests that the planet itself is somewhat sentient had has a will of its own and has a hand in guiding its own destiny.
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 14, 2005 0:01:46 GMT -5
Then what exactly does make Joker evil? You also seemed to have ignored my point that by removed all the inhibitions in any person, we could make that person as bad if not worse than the Joker. As for Apokolips, it all depends on the nature of the planet. If it's just a chunk of rock that radiates evil then it's not a villain but if it does possess some level of sentience then there's no reason why it can't be a villain. The fact that not all the people on Apokolips is evil coupled with the fact that the rulers of the planet have always been the most evil ones suggests that the planet itself is somewhat sentient had has a will of its own and has a hand in guiding its own destiny. A. you cannot prove that and that is all speculation, you cannot counter with a statement so ridiculous as "hey man we can always make a Joker if we remove inhibitions. that would be like me saying we can make any planet apokolyps... or worse! B. for a person who is asking all kinds of questions about the source in another thread you seem to know all kinds about apokolyps... i am begining to think you make up this stuff when it is convenient.
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Dec 14, 2005 1:42:55 GMT -5
A. It is not ridiculous statement at all. There have been many experiments into the more primitive parts of the human brain. I know psychology and you'd be surprised at what humans are capable of even without the removal of their inhibitions. It is not that hard to bring out the baser instincts of humans, sleep depravation, stress, group think, and orders from a perceived authority can easily cause humans to overstep the bounds of their civilized way of thinking. Just do a search of Philip Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment or Stanley Milgram’s study on obedience.
B. It is revealed in Kingdom Come (I believe) that the source of all the evil on Apokolips is Apokolips. A lot of questions about the Source? I asked one question which has yet to be answered. Information about the Source is very scarce. I know that the Source is where the New Gods get their power and I know that the Source has some kind of master plan and apparently that's all that is known about it.
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 14, 2005 2:28:51 GMT -5
A. It is not ridiculous statement at all. There have been many experiments into the more primitive parts of the human brain. I know psychology and you'd be surprised at what humans are capable of even without the removal of their inhibitions. It is not that hard to bring out the baser instincts of humans, sleep depravation, stress, group think, and orders from a perceived authority can easily cause humans to overstep the bounds of their civilized way of thinking. Just do a search of Philip Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment or Stanley Milgram’s study on obedience. B. It is revealed in Kingdom Come (I believe) that the source of all the evil on Apokolips is Apokolips. A lot of questions about the Source? I asked one question which has yet to be answered. Information about the Source is very scarce. I know that the Source is where the New Gods get their power and I know that the Source has some kind of master plan and apparently that's all that is known about it. A) I did do research on milgram and it did not prove that mankind has evil subconsciences, it proved that they follow orders when told, please do me a favor and don't try to sound impressive by bringing up studies thinking i won't know what they are. you never picked up on the fact that although even in our psyche we may have malicious instincts we are not stripped of our inhibitions! Joker (for whatever reason you choose to beleive being that he has mulitiple origins) is evil because not only does he commit evil and kills and tortures and ruins lives, he takes satisfaction in it! he laughs and jokes and takes pride in his evil doings. B) well if you are going to talk about Jack Kirbys creations, perhaps you should read Jack Kirbys work not Mark Waids. KC says a lot of things and while it may be fantastic, it is not infallable in its content.
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Dec 14, 2005 14:23:39 GMT -5
A. I told you to do a search on those studies. If was trying to fool you I wouldn't have even talked about Zimbardo's prison experiment or Milgram's study on obedience. Milgram's experiment shows us how easily people can be manipulated into overstepping social boundaries and commit horrible inhumane acts. Evil is very subjective, there are many things that animals do that if they done by humans would be considered evil. Predatory animals have a habit of playing with their prey before killing and eating it. If a human were to do that we’d call him a sociopath and put him in a mental health institution. The removal of inhibitions from humans makes them act more like animals. It would make them derive pleasure from playing with their prey, killing, and raping. The very fact that we can be stripped of our inhibitions to become as bad as the Joker and the fact that there have been plenty of people in the past who had never had their inhibitions removed and were far worse than the Joker means that the Joker isn’t all that evil. The Joker is a chaotic and insane sociopath who derives pleasure based on the more animalistic instincts. Darkseid is just a force of unimaginable evil that is beyond the understanding of humans. What would Joker do if he could no longer laugh or take pleasure in the chaos he causes? You can't really be sure can you? He might stop, he might go even more insane. But if you took away Darkseid’s ability to feel pleasure in the spread of misery, suffering, and evil, you know that he would still continue because he would spread evil just for the sake of evil.
B. Does the idea of Apokolips being the source of all the evil on Apokolips contradict things Jack Kirby wrote or said?
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Dec 14, 2005 14:33:09 GMT -5
I saw a butterfly today...
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 14, 2005 14:58:40 GMT -5
did you pick a dandelion and blow on it fer a wish?
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Dec 14, 2005 15:02:23 GMT -5
Yeah *long sigh* It was beeaaaautiful. Then I came online and my happiness was shattered.
Meh. Nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by giantevilhead on Dec 14, 2005 18:27:36 GMT -5
Butterflies are nice because nobody suspects the butterfly.
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Dec 14, 2005 18:38:56 GMT -5
i do they dont have evil demon wings for nothing! ;D
|
|
|
Post by mtpspur on Feb 5, 2006 16:10:51 GMT -5
Eclipso--ever since he cut off Dr Bennett's fingers and told him make a phone call for help--issue 2???--you expect the Joker to be that way so over the years his sense of menace has diminished for me whereas Eclipso continues to surprise.
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Feb 5, 2006 17:28:27 GMT -5
Eclipson: The Darkness Within #2? If so I am SOOOO checking out that issue
|
|
|
Post by mtpspur on Feb 5, 2006 17:45:09 GMT -5
I apologize---it wasn't the Darkness Wihin series--it was in the regular ongoing that followed the mini--still think it's #2 but the set is the garage in boxes and not up to dealing with the cats getting out this late.
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Feb 9, 2006 10:19:03 GMT -5
Could we consider Frank Miller's work on All Star Batman and Robin to be one of the most evil villians of all time. I mean it is pretty vile. just kidding Ramon! kind of in the mood to stir the pot a bit!
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Feb 9, 2006 10:26:19 GMT -5
well i would say onomonopteia was pretty vile, didn't he singlehandedly take out every member of the GA family like they were leftover henchmen from batman's tv show?
|
|
|
Post by starlord on Feb 9, 2006 10:33:03 GMT -5
There was definately great potential with that villian. I'd like to see him come back.
ummm....I must be getting old cause I could have sworn I just posted on this thread, hmmm....
|
|
|
Post by darkknightdetec on Feb 9, 2006 13:59:53 GMT -5
Gonna have to go with the ANTI-MONITOR. While all of the others act evil, the Anti-Monitor WAS evil in its purest form. The Monitor and the Anti-Monitor are pretty much the same as saying "Good" and "Bad". Plus, what villain murdered more people than he did? He murdered literally universes of people.
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Feb 9, 2006 14:02:10 GMT -5
Onto a winner!
|
|
|
Post by cheshire on Feb 11, 2006 13:07:55 GMT -5
Have I posted my favorite villain? I dunno, I checked and I don't think I have so here's mine. (It's kinda of obvious) Drum roll!
Cheshire! (Woo big surprise, eh?)
I like Cheshire because she's so brilliant and cunning! I'm mean, she attempted to black mail the world and she nuked a country! I think that deserves some recognition. Plus, her history is kinda cool.
|
|
joker51087
Full Member
Aren't they a nice couple?
Posts: 113
|
Post by joker51087 on Feb 16, 2006 19:26:59 GMT -5
I went with the Joker. I think that the fact that he killied Jason Todd, crippled Barbara Gordon, and murdered Sarah Essen in cold blood is enough to justify that vote. Also, like another poster said, he was really evil in Batman Beyond Return of the Joker. My signature (qoute at the bottom of my post) is probably one of the creepiest/eviliest things he's ever said if you know the context.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Feb 16, 2006 22:29:26 GMT -5
I have to agree. Joker's portrayl in ROTJ was probably one of the best and most disturbed versions of the character ever.
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Feb 17, 2006 1:57:00 GMT -5
i liked that angle better in the dark knight stikes again.
|
|
|
Post by HoM on Feb 17, 2006 4:47:37 GMT -5
I bet you did...
*mumble mumble*
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Feb 17, 2006 7:44:13 GMT -5
i liked that angle better in the dark knight stikes again. Yeah I know, Miller totally ripped it off.
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Feb 17, 2006 14:25:06 GMT -5
ripped it off? or perfected the concept? i go with the latter.
|
|
|
Post by hope on Feb 24, 2006 22:33:05 GMT -5
I went with Darkseid. You're dark when you kill out of Greed, Power, or Revenge. When you kill simply because of it's logical application and just because. That's scary...
|
|
|
Post by brigante133 on Feb 24, 2006 22:39:34 GMT -5
sure, but joker kills for no reason at all sometimes!
|
|
|
Post by hope on Feb 24, 2006 23:37:51 GMT -5
No but to him it's like a joke. To Darkseid it's as simple a task as breathing. That's scary...
|
|