>>106336328I mean, fair points, perhaps 90% was overshooting my mental math. Point is, people love fleshed out villains. Say what you will about it, but one of the reasons Batman is so popular in the scale of DC is his famed Rogue's Gallery, who all have interesting backstories, aesthetics, and motivations, and that has been consistent across even adaptions, famously in BTAS.
If the villain isn't solid and interesting, all you have is a hero with little to go against, little resistance, and absolutely nothing without internal conflict or strife. Someone said a bit earlier about the caliber of actors being wasted, and that it could be anyone. I agree on it, but my point goes further, and DC absolutely does the same shit. If the villain could be replaced by a cardboard cutout with an evil red button to press to make bad things happen, no one should rightfully give a shit.
>>106336335How was he awful? Wasn't truly the greatest but he was good. And a lot of it is Tennant boner, but that's because he's a good actor in this situation used well.
See above. He had motivations, a consistent and interesting aesthetic that was used as a visual cue, and a backstory that tied strongly into the hero. He also not only gave the hero something to do, something to fight against, but drove internal conflict and question into her own morals and actions. He was an incredible foil too, because you have this invincible protagonist who could beat the fuck out of most typical MCU problems, but had a villain that entirely worked around that and made her feel powerless against him, which further played into the theme of their relationship.
Say what you will about portrayal or writing, but that's an excellent duality to deal with for a hero and villain.
