MCU Villains: Why so controversial when criticised?
Dec 2, 2017 0:40:51 GMT
coldenhaulfield likes this
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 0:40:51 GMT
Dec 2, 2017 0:21:59 GMT @weirdraptor said:
He's no different from Kaecilius. They have the exact same amount of depth. Neither one is a deep character.He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. That's all. He's only unique because of the actor who played him as well. In every other regard, he's no different than any Bond villain.
Sorry but when one character goes down as being an iconic villain and the best of his genre and the other is.... Kaelicius, the character who only furthered the reputation of Marvels weak villains, then there's every difference.
He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him? So is every character that Alan Rickman played interesting? Is Kaecilius then not interesting because he was played by Mads Mikkelson? Is Mads Mikkelson not interesting?
Hans Gruber was a revolutionary villain, clearly considering that other action movies tried to ripoff that characters style.
Nobody will be trying to rip off Mads Mikkelson's performance as Kaecilius.
Who was the villain in For Your Eyes only? You don't remember? Who was the villain in The Spy Who Loved Me? Would you need to check Google?
Yeah you know who the villain of Die Hard is, you know who Hans Gruber is. That's the difference between him and a Bond villian.