|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 30, 2017 19:01:07 GMT
No MCU villain has been remotely as bad as Enchantress and it's not even close.
All the ones you listed there were solid villains. I'm not saying they were the best villains ever, but they had clear motivations, clear backstories, and were good, enjoyable, well acted, purposeful villains. Enchantress is just a ghost (we know nothing about) who wants to build a "machine" (somehow) and destroy the world? because she doesn't like technology (for some reason.)
You have this standard where you think every villain needs to be some Oscar worthy performance with an elaborate backstory and I have no idea why you think that makes them as poor as somebody like Enchantress. It's very odd.
You shouldn't just accept something just because it's a solid. You shouldn't want a villain that's merely passable or decent. People love these MCU movies but it's common knowledge that the villains have been pretty weak compared to most other aspects of those movies. As least Enchantress had the whole thing where she was both a normal girl and then suddenly a demonic witch thing and the relation with Rick Flag and him having to kill her but doesn't want to. What's Malekith got going for him? He was as interesting as a potato. They don't all have to be great but why can't they all be done as well as Ego or Vulture? They were fine because not only did they have more screentime they weren't two dimensional. Ego had his relationship with his son. Seemed like a good guy but turned it he wasn't. Vulture was a good man who ended up having to do bad things. He's a father and a husband whose daughter liked Peter. He also wasn't three dimensional. Even they aren't great villains but they're leaps and bounds better than the norm that they've had. Kaelicius last year, completely forgettable and boring. I'm not settling, if that's what you mean. I like them exactly how they are and I think they've done a great job. If they had added some more to some of them that would have been great, but there's nothing wrong with how they are.
What's common knowledge is that the MCU is about heroes dealing with situations that villains present. It's not always supposed to be about exploring the villain in detail so expressing that they aren't doing so is just more missing the point than anything.
And honestly the idea that Enchantress is comparable to any of them doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response but,
Kaecilius is much deeper, better acted, and more relevant. He's a broken man who has lost his family, has carried on severely crippled by his loss, and upon discovering time manipulation, views it as the best means for curing the cause of his pain which is death. He then views the Ancient One obstructing him from this, as his enemy, and his only goal becomes doing anything necessary to concur death and perhaps reunite with his family.
Say that much about Enchantress.
Malekith is nearly an allegory for many list civilizations. Consider that he views the universe we live in as the ancient Mayans might have viewed the Europeans, taking over their land and culture. All he wants is the reality he knows back, and he doesn't care what the effects are to anybody living in that universe that has overtaken his home essentially. He's so committed that even the cost of his own people is worth returning reality to what he views as it's natural state. He's well acted, a good challenge, clear goals, etc.
Say that much about Enchantress.
You're only viewing them at a very superficial level and because of that you think they are superficial. Enchantress is superficial. There's nothing there. She can be summed up as a ghost (we know nothing about), who doesn't like technology (for some reason), who builds a machine (somehow, that does something), and none of it is any more clear than that.
The point is, I hope I'm helping you appreciate these characters, because I very much do, I enjoy the hell out of them, and you aren't doing a thing to diminish that, so hopefully you can grow to enjoy them.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 30, 2017 22:36:23 GMT
You shouldn't just accept something just because it's a solid. You shouldn't want a villain that's merely passable or decent. People love these MCU movies but it's common knowledge that the villains have been pretty weak compared to most other aspects of those movies. As least Enchantress had the whole thing where she was both a normal girl and then suddenly a demonic witch thing and the relation with Rick Flag and him having to kill her but doesn't want to. What's Malekith got going for him? He was as interesting as a potato. They don't all have to be great but why can't they all be done as well as Ego or Vulture? They were fine because not only did they have more screentime they weren't two dimensional. Ego had his relationship with his son. Seemed like a good guy but turned it he wasn't. Vulture was a good man who ended up having to do bad things. He's a father and a husband whose daughter liked Peter. He also wasn't three dimensional. Even they aren't great villains but they're leaps and bounds better than the norm that they've had. Kaelicius last year, completely forgettable and boring. I'm not settling, if that's what you mean. I like them exactly how they are and I think they've done a great job. If they had added some more to some of them that would have been great, but there's nothing wrong with how they are.
What's common knowledge is that the MCU is about heroes dealing with situations that villains present. It's not always supposed to be about exploring the villain in detail so expressing that they aren't doing so is just more missing the point than anything.
And honestly the idea that Enchantress is comparable to any of them doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response but,
Kaecilius is much deeper, better acted, and more relevant. He's a broken man who has lost his family, has carried on severely crippled by his loss, and upon discovering time manipulation, views it as the best means for curing the cause of his pain which is death. He then views the Ancient One obstructing him from this, as his enemy, and his only goal becomes doing anything necessary to concur death and perhaps reunite with his family.
Say that much about Enchantress.
Malekith is nearly an allegory for many list civilizations. Consider that he views the universe we live in as the ancient Mayans might have viewed the Europeans, taking over their land and culture. All he wants is the reality he knows back, and he doesn't care what the effects are to anybody living in that universe that has overtaken his home essentially. He's so committed that even the cost of his own people is worth returning reality to what he views as it's natural state. He's well acted, a good challenge, clear goals, etc.
Say that much about Enchantress.
You're only viewing them at a very superficial level and because of that you think they are superficial. Enchantress is superficial. There's nothing there. She can be summed up as a ghost (we know nothing about), who doesn't like technology (for some reason), who builds a machine (somehow, that does something), and none of it is any more clear than that.
The point is, I hope I'm helping you appreciate these characters, because I very much do, I enjoy the hell out of them, and you aren't doing a thing to diminish that, so hopefully you can grow to enjoy them.
I think you're dressing them up too much. I know that Marvel wanted to focus on the heroes in particular with these movies and as a result they have all been pretty good but it has come at the cost of having many mediocre villains. Kaelicius has no real character moments in the movie except for a short scene where he tells Strange about the Ancient One. Otherwise for most the movie he's just running around destroying sanctums, that's all he does. He had a very boring and bland personality. The most interesting thing about the character was what was mentioned and again not shown of his back story. You don't actually get to see how it happened, how he reacted and how he changed and developed from before. It's already happened when the movie starts and now he does bad guy things. This is the key difference between all these mediocre and forgettable Marvel villains and the good ones like Loki and Vulture. With Loki we see him find out he's a Frost Giant, we see how that changes him. It wasn't just something that one character told another as something that had happened in the past. Malekith is just plain awful villain and one of the worst villains in a superhero movie. He has nothing go for him at all. So there's nothing to really appreciate. They're two dimensional, aren't particularly interesting or fun characters, have mostly generic goals like wanting power, decent enough acting performances and are entirely forgettable. The most interesting thing shouldn't be some back story that's explained in dialogue. They aren't good villains they're just good enough.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 31, 2017 1:16:39 GMT
I think you're dressing them up too much. I know that Marvel wanted to focus on the heroes in particular with these movies and as a result they have all been pretty good but it has come at the cost of having many mediocre villains. Kaelicius has no real character moments in the movie except for a short scene where he tells Strange about the Ancient One. Otherwise for most the movie he's just running around destroying sanctums, that's all he does. He had a very boring and bland personality. The most interesting thing about the character was what was mentioned and again not shown of his back story. You don't actually get to see how it happened, how he reacted and how he changed and developed from before. It's already happened when the movie starts and now he does bad guy things. This is the key difference between all these mediocre and forgettable Marvel villains and the good ones like Loki and Vulture. With Loki we see him find out he's a Frost Giant, we see how that changes him. It wasn't just something that one character told another as something that had happened in the past. Malekith is just plain awful villain and one of the worst villains in a superhero movie. He has nothing go for him at all. So there's nothing to really appreciate. They're two dimensional, aren't particularly interesting or fun characters, have mostly generic goals like wanting power, decent enough acting performances and are entirely forgettable. The most interesting thing shouldn't be some back story that's explained in dialogue. They aren't good villains they're just good enough. I think you're dressing them down. They're well presented and you're making it out like they're terrible. That's who Kaecilius is and Malekith is not one of the worst villains in a superhero movie. Is he straightforward? Yes. But so what? That doesn't equal bad. There's nothing wrong with having a straight to the point character, so long as he gives a solid portrayal we got lots of good moments out of all the ones you listed. You don't have to have some elongated backstory. That's crazy.
Let's see, worst villains in a movie; BVS Lex, Doomsday, Enchantress, Batman & Robin Bane, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Warzone Jigsaw, Sharon Stone in Catwoman, Batman Forever Two-Face, Spirit of Vengeance Mephisto, Every Doctor Doom so far, Rhino, Elektro,
Those are bad villains. You're confusing "not Loki" with "bad villain", and you need to realize that the rest of the MCU villains you are well presented and serve a solid purpose whereas the ones I just listed, do not.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 31, 2017 11:27:09 GMT
I think you're dressing them up too much. I know that Marvel wanted to focus on the heroes in particular with these movies and as a result they have all been pretty good but it has come at the cost of having many mediocre villains. Kaelicius has no real character moments in the movie except for a short scene where he tells Strange about the Ancient One. Otherwise for most the movie he's just running around destroying sanctums, that's all he does. He had a very boring and bland personality. The most interesting thing about the character was what was mentioned and again not shown of his back story. You don't actually get to see how it happened, how he reacted and how he changed and developed from before. It's already happened when the movie starts and now he does bad guy things. This is the key difference between all these mediocre and forgettable Marvel villains and the good ones like Loki and Vulture. With Loki we see him find out he's a Frost Giant, we see how that changes him. It wasn't just something that one character told another as something that had happened in the past. Malekith is just plain awful villain and one of the worst villains in a superhero movie. He has nothing go for him at all. So there's nothing to really appreciate. They're two dimensional, aren't particularly interesting or fun characters, have mostly generic goals like wanting power, decent enough acting performances and are entirely forgettable. The most interesting thing shouldn't be some back story that's explained in dialogue. They aren't good villains they're just good enough. I think you're dressing them down. They're well presented and you're making it out like they're terrible. That's who Kaecilius is and Malekith is not one of the worst villains in a superhero movie. Is he straightforward? Yes. But so what? That doesn't equal bad. There's nothing wrong with having a straight to the point character, so long as he gives a solid portrayal we got lots of good moments out of all the ones you listed. You don't have to have some elongated backstory. That's crazy.
Let's see, worst villains in a movie; BVS Lex, Doomsday, Enchantress, Batman & Robin Bane, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Warzone Jigsaw, Sharon Stone in Catwoman, Batman Forever Two-Face, Spirit of Vengeance Mephisto, Every Doctor Doom so far, Rhino, Elektro,
Those are bad villains. You're confusing "not Loki" with "bad villain", and you need to realize that the rest of the MCU villains you are well presented and serve a solid purpose whereas the ones I just listed, do not. They're not terrible except for Malekith. They're mostly just good enough, they get the job done for the movie they're in and that's it but that shouldn't really be how it goes. Loki, Winter Soldier, Vulture and Ego are some good villains. That's what they should strive for with them all. They had enough screentime to have a personality and develop. Of the worse villains you mentioned, many of them are terrible in other ways from Malekith but with someone like Two Face or Mr Freeze, they had a personality and for good or bad reasons they are memorable characters. Malekith could not be a more bland and boring villain if they tried. It's worse to have a completely forgettable and boring villain that to have an over the top cheesy villain like Jim Carreys Riddler.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 31, 2017 11:33:32 GMT
I think you're dressing them down. They're well presented and you're making it out like they're terrible. That's who Kaecilius is and Malekith is not one of the worst villains in a superhero movie. Is he straightforward? Yes. But so what? That doesn't equal bad. There's nothing wrong with having a straight to the point character, so long as he gives a solid portrayal we got lots of good moments out of all the ones you listed. You don't have to have some elongated backstory. That's crazy.
Let's see, worst villains in a movie; BVS Lex, Doomsday, Enchantress, Batman & Robin Bane, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Warzone Jigsaw, Sharon Stone in Catwoman, Batman Forever Two-Face, Spirit of Vengeance Mephisto, Every Doctor Doom so far, Rhino, Elektro,
Those are bad villains. You're confusing "not Loki" with "bad villain", and you need to realize that the rest of the MCU villains you are well presented and serve a solid purpose whereas the ones I just listed, do not. They're not terrible except for Malekith. They're mostly just good enough, they get the job done for the movie they're in and that's it but that shouldn't really be how it goes. Loki, Winter Soldier, Vulture and Ego are some good villains. That's what they should strive for with them all. They had enough screentime to have a personality and develop. Of the worse villains you mentioned, many of them are terrible in other ways from Malekith but with someone like Two Face or Mr Freeze, they had a personality and for good or bad reasons they are memorable characters. Malekith could not be a more bland and boring villain if they tried. It's worse to have a completely forgettable and boring villain that to have an over the top cheesy villain like Jim Carreys Riddler. Of course that should be how it goes, as I've said, you're acting like a villain has to always be a major focus or else it's not a good villain. The villain, like any character, should be what works for the focus of the them, and these villains work. They absolutely do not need to strive for Loki, Vulture, and Ego with every villain.
I can't even believe you're trying to say Two-Face or Mr Freeze are better. No it's not better to have an over the top cheesy villain. You're on a different planet man.
Now I would actually love to hear your ideas on improving Malekith. He's a strict dominant near unstoppable force. What benefit is it to give him more backstory than we got? How does that improve or enhance the story being told?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 31, 2017 12:46:56 GMT
They're not terrible except for Malekith. They're mostly just good enough, they get the job done for the movie they're in and that's it but that shouldn't really be how it goes. Loki, Winter Soldier, Vulture and Ego are some good villains. That's what they should strive for with them all. They had enough screentime to have a personality and develop. Of the worse villains you mentioned, many of them are terrible in other ways from Malekith but with someone like Two Face or Mr Freeze, they had a personality and for good or bad reasons they are memorable characters. Malekith could not be a more bland and boring villain if they tried. It's worse to have a completely forgettable and boring villain that to have an over the top cheesy villain like Jim Carreys Riddler. Of course that should be how it goes, as I've said, you're acting like a villain has to always be a major focus or else it's not a good villain. The villain, like any character, should be what works for the focus of the them, and these villains work. They absolutely do not need to strive for Loki, Vulture, and Ego with every villain.
I can't even believe you're trying to say Two-Face or Mr Freeze are better. No it's not better to have an over the top cheesy villain. You're on a different planet man.
Now I would actually love to hear your ideas on improving Malekith. He's a strict dominant near unstoppable force. What benefit is it to give him more backstory than we got? How does that improve or enhance the story being told?
These movies revolve around heroes and villains, when the villains are generic and forgettable then that's not a good thing. If people like Loki and Winter Soldier and they're popular characters and good villains then why shouldn't they strive for that? Why have a mediocre and bland villain that nobody cares for like Kaecilius or Whiplash when they can do the former? The Dark Knight trilogy would never have been nearly as good if it's villains were on the level of most of Marvels nor X-men. Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Two Face, Riddler they were cheesy but they're memorable. They had an actual character to them and they were played with enthusiasm. Lame in ways but entertaining in good and bad ways. Malekith or Whiplash have next to nothing going for them. They don't appear that much, they don't have unique or interesting personalities, they don't have any quotable lines or memorable scenes, they don't have any development, they don't show any range etc. They are just there because they had to be there.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Aug 31, 2017 13:36:57 GMT
I just watched GOTG Vol 2 last night. I have not seen it since it premiered at the theater. I remember thinking it was overrated, but I liked it MUCH better on second watch. It was really funny. The movie is actually a comedy, for the most part. I am not sure why I enjoyed it so much more. Maybe the environment.
Also, both the MCU and the DCEU have terrible villains. Seriously. Magneto is awesome and the Joker is awesome sure, but neither is MCU or DCEU. Enchantress sucked. Lex sucked. Even though I loved Wonder Woman and the two Nazi villains, Aries sucked. Same with MCU. Their villains sucked too, but I feel are better than the DCEU. Sure, Zod was cool and I liked him, but that is it. At least the MCU has had some good villains like Loki, Red Skull, Zemo, Vulture, even Ultron (who I really didn't mind). The problem with MCU is their villains are just not memorable. Sure, Pierce was fine, but even though Winter Soldier is my favorite comic book movie, I barely remember him. Zemo was actually cool for a movie like Civil War that completely focuses on villains, but also forgettable. The only reason I rank them higher is because at least they do not hurt the movie. Enchantress and Lex actually made their movies worse. Neither has villains on the level of Magneto or Joker though. Forget that crap Leto Joker.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 31, 2017 17:57:27 GMT
These movies revolve around heroes and villains, when the villains are generic and forgettable then that's not a good thing. If people like Loki and Winter Soldier and they're popular characters and good villains then why shouldn't they strive for that? Why have a mediocre and bland villain that nobody cares for like Kaecilius or Whiplash when they can do the former? The Dark Knight trilogy would never have been nearly as good if it's villains were on the level of most of Marvels nor X-men. Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Two Face, Riddler they were cheesy but they're memorable. They had an actual character to them and they were played with enthusiasm. Lame in ways but entertaining in good and bad ways. Malekith or Whiplash have next to nothing going for them. They don't appear that much, they don't have unique or interesting personalities, they don't have any quotable lines or memorable scenes, they don't have any development, they don't show any range etc. They are just there because they had to be there. Malekith has a lot of character. He doesn't have to be complicated to be a good character.
Whiplash has a ton going for him. He's a grieving son who is brilliant but was forced to grow up in an underprivileged home due to what he perceives as his father being denied his rightful credit and status for his work with Howard Stark.
They both serve to deepen the history of the MCU both on short term and long term scales, and they're well acted. Are you just trying not to like them? I don't get it.
And the fact that you're trying to sell Mr. Freeze is just a joke. Are you asking me to stop taking you seriously?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 31, 2017 19:07:53 GMT
These movies revolve around heroes and villains, when the villains are generic and forgettable then that's not a good thing. If people like Loki and Winter Soldier and they're popular characters and good villains then why shouldn't they strive for that? Why have a mediocre and bland villain that nobody cares for like Kaecilius or Whiplash when they can do the former? The Dark Knight trilogy would never have been nearly as good if it's villains were on the level of most of Marvels nor X-men. Mr Freeze, Poison Ivy, Two Face, Riddler they were cheesy but they're memorable. They had an actual character to them and they were played with enthusiasm. Lame in ways but entertaining in good and bad ways. Malekith or Whiplash have next to nothing going for them. They don't appear that much, they don't have unique or interesting personalities, they don't have any quotable lines or memorable scenes, they don't have any development, they don't show any range etc. They are just there because they had to be there. Malekith has a lot of character. He doesn't have to be complicated to be a good character.
Whiplash has a ton going for him. He's a grieving son who is brilliant but was forced to grow up in an underprivileged home due to what he perceives as his father being denied his rightful credit and status for his work with Howard Stark.
They both serve to deepen the history of the MCU both on short term and long term scales, and they're well acted. Are you just trying not to like them? I don't get it.
And the fact that you're trying to sell Mr. Freeze is just a joke. Are you asking me to stop taking you seriously?
Malekith doesn't have any character, he has as much personality as a lamppost. No he doesn't have to be complicated to be a good character, he just has to have some kind of actual character to begin with to be a good character. Funnily enough I went to look up a clip of him on YouTube and one of the first comments I see is how forgettable a villain he was. What you're talking about for Whiplash is the dressing up that I'm talking about. You could apply that kind of thing to anyone. Mr Freeze in Batman and Robin was a good man and a brilliant scientist who lost his beloved wife to a terminal illness and he now devotes his life to trying to find a cure for her. He's involved in a tragic incident that changes him and now he has no choice but to resort to crime reluctantlybecause his wife comes before anything else. Sounds like he has even more going for him than Whiplash but no he's still a shit villain and Whiplash is still a...also kind of shitty mediocre and forgettable villain. But at least Mr Freeze stands out and you remember him and he has quotable lines and Schwarzenegger played him enthusiastically in a fun over the top cheesy way. Whiplash you just completely forget about entirely.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 31, 2017 19:36:54 GMT
Malekith doesn't have any character, he has as much personality as a lamppost. No he doesn't have to be complicated to be a good character, he just has to have some kind of actual character to begin with to be a good character. Funnily enough I went to look up a clip of him on YouTube and one of the first comments I see is how forgettable a villain he was. What you're talking about for Whiplash is the dressing up that I'm talking about. You could apply that kind of thing to anyone. Mr Freeze in Batman and Robin was a good man and a brilliant scientist who lost his beloved wife to a terminal illness and he now devotes his life to trying to find a cure for her. He's involved in a tragic incident that changes him and now he has no choice but to resort to crime reluctantlybecause his wife comes before anything else. Sounds like he has even more going for him than Whiplash but no he's still a shit villain and Whiplash is still a...also kind of shitty mediocre and forgettable villain. But at least Mr Freeze stands out and you remember him and he has quotable lines and Schwarzenegger played him enthusiastically in a fun over the top cheesy way. Whiplash you just completely forget about entirely. I'm not dressing whiplash up. That is his character, and you're just dismissing it. For reasons unknown.
Enough with your Mr. Freeze in B&R was good, I'm not reading another word of that nonsense.
Listen, I've tried to help you enjoy the characters, it's up to you if you want to continue dismissing them or not.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Aug 31, 2017 21:42:39 GMT
Malekith doesn't have any character, he has as much personality as a lamppost. No he doesn't have to be complicated to be a good character, he just has to have some kind of actual character to begin with to be a good character. Funnily enough I went to look up a clip of him on YouTube and one of the first comments I see is how forgettable a villain he was. What you're talking about for Whiplash is the dressing up that I'm talking about. You could apply that kind of thing to anyone. Mr Freeze in Batman and Robin was a good man and a brilliant scientist who lost his beloved wife to a terminal illness and he now devotes his life to trying to find a cure for her. He's involved in a tragic incident that changes him and now he has no choice but to resort to crime reluctantlybecause his wife comes before anything else. Sounds like he has even more going for him than Whiplash but no he's still a shit villain and Whiplash is still a...also kind of shitty mediocre and forgettable villain. But at least Mr Freeze stands out and you remember him and he has quotable lines and Schwarzenegger played him enthusiastically in a fun over the top cheesy way. Whiplash you just completely forget about entirely. I'm not dressing whiplash up. That is his character, and you're just dismissing it. For reasons unknown.
Enough with your Mr. Freeze in B&R was good, I'm not reading another word of that nonsense.
Listen, I've tried to help you enjoy the characters, it's up to you if you want to continue dismissing them or not.
That's just his history. What happened to him off screen in the past doesn't make the character a good, interesting or unique character in the film itself. Same with Kaelicius we were told why he was turned bad prior to the movie. Whereas with Loki you see why he turns bad that's what make him a better character because you see the development and makes him a three dimensional character. Mr Freeze is not a good villain, I didn't say he was. I'm just doing the same thing you did with the others. Nothing I said there was wrong, he was indeed a good guy, scientist, husband, wife had an illness, he got into a tragic incident and become a villain out of necessity to find a cure for his wife. Still a shit villain though isn't he? So what you're describing for Malekith, Ronan or Whiplash is just the same, a bit of interesting history for the character that we didn't see. What we actually did see was bland and forgettable. You're just trying to make them sound better than the actually are but you're mainly just referring to things that didn't even happen in the film.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 1, 2017 2:16:54 GMT
That's just his history. What happened to him off screen in the past doesn't make the character a good, interesting or unique character in the film itself. Same with Kaelicius we were told why he was turned bad prior to the movie. Whereas with Loki you see why he turns bad that's what make him a better character because you see the development and makes him a three dimensional character. Mr Freeze is not a good villain, I didn't say he was. I'm just doing the same thing you did with the others. Nothing I said there was wrong, he was indeed a good guy, scientist, husband, wife had an illness, he got into a tragic incident and become a villain out of necessity to find a cure for his wife. Still a shit villain though isn't he? So what you're describing for Malekith, Ronan or Whiplash is just the same, a bit of interesting history for the character that we didn't see. What we actually did see was bland and forgettable. You're just trying to make them sound better than the actually are but you're mainly just referring to things that didn't even happen in the film. Sorry but you aren't convincing me. I find a great deal of enjoyment and depth to them. I tried to help you. If you're committed to hating them, then I hope you enjoy that. Bye now.
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on Sept 1, 2017 3:20:17 GMT
Funny Kurt Russell had two blockbuster movies this summer: -GoTG v2 -FF8 lol I literally just realised that
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 11:21:19 GMT
That's just his history. What happened to him off screen in the past doesn't make the character a good, interesting or unique character in the film itself. Same with Kaelicius we were told why he was turned bad prior to the movie. Whereas with Loki you see why he turns bad that's what make him a better character because you see the development and makes him a three dimensional character. Mr Freeze is not a good villain, I didn't say he was. I'm just doing the same thing you did with the others. Nothing I said there was wrong, he was indeed a good guy, scientist, husband, wife had an illness, he got into a tragic incident and become a villain out of necessity to find a cure for his wife. Still a shit villain though isn't he? So what you're describing for Malekith, Ronan or Whiplash is just the same, a bit of interesting history for the character that we didn't see. What we actually did see was bland and forgettable. You're just trying to make them sound better than the actually are but you're mainly just referring to things that didn't even happen in the film. Sorry but you aren't convincing me. I find a great deal of enjoyment and depth to them. I tried to help you. If you're committed to hating them, then I hope you enjoy that. Bye now.
I don't hate them, like I said they're good enough but you seem to have an issue with that. As a whole, in comparison to most other villains they are just in the middle, so so, better than the shit ones like Nuclear Man or Venom but not nearly as good as Joker or Magneto or Doctor Octopus. It's a flaw the MCU needs to fix.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 1, 2017 15:01:25 GMT
Sorry but you aren't convincing me. I find a great deal of enjoyment and depth to them. I tried to help you. If you're committed to hating them, then I hope you enjoy that. Bye now.
I don't hate them, like I said they're good enough but you seem to have an issue with that. As a whole, in comparison to most other villains they are just in the middle, so so, better than the shit ones like Nuclear Man or Venom but not nearly as good as Joker or Magneto or Doctor Octopus. It's a flaw the MCU needs to fix. And not being as deep as Joker/Magneto/Doc Oc isn't a flaw, and it's really weird that you feel the need to categorize it as one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having some really deep villains and then some rather straight forward villains. The MCU has a great mix and that's actually a good thing. Not to mention most of them are deeper than you're giving them credit for.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 17:44:14 GMT
I don't hate them, like I said they're good enough but you seem to have an issue with that. As a whole, in comparison to most other villains they are just in the middle, so so, better than the shit ones like Nuclear Man or Venom but not nearly as good as Joker or Magneto or Doctor Octopus. It's a flaw the MCU needs to fix. And not being as deep as Joker/Magneto/Doc Oc isn't a flaw, and it's really weird that you feel the need to categorize it as one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having some really deep villains and then some rather straight forward villains. The MCU has a great mix and that's actually a good thing. Not to mention most of them are deeper than you're giving them credit for. It's a flaw for a series to have so many villains and only a small amount of them to be true good villains especially when the hero is done so well. There's too many straight forward villains in this series. The Dark Knight wouldn't have been nearly as good if Joker was only as good as the usual Marvel villain. They aren't that deep really, outside of backstory that happens off screen and is explained to us rather than shown they are more like obstacles that need to be overcome than worthwhile characters. That'd why Kingpin and Kilgrave were such good villains in their shows, they were in it almost as much as the good guy, they had enough time spent on them to be good. Most of the movies outside of a few haven't done that unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 1, 2017 17:52:45 GMT
And not being as deep as Joker/Magneto/Doc Oc isn't a flaw, and it's really weird that you feel the need to categorize it as one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having some really deep villains and then some rather straight forward villains. The MCU has a great mix and that's actually a good thing. Not to mention most of them are deeper than you're giving them credit for. It's a flaw for a series to have so many villains and only a small amount of them to be true good villains especially when the hero is done so well. There's too many straight forward villains in this series. The Dark Knight wouldn't have been nearly as good if Joker was only as good as the usual Marvel villain. They aren't that deep really, outside of backstory that happens off screen and is explained to us rather than shown they are more like obstacles that need to be overcome than worthwhile characters. That'd why Kingpin and Kilgrave were such good villains in their shows, they were in it almost as much as the good guy, they had enough time spent on them to be good. Most of the movies outside of a few haven't done that unfortunately. Why are you still responding? Who are you trying to convince because you aren't convincing me me even slightly. It's never a flaw for a character to fit the story being told, and all of them have. Most of them are great actually, you're underselling it, and they've been well acted and well presented. Why you're insisting on calling it a flaw I have no idea.
Are we done now?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 19:30:02 GMT
It's a flaw for a series to have so many villains and only a small amount of them to be true good villains especially when the hero is done so well. There's too many straight forward villains in this series. The Dark Knight wouldn't have been nearly as good if Joker was only as good as the usual Marvel villain. They aren't that deep really, outside of backstory that happens off screen and is explained to us rather than shown they are more like obstacles that need to be overcome than worthwhile characters. That'd why Kingpin and Kilgrave were such good villains in their shows, they were in it almost as much as the good guy, they had enough time spent on them to be good. Most of the movies outside of a few haven't done that unfortunately. Why are you still responding? Who are you trying to convince because you aren't convincing me me even slightly. It's never a flaw for a character to fit the story being told, and all of them have. Most of them are great actually, you're underselling it, and they've been well acted and well presented. Why you're insisting on calling it a flaw I have no idea.
Are we done now?
I wasn't aware that you only wanted the last word. You responded to me so I responded back. Nobody was convincing anyone of anything. I was saying the MCU villains are mostly mediocre and why it's an often criticism that's said about the MCU and you were saying why they were better. There's a couple who are great, Loki and Winter Soldier which is all anyone ever seems to mention. Otherwise Vulture and Ego were pretty good but the rest are known to be so so and they need improving. When there's been other villains out there who have been great then you shouldn't be so quick to settle for mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 1, 2017 19:39:10 GMT
Why are you still responding? Who are you trying to convince because you aren't convincing me me even slightly. It's never a flaw for a character to fit the story being told, and all of them have. Most of them are great actually, you're underselling it, and they've been well acted and well presented. Why you're insisting on calling it a flaw I have no idea.
Are we done now?
I wasn't aware that you only wanted the last word. You responded to me so I responded back. Nobody was convincing anyone of anything. I was saying the MCU villains are mostly mediocre and why it's an often criticism that's said about the MCU and you were saying why they were better. There's a couple who are great, Loki and Winter Soldier which is all anyone ever seems to mention. Otherwise Vulture and Ego were pretty good but the rest are known to be so so and they need improving. When there's been other villains out there who have been great then you shouldn't be so quick to settle for mediocrity. They're exclusively fun, enjoyable, and well acted.
Nobody is settling here.
You just shouldn't be so quick to minimize them and complain.
I tried to help.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 19:46:30 GMT
I wasn't aware that you only wanted the last word. You responded to me so I responded back. Nobody was convincing anyone of anything. I was saying the MCU villains are mostly mediocre and why it's an often criticism that's said about the MCU and you were saying why they were better. There's a couple who are great, Loki and Winter Soldier which is all anyone ever seems to mention. Otherwise Vulture and Ego were pretty good but the rest are known to be so so and they need improving. When there's been other villains out there who have been great then you shouldn't be so quick to settle for mediocrity. They're exclusively fun, enjoyable, and well acted.
Nobody is settling here.
You just shouldn't be so quick to minimize them and complain.
I tried to help.
Not all, Whiplash wasn't fun, Red Skull wasn't fun, Malekith wasn't fun, Kaelicius wasn't fun, Yellow Jacket wasn't fun. The acting was good enough but certainly nothing to remember. If the MCU is capable of making great hero characters that are very popular and a couple villians that are very popular then there's no reason for these lesser villains. It's not minimising them, it's a known issue that they have which needs fixing. At least this year they've been 2/2 for villains they need to keep that standard up so the movies improve.
|
|