Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 19:52:26 GMT
I thought all those villains were fun.
The MCU is more concerned with exploring what makes its heroes tick. So what scene of character-building shall Cap or Tony give up to make Whiplash deeper?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 1, 2017 19:53:37 GMT
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. Sorry you feel that way. I'm enjoying the hell out of it and love the vision and direction they've taken with every single villain and character. They've done extremely well. Hopefully you'll grow to appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 21:39:27 GMT
I thought all those villains were fun. The MCU is more concerned with exploring what makes its heroes tick. So what scene of character-building shall Cap or Tony give up to make Whiplash deeper? Batman didn't suffer in The Dark Knight at the expense of Joker being deeper. Thor is just as good a character as the others despite his villain being the best of the lot. Some of these Marvel movies end up having too many characters and quite often it's the villain who seems too suffer because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 21:47:06 GMT
I thought all those villains were fun. The MCU is more concerned with exploring what makes its heroes tick. So what scene of character-building shall Cap or Tony give up to make Whiplash deeper? Batman didn't suffer in The Dark Knight at the expense of Joker being deeper. Thor is just as good a character as the others despite his villain being the best of the lot. Some of these Marvel movies end up having too many characters and quite often it's the villain who seems too suffer because of it. The Joker wasn't deep. He know nothing about him. Again, I have to disagree that the villains suffer at all. Hans Gruber is considered a classic villain, but he's no deeper or fleshed than your average Marvel villain.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 1, 2017 21:47:06 GMT
I thought all those villains were fun. The MCU is more concerned with exploring what makes its heroes tick. So what scene of character-building shall Cap or Tony give up to make Whiplash deeper? Batman didn't suffer in The Dark Knight at the expense of Joker being deeper. Thor is just as good a character as the others despite his villain being the best of the lot. Some of these Marvel movies end up having too many characters and quite often it's the villain who seems too suffer because of it. Dude we get it, you would rather hate on them. We prefer enjoying them and appreciate what they've done with them though, so we're starting a slow clap for you.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 22:01:02 GMT
Batman didn't suffer in The Dark Knight at the expense of Joker being deeper. Thor is just as good a character as the others despite his villain being the best of the lot. Some of these Marvel movies end up having too many characters and quite often it's the villain who seems too suffer because of it. The Joker wasn't deep. He know nothing about him. Again, I have to disagree that the villains suffer at all. Hans Gruber is considered a classic villain, but he's no deeper or fleshed than your average Marvel villain. That's only back story, that's not really all that important. The character themselves not only had incredible acting but they stood out against the norm, distinctive and unique personalities that separate from everyone else like them. Look at all the memorable scenes and quotes that two characters have. What does Yellow Jacket have? Abomination? Red Skull? Jokers actions played a big part in The Dark Knight Rises. Hans Gruber in Die Hard 3. What did Iron Monger do for the Iron Man sequels? Nothing. That's why they will always be known as the villains in cinemas ever. Marvel has at best just Loki that could ever compare to that. The rest are just there because a villain is required. They do the job and that's about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 22:17:21 GMT
The Joker wasn't deep. He know nothing about him. Again, I have to disagree that the villains suffer at all. Hans Gruber is considered a classic villain, but he's no deeper or fleshed than your average Marvel villain. That's only back story, that's not really all that important. The character themselves not only had incredible acting but they stood out against the norm, distinctive and unique personalities that separate from everyone else like them. Look at all the memorable scenes and quotes that two characters have. What does Yellow Jacket have? Abomination? Red Skull? Jokers actions played a big part in The Dark Knight Rises. Hans Gruber in Die Hard 3. What did Iron Monger do for the Iron Man sequels? Nothing. That's why they will always be known as the villains in cinemas ever. Marvel has at best just Loki that could ever compare to that. The rest are just there because a villain is required. They do the job and that's about it. That's your opinion that they're not well-acted. You do realize that only a small percentage of villains in all of cinema stick out as extraordinary or the best, right? Most villains are only "just there because a villain is required. They do the job and that's about it." That's all a villain needs to do. Stop whining about it. "Wow. Wow! I mean, I saw the punch coming a mile away but I just figured it'd be all pathetic and weak." "All those years ago, you picked me. What did you see in me?" "I want that…I need that. Make me that." "You don't deserve this power!" Hans Gruber was the villain of Die Hard 1, not 3. The Iron Monger created Ironman. That's what he did for the Ironman sequels. The MCU villains are not the worst villains in cinema ever. Literally no one calls them that. If you think they are, you've never seen a truly bad villain. There are plenty worse than them.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 1, 2017 22:47:32 GMT
That's only back story, that's not really all that important. The character themselves not only had incredible acting but they stood out against the norm, distinctive and unique personalities that separate from everyone else like them. Look at all the memorable scenes and quotes that two characters have. What does Yellow Jacket have? Abomination? Red Skull? Jokers actions played a big part in The Dark Knight Rises. Hans Gruber in Die Hard 3. What did Iron Monger do for the Iron Man sequels? Nothing. That's why they will always be known as the villains in cinemas ever. Marvel has at best just Loki that could ever compare to that. The rest are just there because a villain is required. They do the job and that's about it. That's your opinion that they're not well-acted. You do realize that only a small percentage of villains in all of cinema stick out as extraordinary or the best, right? Most villains are only "just there because a villain is required. They do the job and that's about it." That's all a villain needs to do. Stop whining about it. "Wow. Wow! I mean, I saw the punch coming a mile away but I just figured it'd be all pathetic and weak." "All those years ago, you picked me. What did you see in me?" "I want that…I need that. Make me that." "You don't deserve this power!" Hans Gruber was the villain of Die Hard 1, not 3. The Iron Monger created Ironman. That's what he did for the Ironman sequels. The MCU villains are not the worst villains in cinema ever. Literally no one calls them that. If you think they are, you've never seen a truly bad villain. There are plenty worse than them. I didn't say they weren't well acted, they're not particularly great either. And no a villain shouldn't only just do the job, if that was the case then you wouldn't have thought to specify a cinema great villain like Hans Gruber. The villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, Tango and Cash just do the job. People wouldn't remember them like they do Hans Gruber. Hans Gruber was not in Die Hard 3 his brother was the villain if Die Hard 3 who gave John McLane a hard time because of Hans Gruber dying at his hands. Tony Stark already made Iron Man before Iron Monger was introduced. I'm not even saying they all need to be on that level. They don't all need to be as good as Loki either. I also never said they were the worst villains either, they're alright but mostly not good enough. If they were all at least around as good as the Vulture then they'd be better off for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2017 22:52:19 GMT
That's your opinion that they're not well-acted. You do realize that only a small percentage of villains in all of cinema stick out as extraordinary or the best, right? Most villains are only "just there because a villain is required. They do the job and that's about it." That's all a villain needs to do. Stop whining about it. "Wow. Wow! I mean, I saw the punch coming a mile away but I just figured it'd be all pathetic and weak." "All those years ago, you picked me. What did you see in me?" "I want that…I need that. Make me that." "You don't deserve this power!" Hans Gruber was the villain of Die Hard 1, not 3. The Iron Monger created Ironman. That's what he did for the Ironman sequels. The MCU villains are not the worst villains in cinema ever. Literally no one calls them that. If you think they are, you've never seen a truly bad villain. There are plenty worse than them. I didn't say they weren't well acted, they're not particularly great either. And no a villain shouldn't only just do the job, if that was the case then you wouldn't have thought to specify a cinema great villain like Hans Gruber. The villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, Tango and Cash just do the job. People wouldn't remember them like they do Hans Gruber. Hans Gruber was not in Die Hard 3 his brother was the villain if Die Hard 3 who gave John McLane a hard time because of Hans Gruber dying at his hands. Tony Stark already made Iron Man before Iron Monger was introduced. I'm not even saying they all need to be on that level. They don't all need to be as good as Loki either. I also never said they were the worst villains either, they're alright but mostly not good enough. If they were all at least around as good as the Vulture then they'd be better off for it. Yeah, and people don't typically whine about the villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, and Tango and Cash, either. There is absolutely no reason why every Marvel villain has to be legendary cinematic icon. Hans Gruber having a brother the filmmakers pulled from their ass does not help make him a great villain. Obadiah Stane IS The Iron Monger. No, they are good enough. The MCU wouldn't be so successful if they weren't.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 1:13:40 GMT
I didn't say they weren't well acted, they're not particularly great either. And no a villain shouldn't only just do the job, if that was the case then you wouldn't have thought to specify a cinema great villain like Hans Gruber. The villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, Tango and Cash just do the job. People wouldn't remember them like they do Hans Gruber. Hans Gruber was not in Die Hard 3 his brother was the villain if Die Hard 3 who gave John McLane a hard time because of Hans Gruber dying at his hands. Tony Stark already made Iron Man before Iron Monger was introduced. I'm not even saying they all need to be on that level. They don't all need to be as good as Loki either. I also never said they were the worst villains either, they're alright but mostly not good enough. If they were all at least around as good as the Vulture then they'd be better off for it. Yeah, and people don't typically whine about the villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, and Tango and Cash, either. There is absolutely no reason why every Marvel villain has to be legendary cinematic icon. Hans Gruber having a brother the filmmakers pulled from their ass does not help make him a great villain. Obadiah Stane IS The Iron Monger. No, they are good enough. The MCU wouldn't be so successful if they weren't. People don't remember them either because they were just decent enough villains for the movies they were in, this is true for Marvel's villains. Of the many different villains they've had so far that only a small amount are above mediocre is not good. The Dark Knight trilogy was 3/3 for great villains so what's Marvel's excuse? Hans Gruber existence mattered beyond the first movie. As did the Jokers. As did Darth Vaders. Obadiah Stane is Iron Monger...what does that mean? What impact did he have past that first movie? None at all. What about Whiplash? Nothing. Aldrich Killian? Nothing. Being "good enough" is not what they should strive for. Their heroes are not just good enough, they are likable, interesting characters with individual personalities that have made them very successful. That is true for Loki and Winter Soldier which is why they have been in other movies. If they can achieve that then there's no excuse for having all these bland and forgettable villains that nobody cares for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 1:19:28 GMT
Yeah, and people don't typically whine about the villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, and Tango and Cash, either. There is absolutely no reason why every Marvel villain has to be legendary cinematic icon. Hans Gruber having a brother the filmmakers pulled from their ass does not help make him a great villain. Obadiah Stane IS The Iron Monger. No, they are good enough. The MCU wouldn't be so successful if they weren't. People don't remember them either because they were just decent enough villains for the movies they were in, this is true for Marvel's villains. Of the many different villains they've had so far that only a small amount are above mediocre is not good. The Dark Knight trilogy was 3/3 for great villains so what's Marvel's excuse? Hans Gruber existence mattered beyond the first movie. As did the Jokers. As did Darth Vaders. Obadiah Stane is Iron Monger...what does that mean? What impact did he have past that first movie? None at all. What about Whiplash? Nothing. Aldrich Killian? Nothing. Being "good enough" is not what they should strive for. Their heroes are not just good enough, they are likable, interesting characters with individual personalities that have made them very successful. That is true for Loki and Winter Soldier which is why they have been in other movies. If they can achieve that then there's no excuse for having all these bland and forgettable villains that nobody cares for. Bane and Talia were NOT great villains. And Stane's existence has mattered beyond the first Ironman, because if he had just continued to manipulate things from the shadows and let Tony be the public face, he'd probably still be alive and Tony still oblivious. That's what he has past the first movie. He himself created the scenario where Tony becomes Ironman. So what if Whiplash and Killian's influence end with their deaths? So do most villains'? The series is almost ten years old now, scabab. It is anything but "good enough". They obviously have a functioning plan that's worked very well for them. Actually, there is an excuse. They're not interested in their villains. They're interested in their heroes. You just choose to let this non-issues get in the way of your enjoyment.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 2:09:31 GMT
People don't remember them either because they were just decent enough villains for the movies they were in, this is true for Marvel's villains. Of the many different villains they've had so far that only a small amount are above mediocre is not good. The Dark Knight trilogy was 3/3 for great villains so what's Marvel's excuse? Hans Gruber existence mattered beyond the first movie. As did the Jokers. As did Darth Vaders. Obadiah Stane is Iron Monger...what does that mean? What impact did he have past that first movie? None at all. What about Whiplash? Nothing. Aldrich Killian? Nothing. Being "good enough" is not what they should strive for. Their heroes are not just good enough, they are likable, interesting characters with individual personalities that have made them very successful. That is true for Loki and Winter Soldier which is why they have been in other movies. If they can achieve that then there's no excuse for having all these bland and forgettable villains that nobody cares for. Bane and Talia were NOT great villains. And Stane's existence has mattered beyond the first Ironman, because if he had just continued to manipulate things from the shadows and let Tony be the public face, he'd probably still be alive and Tony still oblivious. That's what he has past the first movie. He himself created the scenario where Tony becomes Ironman. So what if Whiplash and Killian's influence end with their deaths? So do most villains'? The series is almost ten years old now, scabab. It is anything but "good enough". They obviously have a functioning plan that's worked very well for them. Actually, there is an excuse. They're not interested in their villains. They're interested in their heroes. You just choose to let this non-issues get in the way of your enjoyment. Outside of possibly Loki, Bane was a better villain than any of Marvel's easily. Stane caused Tony Stark to become Iron Man in an indirect way. That affects just that movie. Not any of the ones past it. That's like saying Jack Nicholson's Joker affected all the sequels because he's partly why Bruce Wayne became Batman. But again that alone isn't the issue, it's as a whole package they offer very little that stands out. What you said "They're not interested in their villains" is the exact opposite of a non issue. Did you read what you wrote there? These movies revolve around heroes and villains, a hero is only as good as his villains, that all these Marvel movies features villains and are strictly about the hero conquering the villain, then Marvel "not being interested in their villains" is a problem. It's why none of these movies will ever be as good as The Dark Knight.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Sept 2, 2017 2:27:34 GMT
Yeah, and people don't typically whine about the villain in Commando, Beverly Hills Cop, and Tango and Cash, either. There is absolutely no reason why every Marvel villain has to be legendary cinematic icon. Hans Gruber having a brother the filmmakers pulled from their ass does not help make him a great villain. Obadiah Stane IS The Iron Monger. No, they are good enough. The MCU wouldn't be so successful if they weren't. People don't remember them either because they were just decent enough villains for the movies they were in, this is true for Marvel's villains. Of the many different villains they've had so far that only a small amount are above mediocre is not good. The Dark Knight trilogy was 3/3 for great villains so what's Marvel's excuse? Hans Gruber existence mattered beyond the first movie. As did the Jokers. As did Darth Vaders. Obadiah Stane is Iron Monger...what does that mean? What impact did he have past that first movie? None at all. What about Whiplash? Nothing. Aldrich Killian? Nothing. Being "good enough" is not what they should strive for. Their heroes are not just good enough, they are likable, interesting characters with individual personalities that have made them very successful. That is true for Loki and Winter Soldier which is why they have been in other movies. If they can achieve that then there's no excuse for having all these bland and forgettable villains that nobody cares for. scbab you are doing a great job trying to explain your point of view but it's probably a wasted endeavor. Arf arf blindly worships whatever nonsense the mcu poops out as mindlessly as he hates anything from DC. Weirdo is just as bad but at least he doesn't do that embarrassingly pathetic passive aggressive foolishness that makes up far too many of arf arf's posts. They are happy to sacrifice interesting characters other than the lead hero (if that even) in favor of knowing EXACTLY how each scene will play out long before they plop down in the theater. The popularity of the mcu proves the lack of any tension or uncertainty is comforting to average people. Sadly it's also why most of the characters are paper thin and the villains are forgettable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 2:40:22 GMT
...in favor of knowing EXACTLY how each scene will play out long before they plop down in the theater. poelzig, please! We all know you're not intelligent enough to predict anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 2:43:47 GMT
Bane and Talia were NOT great villains. And Stane's existence has mattered beyond the first Ironman, because if he had just continued to manipulate things from the shadows and let Tony be the public face, he'd probably still be alive and Tony still oblivious. That's what he has past the first movie. He himself created the scenario where Tony becomes Ironman. So what if Whiplash and Killian's influence end with their deaths? So do most villains'? The series is almost ten years old now, scabab. It is anything but "good enough". They obviously have a functioning plan that's worked very well for them. Actually, there is an excuse. They're not interested in their villains. They're interested in their heroes. You just choose to let this non-issues get in the way of your enjoyment. Outside of possibly Loki, Bane was a better villain than any of Marvel's easily. Stane caused Tony Stark to become Iron Man in an indirect way. That affects just that movie. Not any of the ones past it. That's like saying Jack Nicholson's Joker affected all the sequels because he's partly why Bruce Wayne became Batman. But again that alone isn't the issue, it's as a whole package they offer very little that stands out. What you said "They're not interested in their villains" is the exact opposite of a non issue. Did you read what you wrote there? These movies revolve around heroes and villains, a hero is only as good as his villains, that all these Marvel movies features villains and are strictly about the hero conquering the villain, then Marvel "not being interested in their villains" is a problem. It's why none of these movies will ever be as good as The Dark Knight. "Outside of possibly Loki, Bane was a better villain than any of Marvel's easily." You'll never convince me of that. No, Stane's actions affect all the films, because if there's no Stane, there's no Ironman. Period. Jack Nicholson's Joker DID affect all the sequels for that exact reason. No, its a complete non-issue. It was an issue, they wouldn't be celebrating their 10 year anniversary next year. Oh, please. The phrase "the hero is only as good as their villain" only exists so they can get lazy with their hero. Actually, all of these movies are better than The Dark Knight, because they don't have their heads up their own pretentious asses like that one did. And you'll never convince me otherwise. Get over it, already. If you insist on being a hater, the X-Men and DCEU boards are over there. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Now leave.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 6:05:19 GMT
...in favor of knowing EXACTLY how each scene will play out long before they plop down in the theater. poelzig, please! We all know you're not intelligent enough to predict anything. ^^ did the dumb raptor just throw in a "n*****, please" joke? Why, is poelzig a black guy or what? He poelzig really hit the mark btw. Oldest, most painful Golden Rules in writing: 1. The hardest thing is to write a good villain. 2. The hero in an adventure is only as good as the villain/obstacle he faces. 3. Make your villain 3-dimensional, unpredictable with history and not stereotypical.This is why there are legions of literature and articles on the subject. This is why MCU films (but so many others too) feel so mediocre and lazy by recycling and regurgitating the old hero's journey arc of jerk-goes-into-crisis-becomes-hero-and-nice-guy as seen with IM (several times), Thor, Dr. Strange, Antman and the others, not to forget the other formula elements... Its the epitome of lazy and uninspired, only a fool would deny that.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 14:36:54 GMT
Outside of possibly Loki, Bane was a better villain than any of Marvel's easily. Stane caused Tony Stark to become Iron Man in an indirect way. That affects just that movie. Not any of the ones past it. That's like saying Jack Nicholson's Joker affected all the sequels because he's partly why Bruce Wayne became Batman. But again that alone isn't the issue, it's as a whole package they offer very little that stands out. What you said "They're not interested in their villains" is the exact opposite of a non issue. Did you read what you wrote there? These movies revolve around heroes and villains, a hero is only as good as his villains, that all these Marvel movies features villains and are strictly about the hero conquering the villain, then Marvel "not being interested in their villains" is a problem. It's why none of these movies will ever be as good as The Dark Knight. "Outside of possibly Loki, Bane was a better villain than any of Marvel's easily." You'll never convince me of that. No, Stane's actions affect all the films, because if there's no Stane, there's no Ironman. Period. Jack Nicholson's Joker DID affect all the sequels for that exact reason. No, its a complete non-issue. It was an issue, they wouldn't be celebrating their 10 year anniversary next year. Oh, please. The phrase "the hero is only as good as their villain" only exists so they can get lazy with their hero. Actually, all of these movies are better than The Dark Knight, because they don't have their heads up their own pretentious asses like that one did. And you'll never convince me otherwise. Get over it, already. If you insist on being a hater, the X-Men and DCEU boards are over there. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Now leave. Your logic is very flawed. You know that's not what I was referred to at all anyway. Just because those movies have done well and are still going after 9 years doesn't mean they don't have issues. Transformers has been going for 10 years and those movies have a long list of issues. And no, no matter how many of these Marvel movies they make they will never make one nearly as good as The Dark Knight. There's no need for any convincing, we all know it's true. One of the reasons why being it's Oscar winning level villain who people still talk about today. Marvel doesn't have any villain, not even Loki that compares to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 14:39:29 GMT
"Outside of possibly Loki, Bane was a better villain than any of Marvel's easily." You'll never convince me of that. No, Stane's actions affect all the films, because if there's no Stane, there's no Ironman. Period. Jack Nicholson's Joker DID affect all the sequels for that exact reason. No, its a complete non-issue. It was an issue, they wouldn't be celebrating their 10 year anniversary next year. Oh, please. The phrase "the hero is only as good as their villain" only exists so they can get lazy with their hero. Actually, all of these movies are better than The Dark Knight, because they don't have their heads up their own pretentious asses like that one did. And you'll never convince me otherwise. Get over it, already. If you insist on being a hater, the X-Men and DCEU boards are over there. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Now leave. Your logic is very flawed. You know that's not what I was referred to at all anyway. Just because those movies have done well and are still going after 9 years doesn't mean they don't have issues. Transformers has been going for 10 years and those movies have a long list of issues. And no, no matter how many of these Marvel movies they make they will never make one nearly as good as The Dark Knight. There's no need for any convincing, we all know it's true. One of the reasons why being it's Oscar winning level villain who people still talk about today. Marvel doesn't have any villain, not even Loki that compares to that. Subjective. Every single word. Actually, no, nothing you've said is fact. Only opinions. Now do kindly get over yourself. Also, the FoX-Men and DCEU boards are that way, hater. Oh, and Loki is better than any of DC's villains. As are Zemo, the Vulture, Ego, and Thanos. Suck on that. The DC films also have tons of issues. Stop acting like they're perfect works of art.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 19:46:27 GMT
Your logic is very flawed. You know that's not what I was referred to at all anyway. Just because those movies have done well and are still going after 9 years doesn't mean they don't have issues. Transformers has been going for 10 years and those movies have a long list of issues. And no, no matter how many of these Marvel movies they make they will never make one nearly as good as The Dark Knight. There's no need for any convincing, we all know it's true. One of the reasons why being it's Oscar winning level villain who people still talk about today. Marvel doesn't have any villain, not even Loki that compares to that. Subjective. Every single word. Actually, no, nothing you've said is fact. Only opinions. Now do kindly get over yourself. Also, the FoX-Men and DCEU boards are that way, hater. Oh, and Loki is better than any of DC's villains. As are Zemo, the Vulture, Ego, and Thanos. Suck on that. The DC films also have tons of issues. Stop acting like they're perfect works of art. I never even used the word fact. Don't over hype Marvel. As much as these DC movies have been a mixed bag, they do overall have the better villains. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, Jack Nicholson as Joker, Michelle Phiefer as Catwoman, the three main villains from The Dark Knight series and even Michael Shannon as Zod are some of the better ones they've done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 19:48:31 GMT
And you shouldn't over hype DC villains. I wasn't impressed by a single one of the villains you just listed. Michael Shannon as Zod is as generic as they come.
|
|