|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on Jun 5, 2017 16:10:30 GMT
How did we feel about that Wonder Woman villain? Was Ares the pinnacle of CBM villainy, (like every other DCEU villain according to hardcore DCEU fans)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 16:24:24 GMT
He's just a Marvel villain. Little character development, made to stay in his place playing second fiddle to a properly developed hero character, and leaves the film when he's no longer needed. The way it should be. The Marvel way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 16:26:30 GMT
How did we feel about that Wonder Woman villain? Was Ares the pinnacle of CBM villainy, (like every other DCEU villain according to hardcore DCEU fans)? No, he was the weakest part of the movie. And so were the other underused Villains. (Queue DC-FAN and why these are the best villains ever LOL)
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 5, 2017 16:30:04 GMT
He was generic, which wasn't an issue for me. What I took issue with was his resemblance, at least in spirit, to Emperor Palpatine. Tossing objects around with his mind, using force lightning and trying to convince Diana to join him. They could've been sued if they put a robe on him instead of making him look like a video game character. The movie was a blast but the way that battle played out was awful.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 5, 2017 18:30:49 GMT
Generic villain. Did what needed to be done, provided some decent challenge to the hero. Ultimately forgettable after he died. Not bad, nothing to talk about either. At least he wasn't as annoying as Lex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 18:44:01 GMT
Generic villain. Did what needed to be done, provided some decent challenge to the hero. Ultimately forgettable after he died. Not bad, nothing to talk about either. At least he wasn't as annoying as Lex. Amen. Lex is awful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 23:40:26 GMT
He's just a Marvel villain. Little character development, made to stay in his place playing second fiddle to a properly developed hero character, and leaves the film when he's no longer needed. The way it should be. The Marvel way. Lol. What?? I've never heard anybody cite weak character development as though it were something to strive for and emulate. Man, how much better would the Star Wars movies be if Vader had no character development and poor screen presence. We can only imagine!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 23:43:44 GMT
He's just a Marvel villain. Little character development, made to stay in his place playing second fiddle to a properly developed hero character, and leaves the film when he's no longer needed. The way it should be. The Marvel way. Lol. What?? I've never heard anybody cite weak character development as though it were something to strive for and emulate. Oh, so you want the villain to take precious limited screentime away from the hero? How typical of a Nolan and Fox-Men fan. I'm sorry you're unwilling to see the merits of actually having a fully fleshed out hero as opposed to the villain just taking over the show with a boring cipher hero playing second fiddle to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 23:46:35 GMT
Lol. What?? I've never heard anybody cite weak character development as though it were something to strive for and emulate. Oh, so you want the villain to take precious limited screentime away from the hero? How typical of a Nolan and Fox-Men fan. I'm sorry you're unwilling to see the merits of actually having a fully fleshed out hero as opposed to the villain just taking over the show with a boring cipher hero playing second fiddle to them. Yup. All great stories have a weak villain with no character development. All great writers know this. /sarcasm I guess you didn't like Star Wars and Darth Vader then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 23:48:27 GMT
Oh, so you want the villain to take precious limited screentime away from the hero? How typical of a Nolan and Fox-Men fan. I'm sorry you're unwilling to see the merits of actually having a fully fleshed out hero as opposed to the villain just taking over the show with a boring cipher hero playing second fiddle to them. Yup. All great stories have a weak villain with no character development. All great writers know this. /sarcasm I guess you didn't like Star Wars and Darth Vader then? Darth Vader is actually a very flat character. Most of the character development went to Luke, Han, and Leia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 23:51:21 GMT
Yup. All great stories have a weak villain with no character development. All great writers know this. /sarcasm I guess you didn't like Star Wars and Darth Vader then? Darth Vader is actually a very flat character. Most of the character development went to Luke, Han, and Leia. A flat character?? Going to ignore that for the time being. Of course most of the development went to Luke, Han and Leia! They were the protagonists!!! That doesn't mean Vader didn't still have a rich backstory and a fleshed out character arc. But what about Loki? He has good character development and fleshed out motives/backstory. Do you dislike him too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 23:56:30 GMT
Darth Vader is actually a very flat character. Most of the character development went to Luke, Han, and Leia. A flat character?? Going to ignore that for the time being. Of course most of the development went to Luke, Han and Leia! They were the protagonists!!! That doesn't mean Vader didn't still have a rich backstory and a fleshed out character arc. But what about Loki? He has good character development and fleshed out motives/backstory. Do you dislike him too? Yes, he is a flat character. The filmmakers just do a good job of making him look dynamic. No, Darth Vader does not have a rich backstory, nor does he have a fleshed out character arc. He just suddenly decides to save his son after years of being a monster. I'm fine with Loki's character development, because it doesn't overtake or overshadow Thor's. The best villains are the ones who serve their role as an antagonistic force within the narrative, but the hero must be the emotional core whose development and journey comes first and foremost. If anything is to end up on the cutting room floor, it will be a scene about villain. Marvel could have made The Red Skull a more nuanced character, but what character building scene of Steve Rogers would you like to sacrifice in exchange?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:02:57 GMT
A flat character?? Going to ignore that for the time being. Of course most of the development went to Luke, Han and Leia! They were the protagonists!!! That doesn't mean Vader didn't still have a rich backstory and a fleshed out character arc. But what about Loki? He has good character development and fleshed out motives/backstory. Do you dislike him too? I'm fine with Loki's character development, because it doesn't overtake or overshadow Thor's. The best villains are the ones who serve their role as an antagonistic force within the narrative, but the hero must be the emotional core whose development and journey comes first and foremost. I never said that the villain should overtake or overshadow the hero or supplant the hero in any way. You're putting words in my mouth because you know your original statement was indefensibly ludicrous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:07:09 GMT
I'm fine with Loki's character development, because it doesn't overtake or overshadow Thor's. The best villains are the ones who serve their role as an antagonistic force within the narrative, but the hero must be the emotional core whose development and journey comes first and foremost. I never said that the villain should overtake or overshadow the hero or supplant the hero in any way. You're putting words in my mouth because you know your original statement was indefensibly ludicrous. No, they're not. Films have limited running times. Something has to give, and if the villain has to be less complex character in the name of building up the hero, so be it. Okay, so to develop Ares into a more nuanced, layered character, what character building scene with Diana shall we lose, then, in the name of keeping the film down a watchable length then, hmm?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:11:38 GMT
I never said that the villain should overtake or overshadow the hero or supplant the hero in any way. You're putting words in my mouth because you know your original statement was indefensibly ludicrous. No, they're not. Films have limited running times. Something has to give, and if the villain has to be less complex character in the name of building up the hero, so be it. Okay, so to develop Ares into a more nuanced, layered character, what character building scene with Diana shall we lose, then, in the name of keeping the film down a watchable length then, hmm? But I didn't say anything that suggested the contrary. Weaker villains can work and are sometimes a necessary component of a complex origin story. But they are never something that a writer sets out to create. The ideal goal is to have a richly developed, complex antagonist that doesn't take away from the protaganist's arc but rather adds to it and enhances it. The goal is NEVER to deliberately create a weak underdeveloped villain. Never. No writer in their right mind would agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 6, 2017 0:11:41 GMT
He's just a Marvel villain. Little character development, made to stay in his place playing second fiddle to a properly developed hero character, and leaves the film when he's no longer needed. The way it should be. The Marvel way. Lol. What?? I've never heard anybody cite weak character development as though it were something to strive for and emulate. Man, how much better would the Star Wars movies be if Vader had no character development and poor screen presence. We can only imagine! Great post! weirdraptor just got owned!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:16:22 GMT
No, they're not. Films have limited running times. Something has to give, and if the villain has to be less complex character in the name of building up the hero, so be it. Okay, so to develop Ares into a more nuanced, layered character, what character building scene with Diana shall we lose, then, in the name of keeping the film down a watchable length then, hmm? But I didn't say anything that suggested the contrary. Weaker villains can work and are sometimes a necessary component of a complex origin story. But they are never something that a writer sets out to create. The ideal goal is to have a richly developed, complex antagonist that doesn't take away from the protaganist's arc but rather adds to it and enhances it. The goal is NEVER to deliberately create a weak underdeveloped villain. Never. No writer in their right mind would agree with that. Yes, it does weaken the protagonist's arc, because in order to fit that developed, complex antagonist character arc into the movie, the hero's scenes are going to have to end up on the cutting room floor in order to the keep the film down a watchable running time. So what character building scene with Diana shall we sacrifice in the name of giving Ares more meat? Pick one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:16:54 GMT
Lol. What?? I've never heard anybody cite weak character development as though it were something to strive for and emulate. Man, how much better would the Star Wars movies be if Vader had no character development and poor screen presence. We can only imagine! Great post! weirdraptor just got owned! I was an English Major so I couldn't resist jumping on a statement like that about story and character that was so fundamentally absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:17:48 GMT
Lol. What?? I've never heard anybody cite weak character development as though it were something to strive for and emulate. Man, how much better would the Star Wars movies be if Vader had no character development and poor screen presence. We can only imagine! Great post! weirdraptor just got owned! Only in your demented little mind. By the way, did you know The Joker has slightly more screentime in Tim Burton's Batman than... Batman?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:19:46 GMT
But I didn't say anything that suggested the contrary. Weaker villains can work and are sometimes a necessary component of a complex origin story. But they are never something that a writer sets out to create. The ideal goal is to have a richly developed, complex antagonist that doesn't take away from the protaganist's arc but rather adds to it and enhances it. The goal is NEVER to deliberately create a weak underdeveloped villain. Never. No writer in their right mind would agree with that. Yes, it does weaken the protagonist's arc, because in order to fit that developed, complex antagonist character arc into the movie, the hero's scenes are going to have to end up on the cutting room floor in order to the keep the film down a watchable running time. So what character building scene with Diana shall we sacrifice in the name of giving Ares more meat? Pick one. I haven't seen WW yet, but as I said, it does make sense sometimes to sacrifice the villain's development in favor of the heroes. Of course! But you're shifting the argument again to sound less ridiculous. The goal is NEVER to create a weak villain from the start. It's only a necessary evil that writers always try to avoid. You said the opposite.
|
|