Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:19:53 GMT
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. I'm an English Major, too, and I am right. You just want superhero films to regress back to the days of Tim Burton and Joel Schumachar's Batman films, where the villains were the driving force of the films and the heroes were invariably boring ciphers playing second fiddle to them. Films have limited running times. So something has to give, the filmmakers have to pick a character to predominantly focus on. The hero, or the villain. The answer should never be the latter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:23:39 GMT
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. No, I didn't say the opposite. And it's not a necessary evil. It's the way to do it. No, my argument is the same as its always been. So-called "weak, under-developed" villains are not weak villains. They exist to serve their purpose within the narrative. Even Shakespeare's villains were never deep (unless they were the Villain Protagonist). Iago from "Othello"? No motive given except that he was passed over for a promotion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:23:58 GMT
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. I'm an English Major, too, and I am right. You just want superhero films to regress back to the days of Tim Burton and Joel Schumachar's Batman films, where the villains were the driving force of the films and the heroes were invariably boring ciphers playing second fiddle to them. Films have limited running times. So something has to give, the filmmakers have to pick a character to predominantly focus on. The hero, or the villain. The answer should never be the latter. So let's go back to Loki... A well fleshed out villain in the MCU that doesn't take away from Thor's story at all. Why is a villain like him NOT preferable to a weak underdeveloped villain??? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:25:49 GMT
I'm an English Major, too, and I am right. You just want superhero films to regress back to the days of Tim Burton and Joel Schumachar's Batman films, where the villains were the driving force of the films and the heroes were invariably boring ciphers playing second fiddle to them. Films have limited running times. So something has to give, the filmmakers have to pick a character to predominantly focus on. The hero, or the villain. The answer should never be the latter. So let's go back to Loki... A well fleshed out villain in the MCU that doesn't take away from Thor's story at all. Why is a villain like him NOT preferable to a weak underdeveloped villain??? Because most of the time, over-developing the villain serves to undermind the hero. Rewatch Tim Burton's original Batman. Notice anything? Yeah, The Joker actually has a bit more screentime while Batman is left with the leftovers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 6, 2017 0:26:34 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? Vader in the original trilogy had almost no backstory or rich story arc. He was an awesomely menacing villain but development is something he didn't have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:29:19 GMT
So let's go back to Loki... A well fleshed out villain in the MCU that doesn't take away from Thor's story at all. Why is a villain like him NOT preferable to a weak underdeveloped villain??? Because most of the time, over-developing the villain serves to underscore the hero. Rewatch Tim Burton's original Batman. Notice anything? Yeah, The Joker actually has a bit more screentime while Batman is left with the leftovers. Sure. Over developing the villain DOES underscore the hero. Who said anything about overdevelopment though? I didn't. You said outright that a villain should have deliberately weak development. And that's laughable. And btw good character development doesn't always equal loads of screen time. You can have a rich complex character with minimal scenes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:30:33 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? Vader in the original trilogy had almost no backstory or rich story arc. He was an awesomely menacing villain but development is something he didn't have. I very much disagree with that. Except for the awesomely menacing part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:32:22 GMT
Because most of the time, over-developing the villain serves to underscore the hero. Rewatch Tim Burton's original Batman. Notice anything? Yeah, The Joker actually has a bit more screentime while Batman is left with the leftovers. Sure. Over developing the villain DOES underscore the hero. Who said anything about overdevelopment though? I didn't. You said outright that a villain should have deliberately weak development. And that's laughable. And btw good character development doesn't always equal loads of screen time. You can have a rich complex character with minimal scenes. The villain should receive significantly less attention from the writers than the hero. End of discussion. There is nothing laughable about it. Marvel's villains are rich enough with the screentime they do have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:46:40 GMT
Sure. Over developing the villain DOES underscore the hero. Who said anything about overdevelopment though? I didn't. You said outright that a villain should have deliberately weak development. And that's laughable. And btw good character development doesn't always equal loads of screen time. You can have a rich complex character with minimal scenes. The villain should receive significantly less attention from the writers than the hero. End of discussion. There is nothing laughable about it. Marvel's villains are rich enough with the screentime they do have. Again. I don't disagree with either of those statements. I never attacked Marvel's villains so don't go there. And I never said the villain should receive more attention than the hero. You are obviously altering your original statement to sound less absurd. Go back and read your original post if you have to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:49:56 GMT
The villain should receive significantly less attention from the writers than the hero. End of discussion. There is nothing laughable about it. Marvel's villains are rich enough with the screentime they do have. Again. I don't disagree with either of those statements. I never attacked Marvel's villains so don't go there. And I never said the villain should receive more attention than the hero. You are obviously altering your original statement to sound less absurd. Go back and read your original post if you have to. No, this is my original argument. It may not have been my best use of words, but this is my original argument. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:54:41 GMT
Again. I don't disagree with either of those statements. I never attacked Marvel's villains so don't go there. And I never said the villain should receive more attention than the hero. You are obviously altering your original statement to sound less absurd. Go back and read your original post if you have to. No, this is my original argument. It may not have been my best use of words, but this is my original argument. Wel, ok then. I don't disagree with the notion that a villain shouldn't overtake the hero or that they shouldnt have an over abundance of screen time. But you can indeed have a well developed villain with complex motives and a rich backstory without giving them an excessive amount of screen time or taking anything away from the protagonist's story. They did this with Loki and that's one reason (among others) why he is the best MCU villain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 0:58:41 GMT
No, this is my original argument. It may not have been my best use of words, but this is my original argument. Wel, ok then. I don't disagree with the notion that a villain shouldn't overtake the hero or that they shouldnt have an over abundance of screen time. But you can indeed have a well developed villain with complex motives and a rich backstory without giving them an excessive amount of screen time or taking anything away from the protagonist's story. They did this with Loki and that's one reason (among others) why he is the best MCU villain. They also spread it over three films (Thor 1, Avengers, The Dark World), instead of cramming it all into one. With Ares, there's no guarantee they can do that depending on Thewlis' availability. However, the trap of giving the villain too much and the hero too little is one I've seen far too many writers fall into to ever actively encourage focusing on the villain much. It REALLY used to be bug me how superhero movies used to be driven by the villains because the writers didn't know how to develop the heroes, and I have no desire to revisit those times. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 1:05:08 GMT
Wel, ok then. I don't disagree with the notion that a villain shouldn't overtake the hero or that they shouldnt have an over abundance of screen time. But you can indeed have a well developed villain with complex motives and a rich backstory without giving them an excessive amount of screen time or taking anything away from the protagonist's story. They did this with Loki and that's one reason (among others) why he is the best MCU villain. They also spread it over three films (Thor 1, Avengers, The Dark World), instead of cramming it all into one. With Ares, there's no guarantee they can do that depending on Thewlis' availability. However, the trap of giving the villain too much and the hero too little is one I've seen far too many writers fall into to ever actively encourage focusing on the villain much. It REALLY used to be bug me how superhero movies used to be driven by the villains because the writers didn't know how to develop the heroes, and I have no desire to revisit those times. Well in regard to the Batman films of old I do agree. They were always about the villain first, it's true. But there's definately a middle ground. Of course, the truth is that some villains just aren't interesting enough to warrant a lot of development. And it depends on the role they serve in regard to the hero's journey. I have yet to see WW but I am guessing that war is the true antagonist and Ares is merely the final avatar for it. Therefore he doesn't need to be a fleshed out villain per se. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 1:19:28 GMT
They also spread it over three films (Thor 1, Avengers, The Dark World), instead of cramming it all into one. With Ares, there's no guarantee they can do that depending on Thewlis' availability. However, the trap of giving the villain too much and the hero too little is one I've seen far too many writers fall into to ever actively encourage focusing on the villain much. It REALLY used to be bug me how superhero movies used to be driven by the villains because the writers didn't know how to develop the heroes, and I have no desire to revisit those times. Well in regard to the Batman films of old I do agree. They were always about the villain first, it's true. But there's definately a middle ground. Of course, the truth is that some villains just aren't interesting enough to warrant a lot of development. And it depends on the role they serve in regard to the hero's journey. I have yet to see WW but I am guessing that war is the true antagonist and Ares is merely the final avatar for it. Therefore he doesn't need to be a fleshed out villain per se. Books, TV shows, and, well, comic books tend to be better for achieving that middle ground than films, even ones that take place in a cinematic universe. Heck, I'd even say plays are better for giving both the hero and villain more meat, because you're expected to sit for a good long while for those. Even the individual film entries of the MCU still serve like standalone films, taking their characters on full three act journeys despite being a smaller part of a large whole. And while the heroes tend to stick around from film-to-film, the villains just aren't for the most part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 1:39:22 GMT
Well in regard to the Batman films of old I do agree. They were always about the villain first, it's true. But there's definately a middle ground. Of course, the truth is that some villains just aren't interesting enough to warrant a lot of development. And it depends on the role they serve in regard to the hero's journey. I have yet to see WW but I am guessing that war is the true antagonist and Ares is merely the final avatar for it. Therefore he doesn't need to be a fleshed out villain per se. Books, TV shows, and, well, comic books tend to be better for achieving that middle ground than films, even ones that take place in a cinematic universe. Heck, I'd even say plays are better for giving both the hero and villain more meat, because you're expected to sit for a good long while for those. Even the individual film entries of the MCU still serve like standalone films, taking their characters on full three act journeys despite being a smaller part of a large whole. And while the heroes tend to stick around from film-to-film, the villains just aren't for the most part. I actually don't think underdevelopment is a problem with most MCU villains though. Red Skull for example has a great string of scenes in act one. His backstory, motives and persona are crystal clear. He had the potential to be a fantastic villain. The problem is that he didn't amount to be a big threat in act two. Instead of struggling against Hydra, Cap basically mows through them, montage style. Overall most MCU villains aren't necessarily poorly developed IMO they just don't always pose a big enough obstacle for the heroes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 1:56:06 GMT
Books, TV shows, and, well, comic books tend to be better for achieving that middle ground than films, even ones that take place in a cinematic universe. Heck, I'd even say plays are better for giving both the hero and villain more meat, because you're expected to sit for a good long while for those. Even the individual film entries of the MCU still serve like standalone films, taking their characters on full three act journeys despite being a smaller part of a large whole. And while the heroes tend to stick around from film-to-film, the villains just aren't for the most part. I actually don't think underdevelopment is a problem with most MCU villains though. Red Skull for example has a great string of scenes in act one. His backstory, motives and persona are crystal clear. He had the potential to be a fantastic villain. The problem is that he didn't amount to be a big threat in act two. Instead of struggling against Hydra, Cap basically mows through them, montage style. Overall most MCU villains aren't necessarily poorly developed IMO they just don't always pose a big enough obstacle for the heroes. True enough. Another thing weighing The Red Skull down was Hugo Weaving publicly being a killjoy about the whole thing, killing any chances of Skully ever returning. |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 6, 2017 3:28:52 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! No, not really. All Ackbar did was just state his own opinion but never actually provided factual evidence of strong character development for Ares. Seriously, wasn't a bad a performance, but he was a pretty basic simple Marvel villain |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 3:40:53 GMT
Great post! weirdraptor just got owned! No, not really. All Ackbar did was just state his own opinion but never actually provided factual evidence of strong character development for Ares. Seriously, wasn't a bad a performance, but he was a pretty basic simple Marvel villain Huh? I didn't disagree about Aeres, dude. Haven't even seen the movie yet. We were having a lively debate about character development in movies. Also, the Seahawks DO rock. 12th man rules! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 3:42:48 GMT
I actually don't think underdevelopment is a problem with most MCU villains though. Red Skull for example has a great string of scenes in act one. His backstory, motives and persona are crystal clear. He had the potential to be a fantastic villain. The problem is that he didn't amount to be a big threat in act two. Instead of struggling against Hydra, Cap basically mows through them, montage style. Overall most MCU villains aren't necessarily poorly developed IMO they just don't always pose a big enough obstacle for the heroes. True enough. Another thing weighing The Red Skull down was Hugo Weaving publicly being a killjoy about the whole thing, killing any chances of Skully ever returning. Yeah, that was a real shame. I would've loved to see him return. Still would. If he shows up in IW I would be thrilled. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2017 3:58:07 GMT
True enough. Another thing weighing The Red Skull down was Hugo Weaving publicly being a killjoy about the whole thing, killing any chances of Skully ever returning. Yeah, that was a real shame. I would've loved to see him return. Still would. If he shows up in IW I would be thrilled. Hilariously, Weaving started talking about "being open to return" around the same time as Civil War went into production. Ya know, long, long after they'd moved on from him? |
|
