|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 24, 2017 8:36:18 GMT
The big difference is that in Marvel the real meat of the story comes from the protagonist, their character flaws and the internal conflict they get from their allies and friends. The villain is mainly just a plot device, an obstacle to be overcome. Which gets boring after 10+ years seeing heros battling so called supervillains, defeating them easily and barely leaving with a scratch rinse and repeat. The villains should be the source of the heros conflicts and should challenge them to beyond their physical/mental limit to their breaking point. MCU villains in general dont do that, as you say they're just plot devices which is why lots of fans and critics keep bringing up Marvels recurring villain problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 24, 2017 9:27:11 GMT
So we go pre-DCEU to pull in Nicholson, but only MCU? Following your Nicholson inclusion (Why not the old Zod who was far more memorable?), why not Doc Ock? Magneto? Green Goblin? That is not the OP premise, merh. That being said, if we expand these parameters in your sense, Magneto would indeed be one of the greatest CBM-villains and the only one that is not totally eclipsed by the iconic DC rogue gallery like Joker, Lex Luther, Penguin, Catwoman et al. Note that I am talking about and limiting this to the Fox-Men holocaust-surviving Magneto, not the silly comic book version. That is not the point of discussion. That aside, from a writing theory angle, the MCU heroes are all very formulaic, beginning with their character ars, namely the all popular "Jerk goes through crisis, learns skills and becomes nice guy superhero" arc. We have seen this with Logan in the excellent X1 movie. And the same arc was reused for Iron Man (several times), Dr Strange, Antman, Thor etc (Cap has no arc except becoming BEEFCAKE).
That formulaic trope writing applies to the villains too btw, like with Magneto in MCU you will often find the popular old-friend-becomes-nemesis trope (IM, Thor etc).
I would hardly call this "feshing out" the heroes, it is just a collection of writing tropes, clichees and popular actors conveying the ilusion of character writing. And , in their respective origin stories the DC heroes are at least as fleshed out as the MCU ones, think Superman1 (the template for MCU films according to Feige), Batman Begins, Wonder Woman, and MOS. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 11:20:24 GMT
Nah, Marvel characters just act like people instead of archetypes. They act like dumb quipsters. Oh, funny joke, Ultron! Nah, they just act like real people instead of standing around giving pompous speeches. And people make jokes, it's a part of life. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 11:21:19 GMT
10 years... 10 long years... of protesting the same thing over and over. Only to watch it grow in scale, popularity and influence. And, just think, it might last another 10... I have nothing but the profoundest respect for you and your kind. You're all soldiers of the apocalypse. Hee hee hee... All fads rise and fall. "Another 10" years you say, with skeletal chest puffed out proud? Let's see where it is in thirty years, kiddo. We already know they'll be making big-budget Batman and Superman movies... Hee hee hee... I'm sure people thought James Bond was a fad too. The Marvel characters are here to stay. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 11:24:07 GMT
The big difference is that in Marvel the real meat of the story comes from the protagonist, their character flaws and the internal conflict they get from their allies and friends. The villain is mainly just a plot device, an obstacle to be overcome. Which gets boring after 10+ years seeing heros battling so called supervillains, defeating them easily and barely leaving with a scratch rinse and repeat. You feel the same way about James Bond? He's been doing it for over 50 years... Because even after all these years the idea that the villain is NOT the star of the show and the hero is actually a character and not a "Oppose the villain" cipher is still hard to swallow for some people. They WANT the hero to do nothing but react to the villain instead of being a proactive character in their own right. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 11:30:49 GMT
That being said, if we expand these parameters in your sense, Magneto would indeed be one of the greatest CBM-villains and the only one that is not totally eclipsed by the iconic DC rogue gallery like Joker, Lex Luther, Penguin, Catwoman et al. Note that I am talking about and limiting this to the Fox-Men holocaust-surviving Magneto, not the silly comic book version. Fox Magneto is pretty one-note, and using the Holocaust for a character's origin is always lazy writing anyways. An overall lazy character. It's better than what DC gives us, even if you were right about your generalizations. Eh, he didn't change much in X1. I don't recall Ant-Man being a billionaire weapons maker or a jerk in need of redemption, and Dr Strange gave us a guy who didn't WANT to be a superhero at all which was refreshing because he LIKED being a jerk Doctor. But generalize away... That predates Magneto by a long while. Compared to DC and FOX it definitely is. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 24, 2017 11:41:37 GMT
Which gets boring after 10+ years seeing heros battling so called supervillains, defeating them easily and barely leaving with a scratch rinse and repeat. You feel the same way about James Bond? He's been doing it for over 50 years... you with your theories would be fun at writing class parties, sam.
I find (most) Bond generic, dumb and formulaic, and the franchise gets a lot of flack for that. But one of Bond's assesst are some of the best and most iconic villains ever, such as Goldfinger (the title gives it away already,eh?) or his sidekick Oddjob - these blow away any MCU villain; not to mention Blowfield & Jaws, Red Grant & Rosa Klebb etc.
Nonsense, said no one ever.
The greatest adventure stories have great villains, that is no coincidence. Thus, the old rules:
- A hero is only as good as the villain and obstacles he must overcome; - The hardest thing is to write a good villain; - Without stakes there is no suspense and drama.
Mere plot devices are per se lazy writing; if you reduce characters or even the main anagonist to a plot device it is abysmal writing. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 11:47:46 GMT
I find (most) Bond generic, dumb and formulaic, Yeah, I figured as much. Pretentious is as pretentious does. Nah, they have nostalgia going for them but they really aren't any better than how the MCU does villains. Nah, it is. Said every lazy writer ever. Ever writer who had no faith in the hero to hold up their own story. The greatest challenge is writing a good protagonist. They're not going to kill off the entire cast and end the world every single story/movie. Deal with it. Nope, if the protagonist is good enough then having the villain as an obstacle to be overcome while the real meat is about the protagonist and his/her story is fine. I seriously don't think anyone went to Jaws to enjoy the thought processes of the Shark. |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 11:55:44 GMT
As much as i anticipate IW i would be surprised if the important deaths they keep bragging about are other than 4-th grade characters that no one cares about like Falcon, Maria Hill or War Machine
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 24, 2017 12:10:41 GMT
That being said, if we expand these parameters in your sense, Magneto would indeed be one of the greatest CBM-villains and the only one that is not totally eclipsed by the iconic DC rogue gallery like Joker, Lex Luther, Penguin, Catwoman et al. Note that I am talking about and limiting this to the Fox-Men holocaust-surviving Magneto, not the silly comic book version.
Your minority opinion is noted, sam. It's generally considered a brilliant background motivation for Magneto being paranoid and hostile, he gives in to his fears and becomes a monster.
Compare this to Cap 1 where we have laser gun battles during holocaust but no character arcs and Hail Hydra shouting Tomatohead villains.
Or take GotG dying-cancer-mom which just serves as sentimental tear-jerker plot device for funky pop song dancing (a scene later), dance offs and ultimately for commercial soundtrack selling. Compare this to the film "Chronicle" a few years before where the dying mom trope was done right: painful and sad, and leading to proper character development in the (anti)hero. The MCU examples are the epitome of lazy, convenient writing.
All characters have sound motivations and background stories. Logan's arc is that of a self centered, angsty nomad-loner who learns to use his powers for a good fight, becomes house-broken and a team player.
If that does not spell character change, maybe you should watch movies about sensitive nipples and putting squishy raccoon turds in pillows. Non sequitur, sam.
Even if so, not the point, sam.
Wrong, sam. But if you truly believe it's not a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Oct 24, 2017 12:32:53 GMT
This. He's a man who's not only seen the worse of mankind, but also been a victim of extreme bigotry.
He becomes the very monster he suffered from.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 12:37:58 GMT
[Your minority opinion is noted, sam. It's generally considered a brilliant background motivation for Magneto being paranoid and hostile, he gives in to his fears and becomes a monster. It was considered brilliant for the 80s when the idea was thought up, now it's banal and exploitative. Even Ricky Gervais pointed out how using the Holocaust is just a cry for attention and "See how DEEP we are? We're referencing the Holocaust!" So true to the comics and not going for the creatively bankrupt "grounded" approach. Cap 1 was basically Indiana Jones if the Nazis DID get their hands on ancient relics and use them. More inventive than anything else. If your mom dies when you're eight, you're not going to spend the rest of your life doing absolutely nothing but being weepy. The music is a gift his mom gave him, fits. I liked Chronicle more when it was called Akira. Not in X-Men. It's starting to get amusing how you cling to that and ignore stuff like Drax's talk about the nature of beauty. But then again, you like slop like "Love can save the world". It is. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 12:39:34 GMT
This. He's a man who's not only seen the worse of mankind, but also been a victim of extreme bigotry. He becomes the very monster he suffered from. If the Mutant thing was anything remotely like what happened to the Jewish people (of course, it wasn't just Jewish people who died horrible deaths in WWII but hardly anyone cares) I could sympathize...but the mutant fear isn't anything like that. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 24, 2017 12:40:27 GMT
You feel the same way about James Bond? He's been doing it for over 50 years... Bond is stale at the minute. Spectre was more disappointing than Skyfall mainly because the villain. Spectre would have been better if they utilized Christoph Waltz as a better bad guy but Javier Bardem was a great rival to Bond and the best action movies in history have hav the best villains from Indiana Jones to Die Hard. First of all, you can have both. You can write great villains but also have internal conflict. A great example of this is Doc Ok in Spiderman 2, he isn't a outright evil villain who pushes Peter to the limit. The conflict comes from Peters normal life with problems of responsibility, hiding the truth to Aunt May and MJ, holding down a job, etc. The Spiderman-Doc Ok conflict is secondary BUT they marry this well as Spidermans internal conflict is the central theme to how he ultimately defeats Doc Ok when he says, "Sometimes, to do what's right, we must be steady and give up the things we desire the most". Thats textbook dynamics of writing great villains AND heros. Homecoming tried to copy that but because of Holland's Parker was young they couldnt get the same intensity which is why its watered down. Vulture was good but the dynamic with Peters problems wasnt written well enough. A film like Logan was also missing this. It showed a lot of internal conflict of James Howlett but this wasnt intertwined with the villains ethos in any way, which is why it isnt a perfect film. Joker-Batman, Miranada Tate/Bane-Batman, Raas-Batman, Xavier-Magneto, Shaw-Magneto, Superman-Zod (MoS), Bucky-Cap are all great examples of how to write the hero-villain relationship with each hero having their own distinct internal conflict. The best comic films have the villain breaking down the hero and testing their resolve whilst still being relevant to the heros personal demons. The only MCU films that come close are The First Avenger, Winter Soldier, Iron Man 1 and GotG 2.0. And 3 of those are phase 1 films, before the MCU became poor imo. The rest the villains are tame and easily conquered without the heros suffering which is the real lazy way out. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 24, 2017 12:44:29 GMT
This. He's a man who's not only seen the worse of mankind, but also been a victim of extreme bigotry. He becomes the very monster he suffered from. also what is good CBM writing about this is that is subverts the old fairy tale of becoming a good character by going through hell.
No, that is usually not what happens with the human psyche: most people going through bigotry, war or even an holocaust get psychologically damaged and scarred for life, be it by PTSD, trauma, addiction, psychosis or worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 12:46:53 GMT
Bond is stale at the minute. Spectre was more disappointing than Skyfall mainly because the villain. Spectre would have been better if they utilized Christoph Waltz as a better bad guy but Javier Bardem was a great rival to Bond and the best action movies in history have hav the best villains from Indiana Jones to Die Hard. Eh, I thought Bardem's character was just a knock-off of Alec from Goldeneye. But frankly the Die Hard and Indiana Jones villains aren't any better than MCU villains. It doesn't happen that often. Especially not in X-Men or DC. I thought having Ock's tentacles controlling him was a cop-out especially how he goes back to being good once the tentacles are disabled., and SM2 had some pretty contrived stuff. Like how a lot of Peter's problems came from him just not being able to think up reasonable excuses for missing stuff like MJ's play, and how Ock made the deal to get the Tritium from Harry instead of just stealing it from him, etc. I think it's good for his first movie. I wouldn't put Joker-Batman or Talia in there. In those ones, the villains (as usual for Nolan) dominated and Batman was secondary. When you have characters whose greatest enemy is themselves (Tony, Dr Strange, the Guardians to an extent) it sort of makes sense for the story to be about them. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 12:50:26 GMT
This. He's a man who's not only seen the worse of mankind, but also been a victim of extreme bigotry. He becomes the very monster he suffered from. also what is good CBM writing about this is that is subverts the old fairy tale of becoming a good character by going through hell. It's fairly standard supervillain stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 24, 2017 13:10:56 GMT
[Your minority opinion is noted, sam. It's generally considered a brilliant background motivation for Magneto being paranoid and hostile, he gives in to his fears and becomes a monster. It was considered brilliant for the 80s when the idea was thought up, now it's banal and exploitative. Even Ricky Gervais pointed out how using the Holocaust is just a cry for attention and "See how DEEP we are? We're referencing the Holocaust!"
You argue beside the point, we talk about writing theory, i.e. character set up, background and character motivation to make the characters' actions and plot progression believable.
Magneto as a genocidal cartoon villain wanting to wipe out non-mutants (Muahahaha!) becomes a lot more understandable and plausible having a proper character setup: i.e. he is paranoid, hateful and full of existential fear for his "race" because he experienced prosecution, hate, stigmatization and ultimately genocide in his childhood as a Jew in the holocaust.
This is well written. It is not about your silly "See how DEEP we are? We're referencing the Holocaust" posturing. On the contrary, they do not merely "reference" the holocaust, no they integrate it as the underlying psychological motivator of the villain. The entire film is like written around that, the mutants not as superhumans but as a minority fractured and divided about how to deal with political prosecution (as embodied by the senator) and hate.
It's a nice allegory that we usually do not get in other CBM franchises. Like it or not, if you cannot see merits in this writing you might be too far gone and blinded with MCU fanatism already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 13:18:29 GMT
They act like dumb quipsters. Oh, funny joke, Ultron! Nah, they just act like real people instead of standing around giving pompous speeches. And people make jokes, it's a part of life. Yeah. Giant robots who are trying to take over the world make stupid jokes all the time. You're right. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 24, 2017 13:29:00 GMT
It was considered brilliant for the 80s when the idea was thought up, now it's banal and exploitative. Even Ricky Gervais pointed out how using the Holocaust is just a cry for attention and "See how DEEP we are? We're referencing the Holocaust!"
You argue beside the point The point being that using the Holocaust to make your character seem deep is really just lazy. Especially when his current conflict has nothing to do with his past. If Mutants were anything like what happened to Jewish people in the Holocaust, it would be. But the mutant thing is nothing like that, so it falls flat. The fear of mutants is based in logic, not how Nazis viewed Jewish people (it varied from Nazi to Nazi, plenty of them didn't care if they were Jewish and just wanted a scapegoat). Other CBM series aren't that exploitative. |
|
