|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 14, 2017 20:17:34 GMT
Oh I completely disagree with this. I don't think he had any more substance and I think the performance wasn't nearly as good. As far as his dialogue goes I thought some of it was almost embarrassing. I find all of the MCU villains much more watchable, and I don't think Zod is any more memorable at the least. I honestly don't know why in some of your posts you are saying zod was deeper than MCU villains. Based on what? What dialogue do people ever remember of Malekith? Red skull? Abomination? Yellow Jacket? Nothing. Gesundheit! What were these again...? Zod was pretty well written, I preferred this version over the one dimensional cartoon in Supes II.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 14, 2017 20:24:49 GMT
What dialogue do people ever remember of Malekith? Red skull? Abomination? Yellow Jacket? Nothing. Gesundheit! What were these again...? Zod was pretty well written, I preferred this version over the one dimensional cartoon in Supes II. Exactly! MoS Zod had a more tragic motivation, what did SM2 Zod do? "Muhahahaha I'm going to take over the world"
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 14, 2017 20:30:42 GMT
Gesundheit! What were these again...? Zod was pretty well written, I preferred this version over the one dimensional cartoon in Supes II. Exactly! MoS Zod had a more tragic motivation, what did SM2 Zod do? "Muhahahaha I'm going to take over the world" there is no question about that. Still, you will find countless internet rants on how A-W-E-S-O-M-E the Stamp Zod was and how horribly written and not-understanding-the-character the Snyder version is....because iz Snyder and DZU.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 14, 2017 21:05:18 GMT
Zod was a great classical villain in motivation and reflection of the heroes dark side, I say the best since Nolan. Ares was a good mystery villain concept, one of the most clever and best written ones I have seen in CBMs. SS was full of villains. Lex was a solid villain, like Loki in the first Thor a whiny brat but who had great, murderous moments such as when he blew up the Capitol hearing. SS was full of villains. Â Zod, I didn't mind. There was nothing mysterious about Ares, considering they announced who was playing him before it was released. So when I saw it, the only thing I was thinking was when he would make his reveal to Diana. And it very anti-climatic as well, followed by the cliche ridden CGI fire and debris just throwing stuff at each other, not actually really fighting. And to say Suicide Squad is full of villains, sure, it is, but that's also a cop out so you don't have to try to defend Enchantress who was the real villain of the film while the squad, even if they are bad guys, are the heros of the film. Sure Lex gave a memorable performance because he's playing it up to-11 crazy and a different interpretation of the character, but its far from what the real Lex is like in the comics that we all know and love and most agree. That's why it's remembered so much. There's context behind Loki's whiny moments, so it works. The scene between Loki and Odin where he finds out he's a Frost Giant is one of best performance from Hiddleson showing a myriad range of emotions that hit the right beats, and even a better acting scene than anything in the DC films so far.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 14, 2017 21:28:09 GMT
They are pretty ok. DC have created a new icon with Harley Quinn; she has become a new icon and is hugely popular, maybe even getting her own movie. I would see that even though I disliked SS. Ares and Zod are the better executed male ones in the DCEU. The new Lex interpretation is underrated, he's different and that is good with a character reconstructed so many times.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 14, 2017 21:29:18 GMT
Oh I completely disagree with this. I don't think he had any more substance and I think the performance wasn't nearly as good. As far as his dialogue goes I thought some of it was almost embarrassing. I find all of the MCU villains much more watchable, and I don't think Zod is any more memorable at the least. I honestly don't know why in some of your posts you are saying zod was deeper than MCU villains. Based on what? Because Zod wasn't one dimensional. He was originally a good person who only did evil things for the sake of his own kind. He brought all that destruction to Earth only so that the last of his kind could survive. Which is understandable and somewhat relatable. A lot of people would do evil things for the sake of their family as well. In comparison the MCU villains are just one dimensional. They're mainly all just openly evil and do evil things for generic reasons, like to gain power, get revenge or take over or destroy humanity. Zoe's speech stood out and people remember that. His "I will find him!" line people remember too. What dialogue do people ever remember of Malekith? Red skull? Abomination? Yellow Jacket? Nothing. The Superman vs Zod fight was a good spectacle, a memorable and large scale action scene. Then you've got the MCU villains who don't have much in the way of memorable action scenes at all, again like Red Skull who had that pitiful final battle with Captain America. Not being one dimensional doesn't automatically make somebody a better villain. A one dimensional villain can be better acted, fit the story better, and be exactly what's needed. Zod in Superman 2 was a watchable menacing villain, but that's not the case in MOS. And I think people make fun of the "I will find him" line. It's actually one of the first things on the "everything wrong with MOS" vid. But in any case that also doesn't make him a better villain. I'm looking for overall performance and do I feel something out of this character, not quotable lines. And outside of the 20 people on this site, I'm not sure there's a lot of people who would know what you're talking about if you said "I will find him" anyway. The Zod vs Superman fight is one of the most made fun of scenes in comic cinema isn't it? I don't see how that fight is a credit to the character.
But I'll give you some examples instead of MCU villains rather that just responding to why Zod isn't all that impressive.
Is cross one-dimensional? Here's a guy who's brilliant but feels he's been held back, and in an effort to prove himself doesn't see the forest for the trees. He can't read people who right in front of him, like Hope, because he's too busy thinking people agree with him, and he delivers not one but two great action scenes, one in a briefcase and one on a train set.
Whiplash is a deeply troubled man who has the intellect to challenge Tony Stark, but a sad upbringing that led him to a life of brutality. Raging against this he has the capability to manipulate one of the worlds leading arms dealers into allowing him access to a fleet of drones and again delivers two great action scenes, one with those drones, and another highly memorable fight with briefcase ironman on a formula 1 track during a race.
Kaecilius is a man who was broken after losing his wife and child and who would do anything to bring them back. And upon learning that the Ancient one had access to eternal life which she refused to share, he disregarded any possible negative effects in his desperation. He delivers several extremely unique and memorable fights including the opening scene, the mirror dimension battle in New York, and the time reverse climax battle.
All three of these were well acted, complete, and I'd easily superior to the Zod performance.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 14, 2017 21:32:00 GMT
Some of them are. They don't all have to be some deeply investigated character. It's fine that some are single minded and after one purpose only. It's fine that some are just tough brutes. And then we have great characters like Alexander Pierce who often doesn't get mentioned, thank you Robert Redford. And then some are completely underappreciated like Whiplash who had a fantastic backstory, was smart enough to challenge Tony and manipulate Hammer, and grew up with a brutish demeanor that makes him quite unique. That guy was a badass actor and I see people write him off. It's the kind of thing that makes me think people just want to complain. The MCU villains are quite well realized in most cases and in the times they're more simple they're supposed to be. I love all of them. Come on man, not even Mickey Rourke liked Whiplash, or at least the version that actually made the final cut linkSure, artists aren't always satisfied with their work, even if their work is considered classic, so that doesn't really mean anything.
The performance was layered and nuanced with several great personal moments and actions scenes. I'm not saying he's the best villain ever, but I am saying it's a good role.
It's not like anytime an actor says he didn't like his performance that we all have to suddenly think the performance was terrible.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 14, 2017 21:36:48 GMT
Oh I completely disagree with this. I don't think he had any more substance and I think the performance wasn't nearly as good. As far as his dialogue goes I thought some of it was almost embarrassing. I find all of the MCU villains much more watchable, and I don't think Zod is any more memorable at the least. I honestly don't know why in some of your posts you are saying zod was deeper than MCU villains. Based on what? Because Zod wasn't one dimensional. He was originally a good person who only did evil things for the sake of his own kind. He brought all that destruction to Earth only so that the last of his kind could survive. Which is understandable and somewhat relatable. A lot of people would do evil things for the sake of their family as well. In comparison the MCU villains are just one dimensional. They're mainly all just openly evil and do evil things for generic reasons, like to gain power, get revenge or take over or destroy humanity. Zoe's speech stood out and people remember that. His "I will find him!" line people remember too. What dialogue do people ever remember of Malekith? Red skull? Abomination? Yellow Jacket? Nothing. The Superman vs Zod fight was a good spectacle, a memorable and large scale action scene. Then you've got the MCU villains who don't have much in the way of memorable action scenes at all, again like Red Skull who had that pitiful final battle with Captain America. Oh c'mon Scabab. Zod being not-quite-evil and relatable is a trait shared by at least half of MCU villains. Pierce, Yellow Jacket, Hela, Killian, Iron Monger, Ultron, Zemo.... none of them started off as bad people that wanted to do bad stuff simply because they were evil. Heck, "who only did evil things for the sake of his own kind" could be applied to Red Skull and Malekith as well. This doesn't make Zod unique or better than MCU villains. Again, I'm not saying Zod is a bad villain, and you're completely in your rights to like him. But to say that he objectively did anything better than majority of MCU villains is just not true.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Nov 14, 2017 21:55:08 GMT
Come on man, not even Mickey Rourke liked Whiplash, or at least the version that actually made the final cut linkSure, artists aren't always satisfied with their work, even if their work is considered classic, so that doesn't really mean anything.
The performance was layered and nuanced with several great personal moments and actions scenes. I'm not saying he's the best villain ever, but I am saying it's a good role.
It's not like anytime an actor says he didn't like his performance that we all have to suddenly think the performance was terrible.
Yeah, he clearly doesn't sound like is pushing the bar too high. He actually didn't like what was left of the character
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 14, 2017 22:02:38 GMT
And I think people make fun of the "I will find him" line. It's actually one of the first things on the "everything wrong with MOS" vid. I don't know how people treat it but people do remember it, he at least has a memorable line of dialogue unlike the MCU villains. It has over a million views on YouTube. There's a ton of videos just from that one line itself. Ehhhh not in that way. People didn't like the destruction it caused, less so now because it was the whole purpose of Batman vs Superman so it had a point to it, the fight itself wasn't mocked or anything though because it was entertaining and it looked visually fantastic. Yeah because he was just an evil business man who did evil things because of money. He was criticised a bit for making the movie too much like Iron Man because he was just another version of Obadiah Stane. Another business man, who wanted money, wanted to steal the heroes technology, couldn't get it so made his own evil counter part which he uses to fight the hero at the end. You don't see this upbringing though so from the start he's just a bad guy who wants revenge and ends up making an evil counter part of Iron Man. He was that boring of a character it needed Justin Hammers character to give some personality to the evil side. The drone fight isn't remembered for Whiplash and the Formula 1 fight was ok but pretty damn silly. The final battle was like 2 minutes and hugely disappointing. But again you don't get to see this. It's just some background information that's said. You don't see him as a good guy, then lose his family and then eventually become a bad guy. He is again just a guy doing evil things for revenge against the Ancient One. See that's the main difference between these characters and the much more popular Loki. Loki isn't one dimensional, unlike the others, you actually do see him as a somewhat good guy at the start of the movie, then see him find out the truth about who he is, you see him react to this and then you see him change because of it. The one dimensional equivalent here would be if the movie Thor had picked up with Loki already knowing that he was a Frost Giant and was just out for revenge against Odin. Then we just given a 30 second explanation as to what actually happened beforehand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2017 22:07:14 GMT
Mike Shannon's Zod was one of the more memorable villains in recent years. Ares had a great mustache.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 14, 2017 22:13:27 GMT
Because Zod wasn't one dimensional. He was originally a good person who only did evil things for the sake of his own kind. He brought all that destruction to Earth only so that the last of his kind could survive. Which is understandable and somewhat relatable. A lot of people would do evil things for the sake of their family as well. In comparison the MCU villains are just one dimensional. They're mainly all just openly evil and do evil things for generic reasons, like to gain power, get revenge or take over or destroy humanity. Zoe's speech stood out and people remember that. His "I will find him!" line people remember too. What dialogue do people ever remember of Malekith? Red skull? Abomination? Yellow Jacket? Nothing. The Superman vs Zod fight was a good spectacle, a memorable and large scale action scene. Then you've got the MCU villains who don't have much in the way of memorable action scenes at all, again like Red Skull who had that pitiful final battle with Captain America. Oh c'mon Scabab. Zod being not-quite-evil and relatable is a trait shared by at least half of MCU villains. Pierce, Yellow Jacket, Hela, Killian, Iron Monger, Ultron, Zemo.... none of them started off as bad people that wanted to do bad stuff simply because they were evil. Heck, "who only did evil things for the sake of his own kind" could be applied to Red Skull and Malekith as well. This doesn't make Zod unique or better than MCU villains. Again, I'm not saying Zod is a bad villain, and you're completely in your rights to like him. But to say that he objectively did anything better than majority of MCU villains is just not true. How were they relatable? Hela killed people because she just plain liked it and wanted to conquer other realms. Yellow Jacket was selling dangerous weapons to get rich. Iron Monger tried to kill his "friend" just so he could become CEO of a company or to get richer. Killian killed innocent people in experiments and then pretended they were terrorist attacks all again just to get rich. And so on. They were all scumbags. Zod was just trying to save his own world and race at the cost of another but we would do the same. If Earth and it's kind were in serious danger, then we'd take out some other world if it meant our survival. I'd kill someone if I knew that person would kill my mother if I didn't. Many would. Zod wasn't out for money or power or revenge, he just wanted his kind to live.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 14, 2017 23:13:26 GMT
Sure, artists aren't always satisfied with their work, even if their work is considered classic, so that doesn't really mean anything.
The performance was layered and nuanced with several great personal moments and actions scenes. I'm not saying he's the best villain ever, but I am saying it's a good role.
It's not like anytime an actor says he didn't like his performance that we all have to suddenly think the performance was terrible.
Yeah, he clearly doesn't sound like is pushing the bar too high. He actually didn't like what was left of the character That's fine, but saying that isn't the end of the argument. It's still a credible performance with solid character moments and actions scenes. I'm sure he feels they could have done even better and that's cool.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 14, 2017 23:26:59 GMT
And I think people make fun of the "I will find him" line. It's actually one of the first things on the "everything wrong with MOS" vid. I don't know how people treat it but people do remember it, he at least has a memorable line of dialogue unlike the MCU villains. It has over a million views on YouTube. There's a ton of videos just from that one line itself. Ehhhh not in that way. People didn't like the destruction it caused, less so now because it was the whole purpose of Batman vs Superman so it had a point to it, the fight itself wasn't mocked or anything though because it was entertaining and it looked visually fantastic. Yeah because he was just an evil business man who did evil things because of money. He was criticised a bit for making the movie too much like Iron Man because he was just another version of Obadiah Stane. Another business man, who wanted money, wanted to steal the heroes technology, couldn't get it so made his own evil counter part which he uses to fight the hero at the end. You don't see this upbringing though so from the start he's just a bad guy who wants revenge and ends up making an evil counter part of Iron Man. He was that boring of a character it needed Justin Hammers character to give some personality to the evil side. The drone fight isn't remembered for Whiplash and the Formula 1 fight was ok but pretty damn silly. The final battle was like 2 minutes and hugely disappointing. But again you don't get to see this. It's just some background information that's said. You don't see him as a good guy, then lose his family and then eventually become a bad guy. He is again just a guy doing evil things for revenge against the Ancient One. See that's the main difference between these characters and the much more popular Loki. Loki isn't one dimensional, unlike the others, you actually do see him as a somewhat good guy at the start of the movie, then see him find out the truth about who he is, you see him react to this and then you see him change because of it. The one dimensional equivalent here would be if the movie Thor had picked up with Loki already knowing that he was a Frost Giant and was just out for revenge against Odin. Then we just given a 30 second explanation as to what actually happened beforehand. Ok, let's the address the memorable thing. Zod from Superman 2 is more memorable and I doubt many people could even tell you the name of the actor. We aren't talking about Al Pacino as Michael Corleone here, so let's stop overstating how memorable he is. And again memorable, doesn't equal good anyway.
You don't see Zod's upbringing or training either. He's just an overzealous egomaniacal general. There isn't some feature making him a significantly better villain than the ones I listed, and I'd argue his performance is worse. There are lines of poor dialogue like "either you die or I do" which stands out as one that was extremely unsubtle. And his plan didn't really make any sense say compared to why Ultron wanted to destroy the world. All future babies born there would have no trouble accepting the air. They wouldn't even need to adapt. It would just be normal to them. Clark only had to adapt because he wasn't actually born there. It had nothing to do with the survival of his people so what was he even doing? It just didn't fit together. The whole Zod character was a little messy, and again I'd watch any MCU villain over him.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 14, 2017 23:32:14 GMT
DC has had a tradition of overwrought and flamboyant bad guys - since forever - especially in Batman lore. I'm not a fan of that approach. Whenever I hear DCEU fans pointing out the "Marvel villain problem" I feel relieved. It means Marvel is doing something right.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 14, 2017 23:32:20 GMT
Time and again you'll hear people mention MCU's villain problem. Yet while everyone loves to harp on MCU's villains, people seem to neglect to point out DCCU's villain problem, which is actually worse than MCU's villain problem and has been going on for longer. So I thought it's high time we talked about it. I'll say this: I don't think its a problem of either movie universe. I think its a problem of the genre. Its inherent in the formula of these types of movies, Marvel OR DC, that enough time cannot be given to the villain by sheer virtue of the fact that its only 2 hours long, and that time has to be spent on the hero(s). Very few villains have been truly hashed out just right.
Personally I liked Gene Hackman's Luthor, and Jack Nicholson's Joker, and Kurt Russel's EGO, but the best has been Heath Ledgers Joker. Just the right usage of him throughout the movie. And I still think the bad guys from Die Hard and Total Recall are good templates.
Thanos has been teased throughout the MCU so we'll see what happens there.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 14, 2017 23:51:19 GMT
Time and again you'll hear people mention MCU's villain problem. Yet while everyone loves to harp on MCU's villains, people seem to neglect to point out DCCU's villain problem, which is actually worse than MCU's villain problem and has been going on for longer. So I thought it's high time we talked about it. I'll say this: I don't think its a problem of either movie universe. I think its a problem of the genre. Its inherent in the formula of these types of movies, Marvel OR DC, that enough time cannot be given to the villain by sheer virtue of the fact that its only 2 hours long, and that time has to be spent on the hero(s). Very few villains have been truly hashed out just right.
Personally I liked Gene Hackman's Luthor, and Jack Nicholson's Joker, and Kurt Russel's EGO, but the best has been Heath Ledgers Joker. Just the right usage of him throughout the movie. And I still think the bad guys from Die Hard and Total Recall are good templates.
Thanos has been teased throughout the MCU so we'll see what happens there.
Yeah, I can agree to that. Because the X-men films hasn't been too hot on the villain department either. I will say this, as great as Ledger's Joker was, that was only made possible by the movie not really concentrating on Bruce Wayne or Batman.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 15, 2017 0:01:51 GMT
Time and again you'll hear people mention MCU's villain problem. Yet while everyone loves to harp on MCU's villains, people seem to neglect to point out DCCU's villain problem, which is actually worse than MCU's villain problem and has been going on for longer. So I thought it's high time we talked about it. I'll say this: I don't think its a problem of either movie universe. I think its a problem of the genre. Its inherent in the formula of these types of movies, Marvel OR DC, that enough time cannot be given to the villain by sheer virtue of the fact that its only 2 hours long, and that time has to be spent on the hero(s). Very few villains have been truly hashed out just right.
Personally I liked Gene Hackman's Luthor, and Jack Nicholson's Joker, and Kurt Russel's EGO, but the best has been Heath Ledgers Joker. Just the right usage of him throughout the movie. And I still think the bad guys from Die Hard and Total Recall are good templates.
Thanos has been teased throughout the MCU so we'll see what happens there.
I'll say this, it isn't a problem at all. I really don't know why people think or expect every villain to be some classic deeply explored villain and anything less is somehow a problem. I really don't. Some villain should be simple and straight forward. That's ok. The only time it's a problem is if there is a poor performance like Lex for example.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 15, 2017 0:14:08 GMT
Ok, let's the address the memorable thing. Zod from Superman 2 is more memorable and I doubt many people could even tell you the name of the actor. We aren't talking about Al Pacino as Michael Corleone here, so let's stop overstating how memorable he is. And again memorable, doesn't equal good anyway. You don't see Zod's upbringing or training either. He's just an overzealous egomaniacal general. There isn't some feature making him a significantly better villain than the ones I listed, and I'd argue his performance is worse. There are lines of poor dialogue like "either you die or I do" which stands out as one that was extremely unsubtle. And his plan didn't really make any sense say compared to why Ultron wanted to destroy the world. All future babies born there would have no trouble accepting the air. They wouldn't even need to adapt. It would just be normal to them. Clark only had to adapt because he wasn't actually born there. It had nothing to do with the survival of his people so what was he even doing? It just didn't fit together. The whole Zod character was a little messy, and again I'd watch any MCU villain over him. He's just more memorable in comparison because at least stands out whereas the Marvel villains are entirely forgettable. We actually do see Zod prior to his planet exploding, we see him reacting to that and we saw how he was treated after that. Again if this was a Marvel movie none of that would have been shown at all. It would just been mentioned for about 30 seconds. Also him doing it just for his people would just be him doing it for power or something generic. You mentioned​ and he was disappointment to people. With him, he realised humans are actually evil so I'm gonna kill all the humans. That was it, his very straight forward and generic motivation. Like I said with these MCU villains it usually comes down to no way, revenge or just wanting to kill or overthrow mankind. Also didn't help that he kept making jokes all the time which ruined him from how he was portrayed in the trailer.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 15, 2017 0:23:27 GMT
Ok, let's the address the memorable thing. Zod from Superman 2 is more memorable and I doubt many people could even tell you the name of the actor. We aren't talking about Al Pacino as Michael Corleone here, so let's stop overstating how memorable he is. And again memorable, doesn't equal good anyway. You don't see Zod's upbringing or training either. He's just an overzealous egomaniacal general. There isn't some feature making him a significantly better villain than the ones I listed, and I'd argue his performance is worse. There are lines of poor dialogue like "either you die or I do" which stands out as one that was extremely unsubtle. And his plan didn't really make any sense say compared to why Ultron wanted to destroy the world. All future babies born there would have no trouble accepting the air. They wouldn't even need to adapt. It would just be normal to them. Clark only had to adapt because he wasn't actually born there. It had nothing to do with the survival of his people so what was he even doing? It just didn't fit together. The whole Zod character was a little messy, and again I'd watch any MCU villain over him. He's just more memorable in comparison because at least stands out whereas the Marvel villains are entirely forgettable. We actually do see Zod prior to his planet exploding, we see him reacting to that and we saw how he was treated after that. Again if this was a Marvel movie none of that would have been shown at all. It would just been mentioned for about 30 seconds. Also him doing it just for his people would just be him doing it for power or something generic. You mentioned​ and he was disappointment to people. With him, he realised humans are actually evil so I'm gonna kill all the humans. That was it, his very straight forward and generic motivation. Like I said with these MCU villains it usually comes down to no way, revenge or just wanting to kill or overthrow mankind. Also didn't help that he kept making jokes all the time which ruined him from how he was portrayed in the trailer.
Ok, we're talking about whether he's better, not whether he's more memorable. Also I've tried saying that he's not all that memorable, at least not to a degree that it matters. He's not some classic comic movie villain.
And again, I'm not seeing how MCU villains are less memorable, or how their motivations are any less detailed. I enjoy all the MCU villains, and none of them have cringe worthy dialogue, so I consider them better.
What villain was ruined? If you're talking about Ultron I disagree. I mean if that portrayal was less than acceptable to you, I just feel bad that you're not enjoying it as much as I am, because I loved it.
|
|