|
Post by miike80 on Dec 1, 2017 13:37:34 GMT
The treatment of The Mandarin was definitely a problem for many, remember that controversy? Personally I feel that Marvel missing out on building up a supervillain team. The real problem with Iron Man 3 and the Mandarin was that they pulled off the twist so well, audience goers really were sucked in and no one likes being made to feel foolish or admit they were fooled. Even if that was the whole point, to essentially prank the audience. Look at Dark Knight Rises and how everyone pretty much guessed the Talia twist before the movie came out. No one was upset, because no one was fooled. That, and the fact that it was nothing like the Mandarin some people were hoping to see. or it wasn't the Mandarin at all.i could have done with Trevor being less silly after the reveal.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 1, 2017 13:41:36 GMT
The treatment of The Mandarin was definitely a problem for many, remember that controversy? Personally I feel that Marvel missing out on building up a supervillain team. The real problem with Iron Man 3 and the Mandarin was that they pulled off the twist so well, audience goers really were sucked in and no one likes being made to feel foolish or admit they were fooled. Even if that was the whole point, to essentially prank the audience. Look at Dark Knight Rises and how everyone pretty much guessed the Talia twist before the movie came out. No one was upset, because no one was fooled. True, it did prank the audience. I personally saw it as Marvel Studios taking the safe route and did the lazy way out with the character by making him another angry white dude. As a side note, anyone here wish Iron Man 3 was the introduction of Ultron? Not as a villain, but like a introduction. Especially since Tony used those suits as a personal back up at the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:54:45 GMT
The real problem with Iron Man 3 and the Mandarin was that they pulled off the twist so well, audience goers really were sucked in and no one likes being made to feel foolish or admit they were fooled. Even if that was the whole point, to essentially prank the audience. Look at Dark Knight Rises and how everyone pretty much guessed the Talia twist before the movie came out. No one was upset, because no one was fooled. True, it did prank the audience. I personally saw it as Marvel Studios taking the safe route and did the lazy way out with the character by making him another angry white dude. As a side note, anyone here wish Iron Man 3 was the introduction of Ultron? Not as a villain, but like a introduction. Especially since Tony used those suits as a personal back up at the end. Yes. When I saw AoU the first time I was a bit confused about Ultron (I dont read comics) and it took me a while to catch on. It all felt very rushed to me. So I came out of the theatre a bit confused and dissapointed. But after re-watching AoU knowing what was coming the movie became better and better to me. If they had set up Ultron in Iron Man 3 I think it would have been much better.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 13:56:23 GMT
The real problem with Iron Man 3 and the Mandarin was that they pulled off the twist so well, audience goers really were sucked in and no one likes being made to feel foolish or admit they were fooled. Even if that was the whole point, to essentially prank the audience. Look at Dark Knight Rises and how everyone pretty much guessed the Talia twist before the movie came out. No one was upset, because no one was fooled. True, it did prank the audience. I personally saw it as Marvel Studios taking the safe route and did the lazy way out with the character by making him another angry white dude. As a side note, anyone here wish Iron Man 3 was the introduction of Ultron? Not as a villain, but like a introduction. Especially since Tony used those suits as a personal back up at the end. A lot of people theorized at the time that the one suit that came to life and scared Pepper would become the basis for Ultron.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 1, 2017 15:00:42 GMT
Fair enough. However, I think the overall consensus is looking pretty solid in retrospect for The Vulture. He's been widely considered by both critics and fans to be a top-notch supervillain in his own right, perhaps just about up there with Loki. Yeah Vulture was a pretty good villain, like Loki, the difference between them and the others is that they had more to work with and more development. Going by screen time, Loki was in Thor and The Avengers for 21 minutes each and Vulture had about 20 minutes of screen time. Then you've got these weak villains like Malekith and Ronan and they were only in the movie for about 8 minutes. The main villain being in a two hour movie for a mere 8 minutes, that's like 7% of the movie. Even other villains like Aldrich Killian, Hela and Kaekilius only had 12 minutes of screen time. So they just don't have enough time to be able to do anything notable with them.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 15:11:13 GMT
Fair enough. However, I think the overall consensus is looking pretty solid in retrospect for The Vulture. He's been widely considered by both critics and fans to be a top-notch supervillain in his own right, perhaps just about up there with Loki. Yeah Vulture was a pretty good villain, like Loki, the difference between them and the others is that they had more to work with and more development. Going by screen time, Loki was in Thor and The Avengers for 21 minutes each and Vulture had about 20 minutes of screen time. Then you've got these weak villains like Malekith and Ronan and they were only in the movie for about 8 minutes. The main villain being in a two hour movie for a mere 8 minutes, that's like 7% of the movie. Even other villains like Aldrich Killian, Hela and Kaekilius only had 12 minutes of screen time. So they just don't have enough time to be able to do anything notable with them. Let's be fair here and look at other series that are popular. Die Hard and Indiana Jones. Are the villains in either of those terribly deep? No. In fact, Hans Gruber is a lot like a typical MCU villain but no one complains about him.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 1, 2017 15:25:21 GMT
Let's be fair here and look at other series that are popular. Die Hard and Indiana Jones. Are the villains in either of those terribly deep? No. In fact, Hans Gruber is a lot like a typical MCU villain but no one complains about him. Hans Gruber is nothing like a typical MCU villain. Hans Gruber is considered one of the best villains of all time, especially in just action movies. He's even in the AFI list of best villains ever and he has articles like this www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/hans-gruber/45752/why-hans-gruber-remains-the-greatest-action-movie-villain-of-all-timeThere's no comparison to him and any MCU villain. Hans Gruber is an iconic character. Still this isn't really the same. They were original characters, they are not characters that have been around in different forms of media for perhaps several decades. Characters who may have a rich background with an interesting personality. Just for example, look at all this information they have here on Ronan. marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Ronan_(Earth-616)All the stuff about his early life, his affiliations, his different powers etc. All of it just crammed down to a forgettable 8 minutes of screen time where he just wants to destroy something and is just shown to be super strong. He is as generic and forgettable as they come and he didn't need to be.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Dec 1, 2017 15:29:30 GMT
Yeah Vulture was a pretty good villain, like Loki, the difference between them and the others is that they had more to work with and more development. Going by screen time, Loki was in Thor and The Avengers for 21 minutes each and Vulture had about 20 minutes of screen time. Then you've got these weak villains like Malekith and Ronan and they were only in the movie for about 8 minutes. The main villain being in a two hour movie for a mere 8 minutes, that's like 7% of the movie. Even other villains like Aldrich Killian, Hela and Kaekilius only had 12 minutes of screen time. So they just don't have enough time to be able to do anything notable with them. Let's be fair here and look at other series that are popular. Die Hard and Indiana Jones. Are the villains in either of those terribly deep? No. In fact, Hans Gruber is a lot like a typical MCU villain but no one complains about him. yet, he is memorable and people remember him all those years after. No one remembers Kaecilius even tho they had a great actor to portray him
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Dec 1, 2017 16:51:35 GMT
Not a fan of Neeson's Ra's al Ghul? Or (the ones I forgot to mention above) Nicholson's Joker and/or Devito's Penguin? Neeson's Ra's al Ghul and Nicholson's Joker are just good villains. Devito's character was NOT the Penguin. I don't care if they called him the Penguin, he was NOT the Penguin. That character was closer to Kill Croc. The only proper live-action Penguin we've ever had was Burgess Meredith's. While I agree that Meredith's Penguin is so iconic everyone else since then has just been riffing on it, I think Robin Lord Taylor is doing a really good job with Penguin on Gotham.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 16:56:27 GMT
Let's be fair here and look at other series that are popular. Die Hard and Indiana Jones. Are the villains in either of those terribly deep? No. In fact, Hans Gruber is a lot like a typical MCU villain but no one complains about him. yet, he is memorable and people remember him all those years after. No one remembers Kaecilius even tho they had a great actor to portray him He's memorable for being played by Alan Rickman, that's all. Character wise he's got no depth.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 17:03:49 GMT
Hans Gruber is nothing like a typical MCU villain. Hans Gruber is considered one of the best villains of all time, especially in just action movies. He's even in the AFI list of best villains ever and he has articles like this He has little character or depth, he's memorable for the one-liners and for being played by Alan Rickman and the general quality of the film. For his time. Put him in a film now and he'll be seen as flat. So it's okay for TDKR to do the same to Talia but GOTG can't do it to Ronan?
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Dec 1, 2017 17:15:30 GMT
yet, he is memorable and people remember him all those years after. No one remembers Kaecilius even tho they had a great actor to portray him He's memorable for being played by Alan Rickman, that's all. Character wise he's got no depth. Yeah,no
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 1, 2017 17:22:48 GMT
True, it did prank the audience. I personally saw it as Marvel Studios taking the safe route and did the lazy way out with the character by making him another angry white dude. As a side note, anyone here wish Iron Man 3 was the introduction of Ultron? Not as a villain, but like a introduction. Especially since Tony used those suits as a personal back up at the end. Yes. When I saw AoU the first time I was a bit confused about Ultron (I dont read comics) and it took me a while to catch on. It all felt very rushed to me. So I came out of the theatre a bit confused and dissapointed. But after re-watching AoU knowing what was coming the movie became better and better to me. If they had set up Ultron in Iron Man 3 I think it would have been much better. Honestly I wish phase 2 whole story arc involved Ultron with Avengers 2 having him go all antagonistic. It seemed like Marvel was more concerned about setting up Infinity War, than giving us a good Ultron story.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 17:25:20 GMT
He's memorable for being played by Alan Rickman, that's all. Character wise he's got no depth. Yeah,no Well, he doesn't. Tell me about how deep Gruber is.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Dec 1, 2017 17:29:45 GMT
Well, he doesn't. Tell me about how deep Gruber is. He's charismatic and his plan is multi-layered and intelligent...it's not just "Get me power!" or "Destroy everything!" Loki and maybe Jeff Goldblum aside, all of the other MCU villains have been uncharismatic or have had one-note un-interesting motivations...or at worst (Maleketh) both.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Dec 1, 2017 17:45:54 GMT
Well, he doesn't. Tell me about how deep Gruber is. It's about how effective and memorable he is,which he clearly is since 30 years after you still talk about him
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 17:59:27 GMT
Yes. When I saw AoU the first time I was a bit confused about Ultron (I dont read comics) and it took me a while to catch on. It all felt very rushed to me. So I came out of the theatre a bit confused and dissapointed. But after re-watching AoU knowing what was coming the movie became better and better to me. If they had set up Ultron in Iron Man 3 I think it would have been much better. Honestly I wish phase 2 whole story arc involved Ultron with Avengers 2 having him go all antagonistic. It seemed like Marvel was more concerned about setting up Infinity War, than giving us a good Ultron story. I think so. Ultron wasnt fleshed out enough. We should have gotten some build up. We wont have that complaint with Thanos though.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 1, 2017 17:59:49 GMT
formersamhmdHe had plenty of character, that's why he's considered one of the best characters. Phenomenally acted, memorable dialogue, unique performance for a villain in an action movie at the time, sophisticated and intelligent villain who everyone remembers from what is a true classic movie. Iconic enough that plenty of other action movie villains have tried to rip him off with little success. Well his character for his time, not our time. Plus that's an assumption that doesn't really matter. Hans Gruber was a better villain for 1988 than any Marvel villain is today. Talia Al Ghul was part of a plot twist that only revealed her character at the end. She didn't have a whole movie as a villain to work with but no she wasn't that good of a villain either.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 18:53:01 GMT
Well, he doesn't. Tell me about how deep Gruber is. He's charismatic and his plan is multi-layered and intelligent...it's not just "Get me power!" or "Destroy everything!" Loki and maybe Jeff Goldblum aside, all of the other MCU villains have been uncharismatic or have had one-note un-interesting motivations...or at worst (Maleketh) both. His plan was to get money, not that deep.
Loki, Vulture, Grandmaster, Hela (she wants revenge too), Ego...I don't what the problem is.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Dec 1, 2017 18:59:23 GMT
He's charismatic and his plan is multi-layered and intelligent...it's not just "Get me power!" or "Destroy everything!" Loki and maybe Jeff Goldblum aside, all of the other MCU villains have been uncharismatic or have had one-note un-interesting motivations...or at worst (Maleketh) both. His plan was to get money, not that deep.
Loki, Vulture, Grandmaster, Hela (she wants revenge too), Ego...I don't what the problem is.
But his plan was to pose as terrorists to hide the fact that he was after money. There is nuance to the plan, if not the end game. And to be fair, most of the "MCU Villain Problem" is aimed at earlier antagonists and upticked generally after Ultron.
|
|