|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 19:00:32 GMT
He had plenty of character, that's why he's considered one of the best characters. Then explain how deep he is. Take away Rickman and what is he? And if you put him in an MCU movie, he'd be getting torn down for not being deep enough. Nice double standard.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 19:01:24 GMT
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. Even the earlier ones weren't that bad. I liked Iron Monger and Red Skull.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Dec 1, 2017 19:13:43 GMT
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. Even the earlier ones weren't that bad. I liked Iron Monger and Red Skull. That's personal preference... Iron Monger was very generic and could have been in just about any other movie with an "Evil businessman" Red Skull was almost moustache twirling. I like that movie more than most, so I like him too, but I still don't find him to be a major exception to the "Villain Problem" Both of those benefited from excellent actors doing a lot with the little they were given.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 19:58:33 GMT
Even the earlier ones weren't that bad. I liked Iron Monger and Red Skull. That's personal preference... Iron Monger was very generic and could have been in just about any other movie with an "Evil businessman" Red Skull was almost moustache twirling. I like that movie more than most, so I like him too, but I still don't find him to be a major exception to the "Villain Problem" Both of those benefited from excellent actors doing a lot with the little they were given. I thought Stane was good for his connection and relationship to Tony, and there was that one deleted scene that would've firmly established his human side.
The Red Skull has ALWAYS been a moustache twirler. There's a reason even Hitler was scared of him.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Dec 1, 2017 20:43:49 GMT
That's personal preference... Iron Monger was very generic and could have been in just about any other movie with an "Evil businessman" Red Skull was almost moustache twirling. I like that movie more than most, so I like him too, but I still don't find him to be a major exception to the "Villain Problem" Both of those benefited from excellent actors doing a lot with the little they were given. I thought Stane was good for his connection and relationship to Tony, and there was that one deleted scene that would've firmly established his human side.
The Red Skull has ALWAYS been a moustache twirler. There's a reason even Hitler was scared of him.
As an aside, I have always said that the "Jem and the Holograms" movie should have been the "girl" version of the original Iron Man... Rich heir of a multi million dollar company wants to move things in a new direction against the wishes of the "old guard." With the help of a sentient computer system the heir creates a powerful alter ego that brings light to the world. Tony is Jerrica, Jarvis is Synergy, Jem is Iron Man, Stane is Eric Raymond, add in the rest of the Holograms and the Misfits, change about half of the fights in the middle into music scenes, maybe a car chase or two...Jem has natural talent, The Misfits are autotuned to death.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 1, 2017 21:36:37 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. You also had set pics of Cotillard wearing the get up she had towards the end of the film, which pretty much confirmed that she was Talia - no iffs or buts about it.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 1, 2017 22:40:00 GMT
He had plenty of character, that's why he's considered one of the best characters. Then explain how deep he is. Take away Rickman and what is he?[/quote] Take away Rickman? Take away the actor who is responsible for the iconic role? What kind of argument is that, it's like saying take Robert Downey Jr away from Iron Man. Hans Gruber was charming, sophisticated, intelligent, calculating, cowardly, deceiving and merciless. There was a lot to his character. That's not a double standard. Hans Gruber was considered a great villain for the time and he's considered a great villain today. Most Marvel villains will never be considered good, ever.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 1, 2017 22:48:48 GMT
Take away Rickman? Take away the actor who is responsible for the iconic role? What kind of argument is that, If he's so well written, then he'd work with any actor now wouldn't he? Unless it really DOES just come down to the actor. I still haven't heard anything deep to him. For not making them the real stars of the show, instead of the hero.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 1, 2017 23:27:32 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. You also had set pics of Cotillard wearing the get up she had towards the end of the film, which pretty much confirmed that she was Talia - no iffs or buts about it. This. I remember when that set pic was released and funny enough there were people who believed cotillard when she said she wasn't playing Talia. Honestly even if that picture didn't get leaked her twist wasn't hard to see coming.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 1, 2017 23:37:48 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. 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. Fucking Trevor! It was bad enough they did that stupid twist but fucking trevor was easily one of the worse characters. Especially since they wasted Ben Kingsley on him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 23:43:20 GMT
It's not a huge problem for me, but man do I miss the days when comic book movie villains were iconic and memorable. Once Ultron turned out to be a goofy quip machine I sort of gave up on expecting the MCU to do that. And the less said about Mandarin the better!
I do like LoI of course. And Red Skull was awesome until they basically pushed him out of the story in favor of a Cap-destroys-Hydra-super-easily montage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 23:45:59 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. 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. Absolutely! And don't forget that the trailers actually featured fake dialogue! That was bullshit. Also, Trevor is revealed with a bathroom joke. Then a drunk joke. Then a drug joke. Then a blowjob joke. The humor couldn't have been any cheaper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 23:48:40 GMT
They're no more or less than most other movie villains. People only pretend Marvel has a villain problem because they WANT there to be a problem. Just look at the villains for the Lethal Weapon series, Die Hard, and most other films of the Action or Suspence genres the MCU falls into. It stirs up a lot of controversy around here because people WANT there to be a problem and those of us who know there isn't a problem are tired of talking about it. 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. And you are also aware that the Mardarin was a no-win situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 0:08:34 GMT
"charming, sophisticated, intelligent, calculating, cowardly, deceiving and merciless." Are you fucking kidding me, Scabab? That's not deep. You just described every Disney villain, ever. Hans Gruber is no deeper than Jafar or Scar.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 2, 2017 0:18:28 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. And you are also aware that the Mardarin was a no-win situation. Honestly? They should have went ahead and cast an Asian actor. Rewrite the character to remove any "insensitive" traits. Hell back on the The Dark World board a poster mentioned that they could have made him a Vanir who was either stranded or exile on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 0:19:01 GMT
Are you fucking kidding me, Scabab? That's not deep. You just described every Disney villain, ever. Hans Gruber is no deeper than Jafar or Scar. It is deep, not the deep you're probably thinking of which would be in regards to a detailed backstory. It would be in regards to his actual character and who he is. He wasn't one dimensional because there were different sides to him. That made him interesting and like I said he was pretty unique for an action movie villain and a lot tried to emulate it. There's a huge difference between him and say Kaecilius that it's kind of odd that we'd even be discussing this at all to be honest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 0:21:59 GMT
Are you fucking kidding me, Scabab? That's not deep. You just described every Disney villain, ever. Hans Gruber is no deeper than Jafar or Scar. It is deep, not the deep you're probably thinking of which would be in regards to a detailed backstory. It would be in regards to his actual character and who he is. He wasn't one dimensional because there were different sides to him. That made him interesting and like I said he was pretty unique for an action movie villain and a lot tried to emulate it. There's a huge difference between him and say Kaecilius that it's kind of odd that we'd even be discussing this at all to be honest. He's no different from Kaecilius. They have the exact same amount of depth. Neither one is a deep character. He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. That's all. He's only unique because of the actor who played him as well. In every other regard, he's no different than any Bond villain.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 0:40:51 GMT
He's no different from Kaecilius. They have the exact same amount of depth. Neither one is a deep character. He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. That's all. He's only unique because of the actor who played him as well. In every other regard, he's no different than any Bond villain. Sorry but when one character goes down as being an iconic villain and the best of his genre and the other is.... Kaelicius, the character who only furthered the reputation of Marvels weak villains, then there's every difference. He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him? So is every character that Alan Rickman played interesting? Is Kaecilius then not interesting because he was played by Mads Mikkelson? Is Mads Mikkelson not interesting? Hans Gruber was a revolutionary villain, clearly considering that other action movies tried to ripoff that characters style. Nobody will be trying to rip off Mads Mikkelson's performance as Kaecilius. Who was the villain in For Your Eyes only? You don't remember? Who was the villain in The Spy Who Loved Me? Would you need to check Google? Yeah you know who the villain of Die Hard is, you know who Hans Gruber is. That's the difference between him and a Bond villian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 0:50:51 GMT
He's no different from Kaecilius. They have the exact same amount of depth. Neither one is a deep character. He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. That's all. He's only unique because of the actor who played him as well. In every other regard, he's no different than any Bond villain. Sorry but when one character goes down as being an iconic villain and the best of his genre and the other is.... Kaelicius, the character who only furthered the reputation of Marvels weak villains, then there's every difference. He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him? So is every character that Alan Rickman played interesting? Is Kaecilius then not interesting because he was played by Mads Mikkelson? Is Mads Mikkelson not interesting? Hans Gruber was a revolutionary villain, clearly considering that other action movies tried to ripoff that characters style. Nobody will be trying to rip off Mads Mikkelson's performance as Kaecilius. Who was the villain in For Your Eyes only? You don't remember? Who was the villain in The Spy Who Loved Me? Would you need to check Google? Yeah you know who the villain of Die Hard is, you know who Hans Gruber is. That's the difference between him and a Bond villian. Wrong again, as you always are. Yes, he's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. Yes, every character Alan Rickman's played is interesting. He has that effect on his roles. Hey, I thought Kaecilius was plenty interesting and would have loved to see more of him. The only thing you've proven is how unappreciated Mads Mikkelson's Kawcilius is. No, but I remember Dr. No, Blofeld, Francisco Scaramanga, Max Zorin, Franz Sanchez, Alec Trevelyan, and Renard. So I know who the villains of a few Bond films are. Some Bond villains are memerable and others aren't. Gruber is just another 2D villain who was played by an actor who made him seem like more.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 2, 2017 1:26:09 GMT
Gruber is just another 2D villain who was played by an actor who made him seem like more. I don't really think you understand this whole thing. You don't seem to grasp what makes a good villain here at all. There's a reason why Hans Gruber is iconic and considered one of the best villains and why Kaecilius is considered a weak villain. That's polar opposites, therefore saying they are the same would automatically be wrong. If you can't see that then that's just your problem alone as everyone else can seem to see the reason why. A character doesn't need to be deep or have an extensive backstory to be a good villain. Darth Vader in the original Star Wars did not have that and yet he also is an iconic villain and better than all of Marvel's. Even The Terminator. He was a robot who didn't even have that many lines in the movie, played by an actor who isn't that great of an actor and yet he too is an iconic villain that is far better than any of Marvel's villains. Do you even understand why that is even considered?
|
|