|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 14, 2017 15:38:20 GMT
I think on average MCU makes better villains than DC. DC has a habit of focusing a lot of attention on villains so when they're good they end up great but when they're bad they're completely horrible. Case in point: Joker vs. Lex Luthor.
The MCU on the other hand normally produces good villains, just that they don't put that much focus on them. So even if the villain is good, he ends up being just good, or maybe OK, because not a lot of attention is put on him/her. Red Skull, Iron Monger, Yellow Jacket... all were good villains, just weren't given enough attention to shine. On the flip side though, even if the MCU does make bad villains, they end up just being forgettable instead of horrible. Malekith, Whiplash, Ronan... all forgettable but not quite as horribly irritating as Lex Luthor or The Riddler or the dancing witch.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 14, 2017 15:50:53 GMT
The MCUs record of villains is horrible. If you cannot give the villain decent screentime to develop him, at the very least hire a good actor and give him some freedom with inventive dialogue. Hugo Weaving as Red Skull fits that bill and to an extent Robert Redford in TWS. Even in Logan, I wouldn't say Donald Pierce is the best villain but the actor is very charismatic and you could tell he was allowed a lot of creative innovation in the portrayal.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 14, 2017 16:00:48 GMT
I think on average MCU makes better villains than DC. DC has a habit of focusing a lot of attention on villains so when they're good they end up great but when they're bad they're completely horrible. Case in point: Joker vs. Lex Luthor. The MCU on the other hand normally produces good villains, just that they don't put that much focus on them. So even if the villain is good, he ends up being just good, or maybe OK, because not a lot of attention is put on him/her. Red Skull, Iron Monger, Yellow Jacket... all were good villains, just weren't given enough attention to shine. On the flip side though, even if the MCU does make bad villains, they end up just being forgettable instead of horrible. Malekith, Whiplash, Ronan... all forgettable but not quite as horribly irritating as Lex Luthor or The Riddler or the dancing witch. That's because the villains in the MCU aren't there to shine. They're there to service the story, but not control it. You can tell when the villain is there to be more than someone for the hero to defeat at the end of the movie. Characters like Mordo and Loki. Maybe even "Thunderbolt" Ross. Those are "villains" that will get more and show up in more movies. Nemesis or adversary characters. I hope Zemo shows up again because I really want a Thunderbolts movie someday.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 14, 2017 16:07:30 GMT
I think on average MCU makes better villains than DC. DC has a habit of focusing a lot of attention on villains so when they're good they end up great but when they're bad they're completely horrible. Case in point: Joker vs. Lex Luthor. The MCU on the other hand normally produces good villains, just that they don't put that much focus on them. So even if the villain is good, he ends up being just good, or maybe OK, because not a lot of attention is put on him/her. Red Skull, Iron Monger, Yellow Jacket... all were good villains, just weren't given enough attention to shine. On the flip side though, even if the MCU does make bad villains, they end up just being forgettable instead of horrible. Malekith, Whiplash, Ronan... all forgettable but not quite as horribly irritating as Lex Luthor or The Riddler or the dancing witch. That's because the villains in the MCU aren't there to shine. They're there to service the story, but not control it. You can tell when the villain is there to be more than someone for the hero to defeat at the end of the movie. Characters like Mordo and Loki. Maybe even "Thunderbolt" Ross. Those are "villains" that will get more and show up in more movies. Nemesis or adversary characters. I hope Zemo shows up again because I really want a Thunderbolts movie someday. Good analysis. I agree. Same with the Winter Soldier. It's like if it was a tv series, you know which villains will be defeated by the end of the episode and which ones will stay for the entire season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:52:18 GMT
I don't dislike the MCU villains as much as others seem to. But I'll concede that when they're bad, they're really bad. The worst for me were Malekith and whatever name Mickey Rourke went by. How is your typical MCU villain any worse than Hans Gruber or the Leathal Weapon villains? What makes those villains more acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 14, 2017 16:55:03 GMT
I don't dislike the MCU villains as much as others seem to. But I'll concede that when they're bad, they're really bad. The worst for me were Malekith and whatever name Mickey Rourke went by. How is your typical MCU villain any worse than Hans Gruber or the Leathal Weapon villains? What makes those villains more acceptable? I guess when you put it that way, it's a matter of charisma or gravitas. As it is, the MCU villains were for the most part, perfectly functional for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 17:01:00 GMT
How is your typical MCU villain any worse than Hans Gruber or the Leathal Weapon villains? What makes those villains more acceptable? I guess when you put it that way, it's a matter of charisma or gravitas. As it is, the MCU villains were for the most part, perfectly functional for me. I guess that's true. Well, Loki and Mordo have a lot of charisma and character, so it's not like all their villains are lacking in characterization. Thing we all need to remember is these are two-hour movies. To give the villains more, the heroes would have to make do with less. I don't want a less fleshed-out Captain America or Ironman. I don't want to go back to the days when the heroes were invariably boring ciphers playing second banana to more colorful villains. I never felt like I got to know Michael Keaton's Batman because Nicholson's Joker ate up just over half the running time.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2017 17:16:14 GMT
The MCUs record of villains is horrible. If you cannot give the villain decent screentime to develop him, at the very least hire a good actor and give him some freedom with inventive dialogue. Hugo Weaving as Red Skull fits that bill and to an extent Robert Redford in TWS. Even in Logan, I wouldn't say Donald Pierce is the best villain but the actor is very charismatic and you could tell he was allowed a lot of creative innovation in the portrayal. The MCU isn't making movies that are about their villains, they make movies about their heroes. Let me put it this way, if the MCU made an X-Men movie they'd have Xavier get taken out early into the movie (maybe right at the beginning) and have the story focus more on how the X-Men deal with things without him and their internal conflicting instead of the bad guys' plan. IE, some of them think that if Xavier is dead then maybe they should be willing to do stuff he wasn't willing to do like go public with the School and try to make real progress in advancing Mutant Relations. Others just want to keep hiding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 17:22:53 GMT
I love all these excuses the Marvel Zombies have for the MCU's sub-par villains. Guess what? Back to the Future focused on Marty McFly, yet Biff Tannen is still more memorable than just about all of Marvel's villains.
Villains don't need to dominate the screentime or have fully fleshed out backstories, but they should at least be INTERESTING. Most MCU villains just aren't that interesting. Magneto is by far the best one, but he's owned by Fox.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2017 17:26:47 GMT
I love all these excuses the Marvel Zombies have for the MCU's sub-par villains. Guess what? Back to the Future focused on Marty McFly, yet Biff Tannen is still more memorable than just about all of Marvel's villains. Villains don't need to dominate the screentime or have fully fleshed out backstories, but they should at least be INTERESTING. Most MCU villains just aren't that interesting. Magneto is by far the best one, but he's owned by Fox. Biff was in all the BTTF movies. He got more time, and he very much dominated Part II.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 17:39:18 GMT
I love all these excuses the Marvel Zombies have for the MCU's sub-par villains. Guess what? Back to the Future focused on Marty McFly, yet Biff Tannen is still more memorable than just about all of Marvel's villains. Villains don't need to dominate the screentime or have fully fleshed out backstories, but they should at least be INTERESTING. Most MCU villains just aren't that interesting. Magneto is by far the best one, but he's owned by Fox. Biff was in all the BTTF movies. He got more time, and he very much dominated Part II. And he still managed to be a more one-note character than the worse MCU villain to date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 17:43:29 GMT
I promise you that more people remember Biff than any of Marvel's lame villains (except for Loki).
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2017 17:46:53 GMT
I promise you that more people remember Biff than any of Marvel's lame villains (except for Loki). Biff has nostalgia going for him, and he's been in everything BTTF related. The MCU villains you're referencing are one-and-done villains who aren't meant to be more than obstacles.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 14, 2017 19:48:29 GMT
The MCUs record of villains is horrible. If you cannot give the villain decent screentime to develop him, at the very least hire a good actor and give him some freedom with inventive dialogue. Hugo Weaving as Red Skull fits that bill and to an extent Robert Redford in TWS. Even in Logan, I wouldn't say Donald Pierce is the best villain but the actor is very charismatic and you could tell he was allowed a lot of creative innovation in the portrayal. The MCU isn't making movies that are about their villains, they make movies about their heroes. Let me put it this way, if the MCU made an X-Men movie they'd have Xavier get taken out early into the movie (maybe right at the beginning) and have the story focus more on how the X-Men deal with things without him and their internal conflicting instead of the bad guys' plan. IE, some of them think that if Xavier is dead then maybe they should be willing to do stuff he wasn't willing to do like go public with the School and try to make real progress in advancing Mutant Relations. Others just want to keep hiding. They've already done that in X2 when Xavier gets neutralised and also in X3 when Xavier gets killed. Both films then have the X-Men scrambled with the need for leaders to step up. And I would say Beast being on the government cabinet in X3 with close ties to Professor X's mansion is enough to establish that mutant-human relations have progressed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:03:16 GMT
Not every movie has to have a deep and meaningful story, villain or anything really. Let's be honest here, this is Marvel/DC, nothing more than that. Or rather, this is movies based on the comics. And several of the movies do work better with readers of those comics.
The comics have great story lines that took quite a long time to set up, nevermind create the emotional connections between the characters and villains. There's no way you can ever recreate quite the same in movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:05:11 GMT
Not every movie has to have a deep and meaningful story, villain or anything really. Let's be honest here, this is Marvel/DC, nothing more than that. Or rather, this is movies based on the comics. And several of the movies do work better with readers of those comics. The comics have great story lines that took quite a long time to set up, nevermind create the emotional connections between the characters and villains. There's no way you can ever recreate quite the same in movies. This is very true. The two are very different mediums and films based on the comics are going to perfectly recreate them. Marvel is just doing the best they can with this cinematic universe.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 14, 2017 20:10:31 GMT
I promise you that more people remember Biff than any of Marvel's lame villains (except for Loki). Biff has nostalgia going for him, and he's been in everything BTTF related. The MCU villains you're referencing are one-and-done villains who aren't meant to be more than obstacles. Yeah, watching BttF for up to 30 years over and over can really help a character be memorable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:11:53 GMT
Not every movie has to have a deep and meaningful story, villain or anything really. Let's be honest here, this is Marvel/DC, nothing more than that. Or rather, this is movies based on the comics. And several of the movies do work better with readers of those comics. The comics have great story lines that took quite a long time to set up, nevermind create the emotional connections between the characters and villains. There's no way you can ever recreate quite the same in movies. This is very true. The two are very different mediums and films based on the comics are going to perfectly recreate them. Marvel is just doing the best they can with this cinematic universe.
I agree, perhaps not every Marvel movie is quite good, but still, whether or not the villains are good or not, most are at the very least quite enjoyable.
Although I do have to say that the ones with the more interesting villains (the ones with the deeper connections, more and better backstories) like Captain America Winter Soldier, do have a higher rewatchability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 20:14:31 GMT
This is very true. The two are very different mediums and films based on the comics are going to perfectly recreate them. Marvel is just doing the best they can with this cinematic universe.
I agree, perhaps not every Marvel movie is quite good, but still, whether or not the villains are good or not, most are at the very least quite enjoyable.
Although I do have to say that the ones with the more interesting villains (the ones with the deeper connections, more and better backstories) like Captain America Winter Soldier, do have a higher rewatchability.
True, those are the most memorable. Personally speaking, I think the lighter ones like Guardians or Ant-Man are the most rewatchable, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 14, 2017 20:27:46 GMT
The MCU isn't making movies that are about their villains, they make movies about their heroes. Let me put it this way, if the MCU made an X-Men movie they'd have Xavier get taken out early into the movie (maybe right at the beginning) and have the story focus more on how the X-Men deal with things without him and their internal conflicting instead of the bad guys' plan. IE, some of them think that if Xavier is dead then maybe they should be willing to do stuff he wasn't willing to do like go public with the School and try to make real progress in advancing Mutant Relations. Others just want to keep hiding. They've already done that in X2 when Xavier gets neutralised and also in X3 when Xavier gets killed. Both films then have the X-Men scrambled with the need for leaders to step up. And I would say Beast being on the government cabinet in X3 with close ties to Professor X's mansion is enough to establish that mutant-human relations have progressed. They also did it in X1... And Apocalypse... Trend... Beast really didn't have that close of ties with Xavier when it came to his government work. From what it looks like in X3 he was away from them for a long time. So what we are seeing is Hank McCoy working to patch mutant/human relations. Beast is. Not Xavier. The most Xavier did was threaten the President.
|
|