|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 14, 2017 21:45:16 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. No, X2 had them mostly on the run and then fighting Stryker rather than deal with how to run the school without Xavier. And in X3 they focused more on Dark Phoenix and the Cure plotlines. I'm talking about something where the status quo actually ends up changing and they DO go public with the school in the end. And from then on all the movies have to deal with how everyone knows about the school and it's a mutant school run by mutants. And no, don't say "X3 did that" because X3 was the ending of the original story so they could take the cowardly way out by then. Beasts' thing came too little too late.
|
|
|
Post by LaurenceBranagh on Apr 1, 2017 3:04:42 GMT
Alas, I'd have to agree with most of the article. Honestly, the only Marvel villain that ever seemed interesting to me was Laufey (played by Colm Feore). However, Michael Keaton's Vulture seems very promising.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Apr 1, 2017 19:39:13 GMT
Marvel could definitely improve their villains, but their great heroes more than make up for it. Marvel could mend this issue by spreading one villain out over two to three movies. This could still allow the heroes to take center stage, but the villain could be fleshed out over 4-5 hours worth of movie footage instead of 2.
Villains can be overrated in movies, but they also make the inevitable pay off when the heroes win far more satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 1, 2017 23:17:23 GMT
Marvel could definitely improve their villains, but their great heroes more than make up for it. Marvel could mend this issue by spreading one villain out over two to three movies. This could still allow the heroes to take center stage, but the villain could be fleshed out over 4-5 hours worth of movie footage instead of 2. Villains can be overrated in movies, but they also make the inevitable pay off when the heroes win far more satisfying. But when you do that you get the Lex Luthor/Zod effect? By the time Superman Returns came around it was "Oh my God! Lex again?" Same for Man of Steel with Zod. Having the same villain for 2-3 movies would get tiresome. Unless you have a series villain and subvillains for each movie. But then you still have the one and done villain, so what would be the point?
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Apr 2, 2017 3:49:23 GMT
Marvel could definitely improve their villains, but their great heroes more than make up for it. Marvel could mend this issue by spreading one villain out over two to three movies. This could still allow the heroes to take center stage, but the villain could be fleshed out over 4-5 hours worth of movie footage instead of 2. Villains can be overrated in movies, but they also make the inevitable pay off when the heroes win far more satisfying. But when you do that you get the Lex Luthor/Zod effect? By the time Superman Returns came around it was "Oh my God! Lex again?" Same for Man of Steel with Zod. Having the same villain for 2-3 movies would get tiresome. Unless you have a series villain and subvillains for each movie. But then you still have the one and done villain, so what would be the point? I was trying to say that Marvel should create a villain in a movie (standalone or not) and then play it by ear. If the villain works in the universe, then continue to flesh him out. If not, throw the whole character arc out. I see what you're saying though, because even as a DC and BvS fan, I can say in all honesty that Lex Luthor was a miserable villain. He should be thrown out.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 2:22:17 GMT
This is a good article and explains the problem very well.
It's not that hard to make a good villain they just need some screentime to actually have something to work with and this year's Ego and Vulture had that which is why they were a significant improvement over the norm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 2:47:47 GMT
There is no problem. There never was.
Here's the funny thing about movies: they have limited running time. So let's go to the past films and select an important character building scene for the hero, THE MAIN CHARACTER, to give up in favor of a secondary character.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 2, 2017 12:36:56 GMT
This is a good article and explains the problem very well. It's not that hard to make a good villain they just need some screentime to actually have something to work with and this year's Ego and Vulture had that which is why they were a significant improvement over the norm. Even if it's at the expense of the hero not being much more than "Guy who opposes the villain with no other characterization"?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 12:54:38 GMT
This is a good article and explains the problem very well. It's not that hard to make a good villain they just need some screentime to actually have something to work with and this year's Ego and Vulture had that which is why they were a significant improvement over the norm. Even if it's at the expense of the hero not being much more than "Guy who opposes the villain with no other characterization"? your logical fallacy is false dilemma (and a lack of creative imagination). yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-whiteFallacies won't explain away laziness and incompetence in writing. Soury...
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 14:25:19 GMT
This is a good article and explains the problem very well. It's not that hard to make a good villain they just need some screentime to actually have something to work with and this year's Ego and Vulture had that which is why they were a significant improvement over the norm. Even if it's at the expense of the hero not being much more than "Guy who opposes the villain with no other characterization"? There is no expense. People like Thor a lot despite Loki having a lot of screentime and development in the same movie. People liked Wolverine even more and that was with him in movies where Magneto and Stryker had significant roles. All the villains in The Dark Knight trilogy are some of the best and that's not stopped anyone from liking Batman in those movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 14:36:53 GMT
Actually, there is. I still remember a time when the hero was invariably a boring cipher next to more colorful villains. I am in no hurry to return to those times. And Bane and Talia sucked. Wolverine is a one-note character that only proves the general populous is a bunch of morons. Get over it, already, or get out.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 2, 2017 14:48:13 GMT
Even if it's at the expense of the hero not being much more than "Guy who opposes the villain with no other characterization"? There is no expense. People like Thor a lot despite Loki having a lot of screentime and development in the same movie. People liked Wolverine even more and that was with him in movies where Magneto and Stryker had significant roles. All the villains in The Dark Knight trilogy are some of the best and that's not stopped anyone from liking Batman in those movies. There is. Thor is less liked than Loki, although they did do a good job making Thor more than a pristine do-gooder. Logan is probably the ONLY one of the X-Men to get proper characterization compared to how shafted the other X-Men were. And Batman was very much a secondary character IN HIS OWN SERIES. But then again, he was like that for decades in his own comics...
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 2, 2017 14:49:07 GMT
Even if it's at the expense of the hero not being much more than "Guy who opposes the villain with no other characterization"? your logical fallacy is false dilemma (and a lack of creative imagination). No, I just think that the Hero should be more than "guy who exists solely to oppose the villain, the real star of the film". It goes back to that stupidity of "A hero is only as good as his villain". Utter bosh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 14:51:44 GMT
your logical fallacy is false dilemma (and a lack of creative imagination). No, I just think that the Hero should be more than "guy who exists solely to oppose the villain, the real star of the film". It goes back to that stupidity of "A hero is only as good as his villain". Utter bosh. Exactly. For all their talk about how deep and profound the villain needs to be, they seem to forget that villains from the fairy tales and folklore which spawned many comic book stories rarely had deep villains. Take Grendel and his mother (and later the dragon), for instance. They're just monsters, and yet they're still classic villains with mythology. And they only serve their purpose too show how awesome Beowulf is.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 15:13:46 GMT
your logical fallacy is false dilemma (and a lack of creative imagination). No, I just think that the Hero should be more than "guy who exists solely to oppose the villain, the real star of the film". It goes back to that stupidity of "A hero is only as good as his villain". Utter bosh. exactly, your fallacies are: - straw man (for bringing up and fighting hyperbolic arguments nobody made) - personal incredulity (for thinking it is not so because you fail to understand how it works) - and as always false dilemma (for thinking there is only the one or the other creative solution) Good thing we have so many examples that prove you wrong (cf the article and hundreds more). Btw the classic Golden Rules of villain writing are: 1. The hardest thing is to write a good villain. 2. The hero in an adventure is only as good as the villain/obstacle he faces. 3. Make your villain 3-dimensional, unpredictable with history and not stereotypical. This is why most MCU films (and many others too) feel so uncreative and forgettable by only regurgitating the old hero's journey arc of jerk-goes-into-crisis-becomes-hero-and-nice-guy - and the villain just being a Straw Man / Paper Tiger to glorify the hero....mediocre!
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 2, 2017 15:26:43 GMT
No, I just think that the Hero should be more than "guy who exists solely to oppose the villain, the real star of the film". It goes back to that stupidity of "A hero is only as good as his villain". Utter bosh. 1. The hardest thing is to write a good villain. 2. The hero in an adventure is only as good as the villain/obstacle he faces. 3. Make your villain 3-dimensional, unpredictable with history and not stereotypical. 1) No, what's hard is making the hero an engaging character. 2) Nope, if the hero is engaging enough and entertaining enough then they can hold the interest of the reader/viewer. 3) Apply that to the hero first and foremost. There, that's all you need.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 2, 2017 15:46:18 GMT
1. The hardest thing is to write a good villain. 2. The hero in an adventure is only as good as the villain/obstacle he faces. 3. Make your villain 3-dimensional, unpredictable with history and not stereotypical. 1) No, what's hard is making the hero an engaging character. 2) Nope, if the hero is engaging enough and entertaining enough then they can hold the interest of the reader/viewer. 3) Apply that to the hero first and foremost. There, that's all you need.^^ so said MCU and others when lazily creating their recipe for mediocrity and their formula of forgettable. Btw they were not even able to apply it properly to their protagonists, you will seldom find a more predictable hive of 2 dimensional and generic hero characters than here. There, there.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 19:35:49 GMT
There is no expense. People like Thor a lot despite Loki having a lot of screentime and development in the same movie. People liked Wolverine even more and that was with him in movies where Magneto and Stryker had significant roles. All the villains in The Dark Knight trilogy are some of the best and that's not stopped anyone from liking Batman in those movies. There is. Thor is less liked than Loki, although they did do a good job making Thor more than a pristine do-gooder. Logan is probably the ONLY one of the X-Men to get proper characterization compared to how shafted the other X-Men were. And Batman was very much a secondary character IN HIS OWN SERIES. But then again, he was like that for decades in his own comics... Yeah people probably Loki but people still liked Thor. People liked Thor more than Captain America after his first movie, I still remember the polls for it and the Honest Trailers saying Captain America was peoples least favourite...not anymore though. Batman suffered a little bit in the original movies, not the Dark Knight movies because of the focus on the villains. Particularly Batman 89 but again that didn't stop people from still thinking Keaton is one of the best Batman. Doctor Octopus was a good villain in Spider-man 2 where Spider-man had a lot to work with too. There's countless examples outside of superhero movies. Usually they can give perhaps too much screentime to the other secondary characters instead of the villain himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 19:39:51 GMT
Guess what? None of us here are convinced of your argument. Give it up.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 2, 2017 19:56:38 GMT
Guess what? None of us here are convinced of your argument. Give it up. Nobody needs to be. It's already known, obviously, which is why articles like in the OP were made with the first line being "Much has been made about Marvel’s “villain problem” lately" People were already convinced to begin with.
|
|