Villain Poll

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

The only reason that I mention Whiplash is that he is a good example of Marvel taking a so-so villain and fleshing him out into a serviceable one for a movie - he served his purpose just fine in IM2 - which is not as bad as some around here like to make it out to be - after the two attempts by Fox, I would be happy if we got an FF movie that good.

Iron Man 2 was just an okay film, after all the terrible FF movies, the FF need a great film to make an impact. A weak villain can easily drag down a film, Hector Hammond certainly did no favors for the Green Lantern movie.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

Wasn't the Mole Man's back story fleshed out in the Marvel Universe mini-series in the '90's. I seem to recall in that series that he was ridiculed more for his theories of underworld civilizations and creatures than his looks. His disappearance had more to do with his being "lost" in his search for this underworld and not just hiding because he was ugly.

How does any of that make Mole Man an interesting and dynamic. Mole Man's whole motive is he presented a rather outlandish theory to the scientific community and got mad when they rejected it, even though he had no substantive proof of his claim, what were they supposed to do? A hypothesis needs some basis that can be easily tested, otherwise its not really scientific, if Mole Man is a scientist he should know that.

That's not very interesting origin, because it doesn't make Mole Man sympathetic or creepy or scary or any things you want to see in a villain. The only thing it does is make him look like a bad scientist.

At least if he's playing god and creating artificial, he is committing crimes nature and doing things human beings shouldn't. That's a big misuse science, that can be used to contrast how Reed uses science.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

That "Ultimate" back story of creating artificial life seems to be nudging him too close to the Mad Thinker and even Diablo's m.o. for my tastes - the Thinker had a thing for Androids, and Diablo's alchemy brought the artificial creation of Dragon Man to life.
Just because it says "Ultimate" on the cover does not make it so...

So what? In X-Men First Class, Sebastian Shaw took a couple of elements from Mr. Sinister. Mr. Sinister worked for the Nazis and experimented on death camp inmates in the comics, not Shaw. But does anyone besides a few die hard purest care about that? A comic book movie has to be more then just something that panders to die hard fans. Elemets from different characters are often put together in the film adaptions, William Stryker had nothing to do with the Weapon X program, but in the films they merged Stryker with the scientist who was running the Weapon X program in the comics, was that a bad move?

Plus you are putting the cart before the horse, you would need several movies before you get around to Diablo and Mad Thinker. Diablo is a pretty blah villain, even Stan Lee doesn't really care for him and he created him. He's pretty one dimensional and frankly has stupid costume and silly back story. I am not in a hurry to see him on film.

I like Mad Thinker well enough, the problem is he is character that is hard to write properly, like the Riddler. Really the Mad Thinker's best story is the pages of New Warrior, rather then the FF title. Now Mad Thinker really has no back story, so when written well he comes off as a very enigmatic villain, causing trouble for the heroes some time and helping them at other times. When written poorly (which is often) he is a generic mad scientist. I think Mad Thinker as a generic mad scientist would just be bland, Mad Thinker as an enigmatic villain would be hard to pull off as the main villain, unless his enigmatic behavior has a huge pay off.

I actually normally prefer the 616 characters to Ultimate characters, I certainly prefer 616 Doom to Ultimate Doom. But I find Ultimate Mole Man is a better defined villain with a better motive and better introduction then 616 Mole Man.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Iron Man 2 was just an okay film, after all the terrible FF movies, the FF need a great film to make an impact. A weak villain can easily drag down a film, Hector Hammond certainly did no favors for the Green Lantern movie.

Green Lantern's problems were much more than Hector Hammond...

Originally Posted by The Overlord

How does any of that make Mole Man an interesting and dynamic. Mole Man's whole motive is he presented a rather outlandish theory to the scientific community and got mad when they rejected it, even though he had no substantive proof of his claim, what were they supposed to do? A hypothesis needs some basis that can be easily tested, otherwise its not really scientific, if Mole Man is a scientist he should know that.

I think the scientists looking for the "God Particle" were working with little more than a hypothesis, but that seemed to work out - kinda hard to prove the "Big Bang" but that seems to be the accepted theory these days. Because the main stream scientists rejected Mole Man's evidence - which turns out WAS accurate because he found not only underground monsters but a race of Moloids as well - he was driven to prove them wrong, etc. Sounds like plenty of motive to me.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

That's not very interesting origin, because it doesn't make Mole Man sympathetic or creepy or scary or any things you want to see in a villain. The only thing it does is make him look like a bad scientist.

At least if he's playing god and creating artificial, he is committing crimes nature and doing things human beings shouldn't. That's a big misuse science, that can be used to contrast how Reed uses science.

If you are going to have a villain "playing God" then use the one who does that anyway, the Mad Thinker. One of the problems with Doom was that they turned him into something he was not.

Originally Posted by The Overlord

So what? In X-Men First Class, Sebastian Shaw took a couple of elements from Mr. Sinister. Mr. Sinister worked for the Nazis and experimented on death camp inmates in the comics, not Shaw. But does anyone besides a few die hard purest care about that? A comic book movie has to be more then just something that panders to die hard fans. Elemets from different characters are often put together in the film adaptions, William Stryker had nothing to do with the Weapon X program, but in the films they merged Stryker with the scientist who was running the Weapon X program in the comics, was that a bad move?

Plus you are putting the cart before the horse, you would need several movies before you get around to Diablo and Mad Thinker. Diablo is a pretty blah villain, even Stan Lee doesn't really care for him and he created him. He's pretty one dimensional and frankly has stupid costume and silly back story. I am not in a hurry to see him on film.

I like Mad Thinker well enough, the problem is he is character that is hard to write properly, like the Riddler. Really the Mad Thinker's best story is the pages of New Warrior, rather then the FF title. Now Mad Thinker really has no back story, so when written well he comes off as a very enigmatic villain, causing trouble for the heroes some time and helping them at other times. When written poorly (which is often) he is a generic mad scientist. I think Mad Thinker as a generic mad scientist would just be bland, Mad Thinker as an enigmatic villain would be hard to pull off as the main villain, unless his enigmatic behavior has a huge pay off.

I actually normally prefer the 616 characters to Ultimate characters, I certainly prefer 616 Doom to Ultimate Doom. But I find Ultimate Mole Man is a better defined villain with a better motive and better introduction then 616 Mole Man.

Maybe use Mad Thinker for the first movie then.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

Green Lantern's problems were much more than Hector Hammond...

Well I also thought Red Skull was a weak villain in the Captain America movie and that dragged down that whole movie for me.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

I think the scientists looking for the "God Particle" were working with little more than a hypothesis, but that seemed to work out - kinda hard to prove the "Big Bang" but that seems to be the accepted theory these days. Because the main stream scientists rejected Mole Man's evidence - which turns out WAS accurate because he found not only underground monsters but a race of Moloids as well - he was driven to prove them wrong, etc. Sounds like plenty of motive to me.

And how many proponents of the "God particle" will have a mental breakdown if people simply dismiss their theory? That being Mole Man's main motive is pretty lame, it doesn't make him a compelling or threatening villain. Its not meaty enough. It something that makes Mole Man more of an interesting villain, not someone who freaks out when people dismiss his unproven theory.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

If you are going to have a villain "playing God" then use the one who does that anyway, the Mad Thinker. One of the problems with Doom was that they turned him into something he was not.

Willaim Stryker and Sebastian Shaw are pretty different in the movie then in the comic, what is wrong with them?

The difference is characters like Dr. Doom and Magneto are already well defined and interesting, so changing them is pointless. Guys like Sebastian Shaw and Mole Man are not as interesting or well defined, so changing them is far justifiable.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

Maybe use Mad Thinker for the first movie then.

Maybe I like Mad Thinker more then Mole Man, but frankly Mad Thinker is hard to write for. Mad Thinker has no back story, so what would he be in the movie? A generic mad scientist with no real back story or an enigmatic villain who's motives and morals are unclear? Mole Man getting fired by government for creating artificial life gives him more defined reason for wanting revenge, but isn't sticking that revenge motive to Mad Thinker changing him as much as Ultimate Mole Man changes 616 Mole Man.

The thing is if the Dr. Doom is not the villain in the first movie, the villain has be interesting in his own right, not just seem like some lame place holder for Dr. Doom.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Well I also thought Red Skull was a weak villain in the Captain America movie and that dragged down that whole movie for me.

Wow - I thought he was one of the better translations from comic to screen - to each his own...

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Maybe I like Mad Thinker more then Mole Man, but frankly Mad Thinker is hard to write for. Mad Thinker has no back story, so what would he be in the movie? A generic mad scientist with no real back story or an enigmatic villain who's motives and morals are unclear? Mole Man getting fired by government for creating artificial life gives him more defined reason for wanting revenge, but isn't sticking that revenge motive to Mad Thinker changing him as much as Ultimate Mole Man changes 616 Mole Man.

The thing is if the Dr. Doom is not the villain in the first movie, the villain has be interesting in his own right, not just seem like some lame place holder for Dr. Doom.

Well, if Mad Thinker is such a clean slate as far as the back story goes, then all the better to use him and flesh him out than someone with an origin - many of the things being tossed around for Mole Man would work better for the Thinker anyway. Someone with the ego of the Thinker [or the Wizard for that matter] could effectively be developed into a worthy villain.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

Wow - I thought he was one of the better translations from comic to screen - to each his own...

Not to derail the thread, but what did Red Skull do in that movie that was really impressive? He barely did anything in the movie and Hugo Weaving didn't seem care about the character, he doesn't want to play him again and really Weaving seemed like he was phoning it in the Captain America movie. In the comics, Red Skull is an racist psychopathic monster driven by hate, in the movie, he is a generic power mad James Bond villain, one of these versions is more unique and compelling then the other. How is movie Red Skull, when he doesn't have the things that make him a terrifying villain in the comics?

[bubbadoom]

If it looks like the Red Skull, walks like the Red Skull, it's the Red Skull.

I guess we can nit pick if we want, but visually he was dead on. I am sorry if Weaving is another cry baby actor who does not want to wear the make-up again and there fore has to talk crap about the character/project, but he certainly did a fine job with him in the movie.

I guess I will have to re-read Suspense #80 [the Cosmic Cube] and others but he seemed to have the personality and such down from what I recalled in the comics. Sure, I wish Marvel had more of a back bone and used NAZIS in a WWII movie, but after the disaster that was the '90's Cap movie, I was happy for what I got.

If I had on complaint about the Cap movie, it would be that I would not have put him on ice and thawed out in the present day - would have saved that for the Avengers - I would have left the ending open for future WWII sequels and the Avengers would have allowed for present day adventures.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

If it looks like the Red Skull, walks like the Red Skull, it's the Red Skull. .

That's not good enough for me. Red Skull seemed okay on paper, but for me failed in more subtle ways, then obvious ways. Red Skull being an actual Nazi was so important to his character in the comics, that downplaying that aspect made him weaker, not stronger. He lacked the more developed and scarier aspects from the comic and left like a very ho hum villain. I would rank William Stryker above him. Heck Sebastian Shaw was a better Nazi villain then Red Skull was. In Superman Returns, Lex Luthor looked like Lex Luthor, but he acted like annoying idiot, so I don't like him despite the fact he looked like Lex Luthor and Kevin Spacey is a good actor.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

I guess we can nit pick if we want, but visually he was dead on. I am sorry if Weaving is another cry baby actor who does not want to wear the make-up again and there fore has to talk crap about the character/project, but he certainly did a fine job with him in the movie.

I thought he phoned it in.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

I guess I will have to re-read Suspense #80 [the Cosmic Cube] and others but he seemed to have the personality and such down from what I recalled in the comics. Sure, I wish Marvel had more of a back bone and used NAZIS in a WWII movie, but after the disaster that was the '90's Cap movie, I was happy for what I got.

Is Suspense #80 the best Red Skull story ever? I thought it was a good story, but the best one ever? I disagree, strongly. I grew up in the 80s, rather then the 60s, so I have more of an affinity for that era of comics. I like the Silver age, but I do think there good, even better stories told later on. I prefer 80s DD to 60s DD, any day of the week. Was Magneto a better character in the 60s or the 70s and 80s? I think the Silver Age is a good place to look for inspiration, but writers who insist on just copying basic plots from that era, instead of creating something new, limit themselves and their stories. Writers should honor the Silver age, not be dogmatic loyal to every aspect of it.


By the 80s, Red Skull's psychopathic and racist aspects more defined in the 80s then in the 60s, to me that is what the character compelling? Take away the racism and psychopathic behavior and he is just a generic power mad villain, a real boring villain. That is what he got in the movie, Red Skull stripped of all the things that made him scary and turned into a bore. What did he do in the film that was effective? He barely did anything, he

To link this back to a discussion of FF villains, there is a difference between a villain as a character and a villain as a character and a villain as a plot device.
Red Skull in that movie, felt like a plot device then a character, he wanted power, why? Because he is the villain of the film, what was he planning to do with such power? I don't know, because the movie barely defined Red Skull. Red Skull driven by hate rather then mere power lust is far more interesting.

If the villains are mere plot devices rather then characters in their own right, why should the audience care? Really FF writers have gotten rather lazy, Doom gets most of the insight, spot light and character development, well most of the rest of the villains are same one note characters from their first appearance, never changed or grew, so all their stories seem redundant. That's why Doom is winning in this poll, because he is the most dynamic FF villain, by far.

Guys like Mole Man, Wizard and Red Ghost have stories were they do things, but very rarely do we get a story about what makes them tick. Red Ghost still being a one dimensional Soviet villain 20 years after the Berlin wall fell is the height of laziness.

The story where Wizard uses mind control device on Thing is an interesting plot, but it doesn't make Wizard an interesting, its an interesting plot device rather then a interesting villain. I need more then an interesting plot device to be invested in a villain, I need a reason to care about a villain. In Wizard's first appearance, he attacked Human Torch because he was bored and pissed away his wealth and status for no good reason. For a supposed super genius, that is very stupid. The only boredom could have worked as a motive, is he activities were more subtle and it was presented in a more scary manner, psychopathic behavior disguised as boredom. A villain needs more then ego to be effective, a villain is supposed to be arrogant. But the difference between a Magnificent Bastard and a Smug Snake, is how they back up their arrogant claims. Guess which one Dr. Doom is and which Wizard is?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SmugSnake

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ificentBastard

Likewise Mole Man creating artificial life, seems like a greater trespass against nature and misuse of science, that can contrasted against Reed, rather then him being miffed because people didn't believe in his theory about monsters living in the center of Earth, that makes him just makes him seem like a whiny loser, rather then a menacing and compelling villain. Sure Mad Thinker created artificial life as well, but as I noted, he is hard to write properly, I think giving him Ultimate Mole Man's back story to Mad Thinker wouldn't work, would take away some interesting aspects to Mad Thinker's character.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

If I had on complaint about the Cap movie, it would be that I would not have put him on ice and thawed out in the present day - would have saved that for the Avengers - I would have left the ending open for future WWII sequels and the Avengers would have allowed for present day adventures.

You mean a WWII with laser wielding Hydra agents rather then Nazis with real guns? Pass, I disliked that movie as a WWII history buff.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

You mean a WWII with laser wielding Hydra agents rather then Nazis with real guns? Pass, I disliked that movie as a WWII history buff.

I do not have any Golden Age Masterworks at hand, but I would be willing to bet there was a "death ray" or two used in some of those stories.

If this were PRIVATE RYAN or PATTON I would agree with you, but it's a super hero movie that already has a Cosmic Cube, a Super Soldier Formula, a Human Torch, etc. - this sort of seems like disliking ABE LINCOLN:VAMPIRE HUNTER because there were vampires in it.

As I said before, I do think it's sad that Marvel chose to omit Nazis from a WWII movie - two of the Indiana Jones films had them and no one objected to that - but I had no problem with the Red Skull having ambitions that were beyond those that Hitler could offer him. The scene of him disposing of Hitler's three messengers was one of his better moments.

Sorry, but I am not that familiar with the '80's and beyond treatment of the Skull. I gave up on most Marvel books early in the Bronze Age, except for a few bright spots like the Byrne FF or the Simonson Thor or the Miller DD I have not been too impressed with what I have seen since the Silver Age so I do tend to use that era as my template.

[psylockolussus]

I voted for Mole Man!

[Han Solo]

I've always been a fan of the Mole Man!

[Spider-Aziz]

If they use Victor, he should only be inserted if they make the college acquaintance and his "accident"

Mad Thinker, for some reason I'd love to see him

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think Mole Man offers what we've never seen in a Marvel or DC movie before. Giant monsters and a villain who is a misunderstood yet dangerous loser.

It would be alot of fun and it's new and fresh for the superhero genre.

Then they could do Super Skrull for the second movie and then Doom to finish the trilogy.

[Kal-E]

Mole man in the first film and then Fox needs to build up the villains in the sequel. I think 2nd film should have two villains.

[TheHeatKitchen]

How about a giant cloud?

[darkslayer101]

I would say Doom's popularity has increased due to UMVC3, so ya Doom should be more badass next time around

[ThePowerCosmic]

We've never seen a cbm take place underground before. It would be spectacular.

[jaqua99]

Here is a thought I had, it is a way to maybe bring fox and marvel together without rights getting involved. Have Kang be the villain. We know of Kang's future self, Immortus, who is sort of like a "protector of the timeline". Immortus is owned by Marvel Studios, right? This is like a loophole. They can make their stories similar. Maybe have immortus introduced in the MCU, and maybe "The Other" can be a new creation, another double of Kang, a different, evil double. Hear me out.

The studios can collaborate without rights getting involved. Fox uses Kang, Marvel Uses Immortus, and "The Other". Immortus and The Other can sort of maybe be in a clash or something against each other through out, idk, phase 3 or something, or even phase 4 if it's something built up in the long run. But since "The Other" isn't officially a Marvel Character, if marvel studios let them, could Fox use him? Or reference him? As an alternate version of Kang? If we know that The Other is an Alternate version of Immortus, and that The Other is also an alternate version of Kang, then this could be a way that the studios could exist as one, sort of without rights getting involved.

They are their own thing, but because of these different versions of "Kang" ALLL the Marvel films could exist, with each Studios' universe being a part of a giant FILM Multiverse???? probably too far fetched, but it's something that could be fun

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by jaqua99

Here is a thought I had, it is a way to maybe bring fox and marvel together without rights getting involved. Have Kang be the villain. We know of Kang's future self, Immortus, who is sort of like a "protector of the timeline". Immortus is owned by Marvel Studios, right? This is like a loophole. They can make their stories similar. Maybe have immortus introduced in the MCU, and maybe "The Other" can be a new creation, another double of Kang, a different, evil double. Hear me out.

The studios can collaborate without rights getting involved. Fox uses Kang, Marvel Uses Immortus, and "The Other". Immortus and The Other can sort of maybe be in a clash or something against each other through out, idk, phase 3 or something, or even phase 4 if it's something built up in the long run. But since "The Other" isn't officially a Marvel Character, if marvel studios let them, could Fox use him? Or reference him? As an alternate version of Kang? If we know that The Other is an Alternate version of Immortus, and that The Other is also an alternate version of Kang, then this could be a way that the studios could exist as one, sort of without rights getting involved.

They are their own thing, but because of these different versions of "Kang" ALLL the Marvel films could exist, with each Studios' universe being a part of a giant FILM Multiverse???? probably too far fetched, but it's something that could be fun

I'm not sure I like that idea. But I'm also not sure I am following it properly.

Nevertheless, I like the idea of F4 entering the MCU as part of the plot. For instance, the two universes are separate, but F4 find someway to travel there temporarily (maybe with the help of Kang). That would be a lot of fun.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

I'm not sure I like that idea. But I'm also not sure I am following it properly.

Nevertheless, I like the idea of F4 entering the MCU as part of the plot. For instance, the two universes are separate, but F4 find someway to travel there temporarily (maybe with the help of Kang). That would be a lot of fun.

I'm just trying to think of a way to tie the "universes" together without Legal issues. Some characters in the comics have multiple alternate forms. Kang being one of them. Kang has been a fantastic four villain. I figured maybe he could be a way. If they can't give back the rights, maybe there can be a multiverse.

That's really all I am thinking of, just a way to have them be ONE multiverse, without legal issues just some fun speculating, it seems far fetched, sure. But it's just some fun.

[3dman27]

THE ffcosider themselves scientits and explorers more than crimefighters right then the approriate villain shoud be maximus the mad that way we'd get the inhumans as well as the ff

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Annihilus.

I don't trust Hollywood to do justice to Doom.

[Human Torch]

I........just want to see Malice at some point.

[Eddie]

I would like Skrulls to be featured, with Super Skrull in the climactic battle. There could be subtle nods setting up Doom for the sequel. (I think that if you try to do the FF origin & Doom in one film, you'll do neither justice. For example, the 2005 film)