Has Fox hit a dead end with their Marvel Properties?

[DACrowe]

Hmmm....so does magnifying Marvel's villain issues some how exonerate Fox from current issues with X-men and F4?

Heh, no. I actually think a Marvelite brought up though while trashing the X-Men movies how even the Marvel films have better villains. That kind of led us down the current rabbit hole.

 

[2kt09]

Another case that highlights that Marvel villains might get criticism because most other things are done so well in those movies is that no one talks about Peter Dinklage, and the fact that no one does that should really mean that people do start to talk about him, but in that Fox wasted him.

The sentinels weren't very interesting since they had no personality or emotional connection to them. They were just there as the plot device. Trask was the villain that could have elevated the movie and given the sentinels more of a connection to the audience as Dinklage is a really good actor, but he got very little to do and pretty much only affected the plot in a secondary way. He got to be clearly less than Obadiah Stane.

He was Fox's Alexander Pierce.
Among the villains of this series, he was that grounded antagonist with clear and solemn motivations, evocative through the actor playing him. He made the scene when JLaw impersonated him. He didn't have much, but in what little he did, he contrasted well to Brian Cox's William Stryker.

I want to see Rogue make an appearance in Gambit.

Cameo, at best, since there's only been mention of Gambit's childhood fling and Rogue/Gambit have zero to do with each other in this franchise.

It is a far, FAR bigger problem to have generic, boring heroes (like we've seen from much of the X-Men in these films) than it is to have generic, boring villains. The heroes are the backbone of a franchise. They are the star quarterbacks. Darth Vader may be extremely popular, but Star Wars goes nowhere without Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia. Deadpool worked largely because people really liked Deadpool himself. The closest Apocalypse had was Quicksilver (who was a supporting character) and Xavier (who was sidelined for most of the second half of the film).

What?
Apocalypse had more than Quicksilver and Xavier. Heck, for the people bemoaning previous characterizations of Jean Grey and Cyclops, they got a good amount to latch on to this go around. Nightcrawler is more or less the same, just had no actual character arc.

 

[Erzengel]

How did we even get to the comparison of Stane and Pierce with the Joker? The Joker is an iconic villain that transcends comic book media into pop culture. We've had 3 pretty well done Jokers from Romero to Nicholson to Hamill even before we get to Ledger's performance.

Unless we are just talking performances, but I do think that Ledger's role gets the benefit of heightened attention because it is the Joker. Arguably the greatest supervillain in all of comics to probably arguably the greatest superhero in all of comics.

Trying to compare a Joker performance to one like Pierce or Stane who aren't necessarily insane, is like comparing Richard the III to Tybalt role.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

What?
Apocalypse had more than Quicksilver and Xavier. Heck, for the people bemoaning previous characterizations of Jean Grey and Cyclops, they got a good amount to latch on to this go around. Nightcrawler is more or less the same, just had no actual character arc.

Cyclops was better than the Marsden version, but that isn't saying much. They are all still thin, dull characters. Both Jean and Nightcrawler were done better in X2.

There is simply little reason to care about them. That's true of Quicksilver too, but he at least was tremendously entertaining and the only member of the younger group to have real personality.

The one character that was written well was Magneto, a villain.

 

[2kt09]

Cyclops was better than the Marsden version, but that isn't saying much. They are all still thin, dull characters. Both Jean and Nightcrawler were done better in X2.

There is simply little reason to care about them. That's true of Quicksilver too, but he at least was tremendously entertaining and the only member of the younger group to have real personality.

The one character that was written well was Magneto, a villain.

What are these generalizations?
Marsden
-love triangle, feud with Wolverine
-shoot this or that, while someone else saves the day
-cry for loved one

Sheridan
-angsty, more-so now since he's "blind"
-dead brother motivates him
-leads the team through alkali lake to rescue mentors
-works with Jean against Storm and then finally with the rest of the power users against Apocalypse

I'll give you Jean in X2 if I can even recall what she did in X2 outside of self-sacrifice and leaving hints of Phoenix
(truly not much difference between that and her here where she's also a recluse)
Nightcrawler in this one is about the same as Quicksilver, minus having his own centerpiece (unless you count his vs with Angel/Archangel)
and having a task like reuniting with dad
Nightcrawler in X2 both had an arc of redemption and drove the plot at points. What arc did he need in Apocalypse?

And no Magneto was not the only well written character, it's the circumstances surrounding those characters that I take most umbrage with and thus are my main issues with the movie

 

[Mjölnir]

Ledger as Joker is absolutely one of the best screen villains of all time. His scenes were less about creating a psychological profile like Lecter, so I am not sure comparing them so literally is apt. But what Ledger did do is personify a very specific and modern, post-9/11 image of chaos that disturbs Americans. He reveled in it in a way that struck a nerve, and is one of the key reasons that movie is still considered by most (though not all) the best comic book movie of all time. He won a posthumous Oscar for it for crying out loud (the last time that happened was for another legendary performance, Peter Finch in Network). The life and nastiness that Ledger imbued into the Nolan version of the Joker is unforgettable. And Nolan used him well. If you want to compare him in terms of narrative function to other screen villains, he is more like the shark in Jaws. A force of nature that just rolls onto the screen and destroys the lives of everything he touches before vanishing again.

As for the Nicholson Joker, you are right his Joker is not in the same ballpark as his very best films, including Chinatown, The Shining, A Few Good Men, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. But his Joker performance is remembered just as fondly in any retrospective as those, and more than other less iconic hits he did, like The Witches of Eastwick or Reds.

Still, my point stands. Even if it being a big blockbuster is a reason it is a highlight of his career, Iron Man and Captain America 2 were also big blockbusters. Stane and Pierce will still not be some of the roles people reminisce about when talking about them.

Other than that both are insane killers I don't expect them to be exactly similar, I just think Lecter is much better. I really enjoy Ledger's performance, but writing-wise the character is pretty rocky, where even the first scene with him makes me wonder how no one pointed out that it makes no sense. Lecter operates within a far tighter script. And while a posthumous Oscar is rare (although I don't think it's rare the few times someone has died shortly after a great performance, since that does happen very rarely) I think the terrible event increased his chances of winning rather than decreased it, given how huge it got in media all over the world. Still it doesn't work against my opinion since I think Ledger did great, it's the other aspects of the character that have some big flaws.

That doesn't mean that I don't think the Joker in TDK is great, I'm just comparing to something really special for me. I'm probably also a bit disillusioned by the fact that TDK has fallen more than usual in consecutive viewings for me, and it's the plot issues (both in logic and how it plays with the tone) that have brought the most of that and has been a huge part in my criticism of Goyer, which lead into me later blaming him for much of the MoS problems as well.

As for the other part, it just highlights how it doesn't have to be tied in with quality (even though the presence of quality of course is decided on an individual basis). Michael Bay will always be remembered for the Transformers movies, perhaps more than anything when all is said and done. It doesn't make me have more good things to say about them though.

 

[Alex Murphy]

Other than that both are insane killers I don't expect them to be exactly similar, I just think Lecter is much better. I really enjoy Ledger's performance, but writing-wise the character is pretty rocky, where even the first scene with him makes me wonder how no one pointed out that it makes no sense. Lecter operates within a far tighter script. And while a posthumous Oscar is rare (although I don't think it's rare the few times someone has died shortly after a great performance, since that does happen very rarely) I think the terrible event increased his chances of winning rather than decreased it, given how huge it got in media all over the world. Still it doesn't work against my opinion since I think Ledger did great, it's the other aspects of the character that have some big flaws.

That doesn't mean that I don't think the Joker in TDK is great, I'm just comparing to something really special for me. I'm probably also a bit disillusioned by the fact that TDK has fallen more than usual in consecutive viewings for me, and it's the plot issues (both in logic and how it plays with the tone) that have brought the most of that and has been a huge part in my criticism of Goyer, which lead into me later blaming him for much of the MoS problems as well.

As for the other part, it just highlights how it doesn't have to be tied in with quality (even though the presence of quality of course is decided on an individual basis). Michael Bay will always be remembered for the Transformers movies, perhaps more than anything when all is said and done. It doesn't make me have more good things to say about them though.

There have only ever been two Oscars awarded posthumously for any of the four main acting categories: Best Actor to Peter Finch for Network and Best Supporting Actor to Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight.

 

[Tilapia]

Stupid statistic as it's not often an actor dies the same calendar year as his Oscar nominated performance in a film.

 

[DACrowe]

How did we even get to the comparison of Stane and Pierce with the Joker? The Joker is an iconic villain that transcends comic book media into pop culture. We've had 3 pretty well done Jokers from Romero to Nicholson to Hamill even before we get to Ledger's performance.

Unless we are just talking performances, but I do think that Ledger's role gets the benefit of heightened attention because it is the Joker. Arguably the greatest supervillain in all of comics to probably arguably the greatest superhero in all of comics.

Trying to compare a Joker performance to one like Pierce or Stane who aren't necessarily insane, is like comparing Richard the III to Tybalt role.

Dr. Doom is one of the greatest comic book villains of all time and the Riddler is an iconic one that transcends comics thanks to the '60s TV show and pop culture notoriety.

Didn't help MacMahon, Toby Kebbel, or Jim Carrey in their respective roles. Meanwhile, Bane is a B-lister as far as the general audience was concerned pre-2012, and he had a checkered comic book history at best in the source material. After that movie, he is one of the genre's most memorable villains.

Execution is everything.

 

[Erzengel]

Pierce or Stane aren't somewhat overthetop villains. They aren't the Joker, Doom, Bane or the Riddler. For as realistic as the Nolan movies were, there is a bit of larger than life characters.

I do agree that execution is key and doesn't always lead to notable performances but my point is some roles do allow for bigger opportunities to shine.

 

[DrCosmic]

Dead End? With the X-Men Mythos? Mister Sinister aside...

Sublime. Bastion. Selene. Legacy Virus. Phalanx. Proteus. Krakoa. Cassandra Nova. House of M. Schism. The Brood. The Shi'ar. And those are just the ones I like that have proven to be huge in comics.

Imagine we were talking about a sixth Taken movie. Another director came on to do Taken 3 and it was garbage, and so the original director of the first two came back to do Taken prequels with, say, I dunno, Chris Pratt as Bryan Mills in his early CIA days. So around Before Taken 3, we start to feel like the series has hit a dead end. The scope of the series is too limited to support all the spinoffs that want doing. See... Bryan Mills has a particular set of skills, and we've seen all of them.

Likewise, Bryan Singer has a particular set of skills, and they are prodigious. However... we've seen all of them. The franchise need to outgrow him, and bring in ideas that are simply more revolutionary than his, which were spot on for the early 2000s. He keeps going back to that pot, and that pot, no matter how great X-Men and X2 are, aren't that deep. The X-Men are nowhere near a dead end. Bryan Singer's specific take on them, however, is headed that way.

But even still, like with an extended Taken series that doesn't know to quit while its ahead, it won't dead end. X-Men: Sinister will simply have diminishing returns until the numbers line up the idea that the X-Men needs a broader vision. Decade throwbacks isn't going to cut it.

 

[Set]

Dead End? With the X-Men Mythos? Mister Sinister aside...

Sublime. Bastion. Selene. Legacy Virus. Phalanx. Proteus. Krakoa. Cassandra Nova. House of M. Schism. The Brood. The Shi'ar. And those are just the ones I like that have proven to be huge in comics.

Selene and Proteus are the two that stand out from that list, for me.

Sadly, we had a kind of crappy Hellfire Club recently, so a much better interpretation of Sebastian Shaw and Emma Frost is probably out for a decade or so, until the next reboot.

I'd love to see the Savage Land, but I'm not sure if Sauron and the Savage Land Mutates are ready for prime time... Perhaps the Morlock Massacre and the Marauders? Eh. Probably too many actors and characters and effects required. The movies have so far had difficulty juggling focus on more than four-ish characters, so adding an entire team of enemies would probably chop characterization down to the sort of barely-speaking non-role that Psylocke had in Apocalypse.

 

[Abudefduf]

The Savage Land as a concept is so outlandish and silly that it'd need someone with a very strong vision to execute it properly, but the best thing about it is that it'd make for a pretty different kind of cbm, which is something the X-Men franchise could definitely use right now.

Also I guess this is a dumb question but can they even use the name Sauron without incurring in the wrath of Warner Bros?

 

[Mjölnir]

There have only ever been two Oscars awarded posthumously for any of the four main acting categories: Best Actor to Peter Finch for Network and Best Supporting Actor to Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight.

And how often have great actors died between making a real standout role and the following Academy Awards? How many times it's happened is pretty irrelevant if the situation hasn't occurred many times.

 

[DrCosmic]

Selene and Proteus are the two that stand out from that list, for me.

Sadly, we had a kind of crappy Hellfire Club recently, so a much better interpretation of Sebastian Shaw and Emma Frost is probably out for a decade or so, until the next reboot.

I'd love to see the Savage Land, but I'm not sure if Sauron and the Savage Land Mutates are ready for prime time... Perhaps the Morlock Massacre and the Marauders? Eh. Probably too many actors and characters and effects required. The movies have so far had difficulty juggling focus on more than four-ish characters, so adding an entire team of enemies would probably chop characterization down to the sort of barely-speaking non-role that Psylocke had in Apocalypse.

Y'know... it's really surprising what Munn was able to accomplish with, like, 3 lines. I think Storm, honestly was similar, that she got a real arc out of, like 2 scenes.

But I think they don't think of the X-Men films as about the X-Men. The first trilogy was about Wolverine and to a lesser degree Rogue. The recent trilogy is about Xavier and to a lesser degree Erik and Raven. There's supporting cast who get arcs based on a few lines, but the plot is driven almost entirely by the central character.

 

[DACrowe]

Pierce or Stane aren't somewhat overthetop villains. They aren't the Joker, Doom, Bane or the Riddler. For as realistic as the Nolan movies were, there is a bit of larger than life characters.

I do agree that execution is key and doesn't always lead to notable performances but my point is some roles do allow for bigger opportunities to shine.

This is true, although I think we have had better villains who do not have to wear costumes. I look at Vincent D'Onofrio as Kingpin or, if we just want to keep it to films, most of the best non-Joker villains of the last 15 years (Javier Bardem in NCFOM, Hans Landa, Bill the Butcher, etc.). Even Brian Cox's original William Stryker is a better written and more memorable (if hardly great) menace than they are.

But I will concede that we are now talking too much about one of Marvel's sore spots (the other being generic scores and cinematography). That does not make them bad. In fact, TWS and Iron Man 1 are far better than most superhero movies, including the one that birthed this whole thread (though I do not think Apocalypse is a bad film). I guess I keep pushing this point because some Marvel fans bring up again and again how Marvel would do X-Men adaptations better, including Magneto, which I'm not sure about, and then suggest that even Marvel's villains are fine. I've never liked Marvel's villains, and think all of the other studios who've done comic book movies have at least one (usually three) who are in a whole superior league.

With that said, it is true that we risk on zeroing in on one of Marvel's weaknesses at the expense of ignoring everything they do right. And it is quite a lot.

... I just have trouble ignoring those that suggest they don't have a villain problem when it's baked into their formula.

 

[DACrowe]

Y'know... it's really surprising what Munn was able to accomplish with, like, 3 lines. I think Storm, honestly was similar, that she got a real arc out of, like 2 scenes.

But I think they don't think of the X-Men films as about the X-Men. The first trilogy was about Wolverine and to a lesser degree Rogue. The recent trilogy is about Xavier and to a lesser degree Erik and Raven. There's supporting cast who get arcs based on a few lines, but the plot is driven almost entirely by the central character.

The first trilogy was about Logan. It might have also been about Rogue and Charles/Erik, and maybe even the Logan/Jean/Cyclops love triangle, but Fox/Ratner torpedoed everything else with the third, making it kind of a thematic blur.

The second trilogy was about Charles and Erik from the beginning and to a lesser extent Mystique. So I am not shocked that none of the new mutants introduced in Apocalypse were developed in a major way (Jean and Scott were given just about as much to do as Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Vision were in AoU).

Presumably, the next set of movies, in whatever number they would be in, would be about Jean, Scott, and hopefully Kurt and Storm. But that would require a focus on building up the roster and moving away from just the star names of the past ones.

 

[gildedmuse]

I think the big issues that prevent solid discussion about Marvel's "Villain problem" are two fold:

- Calling it their villain "problem" which makes it sound as though it is some kind of issue that is ruining the films. Which perhaps it does for a select group of people, but overall Marvel films continue to be successful with the public. As was said earlier, Marvel's villains maybe the weaker parts of their films, but they are not horrible. Even Malekith manages to serve his purpose and doesn't distract from the hero. It's less of a problem and more a... sore spot? A quandary? A quodlibet? Okay so Villain Problem is the catchiest of the possible names, but again it isn't as if they are moive-ruinning. At worst they are boring. Which leads to the second issue.

- No one has made much of a attempt to establish what a good villain is, which is why people are bringing up such a range as Cross to Joker. Are those two comparable? No, but is the question here if Marvel has created some of the most memorable villains in the genre or if they have failed to create any "good" villainous characters? Because those are two very different questions. Loki is the only villain MS has created that could really be considered for the first and he isn't even their best villain - I would give that title to Kilgrave easily. Because, yeah, there is a difference between being a good villain character and being an iconic one. A lot has to come together to create an iconic villain, and not every movie - not even every GREAT movie - needs to have one. The very fact that they are iconic means there is something special about them that goes beyond their mere film.

Th Indiana Jones films, just to make a comparison, don't really have a single villain who is anywhere NEAR as iconic as the lead character or the films themselves. They have, you know, the nazis. But that's cool, nobody cares, because you don't nessisarily need a villain who transcends the movies which is the case when someone talks about iconic bad guys.

 

[Raiden]

The first trilogy was about Logan. It might have also been about Rogue and Charles/Erik, and maybe even the Logan/Jean/Cyclops love triangle, but Fox/Ratner torpedoed everything else with the third, making it kind of a thematic blur.

The second trilogy was about Charles and Erik from the beginning and to a lesser extent Mystique. So I am not shocked that none of the new mutants introduced in Apocalypse were developed in a major way (Jean and Scott were given just about as much to do as Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Vision were in AoU).

Presumably, the next set of movies, in whatever number they would be in, would be about Jean, Scott, and hopefully Kurt and Storm. But that would require a focus on building up the roster and moving away from just the star names of the past ones.

Considering the fact that XMA may only gross around 500M WW or so, I think it's up in the air how the next X-Men movie will turn out.

 

[spider-neil]

Th Indiana Jones films, just to make a comparison, don't really have a single villain who is anywhere NEAR as iconic as the lead character or the films themselves. They have, you know, the nazis. But that's cool, nobody cares, because you don't nessisarily need a villain who transcends the movies which is the case when someone talks about iconic bad guys.

You don't think Ballack(sp) is iconic?

 

[DACrowe]

Considering the fact that XMA may only gross around 500M WW or so, I think it's up in the air how the next X-Men movie will turn out.

If Fox thinks the answer will be to make it even more about the actors, and bending over backwards to say make Jennifer Lawrence and Ryan Reynolds the main characters because of their name and/or new popularity, they are going to risk the same mistakes they made when they pushed Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry to the center of all things in X3 to everything else's expense.

I think Fox could rebound with the young cast if they created an X-Men movie that looked markedly new and enticing to viewers that was unlike any of the previous X-films in appearance or hook... or (and this is important) unlike anything Marvel and DC are doing. Hemsworth and Evans struggle to open a movie outside of Marvel. The key is just to take what works and do something that at least on first glance seems very new. I think they could rebuild the brand quite well.

But you are probably right. They risk doing a reboot or following that first scenario I suggested, but it would be a mistake either way.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I do think there is a lot of potential in using Deadpool going forward, in his own solos and with Cable & X-Force (And I would definitely get off my butt and get started on an X-Force movie if I was Fox. I think it has the most potential of the various X-Themed licenses), but I would keep him out of the actual X-Men films other than maybe the odd cameo appearance.

 

[DrCosmic]

The first trilogy was about Logan. It might have also been about Rogue and Charles/Erik, and maybe even the Logan/Jean/Cyclops love triangle, but Fox/Ratner torpedoed everything else with the third, making it kind of a thematic blur.

The second trilogy was about Charles and Erik from the beginning and to a lesser extent Mystique. So I am not shocked that none of the new mutants introduced in Apocalypse were developed in a major way (Jean and Scott were given just about as much to do as Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Vision were in AoU).

Presumably, the next set of movies, in whatever number they would be in, would be about Jean, Scott, and hopefully Kurt and Storm. But that would require a focus on building up the roster and moving away from just the star names of the past ones.

I really don't see them moving away from that. I'm not completely hopeless, because Mystique may be out, and they did make Jean the one to save the day in the end, but man... it takes a special kind of commitment to hone in on two-three characters for two-three films when you have a cast of 10+ and hundreds of heroes to draw from.

 

[DACrowe]

I do think there is a lot of potential in using Deadpool going forward, in his own solos and with Cable & X-Force (And I would definitely get off my butt and get started on an X-Force movie if I was Fox. I think it has the most potential of the various X-Themed licenses), but I would keep him out of the actual X-Men films other than maybe the odd cameo appearance.

Very much agreed there.

 

[BarryAllen]

Selene and Proteus are the two that stand out from that list, for me.

Sadly, we had a kind of crappy Hellfire Club recently, so a much better interpretation of Sebastian Shaw and Emma Frost is probably out for a decade or so, until the next reboot.

I'd love to see the Savage Land, but I'm not sure if Sauron and the Savage Land Mutates are ready for prime time... Perhaps the Morlock Massacre and the Marauders? Eh. Probably too many actors and characters and effects required. The movies have so far had difficulty juggling focus on more than four-ish characters, so adding an entire team of enemies would probably chop characterization down to the sort of barely-speaking non-role that Psylocke had in Apocalypse.

Doesn't Marvel own the Savage Land and Ka-Zar?