Avoiding Another Malekith Situation in Phase 3

[Greens]

+1 for the most part. Could have used one or two more mentions but it's still pretty clear to me.

Just because his motives were clear (which they weren't, IMO) doesn't mean he was a compelling villain.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

(which they weren't, IMO) .

how weren't they? what was unclear?

 

[Greens]

how weren't they? what was unclear?

Why does he want to destroy the universe?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Why does he want to destroy the universe?

that was explained at least twice in the movie.
the Dark Elves existed before our current universe. The beginning of our universe was generally considered a step in the wrong direction and led to the destruction of his universe and everything he knew. Malekith wanted to restore the world of the Dark Elves before the universe destroyed everything, so that his species could survive.

 

[MadVillainy]

I didnt think they were completely clear. I got most of it to the point i wouldnt complain that his motives werent clear.

I just thought he was boring. If youre going to have an angry/stoic type villain you have to make him incredibly bad ass like the Winter Soldier or Terminator.
I mean there motives are as weak as following orders but they were so cool to watch that there motives didnt really matter

 

[DA_Champion]

that was explained at least twice in the movie.
the Dark Elves existed before our current universe. The beginning of our universe was gerally considered a step in the wrong direction and led to the destruction of his universe and everything he knew. Malekith wanted to restore the world of the Dark Elves before the universe destroyed everything, so that his species could survive.

Why was the previous universe better? How is that reflected in dark elf ideology?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I just thought he was boring. If youre going to have an angry/stoic type villain you have to make him incredibly bad ass like the Winter Soldier or Terminator.

why? why don't you take a risk and play with the boring tropes?
Malekith had a relatable motive (survival of his species), he had a goal (returning to the status before the existance of the universe) and he was crazy and ruthless enough to sacrifice a majority of his people to achieve that goal. I think it was executed well enough

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Why was the previous universe better? How is that reflected in dark elf ideology?

irrelevant. it was THEIR universe. please don't tell me when our universe is destroyed by another, newer universe, you're reaction will be 'meh, as long as the new one is better I can live with that'

 

[MadVillainy]

why? why don't you take a risk and play with the boring tropes?
Malekith had a relatable motive (survival of his species), he had a goal (returning to the status before the existance of the universe) and he was crazy and ruthless enough to sacrifice a majority of his people to achieve that goal. I think it was executed well enough

Boring because he didnt come off really threatening or scary to me like Ronan or Bane, he wasnt charismatic like Loki or Sebastian Stan, he wasn't really badass like Winter Soldier or Magneto. And on top of that he's very one note in terms of performance. The one note was played well but it didnt interest me much.

Even if Im not comparing him to other villains and him standing on his own, he was boring.

Relatability doesn't matter to me at all and I think it's a really silly thing for people to bring up. I dont relate to the Terminator, Denzel Washington in Training Day, or whoever, but I still think they are great villains.

Motive or whatever is good, but I'm more interested in how the character is written rather then their motives. Really good motives do boost a villain but I dont think Malekieth's motives werent anything special. I think you can have a charismatic or threatening villain with bad motives (Termiantor, Winter Soldier) but you can't have the reverse which is what I thought Malekeith is/was

 

[Chance Jackson]

that was explained at least twice in the movie.
the Dark Elves existed before our current universe. The beginning of our universe was gerally considered a step in the wrong direction and led to the destruction of his universe and everything he knew. Malekith wanted to restore the world of the Dark Elves before the universe destroyed everything, so that his species could survive.

The thing is that they seem to be perfectly capable of surviving in the current universe, there seems to be little need for them to go back to how things were other than preference unless I am missing something

 

[chamber-music]

I agree that Malekeith was a weak villain. Same with Ronan.

I thought they were performed really well, but there is/was not much to the way they were written/portrayal. I honestly feel the same way about Red Skull.

It is really weird because from what Ive heard and seen Malekeith is a real charismatic character so I dont know why they stripped his personality down.

Malekeith in the comics is a entertaining character, he recently cut off Thor's arm and wore it round his neck as a trophy.

Comic Malekeith is perhaps a little too similar to Loki. A a magic wielding power hungry trickster with a sadistic side.

I felt like the elf language sort of fell flat and alienating. They should just had them talk English all the time.

 

[MadVillainy]

Malekeith in the comics is a entertaining character, he recently cut off Thor's arm and wore it round his neck as a trophy.

Comic Malekeith is perhaps a little too similar to Loki. A a magic wielding power hungry trickster with a sadistic side.

I felt like the elf language sort of fell flat and alienating. They should just had them talk English all the time.

that's what I was saying earlier. That's the only reason I see them stripping him of his personality.

 

[Loki882]

Malekith the Accursed:

He was SO freaking boring. There was barely any emotion at all, even when there should have been. His people were destroyed in a war with the Asgardian, does he ever express anger, or sadness, or anything other than robotic blandness, nope. He gets half of his face burned to a crisp, and he has so little reaction to it that I'm not even sure that he noticed that it'd happened at all. He destroys Odin's throne, the symbol of power for his people's ancient/hated enemies, and he just keeps on walking without giving it a second look, and so one. Yeah he was "the Accursed" alright, accursed with a complete lack of personality.

And what makes this even more mind-boggling is that Malekith in the comics has LOTS of personality. He's almost Joker-like in his scary yet also darkly funny bat*** insanity. And then they hired Christopher Eccleston, a guy who's acting style is all about emotion, and had him play this walking sack of blandness. So it was a characterization that didn't fit the character, or the actor.

Ronan the Accuser:

Ronan had similar problems, although he was a big better because Lee Pace got to show SOME personality. I wasn't bored to tears whenever Ronan came onscreen. My big problem with Ronan was that he was just a two-dimensional genocidal nut-bag. Ronan in the comics is SO much more interesting/complex, he has dimension. MCU Ronan, none of that. And since they killed him off, the chances of him getting dimension in the future seem slim to say the very least.

Ivan Vanko (Whiplash):

This villain is really disappointing because he had such potential. He had a great look, his backstory was good, Mickey Rourke's performance was really good, he actually had a pretty interesting/unique plan, and they built him up pretty effectively for the first part of the movie. But after the Monaco fight, he disappears for large chunks of the movie, and when we do see him, he's just stuck in a lab building robots. The movie focuses much more on Justin Hammer who, although Sam Rockwell is entertaining, is no nearly as effective/interesting as a villain. Then we get to the big climax and Whiplash's plan has all of a sudden degenerated into a generic "kill the hero" plot with no real explanation. Overall, he was such a waste of potential.

Red Skull:

Hugo Weaving gives a good performance, but he doesn't get nearly enough screentime. And when he IS onscreen, most of the time he isn't really doing anything. And ironically, I think that the movie didn't let him be evil ENOUGH. RS is supposed to be truly vile and despicable, worse than Hitler. And I didn't really get that in the movie. Also the reason why he and Cap are such good foils is because they're the polar opposite of each other. Each one represents a worldview that the other finds repellent, the complete antithesis of what they themselves believe. The film paid lip service to that idea, but never really delved into it enough imo. RS just came across as another generic bad guy that Cap needed to stop. No different from Crossbones or Alexander Pierce in TWS, except that Pierce was much better-written imo

Overall, Marvel villains (with a couple of exceptions) seem like an afterthought a lot of the time. Like the writers are working on the story and then realize "ohcrap, we need to give the hero someone to fight don't we?" And I don't really agree with this philosophy because I feel like having a good villain not only raises tension/stakes, but makes the hero MORE interesting because they have a truly effective foil to play off of.

 

[Spiderine]

I think a lot of these villains are gonna come up short compared to their comic counterparts but they have been in numerous stories and have been around for years. The MCU villains with the exception of Loki and most likely Thanos who is expanding soon are only featured in one film and are likely done. Malekith was ok to me but he just suffered from Loki character development.

 

[Daedalus]

Red Skull:

Hugo Weaving gives a good performance, but he doesn't get nearly enough screentime. And when he IS onscreen, most of the time he isn't really doing anything. And ironically, I think that the movie didn't let him be evil ENOUGH. RS is supposed to be truly vile and despicable, worse than Hitler. And I didn't really get that in the movie. Also the reason why he and Cap are such good foils is because they're the polar opposite of each other. Each one represents a worldview that the other finds repellent, the complete antithesis of what they themselves believe. The film paid lip service to that idea, but never really delved into it enough imo. RS just came across as another generic bad guy that Cap needed to stop. No different from Crossbones or Alexander Pierce in TWS, except that Pierce was much better-written imo

Overall, Marvel villains (with a couple of exceptions) seem like an afterthought a lot of the time. Like the writers are working on the story and then realize "ohcrap, we need to give the hero someone to fight don't we?" And I don't really agree with this philosophy because I feel like having a good villain not only raises tension/stakes, but makes the hero MORE interesting because they have a truly effective foil to play off of.

I have to agree with your remarks regarding other villains, but I absolutely adore Weaving`s Red Skull. You are right in that he does`t do much, but Weaving chews on the role so much ("You arrrre failing, Doctorrrr!") that I can`t help but smile everytime he is onscreen.

I agree most Marvel villains seem like afterthoughts (Obadiah remains my favorite to this day), and I really wish they would change that approach. An interesting villain automatically makes the film much more enjoyable (Sam Raimi`s Spider-Man 2, for example).

 

[MbJ]

Part of the reason Red Skull didn't come across as evil as his comic counterpart was because the creative team made a conscious decision to not have him reflect the actual atrocities Nazis committed in the war because they felt it'd be disrespectful. So you never really get the sense that he's the bigoted, genocidal monster he was in the comics because they made him more of a general world conqueror. And of course as others have speculated it probably would have hurt Marvel's attempts at marketing the character to children via toys and apparel. You're gonna have a hard time in 2011 America selling a character with a swastika and who brags about burning Jewish people in ovens to little kids.

As to how to avoid another Malekith? Get a good creative team behind the camera. Malekith was far from the only bad part of Thor 2. His suckiness was symptomatic of the film's (lack of) quality as a whole.

 

[Loki882]

I can get that, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes him far less effective as a villain. Maybe they should used a different villain if it bothered them that much, like the first Baron Zemo for example.

 

[Loki882]

I have to agree with your remarks regarding other villains, but I absolutely adore Weaving`s Red Skull. You are right in that he does`t do much, but Weaving chews on the role so much ("You arrrre failing, Doctorrrr!") that I can`t help but smile everytime he is onscreen.

I agree most Marvel villains seem like afterthoughts (Obadiah remains my favorite to this day), and I really wish they would change that approach. An interesting villain automatically makes the film much more enjoyable (Sam Raimi`s Spider-Man 2, for example).

Oh I don't have an issue with Weaving. As I said, I enjoyed his performance. But I think that he was underused/under-served by the movie. You've got Hugo Weaving playing your uber-Nazi bad guy, let him do ****.

 

[The Guard]

I'm hard pressed to think of a villain in Marvel's films that has been written particularly well. They've been acted fairly well, especially in Hiddleston's case, but not all that well written.

Obadiah Stane was well acted by Bridges, but was ultimately a very one dimensional "businessman" villain. Ditto Justin Hammer. Ivan Vanko was a one dimensional "thug who wanted revenge". The Mandarin was just...meh.

Blonsky/The Abomination...very one note.

The Red Skull was probably the biggest disappointment so far; effectively a shallow shadow of his character from the comics. Pierce was well spoken and well-acted, but again, rather one dimensional. The Winter Soldier was a plot device, a case of too little too late.

Malekith wasn't really much of anything, and Ronan was angry and hate-filled, but that's about it.

Loki is admittedly a bit more interesting due to his origins and duplicity, but I wouldn't call his character exploration particularly effective, either, especially since the early parts of THOR. He's had a few very nice, effective and engaging sequences over a couple of films, and some good general dramatic moments, but beyond that has been kind of one note and more of a plot device than a truly interesting character.

Aside from the X-Men films, I'm still waiting for a really effective villain from Marvel films. Hopefully they'll do justice to Ultron and Thanos.

 

[Victarion]

what? I rolled my eyes because of the idea that Malekith was a weak villain. A little underdeveloped on screen? sure Not the main focus of the movie? Of course not, but not every superheromovie has to focus on some villain, there are other ways to structure a story. Weak? No, he was not weak. He had a strong and clear motive and all the means to get the thing done he wants to get done

Iron Man 3 didn't focus on the villain, but rather Tony dealing with a post-Avengers world and the anxieties that go along with it. And the Mandarin kicked Malekith and Whiplash all over the place in terms of...being a strong villain that didn't hijack the hero's screentime.

Hellboy II didn't focus on the villain, but rather Hellboy dealing with the public spotlight and his relationship with Liz. And Nuada still came across as a stronger villain than Malekith and Whiplash.

Spider-Man 2 didn't focus on the villain. Instead it gave him a fairly small arc that mirrored Peter's own. It felt like they copied the idea for Doc Ock in terms of presence without looking to see what made it work.

I deliberately avoided mentioning the TDKT. Hopefully I haven't triggered anyone.

However, I did like Malekith more than Stane.

 

[Daedalus]

I'm hard pressed to think of a villain in Marvel's films that has been written particularly well. They've been acted fairly well, especially in Hiddleston's case, but not all that well written.

Obadiah Stane was well acted by Bridges, but was ultimately a very one dimensional "businessman" villain. Ditto Justin Hammer. Ivan Vanko was a one dimensional "thug who wanted revenge". The Mandarin was just...meh.

Blonsky/The Abomination...very one note.

The Red Skull was probably the biggest disappointment so far; effectively a shallow shadow of his character from the comics. Pierce was well spoken and well-acted, but again, rather one dimensional. The Winter Soldier was a plot device, a case of too little too late.

Malekith wasn't really much of anything, and Ronan was angry and hate-filled, but that's about it.

Loki is admittedly a bit more interesting due to his origins and duplicity, but I wouldn't call his character exploration particularly effective, either, especially since the early parts of THOR. He's had a few very nice, effective and engaging sequences over a couple of films, and some good general dramatic moments, but beyond that has been kind of one note and more of a plot device than a truly interesting character.

Aside from the X-Men films, I'm still waiting for a really effective villain from Marvel films. Hopefully they'll do justice to Ultron and Thanos.

Oh, you`re completely right. MCU`s villains are all either quite one-note, or completely devoid of any interesting traits. My point in mentioning my appreciation for Red Skull and Obadiah is simply due to me enjoying the actors`s ability to take something relatively simple and turn it into a very enjoyable performance.

Ronan and Malekith were completely forgettable.

The only thing Pierce had going for it was "Robert Redford is playing a nazi", which was admittedly fun, but the character itself was bland.

I really like both Blonsky and Thunderbolt in The Incredible Hulk: Gen. Ross is especially complicated by Marvel`s standards, and William Hurt plays him very well.

I enjoyed Loki in the first Thor, since he did have a nice arc with a sufficiently poignant ending, but then he just kept showing up again in future installments as if he had never gone through such arc.

Iron Man 3 didn't focus on the villain, but rather Tony dealing with a post-Avengers world and the anxieties that go along with it. And the Mandarin kicked Malekith and Whiplash all over the place in terms of...being a strong villain that didn't hijack the hero's screentime.

Hellboy II didn't focus on the villain, but rather Hellboy dealing with the public spotlight and his relationship with Liz. And Nuada still came across as a stronger villain than Malekith and Whiplash.

Spider-Man 2 didn't focus on the villain. Instead it gave him a fairly small arc that mirrored Peter's own. It felt like they copied the idea for Doc Ock in terms of presence without looking to see what made it work.

I deliberately avoided mentioning the TDKT. Hopefully I haven't triggered anyone.

However, I did like Malekith more than Stane.

Excellent point. A villain does not need to be the movie`s focus in order to be compelling.

Actually, a villain doesn`t even need an arc to be compelling: Taking an example from the competition, Ra`s didn`t have one in Batman Begins, and he was a very memorable villain.

 

[hoy-small-fry]

As a counterpoint to the bad villains, Arnim Zola is a villain done right. He has ties throughout the MCU, and his plans come to fruition. In a connected universe, these one and done villains are a casualty of a lack of planning

 

[psylockolussus]

I cant wait to see what they will do with Enchantress, Surtur and Maximus and the Spidey villains if they will appear in the upcoming films.

 

[MadVillainy]

I thought Tim Roth as BLonsky was actually a good villain. He had some personality, was badass, and had a decent motivation.

I wouldnt say he was great, but I wouldnt put him in the same camp as Malekeith or Ronan

 

[The Endless]

Blonsky is underrated. Roth is a great actor and the character has an actual arc where his motivations and personality changes as the film goes on. I definitely wouldn't call him one note.

Alexander Pierce is the best villain though for me. He truly believes what he is doing is the right thing. He doesn't see himself as a bad guy, yet he knows he has to do bad things for the greater good. His reasons for doing what he is doing are clear. And of course Redford just gives him a great presence. The scene where he kills his housekeeper is fantastic. You totally buy that he does regret killing her. I've seen people say Pierce and Hydra are just secret Nazi's who have taken over. Not really. Pierce is a born and bred American. He isn't a Nazi... he's a patriot. Well he thinks he is (and i guarantee there was some far right republican's in the audience who agree). He started out as an idealist, but his experiences changed his world view and his philosophy. Partly thanks to Nick Fury, funnily enough. It was great when they clashed at the end.

In fact all the villains in The Winter Soldier are top notch. Even Frank Grillo's Rumlow is a well defined character. The Winter Soldier himself is menacing and has a powerful presence when he's on screen. Like a Terminator.

Malekith is just terrible though. Eccleston is a great actor, but he's wasted. At least Weaving, Rourke and Pace got to show off a bit and chew some scenery.