Avoiding Another Malekith Situation in Phase 3

[MadVillainy]

I like Grillo as Crossbones a lot but I wouldnt really call him a well defined character. He came off as just a henchmen
But I did really like him and again even though I didnt see him as more than a henchmen (at least in this movie) he had personality.

Personality is key for me. That and being bad ass.

And I would say it's more than a Marvel problem. I dont think Zod was well done in MoS. I dont think Trask was great either.
It's a shame that theyre getting such good actors and giving them such mediocre-bad one off roles. I still like Lee Pace couldve held his own franchise in the MCU

 

[The Endless]

Well i wouldn't say he's simply a henchmen. He clearly respected Rogers. But like his boss Pierce, he truly believed in what he was doing, even if he knows some of the things they have to do are bad. Notice in the scene where Pierce was torturing Bucky, you can see in his face that he may have some regret. He gives a look like "man that's harsh". There is some dimension to the character. He's a well written "dragon". Don't get a lot of them these days.

 

[MadVillainy]

Well i wouldn't say he's simply a henchmen. He clearly respected Rogers. But like his boss Pierce, he truly believed in what he was doing, even if he knows some of the things they have to do are bad. Notice in the scene where Pierce was torturing Bucky, you can see in his face that he may have some regret. He gives a look like "man that's harsh". There is some dimension to the character. He's a well written "dragon". Don't get a lot of them these days.

No we don't

 

[Flint Marko]

I like Grillo as Crossbones a lot but I wouldnt really call him a well defined character. He came off as just a henchmen
But I did really like him and again even though I didnt see him as more than a henchmen (at least in this movie) he had personality.

Personality is key for me. That and being bad ass.

And I would say it's more than a Marvel problem. I dont think Zod was well done in MoS. I dont think Trask was great either.
It's a shame that theyre getting such good actors and giving them such mediocre-bad one off roles. I still like Lee Pace couldve held his own franchise in the MCU

Yeah I agree, Zod was about as one note/under written as any given Marvel villain.

 

[Chance Jackson]

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.

I agree with this

 

[MadVillainy]

Spider-Man villains have a bit of a problem too. I feel like most of them became interchangeable after the first movie.

 

[MbJ]

For Crossbones I think the actor did really well with the writing he got. Like a lot of the HYDRA elements he kind of suffered because they wanted the HYDRA reveal to be a surprise reveal, so they had to avoid giving too much insight into his character so he'd just seem like a misguided S.H.I.E.L.D. agent. I hope he gets more of a chance to cut loose in Civil War now that we know he's a baddie.

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.

Which is ironic because it seems like they pasted large parts of Zemo's character onto Red Skull, namely the Nazi science officer bit.

 

[Loki882]

True. And I'm not really asking for them to go full-on Holocaust with him (although the X-Men films have never really had an issue with going there, which I've always given them credit for). But let me give a few other examples just from the Marvel films/TV shows:

-Obadiah Stane casually ordering his men to execute those Ten Rings terrorists, after they'd been disarmed and we're on their knees defenseless. No yes, those terrorists were bad people themselves, but that doesn't make Stane's nonchalant detachment about the whole thing any less chilling. Or when he taunts Tony after removing his arc reactor.

-Whiplash brutally beating a man to death with his bare hands.

-Loki cutting out a man's eyeball and then finding everyone's terrified reaction to be sadistically amusing. Or impaling Coulson.

-Killian casually murdering Maya Hansen.

-Ronan capturing a Nova Corps member and then bashing his head in.

-John Garrett on AOS ripping out a man's rib bone and stabbing him to death with it

-Daniel Whitehall going all Doctor Mengele on Skye's mother in order to find out the secret as to why she doesn't age.

-Alexander Pierce casually shooting his maid/housekeeper when she accidently sees him talking to WS.

-And so on and so forth.

Have him do something truly messed up. This is the freaking Red Skull that we're talking about. Have him blow up a city Watchmen-style, or casually order the execution of a bunch of POW, or kill someone with his bare hands, etc. Something to let you know that this is a particularly evil and dangerous guy. We never really got that from him. He was no more evil/dangerous than your average Bond villain.

 

[Loki882]

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.

I actually found Pierce to be a pretty effective/interesting villain. So I'll give Marvel (and Robert Redford that one). Arnim Zola is also good, and bonus points for using him differently in both films. And Blonsky actually was well-acted, actually had an arc of his own, and believable/understandable motivations. So he's good as well. Not great, but good.

I also don't completely agree with you about Loki. I feel like all three movies have he has appeared in have showcased different facets of his personality (all of which are present in the comics):

-Thor gave us the jealous Loki with a chip on his shoulder who was desperate to prove himself.

-The Avengers gave us arrogant, megalomaniacal wannabe conqueror Loki, while still showing glimpses of his massive inferiority complex.

-Thor TDW gaves us pure trickster Loki who's precise motives/thoughts are difficult to determine.

I actually like that about these films. Loki's a complicated guy, and the films have done well to show that imo.

 

[Loki882]

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.

Ah Prince Nuada aka Malekith done right. Someone pointed out to me that Marvel seems to do much better with it's TV villains than it's movie ones. Garrett, Whitehall, and Ward are all quite good as villains, and they're all noticeably distinct from each other to boot. And I'm really curious/excited to see what Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin and David Tennant's Purple Man bring to the table.

 

[chamber-music]

Have him do something truly messed up. This is the freaking Red Skull that we're talking about. Have him blow up a city Watchmen-style, or casually order the execution of a bunch of POW, or kill someone with his bare hands, etc. Something to let you know that this is a particularly evil and dangerous guy. We never really got that from him. He was no more evil/dangerous than your average Bond villain.

Red Skull did causally shot some underling who failed him

[YT]/CG2f8QaksjY[/YT]

 

[Daedalus]

I think Red Skull did not do anything scary or particularly evil due to him having, much like the rest of the movie, that whole Saturday-morning-cartoon feel to it. He was moustache-turningly evil, he had big colorful weapons, he wanted to rule the world, all cartoony villains` tropes.

 

[Wildcard]

But still, Red Skull remains as a more fleshed out character than guys like Whiplash & Malekith. Plus, Weaving was brilliant in the role & the characterization was spot on. Could they have gone darker? Sure. But what we got was still great (imo).

 

[See Cap Run]

Have him do something truly messed up. This is the freaking Red Skull that we're talking about. Have him blow up a city Watchmen-style, or casually order the execution of a bunch of POW, or kill someone with his bare hands, etc. Something to let you know that this is a particularly evil and dangerous guy. We never really got that from him. He was no more evil/dangerous than your average Bond villain.

He did order the whole village full of women and children to be fired upon after the priest wouldn't tell him where the Tesseract was.

 

[Victarion]

He did order the whole village full of women and children to be fired upon after the priest wouldn't tell him where the Tesseract was.

I wouldn't have had him give the order. I'd just do an abrupt cut to his men unloading on them.

 

[See Cap Run]

I wouldn't have had him give the order. I'd just do an abrupt cut to his men unloading on them.

That also would have been pretty effective but I was speaking specifically on the level of ruthlessness that was displayed by him as there was talk that he should have destroyed a town.

 

[The Guard]

It's not even about the portrayals of these characters as an effective threat. Many of them certainly came across as such.

It's more about the actual exploration of said character/s.

 

[Wildcard]

Yeah I agree, Zod was about as one note/under written as any given Marvel villain.

I disagree with this. Zod in MoS was actually way less one-dimensional than Terrence Stamp's version. He didn't just want to rule, his goal was the preservation & survival of Kryptonians. He legitimately wanted to make sure they didn't become extinct, his ways of going about solving said problem just weren't the best alternatives.

I think that's interesting....making Zod a more conflicted character who isn't just on an ego trip.

Not really one note, imo.

 

[kedrell]

IMO the biggest hinderance to Malekith was having him speak in another language with subtitles for the majority of his lines. Ronan and Whiplash didn't have this issue, even though Whiplash had a thick accent. Frankly, Malekith is the ONLY mcu villain that I think has truly been handled poorly. Not all of them are cut from the same jib, after all. Had TtDW not had Loki picking up the slack(and giving his best outing to date, I might add) then this could have been a serious detriment to the movie. However, they did have him and did use him to full effect so the movie still ended up working. But Malekith is the only MCU villain that I think it's safe to say got shafted. Now I knew nothing of the character so it didn't bother me so much but for someone who was actually a fan of that character then I can understand them being upset.

 

[Dasher10]

IMO the biggest hinderance to Malekith was having him speak in another language with subtitles for the majority of his lines. Ronan and Whiplash didn't have this issue, even though Whiplash had a thick accent. Frankly, Malekith is the ONLY mcu villain that I think has truly been handled poorly. Not all of them are cut from the same jib, after all. Had TtDW not had Loki picking up the slack(and giving his best outing to date, I might add) then this could have been a serious detriment to the movie. However, they did have him and did use him to full effect so the movie still ended up working. But Malekith is the only MCU villain that I think it's safe to say got shafted. Now I knew nothing of the character so it didn't bother me so much but for someone who was actually a fan of that character then I can understand them being upset.

And as a fan of Walt Simonson and Dan Jurgens' work on Thor, I feel like Malekith was incredibly unfaithful and one-dimensional. It was like watching X-Men: The Last Stand all over again.

Personally, I liked Killian since his characterization was a LOT like the comics Mandarin. I also liked Justin Hammer since even though he wasn't faithful, he was really amusing to watch.

With Red Skull, I hope he returns but I'd save it for an adaptation of Red Zone from Geoff Johns' Avengers run. Red Skull is such an iconic villain with a rich history and a ton of classic storylines. I can't believe that Marvel completely killed him off. He was probably teleported elsewhere and will most likely appear again whenever Captain America least expects him to.

I also hope that Ronan comes back since the Kree are huge into genetic engineering and I find it hard to believe that they didn't have a backup plan to clone him. Plus, I feel like Marvel Studios would be dumb to kill off one of Carol Danvers' most iconic enemies before they could adapt Live Kree or Die.

 

[MadVillainy]

I disagree with this. Zod in MoS was actually way less one-dimensional than Terrence Stamp's version. He didn't just want to rule, his goal was the preservation & survival of Kryptonians. He legitimately wanted to make sure they didn't become extinct, his ways of going about solving said problem just weren't the best alternatives.

I think that's interesting....making Zod a more conflicted character who isn't just on an ego trip.

Not really one note, imo.

the way he was performed was one note. I dont know what Flint Marko meant but that's what I mean.
Save for a few scenes it was just anger, yell, anger, yell. It got old fast for me.

 

[Daedalus]

IMO the biggest hinderance to Malekith was having him speak in another language with subtitles for the majority of his lines. Ronan and Whiplash didn't have this issue, even though Whiplash had a thick accent. Frankly, Malekith is the ONLY mcu villain that I think has truly been handled poorly. Not all of them are cut from the same jib, after all. Had TtDW not had Loki picking up the slack(and giving his best outing to date, I might add) then this could have been a serious detriment to the movie. However, they did have him and did use him to full effect so the movie still ended up working. But Malekith is the only MCU villain that I think it's safe to say got shafted. Now I knew nothing of the character so it didn't bother me so much but for someone who was actually a fan of that character then I can understand them being upset.

I can assure you that the subtitles to the alien language were not the problem. The MCU movies are shown around the world wholly subtitled, and Malekith is one of the few characters that manage to be completely and utterly bland.

Also, completely unfaithful to his interpretation in the comics.

 

[Flint Marko]

I disagree with this. Zod in MoS was actually way less one-dimensional than Terrence Stamp's version. He didn't just want to rule, his goal was the preservation & survival of Kryptonians. He legitimately wanted to make sure they didn't become extinct, his ways of going about solving said problem just weren't the best alternatives.

I think that's interesting....making Zod a more conflicted character who isn't just on an ego trip.

Not really one note, imo.

I don't find him particularly interesting or well developed, him constantly screaming did nothing but aggravate me and his motivations were never really clarified or touched upon fully.
From Film crit hulk's essay on the matter:

Spoiler

ZOD KEEPS REPEATING HIS MOTIVATION AD NAUSEUM: "My people! My people!" IT IS CONSTANT. IT IS PERVASIVE. IT IS REPETITIVE. AND THEN IN HIS FINAL LAST SPEECH OF (PAPER THIN) CLARITY, HE SPECIFIES HOW HE HAS A FULL-ON GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO SAVING KRYPTON (THE FIRST TIME WE EVER ADDRESS THE GENETIC STUFF IN TERMS OF ITS PURPOSE OF A SINGLE CHARACTER MOTIVATION BTW) AND HOW THAT IS ALL HE KNOWS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE MOVIE HAS FLIRTED WITH, BUT IN THAT MOMENT WE SEE HIS PURE EMPTINESS AND IT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU FEEL FOR HIM, WHICH MEANS A) IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN MIGHTY USEFUL IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING THAT CHARACTER FROM THE GET-GO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED OR B) IT WOULD BE OPTIMAL IN TERMS OF HUMANIZING THE CHARACTER FOR A CATHARTIC UNION OF SORTS, RIGHT? BUT INSTEAD THE MOVIE TAKES THIS FIRST CLEAR ARTICULATION OF HIS MOTIVATION AND USES IT TO... DRIVE ZOD INTO A RAGE OF KILL-EVERYONE SMASHY... WHICH IS NOT ONLY WRONG-HEADED, BUT IT MEANS THE MOVIE IS USING THE CLARIFYING OF A CHARACTER MOMENT TO JUST MAKE HIM DO... EXACTLY WHAT HE'S ALREADY BEEN DOING.

HULK GOT IN A CONVERSATION WITH A MAN OF STEEL SUPERFAN (WHO ASKED TO REMAIN NAMELESS), BUT WHEN HULK BROUGHT THIS UP HE SUDDENLY GOT ANGRY AND CALLED HULK "a stupid turd" AND "of course everyone got that before the end you idiot!" WHICH CAUSED HULK TO THEN ASK 16 SUPER-GOOD-MOVIE-FANS IF THE FACT THAT ZOD WAS GENETICALLY DISPOSED TO PROTECTING KRYPTON WAS SOMETHING THAT REGISTERED TO THEM PRIOR TO THE FINAL SPEECH AND NO. IN ALL 16 CASES, IT DID NOT.

IT INVITES THE BIGGER QUESTION: HOW IS THIS FILM DRAMATIZING THE NEEDS / WANTS / EXPRESSIONS OF ITS MAIN VILLAIN?

ALONG THE SAME LINES: WHY DOES THE CODEX MATTER SO MUCH IN THIS MOVIE? SURE, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT FREE WILL, BUT WHAT ABOUT SUPERMAN'S LIFE IS DEPENDENT ON IT? WHAT DOES FREE WILL HAVE TO DO WITH HIM? MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT ABOUT ZOD'S LIFE SEEMS PARTICULARLY AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF FREE WILL? WE FEEL LIKE THESE THINGS ARE ABOMINATIONS, BUT HOW MUCH IS THE CONCEPT EXPLORED IN ORDER TO BE DRAMATICALLY EFFECTIVE?

LOOK AT ZOD'S CRONIES TOO. A HULK FOLLOWER HAD AN AWESOME TWEET:

@AdamBrodie1 Mention Zod's lieutenant? Just seen MoS, counted 3 separate & interesting motivations for her, none of which developed.

ONCE AGAIN, IT'S ALL THE FORM OF THE THING. SHE'S SPROUTING EVIL IDEAS ABOUT EUGENICS AND LESSER SPECIES, BUT WHEN YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE SERVITUDE ANGLE OF ZOD YOU REALIZE ALL THE BAD GUY MOTIVATIONS AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN A HODGEPODGE OF ALL THE FAMILIAR STAPLES. THERE IS NO REAL COHERENT PERSPECTIVE. HULK DOESN'T KNOW WHO THE KRYPTONIANS TRULY ARE.

INSTEAD, LIKE MOST OF WHAT IS IN THIS MOVIE, THERE IS ONLY CONVENIENT RHETORIC.

IMO the biggest hinderance to Malekith was having him speak in another language with subtitles for the majority of his lines. Ronan and Whiplash didn't have this issue, even though Whiplash had a thick accent. Frankly, Malekith is the ONLY mcu villain that I think has truly been handled poorly. Not all of them are cut from the same jib, after all. Had TtDW not had Loki picking up the slack(and giving his best outing to date, I might add) then this could have been a serious detriment to the movie. However, they did have him and did use him to full effect so the movie still ended up working. But Malekith is the only MCU villain that I think it's safe to say got shafted. Now I knew nothing of the character so it didn't bother me so much but for someone who was actually a fan of that character then I can understand them being upset.

This I agree with, I think Malekith was poorly handled but the movie had enough going for it elsewhere that it was not as bad as it could have been. I also don't know anything about the character really so it's tough for me to really be super upset about it, as I don't even think I ever heard of Malekith before the movie. However, TDW was the first Marvel movie I've left feeling disappointed, but that's about as far as my criticisms will go because it has a solid rewatch value, Thor and Loki are always a pleasure to see onscreen together, and Asgard has never looked better.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

IMO the biggest hinderance to Malekith was having him speak in another language with subtitles for the majority of his lines. .

people complained about Red Skull not speaking in subtitled German after TFA came out. you just can't please everybody

 

[kedrell]

people complained about Red Skull not speaking in subtitled German after TFA came out. you just can't please everybody

This is literally the first time I've ever heard that complaint for CA:TFA.

I just expect that at this point everyone is on board with the movie doing the translation for the audience. I just assumed when we saw the Nazi's among themselves that they were speaking German and we were just having it translated for us without the use of subtitles. Is this really a big issue for some people? Wow. I mean sometimes it can be an artistic choice to include it or not but most of the time I think it's just an annoying obstacle to be overcome and not dealt with any more as there are much more important things to deal with in a story and I appreciate the movie not wasting my time. I guess it depends on a case by case basis how it's best handled but I had ZERO issue with how CA:TFA dealt with it.

I still think the best way I've ever seen this issue handled was in The Hunt for Red October, which was brilliant.

But my point with Malekith is that it's difficult to have memorable dialog when all of it is in subtitles. I think 1/2 of what makes dialog memorable is the way an actor delivers it. The other 1/2 is the actual content/writing of what he/she is saying.

Whiplash had some good lines/exchanges with Tony and Hammer. Even Ronan had some memorable moments(What are you DOING!) but there really aren't any for Malekith. And memorable lines are a big part of what makes a villain effective on screen.