Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - - - - - - - - - - - Part 20

[Greens]

Aren't preferences always biased?

 

[Roose Bolton]

I agree on the first part but i disagree on the second. Even if Magneto is better than all MCU villains, he is one guy. Fox has wasted villain Like Doom (TWICE), Silver Samurai, Apocalypse and Galactus. The only truly great villain that Marvel has wasted is Ultron. Fox is still on the losing side of this. They even have more movies than marvel yet the only 1-2 villains just out. The same as Marvel. yet Fox isn't called out as much. For me this is clearly a double-standard.

Can't agree there. Red Skull, General Ross, The Leader, Baron Strucker and Ronan the Accuser were not used well in their respective films and those are all great characters.

 

[Iceman]

The Leader. Ah yes, forgot about him. So the MCU does have a challenger for Enchantress after all.

 

[Zarex]

Can't agree there. Red Skull, General Ross, The Leader, Baron Strucker and Ronan the Accuser were not used well in their respective films and those are all great characters.

General Ross was just ok. But Ambassador Ross was great.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Can't agree there. Red Skull, General Ross, The Leader, Baron Strucker and Ronan the Accuser were not used well in their respective films and those are all great characters.

And Malekith. And the guy in Ant-Man they named Darren Cross for some reason. At least with Kaekilious he wasn't someone anyone cared that much about or was ever a big deal in the comics.

General Ross was just ok. But Ambassador Ross was great.

That is true. But don't get me started on how they treated EVERET Ross!

 

[Roose Bolton]

General Ross was just ok. But Ambassador Ross was great.

He was better written and I thought the performance was vastly improved, but I think if you take away his name he's not especially close to the comics character. When they had him in his traditional role as Banner's nemesis he was rather flat in my opinion, especially since his character in the Hulk comics is one of the most interesting and complex antagonists within the medium.

 

[henzINNIT]

I would also point out that Magneto is one of the best comic book villains in all of comic history. In nearly every comic villain ranking, he's in the top 10 consistently, if not the top 5 to 3. He's probably the best sympathetic, or understandable villain in the entire medium. So that helps.

Definitely helps. I'd go further and say Fox have some of the best characters in general. Joss Whedon said previously that they have all the best female characters for instance, and there's a good argument for that. Marvel started with the characters major studios didn't care about. Nearly 10 years in, they are the dominant force in the industry, and have done far more with less.

I'm not defending Marvel's villains, because overall they have been weaker. But many of their villains haven't been exactly powerhouse characters in the comics. Some have, many haven't. I don't think that's an excuse mind you, because a good writer can make c-list characters compelling. (Nobody thought Mr. Freeze would be a great tragic villain, and then BTAS got their hands on him.)

Agreed on this as well. They are pulling from C-listers quite often, so I question how many were really "wasted". Mandarin stands out as an exception I suppose, though that's more a case of misleading the audience than specifically how that character was presented.

Marvel do still need to improve in this regard though.

The past couple Marvel films, I haven't minded the villains, in fact, many of them I've found quite good. Zemo and Pierce for example I really enjoyed. However, while they were very functional villains (they served the plot very well, they certainly enhanced and were a reflection of the themes of their respective films), they weren't all that compelling or impactful. Nostalgia Critic actually has a good video about this, talking about Disney and how they no longer seem to be able to make classic villains the way they used to. It gets into an interesting conversation about how often times the most memorable villains end up being in films that have simpler stories, whereas while the newer disney films villain's aren't as iconic, they serve their respective stories better. I don't think this is always the case, (TDK is a great example of a complex film that has a villain who serves the story and is iconic) but it's an interesting conversation to be had.

Marvel do so well doing right by their heroes that I often wonder if there is room for much complexity for villains. There's not many films in the genre that balance it particularly well. Older Batman films were criticised for greater emphasis on the villains, and even TDK I think struggled to make Batman as interesting as The Joker (though in part because of Ledger's show-stealing performance).

Origin-based CBMs always struggle to introduce a good villain through all the set-up. Marvel do a lot more of these. I think that hurts their stats.

I loved Zemo.

I agree on the first part but i disagree on the second. Even if Magneto is better than all MCU villains, he is one guy. Fox has wasted villain Like Doom (TWICE), Silver Samurai, Apocalypse and Galactus. The only truly great villain that Marvel has wasted is Ultron. Fox is still on the losing side of this. They even have more movies than marvel yet the only 1-2 villains just out. The same as Marvel. yet Fox isn't called out as much. For me this is clearly a double-standard.

No question they have a lot of squandered potential in their history. Magneto is just one guy, but one guy who has been pretty consistantly great for 17 years and several features.

Fox have ruined some heavy hitters, more than Marvel by far. They ruined those films in general though. It's not a double standard in my opinion. Marvel have a villain problem, Fox have a film problem.

 

[GeckoMoria]

Definitely helps. I'd go further and say Fox have some of the best characters in general. Joss Whedon said previously that they have all the best female characters for instance, and there's a good argument for that. Marvel started with the characters major studios didn't care about. Nearly 10 years in, they are the dominant force in the industry, and have done far more with less.



Agreed on this as well. They are pulling from C-listers quite often, so I question how many were really "wasted". Mandarin stands out as an exception I suppose, though that's more a case of misleading the audience than specifically how that character was presented.

Marvel do still need to improve in this regard though.



Marvel do so well doing right by their heroes that I often wonder if there is room for much complexity for villains. There's not many films in the genre that balance it particularly well. Older Batman films were criticised for greater emphasis on the villains, and even TDK I think struggled to make Batman as interesting as The Joker (though in part because of Ledger's show-stealing performance).

Origin-based CBMs always struggle to introduce a good villain through all the set-up. Marvel do a lot more of these. I think that hurts their stats.

I loved Zemo.



No question they have a lot of squandered potential in their history. Magneto is just one guy, but one guy who has been pretty consistantly great for 17 years and several features.

Fox have ruined some heavy hitters, more than Marvel by far. They ruined those films in general though. It's not a double standard in my opinion. Marvel have a villain problem, Fox have a film problem.

Imo Fox has an inconsistency problem AND a villain problem.

 

[GeckoMoria]

Can't agree there. Red Skull, General Ross, The Leader, Baron Strucker and Ronan the Accuser were not used well in their respective films and those are all great characters.

100% disagree. We haven't seen the leader so it's highly unfair to judge him. He saw Sterns. red Skull was more than fine, this is how Skull is in the comics, a hate-monger Nazi, he isn't a complex guy. General Ross in both TIH and CW was really good and Hurt had a blast. I agree on Strucker, he was wasted. The others you mention are a stretch.

And for the record neither of them is truly iconic. When we use the term iconic for villains it's used for a very select elite like Kingpin, Joker, Apocalypse, Luthor, Doom, Green Goblin, Magneto and a couple of others. Everyone else is below that.

 

[Roose Bolton]

100% disagree. We haven't seen the leader so it's highly unfair to judge him. He saw Sterns. red Skull was more than fine, this is how Skull is in the comics, a hate-monger Nazi, he isn't a complex guy. General Ross in both TIH and CW was really good and Hurt had a blast. I agree on Strucker, he was wasted. The others you mention are a stretch.

And for the record neither of them is truly iconic. When we use the term iconic for villains it's used for a very select elite like Kingpin, Joker, Apocalypse, Luthor, Doom, Green Goblin, Magneto and a couple of others. Everyone else is below that.

I completely disagree with your opinion on the Red Skull. Johann Schmidt is one of the most frightening and thematically compelling villains in comics, in the film he was an Indiana Jones villain. Likewise General Ross is not a one-note power hungry villain out to steal the Hulk's power that TIH depicted him as. While Hurt was good in CW, there was very little that was recognisably Thunderbolt Ross from the comics, aside from the name. His complex and tragic relationships with Banner and Betty (really the most important elements of the character) were, quite frankly, given more respect in Sam Elliot's portrayal.

And if we're counting "iconic" then it's a stretch to include Apocalypse in that number. He's important within X-Men comics and related material, but he's a far cry from the other characters you included.

 

[DrCosmic]

MCU Villains are sideshows. They come to do a bit of juggling, make a little noise for pacing sake and provide some parallels for the hero's journey. If you don't look out for these villains becoming more than sideshows you get Thor 2. Overall this lends to a lot of great superhero battles, but not so much deep interpersonal conflict.

Fox Villains are protagonists of another story (Magneto had a good story, Dr. Doom a poor one) which lends to a lot of great personal conflict but not so great superhero battles.

DC Villains are ideologues, philosophies made flesh to combat and test the hero's ideology. They make for potentially much deeper films but when not done right, the entire film becomes a critical spitstorm because the film invites deeper consideration but doesn't hold up under it.

All of the companies have some ability to employ mindless monsters as villains, such as X-24, The Winter Soldier, Doomsday, Kurse, etc, but because mindless monsters, like Jaws or the Xenomorph are not themselves villainous, even though they are antagonistic, their effectiveness is hinged entirely on the effectiveness of the villainous antagonists of the film.

None of these takes is ideal all around, but some are ideal for certain villains. Joker IS an idea. Magneto IS the protagonist of a different story. Loki IS a sideshow.

Lex Luthor is not an idea. Ultron is not a sideshow. Apocalypse is not the protagonist of a different story, at least, not since he first discovered his spaceship. So these villains fail to impact on the same level as a Joker or a Loki or a Magneto.

Part of why Kingpin is regarded as such an incredible character on the MCU rankings is because he's not a sideshow, in fact, all the Netflix MCU villains tend to be protagonists of their own story, Fox style, which, as you see, leads to great interpersonal conflict... not so great superhero battles.

 

[GeckoMoria]

I completely disagree with your opinion on the Red Skull. Johann Schmidt is one of the most frightening and thematically compelling villains in comics, in the film he was an Indiana Jones villain. Likewise General Ross is not a one-note power hungry villain out to steal the Hulk's power that TIH depicted him as. While Hurt was good in CW, there was very little that was recognisably Thunderbolt Ross from the comics, aside from the name. His complex and tragic relationships with Banner and Betty (really the most important elements of the character) were, quite frankly, given more respect in Sam Elliot's portrayal.

And if we're counting "iconic" then it's a stretch to include Apocalypse in that number. He's important within X-Men comics and related material, but he's a far cry from the other characters you included.

110% disagree on Skull. he is one-note fascist Nazi with a grudge on Cap and this is why he is nowhere near the top of any comic book villain list. The complex and tragic relationships can't be built on one film. The foundation in TIH was there and the main motive was as well. As for Apocalypse, i can remove him from the list but my point still remains. Jesus, some get really stuck on trivial things.

 

[InCali]

MCU Villains are sideshows. They come to do a bit of juggling, make a little noise for pacing sake and provide some parallels for the hero's journey. If you don't look out for these villains becoming more than sideshows you get Thor 2. Overall this lends to a lot of great superhero battles, but not so much deep interpersonal conflict.

Fox Villains are protagonists of another story (Magneto had a good story, Dr. Doom a poor one) which lends to a lot of great personal conflict but not so great superhero battles.

DC Villains are ideologues, philosophies made flesh to combat and test the hero's ideology. They make for potentially much deeper films but when not done right, the entire film becomes a critical spitstorm because the film invites deeper consideration but doesn't hold up under it.

All of the companies have some ability to employ mindless monsters as villains, such as X-24, The Winter Soldier, Doomsday, Kurse, etc, but because mindless monsters, like Jaws or the Xenomorph are not themselves villainous, even though they are antagonistic, their effectiveness is hinged entirely on the effectiveness of the villainous antagonists of the film.

None of these takes is ideal all around, but some are ideal for certain villains. Joker IS an idea. Magneto IS the protagonist of a different story. Loki IS a sideshow.

Lex Luthor is not an idea. Ultron is not a sideshow. Apocalypse is not the protagonist of a different story, at least, not since he first discovered his spaceship. So these villains fail to impact on the same level as a Joker or a Loki or a Magneto.

Part of why Kingpin is regarded as such an incredible character on the MCU rankings is because he's not a sideshow, in fact, all the Netflix MCU villains tend to be protagonists of their own story, Fox style, which, as you see, leads to great interpersonal conflict... not so great superhero battles.

I tend to not compare the Netflix villains to movie villains. From where I sit, the Netflix format lends itself to having a stronger character (probably all the characters in the show) as they have the time to develop them.

EDIT: Kingpin and Kilgrave were terrific.

 

[Slade W]

I tend to not compare the Netflix villains to movie villains. From where I sit, the Netflix format lends itself to having a stronger character (probably all the characters in the show) as they have the time to develop them.

EDIT: Kingpin and Kilgrave were terrific.

I get what you are saying, but I still think it is fair to say the Netflix shows have done a much better job than the movies have when it comes to villains. There are villains in other CBMs that are as good as, better, or at least much closer in quality to those Netflix villains that you mentioned, so the movies still could have done much better in that regard. As it stands, only Loki is comparable to those villains IMO (but I still think he comes up short). I should add that while i do not think they are amongst the best villains in the genre, Zemo and Ultron were good enough villains IMO, and that I liked them. The others I think range from poor-ok, and are forgettable. I do not think lack of time can be used to excuse them not being good enough.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Are you about to go into another one of your "marvel zombie" rants?

Nah, but if it bothers you then the bra fits, bruh.

 

[InCali]

I get what you are saying, but I still think it is fair to say the Netflix shows have done a much better job than the movies have when it comes to villains. There are villains in other CBMs that are as good as, better, or at least much closer in quality to those Netflix villains that you mentioned, so the movies still could have done much better in that regard. As it stands, only Loki is comparable to those villains IMO (but I still think he comes up short). I should add that while i do not think they are amongst the best villains in the genre, Zemo and Ultron were good enough villains IMO, and that I liked them. The others I think range from poor-ok, and are forgettable. I do not think lack of time can be used to excuse them not being good enough.

I'd rank Joker (TDK) as tops. I'd follow up with probably Magneto (both), Loki, Ra's (BB), Doc Ock, and liked Obadiah, Red Skull and original Zod. Ultron was fine IMO as was Yellow Jacket and Kaecilius.

On the low end, I'd say Whiplash (but loved Rockwell), Malekith, Joker (Leto), Enchantress, and Lex (Jesse). The last 3 IMO were all really, really bad, but I liked SS (go figure).

Kingpin and Kilgrave I'd put up there with Magneto and that lot, but, like I said, I think those characters had a better chance to breathe.

 

[Flint Marko]

Nah, but if it bothers you then the bra fits, bruh.

Who said that bothers me? "Marvel Zombie" and proud.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Who said that bothers me? "Marvel Zombie" and proud.

You can't protect them, Rick!

 

[I Am The Knight]

Mutant and proud here

 

[Samuron]

Mmm!

Stupid editor won't let me do all caps

 

[I Am The Knight]

Mmm!

Stupid editor won't let me do all caps

I think you need to add a Hype "smiley" like this:

MMM!

 

[Roose Bolton]

110% disagree on Skull. he is one-note fascist Nazi with a grudge on Cap and this is why he is nowhere near the top of any comic book villain list. The complex and tragic relationships can't be built on one film. The foundation in TIH was there and the main motive was as well. As for Apocalypse, i can remove him from the list but my point still remains. Jesus, some get really stuck on trivial things.

Ang Lee did back in 2003

 

[OutOfBoose]

Jared Leto on MTV nomination:

"Oh, the fire of my loins. The itch in my crotch. The one, the only, the infamous MTV Movie Awards - Thank you!!! - Joker ��"

 

[metaphysician]

The Leader. Ah yes, forgot about him. So the MCU does have a challenger for Enchantress after all.

Not really. He's a bit part supporting character, not even an actual villain. He's more like a potential sequel villain teaser. Not anywhere near as terrible as the Enchantress.

 

[Black Narcissus]

So how many of ya'll feel like the new spidey film will be better than any off the two Raimi films? I do not.