Does Disney Owned Marvel Hate Villains?

[Guts]

Based on that about Malekith, it sounds like Marvel just needs to learn to trim the fat, ie the excess jokes, and stick to the meat of their stories.

I think the director wanted the movie to be just as long as the Avengers.

 

[Greens]

Nobody remembers Bane but devoted Batfans & he is certainly no "pop culture phenomenon". Come on now.

Loki's popularity alone vastly eclipses Bane's.

With pop culture phenomenon I mean that he penetrated pop culture beyond just his film. I feel like much of Loki's popularity comes from girls with an unhealthy Tom Hiddleston obsession.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

With pop culture phenomenon I mean that he penetrated pop culture beyond just his film. I feel like much of Loki's popularity comes from girls with an unhealthy Tom Hiddleston obsession.

I could honestly say the same things about Bane and Nolanites, but I'm above that. But really, the cultural impact you might think Bane had is probably a little above Whiplash

 

[Chance Jackson]

You take Jane Foster out of Dark World and replace it with "nuanced fleshed out" Malekith screen time and the movie is twice as good, for everyone in the audience.

This

 

[Rowsdower!]

I could honestly say the same things about Bane and Nolanites, but I'm above that. But really, the cultural impact you might think Bane had is probably a little above Whiplash

Yeah but there's not a Whiplashcat.

 

[Greens]

I could honestly say the same things about Bane and Nolanites, but I'm above that. But really, the cultural impact you might think Bane had is probably a little above Whiplash

 

[TalismanRing]

Hmmm, must be all the Nolanite boys and their unhealthy Tom Hardy obsession.

 

[kedrell]

Tom Hardy's voice, the mask and some of Bane's lines are definitely more popular than anything any Marvel villain has done.

Mr. Mumbles? Hell no, he was a joke who wasn't even his own boss and got killed unceremoniously by somebody other than the hero with incredible ease. He was the Aldrich Killian of DC. And much as I dislike him at least Killian was his own boss.

 

[Shikamaru]

I believe that great villains create conflict and conflict drives story but they don't define the hero if the hero has something more going for him than his ability to defeat bad guys.

Thor has had Loki and Tony Stark arguably (though I disagree) has some of the weakest villains and there's no way that Thor (and I like Thor) is a better or more interesting hero on screen than Tony Stark is - no matter the film. Stark is a rock star all on his own. Yes villains help to flesh out heroes but so do allies, friends and love interests - but at their core they need to be interesting and compelling figures without other characters to prop them up.

Steve's core never say die strength, big hearted genuine goodness, moral compass and self sacrificing nature are the main reasons he's an interesting and sympathetic hero. Great villains give him a foil and an avenue to show these qualities but his friendships and working relationships do as well. His on screen relationships with Nat, Falcon, Fury and Peggy were as or more important than his confrontations with the villains. The most compelling villain relationship was actually because he was a friend.

But I believe Marvel's great success is their emphasis and fleshing out of their heroes.

Heck, their last big film is GOTG where people have come out loving the heroes - humanoid and otherwise and have seemingly been largely indifferent to the villains. Ronan wound up being undercooked and easily distracted but that doesn't make Rocket or Groot less vibrant or interesting heroes.

I do think though it would have been a stronger film if Ronan had been more fleshed out - and I think it was a mistake to one and done him.

I agree it isn't as simple as just having great villains, but to deny there is no strong correlation between strong heroes and strong villains is just false. There are exceptions (Thor and Loki being one) but as I pointed out, that's generally the case. All the major A-list properties like Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, X-Men...all have a fantastic set of characters that come with them. It's not just as simple as creating a strong character, you have to create a strong mythos and then grow the character and his mythos together.

Also, you missed a huge part of my point. It's not just about creating strong characters in the moment, it's about creating iconic A-list properties that can stand the test of time like Spider-Man (and to a bit of a lesser extent) the X-Men did. If you want go for that, you'll need a strong mythos that comes with the hero, and that includes stronger villains. They can't solely rely on the novelty of just having Tony be Tony in an Iron Man film especially post-Downey. Even James Bond needed stronger villains so that he could stand the test of time.

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvel has been setting up Thanos for multiple movies now, he better be a mofo or else they will look bad.

I bet Avengers 2 will have good villainy.

 

[Rogue Star]

Marvel has been setting up Thanos for multiple movies now, he better be a mofo or else they will look bad.

I bet Avengers 2 will have good villainy.

Spoilers: The reason Infinity War is divided into two parts is because Thanos slaughters the entire team in the first part.

 

[Iron_Stark]

The problem with Malekith was not that Marvel didn't like him. The problem was that Marvel has a raging ***** for Tom Hiddleston's portrayal of Loki, and cut a bunch of character development and characterization for Malekith in favor of having Loki ham it up onscreen some more.

Christopher Eccleston is on record saying there were a bunch of scenes that fleshed out Malekith and gave him some more nuance and motivation that ended up on the cutting room floor.

You had a similar problem with Iron Man 2. Whiplash had a bunch of scenes meant to humanize him and make him seem more sympathetic, and they ended up falling by the wayside because Marvel wanted to cram Black Widow and a subplot about the Avengers into the movie.

The problem is less that Disney hates villains and more that Marvel consistently tries to include too much stuff in their movies.

No. Marvel crammed the War Machine storyline at the last minute when Cheadle was cast and that was the reason Whiplash got the shaft.

I remember Feige saying that Whiplash was going to have numerous suits to compete with Iron Man, instead we ended up with the race track suit and some generic, forgettable suit at the end and instead of Legacy Studios and ILM having to work on Whiplash Mk II and III armors like Feige had said, they had to work on the Mark II Iron Man armor (again) that Rhodey steals and the War Machine armor. Then there was Mickey Rourke saying how excited he was to play Vanko and that he wasn't going to be a one dimensional villain, how he visited Russian prisons, but instead his scenes got cut for the War Machine subplot.

Apart from Iron Man, all the promotion, commercials, toys, merchandise, posters were for War Machine, not Black Widow and especially not Whiplash.

Yes they were trying to promote an Avengers movie, but it wasn't with Widow, it was with War Machine and to show audiences that Iron Man can be a team player. Thus Vanko got the shaft big time.

This whole thing about Black Widow taking up time and subplots is nonsense, she mainly shared time with Pepper Potts and had ONE action sequence. Not once did she have a side by side action sequence with Iron Man. War Machine was the one that took precious screen time, sfx, visual Fx, action scenes, promotion, etc away from Vanko.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

No. Marvel crammed the War Machine storyline at the last minute when Cheadle was cast and that was the reason Whiplash got the shaft.

Thank you. At least SOMEONE gets it.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

yeah I reckon the 'Avengers Ad' crap will never go away. The film has enough problems without making up more.

 

[Victarion]

Iron Man learning to be a team player would've been a fine subplot for The Avengers. Are those Vanko scenes available anywhere? Because I think Tony learning fully about Howard's deeds, including whatever damage Howard inflicted upon Vanko (thieves and butchers) would've set him up for some interesting interactions with Fury in The Avengers. Specifically, when Fury and those other politicians are discussing the balance of power in a world with alien gods and men in superpowered suits.

Trigger Warning:

@Kedrell:

Spoiler

Bane was, in fact, his own man. His role in the narrative is that of an example of what Bruce would've become if he relied exclusively on his Batman persona as a means of coping with his parents' death by fully embracing the League philosophy. Talia was likewise her own person in that she took an active role in setting up her revenge against Bruce, and she served as an example of Bruce if he never moved on from his parents' death. The purpose both of these character serve in their narrative is why I consider them among the best comic movie villains, along with Kilian "the Mandarin" Aldrich (again, the idea of a mere human being Iron Man's biggest threat when he's more worried about the cosmic). We didn't get much in the way of monologue from Bane (whereas we did with Talia and the Mandarin), but that's more a case of showing rather than telling. I'm not posting this to get you to change your opinion of anything, mind you, but to view the characters in the context of their movie.

 

[kedrell]

Thank you. At least SOMEONE gets it.

I completely agree. War Machine should have been held off until IM3 and Iron Patriot should have been held off until hell freezes over.

 

[Guts]

Spoilers: The reason Infinity War is divided into two parts is because Thanos slaughters the entire team in the first part.

Spoilers for a movie that has not even been released yet?