Does Disney Owned Marvel Hate Villains?

[chamber-music]

Throw the Mandarin in there, too. I would like to see more villains given a Loki esque adaption where you really have a hard time labeling them as villains, so much as you can only really call them characters.

Sounds like Yellowjacket/Darren Cross in Ant-Man might be a slightly more complex Marvel villain according to Corey Stoll.

I'm Darren Cross who is one of the characters in the comic books and he invents this suit that can do everything that the Ant-Man suit can do, plus more. It's more militaristic, it's more advanced, it's armored... and then he is Yellowjacket."

Cross isn't your typical bad guy. "He is not a villain in the vein of Thanos or Loki, who are villains that know it. Cross isn't your typical bad guy.[Cross] is a guy who is not that dissimilar from Michael Douglas' character, Hank Pym. A brilliant scientist, who is not ethically pure."

He adds that the approach taken to the film's villain in fact extends to all of the characters: "I think a great thing about the whole movie is that everybody in this movie is in those shades of grey a little

 

[kedrell]

Two comments:

First, I think this perception that "Marvel hates villain" is a mistake. Marvel doesn't hate villains. Rather, movies in general "love" their villains disproportionately much, in recent years. Usually, its the villain of the movie that gets to be dynamic and drive the plot, with the hero reacting to stuff the villain does. The villain role gets to be "juicier", and attract actors who put some spirit into it. Marvel rejecting this trend and giving full focus on the hero of the movie creates an impression that they "hate" villains, simply because we've all grown too used to the villain being the center of the movie.

( And its not even really true, since every movie Loki has appeared in, has to a large extent revolved around his personality and his actions, anyway. )

Second, really, Marvel doesn't kill off villains excessively. Sure, it'd be nice if they kept more of them around, but compared to even other comic book movies, let alone action movies in general? Marvel keeps tons of villains alive.

Iron Man 1: None.
Incredible Hulk: General Ross, Abomination; Samuel Sterns gets setup.
Iron Man 2: Justin Hammer.
Thor: Loki; also, the Jotuns as a people are still around.
Captain America: *Technically* none, but Red Skull gets the most "no body no death" death ever.
Avengers: Loki, Thanos, the Other.
Iron Man 3: None, though the Mandarin's death is a little "no body no death"; also, not every Extremis soldier is accounted for.
Thor 2: Loki.
Cap 2: Winter Soldier, Rumlow, Strucker; also, HYDRA as an organization is confirmed extant.
GotG: Nebula, Thanos, the Collector.

I agree. Plus,

IM2: Vanko also has the 'no body, no death' thing going on. We never saw him blow up, it's just assumed that he did. Plus there've been many Whiplash's and Crimson Dynamo's as that's common for Iron Man villains to follow the equipment/technology as much or even more than the actual villain using it.
Cap1: Obviously Zola survived.
IM3: The 'All Hail the King' short confirms the real Mandarin is still out there.
Thor2: The cyclical nature of Ragnarok ensures that nobody will stay dead forever in the 9 realms. Malekith and Kurse could be back.
Cap2: Zola also can easily be said to be still alive if they want.
GotG: Ronan could also have something similar to the Red Skull going on, possibly. Plus Thanos with the Infinity Guantlet automatically puts death in the entire universe in a state of question as the wielder can easily reverse it.

Of all the villains they've tackled, only Malekith and Algrim/Kurse have I found to really have been unsatisfying. Thankfully that movie had Loki to pick up the slack in the villain dept.

And keep in mind if Darth Vader had only got what we see of him in ANH as his lone time to make an impression and nothing else, would he be so highly regarded as he is today? Not a chance. He'd just be a footnote.

 

[Victarion]

Vader didn't do anything for me. I came to him too late, I think.

 

[MbJ]

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.

 

[CB Fan]

I actually thought Ronan was a pretty good villain was he Loki? No, but he still posed a threat and you could tell people feared him.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I don't really have a problem with the way Marvel has handled their villains aside from Malekith. Pierce was a good villain. Stane was a good villain. I just wish they stop killing them off all the time though. Ronan was a good character, but I would have liked to seen more of him in the future. Losing him hurts the cosmic side of the MCU. He could have been a valuable part of Inhumans, Captain Marvel, etc.

Agreed with all of this. Especially about Ronan being wasted. Although because comics! he may yet return. Hell Thanos bringing him back would be a hell of a power display.

Red Skull could have used more bite, although what we did get was great fun thanks to Weaving. I wish he'd reconsider if the offer comes around again.

 

[0siris]

This has been my biggest issue with most of Marvel's movies. While most of them have been great, outside of Loki, their villains have been so one-dimensional and uninteresting which sucks because a lot them are great in the comics. Most of the time, feel like they're just there because the movie needs a villain.

This has been my problem too. One of the things that made Marvel Comics and the Marvel Universe so awesome was that Marvel villains weren't traditional Silver Age "villains." They were characters. They had beliefs, agendas, perspectives, plans, emotions, loves. Many were trying to do the right thing the wrong way, or the wrong thing the right way. Evil is only dangerous if there's a kernel of good in it--and the larger the kernel, the more dangerous it is. Sure, some of the villains, particularly in the Marvel Silver Age, were straightfoward super-criminals, but in time, the Marvel editorial approach fleshed out the villains to where they were more anti-villains and anti-heroes than maniacal roaring "Hi, I'm greedy hateful and vengeful!" caricatures. You could tell stories with these characters as the protagonist. Magneto, Dr. Doom (everyone should read Triumph and Torment with Dr. Strange, something Marvel should seriously consider reprinting), heck, Dracula and the Kingpin, all have their "human" moments.

If only the MCU would follow through with that. The MCU villains, by and large, have been cartoonish DC Silver Age villains. Even though I liked GotG overall, the portrayal of Ronan was abominable and silly. Ronan is a noble character, one who believes in his people and their destiny. He's not out there to just be a hateful sociopath, he is doing what it takes to defend his civilization and its interests. That is what's interesting, when competing positive interests conflict and lead to inevitable, tragic conflict. I don't know why Marvel Studios or Disney thinks it needs to dumb down its villains into silly trite caricatures. If there have been better scenes with Malekith and Ronan filmed, *at least* make them available in a director's cut. And if you have to edit stuff out of the movie, get out the stupid pointless romantic subplots. Women in the audience aren't talking about the romance after the movie. Just as it's insulting to men to think that only men want to see explosions and violence, it's insulting to women to think they need to see some romantic connection to care about a plot that deal with big and complex ideas writ large on screen. 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.

 

[Hypestyle]

Needed for Thor films: Skurge, Enchantress, Seth, Mangog.

 

[Victarion]

Better: throw away the need for romantic subplots by just having Jane/Thor be a couple, with Jane like, idk, trying to apply her knowledge of science to the stuff she experiences in Asgard.

 

[The Question]

Trust me, I would find it an interesting challenge to make the Mandarin a real kickass, appealing character to the general audience and the fans as well as Marvel itself. It's what any creative type lives for, to make the impossible very possible. Sometimes what you need to bring a powerful interpretation of a character to life is someone vaguely familiar with the franchise to bring a breath of fresh air to it. For example that outlook, bringing in someone new to a franchise and unfamiliar with the source material worked very well for the Wrath of Khan, which was produced by a man who was not a fan, and is still considered the best movie of the bunch past and present.

That's kind of exactly what they did with The Mandarin, isn't it? They brought in a new director who reinvented a joke villain to remove the goofier and unsavory elements and create a genuine menace that still had its roots in the core strengths of the original version, as well as even commenting on its weaknesses.

 

[Victarion]

Seems like it, TQ. I think it worked quite well, especially with Tony's being afraid of more cosmic threats.

 

[meanmc]

And keep in mind if Darth Vader had only got what we see of him in ANH as his lone time to make an impression and nothing else, would he be so highly regarded as he is today? Not a chance. He'd just be a footnote.

Hmm, i do not think so... It could have just this one movie, and Darth Vader would still be one of the best villains of all-time!
His presence was just awsome...

One of the things that made Marvel Comics and the Marvel Universe so awesome was that Marvel villains weren't traditional Silver Age "villains." They were characters. They had beliefs, agendas, perspectives, plans, emotions, loves. ...

Your are not wrong, BUT what i most of the time miss (in most of the movies around, not just in the MCU) is, a villain who wants to be bad.

Almost every villain - nowadays - gets an excuse to be evil. The Vice-president in Iron Man 3 is a good example. Can something really be, what his motivations were?? I do not buy this... and you have many villains around with such weak excuses!
Of couse, in this case, they want to tell "The Vice president is not real evil - he wanted to do something good.. bla bla bla"...
That is crap...

I might be stereotyp, but i want my villains BAD - no excuses! Worst example was Sandman in SM3...
There are people out there who want to do bad things, because they want to do it! Especially with some superheroes around this is a logical thing...

Please no more "i needed some money", "i have to safe my family or daughter", "i am not bad, i have to do it"... NO!
Let the villains be bad!!!

 

[Keyser Soze]

I'm hopeful that 2015 will be a good year for Marvel villains. Obviously, there's Ultron, who's in the title of the next Avengers movie and seems to be a central focus. But there's also The Kingpin on the Daredevil Netflix series, who has been getting a lot of advance buzz for giving a great performance.

 

[smallville fan]

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.

They did that well with Cap 2 I felt.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think Marvel should look to the Bond movie villains for inspiration. There are many who are memorable and developed enough despite James Bond movies not being that long.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Marvel should stick to what they do best: focus on the heroes. If you want movies about villains, I hear Sony is producing a Sinister Six movie and WB is doing one of those Will Smith Scientology commercials movies that I don't care about

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm hopeful that 2015 will be a good year for Marvel villains. Obviously, there's Ultron, who's in the title of the next Avengers movie and seems to be a central focus. But there's also The Kingpin on the Daredevil Netflix series, who has been getting a lot of advance buzz for giving a great performance.

Ultron's the perfect type of villain for Marvel as you can kill him a hundred times and he has always uploaded his AI to something so he's incredibly easy to bring back. He doesn't even have a central mainframe or anything that can be destroyed to kill him permanently.

 

[Harley2004]

Sauron is one of the worst examples of villainy out there.

The Lord of the Rings movies in terms of the villain portrayal is very similar to the marvel/disney movies. It's all about the heroes, and getting one heroic moment after another. Even Loki, is more interesting and fun, than an intimidating villain. All theses movies, with one world ending invasion after another nobody ever dies. Up to this point, it's where is the threat?

 

[Victarion]

The Lord of the Rings movies in terms of the villain portrayal is very similar to the marvel/disney movies. It's all about the heroes, and getting one heroic moment after another. Even Loki, is more interesting and fun, than an intimidating villain. All theses movies, with one world ending invasion after another nobody ever dies. Up to this point, it's where is the threat?

You're right, though I can't recall any movies recently about world-ending invasions. I do think a bit of nihilism would help convey an overall positive and far more enduring message about heroism and compassion than the stuff about badly written villains. If there's one thing I can appreciate about MoS, its that the mass destruction drives home the point that the villain needs to be stopped right there, to prevent more of that destruction on a wider scale. (As an aside, it also helps that the villain has understandable goals whose validity are thrown into question by his methodology in accomplishing those goals.) It isn't an easy choice, or a very palatable one, but we've all had to, or will have to, make hard choices one day. Seeing our heroes make those choices on a greater scale and cope with the consequences...that is what being a hero is about. It is inspiring and uplifting, and those are the qualities I look for in a hero.

I realize my example is practically dumping a tanker of oil on smoldering pile of embers, but I feel it is an appropriate one since the focal point of my example is one that has drawn quite a bit of criticism.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

They just generally suck at villains. Appearance wise they look cool but character-wise they're meh and forgettable

 

[Tony Stark]

They just generally suck at villains. Appearance wise they look cool but character-wise they're meh and forgettable

Yeah Loki was real forgettable. And Victor Domashev is going to be the best villain evah!

 

[smallville fan]

Marvel should stick to what they do best: focus on the heroes.

And then it'll result in a stale formula people will start catching on to and pointing out just like how nobody dies thus reducing the high stakes feel of the whole thing.

They just generally suck at villains. Appearance wise they look cool but character-wise they're meh and forgettable

That's cause nobody tries.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Forgettable is something Magneto and Mystique never have to fear, considering they get crammed into every X-Men film that waddles around the bend.

 

[ares834]

For me, a villain doesn’t need to be well developed to be interesting but he needs to have a strong presence (expect to see me use that word a lot throughout this post). And ultimately, I find most MCU villains (actually gust film versions of comic book villains in general regardless if they are DC or Marvel) to lack that.

And keep in mind if Darth Vader had only got what we see of him in ANH as his lone time to make an impression and nothing else, would he be so highly regarded as he is today? Not a chance. He'd just be a footnote.

Of course he wouldn't be as big. However, even in ANH Vader had a terrifying presence. And that is what made Vader great, the fear and awe that the character gives off. Combine that with his great lines and his “sorcerous ways” and I very much doubt he would be “just a footnote.”

And don't get me wrong - I love LOTR but how was Sauron a well developed villain? He was just this generic force of evil. That is why PJ made characters like Denethor (and arguably even Theoden at times) more villainous and introduced characters like Gothmog the Orc to provide more tangible antagonists for the heroes.

Sure. Sauron is evil itself in the story, he’s the devil. And yet it works. The movies ooze with his menace and presence. He may be as basic as villains come, and yet I find him to be quite a good antagonist.

 

[Sian]

I thinkvthey did a rather good job with Captain America 2. SPOILERS FOLLOWING
The Winter Soldier and Alexander Pearce were both multi dimensional characters. Bucky was revealed to essentially be a victim, rather than a villain. And although Pearce was a monster, he was a monster who had absolute faith in the righteousness, so to speak, of his actions. And this was also perhaps the most serious of the Marvel films, with very little humour , and what was there subtle. Unlike Thor 2, where the humour was so out of place it was tasteless.