Does Disney Owned Marvel Hate Villains?

[First Avenger]

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

Owned. Now Sony's villains...

 

[Flint Marko]

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

CyclopsWasWrong has quite the habit of making troll-ish, inflammatory comments he knows will stir the pot, and then disappearing from the thread forever.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It's growing tedious, too.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

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

Loki was excellent in the first Thor as he had depth. Since then he's been too hammy and for the fangirls IMO.

Doom in the new F4 won't be accurate at all but I think he'll be more developed and interesting as a character than the majority of Marvel Studios villains.

 

[Flint Marko]

Doom in the new F4 won't be accurate at all but I think he'll be far more developed and interesting character than the majority of Marvel Studios villains

I think I just found my new signature quote.

 

[HAMMER]

I'd rather the villains get the short end of the stick to have the fleshed out heroes we have.

Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Thor, Clint, Natasha - actual characters we know.


Cyclops, Colossus, Storm, Shadowcat, etc. - SFX set pieces that are there to be scene fillers with Wolverine, Magneto and Mystique.

Coming in 2016 X-Men Apocalypse featuring Magneto and Mystique as two star crossed lovers!

 

[Saitou Hajime]

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.



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.”



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.

Your point on a villain's presence is why Winter Soldier was so great, and what separated Ronan from Malekith.

 

[Da Games Elite]

The MCU needs better villains, sure, but I don't think that any of their bad guys have been bad, either.

Malekith is a little dry, and Ronan could've been developed more, but they still offered a challenge for the heroes to overcome. Ronan in particular was a force to be reckoned with. He killed tons and tons of characters, would not go down no matter what the heroes threw at him, and even managed to threaten previously established badasses like Thanos. A good villain offers a good threat to the heroes, and, while he was only developed a little bit, we got his motivations rather clearly.

The reason Malekith is a weaker villain is because everyone can beat him down. Thor's mom beats him in a matter of seconds, not to mention outsmarts him. Thor's fight with Malekith is kinda hilarious in that Thor the whole while clearly has the edge. Malekith needs an Infinity Stone just to rival Thor, and, even then, Thor takes him down and his army in a few minutes. Ronan shrugs off a colossal amount of damage without ever having to use the Infinity Stone. His one fight with Drax demonstrates that this guy is a badass.

A good villain needs to be a challenge.

Let's look at the MCU for a second. The best villains, like Loki, Red Skull, Pierce, and the Winter Soldier, all pose a threat to the heroes. They are either intellectually superior or physically more powerful. Sure, they're complicated, but the heroes are pushed to their limits trying to win. Even Killian and AIM pushes Tony Stark to his limits as a character.

The weaker villains? Well, Malekith and Whiplash get taken down in a matter of seconds. Complexity isn't the only factor. It's also threat level.

 

[NicoSuave]

There's only so much time in a film you can devote time to certain things. On television however, there's an hour of time each week to further devote time to a story.

Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. has done a great job evolving its bad guys, and I can certainly believe the Daredevil series will do a great job showcasing the Kingpin.

 

[Shikamaru]

I really dislike the idea that Loki is the only great Marvel villain.

Am I the only here who was very impressed with everything done with Modern Day HYDRA? Their whole setup, the way they were reintroduced to the universe, the HYDRA agents themselves presented in Winter Soldier and the TV series...Pierce, Winter Soldier, Zola, Crossbones, John Garrett, Daniel Whitehall, Absorbing Man, etc. Also General Talbot, who's about as off the page as it gets.

I'm not denying their track record in the villain department has been mostly unimpressive, but I do find it odd how we have this giant event going on in the continuity (merely triggered by Cap 2) and few people seem to notice the improved quality of the villains within this event.

 

[NicoSuave]

i really dislike the idea that loki is the only great marvel villain.

Am i the only here who was very impressed with everything done with modern day hydra? Their whole setup, the way they were reintroduced to the universe, the hydra agents themselves presented in winter soldier and the tv series...pierce, winter soldier, zola, crossbones, john garrett, daniel whitehall, absorbing man, etc. Also general talbot, who's about as off the page as it gets.

I'm not denying their track record in the villain department has been mostly unimpressive, but i do find it odd how we have this giant event going on in the continuity (merely triggered by cap 2) and few people seem to notice the improved quality of the villains within this event.

^this guy gets it!^

 

[Flint Marko]

I really dislike the idea that Loki is the only great Marvel villain.

Am I the only here who was very impressed with everything done with Modern Day HYDRA? Their whole setup, the way they were reintroduced to the universe, the HYDRA agents themselves presented in Winter Soldier and the TV series...Pierce, Winter Soldier, Zola, Crossbones, John Garrett, Daniel Whitehall, Absorbing Man, etc. Also General Talbot, who's about as off the page as it gets.

I'm not denying their track record in the villain department has been mostly unimpressive, but I do find it odd how we have this giant event going on in the continuity (merely triggered by Cap 2) and few people seem to notice the improved quality of the villains within this event.

Right there with ya.

 

[Mjölnir]

The MCU needs better villains, sure, but I don't think that any of their bad guys have been bad, either.

Malekith is a little dry, and Ronan could've been developed more, but they still offered a challenge for the heroes to overcome. Ronan in particular was a force to be reckoned with. He killed tons and tons of characters, would not go down no matter what the heroes threw at him, and even managed to threaten previously established badasses like Thanos. A good villain offers a good threat to the heroes, and, while he was only developed a little bit, we got his motivations rather clearly.

The reason Malekith is a weaker villain is because everyone can beat him down. Thor's mom beats him in a matter of seconds, not to mention outsmarts him. Thor's fight with Malekith is kinda hilarious in that Thor the whole while clearly has the edge. Malekith needs an Infinity Stone just to rival Thor, and, even then, Thor takes him down and his army in a few minutes. Ronan shrugs off a colossal amount of damage without ever having to use the Infinity Stone. His one fight with Drax demonstrates that this guy is a badass.

A good villain needs to be a challenge.

Let's look at the MCU for a second. The best villains, like Loki, Red Skull, Pierce, and the Winter Soldier, all pose a threat to the heroes. They are either intellectually superior or physically more powerful. Sure, they're complicated, but the heroes are pushed to their limits trying to win. Even Killian and AIM pushes Tony Stark to his limits as a character.

The weaker villains? Well, Malekith and Whiplash get taken down in a matter of seconds. Complexity isn't the only factor. It's also threat level.

I wouldn't say that Malekith can be taken down by anyone, he does cut down a group of Asgardians on his own in the prologue. Frigga isn't exactly just a random woman, and Thor is pretty much a superhero for the Asgardians.

Malekith wasn't there to be a physical threat though. He had Kurse for that and that's the strongest character we've seen in the MCU this far. Malekith was supposed to be the leader and the one that could control the MacGuffin.

So I don't think he lacked in power and I think he worked a little better than Ronan and that's mainly through his presence. I just wish they had kept more of his backstory as what they've told us sounded very interesting. Basically building more on the whole parallel between him and Odin, which we do get in the movie but only on a level where plenty of people actually seem to miss it.

I also agree with the poster above that points out that the organization of Hydra has been a good villain.

 

[NicoSuave]

I just read an interesting article that I found on Facebook, and it actually raises an interesting question:

Did Ronan actually die, or is he actually trapped in the Power Stone?

There weren't any Ronan chunks flying around after he was defeated, so what if his essence is actually being held prisoner within the Orb, allowing him eternity to think about who he is and what he's done, allowing for more character development.

That would make a very interesting twist to the overall story, and add a new element for Phase 3.

 

[gildedmuse]

I really dislike the idea that Loki is the only great Marvel villain.

Am I the only here who was very impressed with everything done with Modern Day HYDRA? Their whole setup, the way they were reintroduced to the universe, the HYDRA agents themselves presented in Winter Soldier and the TV series...Pierce, Winter Soldier, Zola, Crossbones, John Garrett, Daniel Whitehall, Absorbing Man, etc. Also General Talbot, who's about as off the page as it gets.

I'm not denying their track record in the villain department has been mostly unimpressive, but I do find it odd how we have this giant event going on in the continuity (merely triggered by Cap 2) and few people seem to notice the improved quality of the villains within this event.

Garrett hardly ever gets dragged into an MCU villains discussion, but he is awesome. You are pretty much forced to like Garrett so that when he turns you like, "sorry guys, going to have to hail Hydra - this guy is just too much fun."

Also from AoS: Skye's Dad (we're probably good to use spoilers on that, but since it's outside the AoS forum I thought I'd be careful about it). Total creepster. Certainly has a good motivation, almost justifiable if it weren't for the whole killing random people and good guys thing. Plus, again, the whole creep factor.

Heck, Ward isn't doing that bad for himself, either!

 

[Loki882]

I don't really accept the premise that "well the villains are bland, but it's fine because the heroes are great." And the reason is, there's no reason why you cannot do both. Heck Marvel has shown that they can do both when they actually put in the effort. If anything it makes the hero BETTER since they have a truly good villain to overcome, which makes it all the more satisfying.

 

[Shikamaru]

^ Agreed.

These characters don't exist in a vacuum. "A hero is only as good as his villains" isn't some crazy hypothesis a fan came up with, it's been consistently proven to be true over and over again.

Why do people think Bats and Spidey (and to a lesser extent Superman and X-Men) survived so long as their brands' biggest flagship characters? Granted Spidey's had some trouble recently, but that still doesn't take away decades of consistent success. If you think it had nothing to do with their villains - and those properties are other sourced as having the best rogues galleries - you're kidding yourself. Villains provide conflict, conflict is what establishes a hero's character and makes him/her grow.

It's why I never bought the argument that "people only like character X because of his villains". Character X would not be the Character X you love today if he or she had different villains in the first place. Instead he'd be Character Y or Z.

Sure, the MCU's managed to survive so far, but it's still relatively young. If you want these characters to stand the test of time like Spider-Man and X-Men did, you need villains on par with the heroes. There's no other way around it.

And honestly, at this point I think their track record will come back and bite some of their characters in the butt. Particularly with Iron Man. I think he faces the danger of falling behind a little while the rest of the universe advances.

Cap benefitted not just from a phenomenal take on HYDRA, but a narrative that incorporated them in the plot in such way that they're here to stick around and be used in long-term. When I think of potential Cap/HYDRA stories they could use, my mind instantly runs to several major villains and themes you could play with for a while.

I don't get that with Tony. There's only so few one-and-done corporate villains you could use before the gimmick falls on its face, especially post-Downey. The last critically acclaimed Iron Man film we had was the very first one, which was mostly a success for being a great origin tale and character piece. You won't be able to rely on just the novelty of having Tony Stark and still have Tony have the status he has today. Especially if Cap and his rogues continue to step up their game and impress the audience.

 

[Rogue Star]

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.

I have a few favorite qualities that I like to see in villains and I got those in Ronan, Pierce, and Aldrich Killian. Ronan had the badazz looks, the voice, and the unredeemableness that I like to see in villains. Pierce had this total "I'm the good guy" vibe going on and he was so endearing even while trying to kill millions of people. Aldrich Killian was cool, calm, and confident but cut throat at the same time. I wasn't wild about the twist in Iron Man 3 at first - in fact I hated it - but after watching the movie for the 10th or so time I was like, "yeah, I totally get this guy Aldrich Killian!" I wish more people would get over their hatred of all that doesn't perfectly match the comics and see that Iron Man 3 wasn't that bad after all.

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

Quote:
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

I like what I'm hearing from Corey Stoll so far!

 

[DA_Champion]

It might be that the talent present has an easier time writing heroes than villains, and that they're just focusing on their strengths.

Also, it makes sense for an origin movie to have a weak villain, for a lot of reasons. First, most of the attention should be focused on the hero. Second, a neophyte hero is not going to be able to take down his greatest adversary.

 

[Greens]

I don't know if Disney hates villains, but I do agree that the MCU lacks good, charismatic and, most of all, MEMORABLE villains.

I hate to bring the Nolan films into this but it's the best way to illustrate my point..... look at Bane and Joker. They have dozens of quotable lines, everyone recognizes them. They're pop culture phenomena. Most of Marvel's villains are fine in their respective movies, but they rarely transcend the movie they're in. Loki is Marvel's ace in the hole because the audience loves him. This hasn't happened with any other villain out of the 10 Marvel movies.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I don't know if Disney hates villains, but I do agree that the MCU lacks good, charismatic and, most of all, MEMORABLE villains.

I hate to bring the Nolan films into this but it's the best way to illustrate my point..... look at Bane and Joker. They have dozens of quotable lines, everyone recognizes them. They're pop culture phenomena. Most of Marvel's villains are fine in their respective movies, but they rarely transcend the movie they're in. Loki is Marvel's ace in the hole because the audience loves him. This hasn't happened with any other villain out of the 10 Marvel movies.

I quote Trevor Slattery almost every day. I never quote Bane and I would hardly call him a pop culture phenomenon

 

[Greens]

I quote Trevor Slattery almost every day. I never quote Bane and I would hardly call him a pop culture phenomenon

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

 

[TalismanRing]

^ Agreed.

These characters don't exist in a vacuum. "A hero is only as good as his villains" isn't some crazy hypothesis a fan came up with, it's been consistently proven to be true over and over again.

Why do people think Bats and Spidey (and to a lesser extent Superman and X-Men) survived so long as their brands' biggest flagship characters? Granted Spidey's had some trouble recently, but that still doesn't take away decades of consistent success. If you think it had nothing to do with their villains - and those properties are other sourced as having the best rogues galleries - you're kidding yourself. Villains provide conflict, conflict is what establishes a hero's character and makes him/her grow.

It's why I never bought the argument that "people only like character X because of his villains". Character X would not be the Character X you love today if he or she had different villains in the first place. Instead he'd be Character Y or Z.

Sure, the MCU's managed to survive so far, but it's still relatively young. If you want these characters to stand the test of time like Spider-Man and X-Men did, you need villains on par with the heroes. There's no other way around it.

And honestly, at this point I think their track record will come back and bite some of their characters in the butt. Particularly with Iron Man. I think he faces the danger of falling behind a little while the rest of the universe advances.

Cap benefitted not just from a phenomenal take on HYDRA, but a narrative that incorporated them in the plot in such way that they're here to stick around and be used in long-term. When I think of potential Cap/HYDRA stories they could use, my mind instantly runs to several major villains and themes you could play with for a while.

I don't get that with Tony. There's only so few one-and-done corporate villains you could use before the gimmick falls on its face, especially post-Downey. The last critically acclaimed Iron Man film we had was the very first one, which was mostly a success for being a great origin tale and character piece. You won't be able to rely on just the novelty of having Tony Stark and still have Tony have the status he has today. Especially if Cap and his rogues continue to step up their game and impress the audience.

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.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

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

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

Loki's popularity alone vastly eclipses Bane's.

 

[Greens]

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.

Agreed. Marvel did a perfect job with the Guardians and the film overall was very enjoyable, but it COULD have been more engaging with a better villain.