Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Mjölnir]

The films aren't reaching their potential without the villains to compliment the hero.

A movie fails to reach it's potential with every aspect of it that falls short of what it could be, so that's not a unique thing.

But that's not even what you said though. You said that a hero is only as good as the one opposing him, which I claim to be false. I think Marvel has done a fantastic job with their heroes and, to just pick one example, RDJ has made Stark/Iron Man into a true icon, but none of he villains in his movies have claimed that status.

 

[jmc]

A movie fails to reach it's potential with every aspect of it that falls short of what it could be, so that's not a unique thing.

But that's not even what you said though. You said that a hero is only as good as the one opposing him, which I claim to be false. I think Marvel has done a fantastic job with their heroes and, to just pick one example, RDJ has made Stark/Iron Man into a true icon, but none of he villains in his movies have claimed that status.

How is it a false claim when it's a basic fundamental of story telling? A heroes journey is only going to be as good as the obstacles he faces. If there's not an equal or greater obstacles to overcome the journey is never going to be as challenging or rewarding as it could be. Of course you can tell a story with an imbalance, but it's never going to be as good as it could be. The greatest stories in history have all had bad guys who were a huge obstacles for the hero. The thing that baffles me is how some of you diminish the importance of the bad guy in a characters story, that some how Marvel is the exception to the rule that they don't need to worry about it.

 

[Mjölnir]

How is it a false claim when it's a basic fundamental of story telling? A heroes journey is only going to be as good as the obstacles he faces. If there's not an equal or greater obstacles to overcome the journey is never going to be as challenging or rewarding as it could be. Of course you can tell a story with an imbalance, but it's never going to be as good as it could be. The greatest stories in history have all had bad guys who were a huge obstacles for the hero. The thing that baffles me is how some of you diminish the importance of the bad guy in a characters story, that some how Marvel is the exception to the rule that they don't need to worry about it.

It's simple. You said a hero is only as good as the person opposing him. That would mean that a hero can never become an icon without his opposition being on iconic level. I presented RDJ's Iron Man as an example of a hugely popular character that generally seems to be seen as having less than spectacular villains.

And I'm not diminishing the importance of villains, I'm just pointing out that it's not the only vital part, it's one of many. To say that the villain is the most important thing is exaggerating that importance.

 

[OcStat]

It isn't like the Marvel movies don't have villains at all. If they aren't up to some personal standard or whatever that's fine, but they all have provided a challenge for the protagonist to over come on their hero's journey. They have been adequate, served their purpose, some have been better than others and some could have been better. But I think jmc's post above is bordering on hyperbole.

 

[TeeKay]

You could argue that the first IM could have been done film without a villain at all. Because that Starks arc in that film isn't about fighting Stane.

 

[John Locke]

Stane was the personification of what he was fighting against in his arc though.

 

[TeeKay]

True.But The end battle happened because "antagonist". Its easily the weakest part of the film. Starks arc was more or less complete when he went into the middle East to take out the terrorists.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's simple. You said a hero is only as good as the person opposing him. That would mean that a hero can never become an icon without his opposition being on iconic level. I presented RDJ's Iron Man as an example of a hugely popular character that generally seems to be seen as having less than spectacular villains.

Several of us on here have already addressed the example of Iron Man. We said he's not a good example as his popularity is still relatively recent. You can have a great hero with lackluster villains in the short run, but you can't have it in the long run. It's what separates a consistently popular hero like Batman and Spider-Man from one that has a moment of fame and then drops.

If Marvel wants Iron Man's popularity to endure for decades the same way Spider-Man and the X-Men did, he'll need better villains.

 

[starscream22]

I'm scared now that they have Spidey and the second best rogue's gallery in comics that they will **** those amazing characters up too.

Right, because Sony was doing such a wonderful job with Spidey's villains before Marvel stepped in the picture...

Take Kingpin, Marvel totally ruined that character. Oh wait....

 

[starscream22]

Iron Monger 8/10
Abomination 8.5/10
Whiplash 6.5/10
Loki (Thor) 8.5/10
Red Skull 7.5/10
Loki (Avengers) 9/10
Killian 0.5/10
Malekith 6/10
Hydra 9/10
Ronan 7/10
Ultron 8/10
Yellow Jacket 8/10

Make mine Marvel!

 

[Flint Marko]

Several of us on here have already addressed the example of Iron Man. We said he's not a good example as his popularity is still relatively recent. You can have a great hero with lackluster villains in the short run, but you can't have it in the long run. It's what separates a consistently popular hero like Batman and Spider-Man from one that has a moment of fame and then drops.

If Marvel wants Iron Man's popularity to endure for decades the same way Spider-Man and the X-Men did, he'll need better villains.

I don't agree with this. RDJ's Stark is all but guaranteed to stay in the public consciousness for quite some time, the character of Iron Man has now become an A-lister. I don't see the lack/addition of a memorable villain changing that either way.

I'm scared now that they have Spidey and the second best rogue's gallery in comics that they will **** those amazing characters up too.

Unless you were hotly anticipating the Sinister Six movie, the alternative was clearly worse.

The thing that baffles me is how some of you diminish the importance of the bad guy in a characters story, that some how Marvel is the exception to the rule that they don't need to worry about it.

Then how is the MCU the highest grossing film franchise, with both critical and audience approval on their side after every movie? If Marvel's villain problem was as dire as some of you say it is, and if an important antagonist is as essential to the story as you claim, then how they are experiencing so much continued success?
For the record I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, the villains are absolutely essential to a story. But Marvel has shown that they can make movies that focus on a charming, funny hero that audiences want to follow regardless of how memorable their rogues gallery is. They make movies that succeed by showing us Tony tinkering in his garage for half an hour, because they know audiences will eat that up. Does that mean these movies are reaching their potential every time? Of course not, I think it's obvious that the villains are a secondary focus in the movies but I also don't think the situation is as dire as some make it out to be.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't agree with this. RDJ's Stark is all but guaranteed to stay in the public consciousness for quite some time, the character of Iron Man hs now become an A-lister. I don't see the lack/addition of a memorable villain changing that either way.

What happens when RDJ retires from the role? That's my point. Marvel wants to "Bond" him, but even Bond's had a few memorable villains in the 50+ years his films existed.

 

[Guard82]

I think it's obvious that the villains are a secondary focus in the movies but I also don't think the situation is as dire as some make it out to be.

I completely agree. While Marvel does have a small problem regarding villains, it's nowhere near as dire as some people make out. First of all, the problem hasn't prevented the studio from turning out excellent and successful films. Second, most of the villains they've used so far have certainly not been terrible. Most of them have at least been serviceable, even if they weren't stellar. The only villain I felt they really messed up in terms of characterization was Malekith, and that was only once.

As has been mentioned before, Marvel has had to take on the challenging task of introducing audiences to lesser-known heroes, and do to that properly, they have had to devote substantial time and resources to portraying the heroes as excellently as possible. The Marvel Cinematic Universe would never have been possible if the studio had failed to do this.

One of the costs of this approach, of course, is that there's less time to devote to the villains. Considering that basic limitation, I think they've done a perfectly respectable job with most of their villains. Red Skull, Ronan, Pierce, and other antagonists at least had some good presence and theatricality. Were they as thrilling as, say, Loki or Heath Ledger's Joker? No, of course not. But they still had their moments, and they certainly didn't harm the Marvel movies in any way. It's true that the studio does have some basic limitations in presenting the villain characters, but I personally think the problem is very exaggerated in some quarters.

 

[starscream22]

I don't agree with this. RDJ's Stark is all but guaranteed to stay in the public consciousness for quite some time, the character of Iron Man has now become an A-lister. I don't see the lack/addition of a memorable villain changing that either way.



Unless you were hotly anticipating the Sinister Six movie, the alternative was clearly worse.



Then how is the MCU the highest grossing film franchise, with both critical and audience approval on their side after every movie? If Marvel's villain problem was as dire as some of you say it is, and if an important antagonist is as essential to the story as you claim, then how they are experiencing so much continued success?
For the record I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, the villains are absolutely essential to a story. But Marvel has shown that they can make movies that focus on a charming, funny hero that audiences want to follow regardless of how memorable their rogues gallery is. They make movies that succeed by showing us Tony tinkering in his garage for half an hour, because they know audiences will eat that up. Does that mean these movies are reaching their potential every time? Of course not, I think it's obvious that the villains are a secondary focus in the movies but I also don't think the situation is as dire as some make it out to be.

Good post! That was all I was saying but once some people felt singled out all the other details clearly stated in my post were grossly overlooked.

Guess people are so desperate for a quality villain that they've recruited me as one.

Hopefully for the sake of the "fans" I wont sway too far from the source material

 

[Dasher10]

What happens when RDJ retires from the role? That's my point. Marvel wants to "Bond" him, but even Bond's had a few memorable villains in the 50+ years his films existed.

Honestly, Marvel are saving the best villains for when RDJ leaves. Namely Zeke Stane, Living Laser, Madame Masque and the real Mandarin.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Honestly, Marvel are saving the best villains for when RDJ leaves. Namely Zeke Stane, Living Laser, Madame Masque and the real Mandarin.

I like the way you think.

Not to mention with Spider-Man in the fold a whole new world of possibilities opens up. Spider-Man has such a terrific rogue's gallery. I would hope Marvel will take great care with how they handle Norman Osborn. He is easily a Top 5 Marvel villain IMO. Based on what they've done with Kingpin I have great faith in them pulling it off.

Not to mention Kraven, Mysterio, Doc Ock, Venom, etc.

But Marvel in general needs to stop killing off all of their villains. That way even if a villain misses the mark or doesn't have enough screentime to shine they can always course correct in a later film. I think it was a mistake to ice off Ronan and Kurse. I think it's a bigger mistake if Ultron is truly gone for good. Fortunately, Ultron is the easiest character to bring back out of all of them.

I firmly believe that Red Skull will return at some point in the future. And they absolutely should. I wouldn't consider him a top 5 Marvel villain but he's definitely in my top 10. And he's evil as $#@! Whether he's played by Weaving is irrelevant. Under all the makeup they can make it work with another actor. I'd hope Weaving would reconsider though. If the Russos are still at the helm I think you can count on a pretty defining version of Johan Shmidt.

But Marvel absolutely needs to plan on the day RDJ hangs up the suit. Thankfully they have GOTG and Cap both as very healthy franchises at the moment. I loved TDW but I'm know I'm in the minority on this site. Thor needs Ragnarok to hit it out of the park and gain back fans. I really hope it does because Thor also has a great rogue's gallery that hasn't even been tapped beyond Loki. Malekith to me was a throwaway villain but I sure loved Kurse but he's dead. But Amora, Skurge, Surtur, Ymir, Mangog, Hela, Karnilla, Ulik, the Wrecking Crew, High Evolutionary, Ego, Gorr, Set, Pluto, Ares, Fafnir, Desak, etc. are all potential quality villains for the future.

Future of other franchises remains in doubt. Ant-Man turned out really good but I'm worried it's not going to find its audience because so many people wrote it off before it even hit theaters. Right now they are saying it may not even make #3 this weekend.

If Ant-Man underperforms that decreases the chances of a standalone Hulk film as well since Marvel would need to share profits with Universal on that. That's a disappointing prospect especially because I really would like to see the Leader in the MCU. He's never even been referenced once since TIH. Meanwhile, where is Abomination??

 

[Shikamaru]

The thing is, while Marvel Television has done a much better job with their villains (particularly Kingpin), it's still a separate division from the film division that's run by Feige. Kingpin being great doesn't mean Feige and Co. will necessarily do a similar great job with Spidey's rogues when they had very little to no involvement with D'Onofrio's Kingpin to begin with.

So far the film division's major achievements in the film department are, IMO, Loki and TWS' Hydra. Loki is the only major villain to appear in multiple films besides Thanos, and it's interesting to speculate how he would turn out had he not appeared anywhere past Thor 1. People didn't seem too crazy over him till Avengers came out. Then TWS did a good job with the suspense that came with HYDRA, made them feel like a genuine threat (something lacking in TFA), particularly in regards to Pierce and Bucky. Even then, neither of those characters were meant to be "the man" of the organization. Which is fine, but then when you look at how they treated their "man" Strucker combined with their watered down portrayal of Red Skull, things don't look too good for Zemo going into Civil War. The best thing I could say is that the Russo's weren't in any means involved in the film versions of Strucker and the Red Skull.

Honestly, Marvel are saving the best villains for when RDJ leaves. Namely Zeke Stane, Living Laser, Madame Masque and the real Mandarin.

Which is ultimately a good thing, but they could have still done a better job with the ones they have used. The "real Mandarin" could have been done from the beginning the way Favreau intended it.

Stane was fine for the first film, given it was such a personal character piece.

 

[Blind_Lawyer]

I don't know that Marvel necessarily has problems with their villains; I think Hollywood does.

Writing a villain is much harder than writing a hero and I feel like a lot of writers don't know what to do with a villain. I think we all want to be the good guy, so we relate more to the hero. Heroes in a lot of movies are characters while the villains are caricatures.

Unlike Magneto and Kingpin (at least in the Netflix series), most villains are bad for the sake of being bad; there's no motivation to why they are the way they are. Either that or you get the Goblin-Doc Ock-Yellowjacket thing where the villain is bad because something external (an enhancement drug, metallic arms, or Pym Particles®) is messing with their mind.

I think the best villains have a clear-cut goal and, while they understand that some of the things they are doing are bad, they probably don't even realize they're the villain. They believe what they are doing is right, or at least necessary.

 

[Grievous]

Ant-Man not doing amazing at the box office doesn't relate to villains but it does show Marvel will likely be more cautious on the heroes that get future movies. I wouldn't be surprised if Ant-Man doesn't get a sequel anytime soon if ever. In some cases it will not matter what the marketing team does, some characters can't draw the numbers because people have already decided on an opinion.

Back to the villains though some characters are just going to have more popular villains and there isn't anything the other heroes can do about that. Joker is a bigger culture icon than most heroes and he is a villain.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Ant-Man not doing amazing at the box office doesn't relate to villains but it does show Marvel will likely be more cautious on the heroes that get future movies. I wouldn't be surprised if Ant-Man doesn't get a sequel anytime soon if ever. In some cases it will not matter what the marketing team does, some characters can't draw the numbers because people have already decided on an opinion.

Back to the villains though some characters are just going to have more popular villains and there isn't anything the other heroes can do about that. Joker is a bigger culture icon than most heroes and he is a villain.

True. Yeah I only mention it because franchises that flounder just means the associated rogues galleries go untapped - unless they are pillaged for team up movies or whatever. Something I'm not a fan of.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Honestly, Marvel are saving the best villains for when RDJ leaves. Namely Zeke Stane, Living Laser, Madame Masque and the real Mandarin.

I wouldn't be surprised if they make Ultron into Stark's archenemy.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ant-Man not doing amazing at the box office doesn't relate to villains but it does show Marvel will likely be more cautious on the heroes that get future movies. I wouldn't be surprised if Ant-Man doesn't get a sequel anytime soon if ever. In some cases it will not matter what the marketing team does, some characters can't draw the numbers because people have already decided on an opinion.

Ant-Man's problem was Marvel's marketing more than anything else. For starters, they primarily marked the whole project on Wright, even claiming the only reason it was happening was due to Wright. Then when he left, Marvel continued on with it as if nothing happened. It reeked of it primarily existing for damage control reasons, and the subpar trailers only reinforced that thought for a lot of people.

 

[Mjölnir]

Several of us on here have already addressed the example of Iron Man. We said he's not a good example as his popularity is still relatively recent. You can have a great hero with lackluster villains in the short run, but you can't have it in the long run. It's what separates a consistently popular hero like Batman and Spider-Man from one that has a moment of fame and then drops.

If Marvel wants Iron Man's popularity to endure for decades the same way Spider-Man and the X-Men did, he'll need better villains.

I frankly don't understand how your post relates to mine. I will reiterate for the third time; the sentence I disagreed with was "a hero is only as good as the person opposing him". That's a statement that is clearly revolving a single story since no hero has the same villain in every one of his stories (quite the contrary in fact). It means that an analogy for the statement is that a hero in a movie can't be better than the villain.

Therefor it's completely irrelevant whether Iron Man will enjoy popularity for many decades. RDJ has given performances that people thought was great, while his villains have pretty much never been talked about in that way. Ergo he proved that the hero was greater than the person opposing him, and that remains what my point was.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I couldn't wait till the weekend and caught a really early screening for Antman. I had a lot of fun, but the dramatic moments in these films just don't land with me anymore. The villain was a bit better but I honestly did not care. The jokes landed and the action moments are great, but just like with GOTG, I didn't think much about it after. A solid 7.

 

[Adder]

Not really. It's mostly a meme at this point that allows haters and critics to do their thing. The last 5 DC films had 2 good villains, Ras al ghul and Joker and 5 weak ones talia, bane, scarecrow, zod and paralax. yet they don't get 5% of the criticism for it.