Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[jmc]

The Joker in TDK actually has very little time spent on him, it's just his impact makes it seem like there's more of him in that movie than there actually is. He's not the focus at all in that movie, he's the threat. The higher the threat level the greater the hero's journey is and the better the victory when he/she overcomes it. I don't think any of Marvel's films have every really had any stakes in them, and a lot of that comes down to villains that really aren't built to be much more than villains. It is what it is though, if they are happy with doing it that way that's their call, but their films are lacking a mythology outside its good guys, there's no real counter balance to who these characters are.

 

[RRA]

I think DAREDEVIL the Netlix series shows that Marvel can crank out a great villain when the occasion calls for it. I think Loki is terrific too, albeit the James Bond tradition of the evil-yet-still-entertaining-as-hell baddies, with a dash of wump for the Tumblr era.

Otherwise, Marvel in their films is more about the heroes. Contrast with the Batman movie tradition where the villains had the best roles. I remember Batman fans complaining back in the day about the title character being a glorified supporting actor in his own movie.

 

[Shikamaru]

The problem with Batman's films have always been that Batman himself was watered down while his villains were shown in all their might and glory. TDK had that problem too. The Joker is essentially comic book Joker brought to life while Batman isn't even the world's greatest detective.

Whenever someone portrays both characters at their best, Batman is just as memorable if not more. Kevin Conroy is a perfect example of that (in regards to Mark Hamill).

 

[jmc]

Bruce Wayne does plenty of detective work in that film, he's just not in the Batsuit all the time when he does it. I think people get hung up on how much time a character spends in their suit as opposed to the overall arc of the character throughout the entire story and what they do. Steve Rogers hardly spent any time at all in the Cap suit in TWS and yet no-one raises an eyebrow.

 

[RRA]

Bruce Wayne does plenty of detective work in that film, he's just not in the Batsuit all the time when he does it. I think people get hung up on how much time a character spends in their suit as opposed to the overall arc of the character throughout the entire story and what they do. Steve Rogers hardly spent any time at all in the Cap suit in TWS and yet no-one raises an eyebrow.

I certainly think TDK was better at this aspect than most of the earlier movies.

 

[Shikamaru]

Bruce Wayne does plenty of detective work in that film, he's just not in the Batsuit all the time when he does it. I think people get hung up on how much time a character spends in their suit as opposed to the overall arc of the character throughout the entire story and what they do. Steve Rogers hardly spent any time at all in the Cap suit in TWS and yet no-one raises an eyebrow.

TDK is a step up from the other films in terms of Batman's abilities, but that aspect could still use some improvement. IMO, Batman has yet to be fully realized on screen the same way Superman (Reeve), Wolverine, Iron Man, Cap, Thor and Spider-Man (Garfield)* were.

*[BLACKOUT]Everyone please let's not turn this thread into any sort of Spider-Man debate like it always happens when someone brings up Andrew or Tobey.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Spiderdevil]

The problem with Batman's films have always been that Batman himself was watered down while his villains were shown in all their might and glory. TDK had that problem too. The Joker is essentially comic book Joker brought to life while Batman isn't even the world's greatest detective.

Whenever someone portrays both characters at their best, Batman is just as memorable if not more. Kevin Conroy is a perfect example of that (in regards to Mark Hamill).

Exactly, Bruce Wayne/Batman is heavily watered down in the Dark Knight trilogy, he ends up being a glorified boxer with a bunch of gadgets.

Nolan failed to tap his sheer genius, the detective part, the martial artist and fighting expertise of Batman.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Bruce Wayne does plenty of detective work in that film, he's just not in the Batsuit all the time when he does it. I think people get hung up on how much time a character spends in their suit as opposed to the overall arc of the character throughout the entire story and what they do. Steve Rogers hardly spent any time at all in the Cap suit in TWS and yet no-one raises an eyebrow.

Nobody is worried about the suit, thing is Captain America is basically a Super Soldier who is a morally sound person and a complete patriot and his movies do justice to those traits, while there are hundreds of traits to Batman and his movies have hardly harnessed 25% of them

 

[First Avenger]

Honestly I loved What they did with Loki, Fisk,Ultron,Winter Soldier and their tv villains. I would take Red Skull,Malekith and Ronan over TASM villains, Barakapool,Juggernaut,Doom(s) and Cloudactus Any day of the week.

 

[Loki882]

Well yeah, if "bland, boring, and generic," is better than "face-palmingly awful," then sure. But that's hardly a high bar to clear, and I feel like the standards should be higher than that.

 

[Fosterson]

Well yeah, if "bland, boring, and generic," is better than "face-palmingly awful," then sure. But that's hardly a high bar to clear, and I feel like the standards should be higher than that.

Sure, but people always exaggerate and make out the MCU's villains are the worst ever in all of cinema. I think First Avenger was trying to point out that we could be doing a lot worse in terms of rogues.

 

[Blind_Lawyer]

Exactly, Bruce Wayne/Batman is heavily watered down in the Dark Knight trilogy, he ends up being a glorified boxer with a bunch of gadgets.

Nolan failed to tap his sheer genius, the detective part, the martial artist and fighting expertise of Batman.

Are we talking just The Dark Knight here? because I thought Batman Begins highlighted the martial arts expertise.

 

[starscream22]

Well yeah, if "bland, boring, and generic," is better than "face-palmingly awful," then sure. But that's hardly a high bar to clear, and I feel like the standards should be higher than that.

That's only if you agree with the "Bland, boring and generic" comment. Which I don't think everyone does.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Are we talking just The Dark Knight here? because I thought Batman Begins highlighted the martial arts expertise.

They just showed that he learned fighting at some ancient monastery from some Chinese/Asian guys, he is never shown using actual martial arts

And Nolan just gave up after the first movie, the way he fought in the sequels (especially TDKR) was an absolute disgrace to the character, like a glorified boxer in an armored suit, there were even a lot of occasions were the extras just fell down on their own *facepalm*

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

After seeing Ant-Man, and thoroughly enjoying it BTW, I have to say yes, Marvel does have a problem with their villains, he is really the only major issue I had with the movie, despite the character being acted well.

I will say this though, unlike Ultron I thought Cross/Yellowjacket actually came across as a threat, it was just the characters writing that was problem. For me the lack of good villains is really holding their movies back in terms of quality, good villains would just make their movies even better than they already are, same with Ant Man which I otherwise loved.

 

[chamber-music]

I think they leave the character scenes with their villains on the editing floor. Mickey Rourke, Peyton reed and Taylor mentioned stuff filmed with villains that may of made them more compelling that didn't make the cut.

I liked Yellowjacket in Ant-Man but I think a extra five minutes to Ant-Man's running time to include those Yellowjacket deleted scenes Reed mentioned would not of hurt the movie.

I think that big Hollywood films in general these days don't favour putting in scenes that help establish characters motivations because they are so obsessed with the pace of their movies.

It feels like more and more films have a 2 hour plus running time but they waste it by editing out character/plot scenes that make the movie more coherent in favour of pointless scenes that add very little.

Ridley Scott in recent years has butchered his movies in the editing room until they are almost incomprehensible

 

[Batsfan1]

They just showed that he learned fighting at some ancient monastery from some Chinese/Asian guys, he is never shown using actual martial arts

And Nolan just gave up after the first movie, the way he fought in the sequels (especially TDKR) was an absolute disgrace to the character, like a glorified boxer in an armored suit, there were even a lot of occasions were the extras just fell down on their own *facepalm*

Actually when he faces against Liam Neeson's character right after he gets to the monastery, he shows off several styles of martial arts, to which Liam Neeson's character names them, then mocks them all by saying "You are very skilled, but this is not a dance." Then he defeats him. The Nolan movies apply the idea that the skill doesn't matter, at least Batman Begins does this. Again Liam's character says "The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act."

 

[DACrowe]

I think DAREDEVIL the Netlix series shows that Marvel can crank out a great villain when the occasion calls for it. I think Loki is terrific too, albeit the James Bond tradition of the evil-yet-still-entertaining-as-hell baddies, with a dash of wump for the Tumblr era.

Otherwise, Marvel in their films is more about the heroes. Contrast with the Batman movie tradition where the villains had the best roles. I remember Batman fans complaining back in the day about the title character being a glorified supporting actor in his own movie.

From what I can tell the Netflix shows are currently pretty autonomous from what Feige is doing with the movies. So, that may explain the difference.

 

[Shikamaru]

From what I can tell the Netflix shows are currently pretty autonomous from what Feige is doing with the movies. So, that may explain the difference.

You are correct. Marvel's TV division also has a better track record with villains in general. Daniel White Hall from AoS felt more like a Red Skull than the actual MCU Red Skull.

It's ironic, as I would normally take Feige over Loeb any day of the week.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Yes...big time. Loki can't always be the main baddie - some villains have to come out on top. Wish that out of all the villains that were introduced, Marvel should have known by now how to handle them.

Marvel, please don't screw up Thanos.

 

[Gamegents]

I think the problem may be they can't make the villains badder or bigger then the final one that is coming in the Avengers series.

 

[T"Challa]

From what I can tell the Netflix shows are currently pretty autonomous from what Feige is doing with the movies. So, that may explain the difference.

The Netflix shows are pretty much a 13 hr movie so that gives way more time to give the villain a ton of development. Whittle down Daredevil to a 2 hr movie and Fisk doesnt end end up as awesome as he did. Its not a question of Feige having a hand in it or not.

Not that i disagree that Marvel has had some underwhelming villains but this is problem across the board with Hollywood action blockbusters. Seriously, can u name more than 5-7 truly memorable villains to come out of hollywood from the last 15 years? its a very difficult balance to navigate when you have 2 hrs to tell a story. And in Marvels case where their heroes are very clearly their trump cards, its even more pressure to focus more on them.

The do need to do a better job though. I kinda liked yellowjacket but an extra 5-6 mins that focused entirely on him would have served the story better

 

[Destructus86]

I think DAREDEVIL the Netlix series shows that Marvel can crank out a great villain when the occasion calls for it. I think Loki is terrific too, albeit the James Bond tradition of the evil-yet-still-entertaining-as-hell baddies, with a dash of wump for the Tumblr era.

Otherwise, Marvel in their films is more about the heroes. Contrast with the Batman movie tradition where the villains had the best roles. I remember Batman fans complaining back in the day about the title character being a glorified supporting actor in his own movie.

I agree...but the thing is...Fisk had an entire season to develop. Loki had multiple films. Most villains don't have that chance. If it's a one-off then I think Marvel sticks to a formula they know works...and that's focusing on the heroes.

 

[Silver Surfer]

This Marvel Villain says hi:

 

[The Guard]

That Marvel villain which received almost no development through his what, first 6 episodes or so?

There are plenty of good Marvel comics villains, too. But I think it's pretty obvious the concern is with the Marvel movie villains.