Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Mjölnir]

Ultron's personality isn't unique though. He talks like many of Joss Whedon's villains of the week did. He is witty, self-deprecating, and has a sense of dry irony while really wanting a hug. Whedon has created far better villains in the past than Ultron.

His plan is "I will destroy the world." I am not sure why you are comparing him to the Joker. At least as how Heath/Nolan did it, he was an ideological lone wolf terrorist who simply wanted to create havoc and destabilize society because he could, and did so with an ideological/philosophical POV to prove. Actually, in the realm of superhero movies and blockbusters in general, it was startlingly unique, which is why it did scare so many viewers, as well as how it intentionally mimicked real life fears about terrorists and random shootings.

I would go so far to say the Ledger Joker is definitely on the pantheon as villains like Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter, Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa, Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh, Daniel Day Lewis' Daniel Plainview, and Louise Fletcher's Nurse Ratched.

... After all, like all of them, he won an Oscar for his portrayal of villainy. That's rare company.

As for the Ultron/Apocalypse comparison, they both are introduced rather swiftly and almost immediately go, "I will destroy the world!" for reasons that when Whedon/Singer talk about them sound intriguing, but in the films are muddled and glossed over. Additionally, they both have a horrible scene where they "learn" about the history of the world in a few seconds. Apocalypse's is probably worse because the dialogue is so on-the-nose "Learning!" with a hand to the TV, but Ultron reading the whole internet in 10 seconds and then "killing" JARVIS is not much better.

They both assemble a team too easily and under dubious means that are filled with mutants ( ), and then said teammates betray them. They also are defeated rather easily. I would even say Apocalypse put up more of a threat since it seems implied e would have at least survived the fight if Jean hadn't gone Phoenix, the Avengers didn't break a sweat fighting Ultron's minions, and Quicksilver only died because the plot bent over backwards to make it happen.

I understand if you prefer the visual aesthetic of Ultron (he does look better) as well as the performance (I think both were too underserved by the script to tell), but eh. I think at least Apocalypse had one scene where he was quite intimidating and reached the insidiousness Singer wanted. Granted, using Beethoven's 7th Symphony automatically makes anything more epic, but Apocalypse launching all the nukes into space both spoke to his vanity (he hated how the 20th century worshipped nukes as false idols, so he disposed of them), and informed his God Complex.

Ultron never had a badass moment like that. But tomato, tomato. Both were in the title of their movies and both were underwhelming.

Again you're taking one aspect alone and saying that it's not unique, which again is an argument you can use on pretty much everything, including the Joker. As I already stated, it's the combination that twists the trope. Ultron is a genocidal machine that still doesn't want to be alone, and he is a twisted mirror of Stark as a person. He's not just broken in the terms of his goal, but also as a person. That's not a common thing to find in movies. And when looked at that level other super villains can also be unique. It's also important not to make the mistake of thinking unique and good are synonyms.

It's fine that you like the Joker that much, but personally he's not that close to those characters to me (with the caveat that I haven't seen Cuckoo's in so long). It's a fine performance by Ledger but the character is written worse than the other characters.

As for the comparison between Apocalypse and Ultron, that's just going to come down to us stating our opinions back and forth, since I think both of us have secure opinions on those two by now. For me Ultron is interesting, although not the biggest threat himself to the Avengers. Apocalypse is a bigger threat to the X-Men, but one of the most boring villains I've seen and pretty cheesy. I'll never take something boring over something interesting, regardless of other qualities.

But on the point of Apocalypse only being beaten due to Phoenix, it's not an argument that separates them since it's the same with Ultron and Vision. Without Vision locking Ultron's consciousness into the bodies he had already made they would never stop him.

 

[Web-Head]

Vulture is one character I don't mind them taking liberties with, he is easily my least favourite Spidey villain. So I won't mind any changes if they make him more interesting.

And agreed about the extra 10-15 mins for some villains, the likes of Whiplash, Cross, Kurse and Malekith could have benefitted greatly from some extra time dedicated to them. I would throw Ultron in there as well who I found hugely disappointing.

I liked Ultron and Cross, but Cross could have definitely benefited from more screen time and I know they cut a few of his scenes, unfortunately.

After seeing the villain in Suicide Squad, I never want to hear this "Marvel has problems with its villains thing again. Lawd have mercy. That villain was worse than Malekith and probably on par with Doom from FFINO. Awful. Just awful.

It was ridiculous. I think SS should have just went with a much smaller scale villain.

 

[psylockolussus]

Here's hoping that Thor 3, will finally deliver a great female lead-villain!

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Compared to the DCCU's Enchantress/Joker and Lex Luthor/Doomsday, Marvel is exceptional at adapting villains.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But on the point of Apocalypse only being beaten due to Phoenix, it's not an argument that separates them since it's the same with Ultron and Vision. Without Vision locking Ultron's consciousness into the bodies he had already made they would never stop him.

While there are similarities, I also think there are big differences. The Pheonix moment actually ties in with the arcs of Jean (unleashing her power and not being afraid of that like the old Jean was), Xavier (not making the same mistakes as his future self and holding Jean back with the mental blocks, etc) and the villain himself, Apocalypse (he finally realises he isn't the most powerful mutant anymore. Hence his final line).

Not only that but without Pheonix Apocalypse would have actually succeeded in his plan, he would have grabbed Xavier and transferred his conscience into his body and taken over mankind. Ultrons plan was foiled with him already being beaten and taken out of the game in that moment. Plus it took them fighting Apocalypse on both the real and astral plains, including a power boosted Magneto, to battle him, and even then it took The Pheonix to have to come in on both plains to defeat him.

And even then. It took Storm intervening to stop Apocalypse teleporting away. Apocalypse was much, much harder to take down, were as it was implied, twice during the final battle that Ultron wouldnt last 2 seconds against the Hulk. Vision just locked Ultron out of the internet and made sure he couldn't return again. Admittedly an impressive feat but it seeme more of a plot device in the end. We're as, like I said above, The Pheonix moment actually ties into the story and a few characters arcs.

Factor in that I also liked Apocalypses personality and didn't find any of his scenes boring he was a much more effective villain to me than Ultron was. Apocalypse also came across as really intimidating in a good few scenes. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one though as I know you liked Ultron.

 

[Raiden]

Compared to the DCCU's Enchantress/Joker and Lex Luthor/Doomsday, Marvel is exceptional at adapting villains.

I found General Zod from MOS to be a very one-note villain who is about as bored as it can be. Frankly, none of the villains from DCEU are that great.

 

[Mjölnir]

While there are similarities, I also think there are big differences. The Pheonix moment actually ties in with the arcs of Jean (unleashing her power and not being afraid of that like the old Jean was), Xavier (not making the same mistakes as his future self and holding Jean back with the mental blocks, etc) and the villain himself, Apocalypse (he finally realises he isn't the most powerful mutant anymore. Hence his final line).

Not only that but without Pheonix Apocalypse would have actually succeeded in his plan, he would have grabbed Xavier and transferred his conscience into his body and taken over mankind. Ultrons plan was foiled with him already being beaten and taken out of the game in that moment. Plus it took them fighting Apocalypse on both the real and astral plains, including a power boosted Magneto, to battle him, and even then it took The Pheonix to have to come in on both plains to defeat him.

And even then. It took Storm intervening to stop Apocalypse teleporting away. Apocalypse was much, much harder to take down, were as it was implied, twice during the final battle that Ultron wouldnt last 2 seconds against the Hulk. Vision just locked Ultron out of the internet and made sure he couldn't return again. Admittedly an impressive feat but it seeme more of a plot device in the end. We're as, like I said above, The Pheonix moment actually ties into the story and a few characters arcs.

Factor in that I also liked Apocalypses personality and didn't find any of his scenes boring he was a much more effective villain to me than Ultron was. Apocalypse also came across as really intimidating in a good few scenes. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one though as I know you liked Ultron.

Ultron's fate at Vison's hand ties into all the contradictory natures of him as well, plus Vision serves as a light mirror of him.

Ultron wasn't beaten at the moment Vision cuts him off, that's at the start of the battle and his plain is only foiled a few seconds before it was fulfilled. My point is that without that part from Vision Ultron would be unstoppable in the long run, which generally has been Ultron's main threat - that he always comes back, stronger.

As for needing combined strength to beat Apocalypse, Ultron's body was only broken down by the combined might of Thor, Vision and Iron Man (Hulk wasn't relevant since he didn't damage Ultron at all, all damage were done by those three and then Scarlet Witch). Looking to the comics (the only reference we have since the movie universes are separate) that's certainly not a weaker lineup. Thor alone has beaten the Phoenix, as well as the X-Men and Apocalypse at the same time.

Yes, we have different opinion on these two villains, which is of course fine. For me Apocalypse was doomed by not working as a character for me. Ultron is helped by that I think he's one of the more interesting villains, even though I would have liked to see some more main body action. If I had felt that Ultron worked as poorly as I thought Apocalypse did it wouldn't have mattered if he so killed Iron Man in a fight, so the character needs to be there first for me. Then again even Apocalypse's powers seemed much weirder than in the comics.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ultron's fate at Vison's hand ties into all the contradictory natures of him as well, plus Vision serves as a light mirror of him.

Hhhhmmmm. I think that's true of the comics but not here personally. In the movies he seems to have just as much influence from Jarvis as Ultron and so he felt more of his own thing me rather than a light mirror.

Ultron wasn't beaten at the moment Vision cuts him off, that's at the start of the battle and his plain is only foiled a few seconds before it was fulfilled. My point is that without that part from Vision Ultron would be unstoppable in the long run, which generally has been Ultron's main threat - that he always comes back, stronger.

I know that part was at the start of the battle, but Vision himself still felt like a plot device rather than an actual character at the time. Thankfully CW fleshed him out a bit but in AOU he was introduced too late in the movie to be anything more for me.

As for needing combined strength to beat Apocalypse, Ultron's body was only broken down by the combined might of Thor, Vision and Iron Man (Hulk wasn't relevant since he didn't damage Ultron at all, all damage were done by those three and then Scarlet Witch). Looking to the comics (the only reference we have since the movie universes are separate) that's certainly not a weaker lineup. Thor alone has beaten the Phoenix, as well as the X-Men and Apocalypse at the same time.

Movie Thor isn't comics Thor though, he certainly doesn't have as impressive feats. You could also argue some X-Men are weaker than their comics versions also but Pheonix and Magneto didn't seem to be in Apoc. I would argue against Hulk doing no damage as well as just after Hulk punches him away we see Ultron struggling to walk and then when he throws Ultron out of the Quinjet Ultron can't seem to get up.

But thats beside the point, Ultron seemed much easier to defeat then Apocalypse did. And for me a fair part of being a good villain is someone difficult to overcome. With Ultron they failed at that every step of the way. Even having Ultron pretty much give up once his face was damaged. Previously Vision alone was able to knock him for 6 with Thors hammer. Not that the powers of those heroes is insignificant.

But literally without The Pheonix Apocalypse would have taken over Charles body and been able to control the world. Even then it took Storm intervening to stop him teleporting away when previously the whole team, with even heavy hitters like Charles and a power boosted Magneto they were not going to beat him.

Yes, we have different opinion on these two villains, which is of course fine. For me Apocalypse was doomed by not working as a character for me. Ultron is helped by that I think he's one of the more interesting villains, even though I would have liked to see some more main body action. If I had felt that Ultron worked as poorly as I thought Apocalypse did it wouldn't have mattered if he so killed Iron Man in a fight, so the character needs to be there first for me. Then again even Apocalypse's powers seemed much weirder than in the comics.

Well, as I said previously I liked how they characterised Apocalypse. I would say Ultron looked better and i liked the characterisation of both, but Apoc wins for being nearly unstoppable and coming across intimidating a number of times in the movie. Ultron pretty much lost every battle he had in the movie. I had no issue with Apoc's powers either, though he did have additional ones to the comics it seemed.

 

[Mjölnir]

Hhhhmmmm. I think that's true of the comics but not here personally. In the movies he seems to have just as much influence from Jarvis as Ultron and so he felt more of his own thing me rather than a light mirror.

Vision and Ultron view things very similarly, but they draw different conclusions. Both see humanity as doomed and sort of a failure, but where Ultron sees that humanity needs to be destroyed (although it does seem like he'd have issues with it had he succeeded) Vision sees the value of life and the flaws as acceptable. My point wasn't that Vision would be exactly a copy of Ultron but somehow good. Ultron is in ways a dark mirror of Stark as well, but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same but good or evil.

I know that part was at the start of the battle, but Vision himself still felt like a plot device rather than an actual character at the time. Thankfully CW fleshed him out a bit but in AOU he was introduced too late in the movie to be anything more for me.

For me the character scene between Ultron and Vision at the end was one of the highlights, so I think Vision got more than just plot device scenes, despite little screen time.

Movie Thor isn't comics Thor though, he certainly doesn't have as impressive feats. You could also argue some X-Men are weaker than their comics versions also but Pheonix and Magneto didn't seem to be in Apoc. I would argue against Hulk doing no damage as well as just after Hulk punches him away we see Ultron struggling to walk and then when he throws Ultron out of the Quinjet Ultron can't seem to get up.

But thats beside the point, Ultron seemed much easier to defeat then Apocalypse did. And for me a fair part of being a good villain is someone difficult to overcome. With Ultron they failed at that every step of the way. Even having Ultron pretty much give up once his face was damaged. Previously Vision alone was able to knock him for 6 with Thors hammer. Not that the powers of those heroes is insignificant.

But literally without The Pheonix Apocalypse would have taken over Charles body and been able to control the world. Even then it took Storm intervening to stop him teleporting away when previously the whole team, with even heavy hitters like Charles and a power boosted Magneto they were not going to beat him.

Ultron struggles to stand after Thor/Vision/Iron Man have blasted him. Hulk punches him away and we don't see him again until he's in the plane. He's lying down after being thrown out of the plane but there's no new apparent damage to him, and that landing wouldn't have been worse than being hit by Mjolnir or the other punch. It was clearly the beams that caused the main damage.

I've already stated that Apocalypse was a bigger threat to the X-Men than Ultron was to the Avengers. He could have been absolutely invincible and threatened to control the entire universe for all I care, as threat doesn't weigh up that I don't hink anything about Apocalypse worked. He's not the worst villain I've seen, but I don't remember another taking me out of the movie so often by just being boring. The same thing with screen time. More screen time and development isn't positive if it's consistently bad.

The X-Men was one of my absolute favorite things when I grew up so I really wanted this to be good. I had a clearly greater bond to Apocalypse than Ultron beforehand. Both turned out quite a bit different from the comics, only one in an interesting way to me.

 

[DACrowe]

Again you're taking one aspect alone and saying that it's not unique, which again is an argument you can use on pretty much everything, including the Joker. As I already stated, it's the combination that twists the trope. Ultron is a genocidal machine that still doesn't want to be alone, and he is a twisted mirror of Stark as a person. He's not just broken in the terms of his goal, but also as a person. That's not a common thing to find in movies. And when looked at that level other super villains can also be unique. It's also important not to make the mistake of thinking unique and good are synonyms.

It's fine that you like the Joker that much, but personally he's not that close to those characters to me (with the caveat that I haven't seen Cuckoo's in so long). It's a fine performance by Ledger but the character is written worse than the other characters.

As for the comparison between Apocalypse and Ultron, that's just going to come down to us stating our opinions back and forth, since I think both of us have secure opinions on those two by now. For me Ultron is interesting, although not the biggest threat himself to the Avengers. Apocalypse is a bigger threat to the X-Men, but one of the most boring villains I've seen and pretty cheesy. I'll never take something boring over something interesting, regardless of other qualities.

But on the point of Apocalypse only being beaten due to Phoenix, it's not an argument that separates them since it's the same with Ultron and Vision. Without Vision locking Ultron's consciousness into the bodies he had already made they would never stop him.

Ah, while you may personally feel Joker is poorly written, the vast majority of the culture does not. This is why he won an Oscar posthumously--rare for a villain and even rarer to win posthumously since the last time that happened was in 1977 for another performance that transcended the culture, Peter Finch in Network (a role we are all still quoting too). People still quote and reference Ledger's Joker, and the feel of his popularity is felt in the lukewarm WOM out Leto.

None of this means you have to like Ledger's Joker or how he is written, though I personally disagree there. However, this thread is about great villains, the point is that pop culture, from Internet fandom all the way to the ivory towers of the Oscars, seems to agree that Joker is one of the great all-time movie villains.

While I don't think any superhero movie has come close to it, there have been other villains who left a sizable impression in the zeitgeist. None of them have been in Marvel Studios films, however.

As for Apocalypse and Ultron, I agree we are going in circles. However, a villain being "broken" on the inside is nothing new. It is as old as Greek tragedies. Ultron was written with the same kind of manner that, say, Alan Tudyk's Alpha was in Dollhouse. Save Alpha was way better developed and actually had moments of menace that differentiated from a familiar formula about destroying the world.

 

[Guard82]

While I don't think any superhero movie has come close to it, there have been other villains who left a sizable impression in the zeitgeist. None of them have been in Marvel Studios films, however.

Except for Loki. He has left a pretty significant impact on the wider culture with his memorable appearances in the MCU. Most people now tend to think of Loki as being one of the classic villain characters of comic-book cinema.

 

[DACrowe]

Except for Loki. He has left a pretty significant impact on the wider culture with his memorable appearances in the MCU. Most people now tend to think of Loki as being one of the classic villain characters of comic-book cinema.

Touché. Albeit, he is still remembered for comic relief and being actually considered sympathetic due to being kind of pathetic. But yes, this is true. I want them to have one who can compete with, if not the Joker, then Magneto or Bane, or Jack Nicholson's Joker, of Pfeiffer's Catwoman.

It can be done, Marvel Television has already given us two great villains that are far scarier than most villains in superhero movies.

 

[Mjölnir]

Ah, while you may personally feel Joker is poorly written, the vast majority of the culture does not. This is why he won an Oscar posthumously--rare for a villain and even rarer to win posthumously since the last time that happened was in 1977 for another performance that transcended the culture, Peter Finch in Network (a role we are all still quoting too). People still quote and reference Ledger's Joker, and the feel of his popularity is felt in the lukewarm WOM out Leto.

None of this means you have to like Ledger's Joker or how he is written, though I personally disagree there. However, this thread is about great villains, the point is that pop culture, from Internet fandom all the way to the ivory towers of the Oscars, seems to agree that Joker is one of the great all-time movie villains.

While I don't think any superhero movie has come close to it, there have been other villains who left a sizable impression in the zeitgeist. None of them have been in Marvel Studios films, however.

As for Apocalypse and Ultron, I agree we are going in circles. However, a villain being "broken" on the inside is nothing new. It is as old as Greek tragedies. Ultron was written with the same kind of manner that, say, Alan Tudyk's Alpha was in Dollhouse. Save Alpha was way better developed and actually had moments of menace that differentiated from a familiar formula about destroying the world.

Pretty irrelevant to come back with the majority point when I clearly write that it's my personal view and that I think it's fine that you have a different one. To point out that it's rare with posthumous awards is also pretty irrelevant since the reason they are rare is because it's very rare that an actor dies after an award winning performance but before the Academy Awards. It has absolutely nothing to do with that people supposedly don't tend to vote for those that have died. It's in fact the contrary; artists dying tend to make people praise their work more than they did while the artist was alive.

Not that I think worse writing than the greatest villains is a knock on Ledger. If anything it makes his performance even better that he stood out so much, despite that they wrote him in scenes like where cops can't catch someone escaping a bank in a debris covered school bus, driving away 5 mph. It's not a knock on anyone to think that they aren't among the absolute best either. As a superhero villain The Joker certainly stands out a lot and in my eyes Ledger made that movie.

Again you're just grabbing one single aspect and try to say it's not unique. I don't know why you keep doing that after I've pointed out it twice before. Three times are two times too much so I won't comment more on that. Furthermore I guess if it's relevant that The Joker is so popular for the discussion we can by the same standard say that Ultron was far more successful than Apocalypse since critics and audiences responded far better to Ultron's movie. I still think that's a poor argument for a discussion like this, but since it was brought up once...

 

[DACrowe]

Agreed, I am tired of the Ultron argument, especially since you keep ignoring my central point that nothing about him is unique to Whedon's writing.

As for the Joker, I only point that out because we are talking about great villains and, generally, those that are perceived as great villains leave a cultural impact. A problem with Marvel Studios movies and, now, DCEU movies is that they almost uniformly fail to do that. You dismiss my praising the Joker performance by stating you personally did not care for the writing. That is irrelevant, because the point is how the villain is received by pop culture. You may personally think the Joker is overrated, or that the movie is overrated, but that is not the perception of the culture, which is why the Joker is put on a pedestal by critics, fans, and even awards voters... and Marvel villains are not. Pointing that out is not saying you have to agree with me, it is saying, "Why can't Marvel do that?"

... hence the whole point of this thread.

By the way, I totally agree Ultron, or at least his movie, was better received than Apocalypse. But again, tomato, tomato.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Vision and Ultron view things very similarly, but they draw different conclusions. Both see humanity as doomed and sort of a failure, but where Ultron sees that humanity needs to be destroyed (although it does seem like he'd have issues with it had he succeeded) Vision sees the value of life and the flaws as acceptable. My point wasn't that Vision would be exactly a copy of Ultron but somehow good. Ultron is in ways a dark mirror of Stark as well, but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same but good or evil.




For me the character scene between Ultron and Vision at the end was one of the highlights, so I think Vision got more than just plot device scenes, despite little screen time.



Ultron struggles to stand after Thor/Vision/Iron Man have blasted him. Hulk punches him away and we don't see him again until he's in the plane. He's lying down after being thrown out of the plane but there's no new apparent damage to him, and that landing wouldn't have been worse than being hit by Mjolnir or the other punch. It was clearly the beams that caused the main damage.

I've already stated that Apocalypse was a bigger threat to the X-Men than Ultron was to the Avengers. He could have been absolutely invincible and threatened to control the entire universe for all I care, as threat doesn't weigh up that I don't hink anything about Apocalypse worked. He's not the worst villain I've seen, but I don't remember another taking me out of the movie so often by just being boring. The same thing with screen time. More screen time and development isn't positive if it's consistently bad.

The X-Men was one of my absolute favorite things when I grew up so I really wanted this to be good. I had a clearly greater bond to Apocalypse than Ultron beforehand. Both turned out quite a bit different from the comics, only one in an interesting way to me.

Yeah as I said, and you, let's agree to disagree on all of this as we aren't going to change each other's minds

 

[kguillou]

I liked Apocalypse way better Ultron, he just had a more...menacing presence. I never took Ultron seriously and while I understand what Whedon was going for, I think he took the wrong approach. I wanted that badass, Terminator Ultron from the comics and the Avenges cartoon from a few years ago. I would've loved to see a set piece where he is single handedly whooping each Avengers' ass effortlessly. But, I guess they're saving that kind of thing for Thanos....I hope.

I liked that about Apocalypse, you felt how powerful and formidable he was even with the X-Men giving it all they had.

 

[Shikamaru]

Even as a huge Spidey fan I dislike the Vulture as a villain personally. He is definitely my least favourite Spidey villain. So I wouldn't be too bothered if he turns out poor. But when they get to the likes of Green Goblin, Doc Ock, etc, they definitely need to step up their game.

That's an excuse, but the main justification is that Marvel focuses on the heroes. The movies are about them more than the villains (compare to Batman movies, which have traditionally placed more emphasis on the bad guys over Batman).

Besides, most people complain about Vulture too. He's not considered the very top of Spider-Man's Rogue's Gallery even though I think he remains the logical choice for this movie.

Batman films focusing more on the villains is kinda old news at this point. It hasn't been the case since Batman Begins, and other than Suicide Squad no contemporary DC have done it.

That's a fair point about the Vulture, but does it really apply in this case? We're getting a version that's 1) confirmed to be played by Keaton and 2) contrasts thematically with the film being about youth. That seems like a recipe for success

Not to mention Shocker is in it, who's generally considered to have the cool factor. So if we don't get a single memorable villain out of Homecoming, aren't we just shifting the goal posts at that point? If GG and Doc Ock turn out meh, is it really any harder for people to shift the goal posts to "Dafoe and Molina raised a high bar"?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I liked Apocalypse way better Ultron, he just had a more...menacing presence. I never took Ultron seriously and while I understand what Whedon was going for, I think he took the wrong approach. I wanted that badass, Terminator Ultron from the comics and the Avenges cartoon from a few years ago. I would've loved to see a set piece where he is single handedly whooping each Avengers' ass effortlessly. But, I guess they're saving that kind of thing for Thanos....I hope.

I liked that about Apocalypse, you felt how powerful and formidable he was even with the X-Men giving it all they had.

100% Agreed with all of this.

 

[Oscorp]

Ultron was good on paper but not executed well enough to even come close to his potential.

Apocalypse was the most yawn inducing comic book villain in a long time. Definitely not close to his potential either.

I think Ultron is the better one of the two. That's not saying much though. Both extremely disappointing.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

I liked both Ultron and Apocalypse, Ultron just needed to be more menacing like he was in the trailers and Apocalypse just needed more/better lines. They're certainly MUCH better than a plot device villain like Zemo.

 

[baerrtt]

I think the issue is whenever you make your lead heroes as colourful and funny as the MCU has done the villains effectively have to be the 'straight men' in the movies.

It's not unique in that the Indiana Jones franchise is up there with Star Wars and Bond as the one that's endured and contributed to pop culture through the decades and yet none of it's rogue gallery (Belloq etc) rank amongst the all time iconic cinema bad guys.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Mola Ram was pretty cool though.

 

[Darth_Spock]

I wouldn't mind seeing Ultron, Redskull, Kurse, Zemo, Abomination, Crossbones, and Ronan in future MCU films.

Lex, Doomsday and Apocalypse are a huge nope! Unless they're all rebooted.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I wouldn't mind seeing Ultron, Redskull, Kurse, Zemo, Abomination, Crossbones, and Ronan in future MCU films.

Lex, Doomsday and Apocalypse are a huge nope! Unless they're all rebooted.

A lot of them are dead lol. They going to have big resurrection of baddies? Ultron is machine so he could come back.

 

[Web-Head]

A lot of them are dead lol. They going to have big resurrection of baddies? Ultron is machine so he could come back.

He was just saying he'd be okay if they returned in the MCU and wouldn't be cool with the DCEU villains returning, meaning he prefers Marvels villains to DC's...Cinematic-ally speaking.