I haven't seen Ant Man yet so I can't comment yet on him, but the mediocrity of the MCU villains has reached a point to where my interest in the MCU has begun to dwindle.
The big problem with the MCU villains is that, by and large, they fail to incorporate what those characters were about in the comics. What made the Marvel Universe so compelling was that its villains were characters in their own right. You could tell stories with Dr. Doom, Magneto, Thanos as the
protagonist and not miss a beat in characterization when they were the
antagonist. Marvel villains have values based on what we consider "good," they have beliefs, they have goals, they love things and fight for those things--it's just what they love or how they love it aren't good. They are heroes from a perspective that really isn't irrational, and thus tempt us and demonstrate how tenuous our own hold on morality can be. So what frustrates me is I believe movie adaptations should take the
best versions of these characters, the writers and directors should learn from the source material, and present or improve upon the best source material interpretations to the masses, not the most boring or pitiful versions of these characters in the comics.
- Dr. Doom isn't a good villain because of all the godawful issues when he was fixated on getting revenge on the FF, with his fist in the air screaming "I'll get you Richards!"--he's a great villain because he believes that he can end poverty, hunger, racism, and world conflict if he ruled the world with an iron hand and cut through all the crap in world and national politics. And he may have a point about that.
- The Mandarin idealized the ideal man, that mankind can reach its most glorious heights once the refuse of the gene pool are eradicated. He loved humanity, believed mankind was doomed down its current path, and was willing to do what was necessary to advance it. The Kingsman did a better job with the Mandarin then Marvel did with its own property.
- Thanos acts out of love--corrupt and destructive love, because a loveless child was nurtured and mothered by a female version of the Grim Reaper, but he "listens to his heart," as Oprah says we should do. Nihilism is the only thing that loved him, and that drives him.
- Ultron has the perfectly reasonable assumption that he is superior to humanity because he can rewire his artificial neurons. He is pure will, "there are no strings on me." Humans have all this conditioning, and heuristics, and bounded rationality that restrict behavior and delude us into thinking we are free. Not Ultron. His disgust and disappointment with mankind is perfectly reasonable.
- Ronan, in the comics, flat out isn't a villain. He is the vanguard of his people. He cares about defending his race, like any reasonable leader in a universe where conflict is the norm and peace is not. He's not a mouth breathing fanatic, but one whose love of the Kree knows no depths.
- The Red Skull in CA:TFA was a good villain because he was a straightforward villain in a period piece, but the attempts to resurrect Hydra into modern politics is one big Ad Reductio Hitlerum fallacy.
- Admittedly, for much of its comic history, AIM was a stupid generic bad guy organization--but there were writers who made AIM interesting, giving it a cause and value system that believed experimental science as the salvation for mankind, no matter the interim consequences on society. That's interesting. That penetrates a fissure in competing goods that we all have, and exploits and explores those gaps. That's a good villain. MCU AIM? Will probably never be seen again, so petty and forgettable and stupid. And Shane Black had it right in his grasp dealing with the tension over what Extremis writ large on humanity could mean to society, the benefits and negatives, but he dumped it in favor for a nonsensical "Loose Change" metaphor in order to earn grandstanding attaboys for taking a (not so and very redundant) "daring" "subversive" (not so subversive, pretty hilariously heavy handed and borderline self parody on what Black was trying to say) "political" "statement" in the Mandarin switcheroo....
- Even in the Silver Age, Thunderbolt Ross was interested in defeating the Hulk for the understandable reason to protect Americans from a destructive monster, not to exploit the Hulk to be a weapon for unnecessary wars. He was the antagonist, but by and large, not the "bad guy."
- Heck, criminal arms dealer Justin Hammer was a much better villain in the comics, and I wouldn't put him anywhere near the adjective "interesting" based on his best portrayal in the comics.
The Marvel comic villains are dynamic characters. They're misguided heroes, or tragic victims of circumstance, or leaders of species whose needs compete with our own. What we have received, with very few exceptions (Loki, Kingpin) from the MCU are petty DC Silver Age villains, motivated by revenge, greed, or hatred, which are the three most boring and childish motives for a villain. Defense contractors and Nazis (and the implication they are one and the same) has essentially been the mantra of the MCU, to the point where they modify the origin of a Soviet villain in the Winter Soldier to keep hitting home at the same meme. What's the difference among Stane, Hammer, and Killian (and maybe Cross, haven't seen it yet)? They're all the same. And Pierce and Thunderbolt Ross and the Abomination and even Ronan aren't much different in tone and implication.
When Marvel comics aimed at kids published in the 70s and 80s flesh out the villains and have more nuance in motive better than movies made in the 10s (when you think people are smarter or more sophisticated and have all this publication history to extract the best from), it's frustrating.
.
