Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Guard82]

There are people who this subject has become hyperbole. I'll give you an example. Robert Redford delivered one of the best performances in any comic book movie, let alone a Marvel one. You know the difference between Alexander Pierce and Loki? Loki is one of the top villains in the comics, and Alexander Pierce is essentially an original creation, since he was never a villain in the comics.

The fact is the majority of this conversation has been grossly unfair, and completely biased. You can't compare Ledger's joker to an Alexander Pierce.

This is true. I'd also argue that Alexander Pierce was also nice adaptation from the comics in addition to being a somewhat original creation. Alexander Pierce is obviously meant to serve as an MCU counterpart to Alexander Lukin, the Winter Soldier's master in the original comic book version of the Winter Soldier storyline. Pierce and Lukin have very similar personalities and character traits, just different backstories and backgrounds. Pierce's character worked better for the Hydra arc they were using in TWS, so they combined the traits of comic-book Pierce and comic-book Lukin. I thought it was a great film adaptation of Lukin in a different form, and Robert Redford was unsurprisingly excellent in the role.

 

[Guard82]

I thought Weaving was tremendous for what little he had to work with. While he wasn't "menacing", he still played up for the camera as a comic book baddie. Damn shame that he became expendable in the sprint to get Cap to the Avengers.

I'm hopeful that with Marvel's success Weaving re-thinks his stance and decides to give it another shot.

I agree. I thought Weaving brought tremendous presence and gravitas to the part of the Red Skull. I also liked how they played up his intelligence and delved into his interest in Norse mythology as a way of illustrating his obsession with power.

While Loki is definitely the best MCU villain, there are others I really like as well, namely the Red Skull, the Mandarin, the Winter Soldier, and Ultron. I thought their actors were the most vivid and their performances the most interesting and exciting to watch.

 

[Black Narcissus]

The bad guy should let the hero do a dance.

I have made peace with mcu having ''meh'' villains. I'm just there to see another chapter of the family.

MCU having weak villains is legit criticism, but when it comes down to it...Does it make you not enjoy the movie? Most often it doesn't for me.

 

[MrsKent26]

It does effect my enjoyment of the movies. A weak villain deflates the tension in the entire film and for me, that really decreases the entertainment factor. I love that roller coaster feeling a seemingly unstoppable villain gives the movie. With movies like DOFP/First Class and TDK, there were times when it seemed like the hero might lose or that the victory might be partial/with a hefty price (that did happen too).

 

[Iron_Stark]

Fox has a major villain problem. What they have done to Doom (Marvel's greatest villain) and Galactus is unforgiveable and this new Doom looks the worst. Maybe Kebbell's acting will redeem it somewhat but they've already screwed up Victor's backstory beyond recognition.

Let's look at the X-Men. In X2, we thought the X-Men would be fighting against Stryker's forces but surprise! Magneto is in fact the main antagonist. In The Last Stand, we thought we were getting an epic cinematic representation of the Phoenix Saga - one of the greatest X-Men stories of all time. Nope! Again Magneto is the main antagonist. In First Class, we thought it was going to be X-Men vs the Hellfire Club, but no, the final fight is with - you guessed it - Magneto. (Not to mention that Sebastian Shaw was basically Kevin Bacon and January Jones as Emma Frost was beyond wooden.) In DOFP, we thought the X-Men were going to have epic show downs with the sentinels and have Trask as the main big bad, but yet again, Magneto comes in to steal the show. Meanwhile, Peter Dinklage was pretty much wasted in the role.


Interesting take. I'm OK with these common threads. These are the things that bind us after all.

And yet people think Fox is doing a better job with their villains than the MCU? Yeah when you really look at the X-Men villains it's all been Magneto and Mystique. I bet if Red Skull, Malekith, or another MCU villain had 15 years and 8 movies, then they wouldn't be so looked down upon.

Let's see what Ivan Ooze and his puddy patrol are going to do in this new X-Men movie.

 

[starscream22]

Ivan Ooze, Domashev....

Robo-Rhino, Electro.....

The questionable Hipster Lex Luther ("The red capes are coming!")

And people question MCU's villains?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

And yet people think Fox is doing a better job with their villains than the MCU? Yeah when you really look at the X-Men villains it's all been Magneto and Mystique. I bet if Red Skull, Malekith, or another MCU villain had 15 years and 8 movies, then they wouldn't be so looked down upon.

Is good point. Although I would count William Stryker as a good villain (speaking of Bryan Cox in X2 here, not the later, younger versions)

 

[Boom]

Ivan Ooze, Domashev....

Robo-Rhino, Electro.....

The questionable Hipster Lex Luther ("The red capes are coming!")

And people question MCU's villains?

Yes, seeing as how that is what this thread is about.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Some on here counting out Jesse and Isaac still unseen. Lawd.

THat insecurity.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ivan Ooze, Domashev....

Robo-Rhino, Electro.....

The questionable Hipster Lex Luther ("The red capes are coming!")

And people question MCU's villains?

Other studios having worse villains does not make Marvel's villains any better.

 

[Shikamaru]

Sooner or later, Marvel will have no choice but to put more effort into their villains, as heroes are defined by their villains. Villains provide conflict, conflict is what informs and develops our favorite characters. Can we name one consistent A-list property that is generally considered to have poor villains? It's no coincidence the most enduring brand names in the superhero genre (often Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and X-Men) are often sourced as having the best rogues galleries in all of comics. Interesting heroes and interesting villains almost go hand in hand.

Note of the bolded word "consistent". Yes, characters like Iron Man have achieved A-list status, but it's only a recent thread in the grand scheme of things. While it's possible to do so in the short run, it won't be possible in the long run. Iron Man won't be able to consistently endure being at the top for decade after decade if the quality of his villains continue at this rate. In fact, I would argue Cap is quickly catching up to him, and it's partly due to Marvel doing a much better job with his villains IMO. It's not just a matter of quality, but also the fact Marvel's done more to set up potential stories with Cap villains than they have with Iron Man villains.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I'm going to have to say yes to this question. I don't think ALL of Marvel's villains are bad, but many of them have really been lacking. Some of fans' complaints I don't agree with (I liked Ultron, for example, though I do have to agree that his plan was really stupid) but after watching Ant-Man I would have to agree that if Marvel has a weak spot, it's their villains. Darren Cross was such a bland villain who barely had any presence at all. Corey Stoll was actually one of the actors that I thought would make a great Lex Luthor (not only because he's bald, though that helps) but after seeing him in Ant-Man, I'm glad that didn't happen.

Of course, it's not completely Stoll's fault; the script didn't give him much to work with. But he had so little presence that it makes me wonder if Marvel (at times) casts these villains as an afterthought. Hugo Weaving's Red Skull is a perfect example. He seemed perfect for the role and he certainly looked perfect. But there was just something missing from the character and the entire performance, and Weaving himself apparently wasn't particularly interested in playing the character. But in that case, it just seemed like Marvel thought to themselves, "Let's just get an obvious 'villain' actor! That will make everyone happy!"

Of course, Marvel has had some great villains. Loki and the Kingpin are fantastic. Arnim Zola and Obadiah Stane were pretty good. And like I said before, I liked Ultron. But Aldrich Killian, Red Skull, Whiplash and now Yellowjacket were all pretty weak. Ronan and Alexander Pierce were decent but could have been utilized better. And Malekith was one of the worst villains I've seen in any movie.

 

[Zant]

Some on here counting out Jesse and Isaac still unseen. Lawd.

THat insecurity.

Insecurity is an understatement. This year I surprisingly liked Cross. He was certainly more threatening than Ultron. Did not expect that to happen.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Insecurity is an understatement. This year I surprisingly liked Cross. He was certainly more threatening than Ultron. Did not expect that to happen.

This is good to hear. I will see it this weekend.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Cross was kind of fun, but I really like Stoll as an actor so I may be biased. He looked like he had a lot of fun with the role. But at the end of the day, he was a pretty damn forgettable, evil-version of Ant-Man.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Sooner or later, Marvel will have no choice but to put more effort into their villains, as heroes are defined by their villains. Villains provide conflict, conflict is what informs and develops our favorite characters.

While true, villains aren't the only source of conflict.

 

[Shikamaru]

While true, villains aren't the only source of conflict.

Which is why I said "in the long run". Can you think of any major character whose popularity lasted decades (without *radically* dropping) that had a consistent track record of poorly developed villains? Not Batman, not Superman, or Spider-Man, or the X-Men, or any of the other ones. The closest thing to such are probably the FF, who've been gradually declining for a few years, but that has more to do with studio politics than anything else.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Oh I agree that the A-listers have had good villains. The best of Marvel even manage to do both: Spider-Man and X-Men both have good villains and good internal conflict.

That being said, I do want to push back a little bit. First off, while it doesn't push them to A-listers, some of the B-listers have managed to do as well as they have despite lacking great villains. Daredevil is a perfect example. You have Kingpin, who is compelling. Bullseye is great, but I don't think he works well on his own. Instead, he works best with the backdrop of the internal struggles of the main character.

Second, while I acknowledge they have great villains, the X-Men might be the strongest counter-example. Their surge in popularity was not due to great villains. Their popularity rise was during the run of Chris Claremont. During this time, one of their greatest villains - Magneto - only appeared a handful of times and, as time went on, became less and less of a villain. In his place, they added Deathbird (not so great), the new brotherhood (solid, but even Mystique isn't as compelling as Magneto). Probably the biggest addition was the Hellfire Club. On the other hand, particularly in that story, it's internal conflict that gets the biggest attention. The villain of the piece isn't the bad guys, it's Phoenix, their friend who they want to protect. The story is driven by the desire to protect Jean vs. the need to destroy her. Sebastian Shaw and Jason Wyngarde are good, but they aren't the stars.

Finally, I'll point out that the sample size in the movies is smaller. If comics can go dozens of stories without an A-List villain, who is to say movies can't? Maybe they can't go 24 stories (two years worth), but we aren't getting 24 movies of a character.

 

[Dasher10]

Oh I agree that the A-listers have had good villains. The best of Marvel even manage to do both: Spider-Man and X-Men both have good villains and good internal conflict.

That being said, I do want to push back a little bit. First off, while it doesn't push them to A-listers, some of the B-listers have managed to do as well as they have despite lacking great villains. Daredevil is a perfect example. You have Kingpin, who is compelling. Bullseye is great, but I don't think he works well on his own. Instead, he works best with the backdrop of the internal struggles of the main character.

Second, while I acknowledge they have great villains, the X-Men might be the strongest counter-example. Their surge in popularity was not due to great villains. Their popularity rise was during the run of Chris Claremont. During this time, one of their greatest villains - Magneto - only appeared a handful of times and, as time went on, became less and less of a villain. In his place, they added Deathbird (not so great), the new brotherhood (solid, but even Mystique isn't as compelling as Magneto). Probably the biggest addition was the Hellfire Club. On the other hand, particularly in that story, it's internal conflict that gets the biggest attention. The villain of the piece isn't the bad guys, it's Phoenix, their friend who they want to protect. The story is driven by the desire to protect Jean vs. the need to destroy her. Sebastian Shaw and Jason Wyngarde are good, but they aren't the stars.

Finally, I'll point out that the sample size in the movies is smaller. If comics can go dozens of stories without an A-List villain, who is to say movies can't? Maybe they can't go 24 stories (two years worth), but we aren't getting 24 movies of a character.

Chris Claremont also spent years building up to Mister Sinister before finally revealing him and he was worth the wait. Most of the good villains of the time were either created by other creators (Ann Nocenti created Spiral and Louise Simonson created Apocalypse and Cameron Hodge), reused from previous X-Men issues (Sauron, Magneto, Mastermind and Blob) or they were villains from other series Chris Claremont wrote (namely Mystique and Sabretooth).

He still created Shadow King and the Hellfire Club which more than made up for it. The Hellfire Club was full of great characters like Sebastian Shaw, Emma Frost, Selene and Donald Pierce and Shadow King is great since he's a threat without being a physical one and somebody who makes for a great villain for Xavier that only he can fight.

I have to disagree with you when it comes to Daredevil. Mister Fear, Bullet and Typhoid are also great villains. He really does have one of the better rogues galleries.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Mr. Sinister was first mentioned in Mutant Massacre (210 or 211 or so) and he first appeared in 221. Claremont spent years building up lots of characters, but I'm not sure Mr. Sinister is one of them (plus I'm not sure he was worth the wait, but we might have to disagree there). Apocalypse, Spiral, Mr. Sinister, Mojo, etc. are all later in the run (and I only recall Shadow King in New Mutants at this point), I was focusing on the stuff prior to Mutant Massacre. Particularly the stuff that made the series popular - so the issues following giant sized X-Men, the Phoenix Saga, Dark Phoenix Saga, Days of Future Past, through the Brood Saga, and beyond.

The issues that stand out are the death of Jean Gray (which is a character story where the bad guys - Lilandra or Jean, take your pick, aren't really bad guys), Days of Future Past (where it's a fight against destiny more than the villains), and issues like Lifedeath (where Storm is recovering from losing her powers). But they also had stretches during this time where the most compelling villain was Karl Lykos or Arcade.

Regarding Daredevil (as you can probably tell by my name, I'm a big fan): I do love Mr. Fear. That being said, he's only compelling when he can screw with Matt Murdock's personal life. To me, it's the strength of the character of the hero, not of the villain, that makes him a strong character. Otherwise, he's a poor man's Scarecrow without any visual tricks to go by. Typhoid is fun in Nocenti's run (although she leans pretty hard on the metaphor). I don't think anyone has written her effectively since (and, either way, she's no Dr. Doom). Bullet's a generic bad guy who only works because of the seriously screwed up father-son dynamic. Otherwise, he's basically Rhino. Don't get me wrong, I hope he comes back again, but he's no A-List villain.

 

[ThePhantasm]

George R R Martin thinks the Marvel villains suck

I am tired of this Marvel movie trope where the bad guy has the same powers as the hero. The Hulk fought the Abomination, who is just a bad Hulk. Spider-Man fights Venom, who is just a bad Spider-Man. Iron Man fights Ironmonger, a bad Iron Man. Yawn. I want more films where the hero and the villain have wildly different powers. That makes the action much more interesting.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07...martin-loves-ant-man-but-not-marvels-villains

 

[SuperT]

Is good point. Although I would count William Stryker as a good villain (speaking of Bryan Cox in X2 here, not the later, younger versions)

Stryker is most definitely in my top ten CBM villains list for sure.

 

[Grievous]

There is a reason Batman and Spider-Man are the two most popular super heroes and it is because they have the best rogues gallieries in each respective comics company. That isn't the only reason, people have to like the hero too but it plays a big role none the less. So the notion that you can get by with a good hero and simply okay villains, and the MCU's success is proof of it might work for now. But in the long run if the villains are not on par with the hero people will lose interest after they have saw the hero suit up enough times. Batman and Spider-Man are on top and their villains are to thank for a lot of it. In the long run the villains will have to get better to keep the GA interested once they have saw the hero in action enough times.

 

[Drz]

George R.R Martin is bored with Marvel's movie villains.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Some on here counting out Jesse and Isaac still unseen. Lawd.

THat insecurity.

Yep, both have very good actors portraying them so its stupid to judge so far in my eyes. I am not in love with Apoc's look but looks aren't everything, Malekith looked great and then we saw what happened. Ultron looked dangerous and threatening in the trailers and then wasn't in the movie.

The insecurity is becoming worse by the day it seems. Though I do feel Ronan and TWS are under rated.

Stryker is most definitely in my top ten CBM villains list for sure.

Yep, I also thought Sebastian Shaw was great. He was the true villain if FC in every way as without him Eric does not become Magneto. Because Magneto has one scene at the end when he turns into a villain people seem to think he is the villain for the whole movie.