Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[starscream22]

It seems to me that just about every MCU movie we have people complaining about the portrayal of villains. From Red Skull to Malekith to Ronan, not to mention "Mandarin", there is no shortage of villains that seemed to be either half-cooked or one-dimensional, and they almost always died before they could be developed later on. On the other hand, WB is about to release Suicide Squad, which is a movie that features some of their most well-known villains, like Joker, Quinn, Deadshot, etc.

As a Marvel fan, I want the heroes to get the spotlight, but I also don't want to see the villains continuously shortchanged in MCU. Therefore, my question is, do you guys think this is a problem? And if so, should Marvel try to address this issue by mandating better writing for the antagonists? Or is this really a non-issue that only haters complained about?

Mandarin to me is the stand out as worse MCU character in general. And yes the MCU villains could be better but considering that most of Fox and Sony's Marvel villains are par or worse than Fake Mandarin I rarely give MCU-haters a second thought when they grasp at straws to save face.

Give me MCU's Ronan, Red Skull, Malekith and Iron Monger over Domashev, Blackheart, Barackapool, Stormcloud or whatever the h3ll that was in Elecktra any day of the week! DC's villains save for Joker, Ras Al Ghul, and maybe Zod aren't that much better so putting MCU on blast for crappy villains while ignoring villains who could be arguably worse in any other Studio seems to be the grasp at straws strategy they're applying these days.

Looking forward to seeing Ant-man tomorrow regardless.

 

[jmc]

The biggest problem with the MCU villains sans Loki is that they're nothing more than just cardboard bad guys, they act as an obstacle to the hero but that's about it. They're throw away characters like the Bond villains of the 70's and 80's, the same thing repackaged in a slightly different form. Even if the villains Marvel has access to aren't that great in comics there's no reason they can't be adapted into something better on film. Marvel keeps adding more and more heroes but it's library of villains just keeps getting progressively worse and worse.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Cross wasn't amazing, hell maybe not even good. But the movie was still good. I guess that's what important.

To be honest it looks like the meh villains are here to stay. I guess we just wait and see how long that formula lasts.

 

[Tony Stark]

All this BS is just hyperbole. You know what Marvel does, it gets amazing actors to play these parts and that's what makes them compelling. Is Darren Cross the most complex villain ever? No of course not, but he's just freaking awesome, and he probably would have made the best Lex Luthor ever, instead you've got Mark Zukerberg playing Lex who in an otherwise amazing trailer, was the worst thing in it.

 

[Zant]

Someone is angry. It won't be hard for Mr Zukerberg Lex to be superior to most MCU villains. He probably will.

 

[Greens]

so putting MCU on blast for crappy villains while ignoring villains who could be arguably worse in any other Studio seems to be the grasp at straws strategy they're applying these days.

Not really. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Why should Marvel not aim for the stars? Seems like a weird point of view to me. Oh, the other studios aren't doing that great either so Marvel should just follow suit.

 

[Tony Stark]

Someone is angry. It won't be hard for Mr Zukerberg Lex to be superior to most MCU villains. He probably will.

Yeah, just like you said the Fantastic Four visuals are better than Avengers.

 

[YoungBlood]

All this BS is just hyperbole. You know what Marvel does, it gets amazing actors to play these parts and that's what makes them compelling. Is Darren Cross the most complex villain ever? No of course not, but he's just freaking awesome, and he probably would have made the best Lex Luthor ever, instead you've got Mark Zukerberg playing Lex who in an otherwise amazing trailer, was the worst thing in it.

Mickey Rourke was so happy playing Wihplash.

 

[Dasher10]

Darren Cross was a weak villain but it was an origin story so Scott needed the character development. Plus he was only around for one issue in the comics so it's not like there was a ton of source material to choose from.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

edit

 

[redlion2]

Lolwhat? Bane by himself was a far more memorable villain than anything the MCU has served up. Hell, Baneposting is still a thing even now. Compare that to the Red Skull and the Mandarin (Your example of "good" MCU Villains) and the difference is stark. Neither made even a fraction of the same impact with the Mandarin in particular being heavily divisive among even MCU partisans. Zod too was a better developed villain than any of the forgettable, interchangeable omnicidal maniacs served up by the MCU lately.

First of all, if you're going to quote me at least reference me correctly. I never said Red Skull or the Mandarin were good villains. You're getting me confused with another poster. I clearly state in my post that this all comes down to a matter of personal taste. We all have differing criteria for determining what we consider the ideal villain. It's obvious, you think a lot of Bane but I wasn't impressed with him. We have a difference of opinion, and that's all these are, opinions. None are right and none or wrong. Purely subjective. I admitted fully, that some would disagree with me about Zod but I didn't find him compelling as a villain based upon my own standards. I stand by that statement.

There are several villains that I like within the MCU that I personally think have been very good to good villains. For example, Loki, Kingpin, Obadiah Stane, Emil Blonsky/Abomination, Alexander Pierce, also as a main antagonist Winter Soldier, and I liked Ultron, although that may be a little controversial with some but that's my choice. As an evil foil to SHIELD and the Avengers, I have thoroughly enjoyed HYDRA as the go to villainous cabal in both different media of the MCU, small screen as well as big screen.

 

[redlion2]

Not really. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Why should Marvel not aim for the stars? Seems like a weird point of view to me. Oh, the other studios aren't doing that great either so Marvel should just follow suit.

Marvel should aim for the stars with their villains but so should all other studios as well. It seems Marvel gets more flak for it's villains, when in truth, no studio has been perfect when it comes to all of it's villains.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I guarantee you that Lex Luthor will be a better villain then any of the MCU baddies with the exception of Loki and Kingpin probably

 

[Harley2004]

The villains arent amazing but this whole thing is so overblown by fanboys. Frankly outside of Magneto, Joker and Loki. There arent a lot of memorable villains in recent CBM's. It seems to me that Bane is remembered for the wrong reasons in popular culture (his voice hs been made a ton of fun of)

Loki, is not in the same category with those other two you mentioned. Being charismatic, does not mean you're a good villain. You also need to be a real threat.

 

[Chris B]

I echo the notion that the handling of the villains are an area they could improve on, but I'd also agree that the issue is exaggerated to a degree. Malekith has been the only one that was really forgettable for me. Jury's out on Darren Cross since I haven't seen Ant-Man yet.

Besides Loki, the likes of Obadiah Stane, Ronan, Alexander Pierce, the Winter Soldier, and Aldrich Killian were all effective in their respective movies, IMO.

 

[Flint Marko]

Loki, is not in the same category with those other two you mentioned. Being charismatic, does not mean you're a good villain. You also need to be a real threat.

Speak for yourself. I find Loki to be in the upper-echelon of superhero villains, and I'm far from alone.

 

[TheSpectacular]

Having seen Ant-Mam, Cross is one of the better MCU villains. He's a lot like Stane

 

[jmc]

I think the YellowJacket suit is the only interesting thing about Cross. The may as well have called him Corporate McBadguy.

 

[Fosterson]

Speak for yourself. I find Loki to be in the upper-echelon of superhero villains, and I'm far from alone.

Agreed. Hiddleston's terrific in the role. Also, just because Loki isn't physically intimidating doesn't make him a bad villain. The role of the "physical" threat was fulfilled by the Destroyer/Frost Giants in Thor and the Chitauri in Avengers, allowing Loki to be more of an emotional threat to Thor and the Avengers. Similarly, Alexander Pierce was a very good villain in Winter Soldier, despite being a frail old man who posed no physical threat to Cap whatsoever.

 

[starscream22]

Not really. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Why should Marvel not aim for the stars? Seems like a weird point of view to me. Oh, the other studios aren't doing that great either so Marvel should just follow suit.

What are you talking about...?

Read my post again.

 

[seriesofdreams]

Marvel has a problem with offing most of their villains. If you're going to have a movieverse, you have to keep some of them around for multiple flicks. Some of them are expendable, but Red Skull just wasn't one of those guys. That's unfortunate. I liked what Hugo Weaving brought to that character, and he was great, but he still needed more screentime. Alexander Pierce & Hydra were great villains for TWS.

Loki is of course, great and is one of the few examples of truly great villains Marvel has produced. Malekith was underutilized however and that was very disappointing. I thought Ronan the Accuser was used effectively in GOTG, or really all of the villains in that movie since you had so many characters in the movie

Darren Cross was....suitable in Ant-Man (mind the pun). Good actor who was also threatening but the motive was too generic.

I echo the notion that the handling of the villains are an area they could improve on, but I'd also agree that the issue is exaggerated to a degree. Malekith has been the only one that was really forgettable for me. Jury's out on Darren Cross since I haven't seen Ant-Man yet.

Besides Loki, the likes of Obadiah Stane, Ronan, Alexander Pierce, the Winter Soldier, and Aldrich Killian were all effective in their respective movies, IMO.

Agreed on Killian.

 

[STARMAN]

I was disappointed in Ultron. Haven't seen Ant-Man.

 

[John Locke]

Give me MCU's Ronan, Red Skull, Malekith and Iron Monger over Domashev, Blackheart, Barackapool, Stormcloud or whatever the h3ll that was in Elecktra any day of the week! DC's villains save for Joker, Ras Al Ghul, and maybe Zod aren't that much better so putting MCU on blast for crappy villains while ignoring villains who could be arguably worse in any other Studio seems to be the grasp at straws strategy they're applying these days.

Fantastic Four has more pressing problems than its villains. Daredevil, Elektra, and Spider-Man are in the MCU so they're Feige's problem now. Ghost Rider is in limbo. Barrackpool is the one bad seed in the X-Men villains. So all those problems are gone except for Fantastic Four. The DCEU has only just begun so we can't judge anyone other than Zod who imo was great. So yes, we should focus on MCU. Even if all those problems weren't dealt there would still be a problem with MCU villains.

 

[Loki882]

Well, you can add Darren Cross to the list of mediocre movie villains imo. They should rename him "generic corporate bad guy #83" or something. The problem is that the Marvel FILM villains (ironically their TV ones tend to be much better) except for Loki at best are effective within in the bounds of that particular film. I mean I liked Pierce in TWS or Abomination in TIH, they work well for those films But they tend not to be all that memorable outside of those films. I doubt that they will still be talked about a lot in pop-culture years or decades down the line like say, Ledger's Joker, or Terence Stamp's General Zod, or Sir Ian McKellen's Magneto, or even Jack Nicholson's Joker, etc.

 

[Tony Stark]

No you can't compare Cross to Ledger's Joker (nor could you many other villains from any film), but to call Cross "generic corporate bad guy"? His motivations were made pretty clear, and they had nothing to do with being a corporate villain.

Perhaps Marvel was a little too nuanced in the way they approached Cross, but the "I saw too much of myself" line was perfect. Especially if you know who Yellowjacket was in the comics.