Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Slade W]

Kingpin has been the best villain so far followed by Loki. Marvel seem to focus much more on the hero rather than the villain. Daredevil has been the only adaption that has focused on both the hero and villain almost equally as much in terms of character development and as a result you get a compelling villain. Daredevil has the advantage over the movies as it had 13 episodes to flesh out its characters rather than a 2-3 hour movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

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.

See and I thought Zod was ****, so one man's trash is another man's treasure. There's no objective way to measure this. People don't talk about Zod in the same way they do Ledger's Joker. Now Terrance Stamp's Zod is another matter, but he's about as one dimensional as they get, but it doesn't matter, people loved him and the way he portrayed that.

Sure you can focus on the MCU, but what people need to realize is how completely biased this discussion is. Goldfinger is one of the greatest villains in all film and he probably has the stupidest motivation of any bad guy ever. He doesn't have a character arc, he's just bad and he loves gold, but he's freaking awesome and we love him.

Look at the Indiana Jones series. No great villains with great motivations there, just generic Nazi and Nazi sympathizer bad guys.

I personally thought Red Skull and Zola were great. I personally liked those guys a thousand times more than Bane or Zod. So most of these attacks on marvel are just becoming pure hyperbole.

 

[seriesofdreams]

See and I thought Zod was ****, so one man's trash is another man's treasure. There's no objective way to measure this. People don't talk about Zod in the same way they do Ledger's Joker. Now Terrance Stamp's Zod is another matter, but he's about as one dimensional as they get, but it doesn't matter, people loved him and the way he portrayed that.

Sure you can focus on the MCU, but what people need to realize is how completely biased this discussion is. Goldfinger is one of the greatest villains in all film and he probably has the stupidest motivation of any bad guy ever. He doesn't have a character arc, he's just bad and he loves gold, but he's freaking awesome and we love him.

Look at the Indiana Jones series. No great villains with great motivations there, just generic Nazi and Nazi sympathizer bad guys.

I personally thought Red Skull and Zola were great. I personally liked those guys a thousand times more than Bane or Zod. So most of these attacks on marvel are just becoming pure hyperbole.

Zod was....okay at best. Terrance Stamp's Zod is still so memorable because he's stood the test of time, and it helps if you have some awesome quotes. He had a menace to him that Michael Shannon did not (and I think Shannon is a tremendous actor). One-dimensional, you bet, but highly entertaining.

As good as Red Skull was, I just think it was premature to let him go out the way he did. Zola was eventually expendable and I loved the way that they incorporated him into TWS. I praise Bane for being a physical & intellectual presence. Tom Hardy did an awesome job it's just that the story sucked. Bane has a nuclear bomb. He wants to wipe out the city. We've already seen that before. A memorable villain that could've been great but ultimately failed to be so.

 

[John Locke]

See and I thought Zod was ****, so one man's trash is another man's treasure. There's no objective way to measure this. People don't talk about Zod in the same way they do Ledger's Joker. Now Terrance Stamp's Zod is another matter, but he's about as one dimensional as they get, but it doesn't matter, people loved him and the way he portrayed that.

Sure you can focus on the MCU, but what people need to realize is how completely biased this discussion is. Goldfinger is one of the greatest villains in all film and he probably has the stupidest motivation of any bad guy ever. He doesn't have a character arc, he's just bad and he loves gold, but he's freaking awesome and we love him.

Look at the Indiana Jones series. No great villains with great motivations there, just generic Nazi and Nazi sympathizer bad guys.

I personally thought Red Skull and Zola were great. I personally liked those guys a thousand times more than Bane or Zod. So most of these attacks on marvel are just becoming pure hyperbole.

I know it's biased. That's why I said imo. I'm just disagreeing that everyone who thinks MCU villains are bad are just MCU haters ignoring the studios they favor.

 

[Tony Stark]

I know it's biased. That's why I said imo. I'm just disagreeing that everyone who thinks MCU villains are bad are just MCU haters grasping a straws.

I'm not saying it's biased based on the fact that people have preferences, I'm saying it's biased in that the same rules aren't applied to other franchises. I mentioned Goldfinger and we were discussing Terrance Stamp's Zod which according to the logic of the Marvel arguments are weak villains, and I think everyone agrees that's not true.

Even Michael Shannon said that he liked Terrance Stamp's Zod, but it wasn't a very deep role, yet I think most people like Stamp's performance better, so having character arcs isn't everything.

Even Ledger's Joker isn't necessarily deep, it was just a freaking mind blowing performance the likes of which we'll never see again. When I hear people talk about the Joker's character arc in TDKR it's like they can't see the forrest for the trees.

 

[John Locke]

I'm not saying it's biased based on the fact that people have preferences, I'm saying it's biased in that the same rules aren't applied to other franchises. I mentioned Goldfinger and we were discussing Terrance Stamp's Zod which according to the logic of the Marvel arguments are weak villains, and I think everyone agrees that's not true.

Even Michael Shannon said that he liked Terrance Stamp's Zod, but it wasn't a very deep role, yet I think most people like Stamp's performance better, so having character arcs isn't everything.

Even Ledger's Joker isn't necessarily deep, it was just a freaking mind blowing performance the likes of which we'll never see again. When I hear people talk about the Joker's character arc in TDKR it's like they can't see the forrest for the trees.

Because the Jokers, Zods, and Goldfinger are memorable. No one's quoting Red Skull, no one's dressing up as the Mandarin for halloween, and no one's calling other villains Ronan rip offs. \ People think MCU villains don't have good motivation, aren't memorable, aren't a threat, and that's why people think they have a villain problem.

The rules do apply to other franchises. One of the major complaints of Craig's Bond run is he doesn't have a villain or henchmen as memorable as Goldfinger or Jaws. Every Star Trek villain is compared to Khan. People don't like that Die Hard doesn't have a good villain not named Gruber. If you're memorable you get a free pass on motivation and threat level, no matter the franchise. The difference between the MCU and every other franchise is the MCU puts out two films every year and the others don't.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

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.

You just named the memorable villains of four entirely deifferent series. The memorable villain of the mcu is Hiddleston's Loki. And also D'onofrio's Wilson Fisk. Not every single villain is gonna be an absolute pop culture hit. That's how it is in the comics as well

 

[Oscorp]

I think what's worrying me is that it feels like Marvel Studios paint themselves to the wall in vain when it comes to the villains. They turn villains with potential into generic cookie cutter ones. Red Skull is a prime example of that. They also kill off most of their villains.

 

[Chris B]

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.

To be fair, I don't think it is entirely clear that the Red Skull is dead. In fact, I'd be willing to be that he'll come back eventually. Albeit probably with a different actor.

 

[seriesofdreams]

They turn villains with potential into generic cookie cutter ones. Red Skull is a prime example of that. They also kill off most of their villains.

Red Skull is a damn fine villain but I do agree with this. He was underutilized in Cap 1, even though Hugo Weaving did a great job with the part. Red Skull could have been one of those guys. Especially the point about killing off most villains.

To a degree, Marvel does have a problem with their villains. Thanos appeared in GOTG in a cameo and we'll get a two-for dose of him with Infinity War. His demise should be inevitable given the scope of things, but I'd rather see it pushed off (as crazy as that may sound).

Loki. Magneto & Fisk. Iconic Marvel villains that have been done right and are memorable (less so Fisk because of the media outlet). Who else is there? Regardless of the quality of the film, I'm hoping that Doom is not disposed of. He's just as iconic as the aforementioned.

To be fair, I don't think it is entirely clear that the Red Skull is dead. In fact, I'd be willing to be that he'll come back eventually. Albeit probably with a different actor.

Good actor with a Red Skull mask and a great German accent. Bingo! He's back for CAP 4!!!! (joking, but, not really...)

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Red Skull is a damn fine villain but I do agree with this. He was underutilized in Cap 1, even though Hugo Weaving did a great job with the part. Red Skull could have been one of those guys. Especially the point about killing off most villains.

To a degree, Marvel does have a problem with their villains. Thanos appeared in GOTG in a cameo and we'll get a two-for dose of him with Infinity War. His demise should be inevitable given the scope of things, but I'd rather see it pushed off (as crazy as that may sound).

Loki. Magneto & Fisk. Iconic Marvel villains that have been done right and are memorable (less so Fisk because of the media outlet). Who else is there? Regardless of the quality of the film, I'm hoping that Doom is not disposed of. He's just as iconic as the aforementioned.


Good actor with a Red Skull mask and a great German accent. Bingo! He's back for CAP 4!!!! (joking, but, not really...)

If we're talking strictly Marvel, Goblin was pretty good and Ock was even better. Spidey villains have alot of potential so maybe opening that door will be good for them. Getting back Fantastic Four would open up even better doors for them villain-wise. Also I've been patiently waiting for Red Skull's return. I think Weaving has said he'd be willing to return to the character.

 

[seriesofdreams]

If we're talking strictly Marvel, Goblin was pretty good and Ock was even better. Spidey villains have alot of potential so maybe opening that door will be good for them. Getting back Fantastic Four would open up even better doors for them villain-wise. Also I've been patiently waiting for Red Skull's return. I think Weaving has said he'd be willing to return to the character.

I liked Dafoe's Goblin and agreed on Doc Ock. Molina was terrific in that role. When did you read that about Weaving? Last time I read anything he wasn't to high on a probable return to the character.

Maybe with the sucess of the MCU movies so far, he's had a change of heart? One can only hope....

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I liked Dafoe's Goblin and agreed on Doc Ock. Molina was terrific in that role. When did you read that about Weaving? Last time I read anything he wasn't to high on a probable return to the character.

Maybe with the sucess of the MCU movies so far, he's had a change of heart? One can only hope....

Well I remember a poster saying that once but it looks like I may be wrong. Which is unfortunate.

 

[jmc]

Because the Jokers, Zods, and Goldfinger are memorable. No one's quoting Red Skull, no one's dressing up as the Mandarin for halloween, and no one's calling other villains Ronan rip offs. \ People think MCU villains don't have good motivation, aren't memorable, aren't a threat, and that's why people think they have a villain problem.

The rules do apply to other franchises. One of the major complaints of Craig's Bond run is he doesn't have a villain or henchmen as memorable as Goldfinger or Jaws. Every Star Trek villain is compared to Khan. People don't like that Die Hard doesn't have a good villain not named Gruber. If you're memorable you get a free pass on motivation and threat level, no matter the franchise. The difference between the MCU and every other franchise is the MCU puts out two films every year and the others don't.

I doff my cap to you sir.

 

[jmc]

I'll just add that Marvel is actually in a better position than most studios to actually elevate the villains they have access to. The Mandarin in IM3, until the twist, was actually an example of taking something weak and turning it into something better, they then of course screwed that up IMO and ruined what was a great villain by making the real bad guy another forgettable character. The point is they aren't subject to keep certain aspects of characters like what Warner Bros has to, WB can't make a Joker character who isn't an insane person with white skin and green hair because the character has been in the public consciousness for 75 years. Having what amounts to a blank slate is the perfect opportunity to make these lesser villains into something more, give them a personality and traits that are unique and elevate them to the point of being memorable.

Look at what Nolan did with Bane. Bane has always been a C-Level character in the Batman universe who's only real purpose was for the Knightfall storyline. So what does Nolan do? Re-invents him. Even if you're like me and don't care for Rises you can't really say Bane wasn't a memorable villain - the look, the voice, the mannerisms, all of that contributed to Bane being elevated to a level where now he is a far more recognisable Batman villain than he was prior to 2012. That's what Marvel has always had the opportunity to do with the catalogue of characters at their disposal. No, it's not the cream of the crop, but so what? What's stopping them from doing more than the most basic of villainous characteristics?

 

[seriesofdreams]

I'll just add that Marvel is actually in a better position than most studios to actually elevate the villains they have access to. The Mandarin in IM3, until the twist, was actually an example of taking something weak and turning it into something better, they then of course screwed that up IMO and ruined what was a great villain by making the real bad guy another forgettable character. The point is they aren't subject to keep certain aspects of characters like what Warner Bros has to, WB can't make a Joker character who isn't an insane person with white skin and green hair because the character has been in the public consciousness for 75 years. Having what amounts to a blank slate is the perfect opportunity to make these lesser villains into something more, give them a personality and traits that are unique and elevate them to the point of being memorable.

I think moving forward with Trevor as The Mandarin would still be rather weak. He would be no different than the terrorists Stark blasted out in the first movie. Just the head of an organization. I liked the twist but because it turned things on ear. I thought Guy Pearce was quite good in that movie and enjoyed the Extremis storyline.

 

[jmc]

The top dog of a terrorist cell is who you want so I don't get the point your making.

 

[Loki882]

Given how they initially played up how mysterious he was, they could have easily played it straight AND made Trevor-Mandarin a compelling/interesting villain. Heck he already was a more menacing villain when he was pretending than Killian was when he actually was the bad guy.

Basically, Killian was a rehash of Stane, Vanko, and Hammer. But less interesting/entertaining than any of them.

 

[jmc]

The irony for me is I actually liked the twist, but it comes at too big a price for me.

 

[Loki882]

You just named the memorable villains of four entirely deifferent series. The memorable villain of the mcu is Hiddleston's Loki. And also D'onofrio's Wilson Fisk. Not every single villain is gonna be an absolute pop culture hit. That's how it is in the comics as well

Guess what, we've had ELEVEN Marvel films since 2008, and you've given me TWO truly memorable villains (and one's on a Netflix TV show). So yes, not every villain will be truly memorable true enough. But Marvel has managed 1 out of 11 films, which is just pathetic. If it keeps happening over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, a trend starts to emerge. They consider their villains to be an afterthought it seems.

And the fact that they keep casting great actors for these roles and then not using them to their full potential makes it all the more annoying.

 

[Loki882]

The irony for me is I actually liked the twist, but it comes at too big a price for me.

I have no great love for The Mandarin as a character or a villain, so if their actual villain had been interesting/compelling, then I'd have been fine with the twist. But Killian was neither of those things. He was a smug a-hole in a business suit, as well as a whiny *****e (jeez, we've never seen those before).

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Guess what, we've had ELEVEN Marvel films since 2008, and you've given me TWO truly memorable villains (and one's on a Netflix TV show). So yes, not every villain will be truly memorable true enough. But Marvel has managed 1 out of 11 films, which is just pathetic. If it keeps happening over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, a trend starts to emerge. They consider their villains to be an afterthought it seems.

And the fact that they keep casting great actors for these roles and then not using them to their full potential makes it all the more annoying.

You can say the same about pretty much every series though. If the heroes weren't perfect like they are, that'd be a real problem. But decent enough villains are fine for me especially when the hero I actually went to see is fantastic.

 

[seriesofdreams]

The top dog of a terrorist cell is who you want so I don't get the point your making.

It's been done over and over again and it's very boring.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think Red Skull had one really good line, "You are failing!"

Stane also had one fun scene chewing line, "Tony Stark built this in a cave! With a pile of scraps!"

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

It's been done over and over again and it's very boring.

If that's your logic, then every villain type ever has been done over and over and it's very boring too.