Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Batsfan1]

Bane and TDKR as a whole is extremely overrated, he was reduced to being a love struck bodyguard/puppet

Alexander Pierce/Winter Soldier were better Villains

I actually should have said that Bane was great/acceptable. But he wasn't really. He never gave any impression that he was love struck. Bane's actions were his own.

 

[Aejej]

Marvel's heroes are vastly superior to DC's, thus the reason why the villains in Marvel have always taken a huge backseat by comparison to their DC counterparts.

The Joker stands as the best comic villain of all time and it's truly hard to screw that character up. But Bane and Scarecrow were reduced to puppets in the two Al Ghul's schemes... right-hand men. Zod should have/could have been much more than what he was.

I don't see the problem with Man of Steel's Zod. He was a character that was thoroughly outlined and developed, with no grey areas or questions as to his motivations, tendencies or inclinations. Compare that to Darren Cross in Ant-Man. Cross essentially adds up to "Pym was like my surrogate dad, and he burned me, so now I'm gonna burn him back!" That, and he was a pale castoff of Obadiah Stane.

Malekith, OTOH, should have/could have been much more than what he was. What they did to him was an insult to Walt Simonson and the rest of us.

 

[Shikamaru]

Regardless of what it was, it was the only thing Marvel could have done, hire a new director/writer, tweak the script and carry on without making a fuss

They had no other option

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I would have done the same.

Doesn't change the way it affected the project though.

I don't think you can blame Marvel completely for their subpar villains, Marvel's greatest villains are Magneto, Doctor Doom, Galactus, Thanos, Green Goblin and Spidey's Rouges gallery. They only have rights to Thanos and they haven't used him yet

That doesn't account for the great villains they do have that were done poorly. Red Skull, Malekith, Ronan and Ultron are all good examples. If Marvel can't do a good job with them, what makes people think they could nail any of the ones you brought up?

 

[Bayne]

I don't see the problem with Man of Steel's Zod. He was a character that was thoroughly outlined and developed, with no grey areas or questions as to his motivations, tendencies or inclinations. Compare that to Darren Cross in Ant-Man. Cross essentially adds up to "Pym was like my surrogate dad, and he burned me, so now I'm gonna burn him back!" That, and he was a pale castoff of Obadiah Stane.

Malekith, OTOH, should have/could have been much more than what he was. What they did to him was an insult to Walt Simonson and the rest of us.

I liked Cross better than Stane, really. Stane was ultimately just bitter about Tony being ten times the inventor he was even despite his ridiculous lifestyle (which Stane constantly had to clean up after). Cross, on the other hand, was brilliant in his own right. He figured everything out by himself and he owned that accomplishment, and he certainly wasn't going to let Hank's morality obsession keep him from getting everything he deserved for his success. Then he finds out that not only is Hank actively trying to destroy his work, but in order to do so he's actually entrusted his big secret to a complete stranger - a convicted thief, no less.

Plus he had a great dynamic with Hope, wanting her to be on his side, but at the same time always knowing, at least subconsciously that she really wasn't. I loved that he outright admitted he went to Hank's house to kill him, but he didn't because Hope was there and he wasn't (yet) ready to have to kill her. He also had an amusing streak of naivete, being a little too willing to believe that Hydra would just let him control the particles indefinitely.

 

[Shikamaru]

Obviously you can. RDJ's Iron Man has been seen as great, his villains generally have not. And the way it's worded does not say that a good villain helps to improve the hero (something I've already stated myself), it says that the quality of the villain is the limit of the quality of the hero. It's just like the term "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" and that definitely does not mean that the chain can be a bit stronger than the weak link. It means exactly what it says, just as it should if it's a saying.

How so? The saying is meant to be consistent with the idea none of these characters would be who they are today if they had different villains. If the Joker never existed, Batman would be a different character from the one you know. If you Norman Osborn didn't exist, Spider-Man would be a different character from the one you know. If Magneto didn't exist, the X-Men would be different from how you know them. They would still exist in name, but each one of those characters would have a different worldview.

This is because each villain provides a conflict for the hero that directly shapes who (s)he is, and people's opinions of him/her. When guys like Joker and Ra's try to push Batman to break his no-kill rule, it makes Batman more heroic in the fans' eyes. When you notice the similarities between Norman Osborn/Doc Ock and Spidey, it makes you appreciate Peter's adherence to the WGPCGR message even more. When Magneto makes a point regarding the cynicism of human nature, it makes you admire Xavier's idealism. The list goes on.

Sure, conflict doesn't always have to be "man vs. man", but constantly reverting to alcoholism and generic CEO's can only take you so far.

And it's irrelevant because that was not what I and the other poster were discussing. The discussion was whether a hero can be greater than his villains, or great despite having lesser villains.

I'm a poster too. I was discussing the way Marvel's villain treatment could hurt Iron Man in the long run. Several other posters have brought up this point. That makes it relevant to the discussion.

 

[writer0327]

I don't see the problem with Man of Steel's Zod. He was a character that was thoroughly outlined and developed, with no grey areas or questions as to his motivations, tendencies or inclinations. Compare that to Darren Cross in Ant-Man. Cross essentially adds up to "Pym was like my surrogate dad, and he burned me, so now I'm gonna burn him back!" That, and he was a pale castoff of Obadiah Stane.

Malekith, OTOH, should have/could have been much more than what he was. What they did to him was an insult to Walt Simonson and the rest of us.

I dunno, something about the character of Zod in this film just didn't fit. Wasn't really evil, just felt disillusioned. The whole idea of being genetically pre-dispositioned made him feel more victim than villain. I actually had a lot of sympathy for Zod's situation and that just didn't work for me at all, especially when you consider than the hero of the film killed him.

 

[Spiderdevil]

That doesn't account for the great villains they do have that were done poorly. Red Skull, Malekith, Ronan and Ultron are all good examples. If Marvel can't do a good job with them, what makes people think they could nail any of the ones you brought up?

True that, they really dropped the ball with Mandarin, Red Skull and Ultron, especially Ultron.

 

[Spiderdevil]

In comparison to how much the movie and the Hero sucked, Zod was actually decent

 

[Aejej]

I liked Cross better than Stane, really. Stane was ultimately just bitter about Tony being ten times the inventor he was even despite his ridiculous lifestyle (which Stane constantly had to clean up after). Cross, on the other hand, was brilliant in his own right. He figured everything out by himself and he owned that accomplishment, and he certainly wasn't going to let Hank's morality obsession keep him from getting everything he deserved for his success. Then he finds out that not only is Hank actively trying to destroy his work, but in order to do so he's actually entrusted his big secret to a complete stranger - a convicted thief, no less.

Stane's cleaning up after Tony wasn't his beef, it was that Tony, the heir to his father's corporation, wanted to jettison their defense contracts, which is where they made the big bucks. Tony's arc reactor technology was still in the experimental stage and nobody was lining up to invest in it. By eliminating Tony, who Stane really didn't give a toss about, anyway, Stane would have the big pie all to himself. Building a similarly powered, if comparably crude, armor and killing Tony and claiming it was accidental would have been absolutely no problem for Stane to cover up. Corey Stoll is a solid actor, but he's no Jeff Bridges. Cross really did come off as poor man's Stane, whether he arrived at the miniaturization formula entirely on his own or not.

Plus he had a great dynamic with Hope, wanting her to be on his side, but at the same time always knowing, at least subconsciously that she really wasn't. I loved that he outright admitted he went to Hank's house to kill him, but he didn't because Hope was there and he wasn't (yet) ready to have to kill her. He also had an amusing streak of naivete, being a little too willing to believe that Hydra would just let him control the particles indefinitely.

Hope wasn't developed fully. She's there, she bickers with her dad, she shows Scott some jiu-jitsu, and she apparently means...something to Cross, but we're never quite shown exactly what. Are they or were they romantically linked? Cross clearly respects her, but it's implied there was something more, and if so, they kept that part of their relationship in the dark. It didn't seem entirely professional, especially if her presence was enough to keep him from attempting to kill Hank. Also, for all the surveillance Pym had on the house, Cross snuck in with more stealth than Scott did.

 

[Zantera]

The villains are definitely among the weaker parts of their movies, with a few exceptions. I can tolerate a villain being less focused and having less of a story in the origin movie, since the main focus is to tell how the protagonist becomes a hero. But with the second movie and forward, you have more room to flesh out the villains, and even then Marvel hasn't really delivered. The elf guy in Thor 2 was really unmemorable, the villains in IM2 or IM3 haven't made an impact, and as much as I loved Winter Soldier, the winter soldier himself was just alright. They didn't really give him much of a personality, he was just a brainwashed killing machine and not THAT memorable unfortunately. Ultron was pretty great, I enjoyed what Spader did. Could have gotten some more build-up though.

 

[Greens]

I dunno, something about the character of Zod in this film just didn't fit. Wasn't really evil, just felt disillusioned. The whole idea of being genetically pre-dispositioned made him feel more victim than villain. I actually had a lot of sympathy for Zod's situation and that just didn't work for me at all, especially when you consider than the hero of the film killed him.

Doesn't that create a good conflict? Knowing that Zod isn't evil for the sake of it but because he was forced to defend Krypton at all costs? I thought it was a great "twist" that, ironically, made Zod more human.

 

[MichaelChen]

Stane's cleaning up after Tony wasn't his beef, it was that Tony, the heir to his father's corporation, wanted to jettison their defense contracts, which is where they made the big bucks.

Actually Tony didn't want to drop the defense contracts until after Stane had already tried to have him killed.

The reason that Stane tried to have him killed is because Tony was out-shining him without even trying. Tony didn't care about business. Tony was much more of an inventor than a businessman. Tony was doing the cool, fun inventing stuff while Stane did the nitty-gritty business stuff. Even so, Tony was celebrated while Stane was quasi-forgotten. In short, Stane was jealous of Tony's celebrity, and resentful of Tony getting to do the cool stuff while Stane did the "real" work.

 

[Bayne]

I dunno, something about the character of Zod in this film just didn't fit. Wasn't really evil, just felt disillusioned. The whole idea of being genetically pre-dispositioned made him feel more victim than villain. I actually had a lot of sympathy for Zod's situation and that just didn't work for me at all, especially when you consider than the hero of the film killed him.

I loved that about him. The speech about how Superman had destroyed his entire purpose in life was one of the best moments in the film, imo, and pretty much the only reason the knock down drag out brawl through Metropolis came across as believable (especially the ending).

 

[Bayne]

Stane's cleaning up after Tony wasn't his beef, it was that Tony, the heir to his father's corporation, wanted to jettison their defense contracts, which is where they made the big bucks. Tony's arc reactor technology was still in the experimental stage and nobody was lining up to invest in it. By eliminating Tony, who Stane really didn't give a toss about, anyway, Stane would have the big pie all to himself. Building a similarly powered, if comparably crude, armor and killing Tony and claiming it was accidental would have been absolutely no problem for Stane to cover up. Corey Stoll is a solid actor, but he's no Jeff Bridges. Cross really did come off as poor man's Stane, whether he arrived at the miniaturization formula entirely on his own or not.

Yes, it was. Tony wanting to shut down arms development was just fuel on the fire - after all this time, Tony taking all the praise, always in the spotlight even though he spends 90% of his time screwing around and doing nothing but creating even more work for Stane, now he also wants to destroy everything Stane's tried to build? It was 100% jealousy. And Jeff is a great actor, but he played Stane like he did half the characters he's played in the last decade. He felt generic and predictable. Cross had a certain weirdness to him that made him by far more believable as a character, especially because his relationship with Hank and Hope is much more complex and his own capabilities go significantly beyond just being able to stab someone in the back and trying to steal technology.

Hope wasn't developed fully. She's there, she bickers with her dad, she shows Scott some jiu-jitsu, and she apparently means...something to Cross, but we're never quite shown exactly what. Are they or were they romantically linked? Cross clearly respects her, but it's implied there was something more, and if so, they kept that part of their relationship in the dark. It didn't seem entirely professional, especially if her presence was enough to keep him from attempting to kill Hank. Also, for all the surveillance Pym had on the house, Cross snuck in with more stealth than Scott did.

Hope should've been on equal footing with Scott by the end of the movie. It just makes no sense that they all kiss and make up and then she just completely forgets about the fact that she's clearly better at all this stuff than Scott and the mission is too important to not send the best. The two of them working together as Ant-man and the Wasp would've made for a stronger ending and better characterization between her and Cross. But her being somewhat sidelined really isn't a mark against Cross' character.

Also, Cross knew Hank's house personally and was a genius with the technology of a major corporation at his disposal. Breaking and entering isn't that hard to swallow.

 

[Mike Murdock]

There are few MCU villains that I like: Loki and Robert Redfords character in Winter Soldier. I like villains to be menacing and scary. That's the point of being a villain.
Marvel should look at Darth Vader as the perfect example of how to do a villain in a light movie. in A New Hope...there are light jokey moments...but the villain is all about business. Vader is all about business. He's menacing. He's terrifying. He's badass. When the heroes face him...on Cloud City in ESB and on Endor...you fear for the hero.
I was hoping they'd do that for Ultron. Hopefully we see that with Thanos.

Then again, Malekith was all business is what was a relatively light movie. It didn't help there. Darth Vader was just a badass with badass attitude and badass powers. He was intense, uncaring, and could do things no one else could do (such as choke people remotely). He both stood out from the good guys and other bad guys.

 

[Oscorp]

Or people are actually just validly critiscing their rogues gallery cause Marvel seem to fail to deliver in that department quite a lot. Not everything's about DC vs Marvel for god sakes.

I think fanboys, whether it's for Marvel or DC, should be reminded of this regularly. I see way too much pissing contests on these boards.

To me, what matters the most is that the film I'm watching is great. I think Captain America: The First Avenger is a great film even though there is wasted potential in Red Skull. Is the generic villain a problem when the film as a whole is great? I'd definitely say that for the individual film, it's not. The problem for me arises when I think about the long run because eventually Marvel will run out of big screen potential villains and by that time it feels like a waste that they killed off Ronan, Red Skull, etc. But for the individual film, what matters is that the film as a whole is great. I think Marvel Studios has succeeded in creating great films despite mostly run-of-the-mill villains.

I think one reason for why most of the MCU villains aren't as great as Magneto, Loki etc. (won't even try to compare to Joker) is 1) lack of interesting presence, but also 2) less screen time.

When it comes to lack of screen time, it becomes a matter of priority, and then the question of whether or not there is a problem with their villains becomes a little more complex.

Would the Marvel Studios films be as successful if they gave their villains more screen time?

I'd argue that they'd not. Because a main reason for why their films are so great and successful is because they have such well developed and likeable heroes. And if you want to give the villains more screen time, you have to take from the heroes. Because seldom Marvel Studios waste screen time on other things. And thinking about that, I'm perfectly happy with how Marvel Studios' have handled their films, because I'd chose a well developed and prioritized super hero before the villain any day of the week.

That's not to say we can't have a bit of both, and I'm not saying Marvel Studios' handle this perfectly. Malekith could have been a lot better even with the little screen time he had. Same goes for the likes of Mandarin, Ronan, Whiplash and so on. But not everything is perfect and sometimes we have to appreciate things that are great but not perfect. I mean, it's one thing to give contructive criticism about certain aspects of films, but I think it's an exaggeration to call the villain case a serious problem. At least for the individual films.

 

[Oscorp]

...Anyways, here's one thing I want considering villains in coming films:

I'm pretty sick of the threat often being to create weapons for the army, for the use of higher ups and so on, from a power or equipment, that most often the hero has. I haven't seen Ant-Man yet, but I've heard this is the case in that film as well. We've also already seen it in all of the Iron Man films and in The Incredible Hulk. I mean, it fits Iron Man, but they didn't need to do that in all of his films. It feels like such an easy go-to plot. I want a break from that.

 

[BH/HHH]

I think fanboys, whether it's for Marvel or DC, should be reminded of this regularly. I see way too much pissing contests on these boards.

To me, what matters the most is that the film I'm watching is great. I think Captain America: The First Avenger is a great film even though there is wasted potential in Red Skull. Is the generic villain a problem when the film as a whole is great? I'd definitely say that for the individual film, it's not. The problem for me arises when I think about the long run because eventually Marvel will run out of big screen potential villains and by that time it feels like a waste that they killed off Ronan, Red Skull, etc. But for the individual film, what matters is that the film as a whole is great. I think Marvel Studios has succeeded in creating great films despite mostly run-of-the-mill villains.

I think one reason for why most of the MCU villains aren't as great as Magneto, Loki etc. (won't even try to compare to Joker) is 1) lack of interesting presence, but also 2) less screen time.

When it comes to lack of screen time, it becomes a matter of priority, and then the question of whether or not there is a problem with their villains becomes a little more complex.

Would the Marvel Studios films be as successful if they gave their villains more screen time?

I'd argue that they'd not. Because a main reason for why their films are so great and successful is because they have such well developed and likeable heroes. And if you want to give the villains more screen time, you have to take from the heroes. Because seldom Marvel Studios waste screen time on other things. And thinking about that, I'm perfectly happy with how Marvel Studios' have handled their films, because I'd chose a well developed and prioritized super hero before the villain any day of the week.

That's not to say we can't have a bit of both, and I'm not saying Marvel Studios' handle this perfectly. Malekith could have been a lot better even with the little screen time he had. Same goes for the likes of Mandarin, Ronan, Whiplash and so on. But not everything is perfect and sometimes we have to appreciate things that are great but not perfect. I mean, it's one thing to give contructive criticism about certain aspects of films, but I think it's an exaggeration to call the villain case a serious problem. At least for the individual films.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

For the record, I really loved both Red Skull and Mandarin because I thought both Hugo Weaving and Ben Kingsley were great in their respective roles. Despite the flaws with both characters, I still enjoyed how they were used because they both displayed substantial charisma and gravitas. I loved the Mandarin's terrorist broadcasts in IM3, and I loved the scene in TFA where Red Skull kills three Nazi officers.

I get the Mandarin thing, but what did you find flawed about the Red Skull?

I would say that after Loki he was the next best big screen Marvel villain who was written and portrayed spot-on....

 

[roach]

Then again, Malekith was all business is what was a relatively light movie. It didn't help there. Darth Vader was just a badass with badass attitude and badass powers. He was intense, uncaring, and could do things no one else could do (such as choke people remotely). He both stood out from the good guys and other bad guys.

Yeah but Malekith was also not scary or menacing. He was a boring character. There's a reason when it came time to boost Loki's scenes that they cut Malekith's.

 

[The_Manhunter]

No, they don't. There has only been one villain of Marvel's that I have disliked, and that is Killian/The Mandarin. I was indifferent towards Whiplash but enjoyed the rest to differing degrees.

Great
1. Ultron
2. Loki

Very Good
3. Malekith
4. Ronan
5. Red Skull
6. Iron Monger
7. Alexander Pierce

Good
8. Yellowjacket
9. Abomination

OK
10. Whiplash

Poor
11. The Mandarin (Killian)

 

[Batsfan1]

Doesn't that create a good conflict? Knowing that Zod isn't evil for the sake of it but because he was forced to defend Krypton at all costs? I thought it was a great "twist" that, ironically, made Zod more human.

Not really to me. He just comes off as a character that has no real motivation that is his own.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

Some of the best villians from The comics like Doctor Doom, Magento, Galatus aren't Owned by Marvel so that's a problem

 

[Guard82]

I get the Mandarin thing, but what did you find flawed about the Red Skull?

I would say that after Loki he was the next best big screen Marvel villain who was written and portrayed spot-on....

I agree that the Red Skull well-written. The flaw I was referring to was that he didn't have as many memorable scenes in the third act of the TFA, because most of the focus was on Cap. Most of the Red Skull's best scenes came earlier in the movie, so he didn't stand out as much in the film's climax.

That didn't diminish my enjoyment of his scenes, though. I liked how Weaving gave the Red Skull a distinctive, resonant, creepy-sounding voice, just as Hiddleston gave a distinctive voice to Loki, and Kingsley provided one for the Mandarin.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I definitely agree they have problems with villains. Every single one has had huge potential, but only a few have actually reached said potential. Yellowjacket came very close, but still didn't recieve nearly enough screentime. Even Ultron, who was one of the few bright spots of AOU for me, could have benefited a great deal from more development towards his motivations.

Some of the best villians from The comics like Doctor Doom, Magento, Galatus aren't Owned by Marvel so that's a problem

This should not be a problem at all. Any villain can be made great by the right writer.