Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Mike Murdock]

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.

Right, but my point is that merely being humorless isn't a key to success. It's possible to imagine a funny villain who is also intimidating and threatening.

The key to a good villain, as you touched on, is to make an interesting villain.

 

[Mjölnir]

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.

A saying should be meant to say what it actually says. Otherwise it's a terrible saying, or someone is using it wrong. It's also a saying that's clearly applicable to a single story. If anything even more so than to a long span of a hero's tale as it talks about a singular person opposing him, so it's by no means at all solely about the long term. And, perhaps most importantly to this, the poster that started the discussion with me was using it as referring to a story.

I've already stated that villains are important so we don't need to debate that. What I've done is to prove that a hero can be great without a great villain, showing that the saying was either untrue or misused here, when looking at the consensus view (individual opinions can of course vary in both directions). I'd even say that it's on the level of that RDJ's Iron Man has villains that aren't often talked about, while the hero himself is most likely the most popular movie superhero now.

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.

I'm not begrudging you to discuss that, but I was having a discussion with another poster and if you want to jump into that discussion and weigh in, which you're very welcome to do, it's good form to actually stick to that discussion and not change the subject (or at least specify that you are intentionally changing it).

 

[The Guard]

Saw ANT-MAN today. Cross/Yellowjacket was an AWFUL villain.

Absolutely awful.

Completely generic, derivative, paper thin, and horribly executed to boot.

It's sad to hear Marvel fans talking about he's one of the better ones of late.

Marvel needs to get their villains turned around, because they're backsliding.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Though he was an upgrade on Ultron

 

[roach]

Right, but my point is that merely being humorless isn't a key to success. It's possible to imagine a funny villain who is also intimidating and threatening.

The key to a good villain, as you touched on, is to make an interesting villain.

Agreed

 

[The Guard]

Though he was an upgrade on Ultron

How? He was barely a threat, had no charisma or personality to speak of, and nothing remotely unique about him.

Ultron is a better villain merely in basic concept.

 

[Snow Queen]

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

Except that Mr. Zero guy. No one could ever make him great.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I really don't get the Yellowjacket hate. He had all the building blocks for a legendary villain: A good actor, an amazing design, compelling backstory, complex motivations, and plenty of room for an excellent character arc. Unfortuantly, most of said arc was left in the corner right next to Whiplash's potential greatness. But even with that said, I still think enough of the potential shown through to make him better than, say Malekith or Ronan.

 

[jmc]

A saying should be meant to say what it actually says. Otherwise it's a terrible saying, or someone is using it wrong. It's also a saying that's clearly applicable to a single story. If anything even more so than to a long span of a hero's tale as it talks about a singular person opposing him, so it's by no means at all solely about the long term. And, perhaps most importantly to this, the poster that started the discussion with me was using it as referring to a story.

I've already stated that villains are important so we don't need to debate that. What I've done is to prove that a hero can be great without a great villain, showing that the saying was either untrue or misused here, when looking at the consensus view (individual opinions can of course vary in both directions). I'd even say that it's on the level of that RDJ's Iron Man has villains that aren't often talked about, while the hero himself is most likely the most popular movie superhero now.

It applies to both short and long term, I think perhaps you are taking that phrase to mean something a bit different than it's meant to be. It boils down to this - if there's no challenger (or challengers) for hero who stands to be the opposite of who the hero is the story doesn't have as much significance because there's ultimately not as much at stake, whether a short story or a century old mythology. He's just the hero if there's not a strong supporting cast of characters, both good and bad, around him to help flesh him out. I've heard with regards to The Dark Knight from some quarters that it's not a Batman film because he's not front and centre. The counter argument to that is that Batman is more than just Bruce Wayne in costume, it's an entire mythology.

You could very well make a movie about any hero, have him/her be front and centre the entire time and it could turn out perfectly acceptable, but at the end of day the from a story telling perspective that type of heroes journey lacks depth. If your argument is that because the movies haven't been awful because of the focus on the heroes then I can't really counter that, but all that really means is they are characters of an acceptable standard and play to easy beats, and in some cases are probably elevated more by the actor playing him/her. The truth it we really don't know how good most of these characters are or what their potential is because most haven't had to face their opposite number, with the exception of Thor.

But then again maybe people are simply ok with that type of depth these days, I don't know, maybe peoples tastes have evolved thanks to the type of movies in general being made in recent times, safe and sanitised experiences that are generally inoffensive and do just enough to win people over. Mad Max Fury Road was one of the most insane movies of the last 15 years with a memorable bad guy yet most people avoided it because it was so different. It is what it is I guess.

 

[Grievous]

I liked Ultron to the point the scene with him and Vision at the end I thought was the most powerful and best scene in the whole movie. So Marvel succeed in making me care about Ultron and what happens to him. I actually felt bad for him as a character. That doesn't mean they could of did some things differently and made him more effective because it looks like he didn't leave a lasting impression on the fanbase.

 

[The Guard]

Yellowjacket had complex motivations?

 

[roach]

How? He was barely a threat, had no charisma or personality to speak of, and nothing remotely unique about him.

Ultron is a better villain merely in basic concept.

His motivations were all over the place....Pym didn't share stuff with him so he's gonna be bad...he's going crazy from the Pym Particles that he doesn't have...sure he's better than Malekith but that's not really saying much.

 

[redlion2]

His motivations were all over the place....Pym didn't share stuff with him so he's gonna be bad...he's going crazy from the Pym Particles that he doesn't have...sure he's better than Malekith but that's not really saying much.

Actually, Pym's and Cross' relationship was a bit more intimate than that. Cross looked at Pym as a father figure and Pym obviously nurtured those feelings that Cross had for him. At some point, Pym rejected those feelings and began to mistrust Cross. Rejection by a father figure can be a strong motivation for hatred and emotional pain. Couple that with the psychic delusions caused by the Pym particles and his motivations were very clear. I don't think Cross was supposed to be Ant Man's arch nemesis. I think he was planned as a one and done villain. I believe his only purpose was to be a metaphor for Pym's failures and successes and a representation of how powerful the Pym technology really was. I think he served his purpose. Not every villain is going to be the hero's greatest foe.

The beautiful thing about Ant Man was the obvious fact that it was as much about Hank Pym as it was about Scott Lang. Two fathers trying to redeem themselves for the people that loved them.

 

[Spiderdevil]

How? He was barely a threat, had no charisma or personality to speak of, and nothing remotely unique about him.

Ultron is a better villain merely in basic concept.

1. IMO its very difficult to make a truly great or unique villain in an origin story, the best I can think of is Green Goblin in SM1, I am usually satisfied with a perfectly adequate Villain for the origin movie since the focus is the hero, and imo Cross, just like Stane or Ra's al Ghul, was perfectly adequate, nothing extraordinary, but adequate for an Origin movie

2. I was more intimated by Cross than Ultron, [BLACKOUT]the way he shrunk that guy and wiped him off the floor, when he visited Pym I felt a afraid for him[/BLACKOUT], a feeling that he could do the same to him, with Ultron I never felt any danger, the most he did was cut off Klaw's arm in a temper tantrum, kill Strucker off screen and 'Hey he is trying to access Nuclear launch codes from the internet' did not mean anything to me, in the finale everybody know Avengers were gonna save everyone from the fallen city, and yeah he killed Quick Silver, and with that too he used a Quinjet rather than his own powers, total fail!

In short, I and most people didn't have an delusions about Cross beforehand, we knew he was going to be the typical-corporate-bad-guy-overtaking-mentor-company and going evil, we weren't expecting anything more and we knew the focus was gonna be the relationship between Pym and Lang and the two father-daughters, while in AoU, Ultron was hyped up to be the next coming of Joker, making a big deal of hiring James Spader and making him do motion capture and what not and in the end he ended up being extremely disappointing in comparison to what was promised

 

[starscream22]

Cross/Yellow Jacket was fine. Not mind blowing but certainly not as bad a some come on here in spin it. For me he's a 7/10. Going to see Ant-man again in a couple more weeks regardless!

Overall: MCU Villians >>>>>> whoever's

 

[Mechanix]

I think Marvel has a problem with the stakes in their movies. The tone is always pretty lighthearted, so it's hard to believe that anything bad will really happen. That's not to say they should make the movies more like DC or anything like that (because DC is notorious for always having dark and depressing tones), but it's even hard to take Ultron seriously through all the jokes in the Avengers. Yes,

Spoiler

Quiksilver died

, but it didn't change the tone of the movie for me. Maybe Civil War will, if a prominent character is killed off and everything changes because of it. I don't think it's a problem with the villains, I think it's a problem of tone.

That's what I thought The Dark Knight did so well. When Rachel died, the stakes were raised. Everything changed. It was a death we all felt.

 

[Aejej]

Whedon used Quicksilver as fodder to artificially inject pathos into an otherwise predictable superhero circus film.

 

[Solaire]

Malekith was the only villain I thought outright sucked. I thought the other villains were good.

 

[Zant]

Whedon used Quicksilver as fodder to artificially inject pathos into an otherwise predictable superhero circus film.

Hey that's a bit harsh. Although the death of Antony hit me harder than the death of Quicksilver.

 

[Aejej]

Hey that's a bit harsh.

Well, he did. Which character has a counterpart in the X-Men franchise, which is produced by a different studio? Oh, right. Quicksilver. Kill him off by suddenly making him unable to dodge hot lead. Huh?

Just like Iron Man 3, the trailer was cut to evoke a darker feel, to delude us into thinking things were going to get heavy for the Avengers.

Instead, we got a tin man who talked like a hipster Shakespeare for a villain.

Although the death of Antony hit me harder than the death of Quicksilver.

Bingo.

 

[Shikamaru]

A saying should be meant to say what it actually says. Otherwise it's a terrible saying, or someone is using it wrong. It's also a saying that's clearly applicable to a single story. If anything even more so than to a long span of a hero's tale as it talks about a singular person opposing him, so it's by no means at all solely about the long term.And, perhaps most importantly to this, the poster that started the discussion with me was using it as referring to a story.

I've already stated that villains are important so we don't need to debate that. What I've done is to prove that a hero can be great without a great villain, showing that the saying was either untrue or misused here, when looking at the consensus view (individual opinions can of course vary in both directions). I'd even say that it's on the level of that RDJ's Iron Man has villains that aren't often talked about, while the hero himself is most likely the most popular movie superhero now.

I'm not begrudging you to discuss that, but I was having a discussion with another poster and if you want to jump into that discussion and weigh in, which you're very welcome to do, it's good form to actually stick to that discussion and not change the subject (or at least specify that you are intentionally changing it).

The problem is you keep referring to a character's long-term sustainability as if it's not part of that character's appeal. That's simply not true.

I think jmc summed up my thoughts way better than I ever could, so I won't bore you by being redundant, but I do take issue with the bolded part. The quote itself is "A hero is only as good as his villains". It's meant to be applicable to a hero's entire rogues' gallery at large, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that we're talking about a single villain or singular story.

Second, from my experience, the saying is worded like that to emphasize the effect villains have on their heroes. No one ever says "[insert villain] is only liked because he's a villain to [insert hero]", but people often do say the reverse statement of that. It's a saying meant more to point out the silliness of that argument as no hero would be the character they are today if they had different villains (or at least different major villains). You can't separate who a hero is as a person from the conflicts his villains constantly expose him/her to, in other words.

You can have an interesting hero without an interesting villain (I already admitted this), but an interesting hero with interesting villains is ultimately more interesting than the former sort of hero, as it puts them in a position to reach their full potential. Hence why they have more sustainability.

 

[The Guard]

Actually, Pym's and Cross' relationship was a bit more intimate than that. Cross looked at Pym as a father figure and Pym obviously nurtured those feelings that Cross had for him. At some point, Pym rejected those feelings and began to mistrust Cross.

Rejection by a father figure can be a strong motivation for hatred and emotional pain.

"At some point".

We didn't see or learn about it.

None of that was explored or handled well at all.

Being told "They had some sort of relationship" and having a character essentially say "You abandoned me and I felt rejected" means little to nothing if you don't explore that concept.

"Vague daddy issues" does not cut it when it comes to good writing.

Couple that with the psychic delusions caused by the Pym particles and his motivations were very clear.

Translation: He craaaaaazy. Yeah. That's unique.

At what point does the movie explore anything about psychic delusions?

It's a throwaway line that never bears fruit.

His motivations were clear. They were also generic, boring, and poorly executed within the script.

 

[Blind_Lawyer]

Yeah, I also thought Yellowjacket/Darren Cross was a pretty thin and by-the-book-movie-villain, as in "bad for the sake of being bad" but the movie makes mention of the Pym particles effect on behavior.

So, on the surface he's bd for the sake of being bad but it's really more like, he's bad because the Pym Particles are messing with his brain. So, in the comics, the side effect can lead Hank to hitting Jan. In the movie, it can cause Darren Cross to be a totally mediocre villain.

What that does, essentially, is remove motivation. Darren Cross is a victim of an unstable mental state brought on by Pym Particles. He's not a complex villain reeling through emotions and pulling off bad deeds to accomplish a goal that means something. And while that does feel shallow, it also, technically, fits perfectly with the Ant-Man mythos--that the technology was making the doctor mad, not that a mad doctor was using technology.

 

[Mjölnir]

It applies to both short and long term, I think perhaps you are taking that phrase to mean something a bit different than it's meant to be. It boils down to this - if there's no challenger (or challengers) for hero who stands to be the opposite of who the hero is the story doesn't have as much significance because there's ultimately not as much at stake, whether a short story or a century old mythology. He's just the hero if there's not a strong supporting cast of characters, both good and bad, around him to help flesh him out. I've heard with regards to The Dark Knight from some quarters that it's not a Batman film because he's not front and centre. The counter argument to that is that Batman is more than just Bruce Wayne in costume, it's an entire mythology.

You could very well make a movie about any hero, have him/her be front and centre the entire time and it could turn out perfectly acceptable, but at the end of day the from a story telling perspective that type of heroes journey lacks depth. If your argument is that because the movies haven't been awful because of the focus on the heroes then I can't really counter that, but all that really means is they are characters of an acceptable standard and play to easy beats, and in some cases are probably elevated more by the actor playing him/her. The truth it we really don't know how good most of these characters are or what their potential is because most haven't had to face their opposite number, with the exception of Thor.

But then again maybe people are simply ok with that type of depth these days, I don't know, maybe peoples tastes have evolved thanks to the type of movies in general being made in recent times, safe and sanitised experiences that are generally inoffensive and do just enough to win people over. Mad Max Fury Road was one of the most insane movies of the last 15 years with a memorable bad guy yet most people avoided it because it was so different. It is what it is I guess.

The saying doesn't have complex phrasing, it's quite clear. It's not something well used to just say that a good villain is important, it's what you use when you're saying that a good villain is directly necessary.

As I've said several times, I do consider villains important so I don't need to be sold on that. I do however say that it's just one of the factors that creates a strong whole. Iron Man proves that since he's the most successful movie superhero and he hasn't had great villains yet in his solo adventures. There's also been, at least from my point of view, the opposite. I think that the Joker dominates Batman in TDK in terms of interest (I think Begins does the best job with Batman as a character), but the movie is still good for me.

So while I agree that the movie loses something if the villain isn't great, that exact same argument can be made for whatever a movie might be lacking. The villain is not inherently more important than the other major parts. All superhero movies have had lesser parts, whether it be in hero, villain, dialogue, story, etc. For me it's not even necessarily that the best ones are the ones that dip the least in the lows, it's just those that succeeded the best with their strengths. And as I've said before, I only think it's two superhero properties that have managed to create a great symbiosis with the hero and his villain so both are constantly elevated through each other, so that's rare for me.

Marvel's movies are very hero centric this far. Imo it has lead to that they have the best heroes and I don't think the MCU is weaker than any of the opposing universes/series (rather the contrary). For someone else it can of course be different, but that's taste. When it comes to success the MCU is at the top, so it clearly works, although I'm always the first to say that financial success (and even the general opinion) don't mean much. What matters in the end are our own opinions.

 

[Loki882]

The thing about the Joker is that he's NOT the focus on the movie. He gets surprisingly little screentime (less than Batman, Harvey Dent, AND Jim Gordon), has no real character arc (intentionally so), is a cypher ( also a deliberate writing choice) as far as his backstory goes, and is basically a force of nature. Why he's so memorable is:

A. Heath Ledger's performance is so great that, even when Joker isn't physically present (i.e. huge chunks of the film), his presence is still felt and Ledger steals every scene that he IS in to boot.

and

B. His anarchistic ideology makes him both scary and darkly funny.