Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Saitou Hajime]

That Marvel villain which received almost no development through his what, first 6 episodes or so?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. That stretch developed the hell out of Fisk, and did so without even touching the meatier stuff which was delved in the second half of the season.

 

[Oscorp]

I think they leave the character scenes with their villains on the editing floor. Mickey Rourke, Peyton reed and Taylor mentioned stuff filmed with villains that may of made them more compelling that didn't make the cut.

I liked Yellowjacket in Ant-Man but I think a extra five minutes to Ant-Man's running time to include those Yellowjacket deleted scenes Reed mentioned would not of hurt the movie.

I think that big Hollywood films in general these days don't favour putting in scenes that help establish characters motivations because they are so obsessed with the pace of their movies.

It feels like more and more films have a 2 hour plus running time but they waste it by editing out character/plot scenes that make the movie more coherent in favour of pointless scenes that add very little.

Ridley Scott in recent years has butchered his movies in the editing room until they are almost incomprehensible

I've seen the Whiplash deleted scenes and they were terrible.

 

[Mike Murdock]

To be honest, as much as people complain about the foreshadowing Avengers scenes in Iron Man 2, I didn't think they were that bad. In fact, I'd argue Black Widow was a highlight of the movie.

 

[Chris B]

I think they leave the character scenes with their villains on the editing floor. Mickey Rourke, Peyton reed and Taylor mentioned stuff filmed with villains that may of made them more compelling that didn't make the cut.

I liked Yellowjacket in Ant-Man but I think a extra five minutes to Ant-Man's running time to include those Yellowjacket deleted scenes Reed mentioned would not of hurt the movie.

I think that big Hollywood films in general these days don't favour putting in scenes that help establish characters motivations because they are so obsessed with the pace of their movies.

It feels like more and more films have a 2 hour plus running time but they waste it by editing out character/plot scenes that make the movie more coherent in favour of pointless scenes that add very little.

Ridley Scott in recent years has butchered his movies in the editing room until they are almost incomprehensible

I had the same thought as well. A few character scenes might be enough to make the difference in some cases at least.

 

[jmc]

It's all about balance with regards to heroes and villains. Marvel's problem is that there's little counter balance to the focus on the heroes, it's essentially a library of good guys with no real opposing force on the other side. Focusing on the hero is fine and all but the stories never reach their potential if there's no real counterpunch on offer. It's not good to have weak opposition. So far it's been a rather one sided universe where the good guys have mostly had the upper hand. It was forgivable for phase 1 but for phase two there really wasn't any excuse to not start bringing in the tougher opponents.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's all about balance with regards to heroes and villains. Marvel's problem is that there's little counter balance to the focus on the heroes, it's essentially a library of good guys with no real opposing force on the other side. Focusing on the hero is fine and all but the stories never reach their potential if there's no real counterpunch on offer. It's not good to have weak opposition. So far it's been a rather one sided universe where the good guys have mostly had the upper hand. It was forgivable for phase 1 but for phase two there really wasn't any excuse to not start bringing in the tougher opponents.

In fairness, their story model is proving to be a phenomenal success with audiences. The consumer likes indulgent stories of strong heroes comprehensively and easily overpowering weak villains.

It's the ultimate power fantasy. Yes there is evil in this work, but don't worry, with just a snap of a finger it will be dispatched.

 

[DA_Champion]

That Marvel villain which received almost no development through his what, first 6 episodes or so?

The series was 13 episodes.

 

[Lord]

To be fair, villains had been stealing the show in films for years, Marvel showed that getting the heroes right is what's the most important. That said, now's the time for them to develop the villains more, Kingpin is their best villain so far, Loki's an interesting character but he's not all that threatening, he's actualy better when he's either a joke or an anti-hero. Ultron was a generaly interesting character like Loki, but not a very threatening villain, and he was more forgetable.

Then you have the rest of the Marvel villains, who range from decents, like Killian and the hydra's leader in Winter soldier, to just plain bad, like Malekith and the guy from Ant-Man.

 

[jmc]

I actually don't get why people have suddenly started thinking villains stealing the show is a bad thing.

 

[DA_Champion]

I actually don't get why people have suddenly started thinking villains stealing the show is a bad thing.

Back in 2008, nobody was saying that TDK is a bad film because the Joker stole the show. It's a retroactive criticism, to reverse the critique that the MCU films have weak villains. It's a very lawyer-y type criticism.

 

[jmc]

It just flies in the face of good story telling in general. We can go back hundreds, even thousands of years of myths and fables where the hero has had to triumph against a seemingly untouchable opponent, and now that concept has been watered down to make the opponent an afterthought in films. It's like there's this level of just 'acceptable' now that bugs me, as long as something isn't awful it's fine how it is.

 

[Mad Ones]

I remember growing up with Batman movies and only caring about the villains. Batman Begins was the first movie to actually make me care about Bruce Wayne.

I think because of the Batman movies I still have the idea that the movie is only as interesting as its villain.

 

[Shikamaru]

Honestly, has there ever been a time in CBM history where having a great villain directly took away from the appeal of a hero? There's instances where a villain was more interesting, but has that ever been a case of a protagonist losing appeal by means of a villain simply existing? I can't think of one instance.

I would argue a great antagonist is complementary to a great protagonist.

In fairness, their story model is proving to be a phenomenal success with audiences. The consumer likes indulgent stories of strong heroes comprehensively and easily overpowering weak villains.

It's the ultimate power fantasy. Yes there is evil in this work, but don't worry, with just a snap of a finger it will be dispatched.

I don't know if this is true. The general audience has never been asked of their opinion on Marvel's villains, nor have they been offered any other alternatives.

If anything, given the responses on Aou and Ant-Man, it's becoming a more and more noticeable problem.

 

[DA_Champion]

The general audiences are asked their response to Marvel all the time, and Marvel's movies are continuously smoking the box office. The have an excellent business model regardless of what some of us individually feel.

Think of the Marvel movies as skipping the appetizer and main course and going straight to dessert. We just see the heroes dominating, like in that opening sequence of AoU where the mighty Baron von Strucker shows up and immediately surrendered. lot of people prefer that lol.

 

[Shikamaru]

Eh, I don't know if people necessarily prefer that. I pointed out before how often there was a correlation in comics between popular characters and great villains. Obviously Marvel's films make money, as villains aren't the end-all-be-all of everything, but the point is they would reach their full potential if they put more effort in their villains.

I think the GA would generally be embracing of better villains. Hence the responses to Joker, Magneto, Loki and Kingpin.

 

[DACrowe]

I actually don't get why people have suddenly started thinking villains stealing the show is a bad thing.

It is just a way to rationalize one area that everyone can agree Marvel is weak on. Sure, Heath Ledger as the Joker might be the best thing in the movie, but then again he is one of the best villains in movie history. Even so, the fact that so many people cite the ending as one of the best parts--a sequence about Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Dent...the "good guys" up until that point now crumbling--including Gordon's ode to "the watchful guardian," it's proof that the movie is loved for more than its villain.

Same with Magneto in the X-Men movies. He has undeniably been a great villain (though after 6 movies, he might be ready for a rest after Apocalypse). But nobody thinks he steals too much screen time.

The only time a great villain has maybe had too much of the spotlight were during the Burton Batman movies. In general, filmmakers have balanced this fine in the past.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

To be honest, as much as people complain about the foreshadowing Avengers scenes in Iron Man 2, I didn't think they were that bad. In fact, I'd argue Black Widow was a highlight of the movie.

Looking back it seems almost quaint. It seems weird to be angry over it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Eh, I don't know if people necessarily prefer that. I pointed out before how often there was a correlation in comics between popular characters and great villains. Obviously Marvel's films make money, as villains aren't the end-all-be-all of everything, but the point is they would reach their full potential if they put more effort in their villains.

I think the GA would generally be embracing of better villains. Hence the responses to Joker, Magneto, Loki and Kingpin.

Agreed, Marvel have made some very good movies, but IMO they have yet to make a truly great one that can stand with the likes of TDK, X2 and Spiderman 2 as of yet. And the lacklustre villains are a big reason for that, in order to elevate their movies they need to start putting a little more effort into their villains. I enjoyed Ant Man a lot, but with a great villain it would have gone from a very good movie to a great one. Ultron was the biggest disappointment though, he should have been much more threatening and disturbing than he was.

 

[Greens]

The scene where Yellowjacket shows up in you-know-who's room could have been incredibly threatening, but it didn't really have the necessary impact. The ingredients for a menacing villain were there.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Honestly, has there ever been a time in CBM history where having a great villain directly took away from the appeal of a hero? There's instances where a villain was more interesting, but has that ever been a case of a protagonist losing appeal by means of a villain simply existing? I can't think of one instance.

Yeah, I'd argue Burton's Batman films have a problem where Batman isn't all that interesting due to the focus on the villains.

 

[Mjölnir]

Honestly, has there ever been a time in CBM history where having a great villain directly took away from the appeal of a hero? There's instances where a villain was more interesting, but has that ever been a case of a protagonist losing appeal by means of a villain simply existing? I can't think of one instance.

I would argue a great antagonist is complementary to a great protagonist.

I don't know if that's the actual reason but while I think Batman was great in Begins I don't think he's as good in TDK and I end up almost rooting for the villain to win. The Joker is greater than Ra's al Ghul so I guess it's possible that it's part of the reason why I feel that way.

But in the end I think that neither a hero nor a villain take away from the other if both are good enough, and of course it's individual what hits the spot.

 

[Flint Marko]

That Marvel villain which received almost no development through his what, first 6 episodes or so?

I'm dumbfounded.

 

[Drizzle]

Honestly, I don't see why Marvel Studios is the scapegoat for weak villains in superhero movies. Sure, Loki is definitely their strongest villain and most of the other ones can't even compete, but every studio has a few solid villains and a bunch of forgettable to just plain bad ones.

WB/DC: From the Batman movies, both Joker incarnations so far have been their strongest and most memorable villains, with Burton's Catwoman, Nolan's Bane and Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, and Zod from Superman II rounding out the best of the rest. Hackman's Luthor, Zod (MOS), Scarecrow and Burton's Penguin were above average also. Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor looked bored out of his mind, but I guess he's the best of the worst. The rest of them are barely worth mentioning at all. Nuclear Man, Riddler, Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, Parallax, Hector Hammond? Awful.

Sony: Mainly just the Spider-Man movies here. Doc Ock and Dafoe's Green Goblin were great, but everyone else was kind of lackluster. Sandman, Venom, Lizard, TASM2 Goblin and Electro were all subpar. The less said about Rhino and the lame-ass Ghost Rider villains, the better.

Fox: The X-Men movies have had a few great villains through the franchise, like Magneto (both McKellen and Fassbender), Stryker (Brian Cox), and Shaw. The second-tier villains like Mystique, Deathstrike and Liev Schreiber's Sabretooth were also memorable. Besides them, there's just bad villains all over the place like Juggernaut and the rest of the goon squad from X3, Viper, Stryker (Danny Huston), Weapon XI or whatever the hell Deadpool was at the end of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Then there's Dr. Doom, cloud Galactus, Bullseye....*shudder*

I'd say that the Batman movies have, overall, had the best luck with villains. But as for superhero films in general, the villains that have worked best on screen are still the most iconic ones, like The Joker.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't know if that's the actual reason but while I think Batman was great in Begins I don't think he's as good in TDK and I end up almost rooting for the villain to win. The Joker is greater than Ra's al Ghul so I guess it's possible that it's part of the reason why I feel that way.

But in the end I think that neither a hero nor a villain take away from the other if both are good enough, and of course it's individual what hits the spot.

I would argue that everytime the Joker seemed more interesting than Batman on screen, it was due to Batman himself being watered down while the Joker was shown in his full might and glory. Neither Burton or Nolan have shown the character's full mental/physical potential. But whenever someone does, neither actor seems to overshadow the other one. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill are arguably the perfect example of this.

Yeah, I'd argue Burton's Batman films have a problem where Batman isn't all that interesting due to the focus on the villains.

I'll give you that, but that's also what Burton was intentionally going for. He wanted Batman in the background as more of a mysterious figure.

As long as Marvel doesn't intentionally aim for that, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Shikamaru]

Honestly, I don't see why Marvel Studios is the scapegoat for weak villains in superhero movies. Sure, Loki is definitely their strongest villain and most of the other ones can't even compete, but every studio has a few solid villains and a bunch of forgettable to just plain bad ones.

WB/DC: From the Batman movies, both Joker incarnations so far have been their strongest and most memorable villains, with Burton's Catwoman, Nolan's Bane and Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul, and Zod from Superman II rounding out the best of the rest. Hackman's Luthor, Zod (MOS), Scarecrow and Burton's Penguin were above average also. Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor looked bored out of his mind, but I guess he's the best of the worst. The rest of them are barely worth mentioning at all. Nuclear Man, Riddler, Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, Parallax, Hector Hammond? Awful.

Sony: Mainly just the Spider-Man movies here. Doc Ock and Dafoe's Green Goblin were great, but everyone else was kind of lackluster. Sandman, Venom, Lizard, TASM2 Goblin and Electro were all subpar. The less said about Rhino and the lame-ass Ghost Rider villains, the better.

Fox: The X-Men movies have had a few great villains through the franchise, like Magneto (both McKellen and Fassbender), Stryker (Brian Cox), and Shaw. The second-tier villains like Mystique, Deathstrike and Liev Schreiber's Sabretooth were also memorable. Besides them, there's just bad villains all over the place like Juggernaut and the rest of the goon squad from X3, Viper, Stryker (Danny Huston), Weapon XI or whatever the hell Deadpool was at the end of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Then there's Dr. Doom, cloud Galactus, Bullseye....*shudder*

I'd say that the Batman movies have, overall, had the best luck with villains. But as for superhero films in general, the villains that have worked best on screen are still the most iconic ones, like The Joker.

Everyone brought up received their fair share of criticism or starred in a film where there was already a great villain (thus it made up for it).

The reason people criticize Marvel for their villains is for the same reasons the Nolan films get criticism for Batman's detective work. In other words, everything else is so well done that the few mistakes they have just stick out like a sore thumb. If we were discussing a film like DBE or Batman & Robin, of course I would put less emphasis on the villains as there would be far more "bad" to talk about.