Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Flint Marko]

Well finally they got Spidey's rogue gallery. Probably 2nd to Batman rogue gallery in comic verse. Villains arent the big problem, but there are no excuses now.

Like I said whenever Marvel got the rights back and people complained they were going to "butcher" Spider-man's rogue gallery: it's guaranteed to be better than whatever garbage Sony was about to churn out.

Spoiler

 

[Kyle]

The MCU has Kilgrave, Wilson Fisk, and Loki, all three of which are widely regarded as great. If you don't agree then that's fine, but they're not all Malekith's.

Here's the odd thing you just listed TV villains mostly. I don't think anyone would argue that the TV villains have been bad. But, you bring up a good and weird point - the television shows have much better villains than the films do which that realization just feels really off.

 

[Abudefduf]

The other studios have bigger problems to deal with right now. They can't even get their heroes right, why should they worry about the villains? lol

Marvel Studios on the other hand, their heroes are mighty popular, their storytelling skills are slowly improving (if CW is anything to go by), the only think lacking from their movies is that optional but absolutely delicious sprinkle of dark side.

 

[Flint Marko]

Here's the odd thing you just listed TV villains mostly. I don't think anyone would argue that the TV villains have been bad. But, you bring up a good and weird point - the television shows have much better villains than the films do which that realization just feels really off.

Marvel has always excelled at endearing audiences to their heroes, often times at the expense of the villains. There's only so much you can do within a two hour run time, and they want to spend more time with our protagonists. It's not ideal, but given how much goodwill they've earned over the years, it's clearly working in their favor.
With a TV show you have over quadruple the amount of screen time to flesh out not just the hero and his supporting cast, but the antagonist as well. That doesn't really feel off to me.

 

[Kyle]

Marvel Studios on the other hand, their heroes are mighty popular, their storytelling skills are slowly improving (if CW is anything to go by), the only think lacking from their movies is that optional but absolutely delicious sprinkle of dark side.

Villains aren't optional. Most of the movies have surprisingly gotten by while not delivering great villains. But, the age old wisdom states that the hero is only as good as the villain. Why was 'Avengers' so much better than 'Age of Ultron'? The villain wasn't as good. Why do the 'Captain America' movies consistently stand out as the best quality Marvel Studio films? The villains in the Captain America films are the strongest MCU villains. Which really, isn't all that surprising.

Marvel has always excelled at endearing audiences to their heroes, often times at the expense of the villains. There's only so much you can do within a two hour run time, and they want to spend more time with our protagonists. It's not ideal, but given how much goodwill they've earned over the years, it's clearly working in their favor.
With a TV show you have over quadruple the amount of screen time to flesh out not just the hero and his supporting cast, but the antagonist as well. That doesn't really feel off to me.

Off in that the TV team is able to deliver better villains on a consistent basis whereas the films are always struggling. If it was that hard to create memorable heroes and memorable villains, nobody would be having this conversation right now. The fact is - you can do both and that Marvel Studios has done both in the past cinematically. They just need to consistently aim for it with all of their films. As said if it was rare, this conversation would not be as far reaching as this one is.

 

[TeeKay]

Having seen all the cbms this year so far? I think the biggest disappointment was Apocalypse. Wasted potential.

1) Zemo
2) Magneto
3)Ajax
4) Apocalypse












5) Lex or whoever that was.

 

[Flint Marko]

Villains aren't optional. Most of the movies have surprisingly gotten by while not delivering great villains. But, the age old wisdom states that the hero is only as good as the villain. Why was 'Avengers' so much better than 'Age of Ultron'? The villain wasn't as good. Why do the 'Captain America' movies consistently stand out as the best quality Marvel Studio films? The villains in the Captain America films are the strongest MCU villains. Which really, isn't all that surprising.

I don't agree with the whole "the hero is only as good as the villain" idea. Ronan wasn't much to write home about in Guardians, but that's easily one of their best films to date. Same with Iron Man.

 

[Neno_Kos]

Zemo was great villain. Didnt watch Apocalypse but I am just tired of same plot over and over. I pretty much dont care for Magneto. Doesnt matter if he is amazing or bad. Just dont care for it. Kinberg and Singer goes on my nerves. They are like that old band with one good song, and they sing it every two years. And now since first X-men it passed 16 years.

Ajax was ok for movie of that budget and storyline what needed to tell. That movie was about Deadpool. He was good enough so we can root for Deadpool to kick his ass and what he did to him. Lex was basically Joker in that movie and I cringed when I saw that in theater.

 

[Kyle]

I don't agree with the whole "the hero is only as good as the villain" idea. Ronan wasn't much to write home about in Guardians, but that's easily one of their best films to date. Same with Iron Man.

I find 'Iron Man' lacking in comparisons to 'The Winter Soldier' and to 'Civil War' all of which share the same tone basically. I would also say the majority would probably agree with that statement (Winter Soldier & Civil War > Iron Man 1 (majority would probably also agree that Avengers is better than Iron Man 1) which isn't surprising - the films with the better villains owns the top (Iron Man 1, sure, would come in towards the top and the top for many - but also it's not that hard to compare with the others because most don't have good villains).

Guardians got by largely unscathed. But, would it have been a much better film with a more memorable villain? Undoubtably. I think a large reason why that film largely gets around that flaw (albeit still noticeable) is that it does have a larger memorable and complex villain in it, albeit just one in the shadows (but the plot, character dynamics, etc. fills a lot of things in) - Thanos with Ronan basically just serving the same kind of role Darth Maul did.

That's not saying they're bad films. They're great films which makes it even stick out more, because they could be even better.

 

[TeeKay]

The other studios have bigger problems to deal with right now. They can't even get their heroes right, why should they worry about the villains? lol

Marvel Studios on the other hand, their heroes are mighty popular, their storytelling skills are slowly improving (if CW is anything to go by), the only think lacking from their movies is that optional but absolutely delicious sprinkle of dark side.

I legit laughed at this.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

5) Lex or whoever that was.

lol that Jim Carey Riddler impersonator calling himself Lex.

 

[Mjölnir]

Have to disagree on Immortan Joe, I liked him a lot as a villain. When you think about what he did to the wives and the people who worshipped him, he was cruel as hell.

Kylo Ren is another good recent one IMO.

Him being a revolting person is just setup. In the actual plot of the movie he basically did nothing other than start the chase. He didn't even go along with the chase for a big part of the movie and eventually died without even getting to say anything interesting in the end. Other than Galactus I don't remember any CBM villain that ever did less, and it's not like Galactus wasn't painted up as this really bad thing in the setup either.

I liked Kylo Ren too, but he's gotten plenty of criticism as well. I liked his character and weakness, and how he showed a different side of the struggle of the dark side. He wasn't a big threat in the end though, especially until we see any explanation on why Ray was so much better than him. I care less about the threat level though as long as he's an interesting character, and I think he was.

But at the same time, the MCU haven't been able to produce a villain as good as the likes of Magneto or The Joker. So for me it still is a pretty big issue, and also for me it's something stopping their movies from being truly great. Just because others do poor villains, doesn't mean Marvel don't need to improve theirs.

I think Loki easily fits that bill. Well acted, charismatic and reasonable depth. While I love Ledger's performance I hold the other two slightly higher since their plans don't revolve entirely around luck or complete incompetence of the opposition, and they have more depth to their characters. Magneto and Loki are also the two CBM villains I think have the best relation to their hero, where all their scenes together elevate both. It's also quite remarkable how well Magneto is acted all the time, despite being recast.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I haven't seen Apocalypse yet, but I thought Zemo was the best villain in a CBM since Bane in TDKR. Especially if you don't count Loki as being a villain in TDW.

 

[ernesth100]

Okay, after CW I think they do have a problem with killing villains off. That suicide bomber did not have to be Crossbones in CW. Like really, Crossbones just got the badass upgrade and new costume come on man.

 

[Kyle]

Okay, after CW I think they do have a problem with killing villains off. That suicide bomber did not have to be Crossbones in CW. Like really, Crossbones just got the badass upgrade and new costume come on man.

While I would say the villains being under developed is a problem, I don't see killing them off as that big of one.

Reason being it's not a television series and these characters' films won't continue forever. Whenever Chris Evans' contract for Captain America films end - there won't be any Captain America films. At the very most there will be three more with Captain America showing up in some Avengers films and some other hero films. Same goes for all of the other heroes.

So what does that mean when there are no more Captain America films? You just bring in a different hero to fill that void. We are talking about a studio that made Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man successful. MARVEL has a lot of heroes to draw from.

What happens when all of the heroes have had their films and they need to start over? I'm seeing a Crisis type of situation where the world is literally restarted.

So with a limited amount of villains that they can show? I have absolutely no problem with villains typically getting killed off because chances are, they would never have their own film. Like I see the Serpent Society and The Secret Empire as being more probably villain focuses if there even are that many more Captain America films after this trilogy - and if it gets to a sixth, the return of the Red Skull to bring everything full circle.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Ultron is probably closest to that.

Red Skull and Cross maybe? Schmidt obivously had his own vision of right and wrong and wasn't going to let anyone in the way of his objective.

Alexander Pierce.

Loki has his desire of conquest but I think he knows he's doing wrong, but envy and his feelings of betrayal get the better of him.

.

Loki's motivation is entitlement. Human absolutes of "right" and "wrong" have no bearing on his reasoning because he sees humanity as something utterly beneath him. His ethics seem to be situational, as he only displays conflicted emotions when it involves his family.

Red Skull thinks that the concepts of freedom and democracy make humanity weak. He also thinks that diversity is plague that should be eradicated. All of humanity's flaws, in his view, can be corrected with the advent of the superman race. I'm not sure he sees himself as "right" as much as a necessary facilitator in the next step in human evolution.

In the comics, Baron Zemo is a legacy villain with severe philosophical differences with Cap and Avengers. Unfortunately, he was a rather pedestrian villain in CW, but according to Bruhl, CW was only a set-up for Zemo. I hope that is indeed the case because Zemo should be so much more.

 

[Abudefduf]

Villains aren't optional. Most of the movies have surprisingly gotten by while not delivering great villains. But, the age old wisdom states that the hero is only as good as the villain. Why was 'Avengers' so much better than 'Age of Ultron'? The villain wasn't as good. Why do the 'Captain America' movies consistently stand out as the best quality Marvel Studio films? The villains in the Captain America films are the strongest MCU villains. Which really, isn't all that surprising.

Good villains do make their movies stronger, there's no point denying that. Heck, some movies are only worth watching because of their villains.

However, it also can't be denied that there's a lot of legitimately good or even great flicks out there whose villains are far from memorable and yet they still work. As long as the main character(s) and the story are compelling, a movie can easily survive its own lack of a strong antagonist.

This obviously doesn't mean that I'm giving the MCU movies a pass and that I want them to continue this lazy trend of theirs, far from it: it's definitely getting frustrating. But the box-office numbers don't lie: the general audience is fine with it.

I legit laughed at this.

Well, what's the point of sugarcoating it.

 

[ernesth100]

For the record when Evans Cap contract ends. They'll either renew it so he can appear in other films . or recast him. They wont retire a popular character

 

[BoredGuy]

so how would y'all rate them, film by film:

Stane- 8 out of 10
Abomination- 6/10
Whiplash- 5/10
Hammer- 6/10
Loki- 10/10
Red Skull- 7/10
Killian- 7/10
Malekith- 3/10
Alexander Pierce- 9/10
Ronan- 6/10
Ultron- 7/10
Darren Cross- 6/10
Zemo- 9/10

Avg- 6.84

And for good measure-
Kingpin- 10/10
Purple Man- 9/10

 

[Kyle]

For the record when Evans Cap contract ends. They'll either renew it so he can appear in other films . or recast him. They wont retire a popular character

For a number of years, yes they would. They wouldn't start back up immediately. If you have noticed we're already starting to see other heroes come out of the wood works to fill voids (Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant Man, Captain Marvel, Black Widow, at some point The Inhumans, etc.) while an 'Iron Man 4' is a "maybe." And that's their flagship nowhere on the docket unless it's sometime after 2020, to put into timeline perspectives - that's 8 or more years without a solo Iron Man (their flagship) film, they're not just bringing more heroes in for the heck of it - as they've already expressed repeatedly they're adding to and switching up the game board for a reason. When Chris wants out, Steve dies - Bucky steps in (to anyone who's followed the contracts for these films we already know this is Marvel's obvious plan from the ridiculously long contract that they had Sebastian Stan sign (a 9 film deal, a deal like that - there's obviously thought that goes into it) (Why bring in a brand new actor to play Cap when you can go the route of the comics, staying true to the source material, and utilize an already strong character that you've spent time building up and making part of the popular Cap cinematic mythos?).

Abudef:However, it also can't be denied that there's a lot of legitimately good or even great flicks out there whose villains are far from memorable

I never said that they weren't, if you read what I wrote you would see that light as day. I just don't give free passes. The films are great, but they could all be excellent by focusing on all points like their most memorable films do.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Stane- 9/ 10
Abomination- 8/10
Whiplash-4/10
Hammer- 6/10
Loki- 9/10
Red Skull- 9/10
Killian- 3/10
Malekith- 6/10
Alexander Pierce- 9/10
Ronan- 8/10
Ultron- 9/10
Darren Cross- 6/10
Zemo- 5/10
Kingpin- 9/10
Purple Man- 9/10
Crossbones 7/10
Ross 8/10
Mandarin (MINO)- 2/10
Laufey 8/10

 

[Abudefduf]

I don't really know how to rate a character, but my list of MCU villains goes as follows:

Good:
Loki

Ok:
Obadiah Stane

Serviceable:
Alexander Pierce
Aldrich Killian
Helmut Zemo

Wasted:
Red Skull
Malekith (looked mighty cool tho)
Ronan
Ultron
Abomination (I liked Blonsky, but his mutated self was terrible)

Who cares:
Whiplash
Yellowjacket

I never said that they weren't, if you read what I wrote you would see that light as day. I just don't give free passes. The films are great, but they could all be excellent by focusing on all points like their most memorable films do.

Um yeah, yeah you did. For some dumb reason I skipped that first sentence and only focused on the rest of what you said.

I honestly think we pretty much agree on this topic. What I am trying to say is, since MS are doing so great even with their lackluster villains, they don't really have to improve them. It's sad but it is what it is.

 

[Zarex]

Excellent
Loki

Good
Schmidt
Stane
Zemo
Pierce
Killian

Okay
Ronan
Cross
Ultron
Blonsky

Disappointing
Vanko
Maliketh

 

[CaptainWagner]

Assessing the villains film by film:

Phase 1

Spoiler

Stane: Been a while since I saw the first Iron Man, but from what I remember, Stane was pretty great. You can't hold the "Evil Version of Hero" trope against him, because at that point it hadn't become as cliched as it is today. It's just a shame that they didn't use his suicide from the comics. 8/10

Abomination: As I've only seen TIH once, and that was ages ago, I don't really feel confident making any judgments on Abomination.

Whiplash: They had a great character going here, played by a tremendous actor, but butchered most of his arc in the editing room. If he wasn't supposed to be the headlining villain, maybe he would be alright, but as much as they wasted him, they only get partial credit. 6/10

Hammer: The saving grace of IM2 from being a mess on the villain's side, Rockwell absolutely nailed Hammer. Now, I have no idea if it's an accurate portrayal, but the character who made it on screen remains one of the MCU's best villains, and it's an awful shame they've so far failed to bring about his return. 8/10

Red Skull: Weaving's hypocritical stance's on this sort of movie aside, he gave a very good performance as Skull. Of course, that's not hard, Schmidt isn't exactly a complex villain. He served his purpose and is gone. It would be nice to see him recast and brought back in the future, but I can live without it. 7/10

Loki: It's not really fair that Loki is viewed as the Number 1 villain in the MCU, he's had three movies worth of development, after all. But taking that into account, it's easy to see why he is so popular. Witty, charismatic, and fueled by a stellar preformance by Tom Hiddleston, Loki deserves all the praise he gets. 9/10

Good:Servicable:Wasted - 3:2:1

Phase 2

Spoiler

Aldrich Killian: Finally, Iron Man faces someone who isn't just another guy in a suit. Killian really had a brilliant plan, no matter how you feel about the Mandarin twist, and he fit perfectly into the story Shane Black was telling with Iron Man 3. Plus he breathed fire. 8/10

Malekith: You have to give him some points for looking cool, but I argue that Malekith takes the cake for the biggest waste of a villain in all of the MCU. He really doesn't do anything memorable, heck, his henchman Kurse has next to no lines and is more memorable than him. Despite his great actor and design, Malekith managed to be the weakest link in an already weak movie 4/10

Alexander Pierce: When Robert Redford signed on to the part, you knew it would be good, and he certainly lived up to the hype, proving a much better Hydra head than Red Skull managed to be. And with him, his death was fitting and very well executed, unlike so many needless dead villains in the MCU 9/10

Ronan: Much like Malekith, Ronan had a great actor and a great costume to help him out, but never managed to be all too impressive, and was done a huge disservice by the film's final act. But he at least managed to sneak in a few more memorable moments than the Dark Elf. 5/10

Ultron: Well, Ultron is tough to judge. On one hand, he's not a bad villain. Spader and Whedon gave him a unique and memorable personality. On the other hand, by the time he reached the climax, the film was veering painfully close to the original Avengers. At the end of the day, AOU just never fulfilled on the threat that Ultron SHOULD be. The HISHE video for the movie showed a more threatening villain, for Pete's sake! 7/10

Yellowjacket: You can't get a much more looser adaptation than this. Darren Cross of the film has little to do with either his comic counterpart nor that of his alter-ego. But he boasted one of, if not THE, best villain costume in the MCU, and Corey Stoll delivered a brilliant performance with what he was given, which was tragically little character development and a presumed death scene which was massively disappointing. 7/10

2:2:2

Phase 3

Spoiler

Zemo: As much as I would have loved Zemo to be more accurate, Bruhl delivered one of the best turns yet in a Marvel film, standing out even when his villainy wasn't the focus of the overall plot. Splendidly written, acted, and with a great plan that actually works, Zemo got off to a great start. And the best part? He'll be back. 9/10

1:0:0

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The MCU has Kilgrave, Wilson Fisk, and Loki, all three of which are widely regarded as great. If you don't agree then that's fine, but they're not all Malekith's.

Kilgrave and Fisk are indeed great, but they are not part of the MCU anymore than Agents Of Shield is.

And while I love Loki, he doesn't compare to Magneto and Joker IMO.

Have you not been paying attention? I've said exactly this on two separate occasions in this very thread. That isn't my point, and you're just starting to repeat yourself.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. You said because other companies have done poor villains we can stop criticising the MCU for it, I disagree. Other companies doing bad villains just means they should be criticised also.