Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[TheVileOne]

Ajax wasn't a great villain. But Deadpool was still enjoyable regardless.

Kingpin is still the best MCU villain.

Zemo was a bad villain and shouldn't have been Zemo.

 

[OcStat]

To be frank, another way to state this question is: Do all of the studios other than Marvel have a problem with their heroes? Because Marvel consistently portrays recognizable, identifiable, and enjoyable protagonists, so why should anyone want the antagonist to be suddenly more interesting than the hero(es)? IMO Marvel are right to focus on the protagonist's story/motivation/arc/etc, as evidenced by the critical and financial success all of their movies have enjoyed.

Now that would be an interesting thread.

 

[Flint Marko]

What about the sentinels? Or Ajax from Deadpool? Or Sebastian shaw? Way cooler than the versions of malekith or ronan the accuser we saw. Or that guy from antman

I'd easily put every villain you just listed save for Shaw on the same level as Malekith and Yellowjacket in terms of screen time and development. Your personal taste is another discussion entirely (Sentinels? Really?) but I think most will agree that they're all relatively undercooked.

 

[Iron_Stark]

The Sentinels? LOL.

I'd put the Hammer drones over them.

 

[Abudefduf]

I loved the future Sentinels. Underused, but scary as heck. They were obviously not the main antagonists of the movie though.

I think the reason people say that is because

Spoiler

1. He survived
2. He didn't wear the mask yet.
3. Brühl responded with "There's a possibility. That's the way it's written." when asked whether he would wear it in a future movie.
4. Thunderbolts seems like an obvious choice for a movie
5. Whenever the Avengers are friends again post infinity war, he won't be happy
6. There were hints there is more to him than what was shown on the surface, including him being in the paramilitary EKO Skorpion.

Maybe you're right. I don't know, I just can't see it happening.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I loved the future Sentinels. Underused, but scary as heck.

You think those were scary?

 

[JtheDreamer]

To be frank, another way to state this question is: Do all of the studios other than Marvel have a problem with their heroes? Because Marvel consistently portrays recognizable, identifiable, and enjoyable protagonists, so why should anyone want the antagonist to be suddenly more interesting than the hero(es)? IMO Marvel are right to focus on the protagonist's story/motivation/arc/etc, as evidenced by the critical and financial success all of their movies have enjoyed.

A protagonist can only be as great as the antagonist allows - because they set the stakes and the threat. I honestly think Feige is too paranoid of having the villains nerf the heroes to the point where things are becoming almost too scripted.

 

[Abudefduf]

You think those were scary?

Yes. They made me cry, and I had nightmares for weeks.
No seriously, maybe scary is not the right word. Creepy. I don't know, I liked them. Let's not pretend the original comic book ones looked any better.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Yes. They made me cry, and I had nightmares for weeks.
No seriously, maybe scary is not the right word. Creepy. I don't know, I liked them. Let's not pretend the original comic book ones looked any better.

Personally, I found their design lazy and uninspiring.

 

[Abudefduf]

Well I can agree with that, sort of; they definitely weren't the most original design. But again, I still enjoyed them; it helps that all of their scenes were great in my opinion.

The 80s Sentinels however... yeah, those were godawful.

 

[RoryTate]

A protagonist can only be as great as the antagonist allows - because they set the stakes and the threat. I honestly think Feige is too paranoid of having the villains nerf the heroes to the point where things are becoming almost too scripted.

In some cases, yes, you are right, you need a good foil for the hero. However, in many of the Marvel movies the protagonist's main or most important struggle is more "Man vs Him/Herself" or "Man vs Nature" than the "Man vs Man" struggle of directly dealing with the villain. There are many different ways to set up conflict, and Marvel stories have tended more towards the former than the latter when you consider them overall, which is an element I rather like about them.

For example, the first Thor movie. I think that Loki is pretty much the perfect villain, but Thor's main conflict is actually more with overcoming his own brashness and arrogance, not in finally defeating his brother. The reason that Loki is so perfect as a villain is because his motivations are well understood, solidly established, and oh so perfectly acted. Not in the way he threatens Thor...in fact, it could be argued that Odin truly defeats Loki in the end with a single phrase: "No, Loki", and it is those words in Loki's mind that effectively cast him out of the family. Loki's ability -- or inability -- to defeat Thor in battle is completely irrelevant.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I see that other people have started discussing villains from other companies, and it is true, they all have villain problems as bad or worse than Marvel.

One thing I am grateful for with regards to Marvel's villains, is that even their worst, most dullest villains aren't film-destroying bad the way that we have seen recently from other companies. Malekith was not a good villain, but he's far better than Lex Luthor or Electro or Dr. Doom.

Fox has been extremely hit or miss with their villains, and are more miss when they don't have Magneto to fall back on. I liked Shaw. I liked Cox's Stryker. But they have a lot of mediocre villains like Francis and some complete disasters like Dr. Doom or Galactus.

DC has the same problem with their villains that their films as a whole have. If it isn't Dick Donner, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan, beware. Average villains like Spacey's Luthor and Shannon's Zod are about the best you get and there is a ton of insulting cartoon characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Eisenberg's Luthor, Hector Hammond, Parallax, etc.

As for Sony, well...the last decent villain they had was in 2004. Come next year there will be teenagers that weren't even born yet the last time Sony had a villain that wasn't lousy.

So compared to the competition, Marvel's villain situation looks a lot better than it does in a vacuum.

 

[JtheDreamer]

In some cases, yes, you are right, you need a good foil for the hero. However, in many of the Marvel movies the protagonist's main or most important struggle is more "Man vs Him/Herself" or "Man vs Nature" than the "Man vs Man" struggle of directly dealing with the villain. There are many different ways to set up conflict, and Marvel stories have tended more towards the former than the latter when you consider them overall, which is an element I rather like about them.

For example, the first Thor movie. I think that Loki is pretty much the perfect villain, but Thor's main conflict is actually more with overcoming his own brashness and arrogance, not in finally defeating his brother. The reason that Loki is so perfect as a villain is because his motivations are well understood, solidly established, and oh so perfectly acted. Not in the way he threatens Thor...in fact, it could be argued that Odin truly defeats Loki in the end with a single phrase: "No, Loki", and it is those words in Loki's mind that effectively cast him out of the family. Loki's ability -- or inability -- to defeat Thor in battle is completely irrelevant.

It's hard to conjure up Loki in these conversations because he was really the only villain with depth. Ultron was close, but he gets reduced to a joke in the 3rd act.

 

[TeeKay]

I see that other people have started discussing villains from other companies, and it is true, they all have villain problems as bad or worse than Marvel.

One thing I am grateful for with regards to Marvel's villains, is that even their worst, most dullest villains aren't film-destroying bad the way that we have seen recently from other companies. Malekith was not a good villain, but he's far better than Lex Luthor or Electro or Dr. Doom.

Fox has been extremely hit or miss with their villains, and are more miss when they don't have Magneto to fall back on. I liked Shaw. I liked Cox's Stryker. But they have a lot of mediocre villains like Francis and some complete disasters like Dr. Doom or Galactus.

DC has the same problem with their villains that their films as a whole have. If it isn't Dick Donner, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan, beware. Average villains like Spacey's Luthor and Shannon's Zod are about the best you get and there is a ton of insulting cartoon characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Eisenberg's Luthor, Hector Hammond, Parallax, etc.

As for Sony, well...the last decent villain they had was in 2004. Come next year there will be teenagers that weren't even born yet the last time Sony had a villain that wasn't lousy.

So compared to the competition, Marvel's villain situation looks a lot better than it does in a vacuum.

I'm still waiting for the day Marvel produces a villain like this..

 

[Flint Marko]

I see that other people have started discussing villains from other companies, and it is true, they all have villain problems as bad or worse than Marvel.

One thing I am grateful for with regards to Marvel's villains, is that even their worst, most dullest villains aren't film-destroying bad the way that we have seen recently from other companies. Malekith was not a good villain, but he's far better than Lex Luthor or Electro or Dr. Doom.

Fox has been extremely hit or miss with their villains, and are more miss when they don't have Magneto to fall back on. I liked Shaw. I liked Cox's Stryker. But they have a lot of mediocre villains like Francis and some complete disasters like Dr. Doom or Galactus.

DC has the same problem with their villains that their films as a whole have. If it isn't Dick Donner, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan, beware. Average villains like Spacey's Luthor and Shannon's Zod are about the best you get and there is a ton of insulting cartoon characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Eisenberg's Luthor, Hector Hammond, Parallax, etc.

As for Sony, well...the last decent villain they had was in 2004. Come next year there will be teenagers that weren't even born yet the last time Sony had a villain that wasn't lousy.

So compared to the competition, Marvel's villain situation looks a lot better than it does in a vacuum.

/thread

 

[JtheDreamer]

/thread

Not really. Just because other studios can't produce a decent villain doesn't change anything about the Marvel villain situation. They're only better by default - not because they really went out and earned it.

The main problem is back in the day sequels and trilogies would allow more development in the main antagonist, which is hard to do in the first films as so much time is dedicated to the hero. With CBM's these days, each movie is in a rush to roll out the next villain, so we don't get that.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I liked Francis/Ajax. He was no Heath Ledger's Joker or anything like that, but I thought Skrein played a good loathsome prick. He served his purpose; you wanted to see Deadpool get his revenge on him. They definitely need to up the stakes with the villain in the next film, but for an origin movie villain, he was good.

 

[Mad Ones]

You think those were scary?

I thought the way their faces opened up was pretty creepy.

I thought Ajax was fine. Deadpool turned him into a meme basically and it worked.

Not sure how I feel about Zemo.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Ajax wasn't a great villain. But Deadpool was still enjoyable regardless.

Kingpin is still the best MCU villain.

Zemo was a bad villain and shouldn't have been Zemo.

He wasn't bad as much as he was an incomplete plot device. What he did to Bucky, and subsequently to the Avengers, was effective storytelling. The problem was that Zemo had very little to offer outside of his MO in the film. His motivation turned out to be sadly generic, which is a waste of a good comic book history.

 

[Flint Marko]

Not really. Just because other studios can't produce a decent villain doesn't change anything about the Marvel villain situation.

No one is saying it does. Countless times Ive mentioned how much room for improvement there is with the MCU's rogue gallery; however this conversation should be expanded to include that this is a problem with Hollywood and not just Marvel, as it is so often limited to.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I liked Francis/Ajax. He was no Heath Ledger's Joker or anything like that, but I thought Skrein played a good loathsome prick. He served his purpose; you wanted to see Deadpool get his revenge on him. They definitely need to up the stakes with the villain in the next film, but for an origin movie villain, he was good.

I agree. There was nothing dry about Ajax at all. He was a full-fledged charismatic prick who you wanted Deadpool to rough up.

No one is saying it does. Countless times Ive mentioned how much room for improvement there is with the MCU's rogue gallery; however this conversation should be expanded to include that this is a problem with Hollywood and not just Marvel, as it is so often limited to.

Well it's a Marvel forum. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone touted other studios as not having the same problem. As I said in my previous response though - it's due to the abandonment of developing the primary antagonist thru multiple films as these studios try to unspool as many villains as they can.

 

[OcStat]

The primary antagonist through multiple films?

You mean like X-men style where every new antagonist is pushed to the side for more Magneto?

Or a character like Thanos who has been alluded to and glimpsed but yet to be truly seen?

Because very few series will have one villain that they are confronting for each film. Didn't happen with Batman, TDKT, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Superman.

Or do you mean something like Darth Vader, or Sauron, or Biff Tannen...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I liked Francis/Ajax. He was no Heath Ledger's Joker or anything like that, but I thought Skrein played a good loathsome prick. He served his purpose; you wanted to see Deadpool get his revenge on him. They definitely need to up the stakes with the villain in the next film, but for an origin movie villain, he was good.

You are definitely not alone, I liked Francis/Ajax as well, nothing special, but he definitely served his purpose and wasn't as bad as some others.

 

[Flint Marko]

Well it's a Marvel forum. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone touted other studios as not having the same problem. As I said in my previous response though - it's due to the abandonment of developing the primary antagonist thru multiple films as these studios try to unspool as many villains as they can.

Again, I'm talking about the greater conversations around CBM's as a whole. Some consistently harp on Marvel's "villain problem" in ways that make it sound unique to them - I can't count how many people I saw on these boards alone who made remarks along the lines of "great, now Marvel's going to butcher Spider-man's rogues gallery!" once we learned about the Sony/Marvel deal, as if it hasn't been over a decade since Sony's last worthwhile effort.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

Maybe you're right. I don't know, I just can't see it happening.

There's also this quote going around on the internet. Supposedly it's written in the official concept art book or something, but I haven't been able to find an actual picture or anything.

We toyed with the idea of giving him his mask and sword in the final act of the movie, but we quickly realized that it would have made no sense within the context of the story structure. Those items have great importance to this character. They aren't just a costume and a weapon, they are his heritage, legacy. Had we made him suit up in the movie yes, fans would have understood what was happening but casual audiences would have been lost because we didn't explore his royal descendance.

This is why we left the door wide open for his return. We have only begun to scratch the surface with this character. We have big plans for him