Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[SuperSanchez]

I can't wait to see the Spidey villains being introduced, they'll be sure to have heaps of development!

 

[OcStat]

Worst you mean Amazing Spider-Man villains and best you mean Dr Octopus right lol?

Pretty much, haha. Well, the Lizard isn't terrible, especially compared to Rhino, Harry and Electro.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Agreed. I think Electro the worst.

 

[TheVileOne]

Movie Electro is so tone deaf, I don't understand how it got past the script stage. Like how no one pointed out that they basically literally redid movie Riddler from Batman Forever.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Agreed. There a lot of funny similarities between ASM2 and Schumacher Batman films lol.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, seriously. Why is it that movie studios seem to think the only way to portray a nerdy, pathetic character is to turn him into a reject from Revenge of the Nerds? Watching Jamie Foxx at the beginning of that movie just made me facepalm. No one actually acts like that.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I think the problem is MCU Red Skull is just not that interesting, comic book Red Skull is a racist, hate filled psychopath who blames the world for his own crappy childhood. In the movie, he is a generic power mad villain who wants power because First Avenger needed someone for Cap to fight, nothing about MCU Red Skull is compelling, I have no desire to see his generic self ever again.

Also the Mandarin is not a very goo character, he is a different character every time he appears (Fraction and Knauf wrote him completely differently) and he is dated in the worst way possible, a Chinese villain named the Mandarin doesn't really work in this day and age. Plus what his motives, why is he Tony Stark's arch nemesis, why does he hate Tony Stark why does want to take over the world or cause WW3 or do whatever his objective is? Ra's Al Ghul is a villain in the similar vein, who works so much better. I thought Killian was kinda of a lame villain, but comic book Mandarin is one of those villains that would hard to translate to screen (each animation adaption of the Mandarin turns him into a different guy). No way would Marvel put pandering to a few fanboys over access to the world's largest film market.

Here is an interesting question, Purple Man was kinda of nothing villain who become one of the best MCU villains, there are any other B-list or
C-list villains who could become a major villain in the MCU? I wonder if Cottonmouth will end up as one of the greatest MCU villains.

I'm sorry you felt that way, because Red Skull was indeed the sinister bigot that he is in the comics. He was ready to slaughter an entire village, didn't mind dispatching his own troops, and thought he had surpassed the obsolete Hitler's goals. Granted that's not his original story as someone personally trained by Hitler, but we saw a tweaked version of Steve's origin and powers as well. Skull's xenophobia and disdain for most of the human race was there, but it was a given that Marvel Studios wasn't going to litter the dialogue with anti-Semitic slurs and produce a bunch of swastika visuals. Remember there was a time, several decades in fact, when toy and merch companies refused to produce any Red Skull collectibles due to his Third Reich backstory. I'm sure Marvel Studios wanted to avoid any residual entanglements that might arise with the film.

As for Mandarin, I fully disagree that he wouldn't have worked had he been done properly. First, the "I don't like that character" is an invalid argument when it comes to important villains. I've always felt that comic book Doc Ock is a conceptually poor villain, but I never once thought that Sony would disrespect his fans and his place in Spidey's history by making him a circus performer or a hot dog vendor. I feel the same way for hardcore Iron Man fans for whom the Mandarin vs Stark showdown was something that they dreamed about.

The story would have been easy to tell and Marvel and, at least to date, has left it on the table. Tony could have faced someone who was his physical superior and in possession of alien tech that surpassed even Stark's armors and fortune. Mandarin's rings could have been quite interesting to behold on screen, but Marvel Studios uncharacteristically wussed out.

 

[Abishai100]

In the recent film The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Spidey tackles a new manifestation of a goblin by Harry Osborn, son of the deceased Norman Osborn.

Harry's goblin, referred to as the New Goblin or 'new Green Goblin' is a lot like Norman's Green Goblin and is portrayed nicely by Dane DeHaan.

This progression of villainy from father to son embodies in the Harry-Norman dynamic points to a certain kind of characterization of evil in the MCU villain department.

The Green Goblin is not slender and agile like Spidey, but rather goonish, muscular, maniacal, and wild.

In the Thomas Harris crime-horror novel Red Dragon, an incarcerated super-psychotic psychiatrist named Hannibal Lecter is recruited as a special consultant for a new eerie case involving a demonic serial killer who refers to himself as Red Dragon and is known as the 'Tooth-Fairy,' for his method of biting people to death in a cannibalistic fashion.

In the story, Dr. Lecter refers to the 'Tooth-Fairy' as a 'man-dragon,' a wilful psychotic bent on the transformative power bestowed by pure wrath and the muscularity it affords him.


The Green Goblin in TASM2 is something like a 'man-dragon,' and is nicely contoured with Spidey's elegant agility and web-soaring power.


Dane DeHaan's contribution to the Marvel villains discussion lends a nice voice to the ongoing 'villainy creepiness' discussion. Harry is frustrated when Spider-Man refuses him a special invigorating blood-transfusion and is maniacally compelled to become something like an 'activated man-dragon.'

This villainous character nicely complements Marvel's approach of using everyday lyricism to characterize otherwise bizarre evils.








Red Dragon (Novel)

 

[Darth_Spock]

Wait, after what WB and Fox recently did to Lex Luthor and Apocalypse why is this an MCU thing?

Technically Civil War had the best CBM villain this year IMO.

 

[metaphysician]

Its an "MCU thing" because its a way to rationalize the MCU as "not really that good", that you can at least put together an argument that doesn't fail the belly laugh test. Note that the other big comic book movie companies, where this is somehow not brought up, can only really name one really awesome villain each ( Joker, Magneto ), which is. . . the same number as Marvel has ( Loki ).

 

[Darth_Spock]

Its an "MCU thing" because its a way to rationalize the MCU as "not really that good", that you can at least put together an argument that doesn't fail the belly laugh test. Note that the other big comic book movie companies, where this is somehow not brought up, can only really name one really awesome villain each ( Joker, Magneto ), which is. . . the same number as Marvel has ( Loki ).

Agreed!

 

[Flint Marko]

Its an "MCU thing" because its a way to rationalize the MCU as "not really that good", that you can at least put together an argument that doesn't fail the belly laugh test. Note that the other big comic book movie companies, where this is somehow not brought up, can only really name one really awesome villain each ( Joker, Magneto ), which is. . . the same number as Marvel has ( Loki ).

I'd say that you'd have to add Kingpin and Kilgrave on that list of awesome MCU villains as well.

But you're right, it's a quick, shallow way to criticize something that is wildly successful simply because you want to criticize it regardless of the bigger picture.

Case in point: when Marvel got the rights to Spider-man back, there were a sizable portion of morons going "oh great, now Marvel's going to ruin one of the best rogue's gallery in all of comics!" I assume these people haven't been paying attention to Spider-man films since 2004.

Does Marvel have ample room for improvement in making consistently memorable antagonists? Absolutely. Know who else has this problem? Every single studio holding comic book properties. Hell, I'd argue that the competing studio's "villain problems" are sometimes even worse...

Spoiler

 

[See Cap Run]

Its an "MCU thing" because its a way to rationalize the MCU as "not really that good", that you can at least put together an argument that doesn't fail the belly laugh test. Note that the other big comic book movie companies, where this is somehow not brought up, can only really name one really awesome villain each ( Joker, Magneto ), which is. . . the same number as Marvel has ( Loki ).

Indeed! Another awesome sort-of villain Marvel has is the Winter Soldier. Also, I know some people don't like to include tv and Netflix villains in the conversation, but Marvel also has Fisk, Killgrave, and some very good Agents of Shield villains such as: Ward, Bill Paxton and Powers Booth.

 

[TeeKay]

I'm not sure who's the worst there. Lex or Dr Doom.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm not sure who's the worst there. Lex or Dr Doom.

I'd say Doom had the most wasted potential, but Lex was worse in that the performance was unbearable and there was a lot more of him in the movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'd say that you'd have to add Kingpin and Kilgrave on that list of awesome MCU villains as well.

But you're right, it's a quick, shallow way to criticize something that is wildly successful simply because you want to criticize it regardless of the bigger picture.

Case in point: when Marvel got the rights to Spider-man back, there were a sizable portion of morons going "oh great, now Marvel's going to ruin one of the best rogue's gallery in all of comics!" I assume these people haven't been paying attention to Spider-man films since 2004.

Does Marvel have ample room for improvement in making consistently memorable antagonists? Absolutely. Know who else has this problem? Every single studio holding comic book properties. Hell, I'd argue that the competing studio's "villain problems" are sometimes even worse...

Spoiler

I don't disagree with what you have said, but does Apocalypse really deserve to be in that list? Especially ahead of the likes of Deadpoolino from Origins?

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't disagree with what you have said, but does Apocalypse really deserve to be in that list? Especially ahead of the likes of Deadpoolino from Origins?

Apocalypse certainly isn't as bad as the other ones on that list, but I included him because I honestly think he's on the same level as the MCU's worst villains. If people bring up Malekith as an example of a poorly handled villain (which I won't defend too vehemently, I didn't dislike him but he was sorely under-utilized), I think Apocalypse should be in that same conversation. I'm going to back and edit that post though because you're right, on the list of truly awful villains, I don't believe Apocalypse fits.
I also only included movies from the past few years, but yes, DeadpoolINO would be right at home on that list.

 

[Web-Head]

I think phase 3 is when we'll see MCU villains really take off. Just look at who they've cast for these roles. Mads character might be a little weaker, but they're not classifying him as a villain, but more of an antagonist.

I think Kurt Russell will bring something to his role in Guardians.

Everything I've seen and heard about Keaton's Vulture sounds awesome so far.

I could go on and on, but it's all sounding like it'll be an improvement.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Apocalypse certainly isn't as bad as the other ones on that list, but I included him because I honestly think he's on the same level as the MCU's worst villains. If people bring up Malekith as an example of a poorly handled villain (which I won't defend too vehemently, I didn't dislike him but he was sorely under-utilized), I think Apocalypse should be in that same conversation. I'm going to back and edit that post though because you're right, on the list of truly awful villains, I don't believe Apocalypse fits.
I also only included movies from the past few years, but yes, DeadpoolINO would be right at home on that list.

Fair enough, I think Apoc had a lot more personality and characterisation than Malekith though. I liked him quite a bit and so did quite a few others. I don't know anyone who liked Malekith. Apocalypse had some powerful moments also, more than many other MCU villains. But good on you for removing him from the list as while some were disappointed by him. He wasn't the car crash some of those villains are.

Here we will probably have to disagree, but I would rate Apoc above the majority of MCU villains. But I can accept not everyone will agree with that.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think phase 3 is when we'll see MCU villains really take off. Just look at who they've cast for these roles. Mads character might be a little weaker, but they're not classifying him as a villain, but more of an antagonist.

I think Kurt Russell will bring something to his role in Guardians.

Everything I've seen and heard about Keaton's Vulture sounds awesome so far.

I could go on and on, but it's all sounding like it'll be an improvement.

I hope so. But there have been some really great actors wasted as Marvel villains already. So casting good actors in future movies doesn't mean they will dramatically improve. I love lots of MCU movies, but at the same time so many of them could have been improved with better villains.

 

[Web-Head]

I hope so. But there have been some really great actors wasted as Marvel villains already. So casting good actors in future movies doesn't mean they will dramatically improve. I love lots of MCU movies, but at the same time so many of them could have been improved with better villains.

I agree. Iron Man 2, Thor 2, etc could have been improved with better villains. But with less origin stories now, there could be a little more of a focus on the villains. At least I hope so. I'm really hoping Keaton's Vulture is a total B.A.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree. Iron Man 2, Thor 2, etc could have been improved with better villains. But with less origin stories now, there could be a little more of a focus on the villains. At least I hope so. I'm really hoping Keaton's Vulture is a total B.A.

Well, as you say, let's hope so. But the sequels so far have had the villain issue as well. We will see. I think better villains would make some already good movies even better.

 

[Darth_Spock]

I don't disagree with what you have said, but does Apocalypse really deserve to be in that list? Especially ahead of the likes of Deadpoolino from Origins?

He's not par with the likes of DeadpoolINO but for me he's still forgetable never the less.

 

[Marathon]

The dramatic arcs of films and the logistics of filmmaking dictate that most antagonists are one and done. Not an easy problem to solve.

 

[Web-Head]

The dramatic arcs of films and the logistics of filmmaking dictate that most antagonists are one and done. Not an easy problem to solve.

They could still give them a little more screen time. Like in Ant-Man, I thought Cross was pretty good..but they took out a couple of his scenes which would have gone a long way.