Does Marvel have a problem with their villains?

[Zant]

Something has been bugging me about Zemo INO. What if Cap already told Tony about what Bucky did to his parents even before that events of Civil war??.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

TDW had my favorite Loki. He's a lying, manipulative opportunist who likes to play two powerful sides off each other to further his own standing. He's not really supposed to seem scary or threatening. He's not Ramsay Bolton. He's more like Littlefinger. He was good in Thor too, but I felt he was too obvious and open with his schemes there. The way he used his feelings towards his mother to fake his death and take over Asgard without anybody knowing was more effective.

I definitely think Loki was less interesting in The Avengers than in the Thor films.

You know. I sometimes forget his performance in TDW due to how disappointing that movie is, but I agree, he was great there. I also agree he is better in the Thor movies than he was in Avengers, though I did like him in the latter also.

They're going to take some liberties with Vulture, that's for sure. But I think it'll be for the best and I know we'll get a great performance out of Keaton. It all just depends on whether or not they give him enough to do and enough screentime.

I think one thing Marvel could do for certain films is add another 10-15 minutes dedicated to the villains. That could help out tremendously, imo.

Vulture is one character I don't mind them taking liberties with, he is easily my least favourite Spidey villain. So I won't mind any changes if they make him more interesting.

And agreed about the extra 10-15 mins for some villains, the likes of Whiplash, Cross, Kurse and Malekith could have benefitted greatly from some extra time dedicated to them. I would throw Ultron in there as well who I found hugely disappointing.

 

[TeeKay]

After seeing the villain in Suicide Squad, I never want to hear this "Marvel has problems with its villains thing again. Lawd have mercy. That villain was worse than Malekith and probably on par with Doom from FFINO. Awful. Just awful.

 

[NotNickFury]

Hell, maybe Warner Bros and DC just need to let the Netflix and or writers on The Flash to take over for their villains since obviously, with a few exceptions, they can't make them memorable.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Hell, maybe Warner Bros and DC just need to let the Netflix and or writers on The Flash to take over for their villains since obviously, with a few exceptions, they can't make them memorable.

I really liked Captain Cold, Zoom, and Reverse-Flash.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Tbh... doesn't everyone have a problem with villains?

I mean people specifically criticise Marvel but about from Joker and Magneto... what other good villains are there?

I like Doc Ock. I thought Scarecrow was good and Liam Neeson was fine. Magneto could easily qualify as the villain of X2, but I thought Stryker was solid. People usually like old school Zod.

Francis is kinda underrated. He's thinly written but played well. He was a threat because the story was smaller and more personal. You could feel the hate between him and DP.

I agree. The scenes with Ajax torturing Wade were excellent and really made him a hateable villain.

 

[NotNickFury]

I really liked Captain Cold, Zoom, and Reverse-Flash.

Wentworth Miller makes Captain Cold great. And though I didn't mention Arrow since the quality has dropped off, I do think they managed to make Slade a viable threat.

 

[First Avenger]

I think that,other than Malekith (which was only visually cool IMO) and Whiplash,I liked every other Marvel villain to various degree. I love Ultron,WS from Cap 2 and Loki,really liked Zemo,Cross,Pierce,Stane and Red Skull,liked Ronan,Blonski and Killian. I also liked the henchmen like Kurse,Savin and Nebula.

 

[metaphysician]

Something has been bugging me about Zemo INO. What if Cap already told Tony about what Bucky did to his parents even before that events of Civil war??.

That really is the only "what if" that would have totally derailed Zemo's plan. My theory is, given he clearly studied the behavior and psychology of the relevant Avengers? Zemo was willing to bet that Steve hadn't done such a thing, because it was unlikely based on what he could study of Steve's character. Its not like he could have really worked around this scenario: if this were the case, his options for destroying the Avengers go from "one" to "zero", basically.

 

[Web-Head]

I think that,other than Malekith (which was only visually cool IMO) and Whiplash,I liked every other Marvel villain to various degree. I love Ultron,WS from Cap 2 and Loki,really liked Zemo,Cross,Pierce,Stane and Red Skull,liked Ronan,Blonski and Killian. I also liked the henchmen like Kurse,Savin and Nebula.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree. The scenes with Ajax torturing Wade were excellent and really made him a hateable villain.

I actually find Ajax, Francis really under rated. You wanted DP to beat him and I liked that there was nothing, well, likeable about him.

 

[DACrowe]

This summer and spring has been illuminating.

Marvel still has a problem with villains. But so does DC. As it turned out, Christopher Nolan is the reason we got so many great DC baddies over the last decade. Singer and Vaughn, I suppose, also deserves some credit for getting Magneto right twice, and Stryker the first time.

But oooh. After Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman, I cannot really criticize Marvel as harshly on villains. I will of course continue to point out that it is a glaring weakness that often helps keep many of their films from having stakes or a sense of dramatic urgency. But at least they are not the eyesores we got the last two times Warners went up to bat.

 

[The Whizzer]

This summer and spring has been illuminating.

Marvel still has a problem with villains.

I honestly thought Zemo was the best MCU villain to date.

 

[DACrowe]

Zemo is okay, but only because he serves his plot in a unique function unlike most superhero movie villains. As a character, he is actually fairly generic, just someone you would more likely see in war or espionage films (like Three Kings or Air Force One spring to mind as having the exact same backstory for antagonists).

But he is pretty forgettable as a character. I am still waiting for a villain that actually leaves an impression and that enters pop culture like Loki but is also menacing, scary to audiences, or, you know, unique. Marvel has one villain who does that, but mostly for comedic reasons.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Zemo is okay, but only because he serves his plot in a unique function unlike most superhero movie villains. As a character, he is actually fairly generic, just someone you would more likely see in war or espionage films (like Three Kings or Air Force One spring to mind as having the exact same backstory for antagonists).

But he is pretty forgettable as a character. I am still waiting for a villain that actually leaves an impression and that enters pop culture like Loki but is also menacing, scary to audiences, or, you know, unique. Marvel has one villain who does that, but mostly for comedic reasons.

 

[Mjölnir]

Zemo is okay, but only because he serves his plot in a unique function unlike most superhero movie villains. As a character, he is actually fairly generic, just someone you would more likely see in war or espionage films (like Three Kings or Air Force One spring to mind as having the exact same backstory for antagonists).

But he is pretty forgettable as a character. I am still waiting for a villain that actually leaves an impression and that enters pop culture like Loki but is also menacing, scary to audiences, or, you know, unique. Marvel has one villain who does that, but mostly for comedic reasons.

Him being fairly ordinary is part of why he works so well in my view. That movie is a lot about the problems of having the Avengers in our world, and while the focus of the movie is on the internal conflict of the team (which makes the villain role smaller) Zemo gets to represent part of the world's reaction to the Avengers. A more classic super villain type would probably have fit in worse in my view.

Regarding villains that scare the audiences, those can't be many in superhero movies overall. Menacing on a lower level is more realistic, and I'd say that someone like the Winter Soldier fits in there. As for unique I'd say that's already there as well. For example, Ultron is certainly as unique as anyone else with his weird and contradictory personality traits in a killer robot.

That's of course not to say that it's not possible for another villain to reach higher. There's certainly potential for more, both for Marvel and everyone else.

 

[DACrowe]

Him being fairly ordinary is part of why he works so well in my view. That movie is a lot about the problems of having the Avengers in our world, and while the focus of the movie is on the internal conflict of the team (which makes the villain role smaller) Zemo gets to represent part of the world's reaction to the Avengers. A more classic super villain type would probably have fit in worse in my view.

Regarding villains that scare the audiences, those can't be many in superhero movies overall. Menacing on a lower level is more realistic, and I'd say that someone like the Winter Soldier fits in there. As for unique I'd say that's already there as well. For example, Ultron is certainly as unique as anyone else with his weird and contradictory personality traits in a killer robot.

That's of course not to say that it's not possible for another villain to reach higher. There's certainly potential for more, both for Marvel and everyone else.

Oh Zemo worked great for what they were going for. I agree he fed into the conflict in a terrific way that improved the movie. But to me, he was more of a mechanic of the plot than a particularly memorable character. But the movie did not suffer because of it, so he was quite effective in what they were going for.

As for Ultron, I have to disagree there. He and Bryan Singer's Apocalypse actually share a lot of similarities. They're introduced was too quickly and despite some interesting ideas being given lip service, ultimately function as generic comic book villains who want to destroy the world. Ultron, perhaps more so. Another sentient machine that wants to kill us. It worked better in 2001, Terminator, Matrix, Ex Machina, or even X-Men: Days of Future Past.

I think you can have villains who get under your skin in this genre. Nolan did it twice with Joker and Bane. Two-Face was a tragedy and got to you in another way. Marvel Television also has done it twice with Kingpin and the Purple Man/Kilgrave. Even the Punisher in season 2 of Daredevil was fairly intimidating and disturbing while still being sympathetic.

Marvel Studios has just mostly ignored it because it does not fit their formula, which is why so many are vocal about this weakness.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I did think James Spader gave a better performance than Oscar Isaacs, but yeah, there are a lot of similarities between how Ultron and Apocalypse were used.

 

[Mjölnir]

Oh Zemo worked great for what they were going for. I agree he fed into the conflict in a terrific way that improved the movie. But to me, he was more of a mechanic of the plot than a particularly memorable character. But the movie did not suffer because of it, so he was quite effective in what they were going for.

As for Ultron, I have to disagree there. He and Bryan Singer's Apocalypse actually share a lot of similarities. They're introduced was too quickly and despite some interesting ideas being given lip service, ultimately function as generic comic book villains who want to destroy the world. Ultron, perhaps more so. Another sentient machine that wants to kill us. It worked better in 2001, Terminator, Matrix, Ex Machina, or even X-Men: Days of Future Past.

I think you can have villains who get under your skin in this genre. Nolan did it twice with Joker and Bane. Two-Face was a tragedy and got to you in another way. Marvel Television also has done it twice with Kingpin and the Purple Man/Kilgrave. Even the Punisher in season 2 of Daredevil was fairly intimidating and disturbing while still being sympathetic.

Marvel Studios has just mostly ignored it because it does not fit their formula, which is why so many are vocal about this weakness.

Yes, since he wasn't supposed to be the focus he of course is not as detailed as some villains that are the main threat.

If you boil things down as to Ultron just being a sentient machine trying to destroy then almost no villain is unique. On that level The Joker isn't even unique. What makes Ultron unique compared to the examples you mention is that he's so different personality-wise. You won't be unique with your trope (and you're most likely using a trope in a superhero movie), you're unique with the spin you put on it.

I don't think the problem with Apocalypse wasn't a quick introduction, what his threat was, or in general how he was used. It was that he consistently had such boring scenes. Nothing interesting to say, not a good performance out of Isaac, weird powers and a bad look. If those things would have been good he would have worked, despite that there are other issues with the script regarding his work.

None you mention ever got to the point of scary in my view, except for maybe Kilgrave at his worst. I just don't think the superhero genre produces villains like Hannibal Lecter, John Doe or Anton Chigurh. I don't think it needs to in order to make great comic book movies though.

 

[Mjölnir]

I did think David Spader gave a better performance than Oscar Isaacs, but yeah, there are a lot of similarities between how Ultron and Apocalypse were used.

The lovechild of David Spade and James Spader?

 

[DACrowe]

Yes, since he wasn't supposed to be the focus he of course is not as detailed as some villains that are the main threat.

If you boil things down as to Ultron just being a sentient machine trying to destroy then almost no villain is unique. On that level The Joker isn't even unique. What makes Ultron unique compared to the examples you mention is that he's so different personality-wise. You won't be unique with your trope (and you're most likely using a trope in a superhero movie), you're unique with the spin you put on it.

I don't think the problem with Apocalypse wasn't a quick introduction, what his threat was, or in general how he was used. It was that he consistently had such boring scenes. Nothing interesting to say, not a good performance out of Isaac, weird powers and a bad look. If those things would have been good he would have worked, despite that there are other issues with the script regarding his work.

None you mention ever got to the point of scary in my view, except for maybe Kilgrave at his worst. I just don't think the superhero genre produces villains like Hannibal Lecter, John Doe or Anton Chigurh. I don't think it needs to in order to make great comic book movies though.

Ultron's personality isn't unique though. He talks like many of Joss Whedon's villains of the week did. He is witty, self-deprecating, and has a sense of dry irony while really wanting a hug. Whedon has created far better villains in the past than Ultron.

His plan is "I will destroy the world." I am not sure why you are comparing him to the Joker. At least as how Heath/Nolan did it, he was an ideological lone wolf terrorist who simply wanted to create havoc and destabilize society because he could, and did so with an ideological/philosophical POV to prove. Actually, in the realm of superhero movies and blockbusters in general, it was startlingly unique, which is why it did scare so many viewers, as well as how it intentionally mimicked real life fears about terrorists and random shootings.

I would go so far to say the Ledger Joker is definitely on the pantheon as villains like Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter, Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa, Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh, Daniel Day Lewis' Daniel Plainview, and Louise Fletcher's Nurse Ratched.

... After all, like all of them, he won an Oscar for his portrayal of villainy. That's rare company.

As for the Ultron/Apocalypse comparison, they both are introduced rather swiftly and almost immediately go, "I will destroy the world!" for reasons that when Whedon/Singer talk about them sound intriguing, but in the films are muddled and glossed over. Additionally, they both have a horrible scene where they "learn" about the history of the world in a few seconds. Apocalypse's is probably worse because the dialogue is so on-the-nose "Learning!" with a hand to the TV, but Ultron reading the whole internet in 10 seconds and then "killing" JARVIS is not much better.

They both assemble a team too easily and under dubious means that are filled with mutants ( ), and then said teammates betray them. They also are defeated rather easily. I would even say Apocalypse put up more of a threat since it seems implied e would have at least survived the fight if Jean hadn't gone Phoenix, the Avengers didn't break a sweat fighting Ultron's minions, and Quicksilver only died because the plot bent over backwards to make it happen.

I understand if you prefer the visual aesthetic of Ultron (he does look better) as well as the performance (I think both were too underserved by the script to tell), but eh. I think at least Apocalypse had one scene where he was quite intimidating and reached the insidiousness Singer wanted. Granted, using Beethoven's 7th Symphony automatically makes anything more epic, but Apocalypse launching all the nukes into space both spoke to his vanity (he hated how the 20th century worshipped nukes as false idols, so he disposed of them), and informed his God Complex.

Ultron never had a badass moment like that. But tomato, tomato. Both were in the title of their movies and both were underwhelming.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ultron could have been scary as he has been in the comics plenty of times, they seriously dropped the ball there. It's all good giving him a personality but make him a threat to the heroes while you are at it. As Crowe said the finale of AOU is so underwhelming as the heroes themselves don't even break a sweat during it.

I liked Apocalypse's personality personally, it matched the Apoc from the 90's cartoon who is disgusted with what the world has become and wants to destroy and remake it into a place where only the strong survive. He was a big threat as well, it took the whole team fighting him in both the real and astral plains just to keep him busy. That included a power boosted Magneto. If it wasn't for The Pheonix, the most powerful mutant in existence in the movies, Apocalypse would have triumphed. You never got that sense at all with Ultron that the team were up against someone who they couldn't stop.

 

[Zarex]

I enjoyed AOU, but I would have much preferred if Whedon 1) replaced the hundred or so paper mache Ultron Bots with a dozen or fewer bots that were at least as formidable as the pre-Vibranium version and 2) had Ultron Prime battle more successfully against the combined might of Thor, Tony and Vision.

 

[TeeKay]

Ultrons ultimate goal was to uplift humanity. When when the Avengers stole his Vision-body, he just went '**** it, humanity can burn'. I agree, more could have been done with the character but he did have a scary moments too. I think his speech as the city was rising was classic Ultron. He was an entertaining villain. Apocalypse did nothing. He was boring. What's funny is that both Ultron and Apocalypse had the same motivation but the latter was so poorly written it just looked like "haha I'm gonna destroy the world because reasons".

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The lovechild of David Spade and James Spader?

Uh...Whoops...