Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 2

[spideyboy_1111]

That being said, I think the MCU has done a decent job with the villains, with the standouts being Loki, Killian and Stane IMO. Red Skull was portrayed pretty much how he is in the comics, I would have liked to see more of him. Vanko was meh and Hammer was hilarious but vastly different from his comic book counter part and I get why they had to change him. Malekith was powerful but needed more development but I don't think he's as bad as some people are making him out to be. Villains don't NEED to be complex and deep to be interesting IMO. But Malekith might end up probably end up being the weak villain of Phase two.
?

I don't think Mal is bad either.. he's 2-dimensional.. but was a pretty dang big threat.. He raged war on Asgard, flew his ship right into the throne room as a big fu to odin, got past security, obliterated the royal guard, had the Queen of Asgard murdered, and was a threat to the 9 realms... that trumps any ounce of the bumbling bafoon Vanko was...

id honestly rank the marvel movie villains like this thus far..

-Loki
-Thanos (while we don't know much about him, we know what he's capable of )
-Stane
-Killian
-Malekeith
-Kurse
-Red Skull
-Kurse
-Justin Hammer
-Abomination
-Zola
-Vanko
-Leader

 

[TeeKay]

I don't think Mal is bad either.. he's 2-dimensional.. but was a pretty dang big threat.. He raged war on Asgard, flew his ship right into the throne room as a big fu to odin, got past security, obliterated the royal guard, had the Queen of Asgard murdered, and was a threat to the 9 realms... that trumps any ounce of the bumbling bafoon Vanko was...

id honestly rank the marvel movie villains like this thus far..

-Loki
-Thanos (while we don't know much about him, we know what he's capable of )
-Stane
-Killian
-Malekeith
-Kurse
-Red Skull
-Kurse
-Justin Hammer
-Abomination
-Zola
-Vanko
-Leader

Malekith was a huge threat alright, I just thought he needed more development and screentime. He was a cold heartless villain IMO.

Btw I pretty much agree with your list but I'd put Killian 2nd. You put down Kurse twice.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Malekith was a huge threat alright, I just thought he needed more development and screentime. He was a cold heartless villain IMO.

Btw I pretty much agree with your list but I'd put Killian 2nd. You put down Kurse twice.

Kurse #1 and Kurse #2 lol, nah, just a typo

Malekieth could have been fleshed out more.. but I think people are getting far too use to the "sympathetic villain" or the "deep psychological villain" which.. not all villains need to be. But.. It would be nice to at least understand why Mal wanted to turn all the realm's "dark" I get destroying asgard.. but.. i don't know.. maybe people would look at it differently if they made him seem more consumed by power and destruction than what he was...

he's a bizarre villain.. he's a huge threat and a badass.. but from a story point of view he's also weak. It's really odd.

 

[TeeKay]

Zod and Malekith are similar in a lot of ways. Both were leaders of an army that wanted to bring their species back to prominence. Both had issues with the protagonist's relatives rather than the protagonists themselves. Both had lackeys that fought against the hero first until they leveled up in the third act and attempted to kill them alone. Both had stupid-looking hair. That last one may just be my opinion.

Point is, they're easily compared without it being a DC/Marvel thing. For the record, I thought they both sucked.

Malekith looked more intimidating though. Faora was the same as Kurse, she's the muscle and the most loyal. I love her more because she's hot.

 

[TeeKay]

Kurse #1 and Kurse #2 lol, nah, just a typo

Malekieth could have been fleshed out more..B[ but I think people are getting far too use to the "sympathetic villain" or the "deep psychological villain" which.. not all villains need to be. But.. It would be nice to at least understand why Mal wanted to turn all the realm's "dark" I get destroying asgard..[/B] but.. i don't know.. maybe people would look at it differently if they made him seem more consumed by power and destruction than what he was...

he's a bizarre villain.. he's a huge threat and a badass.. but from a story point of view he's also weak. It's really odd.

The opening monologue set up Malekith perfectly IMO. We learn everything we need to know regarding his motives. Him having to watch his race her slaughtered by the Asgardians and it turn him having to sacrifice his own people so that he could go into hiding and wait another 5000 years to get vengeance and return his home and the universe the way it was before was made perfectly clear. I don't know some people found this hard to comprehend.

 

[BigThor]

The opening monologue set up Malekith perfectly IMO. We learn everything we need to know regarding his motives. Him having to watch his race her slaughtered by the Asgardians and it turn him having to sacrifice his own people so that he could wait another 5000 years to get vengeance and return his home world was made perfectly clear. I don't know some people found this hard to comprehend.

I feel the same way, this is why I had no problems with Malekith.

 

[TeeKay]

I feel the same way, this is why I had no problems with Malekith.

Of course you had no problems with Malekith BigThor

 

[C. Lee]

Malekieth could have been fleshed out more.. but I think people are getting far too use to the "sympathetic villain" or the "deep psychological villain" which.. not all villains need to be. But.. It would be nice to at least understand why Mal wanted to turn all the realm's "dark" I get destroying asgard.. but.. i don't know.. maybe people would look at it differently if they made him seem more consumed by power and destruction than what he was...

he's a bizarre villain.. he's a huge threat and a badass.. but from a story point of view he's also weak. It's really odd.

As others said...it was explained in the beginning....at first there was darkness (where the dark elves lived) and then light came, and along with the light came the destruction of his race. He wanted things turned back to the way it was before.

 

[jmc]

Moving on, on the site that shall not be named, somebody wrote an article on this movie and one interesting point they made was the Thor relies too much on the Mjolnir in this movie. Fair criticism but I disagree. Any thoughts on this?

Isn't that a bit like saying Superman relies too much on his flying?

 

[jmc]

I don't think Mal is bad either.. he's 2-dimensional.. but was a pretty dang big threat.. He raged war on Asgard, flew his ship right into the throne room as a big fu to odin, got past security, obliterated the royal guard, had the Queen of Asgard murdered, and was a threat to the 9 realms... that trumps any ounce of the bumbling bafoon Vanko was...

id honestly rank the marvel movie villains like this thus far..

-Loki
-Thanos (while we don't know much about him, we know what he's capable of )
-Stane
-Killian
-Malekeith
-Kurse
-Red Skull
-Kurse
-Justin Hammer
-Abomination
-Zola
-Vanko
-Leader

Dude, you can't rank Thanos.

 

[Marvolo]

The opening monologue set up Malekith perfectly IMO. We learn everything we need to know regarding his motives. Him having to watch his race her slaughtered by the Asgardians and it turn him having to sacrifice his own people so that he could go into hiding and wait another 5000 years to get vengeance and return his home and the universe the way it was before was made perfectly clear. I don't know some people found this hard to comprehend.

I think you are missing the issue people are having with malekith. It isn't that they don't get his motivation. They do. Its perfectly set up. However, the problem is that he lacks charisma or any kind of personality. He's just there. Bland as a raw potato. He says a few lines stamps his feet real good and dies. That's all really he does. The only time he shows any emotion was when he yells at frigga calling her a witch. Hes just not compelling at all.

Zod may have been two dimensionsal but at least he had gusto and his personality was on screen.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Dude, you can't rank Thanos.

actually i can... and did.

we know what he's capable of... he's essentially convinced loki to work with him, knows how the tesseract works, has armies of aliens, and is a powerful being... we don't know if he will be one dimensional or not.. but he's a massive threat that they've already set up

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I think you are missing the issue people are having with malekith. It isn't that they don't get his motivation. They do. Its perfectly set up. However, the problem is that he lacks charisma or any kind of personality. He's just there. Bland as a raw potato. He says a few lines stamps his feet real good and dies. That's all really he does. The only time he shows any emotion was when he yells at frigga calling her a witch. Hes just not compelling at all.

Zod may have been two dimensionsal but at least he had gusto and his personality was on screen.

eh.... see i think his Charisma came off more like a spoiled Napoleon Bonapard with short man syndrome.. he wasn't memorable to me in the least. If you want to talk Charisma... use Loki as an example... not MoS's Zod.. "screaming" isn't charisma.

That being said... the reason we have stand-out villains that make cinematic history (looking at Magneto, Stamps Zod, Joker (ledger's and nicholson's), Catwoman (Pfiefer), Loki) is because "not every villain is stand out. They all can't be that good.. Nor should we expect them to. Sometimes the stars just align.. and you get a really amazing villain.

Malekeith seriously has to be one of the least "flat" villains out there. We've just been spoiled with some amazing ones and want the same in every villain. And we arn't always going to get that. Mal is completely "Fine" he's a "safe" villain, but he's far from being a horrible one.. or the lowest on the rung.

 

[jmc]

actually i can... and did.

we know what he's capable of... he's essentially convinced loki to work with him, knows how the tesseract works, has armies of aliens, and is a powerful being... we don't know if he will be one dimensional or not.. but he's a massive threat that they've already set up

Well in that case I'm ranking Ben Affleck as the number one Batman of all time.

 

[TeeKay]

I think you are missing the issue people are having with malekith. It isn't that they don't get his motivation. They do. Its perfectly set up. However, the problem is that he lacks charisma or any kind of personality. He's just there. Bland as a raw potato. He says a few lines stamps his feet real good and dies. That's all really he does. The only time he shows any emotion was when he yells at frigga calling her a witch. Hes just not compelling at all.

Zod may have been two dimensionsal but at least he had gusto and his personality was on screen.

That's how he's suppose to be. or at least that's how I interpreted it. He doesn't need charisma IMO. Makekith in this movie is presented as plain evil, a cold, heartless villain. Nothing more. Since when do villains need to be charismatic to be considered great? To each their own I guess. I had no problem as to how he was presented but he needed a bit more development and screentime. That was my main gripe with him.

 

[Marvolo]

That's how he's suppose to be. or at least that's how I interpreted it. He doesn't need charisma IMO. Makekith in this movie is presented as plain evil, a cold, heartless villain. Nothing more. Since when do villains need to be charismatic to be considered great? To each their own I guess. I had no problem as to how he was presented but he needed a bit more development and screentime. That was my main gripe with him.

That's fine if youre ok with that. I need more substance however. One layer: evil and no personality and a shell of a character just doesn't cut it for me. I expect more than this lazy writing. And I agree about development and screentime.

 

[Tony Stark]

You're just adding more salt to the wound. Let it go guys. Those honest trailers are for comic relief and they don't take themselves seriously. Don't forget they did one for IM3 too and that was ****ing hilarious. To bring up HT to justify why you didnt like MOS is weak. The bias goes ways buddy, whether you admit it or not, you're favour the MCU more than DC. Yes I don't like it too when people bring up Nolan but sometimes it's necessary because he did a phenomenal job with TDK trilogy (with TDK being the greatest and my favourite CBM of all time) and I agree, even if the MCU is different, they can learn something from his handling of villains in his trilogy.

That being said, I think the MCU has done a decent job with the villains, with the standouts being Loki, Killian and Stane IMO. Red Skull was portrayed pretty much how he is in the comics, I would have liked to see more of him. Vanko was meh and Hammer was hilarious but vastly different from his comic book counter part and I get why they had to change him. Malekith was powerful but needed more development but I don't think he's as bad as some people are making him out to be. Villains don't NEED to be complex and deep to be interesting IMO. But Malekith might end up probably end up being the weak villain of Phase two.

Moving on, on the site that shall not be named, somebody wrote an article on this movie and one interesting point they made was the Thor relies too much on the Mjolnir in this movie. Fair criticism but I disagree. Any thoughts on this?

My point was that I find it hilarious that some are trying to hold up MoS as some kind of masterpiece and criticizing this film. Again I'm not pretending that this is anything more than what it is. A satisfying piece of entertainment, but no where near the scope of Avengers or Iron man 1.

I know the honest trailers are parodies, and the IM3 one was hilarious. However the MoS one absolutely knocked it out of the park.

I never cared for Malekith in the comics, and to me he was more interesting in the movie than he ever was in the comics. I'm pretty sure the writers were on drugs when they wrote Malekith. He was like some sort of glam rocker elf who was obsessed with freezing worlds through the casket of ancient winters.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Well in that case I'm ranking Ben Affleck as the number one Batman of all time.

we've not seen BA's Batman... nor has anything but the name "Wayne" on billboards been reffered to... you realize the flaw in that comparasson right?

we've actually seen Thanos, and actually seen some of what he's capable of... we've not seen batman, nor what he's capable of...

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That's fine if youre ok with that. I need more substance however. One layer: evil and no personality and a shell of a character just doesn't cut it for me. I expect more than this lazy writing. And I agree about development and screentime.

can you say the same about heroes though? Because... quite frankly.. Batman/Bruce Wayne hell even superman is the hero equivalent of a "uncharacteristic potato"... unlike Tony Stark/Iron Man who's quite charismatic.

Heroes and villains don't need to be charismatic, they just need to be memorable. "charisma" isn't necessarily the only way to skin that cat.

Bruce Wayne/Batman, Superman both do that in other ways. Heroic Level/Threat Level is certainly a way to do that.. and I think that's how Malekieth did that.. would he be boring in a convo? hell yes.. but he's very militant and tactical. People like that arn't charismatic.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

btw, were the "stones" malekieth used to create "the cursed" the MCU version of the Norn Stones?

 

[Tony Stark]

I think you are missing the issue people are having with malekith. It isn't that they don't get his motivation. They do. Its perfectly set up. However, the problem is that he lacks charisma or any kind of personality. He's just there. Bland as a raw potato. He says a few lines stamps his feet real good and dies. That's all really he does. The only time he shows any emotion was when he yells at frigga calling her a witch. Hes just not compelling at all.

Zod may have been two dimensionsal but at least he had gusto and his personality was on screen.

No he didn't. He was a laughable bafoon who claims he's a warrior and has years of training and then gets his ass kicked by a farm boy.

Again I just feel that there's a desperate attempt of some to take their dislike of this movie to try to resurrect a film that was such a huge major disappointment in MoS.

I totally agree that Malekith is just there. He's a baddie, but we don't get to see much. Who cares the character we care about is Loki. Zod was the main villain in MoS and he was such a ridiculous failure as a character that it's not even funny. Faora was far more interesting and a bigger threat than Zod.

We at least got to see that Malekith was a tactical genius in the way he easily infiltrates the Asgardians and manipulates them to go after Kurse and then he is able to sneak in. It was Frigga's magic who stopped the Aether from being taken not Thor or Odin or anyone else. That's what makes Loki's line all the more powerful when he tells Thor that he and Odin left her to die.

Malekith was a plot devise and was used effectively. Again the people saying how great Zod was in comparison are just trying to resurrect a failed character that was in fact the main threat.

Malekith is no different in TDW than Major Toht was in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Again I just feel that there's a desperate attempt of some to take their dislike of this movie to try to resurrect a film that was such a huge major disappointment in MoS.

lets try not to make this about "fanboy assumptions" please...

there's quite alot of people who were not dissapointed what so ever by MOS and they're allowed to be.

If you think people are dissing a movie just because they're upset about there's... you're just as bad as those who think just because you didn't care for a film it's because you're the other sides "fanboy"

VERY VERY few are really that jaded.. lets not act like there's an agenda on these boards.

 

[jmc]

we've not seen BA's Batman... nor has anything but the name "Wayne" on billboards been reffered to... you realize the flaw in that comparasson right?

we've actually seen Thanos, and actually seen some of what he's capable of... we've not seen batman, nor what he's capable of...

But I have seen him act though which gives me an idea of what he's capable of....see what I'm doing? It's not a flawed comparison, you've got just as much to based ranking Thanos as the number 2 villain in the MCU as I do of ranking Ben Affleck as the number one Batman. You've seen two seconds of footage, any self respecting person wouldn't rank a character based off that or even 'potential'.

 

[jmc]

Again I just feel that there's a desperate attempt of some to take their dislike of this movie to try to resurrect a film that was such a huge major disappointment in MoS.

To say you're drawing a long bow is an understatement.

 

[TeeKay]

Isn't that a bit like saying Superman relies too much on his flying?

The logic on that site baffles me honestly.

Well in that case I'm ranking Ben Affleck as the number one Batman of all time.

That's fine if youre ok with that. I need more substance however. One layer: evil and no personality and a shell of a character just doesn't cut it for me. I expect more than this lazy writing. And I agree about development and screentime.

Fair enough.

My point was that I find it hilarious that some are trying to hold up MoS as some kind of masterpiece and criticizing this film. Again I'm not pretending that this is anything more than what it is. A satisfying piece of entertainment, but no where near the scope of Avengers or Iron man 1.

That's your opinion dude. And it's their opinion if MOS is a masterpiece.

I know the honest trailers are parodies, and the IM3 one was hilarious. However the MoS one absolutely knocked it out of the park.

I never cared for Malekith in the comics, and to me he was more interesting in the movie than he ever was in the comics. I'm pretty sure the writers were on drugs when they wrote Malekith. He was like some sort of glam rocker elf who was obsessed with freezing worlds through the casket of ancient winters.

I actually agree with that. He is actually accurate to source material if you think about it.

we've not seen BA's Batman... nor has anything but the name "Wayne" on billboards been reffered to... you realize the flaw in that comparasson right?

we've actually seen Thanos, and actually seen some of what he's capable of... we've not seen batman, nor what he's capable of...

We've seen him but we haven't seem what he's capable. Yes he's a mastermind pulling strings from behind the scenes but who's to say he'll be an actual threat if we haven't seen it?

can you say the same about heroes though? Because... quite frankly.. Batman/Bruce Wayne hell even superman is the hero equivalent of a "uncharacteristic potato"... unlike Tony Stark/Iron Man who's quite charismatic.

Heroes and villains don't need to be charismatic, they just need to be memorable. "charisma" isn't necessarily the only way to skin that cat.

Bruce Wayne/Batman, Superman both do that in other ways. Heroic Level/Threat Level is certainly a way to do that.. and I think that's how Malekieth did that.. would he be boring in a convo? hell yes.. but he's very militant and tactical. People like that arn't charismatic.

I agree with that but isn't Bruce Wayne charismatic when he's not Batman? Even Superman? I'm talking about the comics here.