Has the 'Villains Problem' been solved?

[Bayne]

So I came home from Black Panther yesterday and thought 'Killmonger really was one of the best villains in the MCU'. And then it occurred to me that I've had basically the same reaction after every phase 3 movie except Ragnarok and Dr. Strange.

So I'm curious to see what other people think about the current state of the MCU villains and whether the whole idea of the villains problem is now officially outdated.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The "villain problem" was always exaggerated, especially compared to what the competition was putting out, but a series of really good villains in 2017-18 has really put an end to the argument having any teeth to it at all.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Personally I didn't think the problem was over exaggerated. Kaicilius was only at the end of 2016 after all and I thought he was a poor villain. Zemo was quite good though. And then 2017 came. Ego, Vulture and Hela were all awesome, and I haven't seen BP but hearing good things so far. So for me it's not quite resolved yet, but it's well in its way to bring so.

I really hope Thanos doesn't disappoint.

 

[Flint Marko]

I didn't think the problem was over exaggerated, but I always felt that it was weirdly aimed at Marvel simply because their superhero output is far greater than any other studio in Hollywood.

It's not like the competition has done any better. When your best villains are Zod or the cool guy with the sunglasses from Logan (who I did love but.... come on), it's clear there's a problem. I'd argue that Marvel is the only studio to give us a good villain since Bane in 2012, and they've done it several times over.

 

[Finarfiniel]

So I came home from Black Panther yesterday and thought 'Killmonger really was one of the best villains in the MCU'. And then it occurred to me that I've had basically the same reaction after every phase 3 movie except Ragnarok and Dr. Strange.

Excuse you. It seems that many disagree seeing as Hela easily won polls of the best MCU villain of 2017 and the best villain of 2017 right here on the Hype. Well, I think she ended up drawing in the latter with Pennywise, but still.

Anyway, there's already a recent thread about this topic.

 

[NotNickFury]

I'd go with option three. These villains are better than the earlier phases in that they at least leave some sort of impression and aren't just opposites of the hero like your Obadiah Stane or Yellowjacket. Though that's about it. If I'm thinking MCU villains, my mind still immediately goes to the likes of Fisk, Cottonmouth, or Billy Russo as of recent.

It's not completely fair to compare them, I'm aware, but that's more what I'm looking for in a villain versus what we've had in the films. And even Loki was made sympathetic and relatable in Thor's first film, so it's not impossible for these movies to make the villains more layered. That's changing with the likes of Vulture, sure, but compared to where the MCU began with its villains, that's ultimately not saying much when talking just giving a villain an arc or having them leave a long-lasting impression.

 

[2kt09]

I prefer villains who are actively doing something as they're exuding "presentation" whether that's tangentially related to the hero or not. It gives them a sense of weight and dimensionality. Definitely, no need to take the Spider-Man approach of necessitated sympathy.

Hela is powerful. She...just came across as more what Loki would do as she's redecorating the palace post-victory.

Points off for Vulture because 'Darren Cross death ray' and doing that whole reveal yet again because that's cinematic Spider-Man's cliche.
Otherwise, he passes the test.

Ego was interesting due to this 'meta' thing with Phase 3 movies.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Hela is powerful. She...just came across as more what Loki would do as she's redecorating the palace post-victory.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be humour or sarcasm (and if so I apologise), but no... she's not. She pulls down a mural to reveal a hidden one underneath because she's angry that no one remembers her, that's hardly 'redecorating'. That's just a little joke that Thor makes later in the film, that he 'loves what she's done to the place'.

Hela and Loki may look similar but they're actually very different, personality wise. Loki wants what he deems to be rightfully his by birth, a.k.a. rulership, power and adulation of the masses. He's a trickster and out for himself, but he does have some form of a conscience, buried deep down. Hela by contrast is a lot more ruthless, violent and single-minded than Loki, she thrives on and desires war, death and subjugation rather than traditional rulership and has no conscience to speak of because she was never raised to care for others. She was raised as a living weapon of conquest, nothing more.

 

[2kt09]

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be humour or sarcasm (and if so I apologise), but no... she's not. She pulls down a mural to reveal a hidden one underneath because she's angry that no one remembers her, that's hardly 'redecorating'. That's just a little joke that Thor makes later in the film, that he 'loves what she's done to the place'.

Hela and Loki may look similar but they're actually very different, personality wise. Loki wants what he deems to be rightfully his by birth, a.k.a. rulership, power and adulation of the masses. He's a trickster and out for himself, but he does have some form of a conscience, buried deep down. Hela by contrast is a lot more ruthless, violent and single-minded than Loki, she thrives on and desires war, death and subjugation rather than traditional rulership and has no conscience to speak of because she was never raised to care for others. She was raised as a living weapon of conquest, nothing more.

So...what you're saying is she's more dull than I gave her credit for?
It's like how would the movie be that much different if instead of her, they used Surtur.

I guess it's humor or sarcasm, but I was just underscoring that the movie doesn't have much for her to do after she's beaten her brothers, her father, and the Asgardian fleet.

 

[Finarfiniel]

So...what you're saying is she's more dull than I gave her credit for?
It's like how would the movie be that much different if instead of her, they used Surtur.

Well, if you consider what I explained above to be 'dull' then sure. Any villain's back story and motivation written out in black and white with no nuance would likely be considered as being dull and cliche, there are barely any CBM villains that have truly unique motivations. A good, effective villain is less about those things and more about charisma and the actor's performance in the role in my opinion. And again, in my opinion, Cate Blanchett utterly nails it in both areas. She manages to overcome a slightly less than inspired back story and any possible lack of development through her incredibly fun and campy (in all the right ways) performance. Ragnarok is a larger than life cosmic movie, and Hela is a larger than life cosmic villain, as she should be.

You may not agree with me, but eh. Loads of people clearly do as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Hela is very popular and has a large fanbase online already. People want different things out of villains and that's okay, nothing wrong with that.

 

[2kt09]

Well, if you consider what I explained above to be 'dull' then sure. Any villain's back story and motivation written out in black and white with no nuance would likely be considered as being dull and cliche, there are barely any CBM villains that have truly unique motivations. A good, effective villain is less about those things and more about charisma and the actor's performance in the role in my opinion. And again, in my opinion, Cate Blanchett utterly nails it in both areas. She manages to overcome a slightly less than inspired back story and any possible lack of development through her incredibly fun and campy (in all the right ways) performance. Ragnarok is a larger than life cosmic movie, and Hela is a larger than life cosmic villain, as she should be.

You may not agree with me, but eh. Loads of people clearly do as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Hela is very popular and has a large fanbase online already. People want different things out of villains and that's okay, nothing wrong with that.

But...you said it yourself whilst comparing her & Loki. Her nuances within that paragraph you wrote are what people usually see from these conqueror-type villains. As you then also profess, she passes the "presentation" test, but not the backstory nor developed motivation.

Maybe they should've played with Enchantress instead.

 

[Guard82]

Well, if you consider what I explained above to be 'dull' then sure. Any villain's back story and motivation written out in black and white with no nuance would likely be considered as being dull and cliche, there are barely any CBM villains that have truly unique motivations. A good, effective villain is less about those things and more about charisma and the actor's performance in the role in my opinion. And again, in my opinion, Cate Blanchett utterly nails it in both areas. She manages to overcome a slightly less than inspired back story and any possible lack of development through her incredibly fun and campy (in all the right ways) performance. Ragnarok is a larger than life cosmic movie, and Hela is a larger than life cosmic villain, as she should be.

You may not agree with me, but eh. Loads of people clearly do as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Hela is very popular and has a large fanbase online already. People want different things out of villains and that's okay, nothing wrong with that.

I concur with you. Hela is great. One good way of understanding why she's popular and effective is to compare her to the previous main villain in the Thor film series, Malekith. Like Hela, Malekith is mainly motivated by conquest and destruction, but unlike Hela, he has no real personality to speak of. Malekith is flat-out dull because he doesn't have much characterization, whereas Hela is wildly entertaining because she's witty and enthusiastic about her campaign of destruction, plus we understand her better than Malekith because of her past as Odin's first child.

Hela and Malekith may have similar motivations, but in terms of their effectiveness as villains, they're as different as night and day. Cate Blanchett's enthusiastic performance accounts for much of Hela's popularity and why she works so well in the movie.

 

[Finarfiniel]

But...you said it yourself whilst comparing her & Loki. Her nuances within that paragraph you wrote are what people usually see from these conqueror-type villains. As you then also profess, she passes the "presentation" test, but not the backstory nor developed motivation.

Maybe they should've played with Enchantress instead.

But you seem to be demanding that I judge a villain by your standards. And... no, sorry. I don't have a 'presentation test' (whatever that is) or a 'backstory test' or 'motivation test' or whatever. My 'test' is, did I enjoy that villain and did they leave an impression on me? If the answer is yes then I thought they were a good villain, simple as that, backstory or motivation be damned. I greatly enjoyed Hela and she definitely left a large impression on me (desperately hoping that they will find a way to bring her back at some stage), so therefore she is my favourite villain. The end.

I'm very interested to know exactly how you feel bringing in Enchantress would have made Ragnarok any better? Her motivation in the comics is that she's crazy obsessed with Thor and pretty much goes into a murderous rage whenever he rejects her. Hardly groundbreaking stuff there either, not to mention that it wouldn't fit in with the Ragnarok storyline whatsoever.

I concur with you. Hela is great. One good way of understanding why she's popular and effective is to compare her to the previous main villain in the Thor film series, Malekith. Like Hela, Malekith is mainly motivated by conquest and destruction, but unlike Hela, he has no real personality to speak of. Malekith is flat-out dull because he doesn't have much characterization, whereas Hela is wildly entertaining because she's witty and enthusiastic about her campaign of destruction, plus we understand her better than Malekith because of her past as Odin's first child.

Hela and Malekith may have similar motivations, but in terms of their effectiveness as villains, they're as different as night and day. Cate Blanchett's enthusiastic performance accounts for much of Hela's popularity and why she works so well in the movie.

 

[2kt09]

I'm very interested to know exactly how you feel bringing in Enchantress would have made Ragnarok any better? Her motivation in the comics is that she's crazy obsessed with Thor and pretty much goes into a murderous rage whenever he rejects her. Hardly groundbreaking stuff there either, not to mention that it wouldn't fit in with the Ragnarok storyline whatsoever.

This version of Ragnarok? Absolutely she would.
Heck, they probably were thinking more about her since they threw in Skurge.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I didn't think the problem was over exaggerated, but I always felt that it was weirdly aimed at Marvel simply because their superhero output is far greater than any other studio in Hollywood.

It's not like the competition has done any better. When your best villains are Zod or the cool guy with the sunglasses from Logan (who I did love but.... come on), it's clear there's a problem. I'd argue that Marvel is the only studio to give us a good villain since Bane in 2012, and they've done it several times over.

Logan only came out last year itself to be fair, so it's harsh to compare that one and I would put Donald Pierce above the likes of Malekith and Kaicilius.

When the MCU began though, we had already had the likes of Magneto, Doc Ock, and Ledger Joker. So in terms of villains the MCU had a lot to live upto. The problem was apart from Loki they kept disappointing. 2017 was when they really turned it around though. And it seems going forward Killmonger is another great villain. Hopefully Thanos follows suit.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I always thought it was an exaggerated issue. Was Marvel putting out amazing villains at first? No, but the films we were getting fit the movies they were in. Have the villains improved recently? Yes, but I only think like 2 MCU villains were outright bad (Ivan Vanko and Malekith). Other than those examples, I think the villains were fine even early on.

 

[Guard82]

This version of Ragnarok? Absolutely she would.
Heck, they probably were thinking more about her since they threw in Skurge.

I believe they were somewhat thinking about Amora the Enchantress when they brought in Skurge, but they also wanted to use Hela for Ragnarok, so they sort of combined the two characters into one for the adaptation, adding a couple of Amora's traits to Hela such as her bold sexy attitude and her master-henchman relationship with Skurge. Hela's status as a goddess of death commanding armies of the dead were what fit well into the epic battle element of the Ragnarok story for this adaptation of that story.

 

[Finarfiniel]

This version of Ragnarok? Absolutely she would.
Heck, they probably were thinking more about her since they threw in Skurge.

You still haven't elaborated. Care to?

Nope. Hela was always planned to be the villain of Ragnarok, Kevin Feige is on record as saying it was the very first thing they decided about the film:

Blue sky ideas always started on this film with Hela. We wanted to make Hela the villain. Hela was almost the villain in Thor 2. It didn’t happen for various reasons. And thank God it didn’t because now we have Cate Blanchett and Taika doing it.

Source

 

[Bayne]

Excuse you. It seems that many disagree seeing as Hela easily won polls of the best MCU villain of 2017 and the best villain of 2017 right here on the Hype. Well, I think she ended up drawing in the latter with Pennywise, but still.

Anyway, there's already a recent thread about this topic.

Excuse you. I never said anyone had to agree with my opinion and I'm well aware the most people like Hela.

For me she was just too underutilized and disconnected from the rest of the movie to be very effective, despite Blanchett's performance. That picture is actually a really good illustration: that was by far my favorite moment that the character had in the entire movie, and it was just a throwaway joke with no relation to the story at all, told to a glorified extra who had no reason to exist in the story in the first place, except that Hela had to have something to do while Thor was off on planet gladiator.

Also, she was rather let down by a poor showing from the FX guys/concepts in the final fight: Thor came across as an actual god with some of the most gorgeous effects in the MCU, meanwhile Hela relied first on some pets (generic looking evil dead and a not quite real looking Fenris) who'd had no real setup and then stood around calling forth spears like the MCU version of Ares from WW. If she had actually looked like a goddess in that final fight, it might've been enough to save the character for me, but alas, her action sequences were visually the least interesting things in what was possibly the most beautifully shot movie in the MCU.

And thanks for the link to the other thread - some interesting discussion there. I'd've still wanted to see the results of this poll, though, even if I had seen that thread first.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Excuse you. I never said anyone had to agree with my opinion and I'm well aware the most people like Hela.

No worries dude, the 'excuse you' was only joking anyway, sarcasm unfortunately doesn't come across well in writing. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, I never said otherwise. I think I and others in this thread have already put forward our counter-arguments, so there's no need to go into it more than that really.

 

[2kt09]

You still haven't elaborated. Care to?

Nope. Hela was always planned to be the villain of Ragnarok, Kevin Feige is on record as saying it was the very first thing they decided about the film:
Source

Having her in Thor 2 would have certainly made sense; TDW fits her mold.

It's Enchantress's motivation that already breaks ground. She could be a vengeful ex-lover since apparently the Thor movies have leaned heavier on the romance side of things.
The comedy angle to that is also more pliable. Skurge obviously has more to do, since he would have already been established rather than Hela giving him a title just cuz'.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Having her in Thor 2 would have certainly made sense; TDW fits her mold.

It's Enchantress's motivation that already breaks ground. She could be a vengeful ex-lover since apparently the Thor movies have leaned heavier on the romance side of things.
The comedy angle to that is also more pliable. Skurge obviously has more to do, since he would have already been established rather than Hela giving him a title just cuz'.

As a fan of comics Hela, I'm so relieved they didn't put her in TDW. They probably would have made her into a grim, humourless, flat character like Malekith which totally goes against the spirit of comics Hela who is witty, boastful, bombastic and larger than life, much like her MCU counterpart thanks to Waititi and Blanchett. Just because she's the goddess of death, it doesn't mean that she has to be dour and humourless in personality.

Again, how exactly does the jealous woman scorned angle break new ground? Also, the sexy female villain trying to seduce the male hero is totally cliche and old hat, as a woman I appreciate that they made the female villain as fearsome a physical opponent as Thor has ever faced and not just a cliche, generic 'seduce the hero to do my bidding' weak female character. Hela was not defined by her gender in any way, which is refreshing to me. And I'm still not quite understanding how any of that would that have made Enchantress fit to be the main villain of Ragnarok without changing the storyline of the film significantly.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think it's solved. The villains we've had in phase three I think are overall comparable with villains from other good to great blockbusters. Now that doesn't mean that they are all GREAT (looking at you Kaecilius) but they're not all dry thin punchlines, which is appreciated. The fact that none of them live up to Heath Ledger is fine, but they live up to Bane, Kylo Ren, Calvin Candie, and Lot's-O. They're at *least* on par with Silva overall. I think part of the reason why people discounted it is because they only compared MCU villains from Phase I/II to cruddy movies.

 

[Thör-El]

The issue is they consistently get great actors but give them simplistic greed/power/revenge motives to work with, no character arc, less screen time than the heroes and then kill them off/brush them aside by the end of the first film they appear in. It's not a recipe for complex or fascinating characters.

Hela, Ego and Vulture are better than most of the phase 1 and 2 building but they're still a bit one dimensional. Loki's by far the best villain in the MCU films and that's because they broke the formula and gave him a multi film character arc.

For me the outright best MCU villains are Kilgrave and Fisk. The TV series format gives them way more screen time to develop the characters but even putting that aside, they get almost as much screen time as Daredevil/Jessica Jones do and it lets them steal the show(s).

 

[Flint Marko]

After seeing Black Panther.....

Yeah, I think it's safe to say Marvel isn't playing around any more with the villains. Is the problem "solved"? Well I can't look into the future so I'm not sure if it'll never be an issue again, but this is now the fourth film in the row to deliver a compelling villain and it's arguably their best villain ever. Not sure how MBJ as Kilmonger will be topped.