Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by HBarnill, Jul 20, 2017.
Because that's an irrelevant surface detail. They're villains. Just because someone doesn't wear a cape and a mask doesn't mean they're not villains. Whether or not your protagonist wears a silly costume has no real bearing on whether or not you can tell a compelling story about a villainous character.
His entire arc as a character is about him starting as an idealistic man whose father wants him to stay out of the violence of the family business, only for him to get involved until and slowly growing to become more and more like him. That's the whole reason his entire storyline in the second movie is about his violent and cruel behavior alienating his family, and why Part 3 is about him trying to atone and find redemption, only for that to blow up in his face.
Could be an interesting way in...
I think Doom can definitely work as a protagonist of a movie. He is one of the most ambitious and driven Marvel characters. Brilliant, regal and tragic, with badass imagery. Yes, he is also absolutely evil. But whenever I read Secret Wars for example, I can't help but admire how he steals Beyonder's powers. I really believe a talented filmmaker could make us admire Doom, whether we want to or not.
And the antagonist could be Mephisto.
Doom's a super villain, meaning - unlike Henry Hill - we're probably going to see a lot of his origin story and learn how he came up with his abilities, weaponry, motivations. That's a much tougher nut to crack.
Yeah, I've seen the films a few dozen times (not #3). But while Michael does morally repugnant things, he is not the villain. Nor was Vito. Nor will Doom be after he successfully rescues Latveria from a worser monarch.
I am all for a Doctor Doom film and this will work, but it also means no FF in MCU if it gets made
I don't really see why. If superhero films can do it, why one about a villain wouldn't be much harder. In fact I could see it working as something akin to an evil equivalent of Batman Begins or Iron Man.
And I would disagree. As would quite a number of people, to the point where the American Film Institute even listed him as one of the best villains in movie history:
But the fact that there's even debate over whether or not he's really a villain just shows how much can be accomplished with good writing and direction.
Hmm, it's interesting none of those villians served as a protagonist before the heroes are fully explored.
A contrast between hero and villian is what makes them compelling to begin with.
Which is why solo Vader, Thanos, Joker, Dr. Ock, Lex Luthor movie without a quality introduction to the heroes is an instant fail.
Hmm? The entire conservation began because of a mention of Michael Corleone, who absolutely starts off as a good guy before becoming corrupted as the first two films progress. As I said previously, literally his entire arc in the films is showing a good man who slowly becomes evil as he seeks to protect his family, which ironically just pushes them away.
Antonio "Tony" Camonte from the original Scarface is also on the list.
Lol, Michael isn't the villain.
He's the most noble person in The Godfather 1 and 2, second to his father.
His family is betrayed and preyed on by more predatory gangsters, crooked cops and crooked politicians. After his family members are killed he steps up to the plate and becomes a shrewd and tactical mafia leader.
He's no more of a villian than the Punisher. They're both anti-heroes fighting a much greater evil.
Really? Because the list you just supposedly cited as proof that solo villain movies don't work has him listed as one, lol. And once again, the protagonist of Scarface is listed there as well.
He shoots, he scores!
This is probably the only way to redeem this character in the eyes of fans and audiences alike. Ballsy of them to go forward with it if they do, will be interesting to see what happens.
This could also be a weird leverage thing for a deal with Marvel. If they can make this type of project look viable, and Marvel REALLY wants Doom and the Four...
The Godfather is totally about Michael being corrupted. I can't see how you can interpret the ending any other way.
As for Fox's involvement, I think we are seeing that Fox's movies depend on their creative team than corporate management. FF failed due to Trank being a dumpster fire. Deadpool succeeded because of their creative freedom. Apocalypse succeeded/failed based on the creative team. Logan succeeded because of the creative team.
I also question how much this movie would tie into anything. Hawley hasn't seemed too interested in connecting to a greater universe, as Legion isn't tying into any of the movies. So, a one and done film could be possible.
Agreed. It's an interesting move. I'll be interested to see how this progresses, and whether the successes of Deadpool and Logan have done enough (after the Trank debacle) to convince Fox to stand-off and give the filmmakers room.
I haven't watched Legion but I thought there was at least some level of tie-in to the XCU? I thought there'd been talk of Patrick Stewart possibly appearing at some point.
Hawley said they can't do major crossovers with the movies but that they haven explored the possibility of getting Patrick Stewart to guest star.
Nobody's misinterpreting the film. Michael becomes a bad guy, but he's not the the duology's (I refuse to acknowledge Part 3) villain. Nor is young or old Vito. But "Before Doom" is not a gangster flick, but a villain origin story. Which as we've seen with Dracula Untold, Hannibal Rising and the Star Wars prequels, have an awful cinematic track record.
Here's a good article on the Villain Backstory and the problem as it relates to "Doom: Origins". How bad will the film allow Victor going to be? Is he going to send his girlfriend to hell in exchange for a power boost? It took until Godfather Part 2 for Michael to do something truly unforgiveable. Is Hawley going to make us fall in love with Doom (and are they keeping the name?) before breaking our heart? It's a sticky wicket.
Apparently Dan Stevens may be involved.
I pointed out that some villains on the list don't qualify as villians since they are anti-heroes and other villians on the list don't fit the Doom movie premise (anti-hero introduction prior to serving as a villian).
And I've yet to see an anti-hero serve effectively as a villian in later movies.
Magneto is different because what makes him an anti-hero is directly tied to the heroes conflict. That makes his anti-hero theme compelling since it enriches the heroes' journey.
The only way I see Doom working is if they run a family loyalty theme since Doom is trying to save his mother but they would have weave that theme deeply into the FF reboot no exceptions.
Eh. Bonnie and Clyde are on the list as well, as is Alex (ya know, the criminally homicidal rapist) from A Clockwork Orange. As to the point about Doom being unable to effectively serve as a villain in future installments, I don't see why he wouldn't be able to. Not one bit. All it takes is good writing.
That's why I was frankly confused about the criticism someone had on here earlier that a Doom prequel would make him seem too nuanced or sympathetic. When so many superhero movie villains (especially Marvel's) are criticized for being generic cookie cutter baddies while Vulture is being praised for having a sympathetic background, a nuanced villain sounds like a good thing to me.
Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige have to convince Disney FF is worth a hefty price tag.
It should be a no brainer at this point considering how well buying Marvel characters has paid off for Disney so far.
But Disney is bleeding heavily due to ESPN. Shareholders might not want another huge investment right now.
Is Punisher a villain or anti-hero and how are his actions more noble than "corrupted" Michael's.
I'll wait until we know who the director will be before speculating if this will be more like The Godfather or more like Suicide Squad, but given Fox's record, I know how I'm leaning.
The Vulture and Parker had the same conflict.
Tony Stark's power and status.
Magneto and Professor X both are trying to fight to save mutantkind.
How does sympathy for Doom serve the FF narrative in the film series?
You don't have Thanos save a planet just to make him sympathetic. It has to serve the story and theme of Avengers 3 and 4.