I never agreed that MCU has weak villains...

[Spider-Fan]

Zemo is in my top 5 MCU villains. He was so well used in Captain America: Civil War, and a fairly non-conventional villain for these types of movies as well.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

.

Zemo was a nice attempt at a villain with pathos, but felt a little underdeveloped somehow. Ultron started out nice, but then got all goofy.

They should have made him just a Sokovian Colonel and not a death squad commander to make the turn to evildoer. Not a bad guy with our heroes as his target

 

[Random490]

A handful are on the weak side, but Marvel's "villain problem" has been incredibly overstated. They have also been improving on it lately with last year producing four good ones (Ego, Vulture, Hela, and Grandmaster). People always complain about Malekith as if he's the norm, but he isn't. Far from it.

I agreed. I feel like the "villain problem" is only stated more from people who want to bash MCU films. I don't feel there's been any outright terrible villains because most of the underplayed or underdeveloped ones are more due to the movies putting more focus on the heroes. That's something I personally prefer so that's maybe why it never bothered me. I don't feel that the antagonists alone makes or break a film, as long as the rest of the film is great I don't mind.

Most of them all all have clear motivation and goals, distinct personalities and agency within the plot, and are well preformed. Sure some would be more entertaining and engaging than others, and people's opinions will always differ, but from a technical standpoint they're pretty much all well done. The argument just always seemed overblown to me.

 

[InfinityWar]

Indeed. Zemo was the end of the "weak villains" complaints, IIRC. At the time, even being around here, I heard zero complaints about how unfaithful he was to the comics, which I thought was really amazing and a testament to how great a villain he was, and even now, the complaint is the differences in presentation, not that he doesn't serve as a mastermind tactical opponent to Captain America and the Avengers.

Another reason it needed to be Zemo is to allow for a real surprise, which is necessary for a thriller like Civil War. When a German actor was cast, we all sort of expected the purple head sock and swordplay and all that... so no one saw Iron Man trying to kill Bucky coming... it was a great surprise, and their first great villain since Loki, imho.

I thought Zemo was perfect in Civil War. He was the whole reason CW happened. Try to re-write that movie without Zemo and it would be difficult. He was the key to Black Panther becoming the King of Wakanda. He was responsible for everything that happened in CW.

I loved that Marvel did a villain that had no super powers, but said "I know I cant kill these Avengers, so I'll have them kill each other". That was a DIFFERENT tactic to give to a villain. Usually, in cbm, its just villains getting super powers or making super powers to fight good guys. I dont complain, thats how its suppose to be, but it was cool to change it up for MCU. Marvel keeps things fresh.

 

[Guard82]

I thought Zemo was perfect in Civil War. He was the whole reason CW happened. Try to re-write that movie without Zemo and it would be difficult. He was the key to Black Panther becoming the King of Wakanda. He was responsible for everything that happened in CW.

I loved that Marvel did a villain that had no super powers, but said "I know I cant kill these Avengers, so I'll have them kill each other". That was a DIFFERENT tactic to give to a villain. Usually, in cbm, its just villains getting super powers or making super powers to fight good guys. I dont complain, thats how its suppose to be, but it was cool to change it up for MCU. Marvel keeps things fresh.

Yes, I concur with your assessment. I also liked how the writers made Zemo an independent villain rather than another Hydra-affiliated villain. Having the villain be yet another Hydra leader would have been a bit too repetitive of the previous two Captain America films. They made Zemo more interesting by having him be his own man with his own motivations, with no connections to Hydra (Zemo actually has nothing but disdain for Hydra in the movie). As you said, this helped keep things fresh.

Marvel also kept things fresh with Vulture in Spider-Man Homecoming. They gave Adrian Toomes a well-developed backstory and some compelling motivations for his villainy. Along with Michael Keaton's great acting, this made the Vulture a very interesting character and antagonist. It's very ironic that some people on these boards were initially complaining about having Vulture as the villain for the movie, because they didn't think that the Vulture was a good enough villain to be the film's main antagonist. But Marvel knew what they were doing when they adapted the Vulture for the big screen, and they ended up making him one of the best recent comic book film villains.

 

[Raiden]

I think the "MCU has weak villains" criticism partly just grew out of Heath Ledger's Joker setting the bar incredibly high.

There's also some truth to it though. A lot of the MCU villains have great actors but don't get much of an arc beyond a scene or two rushing through the stereotypical greed/revenge/power villain motivations and the climactic fight scenes. Most of them only last one film and even within that film they get less screen time than the heroes. It makes them more one dimensional than the comic versions.

Loki, Kingpin and Kilgrave stand out to me as the best MCU villains. I'd say in large part that's thanks to appearing in TV series/across multiple films and getting the space to develop into more complex/sympathetic/intimidating characters.

Heath Ledger's Joker is iconic, but let's face it: his Joker didn't have an arc either, just an incredible performance from the late Ledger. As for MCU villains, I thought the criticism is unwarranted, but it became a meme and people just keep regurgitate it as if it's true. I compare MCU with other franchises like DCEU and Fox's X-Men/FF and Sony's Spider-Man and without a doubt it's obvious that MCU is way better by comparison, and in Phase 3 they have made them even better. Hopefully after BP and IW, people will stop spreading this myth around.

 

[jolldan]

I would say this might be the general consesus among the fans......

Great:
Loki (Tom Hiddleton)
Vulture (Michael Keaton)
Thanos (Josh Brolin)
Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan)
Hela (Cate Blanchett)
Ego the Living Planet (Kurt Russell)
Claw (Andy Serkis)
Ultron (James Spader)
Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell)
Winter Solider (Stan Sebastian)
Iron Monger (Jeff Bridges)


Average:
Red Skull (Hugo Weaving)
Whiplash (Mickey Rourke)
Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelson)


Bad:
Guy Pearce (Adrian Killian)
Abomination (Tim Roth)
Ronan (Lee Pace)
Malekith Dark Elf (Christopher Eccleston)
Yellowjacket (Corey Stoll)


Only 5 bad ones, imo out of 18 films.

Have to disagree, if someone was to ask me what I think is the weakest area of Marvel movies I would have to say their villains.

While I didn't hate any of them except for Killian there have been plenty of their villains that for me anyway were either underwhelming or didn't really ever feel like a threat to the main character.

Have heard great things about Serkis and B. Jordan in Black Panther and I go and see it tonight so they might be getting added to the list.

Loki (Tom Hiddleton)
Vulture (Michael Keaton)
Thanos (Josh Brolin)
Ultron (James Spader)
Hela (Cate Blanchett)
Iron Monger (Jeff Bridges)

Those are the six that stuck out for me as a great performance.


Don't really consider Bucky a villain since by the end of the movie he's saving Cap's bacon so I excluded him.

 

[Ryuzakirir]

Heath Ledger's Joker is iconic, but let's face it: his Joker didn't have an arc either, just an incredible performance from the late Ledger. As for MCU villains, I thought the criticism is unwarranted, but it became a meme and people just keep regurgitate it as if it's true. I compare MCU with other franchises like DCEU and Fox's X-Men/FF and Sony's Spider-Man and without a doubt it's obvious that MCU is way better by comparison, and in Phase 3 they have made them even better. Hopefully after BP and IW, people will stop spreading this myth around.

The Joker is not supposed to be a character with an "arc" imo. Some people find the best villains are the ones with sympathetic past and conflicting nature (someone you can relate to), but this does not apply to the Joker.

This here, is the biggest appeal of his character. As Jonathan Nolan said, it seems like he appeared out of thin air. Like he's always been there. That's why he doesn't have a fixed origin and such.

So, to say it's only thanks to Ledger's performance is a bit untrue. The story, the script. He might be someone with no past and background in the movie, but that's what makes his character unforgettable.

"No name, no alias. Nothing in his pocket but knives and lint."

It's just the Joker as the Joker. No arc, no backstory, no "destroy the whole world" vision, no revenge, etc.

Sorry this might be OOT, but I just had to reply to your post.

And this is my first post ever here lol. Hi.

 

[fan4stic]

Heath Ledger's Joker is iconic, but let's face it: his Joker didn't have an arc either, just an incredible performance from the late Ledger. As for MCU villains, I thought the criticism is unwarranted, but it became a meme and people just keep regurgitate it as if it's true. I compare MCU with other franchises like DCEU and Fox's X-Men/FF and Sony's Spider-Man and without a doubt it's obvious that MCU is way better by comparison, and in Phase 3 they have made them even better. Hopefully after BP and IW, people will stop spreading this myth around.

I'd say Joker does have an arc. He goes from ripping off mob bosses to being obsessed with Batman.

 

[DrCosmic]

Heath Ledger's Joker is iconic, but let's face it: his Joker didn't have an arc either, just an incredible performance from the late Ledger. As for MCU villains, I thought the criticism is unwarranted, but it became a meme and people just keep regurgitate it as if it's true. I compare MCU with other franchises like DCEU and Fox's X-Men/FF and Sony's Spider-Man and without a doubt it's obvious that MCU is way better by comparison, and in Phase 3 they have made them even better. Hopefully after BP and IW, people will stop spreading this myth around.

It was definitely warranted when the complaint started. Stane, Red Skull, Abomination, Whiplash, "Mandarin," Malekith, and Yellow Jacket were all embarrassingly bad compared to their comic counterparts, as well as to the villains of other quality blockbusters of the same era: Voldemort, President Snow, even Colonel Quarrich from Avatar was more badarse and fitting of a comic book villain than most the MCU's antagonists of 2009. Lot's-O from Toy Story 3 was at least as intimidating as Ultron, and had a lot better developed motivation. Think about that for a second. We had just gotten done with Agent Smith and Gollum and now we've got... Kaecelius?

I think the days of weak villains are behind us, but they definitely happened.

 

[Flash525]

A good villain, at least as far as I'm concerned (within the confinements of the MCU) are ones that aren't one-shot. On that basis alone, it's only Loki, Ulysses Claw and the Winter Soldier (now reformed) that have forward potential.

I reserve the right to make judgement on Thanos because we haven't really seen him in action just yet - though I'm sure he'll top the list, if not, he'll slot in nicely alongside Loki.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It was definitely warranted when the complaint started. Stane, Red Skull, Abomination, Whiplash, "Mandarin," Malekith, and Yellow Jacket were all embarrassingly bad compared to their comic counterparts, as well as to the villains of other quality blockbusters of the same era: Voldemort, President Snow, even Colonel Quarrich from Avatar was more badarse and fitting of a comic book villain than most the MCU's antagonists of 2009. Lot's-O from Toy Story 3 was at least as intimidating as Ultron, and had a lot better developed motivation. Think about that for a second. We had just gotten done with Agent Smith and Gollum and now we've got... Kaecelius?

I think the days of weak villains are behind us, but they definitely happened.

Is Whiplash REALLY a great villain in the comics? In your heart of hearts?

 

[DrCosmic]

Is Whiplash REALLY a great villain in the comics? In your heart of hearts?

Lol! Okay, yeah, that's definitely a reach. They actually improved on Whiplash dramatically in IM2, and then left him on the cutting room floor, so he wound up seeming weak compared to a theoretical great version of Whiplash.

Yellow Jacket too, while we're at it. He was just weak on his own, not necessarily paling in comparison to Rita DeMara or anything.

 

[Thör-El]

Heath Ledger's Joker is iconic, but let's face it: his Joker didn't have an arc either, just an incredible performance from the late Ledger. As for MCU villains, I thought the criticism is unwarranted, but it became a meme and people just keep regurgitate it as if it's true. I compare MCU with other franchises like DCEU and Fox's X-Men/FF and Sony's Spider-Man and without a doubt it's obvious that MCU is way better by comparison, and in Phase 3 they have made them even better. Hopefully after BP and IW, people will stop spreading this myth around.

Ledger's performance was incredible but there's more to it than that. They gave him as much screen time as the hero and they used it to showcase a twisted unpredictable character who's always one step ahead and wins even when he loses. Not a formula I've seen the MCU follow.

Motivation wise he's far more unique than the MCU villains. He doesn't care about money and power's a means to an end, he cares about sowing chaos and corrupting the innocent/incorruptible to make a point. He's so obsessed with the latter that he wants Batman to break his one rule and kill him.

Fair point about the MCU villains being consistently far better than Sony/Fox/post-Nolan DC. Marvel are putting out better films than those rivals are though so people expect better villains as well.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Lol! Okay, yeah, that's definitely a reach. They actually improved on Whiplash dramatically in IM2, and then left him on the cutting room floor, so he wound up seeming weak compared to a theoretical great version of Whiplash.

Yellow Jacket too, while we're at it. He was just weak on his own, not necessarily paling in comparison to Rita DeMara or anything.

I have not seen much of IM2's deleted footage, but I know Rourke hates the existing cut, LOL! IM2 as whole for me kind of felt like the closest thing to the MCU just making a movie to bridge the gap to Avengers. Partly why I am harder on it than the other MCU films.