MCU: The Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Discussion - Part 4

[First Avenger]

Nope. Quite apart from the Mandarin twist, I didn't like the tone of the film or the fact that RDJ seemed to spend so much time out of armour. I hated the armours falling apart which seemed like a plot device just so that at the end he could be in and out of armour and you could get maximum RDJ time. Didn't like Guy Pearce's villain, and I didn't like the whole Trevor Slattery over-the-top humour which made the whole thing spoofish. The dancing scene at the beginning seemed to herald that RDJ would be even more acting up than usual and is precisely the same thing that people don't like about Starlord with his antics in GOTG.

Got it. I like it more than you do,but I see where you're coming from.

 

[MbJ]

The dancing scene at the beginning seemed to herald that RDJ would be even more acting up than usual and is precisely the same thing that people don't like about Starlord with his antics in GOTG.

Pretty huge YMMV there. The humor in Guardians is often one of the most praised aspects of the movie. I don't know many people who went into that for the serious superhero action scenes.

 

[kedrell]

Every comic book movie will have toys.

Marvel is just making films that are in the same vein as their comics, a variety of tone, humor, action...DC seems to cater to the specific group of fans who clutch The Dark Knight Returns thanking the stars that the "children's" medium has been given credibility.

I'm exaggerating of course but there's some truth to it. For a kid that loves Batman there's a short list of movies appropriate for their age as opposed to the kid who loves Iron Man.

Oh yes, I have a term for these types. They don't have an inner child as most of us do. Instead they have an inner teenager. (We really need an uncomfortable shudder emoticon on this site).

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I didn't find it cringe-worthy at all. In fact I've had the same kind of demeanor when doing something I like, especially when I don't have an audience lol.

exactly. when theres good music and I'm in the mood, I'm dancing. This is not Footlose. People are allowed to dance

 

[T"Challa]

Yeah, when i'm at home alone and a song i like comes on, i dance up a storm, lol. ANd it wasnt like he did that in the heat of battle. It was the beginning of the movie. Lighten up people

 

[Godzillasaurus]

Pretty huge YMMV there. The humor in Guardians is often one of the most praised aspects of the movie. I don't know many people who went into that for the serious superhero action scenes.

Yea I agree. The humor in GOTG was done very well- dancing and whatnot is part of Starlord's character.

In IM3, everything humor or not, just seemed forced and unusual

 

[Loki882]

The difference between IM3 and GOTG is:

-The humor in GOTG was just better overall.
-It was placed better and in more appropriate situations.
-GOTG had a pretty consistent tone throughout (whereas IM3 suffered from tonal whiplash).
-It never tried to hide it. It didn't sell itself as this more deep/serious film and then deliver a comedy. No, it sold itself as a fun space romp, with some underlying darkness in it. I could praise TWS in this regard as well. It promised a more serious/dark tone (for a Marvel film anyway), and that's exactly what it delivered.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The difference between IM3 and GOTG is:

-The humor in GOTG was just better overall.
-It was placed better and in more appropriate situations.
-GOTG had a pretty consistent tone throughout (whereas IM3 suffered from tonal whiplash).
-It never tried to hide it. It didn't sell itself as this more deep/serious film and then deliver a comedy. No, it sold itself as a fun space romp, with some underlying darkness in it. I could praise TWS in this regard as well. It promised a more serious/dark tone (for a Marvel film anyway), and that's exactly what it delivered.

 

[Loki882]

I've heard the villain complaint before and with perhaps the lone exception of Malekith, who I think got truly shafted as did Christopher Eccleston, I keep asking the same question: A villain problem compared to what? Are they all Darth Vader/Hans Gruber/Hannibal Lector level villains? Hell no but then who ever is? If that's the standard then nobody will be measuring up. IMO virtually all of their villains have been perfectly adequate and served their function as thy were meant to do. It's simply that they prefer to give more focus to their heroes in their movies and I can't fault them for that.

Oh I can. Because other films have proven that they can do BOTH, and Marvel themselves has proven that they can do both as well (with Loki). So no, the "well they just want to focus more on the heroes" excuse doesn't work for me.

As for villains, I'm asking for one that you don't forget five minutes after leaving the theatre, or ones that don't have me looking at my watch everytime that they come onscreen. Again, they've proven that they CAN do it, and god knows that the comics have LOTS of cool/memorable villains, but they repeatedly choose not to. Heck there are even cool villains (Red Skull, Ronan, Baron Strucker, Malekith, etc) that the films manage to make much LESS so.

 

[Mjölnir]

The villain thing is pretty interesting and Vader is a good example. He's of course seen as one of the best and most iconic villains ever, but in the first movie he actually doesn't really do that much, nor does he really have any depth or motivation beyond being evil. Lucas struck it right with many of the superficial bits (look, voice, etc) but compare him with someone like Ronan and I'd say he's actually less developed and doesn't really do that much on his own.

It's not really until ESB that Vader becomes a really interesting character, and that movie also makes him much more badass than before.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I have my doubts that we'll ever see Monica Rambeau in the MCU, at least not until after the next two Avengers movies.

She may be the hardest to cast in regards to the age of the actress. Does Marvel want someone closer to the age of RDJ or Rudd or Ruffalo? If so, the top choices will probably be Taraji P Henson (45) and Gabrielle Union (45). Do they want someone closer to the ages of the Three Chrises, all of whom were born in the 80's? If so, then I'd suspect that a name like Gugu Mbatha Raw will be at the top of the list.

 

[kedrell]

Oh I can. Because other films have proven that they can do BOTH, and Marvel themselves has proven that they can do both as well (with Loki). So no, the "well they just want to focus more on the heroes" excuse doesn't work for me.

As for villains, I'm asking for one that you don't forget five minutes after leaving the theatre, or ones that don't have me looking at my watch everytime that they come onscreen. Again, they've proven that they CAN do it, and god knows that the comics have LOTS of cool/memorable villains, but they repeatedly choose not to. Heck there are even cool villains (Red Skull, Ronan, Baron Strucker, Malekith, etc) that the films manage to make much LESS so.

What other films though? Die Hard with Gruber? Star Wars with Vader? These are singular villains who stand out as well. None of these franchises were just churning out Gruber and Vader-level villains with each film. For the most part they managed to get one really memorable villain and then stacked the rest of the deck with also-ran's who are extremely common in movies(and forgettable). I'd say the MCU is on par or even ahead of the average when it comes to having memorable villains. It's just that I think most people have a false notion of where that average lies. They think such villains are all over the place in movies and frankly good memorable villains are quite a rarity, especially in franchises.

That's why I asked, "Villain problem in comparison to WHO?"

 

[BoredGuy]

That's a good point ^

Marvel has a "villain problem" because it has such popular villains to begin with. If Dr Doom and Red Skull and Thanos and Ronan didn't all have fans going into the films, then expectations for them wouldn't be so impossible to meet. DC has Batman's rogues to worry about, but they don't even try for Superman, that's why we keep getting Luthor and Zod, Luthor and Zod. Flash is doing pretty well with it, but the serialized format gives more room for villains to grow. It would help if Marvel would let some more villains stick around and develop like they did with Loki, or like the above mentioned Darth Vader example. Their main focus thus far has been the heroes, whom they have developed very well, better than any other studio. But letting some characters stew a little bit in the background can only be a good thing.

 

[MbJ]

The villain thing is pretty interesting and Vader is a good example. He's of course seen as one of the best and most iconic villains ever, but in the first movie he actually doesn't really do that much, nor does he really have any depth or motivation beyond being evil. Lucas struck it right with many of the superficial bits (look, voice, etc) but compare him with someone like Ronan and I'd say he's actually less developed and doesn't really do that much on his own.

It's not really until ESB that Vader becomes a really interesting character, and that movie also makes him much more badass than before.

A valid point. Though I think the major difference comes from the genre. You could argue Star Wars was always an ensemble franchise, but as memorable as Luke, Leia, and Han were, they weren't so over the top that they completely overshadowed Darth Vader. In fact probably the most amazing feat is that Star Wars managed to churn out so many memorable characters.

But when you compare it to Guardians of the Galaxy there's so much going on that Ronan just gets lost in the shuffle. It's an ensemble film like Star Wars but the fact that the individual Guardians are way more interesting and compelling than Ronan is a lot more noticeable this time. Maybe it's the bombastic and ridiculous nature of the team (a talking tree and gun-toting raccoon are going to stand out more).

I also think part of it is that Vader was seen as a very unique villain at the time, but by now we've had countless rip offs or attempts at similar characters. So Ronan just ends up looking like nothing special.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

That's a good point ^

Marvel has a "villain problem" because it has such popular villains to begin with. If Dr Doom and Red Skull and Thanos and Ronan didn't all have fans going into the films, then expectations for them wouldn't be so impossible to meet. DC has Batman's rogues to worry about, but they don't even try for Superman, that's why we keep getting Luthor and Zod, Luthor and Zod. Flash is doing pretty well with it, but the serialized format gives more room for villains to grow. It would help if Marvel would let some more villains stick around and develop like they did with Loki, or like the above mentioned Darth Vader example. Their main focus thus far has been the heroes, whom they have developed very well, better than any other studio. But letting some characters stew a little bit in the background can only be a good thing.

Marvel has a 'villain problem' because Marvel deliberatly decided to focus on the heroes in their movies. You'll never see a MS movie wer the the titular hero is outshined by the antagonist *cough* TDK *cough*. and that is a good decision.

 

[John Locke]

One could argue Loki has done that to Thor in two movies but that's neither here nor there. Marvel has a villian problem because people have a problem with their villains. It's does not have anything to do with comparisons or preconceived notions of the characters, people just don't like them.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

One could argue Loki has done that to Thor in two movies but that's neither here nor there. Marvel has a villian problem because people have a problem with their villains. It's does not have anything to do with comparisons or preconceived notions of the characters, people just don't like them.

Well said, there are a number of improvements they could to their villains. For example, out of all the characters in GOTG, in the comics, Ronan probably has the most back story, yet in the movie he was the least developed. I liked Ronan, but as a big fan of comics character, I was hoping for more. Hopefully they bring him back.

Ultron, while not the worst villain by any means, was certainly the biggest disappointment to me.

 

[T"Challa]

While i don't think the Marvel movie villains have been anything special, they have been adequate to me. I will say i'm surprised by how much flack they get from it though. I'm with R_Hydroleus on this. Its really par the course for Hollywood action movies. How many truly great and memorable villains do you get? Maybe one every few years? The fact that they're so rare just shows its not an easy feat to accomplish.

To me, Stane, Red Skull, Ultron, Pierce, Winter soldier(?), Ultron and Cross have all ranged between decent and good with Loki being a standout, Ronan being below average and Malekith being bad. It doesnt bug me much to be honest.

 

[sabetoonth]

I would rank the villains about the same. Few have been really memorable, standout villains, but most at the very least do their job.

 

[Loki882]

Can we please stop it with the "The Joker got more to do than Batman in TDK" nonsense, because it's simply not true. Out of a over two and a half hour film, The Joker got like 30 minutes of screentime tops. He gets less focus and less screentime than Batman, Harvey Dent, AND Gordon. If he "overshadows" the others, then it's simply because Heath Ledger steals every freaking scene that he's in.

So sorry, but trying to use that to defend what Marvel does just doesn't work.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

While i don't think the Marvel movie villains have been anything special, they have been adequate to me. I will say i'm surprised by how much flack they get from it though. I'm with R_Hydroleus on this. Its really par the course for Hollywood action movies. How many truly great and memorable villains do you get? Maybe one every few years? The fact that they're so rare just shows its not an easy feat to accomplish.

To me, Stane, Red Skull, Ultron, Pierce, Winter soldier(?), Ultron and Cross have all ranged between decent and good with Loki being a standout, Ronan being below average and Malekith being bad. It doesnt bug me much to be honest.

I would swap Ultron and Ronan. Ronan's straight man act was exactly what they needed opposite the lunacy of the Guardians, while I thought Ultron was far less of a threat than he needed to be.

 

[Greens]

-It was placed better and in more appropriate situations.

When is it more appropriate to dance:

-when you're on your own, stroking your ego with the fancy tech you've created
-when you're facing someone who wants to destroy you and the planet you're on

I liked most of the humor in both IM3 and GOTG, but the dance-off in GOTG felt misplaced and anti-climactic. Thankfully, there is the fantastic hand-holding scene to cushion the blow.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Can we please stop it with the "The Joker got more to do than Batman in TDK" nonsense, because it's simply not true. Out of a over two and a half hour film, The Joker got like 30 minutes of screentime tops. He gets less focus and less screentime than Batman, Harvey Dent, AND Gordon. If he "overshadows" the others, then it's simply because Heath Ledger steals every freaking scene that he's in.

So sorry, but trying to use that to defend what Marvel does just doesn't work.

I would swap Ultron and Ronan. Ronan's straight man act was exactly what they needed opposite the lunacy of the Guardians, while I thought Ultron was far less of a threat than he needed to be.

Agreed, preferred Ronan over Ultron myself. Ronan at least came across as a threat and someone the team would have great difficulty over coming. I never got the sense of either with Ultron.

 

[kedrell]

One could argue Loki has done that to Thor in two movies but that's neither here nor there. Marvel has a villian problem because people have a problem with their villains. It's does not have anything to do with comparisons or preconceived notions of the characters, people just don't like them.

SOME people don't but I doubt you'd be able to make a case that most feel that way. Tailoring their films to a small percentage who have issues with them just strikes me as a really dumb move if they were to do that. Thankfully there's absolutely no indication that they are listening to this small minority and for that I am glad.

 

[John Locke]

I didn't say it was a problem that needed fixing. They have a villain problem. Will fixing it improve their films who knows but does that mean it's not a problem? No.