One problem that nearly all superhero movies face

[Chris Wallace]

You have in many cases 30, 40, 50, or nearly 70 years of backstory to work with. A character/story that has had generations to develop and evolve has to be synopsized in 2 hours. I know this part is nothing you haven't heard before, but you know who TRULY suffers with all this condensing?
The villain.
We may think that one villain or another has gotten an awesome treatment on film, but have they really? We watch these guys plague the hero for decades and heap untold misery on society. But in a film, within the 2-hour timeframe, this baddie must be created, begin his reign of terror, be thwarted, defeated and-because the laws of Hollywood demand it-punished for his misdeeds. And while the penalty for big screen villainy is usually death the supervillain is no exception. So instead of the promise of another brilliant sinister scheme we often see him tossed into the meat wagon and forgotten. I know that with movies, you want to move forward and not recycle plots over and over, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep the possibility open?

 

[The Sarge]

That's why I like that the Burton Batman films focus a bit more on the villains.
Batman will always return for another film.

 

[Super-Duper-Man]

The first Burton Batman looked cartoony to me, but the second one was cool.

 

[Super-Duper-Man]

Here is a thought. Why not have some villains live on like villains do in horror films? This way we can explore thier back store in broader depths in future movies rather than craming them in just one movie.

 

[El Payaso]

That's why I like that the Burton Batman films focus a bit more on the villains.
Batman will always return for another film.

I remember someone - maybe Burton himself - saying something like this. Villiains are the stars because we have more than one movie for Batman.

I guess the same villiain coming back again and again could work. But I have had little problem with good villiains dying in the first movie they're in when they've been fantastically portrayed.

 

[chamber-music]

Loki seems to be bucking that trend. His even a bigger threat in Avengers than he was in Thor and he isn't going to die.

If Heath Ledger didn't die I'm sure he would of been back to plague Batman in the 3rd Batman movie perhaps not as a main villain but atleast a TDK Scarecrow sized role

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Maybe that's why I like Magneto so much...

 

[cherokeesam]

This is one reason I'd prefer to see a lot of superheroes get the small-screen treatment instead of the big screen.

In all honesty, the episodic nature of comic books makes them a natural for TV series. But when you try to make a *movie* serial, you've got mega, mega time and money problems. 2-3 years between films, megabudgets and casting wars....bah.

Put 'em on the TV, Marvel and DC. Save yourself and the fans the headache.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I agree killing villains is one of the many problems I have with the superhero movie formula.I also think the origin should be skipped for the most part.I never understood why almost every superhero movie must have an origin not only for the hero,but the villain as well.

Why don't they do origin's for at least one and for the other just have them be already established or have them both be already established.There are ways to introduce a character without an origin.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think the real issue is that they never seem to bother building up a villain in a franchise. Magneto did pretty well here. Green Goblin, not so much. It's a lack of planning on the writer's part.

 

[Godzilla2014]

You have in many cases 30, 40, 50, or nearly 70 years of backstory to work with. A character/story that has had generations to develop and evolve has to be synopsized in 2 hours. I know this part is nothing you haven't heard before, but you know who TRULY suffers with all this condensing?
The villain.
We may think that one villain or another has gotten an awesome treatment on film, but have they really? We watch these guys plague the hero for decades and heap untold misery on society. But in a film, within the 2-hour timeframe, this baddie must be created, begin his reign of terror, be thwarted, defeated and-because the laws of Hollywood demand it-punished for his misdeeds. And while the penalty for big screen villainy is usually death the supervillain is no exception. So instead of the promise of another brilliant sinister scheme we often see him tossed into the meat wagon and forgotten. I know that with movies, you want to move forward and not recycle plots over and over, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep the possibility open?

I think you have a great point here.

 

[Dark Raven]

The thing to do is have some movies about the villains themselves. Show their origin, their motivations etc. That way, when they're brought together with the hero in the same movie, it will be seen more as a cinematic clash, like having Dirty Harry taking on Hannibal Lecter.

 

[cherokeesam]

The thing to do is have some movies about the villains themselves. Show their origin, their motivations etc. That way, when they're brought together with the hero in the same movie, it will be seen more as a cinematic clash, like having Dirty Harry taking on Hannibal Lecter.

I'm not sure that would be commercially viable, though.

Sure, fanboys like us would think it's great to see the backstory of iconic villains, but for general audiences, you'd have a very limited appeal. Families wouldn't want to bring Little Johnny to a movie that's *openly* about a villain, and kids & families have always been/always will be a large (if not *the* largest) target audience for superhero filmmakers.

I remember Fox was originally planning an X-Men Origins: Magneto, but it looks like that's been long since scrapped, probably in favor of XMFC which diluted the "badguy backstory" effect by focusing, again, on the heroes' side.

I know there'd be plenty of fansters out there saying, "Oh, cool! Joker! Venom! Darkseid! Thanos!" Myself definitely included. I just doubt there'd be enough there to offset the negative aspects.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Maybe that's why I like Magneto so much...

Loki and Magneto are two very big exceptions. Even at the end of X3 Magneto showed signs of a potential comeback.

 

[moviedoors]

It honestly doesn't bother me very much. It's one of things I dislike about comics actually: they never freaking end. I prefer the self contained one shots and graphic novels, which are inherently more cinematic. I'd rather see an arc through than a never ending series of Freddy Krueger like comebacks. After The Avengers, that should probably be the last we see of Loki for a good long time.

 

[Dark Raven]

Loki and Magneto are two very big exceptions. Even at the end of X3 Magneto showed signs of a potential comeback.

That's what Dr Doom has the potential to be as well. Of course, not the movie Dr Doom as played by Julian McMahon, but the true Doom from the comics. We need to see him on screen. If done properly, he ought to be the most memorable comic screen villain.

 

[The Filmist]

Yes, that's kind of the problem with superhero comics as a whole, isn't it? I mean, how can you ever have any kind of vested emotional interest in the development of a character, over the long run, if you know he's going to return right back to the status quo and punch another bad guy in the johnson again in about four issues? It's asinine.

This is one of the things that films have over comics, where superheroes are concerned. Because you can have that kind of emotional arc and climax that you can't achieve with an unending, constantly self-renewing narrative.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Your position is unclear, Filmist.

 

[kedrell]

This is one reason I'd prefer to see a lot of superheroes get the small-screen treatment instead of the big screen.

In all honesty, the episodic nature of comic books makes them a natural for TV series. But when you try to make a *movie* serial, you've got mega, mega time and money problems. 2-3 years between films, megabudgets and casting wars....bah.

Put 'em on the TV, Marvel and DC. Save yourself and the fans the headache.

I'd agree if TV could handle the FX load. And some are coming. I think in the interests of quality I'd prefer superhero TV shows to hold to a more premium channel idea of how to be rolled out. Just do only 10-12 episodes per season so the quality can be concentrated rather than the standard TV crap of 20+ episodes per season.

Still, there's just something special about seeing it all up on the big screen.

 

[That person]

After The Avengers, that should probably be the last we see of Loki for a good long time.

Hiddleston is signed on for Thor 2.

 

[Kar]

Loki and Magneto are two very big exceptions. Even at the end of X3 Magneto showed signs of a potential comeback.

Let's not forget Lex Luthor in the Superman films

 

[Chris Wallace]

I try to. One of the most poorly mishandled villains of all time.

 

[cherokeesam]

I'd agree if TV could handle the FX load. And some are coming. I think in the interests of quality I'd prefer superhero TV shows to hold to a more premium channel idea of how to be rolled out. Just do only 10-12 episodes per season so the quality can be concentrated rather than the standard TV crap of 20+ episodes per season.

Still, there's just something special about seeing it all up on the big screen.

Certainly, anything looks bigger on the big screen; but there's plenty of street-level heroes whose stories are far better suited for small-screen. And haters gonna hate, but I humbly submit that Batman and Spider-Man are two of the best examples.

TV just makes sense for superheroes. Comic books are episodic by nature; TV shows are episodic by nature. Movies are not, despite Hollywood's obsession with trilogies and mega-trilogies since the 1980s.

 

[OsGom]

I'm not sure that would be commercially viable, though.

Sure, fanboys like us would think it's great to see the backstory of iconic villains, but for general audiences, you'd have a very limited appeal. Families wouldn't want to bring Little Johnny to a movie that's *openly* about a villain, and kids & families have always been/always will be a large (if not *the* largest) target audience for superhero filmmakers.

I think for your arch villain, their motivations and origin can be spaced over several movies leading up to the final confrontation with the hero. I particularly like how they handled Golem in LOTR. He was established as a menace early on with only glimpses of his inner demons until his story is told in Return of the King. It made the final confrontation all the more devastating because the audience understood his pain.

Obviously I wouldn't want this to become "The Formula" for handling villains, however, for say Dr. Doom I think this process would totally work.

Now Thanos... give him a cameo in an Avengers movie and then make The Infinity Gaunlet movie.

Filmmakers should learn not to blow their wad on the first installment. Make it last and it will give greater gravity to the final act.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I think Spider-Man 3's Venom is a poster child for this problem. I think one of the biggest reasons people were disappointed with Venom in the film is that they were hoping to see Venom pushing Spider-Man to his breaking point, like he did in his first appearances in the comics. The trouble is that there's just not enough time to do that in a film that already has Venom's origin on it's plate.
Add in a myriad of other factors (like their face being pulled back constantly, Venom kidnapping Mary Jane after both Green Goblin and Doc Ock did in the previous films), and I can understand exactly why fans were disappointed with the film's portrayal of the character.