Should the archenemy be first?

[Victarion]

I think the arch enemy and dark mirror should both come later. Start with 1-2 smaller guys who couldn't support a film on their own.

 

[Justin]

I hate the idea of "building up" characters once we get past this arbitrary origin stage. Batman's beginnings have been told in depth now, so it is time to move on from that. I'd love to see the next Joker right from the get-go. I don't believe that a movie superhero has to be built up to his/her arch nemesis for it to be believable that this "new" Batman could handle the Joker. He's Batman, fighting the Joker is just what he does. If you can't accept that, your problem.

The key thing you said there is "arbitrary origin stage".

Whether you like it or not, and I personally don't, Hollywood has found a formula that makes them a lot of money which is a) a triology (hate that myself) and b) rebooting the character from scratch.

The old classic Batman movie had Joker right off the bat. But Batman was already Batman.

The fact is, that unless Joker is in his own origin stages, a brand new just back from training Bruce Wayne would not be a match for him. Batman at the top of his game barely beats the joker.

So if this next reboot goes the way the new Spiderman reboot did and starts with yet another origin take (agree, not necessary, but quite likely) then I doubt we'd see the joker in the first one.

 

[The Question]

It depends entirely on the franchise and the nature of the conflict between the protagonist and his arch.

Like, take Green Lantern for example. Not the actual movie, because I didn't see it. But if I was doing a GL flick, I'd start with Sinestro as the villain, with the first movie having him be Hal's partner only to betray the Corps and turn dark side by the film's end, and have him remain the main villain throughout the movie franchise.

But Nolan was right to save The Joker for the second film.

It really depends on the franchise.

 

[Spuzz]

I agree. Wait.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Depends on how good the story is, and how important the arch nemesis is to the heroes origin
Thor and Cap needed their arch-foes in their first films

 

[DrCosmic]

When a superhero movie is being made do you think it's a good idea to go with the hero's main archenemy first, or start with a different villain and work your way up to the main one in a sequel?

With the Nolan trilogy, we started with Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow first then went to the Joker in the second movie.

Iron Man: Iron Monger first, Whiplash and Justin Hammer second, with the third one now we're getting the Mandarin.

The reason for this is because most arch enemies require their own origin story. This was a weakness in the first Spider-Man. It had to break away from Spider-Man's origin story to tell this completely separate origin for Green Goblin. This hurt the film's continuity, and is part of why SM2 is seen as a much better film, because it's free to revolve the story around Doc Ock's origin and rise and fall, because it can make Spider-Man's story revolve around that.

For the first movie, the first time a character is introduced, you want to give them a villain that ties in well with their origin, so that it's all one story, instead of 30 minutes of origin, and then a completely separate story starting well into through the film.

• Iron Monger is not only Iron Man's mentor, but is motivated entirely by Iron Man's appearance.
• Ra's Al Ghul trained Batman
• Zod is from and about Krypton, which is Superman's origin

Now there are some cases, particularly those with small rogues galleries, where the Archenemy is a good origin story enemy.

• Joker '89 killed Batman's parents
• Magneto started the school with Xavier
• Red Skull and Captain America are both super soldiers
• Loki is Thor's brother from Asgard where they grew up together
• Deacon Frost turned Blade's pregnant mother, making him the Daywalker

And that works well for those heroes, but for others who try to make it fit, things turn out bad. Some would put Joker 89 in this list:

• Dr. Doom becomes the funder and part of the initial power-giving voyage so he can be part of the origin.
• Absorbing Man was turned into Hulk's father in Ang Lee's Hulk, so he could be a major part of the origin of Hulk's rage and Banner's science.
• Kingpin was turned into Daredevil's Father's killer in his film
• Typhoid Mary was inserted into the cadre of killers for Elektra in her film
• Lex Luthor was turned into a catalyst for Superman's departure and return in Superman Returns

And, y'know, doing it the wrong way actually sucks:

• Sinestro is Hal's arch enemy and plays a big part in his origin, but instead of being a villain, he was a hero in the film and only turned evil in the post credits, leaving us to deal with a film split between "Parallax" and an extended origin story of Hector Hammond, but a big WTF when Sinestro puts on a yellow ring.

So, If were doing it

• For a Flash movie, Dr. Phosphorous' chemicals can be the ones that get hit by lightning
• For a Wonder Woman movie, Ares should oppress and aggravate Paradise Island to action
• For an Aquaman movie, his brother Ocean Master should be the foe
• For an Martian Manhunter movie, the White Martians, or maybe Ma'le'fe'ak his relative... or even the same alien invasion responsible for the loss of Mars
• For a Robin movie, Zucco would have to feature prominently (or else, make Blockbuster "Zucco")
• For a Black Panther movie, Ulysses Klaw, who killed his father, would be the main baddie
• For a Captain Marvel movie, Yon-Rogg, Mar-Vell's commanding officer would be the main baddie
• For a Dr. Strange movie, obviously Baron Mordo, his co-student and master's killer
• For an Inhumans movie, Maximus the Mad,a fellow inhuman would have to beguile

So yeah, just those things.

 

[Visualiza]

If this were 1998, then yes. Nowadays? Absolutely not. Audiences have come to expect certain movies to become episodic franchises, and the comic book genre fits that mold better than any other. I wouldn't stick to such a rule too rigidly; however, because if a screenwriter & director have a solid vision that happens to include the archenemy first and foremost...I say go for it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would say it's appropriate to introduce an archenemy in the first movie, but that doesn't mean he and the protagonist(s) have to have a showdown in that same movie.

You always want to leave some room to raise the stakes in the sequel.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It depends. Some archvillains are so integral to the hero's origin, that you really can't get away from them in the first film (Loki, Magneto, Red Skull, etc.). Can you imagine a Thor franchise were you have to try and establish Loki after the fact? It would cause more problems than just putting him in the first movie. I'm already trying to figure out how to include Balder without it looking forced.

Then you have cases where the character isn't explicitly needed in the first film, but the story the director wants to tell requires it. A good example of this is Spider-Man. The Green Goblin isn't necessary for a first Spider-Man film, but Raimi wanted to tell the story of Harry Osborn becoming the Goblin, therefore for that particular story the Goblin had to come first.

Then you have characters like Iron Man or Hulk where it really is better to build the archvillain up over a longer period of time.

So it really depends on the character and story being told.