The Use of Archenemies in Film

[Chris B]

When it comes to comic book movies, do you think its better when the filmmakers decide to save the hero's archenemy for a sequel like Nolan did and what Favreau seems to be doing? Or what Donner, Burton, and Raimi did by using their respective heroes' archenemies in their first film?

Personally, while it depends on the character, I think it's better to save the main baddie for a sequel. It'll be easier to the character justice, especially when odds are the the first film is the origin story. And you don't have to worry as much about how you're going to top the previous film, when you're building up to one main confrontation.

 

[GregComicFan]

I think it's a fantastic idea to save the "best villian" for a later film in a comic book movie franchise. It allows the direct/writer/actor to invest more in lesser known villains to jump start the franchise into action.... and it allows the later film to be much more hyped and interesting, as opposed to using the biggest villain in the first movie, and then sticking to second stringers in the 2nd and 3rd film (how anti-climactic!). I still think the X-Men trilogy did the best job, by having Magneto in every film. Also, he was one of the best developed, most interesting, and dynamic characters throughout all three films.

Word is Iron Man 2 does NOT have the Mandarian as the main villain, so it looks like the director is taking your advice.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Depends, I think there is probably 3 scenarios

USe him first perfectly fine. I think using Green Goblin off the bat was no problem in Spiderman.

Save him for the end. If Flash is ever made Zoom shouldnt be off the bat. He is very high concept and be hard to out do. The sequels will always be sub-par.

Pace the nemesis appropriately over the course of the franchise. I think both Sinestro and Lex Luthor can be easily used an different roles or different degrees of exposure in each film over the course of the franchise.

 

[Mutagen]

Depends, I think there is probably 3 scenarios

USe him first perfectly fine. I think using Green Goblin off the bat was no problem in Spiderman.

Save him for the end. If Flash is ever made Zoom shouldnt be off the bat. He is very high concept and be hard to out do. The sequels will always be sub-par.

Pace the nemesis appropriately over the course of the franchise. I think both Sinestro and Lex Luthor can be easily used an different roles or different degrees of exposure in each film over the course of the franchise.

My thoughts exactly, just be careful if it's a possibility the film will fail, not to use the cooler villain, you just won't do him justice.

BTW saving Joker for a sequel was genius I must say, and ballsy too, considering how they did Scarecrow, because most of my friends hated BB.

 

[Ziggyman]

It really seems like Nolan has been pulling a fast one on us...Not focusing on sequels...

Feels like he set up ra's and scarecrow to bring in the mob...then from there brought the joker in to screw the mob over...Then possibly the riddler to investigate Harv's death and such...

It's easy for Bat films because of his rogues gallery...But some of the lesser name heroes have lesser name villains which don't work...

 

[CFE]

While I do prefer Nolan's choices of Rogues in terms of progression, I do think he's put himself into quite the corner with killing off Two-Face...since Dent's the only rogue I can think of that could not only keep the stakes high in the Joker's absence (if Joker isn't included)...but carry a film on his shoulders.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I dont think he could at all carry a film in a way that would up the ante of Jocker considering his character arc in TDK. If he had survived I see no way of doing something better than the well paced transformation from Harvey Dent to Two-Face

 

[CFE]

No, what I mean is he's the only top level rogue aside from Ras' and Joker that has such a deep personal connection to Bruce that there's actual drama and the emotional stakes are at a peak.

I mean Selina comes close...but not as close as Harvey. That's just my opinion though.

 

[The Joker]

I think it's fine doing it either way. We've seen it work when the archenemy is in the first movie [Green Goblin], or in the sequal [Joker].

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Its depends on the expansivness of the character's rogue's gallery IMO, Spiderman, Transformers and X-Men all did well with their main villains in there, at the same time BB, Iron Man and the first Hulk movie were IMO without their arch-villains in there. It depends on which direction they take it I suppose.

 

[Lobo]

The thing is, sequels are never guaranteed, so why save a villain for a film the might never happen? So while the theory of leading up to our hero's ultimate nemesis for the finale is a fine one, I can understand the reason that some want to start with the best villain.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Yeah, it really depends on the popularity of the characters I suppose.

 

[Mutagen]

I suppose it's a lot like gambling, only with interesting characters.