The Villains Problem

[kguillou]

I think its also because the movie was called X-Men:APOCALYPSE. The movie was built around the villain, so that might be why he is the most memorable . But, yes, in general, these villains are just lacking...presence and threat level and I feel like its not that hard to do. Is it? I want a villain where whenever he walks into the room, you're like "oh s***!" and you fear for the heroes' lives.

My personal favorite movie villain of all time is the T-1000 from Terminator 2. Yes, not particularly compelling in terms character and development but he was a force of nature to be reckonned with and my heart skips a beat whenever he reappears onscreen and I fear for the protagonists. And not for nothing but Robert Patrick sold the HECK out of it, playing a robot is not easy and his facial and bodily mannerisms really brought dimension to how threatening this guy was. Thats how I also felt about Ledger's Joker. Every time he popped up, it was like "omg, what is this crazy f***er going to do this time?!"

I suppose it really is a juggling act. Many people say Batman took a backseat in The Dark Knight for Joker and it wasn't really Batman's movie. I guess I could see that argument is giving the villain more screentime than the hero (or heroes) necessary to make a compelling villain?

 

[writer0327]

Grading the CBM villains in the last 3 years

2016

Deadpool:
Ajax (Grade: C)
Typical paint by numbers bad guy, as eluded to in the opening credits

BvS:
Lex Luthor (Grade D-)
Probably the worst villain in recent memory, horrible overacting and the character had no motivation to do whatever it was he was doing.

Doomsday (Grade: D)
Random monster that felt like a video game boss at the end of a level

CA: CW
Baron Zemo (Grade: B-)
Did a lot with very little screen time, acting solid. Good enough.

Suicide Squad
Enchantress (Grade: C-)
Not sure what happened here. Could have been a complex and interesting character and instead she ends up just clumsy and ridiculous.

X-Men: Apocalypse
Apocalypse (Grade B-)
Solid villain, no real complaints, still not memorable. Much like Spader in AoU, Isaac did a pretty good job with the material and was the star of the show.

Dr. Strange
Kaecilius (Grade: C-)
Dormammu (Grade: C)
Neither one of these villains were anything memorable or special. They service the plot and move the story along just fine, but overall.....yawn.


2015

Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ultron (Grade: B)
James Spader actually was my favorite part of the film, did a really good job with this role.

Ant-Man
Yellow Jacket (Grade: C+)
Paint by numbers villain of the week, a little more compelling than most.

Fantastic Four
Dr. Doom (Grade: F)
Not sure we need to go into this too much.


2014

CA: TWS
The Winter Soldier (Grade: B)
Alexander Pierce (Grade: A-)
Bucky's story is compelling as hell and it helps that he's also one of my favorite CBM characters. But you can't get much better than Robert Redford playing the covert head of Hydra.

GotG
Ronan (Grade: C-)
Villain of the week. Nothing to see here.

X-Men: DoFP
Trask (Grade: C-)
Sentinels (Grade: B)
Trask was barely villainous enough to warrant inclusion on this list. Character wise he was fine, but didn't really feel like a threat. The Sentinels, however, were absolutely amazing. I would have liked a movie of the X-Men just fighting them off.

 

[Batmannerism]

this time[/I]?!"

Yeah, the T-1000 was a superb villain - Patrick's performance is pure, cold menace, with just a hint of cruel humour that develops over the film. No Terminator villain has felt anywhere near as dangerous since.

In some ways I felt that Anton Chigurgh (No Country for Old Men) had some
shades of the T-1000, in terms of being cold and implacable.

I thought that Oscar Isaac was miscast as Apocalypse, and the look of the character was wrong - he they should gone have mo-cap rather than practical make-up to make him feel like a nearly- godlike mutant.

I felt that Apocalypse really needed someone with tremendous gravitas but also to look enormous, menacing and otherworldly, and the film failed to convey any of that. Very disappointing (but nowhere near the total failure that was B vS' Lex Luthor, ugh!).

Bane, in TDKR, I didn't like BUT I did believe he was a legitimate menace whether he was swaggering around or kicking the crap out of Batman.

Sadly, I just didn't dig Bane's voice - I hated the muffled, mumbling lilt, it ruined what should have been very dramatic speeches.

What saved the character was the physicality that Tom Hardy brought - probably off the back of Warrior. If theyl had got the voice right, I think Bane could have come close to Ledger's Joker - as it stands he was okay, but overall a missed opportunity.

 

[BoredGuy]

The Sentinels, however, were absolutely amazing. I would have liked a movie of the X-Men just fighting them off.

those future... things.. were threatening
but it's still super disappointing the more classic-looking sentinels did jack s**t.
and the fact the Singer couldn't have Wolverine actually fight a goddam Sentinel is a travesty and a crime.

^
The T-100 was amazing, and shows what can be done with such a minimal performance. No need for motivation or a sympathetic backstory, he was just frightening and compelling.

And yeah, Bane sucked, imo
He wasn't intimidating enough (Batman Begins Bruce was bigger than Bane is) the accent was silly to the point of being immersion-breaking, and his plan was stupid and would never work in real life. Hardy's a great actor, there were just a lot of poor choices made on the direction of that character.

 

[Erzengel]

I think there's something about the unstoppable creature/group. They don't have to be Vader.

T-1000, Michael Myers and Predator,

Zombies, Sentinels and Aliens

 

[AlluAllu]

Zemo was great and Eisenberg's character was one of the few entertaining things in BvS. No villain problem at all imo.

 

[Skrilla31]

Zod was pretty mediocre. He was okay, nothing else. If he was a Marvel villain, he'd be in the middle of pack. He's just another generic hardline army guy, bred/raised for combat. Nothing new there and the performance by Shannon too loud and cheesy. He was a poor man's Quaritch from Avatar.

Now the Stamp Zod. That was a great villain.

Agreed.

Zod was a non-factor in MOS. Generic screaming villain.

 

[DrCosmic]

Ledger's Joker was one of the greatest film antagonists of all time. Using him as the standard is like saying "Film has had a villain problem since Darth Vader came out." Well, yeah, if Darth Vader is setting the curve.

 

[kguillou]

Its not so much we're using Ledger's Joker as a standard so,much as when was the last time BESIDES the Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises where the villain frightened and compelled you in the movie? When was the last time you walked out with the villain leaving an impression on you?

 

[jmc]

A year ago with Immorten Joe.

 

[writer0327]

Dr Cosmic has a point, and I think it's just plain hard to create memorable villains, or even decent ones.

 

[Guard82]

Only a relatively small number of movie villains achieve anything close to greatness and timelessness in terms of being memorable, thrilling, or compelling. Dozens of villains/antagonists come along with dozens of movies every year, and most movie villains fall somewhere within the ranking of "average" or "decent." Other villain characters fail to appeal altogether, and those are generally ranked as failures. The ones with staying power and memorability (Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, Joker, Magneto, Loki, etc.) are the ones that stand out in our minds, but they are exceptional cases that only come around occasionally.

 

[metaphysician]

As I've said in other threads, the *real* "Villain Problem" is the tendency for far too many movies to make the villain the protagonist of the story. They do everything, they make all the important decisions, the plot focuses on them. They are the star of the show.

Marvel has largely just put their villains back in their place, with that place being "To serve the narrative needs of the hero."

 

[Batmannerism]

As I've said in other threads, the *real* "Villain Problem" is the tendency for far too many movies to make the villain the protagonist of the story. They do everything, they make all the important decisions, the plot focuses on them. They are the star of the show.

Marvel has largely just put their villains back in their place, with that place being "To serve the narrative needs of the hero."

Interesting point - I was listening to the commentary track while watching Die Hard (for the millionth time) and a writer commented that Hans Gruber actually is the protagonist, in that he initiates all of the action, it's actually his story that's being told (well, the story of his plan) and it's John McClane who's the antagonist, as he keeps ****ing it up for him.

Still, the movie manages to belong to McClane - they just strike the right balance by making him a very sympathetic character.

I think it is possible to get that balance right in superhero films - perhaps the closest they've come is with Loki.

( a TV show which starts out focused on the hero, but drifts gradually towards the villain having nearly equal billing is Justified, as Boyd Crowder becomes more and more the main character - great show !)

Of course it isn't easy - probably the best example of letting the villain take over is Batman 1989, after a while Batman feels like a guest star in his own film.

I think Nolan avoided this by only giving the Joker limited screen time - sure his presence is felt from the 2nd act onwards, but the film focuses on Batman's reaction to the Joker's actions. Interesting that Nolan purposely avoids giving the Joker any kind of backstory, other than is "you wanna know how I got these scars?" stories. Because of this we can't identify with him and that keeps him from usurping Batman's place.


In terms of Marvel's villains serving the narrative needs, I'd certainly say that Kaecillius, in Dr Strange, is the most recent example - so under-developed as he really exists to force Strange through a bunch of trials.
If the main characters weren't so well performed by Cumberbatch,, Swinton and Ejiofor the movie would really suffer from the poor development of it's villain.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

As I've said in other threads, the *real* "Villain Problem" is the tendency for far too many movies to make the villain the protagonist of the story. They do everything, they make all the important decisions, the plot focuses on them. They are the star of the show.

Marvel has largely just put their villains back in their place, with that place being "To serve the narrative needs of the hero."

One dimensional villains suck. Might as well have the heroes fight a hurricane or an earthquake.

 

[BoredGuy]

I think Nolan avoided this by only giving the Joker limited screen time - sure his presence is felt from the 2nd act onwards, but the film focuses on Batman's reaction to the Joker's actions. Interesting that Nolan purposely avoids giving the Joker any kind of backstory, other than is "you wanna know how I got these scars?" stories. Because of this we can't identify with him and that keeps him from usurping Batman's place.

Idk I can't agree with this
TDK fully feels like Joker's movie
Batman pretty much just reacts to Joker's plans and gets mopey
Even if Bats technically has more screen time, he feels much less vital to the film
it's why a couple of my real world friends like TDK significantly less than BB

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

One dimensional villains suck. Might as well have the heroes fight a hurricane or an earthquake.

Some of the best villains of all-time are one dimensional. They get by on look, performance, and personality. There is nothing to Emperor Palpatine or Hans Gruber in terms of character. They are just a generic evil despot and generic terrorist/bank robber, but they ended up being amazing.

 

[Batmannerism]

Some of the best villains of all-time are one dimensional. They get by on look, performance, and personality. There is nothing to Emperor Palpatine or Hans Gruber in terms of character. They are just a generic evil despot and generic terrorist/bank robber, but they ended up being amazing.

Interesting, I would disagree that Palpatine and Gruber are one-dimensional or generic at all - generic implies forgettability. I totally agree that they are are definitely amongst the best villains of all time.



True, Gruber is a variation on the smooth bad guy, but intially we believe he's a well-dressed terrorist and when we learn he's really a thief we smile (as an audience). Of course it was Rickman's tour de force performance that breathed life into the character, but the character himself was well written to begin with - I mean, we've seen good actors look terrible performing badly written characters. Gruber is the man with the plan, ruthless but not wasteful, charming - sure there are similar examples in other action films, but I think the character himself is strong enough so that a competent actor could have distinguished himself - I mean, Rickman didn't write Hans lines (although he did inspire the use of the American accent when Hans and McClane first meet).

As for Palpatine, it really depends on whether you go on his appearance in the prequels (where he was one of the few good things, except for that fight scene with Mace Windu....ugh !) or Return of the Jedi.

In ROTJ we see him as a wizened little man who looks hardly threatening, and gradually reveals how poisonous and evil he is. His taunting of Luke is terrific, I remember wanting Luke to kill him as he revealed the nature of the trap for the rebel forces.

Palpatine has become a pop culture icon, and is often used in comparison to politicians and leaders (most recently a certain president, apparently Lucas based some of the character on Nixon). The resemblance to Pope Benedict was just creepy.


Now I do think that the performances of the actors are what really elevate those characters into enduring popular culture icons, but at the same time the characters are well written enough to make it unfair to call them one-dimensional or generic (they've got to at least be two dimensional).

Just how I see it. Cheers.

 

[Awest66]

Now this is just silly. Can you actually name any supervillain plans in movies that could "work in real life"?

As for Bane himself, He was an excellent villain definitely more memorable and intimidating than the vast majority of MCU canon fodder and all DCEU villains currently.

 

[Awest66]

Bane, in TDKR, I didn't like BUT I did believe he was a legitimate menace whether he was swaggering around or kicking the crap out of Batman.

Sadly, I just didn't dig Bane's voice - I hated the muffled, mumbling lilt, it ruined what should have been very dramatic speeches.

What saved the character was the physicality that Tom Hardy brought - probably off the back of Warrior. If theyl had got the voice right, I think Bane could have come close to Ledger's Joker - as it stands he was okay, but overall a missed opportunity.

How would you prefer Bane sound like?

 

[DACrowe]

So, I believe in the years since The Dark Knight, we have had a villain problem. This isn't exclusive to one studio, I believe Marvel AND DC and Fox and Sony etc. etc. have consistently had a hard time bringing compelling, memorable, formidable villains to the screen to oppose the protagonists. So what's the problem?

Since 2008, we've had about 25 CBMS, out of those CBMS, only Loki, General Zod, Winter Soldier and, I would say, Fassenber's Magneto have really only left an impression. Everyone else has been so throwaway, so forgettable and just there to cackle at the hero or heroes. Why are the screenwriters having such a hard time writing compelling, menacing villains? Or is it the screenwriters? Is it the actors themselves who just aren't landing the material? Or perhaps, the focus is put squarely on the heroes in these movies altogether and the villains are an afterthought?

What are your guys' thoughts? Or is there no problem at all, in your opinion and maybe its fine that the villains serve a functional purpose?

Ahem, I think you are forgetting the only great comic book movie villain we have had (for the first time) since Ledger's Joker:

With that said, I'd also include Fassbender's Magneto, but since he is playing a(n awesome) younger variation on McKellen's it's harder to say if it is new or not.

The problem is though that nobody nowadays really takes time to develop these as standalone movies. They're being churned out on a conveyer belt to set up the next 1-6 films. As a consequence, things like villains and conflicts become increasingly perfunctory.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Bane is kind of memorable, but not for the reasons you might think. I only really like him because of the memes.

I still think his voice is goofy as hell and I'm not sure why Nolan went with that.

 

[DACrowe]

People are still doing it five years later, that's why. Bane in The Lego Batman Movie sounds like Hardy's Bane. They are kind of making fun of it, but at the same time it is distinctive and memorable, as is his swagger and physicality. Heck, Trump accidentally quoted him in his inauguration and people noticed. Maybe Nolan was ahead of the curve after all in predicting a demagogue villain with a funny voice overthrowing the establishment.

 

[Batmannerism]

How would you prefer Bane sound like?

Let's put aside the fact that in the comics Bane would probably have a hispanic accent.

First, he should have been crystal clear, with no distortion e.g. V in V for Vendetta wears a full face mask the entire film but is as clear as a bell - true, that's unrealistic, but hey this is still a movie about Batman (who heals a dislocated vertebrae in prison with a rope and some primitive chiropractics).

Immortan Joe is pretty damn scary, and his mask only slightly muffles his voice.


Second, the chortling country gentleman accent needed to go. His voice needed to be menacing deep and resonant - when Hardy delivers that speech at Blackgate and his voice breaks and cracks it's dreadful. You read that speech on a page, and knowing the context it should be chilling, but it's effect is terribly diminished.

Even Tom Hardy's voice, as a growl and without the silly accent, would have been sufficient.

Darth Vader is the ultimate example of the intimidating, menacing masked villain.



Now if Lucas could get his voice so right in 1977, why couldn't Nolan get it right in 2012 ? I love Nolan, but for me Bane's voice was just wrong.
However, as I said above, Hardy's physicality is what sells it - he has that tremendous swagger, and does a lot with his eyes, especially in the fight scenes.

 

[Mjölnir]

Some of the best villains of all-time are one dimensional. They get by on look, performance, and personality. There is nothing to Emperor Palpatine or Hans Gruber in terms of character. They are just a generic evil despot and generic terrorist/bank robber, but they ended up being amazing.

Even Vader falls under that category in the first movie. He hardly does anything of much relevance, as the threat of the movie is pretty much purely the Death Star (regardless of what Vader thinks about it), but the look and sound of his voice just did so much that he became an instant icon, even before the sequels actually made him into more than a one dimensional character.