The Villains Problem

[Kahran Ramsus]

Was this said in the movie? I've seen Guardians like 4 or 5 times and I have no recollection of that.

Ronan says it during his introduction scene.

Because I do not forgive your people for taking the life of my father, and his father, and his father before him.

 

[Batmannerism]

His father and grandfather were killed in the war against the Nova Corps, so he was pissed and wanted vengeance.

You know I always thought he was speaking metaphorically, rather than literally - that Xandar had been responsible for plenty of Kree deaths- but I suppose he may have actually lost his father and other male ancestors during a millenium of war.

One thing I will say for Ronan (and this is the sign of a decent villain) was that it was satisfying seeing him get blown up.

Not every villain can be Heath-Ledger's Joker, and yeah villains like Kaecillius are very underdeveloped but as long as they serve their purpose in the film, is this really that big a problem ?

Alternatively, maybe its because so few really outstanding villains come along that we really appreciate them when they do.

 

[Mjölnir]

Nolan did do villains better than anyone else, before or since.

He was a bit uneven in that department from my point of view.

The Joker is of course fantastic, but it's mostly the performance from Ledge in my view as the writing was very weird at times (like the great opening scene ending with him getting away in a manner that fit the old 60s TV show, rather than a modern gritty movie).

Scarecrow was really interesting and using the horror style was inspired. Unfortunately he ultimately ended up quickly running away from Rachel, screaming like a girl, when he had finally fully come into his own element.

Ra's al Ghul was solid all the way through, so he's the best consistent performance in the trilogy for me.

Two-Face was someone I really disliked. Both how he came about and his look, plus how rushed it was, although I know many disagree with me. I really liked Harvey Dent though.

Bane was an interesting choice. There's some very good sides to him, but he also consistently made people laugh with his funny voice, and he was neutered in the end with the pointless Talia reveal.

Talia was just unnecessary to me.

Nolan is a great filmmaker, even more so outside Batman imo, but I don't think the villains were all that perfectly crafted in that trilogy. He definitely didn't deliver anything really bad, but there's some clear flaws with most of them so I don't think that really separates him from the rest.

 

[Tony Stark]

I liked Ronan, and I thought it was a good introduction to the Kree, and I thought Lee Pace did a great job. He's playing a villain in a film that is by far the most comedic of all the MCU films, so to try to do some Heath Ledger style villain wouldn't work.

His reaction to Starlord's 'danceoff' is perfect. This guy is a fanatic and he has no clue about Earth culture, so seing Starlord dancing to music, that would be his reaction, so it worked in the scene and it was funny as hell.

You know Ronan has to be somehwhat of a bad ass after neck snapping The Other, the one guy who actually seems to be able to intimidate Loki.

Other than that he served his purpose in the film. Considering how GOTG is constructed, I don't know what else people would want.

 

[Bats123]

Well now that i've seen Logan, i thought Donald Pierce was great, he was a charming, sarcatsic *****ebag, i really liked Holbrook's performance, just wish he had more scenes in the latter half of the movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

You know I always thought he was speaking metaphorically, rather than literally - that Xandar had been responsible for plenty of Kree deaths- but I suppose he may have actually lost his father and other male ancestors during a millenium of war.

Maybe, but I saw no reason not to take it literally as well. Basically, he is a devoted fanatic who can't accept the idea of ever making peace with Xandar for a myriad of personal reasons. That's perfectly believable as we unfortunately see it in real life all too often.

Not every villain can be Heath-Ledger's Joker, and yeah villains like Kaecillius are very underdeveloped but as long as they serve their purpose in the film, is this really that big a problem ?

Alternatively, maybe its because so few really outstanding villains come along that we really appreciate them when they do.

A film can definitely survive a villain like Kaecillius and still be a very good film. We just saw this with Logan.

The biggest key is avoiding the landmines like Eisenberg's Lex Luthor or Jamie Foxx's Electro. Those types of villains can single-handedly destroy a film.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Count me as someone who also liked the villains in Logan, I thought Pierce was great and X24 was creepy and brutal.

 

[Mjölnir]

Apart from that X-24 was a wasted opportunity, I have no problems with the villains in Logan since they are just there to fill out a story that's all about the heroes.

No villain here was any more established than Malekith, to use a commonly used example, and they did clearly less. I would have liked the cybernetics that we saw at least have some relevance at all, but in general it doesn't matter that much since the movie is all about the three protagonists.

The only time I think the villains fail the movie is for those that seek to find meaning like Wolverine fighting what he didn't want to become. I think ignoring that does the movie better service than to lean on something so heavy handed when the rest of the movie is more elegant.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Yeah but Malekith was pretty crap though. I think he's the worst MCU villain by a pretty fair margin.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Malekith was awful and the villains in Logan easily better him.

 

[Bats123]

i thought Pierce was the best villian in years tbh, havent been impressed by the bad guys in recent CBMs. He just had this swagger to him, and he was such an ******* but, god damn he's also so ****ing smooth.

 

[kguillou]

You know, we always bring up Joker as the standard for a compelling villain but lest we forget Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus is EASILY in the pantheon of one of the best CBM villains ever. He had a great, compelling character arc where you actually sympathized with him but he had menace and was a serious threat level, too. I think Molina is a significant reason why SM2 is STILL so highly regarded along with TDK.

 

[Mjölnir]

Yeah but Malekith was pretty crap though. I think he's the worst MCU villain by a pretty fair margin.

That's why I compared to him, as people often have that opinion. I'm not really excusing the villains as Pierce is quickly relegated to being almost completely irrelevant, and Dr Rice doesn't really do anything other than bringing X-24, but what I am saying is that I don't think it hurts the movie since they can still serve the story and the story isn't really about them at all.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Nolan did do villains better than anyone else, before or since.

Ummm out of his 6 villains only 2 are good(Joker & Bane). The rest were either completely forgettable or just rushed in the case of Two Face.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Ummm out of his 6 villains only 2 are good(Joker & Bane). The rest were either completely forgettable or just rushed in the case of Two Face.

In your opinion. There's lot of praise out there for Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face.

 

[2kt09]

Bane and Talia are where I draw my line. I can never tell if people are actually remembering Hardy's Bane for the wrong reasons. Like I figure he's as distracting as others see Eisenberg's Lex even if at the very least Hardy looks the part.

 

[Batmannerism]

The biggest key is avoiding the landmines like Eisenberg's Lex Luthor or Jamie Foxx's Electro. Those types of villains can single-handedly destroy a film.

To be fair, there was a lot wrong with B v S, its version of Lex Luthor was one of several huge flaws. I don't think we can say he single handedly torpedoed the film.

As for Electro, he was not great -terribly misconceived or terribly executed, or maybe both - he was bad. Still, if the rest of the movie was better I don't think it would have mattered as much. To be honest, I thought that Garfield and Stone played their parts well - while the crappy villains diminished the action scenes, I felt that there were plenty of other things that let the film down.

I think a film would have to be pretty mediocre to start with for a poor villain to ruin it completely.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

In your opinion. There's lot of praise out there for Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face.

Yeah from TDK trilogy fans or CBM fans at best, the people's opinions on Two Face seem to be mixed.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Zod is a terrible villain he really shouldn't be considered among the likes of The Joker, Loki or Magneto.

The problem with the MCU villains as others have mentioned, is that they just decide to focus on their heroes. However I think they should at least aspire to make their villains intimidating. They only achieved that with The Winter Soldier who was terrifying. The Fox movies have actually done this well, Shaw and Magneto are guys you do not want to mess with, heck even Apocalypse was intimidating.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Yes, indeed you can. Deadpool is a good example. There's nothing very special about Francis as a villain, and he doesn't come close to matching the film's protagonist in terms of attention-grabbing charisma. But the movie is written and acted well enough that the conflict is still engaging and satisfying, and you're interested in following Deadpool's arc throughout the story.
.

I used to think there was some credence to the assertion that a comic book movie is only as good as its villain. However, that's been disproven in the last year. Deadpool, Captain America: Civil War, and Logan all had flavorless baddies, but each film worked despite that. Sometimes, a story needs a jaw-dropping villain, but other stories just need a villain to be functional part of the machinery.

 

[Awest66]

Bane was an interesting choice. There's some very good sides to him, but he also consistently made people laugh with his funny voice, and he was neutered in the end with the pointless Talia reveal.
.

I fail to see how Bane was in anyway "neutered" by the revelation that he's not really the child of Ras Al Ghul which the movie itself hinted at throughout and which is obvious if you're a fan of the comics.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That's why I compared to him, as people often have that opinion. I'm not really excusing the villains as Pierce is quickly relegated to being almost completely irrelevant, and Dr Rice doesn't really do anything other than bringing X-24, but what I am saying is that I don't think it hurts the movie since they can still serve the story and the story isn't really about them at all.

Pierce had more personality in his first scene than Malekith had in the whole of TDW though. That makes a difference with a villain. Pierce was cocky and hateable, Malekith was just there. X24 also offered a bigger threat than Malekith did and was genuinely creepy and unnerving in his scenes, not to mention a brutal killing machine and metaphor for the hero. Malekith was none of those things. I wouldn't say Pierce was relegated either, in the finale he was still a villain to the kids, even shooting Rictor and trying to stop Logan from helping Laura against X24. That's why the kids were the ones to take him out in the end.

 

[DACrowe]

In your opinion. There's lot of praise out there for Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face.

Yep, Two-Face is a wonderful character in The Dark Knight, even if he is almost more a tragic hero than a villain. And while I do not consider her a villain, I thought Nolan and Hathaway's Catwoman was great. In one movie she did more, in my opinion, as a semi-antagonist than Black Widow or Scarlet Witch have done in several Avengers movies as heroes.

With that said, Talia was a wash. A nice twist, but a pretty thin character. Still, all of the other Nolan villains really do leave an impression and are played by immense talents.

Zod is a terrible villain he really shouldn't be considered among the likes of The Joker, Loki or Magneto.

The problem with the MCU villains as others have mentioned, is that they just decide to focus on their heroes. However I think they should at least aspire to make their villains intimidating. They only achieved that with The Winter Soldier who was terrifying. The Fox movies have actually done this well, Shaw and Magneto are guys you do not want to mess with, heck even Apocalypse was intimidating.

Eh, I would not consider Loki as deserving be considered among the likes of Joker or Magneto.

 

[Erzengel]

I would definitely consider Loki in the same breath as Joker and Magneto.

Also, think that the last 3 X-Men movies show that it's not only MCU that does serviceable villains, but at least they aren't DCEU's Joker or Luthor.

 

[The Joker]

In your opinion. There's lot of praise out there for Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face.

Darn right there is.