The Villains Problem

[Mjölnir]

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.

That he turned out to be a lovesick henchman at the end undercut his presence. I think it was a great example of how you don't do a third act twist. Had Talia had anything interesting to her character at all it might have worked better, but she didn't and the reveal didn't help the story at all. Bane carried all of the villain duty in that movie.

 

[Mjölnir]

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.

I'm not too interested in arguing against Logan, as I thought it was great, but I disagree that the villains amounted to more. Pierce had some swagger, but not the presence Eccleston brings, so that's a wash, and X-24 was not more of a threat than Kurse, and the latter at least wasn't just a mindless copy. Pierce didn't do anything that befit his initial status in the end, and his cybernetics that we were reminded of at points was completely redundant. It's Dr. Rice that stands for all the villain motivation in Logan, the rest only have the henchman's motivation.

The movie is just a great example of where the heroes are the focus and the villains are just there to move the story along. You'll never get me to say that the villains in Logan were strong, but my point is that it's not a problem.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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

And Scarecrow, for that matter.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm not too interested in arguing against Logan, as I thought it was great, but I disagree that the villains amounted to more. Pierce had some swagger, but not the presence Eccleston brings, so that's a wash, and X-24 was not more of a threat than Kurse, and the latter at least wasn't just a mindless copy. Pierce didn't do anything that befit his initial status in the end, and his cybernetics that we were reminded of at points was completely redundant. It's Dr. Rice that stands for all the villain motivation in Logan, the rest only have the henchman's motivation.

The movie is just a great example of where the heroes are the focus and the villains are just there to move the story along. You'll never get me to say that the villains in Logan were strong, but my point is that it's not a problem.

My argument is that the villains in Logan were stronger than Malekith. Malekith was literally just there, and for me Eccleston brought no presence at all to the character as he wasn't allowed too. For me Pierce had more presence than Malekith easily so it's not a wash IMO. Pierce was a villain I wanted to see get his comeuppance. With Malekith I literally felt nothing when he was on screen. Kurse had more of a presence than he did.

As henchman I would probably rate X24 and Kurse about even, but I was just referring to Malekith initially. I would put Pierce above a few other MCU villains like Kaecilius also.

The villain was probably more important for TDW as its no where near as good as Logan and the latter explores much deeper themes. Malekith just brought down an average movie by being awful.

 

[DACrowe]

That he turned out to be a lovesick henchman at the end undercut his presence. I think it was a great example of how you don't do a third act twist. Had Talia had anything interesting to her character at all it might have worked better, but she didn't and the reveal didn't help the story at all. Bane carried all of the villain duty in that movie.

I get what you are saying about Talia being too thin of a character given the "reveal" is 10 minutes or less before she gets killed off. But I never get the argument about Bane being in love with Talia or having a partner he truly valued makes him weaker as a character. It actually adds depth to him and makes him more interesting, in my opinion. It is this weird fan thing to me that the villain can never be seen as reliant on someone else. While Vader is a far better villain than Bane, it never hurt Vader that he is actually beholden to the Emperor. I am not suggesting this applies to you Mjolnir, but there always seems to be a component about it being love and a woman that really grinds some fans' gears.

My argument is that the villains in Logan were stronger than Malekith. Malekith was literally just there, and for me Eccleston brought no presence at all to the character as he wasn't allowed too. For me Pierce had more presence than Malekith easily so it's not a wash IMO. Pierce was a villain I wanted to see get his comeuppance. With Malekith I literally felt nothing when he was on screen. Kurse had more of a presence than he did.

As henchman I would probably rate X24 and Kurse about even, but I was just referring to Malekith initially. I would put Pierce above a few other MCU villains like Kaecilius also.

The villain was probably more important for TDW as its no where near as good as Logan and the latter explores much deeper themes. Malekith just brought down an average movie by being awful.

Anyway as per the Maleketh vs. Donald Pierce argument going on. That is just silly. While the villains in Logan were entirely perfunctory to the story, as are some of Marvel's better villains (a different Pierce in The Winter Soldier, Jeff Bridges in the first Iron Man come to mind). They just give a good flavor of antagonism and then get out of the way. Donald Pierce falls in that category, a slimy 21st century border warrior Doc Holiday, who is fun but probably underused.

Maleketh is the worst villain in the entire MCU and probably X-universe as well. He is on an Enchantress level of "really... that's what you're going with?" At least, he is to me.

And X-24 was actually scary in the farmhouse scene. I think he unnerves viewers. To be fair I just saw the movie a week ago, but he left an impression for me. Kurse I didn't even remember existing until someone brought the CG mess up.

 

[Mjölnir]

My argument is that the villains in Logan were stronger than Malekith. Malekith was literally just there, and for me Eccleston brought no presence at all to the character as he wasn't allowed too. For me Pierce had more presence than Malekith easily so it's not a wash IMO. Pierce was a villain I wanted to see get his comeuppance. With Malekith I literally felt nothing when he was on screen. Kurse had more of a presence than he did.

As henchman I would probably rate X24 and Kurse about even, but I was just referring to Malekith initially. I would put Pierce above a few other MCU villains like Kaecilius also.

The villain was probably more important for TDW as its no where near as good as Logan and the latter explores much deeper themes. Malekith just brought down an average movie by being awful.

Pierce had a charm, but he didn't get to use it much as he's the third villain in this movie by importance. He's even pretty nice, as he's taking a friendly approach at first so I didn't come to hate him at all. He was just doing his job. I think Eccleston managed to create more presence with his voice alone, but he too got too few scenes, although he did get to accomplish things.

Yes, the villain is more important for TDW as he's needed for the story to work. Logan could play out a lot even without the villains being there. There just wouldn't have been any action. Still Malekith was underused, although that's better than being laughable like someone like Apocalypse. Logan's villains certainly avoid that as well.

We just see things differently here. Not really much of a discussion to go on with I guess.

 

[Tony Stark]

I loved Logan, rated it 10/10, but the villians were completely bland and generic. Logan could have killed Pierce at any point. Dr. Rice was even more anti-climactic. They tried to make him the "William Stryker" of this film but he's neither interesting nor much of a threat, and X-24 is just a henchmen.

Logan is a great movie in spite of the villians. Not every CBM has to be villian centric. For all the "this movie is so paint by the numbers" arguments out there, one of the most paint by the numbers part of CBM's is to turn them into a generic hero vs. villain "only I can stop him" type of crap. Films like The Dark Knight can take that generic angle and actually make it interesting, but then you get Man of Steel where it becomes the most boring as **** typical smash mouth disaster porn Hollywood crap that you can see in any of the transformer movies.

The point of all of this is the villain has to fit the story, not the other way around the way the people perpetuating this long in the tooth argument have been doing.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I get what you are saying about Talia being too thin of a character given the "reveal" is 10 minutes or less before she gets killed off. But I never get the argument about Bane being in love with Talia or having a partner he truly valued makes him weaker as a character. It actually adds depth to him and makes him more interesting, in my opinion. It is this weird fan thing to me that the villain can never be seen as reliant on someone else. While Vader is a far better villain than Bane, it never hurt Vader that he is actually beholden to the Emperor. I am not suggesting this applies to you Mjolnir, but there always seems to be a component about it being love and a woman that really grinds some fans' gears.



Anyway as per the Maleketh vs. Donald Pierce argument going on. That is just silly. While the villains in Logan were entirely perfunctory to the story, as are some of Marvel's better villains (a different Pierce in The Winter Soldier, Jeff Bridges in the first Iron Man come to mind). They just give a good flavor of antagonism and then get out of the way. Donald Pierce falls in that category, a slimy 21st century border warrior Doc Holiday, who is fun but probably underused.

Maleketh is the worst villain in the entire MCU and probably X-universe as well. He is on an Enchantress level of "really... that's what you're going with?" At least, he is to me.

And X-24 was actually scary in the farmhouse scene. I think he unnerves viewers. To be fair I just saw the movie a week ago, but he left an impression for me. Kurse I didn't even remember existing until someone brought the CG mess up.

I did like Kurse personally, but totally agree with the rest of your post. The villains Logan were far better overall than the ones in TDW.

Pierce had a charm, but he didn't get to use it much as he's the third villain in this movie by importance. He's even pretty nice, as he's taking a friendly approach at first so I didn't come to hate him at all. He was just doing his job. I think Eccleston managed to create more presence with his voice alone, but he too got too few scenes, although he did get to accomplish things.

Yes, the villain is more important for TDW as he's needed for the story to work. Logan could play out a lot even without the villains being there. There just wouldn't have been any action. Still Malekith was underused, although that's better than being laughable like someone like Apocalypse. Logan's villains certainly avoid that as well.

We just see things differently here. Not really much of a discussion to go on with I guess.

Malekith was more than underused to me, he is the worst MCU villain and just generally a poor one in CBMs all around. We definitely have to agree to disagree as I thought Apocalypse was far better than Malekith also so definitely see things differently. Oh well, opinions and all.

 

[Mjölnir]

I get what you are saying about Talia being too thin of a character given the "reveal" is 10 minutes or less before she gets killed off. But I never get the argument about Bane being in love with Talia or having a partner he truly valued makes him weaker as a character. It actually adds depth to him and makes him more interesting, in my opinion. It is this weird fan thing to me that the villain can never be seen as reliant on someone else. While Vader is a far better villain than Bane, it never hurt Vader that he is actually beholden to the Emperor. I am not suggesting this applies to you Mjolnir, but there always seems to be a component about it being love and a woman that really grinds some fans' gears.

It's not that it's a woman in itself, it's that Talia doesn't bring anything to the table in my view. Vader isn't hurt by the Emperor since the latter gives a vague sense of that he's even more powerful, so you escalate the stakes. With Talia it, at least as far as a third act climax goes, I got the feeling that the twist replaced the big bad with a lesser one.

They did have that plot device of will being more important than anything (child Talia being able to jump farther than grown men, Batman suddenly being able to fight Bane despite coming off an extreme injury, etc) so perhaps they could have built up Talia to be something more, but she didn't get that time. Then again, if they dip their toes into the supernatural I think it would probably have been a better twist to go full out and have an immortal Ra's al Ghul come back. He at least already had a lot of character development. Although to keep the tone it's probably easiest to just not have a twist, as the story didn't need it.

 

[NHawk19]

The bigger problem for villains is one of time. To get a really good villain 2 things need to happen. First and foremost you need to be able to give them well written screen time. Secondly, you need to establish them as much as the hero in any story. Depth, motivations, actions all need to be shown. Loki is a perfect example. In Thor 1 I think they spent more time telling his origin and motivation than they did Thor's. They show his distrust, damage, and complex motivations. Thor's by contrast was pretty simple. Bad alien race Thor smash, then celebrate, drink beer, and do again. He had to grow into a complex being who understood sacrifice, the greater good, and leaving well enough alone.

Then for the CBMs you need to not kill them off as fast. That way they can develop further. So far the villian I think they screwed up the most was Ronan. There really was no need to kill him. They could've brought him back again and again as an enemy of the NOVA Corp, & Guardians.

You may always need some throw away threats just to establish hero's and move a plot, but for a truly great villain, you need someone who has just as much if not more presence than the hero. The hero's motivations will always be relatively simplistic, it's the villain though that will provide the depth and complexity. Just look at any good interpretation of the Joker. Batman knows his limits and his rules, Joker is the one to bring the complexity and push Batman to a point where anyone would consider breaking those rules.

Best so far MCU:
Loki, Winter Soldier, Alexander Pierce,

Up & coming / Lots of potential
Ross, Justin Hammer, Thanos, Zemo, Mordo, Dormammu

Good entry Level
Red Skull, Obadiah Stane, Kaecilius, Darren Cross

Wasted Potential
Ronan, Ultron, Mandarin, Red Skull (I put him in both because they got rid of him which I think was dumb),

Stupid
Whiplash, Malekeith,


They now could stand to bring in some long standing, bigger, recurring threats to challenge the heros. Not just one and done cannon fodder. The best villains also need to be earned. You can't just drop them in like BvS did with Zodsday.

 

[Tony Stark]

They didn't really get rid of Red Skull. They could easily bring him back and it could be explained with the teleportation powers of the cosmic cube, and with the makup they could easily cast a different actor since Hugo Weaving has said he didn't want to do it again.

They should have left a seed with Ultron that he could still be alive, I did have a problem with that. Ultron has been destroyed many times in the comics only to come back, but seeing how Ultron came from the mind stone, perhaps there is a way.

 

[NHawk19]

In the MCU anyway we've still got a few pretty much guaranteed entry level villians ahead of us too in Black Panther, and Captain Marvel.

Captain Marvel could be a really great film for a villian's second appearance though.

Black Panther I think is a good place for Ross, and maybe a sorcery villain.

Spider-man is probably also going to have an entry level villain in Vulture. I hope they don't get rid of him completely at the end but . . . This is another film where they can introduce someone larger. I'd love King Pin.

DC well they have yet to introduce a compelling villain they haven't gotten rid of. Except Suicide Squad, who are all working for the government at this point. Should be interesting to see where they go. GCS would be a great place to introduce some long term villains who aren't the Joker.

 

[metaphysician]

Pierce had a charm, but he didn't get to use it much as he's the third villain in this movie by importance.

. . .how is Alexander Pierce the "third villain"? He's *the* driving force behind the entire plot of the movie. He basically is *the* villain of the movie. Everything happens because he directs it so.

 

[Mjölnir]

. . .how is Alexander Pierce the "third villain"? He's *the* driving force behind the entire plot of the movie. He basically is *the* villain of the movie. Everything happens because he directs it so.

I was referring to the character Pierce in Logan. Alexander Pierce is definitely the main villain in TWS.

 

[metaphysician]

Ahhh, sorry. I haven't seen Logan, and so forgot it also had a Pierce. Out of curiosity, do they ever give his first name as "Donald"?

 

[Ivan Drago]

Ahhh, sorry. I haven't seen Logan, and so forgot it also had a Pierce. Out of curiosity, do they ever give his first name as "Donald"?

Yes.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Donald Pierce looked like he had some promise early with a couple of good scenes, but then he does basically nothing after the Caliban scene. In the end he was just a generic henchman.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Donald Pierce looked like he had some promise early with a couple of good scenes, but then he does basically nothing after the Caliban scene. In the end he was just a generic henchman.

But does it really affect the movie though? The movie shines when it focus on Logan, Charles, and Laura, spending more time with the villains might have detracted from the films strength's.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But does it really affect the movie though? The movie shines when it focus on Logan, Charles, and Laura, spending more time with the villains might have detracted from the films strength's.

I think it is an issue, but not a gigantic one. But this thread is about mediocre villains, so I think it is relevant here.

 

[Awest66]

That he turned out to be a lovesick henchman at the end undercut his presence. .

Except he clearly wasn't a "lovesick henchman", Heck when Talia reveals herself, Her monologue is mostly her explaining how important Bane is to her and how she owes her life to him.

 

[jmc]

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.

People really need to get it out of their minds that Two Face and Dent were two different characters. There's no difference between the two in Nolan's version, it's all one character arc.

 

[Hammer!]

Can we agree that DC/WB is doing the worst with villains right now? Zod, Eisen-Luthor, Doomsday, Enchantress, Incubus, and Letoker?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Except he clearly wasn't a "lovesick henchman", Heck when Talia reveals herself, Her monologue is mostly her explaining how important Bane is to her and how she owes her life to him.

Yep. And immediately afterwards Bane outright defies her wishes (or was going to before he was killed).

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Can we agree that DC/WB is doing the worst with villains right now? Zod, Eisen-Luthor, Doomsday, Enchantress, Incubus, and Letoker?

Certainly.

 

[The Joker]

Can we agree that DC/WB is doing the worst with villains right now? Zod, Eisen-Luthor, Doomsday, Enchantress, Incubus, and Letoker?

Most definitely.