What's so bad about villains created for the movie?

[Lead Cenobite]

I've noticed that people always refer to them as "fake" or don't count them when talking about how many villains have been used in the series. Superman III didn't reuse any villains, and if you want to compare Ross Webster to Lex, think of it this way. He was a business man before the idea was even thought up. So there, happy Byrne fans?

Ok, I know III and IV were bad, but there's a chance that they would have had the same problems even with comic villains like Brainiac and Bizarro. Insert Bizarro into Superman IV and it has the same problems it's always had. Infact, just mentally replace Mark Pillow with Clive Mantle and imagine him in a Superman suit. Does it magically make the movie's problems disappear?

All I'm saying is if you have faith in a filmmaker's ability to make a good movie, you have faith in them making a good, original villain. It's not like it's ignoring the source material, new villains are created in the comics all the time. Even Batman Begins sortof created a new villain when they changed Ra's. The Lazarus Pit doesn't exist, he's not lived for 500-600 years, and he's more concerned with saving society from corruption than the environment from humans.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i realize you have good intentions, but dude...this the 2nd thread you've made where you've posed a question that could've been asked in an already made thread. first the Parasite thread, now this one. there's a thread that was recently made for discussing the villains...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=351489

...again, i realize you have good intentions but you also don't have to make a thread every time you want to pose a question.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Sorry, I thought it was an original enough subject to warrant it's own thread.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I think that the issue people have with it is that most popular superheroes have a plethora of villains and supporting characters to choose from, and it seems shortsighted when a screenwriter and a director feel a need to create someone new because they couldn't find a way to use those characters. In a way, it also feels arrogant, because it's as if they are saying that their ideas were better than those of people who have been writing and drawing the character for years.

Now, I do agree with you... Superman III and IV were cheap turds of films that would have sucked no matter what. And I would agree that replacing Webster with Lex and evil drunk Superman with Bizarro, and calling the super computer "Brainiac" really wouldn't have helped the film, because it wasn't really a Superman film. It was a Richard Pryor slapstick comedy that happened to have Superman in it. If you took Pryor out completely and shifted the tone to something more serious, maybe it could have worked. Maybe.

Superman IV was an attempt at a political message that completely fell flat due to implausible situations that don't even make sense (Superman's going to rid the world of nukes, and EVERY nation on the planet is 100% on board with this idea... uh, yeah). Add to that piss-poor effects, Jon Cryer reprising his role in Pretty in Pink and Mariel Hemingway breathing in outer space, and you have the equivalent of a director wiping his ass on a film reel. Still, having a villain that looked like Fabio in fetish wear and talked with Gene Hackman's voice didn't help. At the very least, swapping him out for one of Superman's less ridiculous-looking villains might have made the film a little more watchable. Probably not, but maybe.

 

[DieSmiling]

There are enough good villains fans WANT to see adapted to screen that creating one seems cheap.

I mean, to the casual moviegoer, they probably wouldn't know the difference. They probably don't know who Darkseid or Braniac are.

It's the comic geeks who want their authentic villains.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Yeah but was it cheap when the DCAU created new villains and also changed a few? Sure, I want comic villains to show up, but I don't want them to be shoehorned into a plot they don't fit into either. That's what happened to Ra's, IMO.

 

[Willi Berg]

Part of the fun of comic book movies is that you get to see a take on heroes and villains that, as said, have been around for years and been developed by many different writers and artists that added to (or took away from) the character. The history is a big thing with comic book movies. I mean, I didn't really like that JMS created a new villain for Superman: Earth One.

Nolan and Burton took a character like the Joker and examined what he stood for, using that classic character.

The comics are also very much trial and error, in that we see which characters gain popularity and have staying power over the years. And while new characters are introduced there, then readers decide if they maintain their popularity or gain any higher status. The problem with introducing a main villain in the movies is that it would be very hard to get it right straight away, esp. if they were more over the top or fantastical. I guess a more realistic villain i.e. a person could possibly work better.

 

[The Overlord]

Quick question, how many villains created just for a comic book movie have been any good? Nuclear Man in particular is a laughable villain, just a poor man's Bizzaro, with out the charm. Was Ross Weber a good villain? Was the villain from Catwoman a good villain? Usually when they create a villain for these movies, the villain is either a lame knock of an existing villain or just lame period.

 

[Zack Snyder]

It just seems like a waste, when Superman's rogues gallery of villains if done properly is fantastic.

I put a modern Lex, Metallo, Brainiac, Darkseid, Parasite, and Doomsday amongst some of the best villains of all time.

Using these characters properly definitely outdoes a new villain for me. Especially since we haven't seen a new interpretation of corporate Lex, or any of the other characters period in modern film.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Yeah but was it cheap when the DCAU created new villains and also changed a few? Sure, I want comic villains to show up, but I don't want them to be shoehorned into a plot they don't fit into either. That's what happened to Ra's, IMO.

Does DCAU stand for DC Animated Universe? I would say that seeing as how it is actually a part of DC that they have...not a right per-se, but its ok when they create a villain. I have only watched JL, JLU and STAS and I don't recall any villains that were in those that weren't already in the comic books. But I could be wrong because I have limited comic book knowledge.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Quick question, how many villains created just for a comic book movie have been any good? Nuclear Man in particular is a laughable villain, just a poor man's Bizzaro, with out the charm. Was Ross Weber a good villain? Was the villain from Catwoman a good villain? Usually when they create a villain for these movies, the villain is either a lame knock of an existing villain or just lame period.

Those are all bad movies anyway. It's like saying the Schumacher Batman movies are proof that Robin doesn't work.

But, in a sense, Ross Webster was eventually brought into the comics. Everyone says he's a Lex knockoff.. but he's also a Lex knockoff who is a powerful businessman, which I think foreshadows Lex's eventual revamp in the comics.

Does DCAU stand for DC Animated Universe? I would say that seeing as how it is actually a part of DC that they have...not a right per-se, but its ok when they create a villain. I have only watched JL, JLU and STAS and I don't recall any villains that were in those that weren't already in the comic books. But I could be wrong because I have limited comic book knowledge.

As far as I know, the DCAU shows aren't any more official than the movies. The name just refers to the fact that there are several animated series based on DC characters that are all in the same continuity.

Anyway, Harley Quinn, Renee Montoya, and Lockup originated in the Batman animated series, and Mercy Graves and Livewire originated in Superman TAS. Mr. Freeze's origins were also influenced by the animated series, where he was changed into a tragic villain whose wife is terminally ill. Plus, Terry McGinnis, the Batman of Batman Beyond was eventually introduced into the comics aswell.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't know..would anyone be happy if Batman fought a bunch of movie-created racketeers for a few movies?

 

[Octoberist]

Those are all bad movies anyway. It's like saying the Schumacher Batman movies are proof that Robin doesn't work.

But, in a sense, Ross Webster was eventually brought into the comics. Everyone says he's a Lex knockoff.. but he's also a Lex knockoff who is a powerful businessman, which I think foreshadows Lex's eventual revamp in the comics.



As far as I know, the DCAU shows aren't any more official than the movies. The name just refers to the fact that there are several animated series based on DC characters that are all in the same continuity.

Anyway, Harley Quinn, Renee Montoya, and Lockup originated in the Batman animated series, and Mercy Graves and Livewire originated in Superman TAS. Mr. Freeze's origins were also influenced by the animated series, where he was changed into a tragic villain whose wife is terminally ill. Plus, Terry McGinnis, the Batman of Batman Beyond was eventually introduced into the comics aswell.

With animation and TV Shows, it's a bit different because you have serials accounts with these cast of characters. And it's very nice to see how some of them, like Harley and Terry, have made it into the comics.

With movies, you have one shot with film. I think minor characters are okay to create. For example, I thought The Russian, Lao and even some of the cops were compelling in The Dark Knight, despite their small roles. It just adds to the texture of the movie's universe.

But if the main baddie is made up, I don't know. I haven't seen a case when a movie-made baddie is as good as any of the rogue gallery in the comics or source material.

At least with Batman: The Animated Series (and the other DC cartoons), the writers are (or were) involved in comics in some capacity, like Paul Dini. Also, there's less politics involved than movies, so new characters won't be 'watered down' for the masses.

 

[KrypJonian]

I've noticed that people always refer to them as "fake" or don't count them when talking about how many villains have been used in the series. Superman III didn't reuse any villains, and if you want to compare Ross Webster to Lex, think of it this way. He was a business man before the idea was even thought up. So there, happy Byrne fans?

Ok, I know III and IV were bad, but there's a chance that they would have had the same problems even with comic villains like Brainiac and Bizarro. Insert Bizarro into Superman IV and it has the same problems it's always had. Infact, just mentally replace Mark Pillow with Clive Mantle and imagine him in a Superman suit. Does it magically make the movie's problems disappear?

All I'm saying is if you have faith in a filmmaker's ability to make a good movie, you have faith in them making a good, original villain. It's not like it's ignoring the source material, new villains are created in the comics all the time. Even Batman Begins sortof created a new villain when they changed Ra's. The Lazarus Pit doesn't exist, he's not lived for 500-600 years, and he's more concerned with saving society from corruption than the environment from humans.

I'm not even gonna look at all the other responses...

Webster and his computer were supposed to be Lex and Brainiac... Don't even try to tell me to deal with it. And that it would have been the same whether or no not they spent the money to get Richard Pryor and tailor the movie around him...

And if you know anything about S:IV, you know the producers squanered the budget, making the special effects look terrible, despite that goofy cut bizarro scene....

Ra's Al Ghul may still show up in TDKR... Don't rule out the Lazaurus pit....

 

[The Overlord]

Those are all bad movies anyway. It's like saying the Schumacher Batman movies are proof that Robin doesn't work.

But, in a sense, Ross Webster was eventually brought into the comics. Everyone says he's a Lex knockoff.. but he's also a Lex knockoff who is a powerful businessman, which I think foreshadows Lex's eventual revamp in the comics.

Except Robin is character with rich history and back story from the comics to draw upon, can the same be said for Nuclear Man/ Can you tell me why Ross weber or Nuclear mana re good characters on their own? Plus Post Crisis Lex had way more in common with Kingpin then Ross Weber and Ross Weber didn't have the jealous motive that made Lex's hatred towards Superman so personal, Ross Weber is more like a movie version of Morgan Edge then Lex, a boring gneric business man villain, with nothing intersting about him.

Considering only two villains from the comics have shown up in the movies so far, why is it so wrong to want a character with a rich history from the comics, over some character they made up with no such history. Besides does anyone think Lock-Up could carry a whole movie by himself? With DCUA, new characters are given serveral episodes to gorw on you and villains from the comics still appear in the show. Having only orginal villains appear and no villains from the comics, espeically since so few have appeared in the movies, is bad form.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

My point is that everyone's pointing out examples from bad movies, movies which were bad for reasons other than the villains, and more for their overall tone and plotholes you could fly a Star Destroyer through.

Nuclear Man, for example, isn't a completely flawed concept. Ignoring the cheesy appearance and bad acting for once, think of him as a version of Bizarro that's actually dangerous, one who's not as dumb as a stump and with extra abilities such as energy blasts and telekinesis.

 

[Octoberist]

Can you name great movie-made villains from good movies though, adapted from another source material? I can't.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Does that mean it's impossible for a professional screenwriter and director to make a villain that's worthwhile? I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the movie come up with some stuff that could be adapted into the comics. The more good ideas, the merrier, as long as they aren't fundamental changes to the status quo and origins.

 

[Octoberist]

But it's a waste of time when you have the source material. Especially comic books, where you have 40 some odd years of characters to choose from. Isn't that common sense? The hallmark of most superheroes are their villains.

Again, image Batman movies where he's fighting made-up villains instead of the Joker. It'll piss 99% of the population and quite frankly, it's counter-productive.

 

[Octoberist]

And you still can't name me one movie based on a comic or an adaptation that has a movie-made main baddie that was actually good.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I've not seen every comic book movie ever made, and the only examples I can think of are generally bad movies, which aren't bad just because they made up the villain. And still, there is Batman Begins and it's interpretation of Ra's, in which he was heavily changed to fit the plot and Nolan's realistic style. Why is it better that they used Ra's, because it increases the tally of villains in the movies that originated in the comics? Would it have been so awful if the terrorist vigilante character was given a new name?

 

[Octoberist]

I haven't seen every comic book movie ever made, but as fan, do you really want to see a big budget superhero film with made-up villains? Deep down, I think you would prefer some names you've heard of. It would naive to doubt your own heart. (pump Pump)

Also, may I add that in Batman Begins, Ra's is still a meglomaniac and the leader of a secret and ancient organization. And his name was Ra's. And by the end of the film, along with the goatee, he had a short cape and a cane to boot.

If his name was something else, like Bill the Conquerer, then I can bet everyone would say 'Why didn't they just name him Ra's then?' Altered or not, he's still Ra's al Ghul!

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I've seen people riot over far fewer changes than the ones Ra's was subjected to. Such as Nicholson's Joker.

 

[Octoberist]

But those are the purists or people who cannot tolerate certain alterations. Nicholson's Joker was still an interpretation of the Joker and I can still respect it.

And he's the Joker. If he was called 'Clownface', people would be poop in their pants back in 1989!

 

[Octoberist]

A good example of 'movie made villains' was the villian in Double Dragon, a stupid movie to begin with.

Why wasn't he the Shadow Lord or whatever, I don't know. It was stupid. By calling him the Shadow Lord, it would have improve the movie's integrity by ten folds.