Sequels Who should be the villain in an Avengers sequel? (Poll)

[KangConquers]

Nihilism is a pretty "basic" philosophy. Kill everything. Or at least revel in death.

Which, of course, is extremely problematic for a Disney-backed kid-friendly franchise anyway.

Yes, but I think you're simplifying it's portrayal in the comics. There's tons of great ruminations on philosophy in The early Starlin Warlock, and in the Infinity Gauntlet era stuff. It's not simply mustachio twirling. I'd argue his relationship with Adam Warlock is among the most complex in comics, and it's not based on typical writing crutches like being related, or having a shared history. It's complex based on a mutual respect that they've developed for each other, despite being diametrically opposed in every way.

Joker is an incredibly one note character, I just think you're confusing "insanely well acted" and "a cultural icon" with "deep". He courts chaos as an end, and there's not much more too him. Certain incarnations of the character do have background story, but his insanity and realization that "life is a joke" is a one note device to allow him to do whatever the hell he wants. I don't see how that makes him any better than Thanos.

 

[Lord]

So, with the Cinematic Universe people are begining to think Thanos is better than the Joker, so i only have to say this, tastes. It allways goes down to tastes, which type of villain do you like more? Some villains are more popular than others, in my opinion what atracts people so much to the joker is that he's original, at the time he appeared there wasn't any villain like that in comics, Thanos has the problem of having a design that some find similar to Darkseid.

 

[Chewy]

So, with the Cinematic Universe people are begining to think Thanos is better than the Joker, so i only have to say this, tastes. It allways goes down to tastes, which type of villain do you like more? Some villains are more popular than others, in my opinion what atracts people so much to the joker is that he's original, at the time he appeared there wasn't any villain like that in comics, Thanos has the problem of having a design that some find similar to Darkseid.

The discussion is about complexity of character, not personal preference or any measure of quality. it is in no way an attempt to belittle Joker, just to say that he and Thanos abide by similarly simple philosophies and worldviews (universeviews?). And it was nothing to do with there being or not being a cinematic universe.

 

[KangConquers]

Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, I was playing devil's advocate when I started putting Joker down. My point was that any argument that can be made against the quality of Thanos's character can be made against the Joker.

And, Lord, if you're going to bringing up "original design" realize you're debasing an argument about the actual quality of a character (motive, depth, character arc) into one worthy of a 2nd grade playground debate over "my action figure is cooler than yours." It's a completely superficial reason to attach worth to a character, and quite frankly, that attitude was responsible for so many of the horrible comics in the 1990s.

 

[jaqua99]

Agreed. And Like I said, Feige SAID elements from phase 2 will go into phase 3, whether thats thanos or not, idk, but it seems likely. So we are going to have to just deal with it

 

[jaqua99]

and to the topic, being a very spiritual person myself, and quite philosophical, I can see where you were coming from with Thanos, I would not say he is simply a "basic" villain

 

[KangConquers]

and to the topic, being a very spiritual person myself, and quite philosophical, I can see where you were coming from with Thanos, I would not say he is simply a "basic" villain

Much of cosmic marvel is spiritual and philosophical. And I'm not putting down Batman and the Joker, but famous characters always get extra points from fans, even when they're doing virtually the same thing. Batman and The Joker have a discussion on the ledge of a building or in an interrogation room, it's deep. Thanos and Adam Warlock have the same conversation on human nature in a Space Ship, or on an asteroid, it's suddenly a Saturday Morning cartoon.

 

[Chewy]

Well Joker certainly fit in nicely in some Saturday morning cartoons

The thing I would say, is that the only comic book villains that have really broken through into the mainstream are the ones that have made continuous appearances in the media adaptations. Most of the bigger name, higher concept ones can (and do) work on Saturday morning cartoons and as a central, recurring villain in a less cartoony adaptation. It did, does, and will continue to all come down to the execution.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Very simple answer: because people go to superhero movies to see the heroes. It's right there in the genre name and all: superhero. Not supervillain.

And the only supervillains that had lasting appeal did so because they were complex, layered, interesting, and cool as hell. Magneto; Joker; Darth Vader (don't kid yourself about Palpatine/The Emperor --- nobody gave two ****s about him); Voldemort.

I really and truly hate to say this, but Thanos simply doesn't have that same kind of general audience appeal. At the end of the day, he's your basic Saturday-morning uberpowered megalomaniac who would've conquered/ destroyed the universe if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their talking dog. You can't get a whole decade or more of fulfilling movies out of that tired old schtick.

The way I see it is simple enough: GOTG introduces Thanos properly, as the main villain; he gets the Gauntlet by movie's end; and IG Thanos does epic battle with Avengers in 2015, and that's the end of it. Audiences will have had their fill of him and be ready to move on to the next threat.

Agree with this 100%

 

[cherokeesam]

Yes, but I think you're simplifying it's portrayal in the comics. There's tons of great ruminations on philosophy in The early Starlin Warlock, and in the Infinity Gauntlet era stuff. It's not simply mustachio twirling. I'd argue his relationship with Adam Warlock is among the most complex in comics, and it's not based on typical writing crutches like being related, or having a shared history. It's complex based on a mutual respect that they've developed for each other, despite being diametrically opposed in every way.

Sho you right and all, but at this point, there's no indication that Warlock is even remotely on the MCU agenda. Personally, I don't see how you do Thanos without Warlock/Magus, but right now, we can't count on him joining the filmic universe at all.

Yes, I agree that Thanos (and Starlin) can wax metaphysical. But I'm asking you, realistically, how likely you think that is for a Disney/MS blockbuster actioner? People came to the Avengers to watch superheroes save the world from an alien invasion; they didn't give a **** about the profundity of first contact with an alien race or about Loki's political ruminations about the subservient nature of mankind. I definitely don't see Joss plugging a whole bunch of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and a load of extraneous characters like Eros, Nebula, Eternity, Order and Chaos, Love and Hate and the like into a movie that's going to be (again) superheroes saving the world from an alien menace. At best, we might see some "deep thoughts" on the nature of Love and Death, since those are central thematically to Thanos' story, but even that is likely to be glossed over in broad brushstrokes.

 

[DrCosmic]

Very simple answer: because people go to superhero movies to see the heroes. It's right there in the genre name and all: superhero. Not supervillain.

And the only supervillains that had lasting appeal did so because they were complex, layered, interesting, and cool as hell. Magneto; Joker; Darth Vader (don't kid yourself about Palpatine/The Emperor --- nobody gave two ****s about him); Voldemort.

I really and truly hate to say this, but Thanos simply doesn't have that same kind of general audience appeal. At the end of the day, he's your basic Saturday-morning uberpowered megalomaniac who would've conquered/ destroyed the universe if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and their talking dog. You can't get a whole decade or more of fulfilling movies out of that tired old schtick.

The way I see it is simple enough: GOTG introduces Thanos properly, as the main villain; he gets the Gauntlet by movie's end; and IG Thanos does epic battle with Avengers in 2015, and that's the end of it. Audiences will have had their fill of him and be ready to move on to the next threat.

The Thanos comments have been addressed, but just so you know, villains are what make the heroes worth watching, that's why these mega-successful films have these recurring villains, because it makes the heroes look better and more interesting. Voldemort wasn't some fascinating layered super cool villain, he was pretty much just a big evil sorcerer who had it in for the hero - no one *liked* Voldemort, but he served his purpose, creating a story arc to keep people coming back and get the more invested in the hero than a bunch of one-shots ever could. That's what recurring villains, even the bland randomly generically evil ones like Palpatine, Voldemort and Sauron, do.

Question: When have audiences ever had their fill of a great villain and been ready for the next threat? Ever?

 

[KangConquers]

Sho you right and all, but at this point, there's no indication that Warlock is even remotely on the MCU agenda. Personally, I don't see how you do Thanos without Warlock/Magus, but right now, we can't count on him joining the filmic universe at all.

Yes, I agree that Thanos (and Starlin) can wax metaphysical. But I'm asking you, realistically, how likely you think that is for a Disney/MS blockbuster actioner? People came to the Avengers to watch superheroes save the world from an alien invasion; they didn't give a **** about the profundity of first contact with an alien race or about Loki's political ruminations about the subservient nature of mankind. I definitely don't see Joss plugging a whole bunch of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and a load of extraneous characters like Eros, Nebula, Eternity, Order and Chaos, Love and Hate and the like into a movie that's going to be (again) superheroes saving the world from an alien menace. At best, we might see some "deep thoughts" on the nature of Love and Death, since those are central thematically to Thanos' story, but even that is likely to be glossed over in broad brushstrokes.

Very true, but now you're arguing what Thanos will be turned into vs what he is. You argued that he was basically a Saturday Morning Cartoon villian, not as layered or complex as the Joker etc.

I have no doubt some of the philosophical elements will be downplayed, if not all of them. But that doesn't mean Thanos, the character in the source material, is some cut rate Alien version of Cobra Commander or The Shredder. He definitely has depth.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yes, I agree that Thanos (and Starlin) can wax metaphysical. But I'm asking you, realistically, how likely you think that is for a Disney/MS blockbuster actioner? People came to the Avengers to watch superheroes save the world from an alien invasion; they didn't give a **** about the profundity of first contact with an alien race or about Loki's political ruminations about the subservient nature of mankind. I definitely don't see Joss plugging a whole bunch of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and a load of extraneous characters like Eros, Nebula, Eternity, Order and Chaos, Love and Hate and the like into a movie that's going to be (again) superheroes saving the world from an alien menace. At best, we might see some "deep thoughts" on the nature of Love and Death, since those are central thematically to Thanos' story, but even that is likely to be glossed over in broad brushstrokes.

So, is being a layered villain something good that makes more people like the movie, as you implied earlier, or is being a layered villain something no one cares about? Or people only care if it's about how characters feel about love and death and not about how characters feel about Love and Death?

Did anyone care about the Joker's philosophy, or they said "**** dialogue! I only care about AKSHUNN!!!"

To answer your question, he'll probably be a bit more philosophical than Loki, and it'll probably be better developed for more punch. Clearly it'll be in there, since our introduction to him is that he smiles at the idea of courting D/death.

 

[jaqua99]

he's gunna be around for a while. Personally i think he will be the first big reoccuring character that's not an avenger/hero in the MCU

 

[cherokeesam]

The Thanos comments have been addressed, but just so you know, villains are what make the heroes worth watching, that's why these mega-successful films have these recurring villains, because it makes the heroes look better and more interesting. Voldemort wasn't some fascinating layered super cool villain, he was pretty much just a big evil sorcerer who had it in for the hero - no one *liked* Voldemort, but he served his purpose, creating a story arc to keep people coming back and get the more invested in the hero than a bunch of one-shots ever could. That's what recurring villains, even the bland randomly generically evil ones like Palpatine, Voldemort and Sauron, do.

Question: When have audiences ever had their fill of a great villain and been ready for the next threat? Ever?

Um....Batman? Superman? James Bond? Rocky Balboa? Indiana Jones? Spider-Man? Die Hard? Star Trek? Shrek? Mission Impossible? Dirty Harry? Lethal Weapon? The Fast & Furious? Rambo?

Hell, even with the most iconic villain of all time, The Joker, nobody ever tried to make him the recurring thread in a whole trilogy (or more) of Batmovies, and that never hurt the franchise one bit. Whether Burton was at the helm, or Nolan, or even Schumacher, fans just wanted to know which iconic villain Batman was going to tackle next. Nor have Bond fans ever clamored to see Blofeld or Goldfinger again and again and again.

 

[Chewy]

he's gunna be around for a while. Personally i think he will be the first big reoccuring character that's not an avenger/hero in the MCU

Loki

Um....Batman? Superman? James Bond? Rocky Balboa? Indiana Jones? Spider-Man? Die Hard? Star Trek? Shrek? Mission Impossible? Dirty Harry? Lethal Weapon? The Fast & Furious? Rambo?

Hell, even with the most iconic villain of all time, The Joker, nobody ever tried to make him the recurring thread in a whole trilogy (or more) of Batmovies, and that never hurt the franchise one bit. Whether Burton was at the helm, or Nolan, or even Schumacher, fans just wanted to know which iconic villain Batman was going to tackle next. Nor have Bond fans ever clamored to see Blofeld or Goldfinger again and again and again.

The question posed was when a big franchise using a recurring villain actively hurt it. Not the opposite.

And Joker was introduced at the end of BB (like Thanos during the TA credits), was the main villain in TDK, and was planned to again appear in TDK's sequel, until Heath Ledger's untimely passing. So yes, someone did plan to use him as a recurring character for a whole trilogy.

 

[DrCosmic]

Um....Batman? Superman? James Bond? Rocky Balboa? Indiana Jones? Spider-Man? Die Hard? Star Trek? Shrek? Mission Impossible? Dirty Harry? Lethal Weapon? The Fast & Furious? Rambo?

Hmmm... perhaps your bar for great villains is a lot lower than mine. Regardless, like Chewy said, you're not responding my point. How do you know the audience had it's fill of any of the great villains in those franchises?

 

[cherokeesam]

Hmmm... perhaps your bar for great villains is a lot lower than mine. Regardless, like Chewy said, you're not responding my point. How do you know the audience had it's fill of any of the great villains in those franchises?

Gee, I dunno....the fact that all those franchises continued to survive and make obscene amounts of money even after the hero(es) confronted a great villain(s)? Aw shucks --- no Joker in this Batman sequel? No Blofeld in this installment of 007? No Green Goblin in Spidey 2? No Khan in Star Trek 3? Life goes on, and the popcorn keeps popping, and the tickets keep selling.

You're acting like people went to the Avengers to see Loki and/or the Chitauri. News flash: they didn't. They went to see their heroes. Just like they will in Avengers 2. They won't give a toot if the villain is Thanos, or Ultron, or Kang, or HYDRA, or Hypno Freakin' Hustler, as long as it's somebody reasonably cool and menacing, and as long as Our Heroes come out on top at the end of the day.

 

[DrCosmic]

So your logic is, because about half of the films from those franchises achieved some (but less) success when moving away from their great villains, that audiences had 'had their fill' and would have been even more turned off if the villain had been reused? If so, how is that logic? Where's the cause and effect for this fear of Thanos-fatigue?

I wish you could have gone to see TDKR opening night and hear the crowd reactions to when Ra's and Scarecrow showed up on screen. I wish I could link to the site that shall not be named so I could show you how Loki appeals more than even Iron Man on some polls (and always above Hawkeye). That might help dispel this idea that adults generally go into 150 million dollar films with the mindset of a child reading comics.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I wish you could have gone to see TDKR opening night and hear the crowd reactions to when Ra's and Scarecrow showed up on screen.

An opening night theater packed with Batman and Nolan fans, no doubt. Hardly representative of the wider moviegoing public. Go see TDKR at a dollar theater about 6 months from now and see how many cheers they get. Also thanks for the spoilers.

And Loki's not dominating any polls because he's a great villain, he's doing it because the ladies are obsessed with Tom Hiddleston.

 

[KangConquers]

Um....Batman? Superman? James Bond? Rocky Balboa? Indiana Jones? Spider-Man? Die Hard? Star Trek? Shrek? Mission Impossible? Dirty Harry? Lethal Weapon? The Fast & Furious? Rambo?

Hell, even with the most iconic villain of all time, The Joker, nobody ever tried to make him the recurring thread in a whole trilogy (or more) of Batmovies, and that never hurt the franchise one bit. Whether Burton was at the helm, or Nolan, or even Schumacher, fans just wanted to know which iconic villain Batman was going to tackle next. Nor have Bond fans ever clamored to see Blofeld or Goldfinger again and again and again.

90% of those films didn't have great villains. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

 

[cherokeesam]

90% of those films didn't have great villains. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

YMMV; but devil's advocate: you think Marvel Studios films *do* have great villains...??? Ironmonger, Whiplash, Abomination, Loki, Laufey, and Red Skull? You want to put them up in fan polls against Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Voldemort, Darth Vader, Freddy Krueger, Doc Ock and Magneto? Good luck with that, sir.

And that's the point: Marvel Studios isn't interested in creating "great" villains that distract from the appeal of the hero(es). They're interested in creating great hero franchises.

 

[KangConquers]

YMMV; but devil's advocate: you think Marvel Studios films *do* have great villains...??? Ironmonger, Whiplash, Abomination, Loki, Laufey, and Red Skull? You want to put them up in fan polls against Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Voldemort, Darth Vader, Freddy Krueger, Doc Ock and Magneto? Good luck with that, sir.

And that's the point: Marvel Studios isn't interested in creating "great" villains that distract from the appeal of the hero(es). They're interested in creating great hero franchises.

Who in the **** is the great villain in Fast and Furious? Rambo? Lethal Weapon? Mission Impossible? They all had rather generic villains, that I'd put Loki and Red Skull above any day.

 

[Chewy]

When did this become a discussion about fan polls and what the fanboys talk about wanting next? Who gives a ****? 98% of what fans suggest for these superhero films is disturbingly terrible.

People like Loki. People are interested in seeing more of Loki. Loki recurring does not detract from the franchise, it enhances it. No one cares if people "rank" him below Magneto or Darth Vader. Honestly.

 

[Adamantium]

Who in the **** is the great villain in Fast and Furious? Rambo? Lethal Weapon? Mission Impossible? They all had rather generic villains, that I'd put Loki and Red Skull above any day.

Gary Busey could've returned in Leathal Weapon 2 or 3 and I would've loved it. He's the looniest of all the bad guys in that list of movies. Oh wait, that's how he is in real life....

Seriously, it would've been neat to have had him survive and comeback.
.especially in LW 3.