Your opinion when people say the Netflix villains are the best villains in the MCU?

[Bruce Malone]

I personally do think Fisk and Kilgrave are the best or are at least my favorite MCU villains and I've heard others make this point.

However do you agree with that sentiment or is it even fair to compare those villains at all? As despite being set in the same universe the Netflix villains have more leeway with format and content than the movie villains.

As a side-note I think Kilgrave is how Ultron should have been depicted.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Think about the amount of development those characters got compared to the other villains. havrnt seen JJ yet but Kingpin is the best MCU villain I've seen.

Loki and Winter Soldier are contenders as well

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

villains that I like in the mcu: kingpin, iron monger, ronan

villains I thought were okay: loki, purple man, the elf from thor 2

villains I didn't like or care for: the mandarin + his twist, red skull, abomination

off the top of my head

 

[2kt09]

The sentiment is fine. It would mean as much to me as people who proclaim AoS has the best MCU villains. I just might not agree with their picks.

ie:
Kingpin was a letdown.
John Healy deserved more screentime.
My favorite DD villains were the Ranskahov brothers.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think the issue is that the two main villains from the Netflix show were handled as characters themselves that were also part of the heroes story's, and thus given time for characterization that was more than just surface detail or letting just a costume or concept do all the work. In the MCU films, especially in terms of first outings (i.e. Super Hero Origin stories) the heavy lifting is being done by the heroes. Marvel is looking to establish these heroic characters as long term franchises. Iron Man 1 is Tony Stark's story, period. Steve Rogers is much more a presence in CA:TFA than the Skull. Loki, as seems to be the case with lots of opinions, is a bit of an outlier. His character was given a compelling backstory that was tied into THOR1's plot and the actor that they cast has knocked it out of the park every time so far.


The other villains have, even their defenders have to admit, been less than stellar in the writing and performing area as compared to Loki, Killgrave and Fisk. Skull,Ronan, Whiplash, Maliketh, Pierce, Ultron, Mandarin (whichever one in IM3 you pick)... They've either been overwritten (again... IM3, where, whatever one thinks of the "twist" it's clear from the arguments that defenders get into that what others see as director's intent just went over a lot of the audience's heads and landed behind them in a big fat "Meh", BO numbers notwithstanding) or underwritten. Ultron while entertaining, feels like a rushed antogonist to me. Ronan was a cipher of a villain. We are told EVERYTHING about him through exposition after all.

On the Netflix shows the villains got scads of development time, or at least we got to know them, their methods and quirks and general personality, quite well. The characters gave off a lived in vibe as opposed to just being a cog in the comic book movie machine... Which isn't all that bad actually. Not every villain has to be freaking Salieri or something. Not every CBM villain NEEDS to be Heath Ledger's Joker or as engaging as Hiddleston's Loki. Still, in comparison, too many MCU film villains feel "thin" in their characterization and villainy, though even then, you can have a not so complicated villain's back story that is straightforward but if it feels like the actor and the writing have made the character come to life even then it's not so bad. I think Roth's Abomination was by no means complex, but I think the evolution of the character, his simple motivation ect. were done well and paid off well in the movie.

I think what some fans, myself included among them, wishes that the MCU film villains were just a bit more fleshed out and given a tad more menace and focus in the stories, something that the two Netflix shows did very well.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I don't mean to diminish Fisk or Kilgrave, but they are smaller-scale villains in street-level stories. They worked well in that capacity, but different scenarios require different character aspects. They weren't better as much as they were perfectly tailored to the format in which they were presented. However, I can say much the same about Red Skull, Ultron, and Ronan.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Storywise it's true, they have more compelling arcs developing and fleshing out their personalities.
Loki is the greatest villain in the movies.

 

[BoredGuy]

it's all about the time that gets devoted to them

Fisk and Kilgrave had whole seasons to develop
Loki and Winter Soldier had 2 films to develop

If Red Skull, Ronan, Stane, Killian and a few others had multiple films, they'd be just as well-rounded and layered of villains as the 4 mentioned above

but then you go to the other extreme where you have a Magneto or Lex Luthor who get used to death and probably needed less screen time
it's a balancing act between keepin s**t fresh and allowing character arcs to progress over time

 

[TeeKay]

You can't compare an antagonist who has over 10 hours worth character development to one that has to be established in a space of 2.5 hours. Sure it can be done but only in a few of these cbms.

Kilgrave and Fisk are the best MCU villains no doubt. However, they're story arcs and development were stretched out over 13 episodes of TV series. But the I did find some of the movie villains well written and enjoyable. Some interesting things were done with Ultron, Killian, Stane, Loki and Bucky. The rest were serviceable to just meh. Malekith was the worst offender though. Awful villain. But even then, I've seen worst villains.

 

[First Avenger]

I've honestly seen worse villains than Malekith or Vanko.

 

[TeeKay]

 

[4thWallBreaker]

I say it's fair. They're fleshed out more.

Though Loki strong one. Do feel that MCU movies have a problem with their villains. It hasn't worn on general audiences yet, but it will if they don't step it up.

 

[2kt09]

It hasn't worn on general audiences yet, but it will if they don't step it up.

My personal gripes aside, the MCU's villain output will continue to not wear out general audiences. It's not like the multitude of other movie villains of equal worth have had that effect on such a broad collective.

 

[Lord]

For me the "they had more screentime, so they had an advantage" argument doesn't fly, because Kingpin and Killgrave were interesting and well handled since their very first appearance, they might have been fleshed out later on, but they were seted-up early as being interesting villains.

There are characters with more development in the show who were as forgetable as most film villain, like Nuke for example.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Yeah the screen-time argument is both valid and arguably not.

Not to start a DC/Marvel thing at all but I think Heath's Joker only had like 25 minutes of actual screen time and he's one of the best villains in not just comic book movie history but in film history really.

 

[mace1]

Don't forget the mcu agents of shield and agent carter villains.

 

[Mad Ones]

I would agree with those people.

And I don't think its a time thing since other CBM have produced great villains in their slotted time. MCU villains are serviceable but are never more than an excuse for the hero to use their powers.

Do people consider the Winter Soldier to be a villain?

 

[Lantern Venom]

Yeah the screen-time argument is both valid and arguably not.

Not to start a DC/Marvel thing at all but I think Heath's Joker only had like 25 minutes of actual screen time and he's one of the best villains in not just comic book movie history but in film history really.

He's a perfect example of how successful characters don't follow a single formula. TDK's Joker had almost no backstory and a simplistic motivation. Yet his style and ambition were more than enough to be gripping. Fleshing out his pre-Joker life wouldn't have added much, if anything, to the character.

On the other hand, characters like Magneto and Loki really need their motivations fleshed out. They're complicated and duplicitous, so it takes some time to set up why they act the way that they do. I get the feeling that some fans want every villain to follow this kind of template, yet it really isn't necessary in all cases.

 

[BoredGuy]

Yeah, not all villains need to be relatable
but if they're the pure chaotic evil types, they need charm to make up for the lack of relatability, like Kilgrave had in spades (just a creepy type o' 'charm' in his case)

and I would argue fleshing out joker's pre-Joker life would have severely detracted from the character lol

but again, I maintain that outside of Joker and Magneto, no other studio has any better villains than Marvel

 

[ernesth100]

It's true, Netdlix villians aren't limited by a PG-13 rating and 2-hour screentime to develop and more importantly arent killed off so quickly. Reasons everyone loves Loki is because he had Thor, Avengers, and Dark World to develop his character and motives. Marvel casts amazing actors then kills them off instead of keeping them for future potrayals. Fisk and Killgrave had 13 hour long episodes to develop their characters and make you love to hate them. !

 

[DarkHawkFan]

I think its a thing about Marvel that other than Galactus, Dr Doom, etc there isnt many villians out there big enough to make people go "oh ****" I hope to god they don't stuff Thanos up with all the comedy **** they throw in these movies because he has a chance to just be down right evil. netflix has it right because they're able to just go out there and make these guys evil I mean scenes of kingpin smashing that dudes head against the cardoor and basically every scene David tennant was in (best marvel villain ever) you wont get that in the movies because their aiming to be best movie ever cant scare off the families now..
so villains are neutered Ronan should've been shown killing millions without a care in the world and we wouldve been like "oh **** this guy doesnt care" I want to truly be scared of a villain and damn David Tennant did that, but marvel has a very limited rogues gallery I find especially for Avengers unless Kang comes in..maybe with Dr Strange openng up other universes..

 

[Rowsdower!]

You can't compare an antagonist who has over 10 hours worth character development to one that has to be established in a space of 2.5 hours. Sure it can be done but only in a few of these cbms.

Kilgrave and Fisk are the best MCU villains no doubt. However, they're story arcs and development were stretched out over 13 episodes of TV series. But the I did find some of the movie villains well written and enjoyable. Some interesting things were done with Ultron, Killian, Stane, Loki and Bucky. The rest were serviceable to just meh. Malekith was the worst offender though. Awful villain. But even then, I've seen worst villains.

Yeah, you pretty much hits the nail on the head. I don't have a problem with Marvel undercooking its villains a bit in the films because the movies are focused on the heroes, and they should be. They're very cautious that they don't go into Burton/Shumacher Batman territory and make the movies ABOUT the villains. That, IMO, would be a worse result. Like, I didn't care much for the Red Skull in Captain America: TFA, but I felt like they really nailed Cap's character and that's why the film worked.

Now, that being said, Marvel has had a few films where the villains were a little TOO flat and uninteresting. Malekith was awful and I felt Yellowjacket in Ant-Man was really dull and pointless. But those are outliers.

 

[Guard82]

Yeah, you pretty much hits the nail on the head. I don't have a problem with Marvel undercooking its villains a bit in the films because the movies are focused on the heroes, and they should be. They're very cautious that they don't go into Burton/Shumacher Batman territory and make the movies ABOUT the villains. That, IMO, would be a worse result. Like, I didn't care much for the Red Skull in Captain America: TFA, but I felt like they really nailed Cap's character and that's why the film worked.

Now, that being said, Marvel has had a few films where the villains were a little TOO flat and uninteresting. Malekith was awful and I felt Yellowjacket in Ant-Man was really dull and pointless. But those are outliers.

I agree with this because it's true that in the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies, the villains often took over the stories at the expense of the hero. In the Marvel films, the heroes are clearly the stars of their own stories. That inevitably means less time to spend on the villains, but I've always thought that most of the Marvel villains have been done at least decently. The only villain where I thought they really missed the mark was Malekith, because he was just way too flat and bland, with little personality or presence. He had a few decent scenes, but not much else. Other than Malekith, I've enjoyed almost all the other villain portrayals.

I actually really liked the Red Skull in TFA. I thought he was portrayed excellently.

 

[Shikamaru]

I thought Kilgrave became more two-dimensional towards the end of the series, but for the most part I think the sentiment is true.

It's not just a matter of screentime; Kingpin and Kilgrave were both more interesting and had a stronger presence to begin with.

It also shouldn't be a surprise if we followed the TV division's track record. While none of the villains from SHIELD and Agent Carter were as strong as the ones on Netflix, I would still rank them above most film villains. It seems the TV division does generally do a better job on this particular issue than their counterpart does IMO.

Loki is still arguably the best MCU villain but he's also the only one to be featured in more than one film. I think Thanos is a decently safe bet but it does make me slightly cautious of how they'll portray Spider-Man's villains.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I agree with this because it's true that in the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies, the villains often took over the stories at the expense of the hero. In the Marvel films, the heroes are clearly the stars of their own stories. That inevitably means less time to spend on the villains, but I've always thought that most of the Marvel villains have been done at least decently. The only villain where I thought they really missed the mark was Malekith, because he was just way too flat and bland, with little personality or presence. He had a few decent scenes, but not much else. Other than Malekith, I've enjoyed almost all the other villain portrayals.

I actually really liked the Red Skull in TFA. I thought he was portrayed excellently.

The Red Skull is a weird one for me; I don't think there was anything bad about the performance and he certainly looked perfect. Just something about it didn't click with me. I'm not sure what it was. It's hard to explain. I just remember sitting in the theater watching him give his big rant and I just laughed at it because it just felt silly to me. Maybe it's just one of those characters that looks goofy in a live action setting or something.