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

[DACrowe]

Marvel fans didn't come out of AoU loving Ultron.

But i bet the popularity of The Vision and Scarlet Witch are elevated.

I think that was likely the plan.

You are probably right, but it can backfire. Nobody minded in the first Avengers film that the threat was not very intimidating, because it was the thrill of seeing all these characters onscreen together. But it shows a potential weakness that audiences want something "new." More heroes is great, but it'd be nice if they had a villain like Magneto, who you would want to see again (though maybe not as frequently as Singer uses him ) or someone who completely challenges the heroes in a profound way, which could be the Joker or Bane, or Two-Face, but hell it could just bee Alfred Molina's Doc Ock in that regard.

But having a complete push over led to some mild backlash. For now, it is moot and the next Avengers film (or excuse me, "Captain America" film) is smart because it's hero vs. hero.

Still, I think Ultron might have been a wakeup call to Marvel Studios to up the stakes with Thanos in 2018. At least, I hope it is.

On an aside, I do wonder if this is why they killed off Quicksilver. Each hero has the potential to have their own franchise. But since Fox makes that incredibly difficult for that character (audience confusion), he got the axe.

 

[DA_Champion]

"Someone" was going to be killed off in Ultron because that is part of Whedon's style for epic climaxes. The exception was Avengers 1 where they feigned maybe killing Iron Man (and previously killed Coulson), but prior to that we saw Spike, Washburne, Buffy, Lindsey, etc killed off in other Whedon climaxes.

QS was expendable, particularly since his sister is a better addition to the Avengers. The other option was to kill the archer but they might have plans for him.

I'll note that i think Marvel did take note of criticisms of Ultron. They got rid of their story room, which fought Whedon in developments and demanded inclusions of distracting scenes like the Thor dream sequence. There were several other changes they imposed but for now i forget what they were. Given this though, and Feige doesn't strike me as someone who likes firing people, i think their conclusion is that AoU had too many cooks in the kitchen, not that the villain was weak.

I'm not denying your point. A stronger or smarter Ultron could have made a better movie. But i don't think that's the solution Feige preferred in his post mortem.

 

[NiallC]

I do believe that the Netflix villains are the better villains but that is not to say that other villains from other parts of the MCU are bad but most of them just bad and even the better ones aren't that good.

First off I do want to confront the whole more screen time means more development means better villains and that may be true but it's not always the case. As someone else stated, Magneto's few moments as a villain in First Class were much better than some villains manage in a whole movie. Nebula, who was only really a secondary, maybe even tertiary villain but for me she was a very good very villain with bags of potential. Even then, the Netflix villains don't get as much screen time as people presume. As others have pointed out again, the Netflix villains don't really get introduced until a quarter/third of the way through and even then they aren't given all that much screen time. If you took away the flashback episode for Kingpin would he really have had all that much screen time? I don't really think so though I'd love if someone actually counted it. Other villains who I think were good were Loki and Mr Hyde and yes both still had lots of screen time but I think a lot of what makes a villain good is how much charm they have, and if there is no charm such as with Nebula it has to be replaced with just the potential for pure evil. Even Yellowjacket from Ant-Man, whilst not the worst of villains and was basically Iron Monger 2.0, had some charm and was a villainous character who you could see develop in the screen time he had in the one film.

For me Iron Man and Captain America have had the best of the single hero franchises so far but not because of the villains but due to everything else. The first two villains had forgettable villains who really didn't offer much of a threat to Iron Man and didn't actually have much story. I've read that a lot of Whiplash's story was cut from the film which was clearly was a mistake and maybe might have made him a better villain but that doesn't matter if the villain we have been given isn't good. No point holding onto something that hasn't happened. For me I liked the twist in Iron Man 3 only because it was so ridiculous and camp that it felt like a comic book twist but ultimately the villain was just boring and it felt like a cop out when the real villain was so rubbish. The Captain America films were boring with the villains. I genuinely couldn't tell you anything about TFA's villains even with Zola appearing in the second film. And in TWS the main villain could easily be replaced by any middle-aged white man in a suit and it wouldn't have made a difference. The threat from him just wasn't there. Pre-Crossbones and TWS felt more threatening but even then they were pretty boring characters. For me the reason why TWS reveal worked in the comics was because it was such a huge twist for a character who everyone thought would never be resurrected. With it happening one film after another the impact just isn't there. And I get that their power comes from different things, Crossbones and TWS are physically powerful and the other guy is more politically powerful but even then he didn't feel like that. He's infiltrated so easily and his only weapon is to give an electric shock.

I haven't seen the Incredible Hulk so I can't really comment on its villains but even Thor, despite being my least favourite films in the MCU, I would say has the more memorable villains. Loki obviously is given much more time to develop but I think he made such an impact in the first film that even if he didn't appear so prominently in other films you'd still feel his impact. Malekith isn't even that strong of a villain but I'd still rank him higher than Red Skull.

GotG did well in making all its villains feel quite powerful but how did Nebula get the most development out of all of them. Ronan was incredibly boring and Thanos is obviously being held back so they have some leeway.

All but Loki, Zola and TWS had only one film worth of a screen time but only Nebula, TWS and Loki come out with any props.

But ultimately I think the bets villains are Kingpin, Kilgrave, Nebula, Loki and Mr Hyde. With the Netflix villains you obviously get to see more into them but there's more to it than that. It's how they go about their villainous ways. With Kingpin you see him both working with and against the other criminal factions in New York. He is a manipulator with some pretty powerful people at his disposal. And not only is he powerful politically we see him being powerful physically and without the need for weapons, just full on hand to hand combat and he's not even the best of fighters. We see him taking out the Owl and the Russians whilst the Triads and the Yakuza both leave town essentially. He is then left without his buffer zone of villains as Daredevil goes to take him down and even then it's a struggle with Daredevil celebrating before it's even confirmed indefinitely that the Kingpin is down. You also sympathise with him in the flashbacks and his conversations with his girlfriend. It could easily be cut down and would have as much impact.
Kilgrave is different but still the same. His power comes more from what he himself can do not what control he has over others, despite the fact that what he does is controlling others. (I promise in my head that bit makes sense!) He doesn't seem like the best fighter and he doesn't have a world of resources at his disposal like Kingpin but he has the possibility to make those resources appear in the blink of any eye. So on a power capabilities type thing he has so much potential. But we also see him as a bit of a troubled sole. Even without his flashbacks you can see it more in him that he really only wants to be loved and that he really doesn't believe that what he makes people do is wrong. He's had a troubled childhood and it feels like he's still stuck there. My only critique for him is that he is really a one trick pony. Once you've figured out how to stop his influence from taking over people or him having the opportunity to put his influence on people then he is pretty much weapon less. I think that's why it makes more sense to have him not come back for S2 whereas Kingpin can come back in the future still. Loki and Mr Hyde are more troubled characters. However with Loki I genuinely think he is pure evil. He has some right to be mad at what lies have been told to him but he has been given a brilliant life in a royal family and has great powers and his being a villain comes more from an innate selfishness and evilness than anything. Mr Hyde again is troubled but he is probably the most physically powerful of all of them in what he can do. He might not be the best fighter but he has pure power and he just has the potential to unwind and become some crazy, raging machine that scenes with him are always more enjoyable. This is probably where the other villains are going wrong. Kingpin, Loki, Mr Hyde, Kilgrave and Cross all have these moments where they lose control and you realise that they could go crazy at any moment in time. Whereas so many other villains attempt to be these smooth, suave characters and it just doesn't add anything to the characters. Nebula is the only one who doesn't fit in with my other preferred character because whilst she is troubled we don't see any craziness in her. She, a bit like Loki, feels like pure evil anyway any that is only added to with her being a troubled character whilst having such physical power and capabilities that scenes with her put me on the edge of my seat wondering whether that's when she will go on a rampage. She's also ruthless in what she is willing to do as shown when she escapes from Gamora.

I think the only villain I haven't mentioned so far is Ultron and that's because he was handled so poorly. He again tries to be this smooth character but like my faves he has angry moments but none of it makes sense. It was just such a waste of potential. And then the one good thing about him was his quips and they were all shown in the trailer. It didn't help that the film itself was pretty shoddy anyway so the villain was never going to be good.

But ultimately whilst I do think screen time is a contributing factor if done right a good villain can be portrayed in a single film with limited screen time. If the characters doesn't have some sort of charm or be powerful in some way then they aren't really a good villain and if none of the scenes with them genuinely put you on edge then what was the point.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You sure got defensive. You were talking about poor villains and I said that you liked (not loved, not adored, not was amazed by - liked) the villain in Deadpool. Since you don't seem to classify him as a "poor villain", and since I did not say you think he was "amazing", I don't get the attitude.

You got defensive by bringing my opinion of Ajax up. What does it have to do with the discussion we were having exactly? For record there are MCU villains I thought were better than Ajax was as a villain. Like Loki and TWS.

Other studios do poor/average villains as well, but here we discuss the MCU ones. Which threads like these prove people have an issue with. You will never find me arguing against particular people about Ajax either. I find him under rated on my 2nd viewing. Buy I wouldn't classify him as anything more than a decent villain.

 

[Mjölnir]

You got defensive by bringing my opinion of Ajax up. What does it have to do with the discussion we were having exactly? For record there are MCU villains I thought were better than Ajax was as a villain. Like Loki and TWS.

Other studios do poor/average villains as well, but here we discuss the MCU ones. Which threads like these prove people have an issue with. You will never find me arguing against particular people about Ajax either. I find him under rated on my 2nd viewing. Buy I wouldn't classify him as anything more than a decent villain.

Late answer due to heavy work load.

Defensive? That didn't make any sense. The point was that you asked why strong heroes must mean poor villains, and I made a more explaining version of the answer "it doesn't". You asked a question where you put your opinion as the base fact, which makes it hard to answer it. I gave an example where you might have felt to be in that situation, to make it clearer why it's difficult to answer the way the question was phrased. I don't know if you deliberately misrepresented what I wrote or if you got defensive and read it far harsher than it was, but there was no need at all to try to justify your opinion on Ajax as there was no comparison of quality between him and any other villain from me. He was just picked since you liking him means that you wouldn't categorize him as a "poor villain".

An easier question to answer would have been something like "why does strong heroes have to mean less focus on the villain?". It's easier to agree on that the MCU focuses less on the villains than it is to say that their villains are poor. Not that the answer necessarily is easier to pinpoint but it's easier to tackle. I think the movies that do focus clearly more on the hero(es) have gotten their characters the most right so there's something to it from my view. Deadpool being one of them imo, to tie back into the Ajax part.

The "less focus" is of course also a bit shaky wording since The Joker doesn't have a ton of screen time in TDK but Ledger still outshines Batman to the point where I tend to feel that it's a Joker movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Honestly, I can't even remember what the debate was Mjolnir, let's just drop it

 

[Mjölnir]

Honestly, I can't even remember what the debate was Mjolnir, let's just drop it

Sure thing.

 

[Loki882]

Yes, they're FAR better imo. And it's not just the Netflix shows. A lot of the villains in AOS or Agent Carter come across better than the film ones for me. Even a character like Daniel Whitehall, who's pretty much pure "evvvilll" is more intimidating and creepy in any one episode of AOS S2 than Red Skull was in the entirety of TFA. He's more like what Red Skull should have been imo, just on a grander scale.

And no, "having more time" doesn't solely factor into it. Yes it certainly helps, but there have been PLENTY of films (including previous CBM's) that have managed to make effective and interesting villains, all in the span of only one film. So it can be done. It just feels to me like, a lot of the time, the villains are an afterthought in Marvel's eyes. Which is a shame because a lot of them had potential:

-Whiplash COULD have been compelling. He's got a nice backstory, understandable motivations, and his initial plan is actually kind of clever/different from what we usually see. Also he has screen presence, Mickey Rourke and RDJ play off of each other well (when they get the chance to that is), and for the first half of the film, they build him up really well. But then they just squander it later on.

-Justin Hammer could have also been compelling, if you hadn't have made him such a cartoonish character (and tried to make both him and Whiplash into main villains).

-I feel like IM3 would have worked far better, assuming that they NEEDED to do a twist at all, if Maya Hansen had turned out to be the main villain. She had believable/interesting motivations early on in the film (which are forgotten about later on in favor or "you broke my heart Tony." Seriously Shane Black, how cliché can you get)? There could have been a nice compare/contrast between her and Tony, you wouldn't have completely wasted Rebecca Hall, a really good actress, and it would have been something different from what we've seen before in these films.

-Malekith could have worked if they'd given him more personality (like any), fleshed out his backstory and the conflict between his race and Asgard, and compared/contrasted his ruthlessness with Odin's more, etc.

-Ronan is a really cool/interesting character in the comics, and his backstory in the film COULD have worked. But it's not really delved into at all and he comes across as really generic/two-dimensional.

-I actually liked Ultron overall, but I will agree that he wasn't used to his full potential either.

-Darren Cross could have also have worked if they'd made him less two-dimensionally psychotic and elaborated on his backstory with Pym more (ie maybe a few flashbacks scenes of the two working together/interacting in "better times" or something like that). And it wouldn't have taken THAT much more time to do.


So basically a lot of squandered potential is what I'm saying.