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

Mjölnir;33000699 said:
I assume you mean Kilgrave and not the villain in IM3. ;)

Kilgrave was great but I think Kingpin was a notch higher still. In terms of being menacing he's really high up though (not the end all, be all trait for me though). No one affects their counterpart hero like him in any superhero movie.

Ah yea I of course meant Kilgrave. But yeah, I loved Kingpin but Kilgrave was another step up for me. He exudes more menace in short moments than many other villains can do with longer. And he was not only a threat to Jessica throughout most of it and even when that stopped he was still a threat to all of her loved ones. I loved the show anyway but he made it even better for me.

The more time to develop argument feels mostly invalid, because there are so many great villains in cinema that only appear in one film (or they were amazing in their first film). Consider Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or even Darth Vader in the original Star Wars.

Just in the realm of comic book movies, however, Heath Ledger's Joker is only onscreen for about 30 minutes in a 2.5 hour superhero movie, yet he is inarguably the best superhero in the genre's history. I do not even think the MCU has had a villain as good as Tom Hardy's Bane on the big screen (though I prefer Kilgrave if we count TV).

Even Ian McKellen in the flawed X-Men (2000) left a huge impression in a very under budgeted 100-minute movie, so did Rebecca Romjin. For that matter, Michael Fassbender is only a villain for like two scenes in X-Men: First Class and those sequences are stunners for him.

No, I feel like this is more just a problem with the Marvel template of being light, peppy, and playing to a certain formula where the heroes are amazing and the villains are increasingly looking like dominos to knock down like a Saturday morning cartoon.

They better be able to turn this around with Thanos. Otherwise, there will be massive problems with the next two Avengers movies after all these years.

:up:
 
The more time to develop argument feels mostly invalid, because there are so many great villains in cinema that only appear in one film (or they were amazing in their first film). Consider Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or even Darth Vader in the original Star Wars.

Just in the realm of comic book movies, however, Heath Ledger's Joker is only onscreen for about 30 minutes in a 2.5 hour superhero movie, yet he is inarguably the best superhero in the genre's history. I do not even think the MCU has had a villain as good as Tom Hardy's Bane on the big screen (though I prefer Kilgrave if we count TV).

Even Ian McKellen in the flawed X-Men (2000) left a huge impression in a very under budgeted 100-minute movie, so did Rebecca Romjin. For that matter, Michael Fassbender is only a villain for like two scenes in X-Men: First Class and those sequences are stunners for him.

No, I feel like this is more just a problem with the Marvel template of being light, peppy, and playing to a certain formula where the heroes are amazing and the villains are increasingly looking like dominos to knock down like a Saturday morning cartoon.

They better be able to turn this around with Thanos. Otherwise, there will be massive problems with the next two Avengers movies after all these years.

It's by no means invalid when it comes to delving into the depth of a character, which was at least what I was saying (no quote makes me think you're responding to the post before yours, which was mine). Just as good characters in novels tend to be much deeper than those in movies. Whether that makes something better is a different matter, which is more securely founded in subjective opinion.

With that said I can still comment on your different point though. Regarding the non-comic book villains I'll just shortly say that I think Vader really became a great villain in Empire, not so much in the first Star Wars.

When it comes to the Joker you're wrong in that you can't argue that someone else in superhero media has been a better villain, that's just being silly. Ledger did a fantastic job acting out the role but I can't exactly say that the character didn't have it's fair share of flaws. Not unlike Batman, he's not really written to seem extremely intelligent but rather rely a lot on the incompetence of others to stand out. His plans don't work without some pure luck and the complete incompetence of the Gotham police. He certainly doesn't have any depth either, he's just crazy (as the character should be of course, but some prefer more relatable villains). Ledger rivals anyone in performance but as far as writing goes I think the character is far from the least flawed. This is not really meant to bash The Joker in TDK (as I do think he's great), I'm just playing on his negatives to illustrate the point.

In general I think most superhero movies tend to succeed where it's focus is. The movies that focus the most on the heroes are to me the ones that have gotten the heroes the most right, although it has come with some criticism on the villain side. On top of the MCU, which I think is the most consistent franchise to make the heroes great, there are other examples, like the recent Deadpool. The TDK trilogy is a good example for me in this regard since I think Begins clearly had the best Batman character, while the two sequels had more stand out villains.

I think it's been more even between heroes and villains in some TV shows, but in movies there's really only two pairings where I think they truly elevate each other and their best scenes become those where they are together. For me those are Xavier and Magneto, as well as Thor and Loki. Again that might be due to that they are all in more than one movie and get to evolve together instead of just having one dynamic.
 
Ah yea I of course meant Kilgrave. But yeah, I loved Kingpin but Kilgrave was another step up for me. He exudes more menace in short moments than many other villains can do with longer. And he was not only a threat to Jessica throughout most of it and even when that stopped he was still a threat to all of her loved ones. I loved the show anyway but he made it even better for me.

I don't disagree on Kilgrave, I think he's fantastic as well. We just have reverse rankings there. :)

With both I think their complexity are the most interesting parts of them though. Fisk with his strengths and weaknesses, and Kilgrave with showing how screwed up he's become through not really being able to have normal relationships with anyone, no matter how small.
 
Mjölnir;32999815 said:
All by intent as he does try to seem weaker and dumber than he is to his business partners, so he can more easily set them up. Madame Gao saw through that and knew that he spoke Mandarin the entire time, etc, but the rest thought they were in more control than they were.

And despite all that he did have actual weaknesses as well, which was pretty much just known by a couple of people in the show. He's the best fleshed out character in any superhero property in my view.


I don't mean that even in his private moments and when he was actually in charge, I was just underwhelmed.
 
Mjölnir;33000775 said:
Yes, the longer format is definitely crucial to getting really deep into a character. I'd say that the biggest way the Netflix villains stand out is through that I think they are much better than all other TV show super villains.

Maybe with Fisk, but I don't think it matters for Kilgrave. Kilgrave is amazing from the beginning and it isn't because of his depth of character. It is because he is such a vile, dangerous monster.
 
Mjölnir;33007883 said:
It's by no means invalid when it comes to delving into the depth of a character, which was at least what I was saying (no quote makes me think you're responding to the post before yours, which was mine). Just as good characters in novels tend to be much deeper than those in movies. Whether that makes something better is a different matter, which is more securely founded in subjective opinion.

With that said I can still comment on your different point though. Regarding the non-comic book villains I'll just shortly say that I think Vader really became a great villain in Empire, not so much in the first Star Wars.

When it comes to the Joker you're wrong in that you can't argue that someone else in superhero media has been a better villain, that's just being silly. Ledger did a fantastic job acting out the role but I can't exactly say that the character didn't have it's fair share of flaws. Not unlike Batman, he's not really written to seem extremely intelligent but rather rely a lot on the incompetence of others to stand out. His plans don't work without some pure luck and the complete incompetence of the Gotham police. He certainly doesn't have any depth either, he's just crazy (as the character should be of course, but some prefer more relatable villains). Ledger rivals anyone in performance but as far as writing goes I think the character is far from the least flawed. This is not really meant to bash The Joker in TDK (as I do think he's great), I'm just playing on his negatives to illustrate the point.

In general I think most superhero movies tend to succeed where it's focus is. The movies that focus the most on the heroes are to me the ones that have gotten the heroes the most right, although it has come with some criticism on the villain side. On top of the MCU, which I think is the most consistent franchise to make the heroes great, there are other examples, like the recent Deadpool. The TDK trilogy is a good example for me in this regard since I think Begins clearly had the best Batman character, while the two sequels had more stand out villains.

I think it's been more even between heroes and villains in some TV shows, but in movies there's really only two pairings where I think they truly elevate each other and their best scenes become those where they are together. For me those are Xavier and Magneto, as well as Thor and Loki. Again that might be due to that they are all in more than one movie and get to evolve together instead of just having one dynamic.

It was more of a general response, but I stand by that you do not need 12 hours of story to make a good villain. Changing the subject of whether literary villains or cinematic ones are superior is getting lost in the weeds.

The point is there are plenty of great cinematic villains: the aforementioned Hannibal Lecter, Hans Landa, Nurse Ratched, Bill the Butcher, Buffalo Bill, Gordon Gekko, Anton Churgah, Rev. Harry Powell, Alex DeLarge, Jack Torrence, Hans Gruber, Hal 9000, Scarface, Auric Goldfinger, Tommy DeVito, and Darth Vader.

With the exception of Hannibal and Darth Vader--and yes Vader was amazing in Star Wars even before the father reveal with James Earl Jones' voice, his shiny black helmet and heavy breathing, which all but embodied the presence of operatic evil--all of those characters only appeared once and made an iconic impression.

So the MCU's inability to produce one good villain who is not seen as comic relief (sorry, Loki) cannot be scratched off as an issue about lack of screen time.

And I do think Heath Ledger's Joker is inarguably the best superhero movie villain to date because his iconography is amongst those villains I listed above. He was actually written to be quite brilliant, as a tactician who followed an ideological code as strict as the Batman's, even if it was in the name of chaos and anarchy and nihilism.

The Joker is only in the movie sparingly and has no arc, but he cuts through the narrative like the shark in Jaws (another iconic movie villain) where his impact is sudden, visceral and unforgettable to audiences. It is why Heath Ledger's performance won an acting Oscar--which makes it stand alone in the superhero genre. It is a performance that transcends the genre and enters popular culture as one of the all time biggest visages of malice in movie history. It is a stunning achievement.

But they do not need to aim for that level. I would love to see someone on the scale of Bane, who did not overshadow Batman in Rises like Joker did in TDK. But he did present a stunning amount of tension, suspense, and menace that permeated the whole film and made the story much more rewarding.
 
DACrowe said:
The Joker is only in the movie sparingly and has no arc, but he cuts through the narrative like the shark in Jaws (another iconic movie villain) where his impact is sudden, visceral and unforgettable to audiences. It is why Heath Ledger's performance won an acting Oscar--which makes it stand alone in the superhero genre. It is a performance that transcends the genre and enters popular culture as one of the all time biggest visages of malice in movie history. It is a stunning achievement.

Heath Ledger is only on-screen for a little more than 30 minutes.
 
Maybe with Fisk, but I don't think it matters for Kilgrave. Kilgrave is amazing from the beginning and it isn't because of his depth of character. It is because he is such a vile, dangerous monster.

Agreed, I loved Killian from the moment he was introduced. It was only later in the season he got development. But from the moment we see him there is a lot of menace about him. And that was with very little screentime.
 
The more time to develop argument feels mostly invalid, because there are so many great villains in cinema that only appear in one film (or they were amazing in their first film). Consider Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, or even Darth Vader in the original Star Wars.

Just in the realm of comic book movies, however, Heath Ledger's Joker is only onscreen for about 30 minutes in a 2.5 hour superhero movie, yet he is inarguably the best superhero in the genre's history. I do not even think the MCU has had a villain as good as Tom Hardy's Bane on the big screen (though I prefer Kilgrave if we count TV).

Even Ian McKellen in the flawed X-Men (2000) left a huge impression in a very under budgeted 100-minute movie, so did Rebecca Romjin. For that matter, Michael Fassbender is only a villain for like two scenes in X-Men: First Class and those sequences are stunners for him.

No, I feel like this is more just a problem with the Marvel template of being light, peppy, and playing to a certain formula where the heroes are amazing and the villains are increasingly looking like dominos to knock down like a Saturday morning cartoon.

They better be able to turn this around with Thanos. Otherwise, there will be massive problems with the next two Avengers movies after all these years.

It was more of a general response, but I stand by that you do not need 12 hours of story to make a good villain. Changing the subject of whether literary villains or cinematic ones are superior is getting lost in the weeds.

The point is there are plenty of great cinematic villains: the aforementioned Hannibal Lecter, Hans Landa, Nurse Ratched, Bill the Butcher, Buffalo Bill, Gordon Gekko, Anton Churgah, Rev. Harry Powell, Alex DeLarge, Jack Torrence, Hans Gruber, Hal 9000, Scarface, Auric Goldfinger, Tommy DeVito, and Darth Vader.

With the exception of Hannibal and Darth Vader--and yes Vader was amazing in Star Wars even before the father reveal with James Earl Jones' voice, his shiny black helmet and heavy breathing, which all but embodied the presence of operatic evil--all of those characters only appeared once and made an iconic impression.

So the MCU's inability to produce one good villain who is not seen as comic relief (sorry, Loki) cannot be scratched off as an issue about lack of screen time.

And I do think Heath Ledger's Joker is inarguably the best superhero movie villain to date because his iconography is amongst those villains I listed above. He was actually written to be quite brilliant, as a tactician who followed an ideological code as strict as the Batman's, even if it was in the name of chaos and anarchy and nihilism.

The Joker is only in the movie sparingly and has no arc, but he cuts through the narrative like the shark in Jaws (another iconic movie villain) where his impact is sudden, visceral and unforgettable to audiences. It is why Heath Ledger's performance won an acting Oscar--which makes it stand alone in the superhero genre. It is a performance that transcends the genre and enters popular culture as one of the all time biggest visages of malice in movie history. It is a stunning achievement.

But they do not need to aim for that level. I would love to see someone on the scale of Bane, who did not overshadow Batman in Rises like Joker did in TDK. But he did present a stunning amount of tension, suspense, and menace that permeated the whole film and made the story much more rewarding.

Agreed. These are great posts.
 
It was more of a general response, but I stand by that you do not need 12 hours of story to make a good villain. Changing the subject of whether literary villains or cinematic ones are superior is getting lost in the weeds.

The point is there are plenty of great cinematic villains: the aforementioned Hannibal Lecter, Hans Landa, Nurse Ratched, Bill the Butcher, Buffalo Bill, Gordon Gekko, Anton Churgah, Rev. Harry Powell, Alex DeLarge, Jack Torrence, Hans Gruber, Hal 9000, Scarface, Auric Goldfinger, Tommy DeVito, and Darth Vader.

With the exception of Hannibal and Darth Vader--and yes Vader was amazing in Star Wars even before the father reveal with James Earl Jones' voice, his shiny black helmet and heavy breathing, which all but embodied the presence of operatic evil--all of those characters only appeared once and made an iconic impression.

So the MCU's inability to produce one good villain who is not seen as comic relief (sorry, Loki) cannot be scratched off as an issue about lack of screen time.

And I do think Heath Ledger's Joker is inarguably the best superhero movie villain to date because his iconography is amongst those villains I listed above. He was actually written to be quite brilliant, as a tactician who followed an ideological code as strict as the Batman's, even if it was in the name of chaos and anarchy and nihilism.

The Joker is only in the movie sparingly and has no arc, but he cuts through the narrative like the shark in Jaws (another iconic movie villain) where his impact is sudden, visceral and unforgettable to audiences. It is why Heath Ledger's performance won an acting Oscar--which makes it stand alone in the superhero genre. It is a performance that transcends the genre and enters popular culture as one of the all time biggest visages of malice in movie history. It is a stunning achievement.

But they do not need to aim for that level. I would love to see someone on the scale of Bane, who did not overshadow Batman in Rises like Joker did in TDK. But he did present a stunning amount of tension, suspense, and menace that permeated the whole film and made the story much more rewarding.

Of course you don't need that, I already said so and mentioned that I think many cinematic villains are great. I don't really see the point of writing a post that argues a point where we agree, at least not as a response to mine as that inevitably makes it look like you think I disagree, without further clarification.

We do disagree on that the MCU hasn't had one good villain.

You're de facto wrong on that the Joker is inarguably the best superhero movie villain. I argued against it in the last post so clearly it can be done, and only a completely irrational person wouldn't treat that as valid. Agreeing is an entirely separate matter and not relevant to that point.

I think Batman was overshadowed by both The Joker and Bane. Much due to that I think Batman was on a decline through the trilogy. As for what level the MCU needs to aim for, I'd say that they already hit it given that they've had some success both with critics and audience. They aren't going to change a winning formula too much, regardless what any of us as individuals might prefer.
 
In my view the Joker had an arc in TDK.

When we're introduced to him at the start of the movie, he wants to have a lot of money and he's willing to kill Batman and also Harvey Dent. By the end of the movie, he's burning piles of money, he wants to have Batman around, and his dream is to corrupt Harvey Dent.
 
Mjölnir;33015127 said:
Of course you don't need that, I already said so and mentioned that I think many cinematic villains are great. I don't really see the point of writing a post that argues a point where we agree, at least not as a response to mine as that inevitably makes it look like you think I disagree, without further clarification.

We do disagree on that the MCU hasn't had one good villain.

You're de facto wrong on that the Joker is inarguably the best superhero movie villain. I argued against it in the last post so clearly it can be done, and only a completely irrational person wouldn't treat that as valid. Agreeing is an entirely separate matter and not relevant to that point.

I think Batman was overshadowed by both The Joker and Bane. Much due to that I think Batman was on a decline through the trilogy. As for what level the MCU needs to aim for, I'd say that they already hit it given that they've had some success both with critics and audience. They aren't going to change a winning formula too much, regardless what any of us as individuals might prefer.

I mostly agree.

1) The MCU has stronger heroes than villains because that's what they're choosing to do. It's not a failure of their style, it's their deliberate choice. They are entirely focused on the heroes.

2) I do think Marvel's formula will evolve even if they are successful. Kevin Feige is smart that way, he tweaks and modifies things on a regular basis prior to there being a problem. See the difference between phase 1 and phase 2. Look at phase 3 for example, they're introducing all of these new characters, even though 90% of Hollywood would just make more sequels to established characters.
 
I just don't get why getting strong heroes means we get poor villains. We can have both if they get the balance right. Other CBMs like TDK have proven that.
 
I just don't get why getting strong heroes means we get poor villains. We can have both if they get the balance right. Other CBMs like TDK have proven that.

As someone pointed out above, the Joker apparently had 30 minutes of screen time in TDK. Add the screentime for the mobsters, for Lau, for Dent, and that really adds up, it's a lot of time not spent on Batman.

Further, TDK doesn't actually build up Batman as a badass that much, it has a little bit, for example:
- Bruce Wayne using his Ferrari to save Gordon;
- Bruce Wayne absconding with the Russian Ballet;
- The amazing Hong Kong sequence;

But mostly The Dark Knight builds up the Joker and Dent. It can get away with doing this because the audience walks in already knowing and believing that Batman is a badass, as set up in Batman Begins and the general public imagination. They don't need to be convinced of how awesome Batman is. Nolan is exploiting this, and in turn making the Joker look awesome merely by the fact that he can stand up to Batman.

That's not the approach Marvel is doing, they're just building up their heroes as much as possible, into invincible gods. Every movie is almost entirely about the awesomeness of the heroes, and how great they are how they overcome all challenges. There's been no sincere attempt at a great villain yet.

Cmparing again with TDK, the Joker wins some battles against Batman in TDK. He succeeds in turning Dent for example. He succeeds in blowing up the prison. In contrast, Ultron (and Hydra before him) loses every single encounter with the Avengers in Ultron. He doesn't succeed in turning the vision the way the joker turned Dent. That's not what the movie is about. AoU is a celebration of the Avengers. They win every encounter, because they're the Avengers. Fist pump !

They may try to do so with Thanos. If the audience is conditioned to seeing the Marvel heroes as invincible, and Infinity Wars starts off with Thanos breaking Captain America's shield and killing the Hulk, then that will be very effective in establishing intimidation.
 
Last edited:
As someone pointed out above, the Joker apparently had 30 minutes of screen time in TDK. Add the screentime for the mobsters, for Lau, for Dent, and that really adds up, it's a lot of time not spent on Batman.

Only if Batman was completely absent from scenes featuring those characters, and had no story relating to any of them, which was clearly not the case. He had numerous key scenes with them which he was pivotal to, and were part of his character development, and the main story.

The focus was still very much on Batman, and the story was all about the effects of Batman and his choices on Gotham City. His presence basically opened a whole can of worms, the biggest one being the Joker. He then misguidedly thinks Dent would be a good replacement for Batman, and that has even bigger disastrous consequences. TDK was very much an eye opening learning curve for Batman.

He learns what his limits are, what Batman can endure both personally and symbolically, he learns about the nature of criminals like the Joker (and actually learns from his encounter with the Joker to face him again, like by the finale he sees right through the Prewitt building set up as not being what it seems - "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is"). And yes, his selfless sacrifice at the end when he learns Batman can be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Compare that to Bruce at the beginning of the movie who arrogantly thinks Batman has no limits. Bruce's growth in this movie was learning what they are, what he can and cannot endure, and learning about the terrible nature of freaks like the Joker whom are a reaction to his presence in Gotham just like the copycats. TDK was a real eye opener for Bruce and what exactly the effects of Batman are on himself and on Gotham.

He had so many stand out scenes that often get underrated. His take down of Scarecrow and the imposter Batmen in the parking garage. Abducting Lau from China. Kicking ass in Maroni's club and dropping Maroni off the fire escape. The whole Joker truck chase he was bad ass with many cool moments like taking out the garbage truck, birth of the Bat-Pod, and flipping over Joker's truck. The Prewitt building scene is probably the coolest Batman has ever been on film taking out two SWAT teams, Joker's men, and protecting the hostages, too.
There was a great mix of funny and serious Bruce Wayne scenes, too, like the aftermath of Rachel's death where he's quietly mourning her with Alfred - they did a great mirror image of the childhood Bruce mourning his parents there where Alfred comes in, says something about food, Bruce ignores him, Alfred says "Very well" and goes to leave and then Bruce calls him back. All the playboy Bruce stuff was gold. Seeing Bruce use the daylight hours effectively as Bruce by staking out Loeb's funeral, and following Gordon and Reese and having Alfred run a check on all the Cops he recognizes (love that Bruce knows many of the Cops by name) etc.

So yeah I've never agreed with the assertion that Batman was not the focus or not much time was spent on him in TDK. It's not what the movie showed.

Comparing again with TDK, the Joker wins some battles against Batman in TDK. He succeeds in turning Dent for example. He succeeds in blowing up the prison. In contrast, Ultron (and Hydra before him) loses every single encounter with the Avengers in Ultron. He doesn't succeed in turning the vision the way the joker turned Dent. That's not what the movie is about. AoU is a celebration of the Avengers. They win every encounter, because they're the Avengers. Fist pump !

Which to me makes for a less interesting movie. I know Batman and his world are darker in nature than the likes of The Avengers, but seeing the hero win at a great cost, both heroically and emotionally, makes for the much better story, IMO. Yes Joker got to blow up hospitals, kill Rachel, destroy Dent, turn Gotham into anarchy, force Batman into destroying his heroic reputation etc. Because he's the Joker. He's Batman's arch nemesis. His deadliest villain. If there had not been chaos, losses, scars and sacrifices from Batman's bout with the Joker then Nolan would have dropped the ball big time. Nobody has damaged Batman more than Joker, and Nolan nailed that and much more.

I think the aforementioned lack of punch and menace from Ultron as a villain is one of the reasons why many fans found him to be disappointing, because as you said he really didn't achieve much. I know I sure found that a letdown, along with his jokey light personality. Even Loki managed to knock SHIELD out of the sky. It's safe to say Loki is Marvel's most popular villain.

Marvel's Achilles heel has always been the villains, IMO.
 
Only if Batman was completely absent from scenes featuring those characters, and had no story relating to any of them, which was clearly not the case. He had numerous key scenes with them which he was pivotal to, and were part of his character development, and the main story.

The focus was still very much on Batman, and the story was all about the effects of Batman and his choices on Gotham City. His presence basically opened a whole can of worms, the biggest one being the Joker. He then misguidedly thinks Dent would be a good replacement for Batman, and that has even bigger disastrous consequences. TDK was very much an eye opening learning curve for Batman.

He learns what his limits are, what Batman can endure both personally and symbolically, he learns about the nature of criminals like the Joker (and actually learns from his encounter with the Joker to face him again, like by the finale he sees right through the Prewitt building set up as not being what it seems - "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is"). And yes, his selfless sacrifice at the end when he learns Batman can be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Compare that to Bruce at the beginning of the movie who arrogantly thinks Batman has no limits. Bruce's growth in this movie was learning what they are, what he can and cannot endure, and learning about the terrible nature of freaks like the Joker whom are a reaction to his presence in Gotham just like the copycats. TDK was a real eye opener for Bruce and what exactly the effects of Batman are on himself and on Gotham.

He had so many stand out scenes that often get underrated. His take down of Scarecrow and the imposter Batmen in the parking garage. Abducting Lau from China. Kicking ass in Maroni's club and dropping Maroni off the fire escape. The whole Joker truck chase he was bad ass with many cool moments like taking out the garbage truck, birth of the Bat-Pod, and flipping over Joker's truck. The Prewitt building scene is probably the coolest Batman has ever been on film taking out two SWAT teams, Joker's men, and protecting the hostages, too.
There was a great mix of funny and serious Bruce Wayne scenes, too, like the aftermath of Rachel's death where he's quietly mourning her with Alfred - they did a great mirror image of the childhood Bruce mourning his parents there where Alfred comes in, says something about food, Bruce ignores him, Alfred says "Very well" and goes to leave and then Bruce calls him back. All the playboy Bruce stuff was gold. Seeing Bruce use the daylight hours effectively as Bruce by staking out Loeb's funeral, and following Gordon and Reese and having Alfred run a check on all the Cops he recognizes (love that Bruce knows many of the Cops by name) etc.

So yeah I've never agreed with the assertion that Batman was not the focus or not much time was spent on him in TDK. It's not what the movie showed.



Which to me makes for a less interesting movie. I know Batman and his world are darker in nature than the likes of The Avengers, but seeing the hero win at a great cost, both heroically and emotionally, makes for the much better story, IMO. Yes Joker got to blow up hospitals, kill Rachel, destroy Dent, turn Gotham into anarchy, force Batman into destroying his heroic reputation etc. Because he's the Joker. He's Batman's arch nemesis. His deadliest villain. If there had not been chaos, losses, scars and sacrifices from Batman's bout with the Joker then Nolan would have dropped the ball big time. Nobody has damaged Batman more than Joker, and Nolan nailed that and much more.

I think the aforementioned lack of punch and menace from Ultron as a villain is one of the reasons why many fans found him to be disappointing, because as you said he really didn't achieve much. I know I sure found that a letdown, along with his jokey light personality. Even Loki managed to knock SHIELD out of the sky. It's safe to say Loki is Marvel's most popular villain.

Marvel's Achilles heel has always been the villains, IMO.

Great post and totally agree.
 
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.
 
I mostly agree.

1) The MCU has stronger heroes than villains because that's what they're choosing to do. It's not a failure of their style, it's their deliberate choice. They are entirely focused on the heroes.

2) I do think Marvel's formula will evolve even if they are successful. Kevin Feige is smart that way, he tweaks and modifies things on a regular basis prior to there being a problem. See the difference between phase 1 and phase 2. Look at phase 3 for example, they're introducing all of these new characters, even though 90% of Hollywood would just make more sequels to established characters.

Yes, it's a choice and, as stated before, I think that it's generally the movies that have done that that have gotten the heroes the most right.

True, the MCU keeps changing so we will see different kinds of movies. I don't think they will alter the focus on the hero(es) in general for a while though.


I just don't get why getting strong heroes means we get poor villains. We can have both if they get the balance right. Other CBMs like TDK have proven that.

A lot of the answer to your question is to point out that what's a "poor villain" is subjective. You liked the villain in Deadpool, for example, while there's generally been around as much criticism towards that character as in the more criticized MCU movies.
 
Last edited:
Mjölnir;33020621 said:
A lot of the answer to your question is to point out that what's a "poor villain" is subjective. You liked the villain in Deadpool, for example, while there's generally been around as much criticism towards that character as in the more criticized MCU movies.

:whatever: I quite clearly said Ajax was nothing amazing in terms of villains. But he was better than people give him credit for IMO. He was a threat to the hero at least, something MCU villains have largely failed to come across as. Even the best MCU villain so far, Loki, wasn't a threat to the more powerful members of the team on his own. And he is the best one the movies have produced by far. Ajax was also good in a boo/hiss kind of way. But he was certainly nothing amazing, I think there will be better villains in CBMs this year.
 
:whatever: I quite clearly said Ajax was nothing amazing in terms of villains. But he was better than people give him credit for IMO. He was a threat to the hero at least, something MCU villains have largely failed to come across as. Even the best MCU villain so far, Loki, wasn't a threat to the more powerful members of the team on his own. And he is the best one the movies have produced by far. Ajax was also good in a boo/hiss kind of way. But he was certainly nothing amazing, I think there will be better villains in CBMs this year.

A lot of us have a harder time buying into stories without a great villain. Marvel's success proves that our preference is not universal.
 
:whatever: I quite clearly said Ajax was nothing amazing in terms of villains. But he was better than people give him credit for IMO. He was a threat to the hero at least, something MCU villains have largely failed to come across as. Even the best MCU villain so far, Loki, wasn't a threat to the more powerful members of the team on his own. And he is the best one the movies have produced by far. Ajax was also good in a boo/hiss kind of way. But he was certainly nothing amazing, I think there will be better villains in CBMs this year.

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.
 
Huh? I never get the "villain should be a threat" point. Who said a villain has to be physically superior or match the hero? Kilgrave, Joker etc are not even strong but they were good villains especially the later. Just because a villain is superior physically doesnt take him a great one either.

Makelith and Kurse stood toe to toe with Thor but they're poor villains. Killian stood toe to toe with Stark in amour but he was a poor villain. Yellow jacket again, strong physically but considered another poor villain. These all were a threat to the heroes clearly but people still say they're poor. Point is, it depends what kinda threat you're presenting to the hero. Is it a physical one or a mentally one?

Stryker in X-2 was a great villain yet he wasn't even as strong as any of the X-Men physically. IMO Ultron was a good villain for the movie and what Joss was going for thematically. Only one problem for me, he needed more screen time. That was all.
 
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.

The response is you are absolutely right.
 
Only if Batman was completely absent from scenes featuring those characters, and had no story relating to any of them, which was clearly not the case. He had numerous key scenes with them which he was pivotal to, and were part of his character development, and the main story.

The focus was still very much on Batman, and the story was all about the effects of Batman and his choices on Gotham City. His presence basically opened a whole can of worms, the biggest one being the Joker. He then misguidedly thinks Dent would be a good replacement for Batman, and that has even bigger disastrous consequences. TDK was very much an eye opening learning curve for Batman.

He learns what his limits are, what Batman can endure both personally and symbolically, he learns about the nature of criminals like the Joker (and actually learns from his encounter with the Joker to face him again, like by the finale he sees right through the Prewitt building set up as not being what it seems - "It's not that simple. With the Joker it never is"). And yes, his selfless sacrifice at the end when he learns Batman can be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Compare that to Bruce at the beginning of the movie who arrogantly thinks Batman has no limits. Bruce's growth in this movie was learning what they are, what he can and cannot endure, and learning about the terrible nature of freaks like the Joker whom are a reaction to his presence in Gotham just like the copycats. TDK was a real eye opener for Bruce and what exactly the effects of Batman are on himself and on Gotham.

He had so many stand out scenes that often get underrated. His take down of Scarecrow and the imposter Batmen in the parking garage. Abducting Lau from China. Kicking ass in Maroni's club and dropping Maroni off the fire escape. The whole Joker truck chase he was bad ass with many cool moments like taking out the garbage truck, birth of the Bat-Pod, and flipping over Joker's truck. The Prewitt building scene is probably the coolest Batman has ever been on film taking out two SWAT teams, Joker's men, and protecting the hostages, too.
There was a great mix of funny and serious Bruce Wayne scenes, too, like the aftermath of Rachel's death where he's quietly mourning her with Alfred - they did a great mirror image of the childhood Bruce mourning his parents there where Alfred comes in, says something about food, Bruce ignores him, Alfred says "Very well" and goes to leave and then Bruce calls him back. All the playboy Bruce stuff was gold. Seeing Bruce use the daylight hours effectively as Bruce by staking out Loeb's funeral, and following Gordon and Reese and having Alfred run a check on all the Cops he recognizes (love that Bruce knows many of the Cops by name) etc.

So yeah I've never agreed with the assertion that Batman was not the focus or not much time was spent on him in TDK. It's not what the movie showed.



Which to me makes for a less interesting movie. I know Batman and his world are darker in nature than the likes of The Avengers, but seeing the hero win at a great cost, both heroically and emotionally, makes for the much better story, IMO. Yes Joker got to blow up hospitals, kill Rachel, destroy Dent, turn Gotham into anarchy, force Batman into destroying his heroic reputation etc. Because he's the Joker. He's Batman's arch nemesis. His deadliest villain. If there had not been chaos, losses, scars and sacrifices from Batman's bout with the Joker then Nolan would have dropped the ball big time. Nobody has damaged Batman more than Joker, and Nolan nailed that and much more.

I think the aforementioned lack of punch and menace from Ultron as a villain is one of the reasons why many fans found him to be disappointing, because as you said he really didn't achieve much. I know I sure found that a letdown, along with his jokey light personality. Even Loki managed to knock SHIELD out of the sky. It's safe to say Loki is Marvel's most popular villain.

Marvel's Achilles heel has always been the villains, IMO.

You know I don't always agree with you Mr. J, but... :highfive:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,537
Messages
21,755,800
Members
45,592
Latest member
kathielee
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"