Yup. It's a bad excuse.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why are Marvel's film villains so hit and miss?
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
Why Marvel ? Take out Joker and what has DC ? They've got like 1 great villain in how many attempts ? Not just Marvel/DC look at Fox. Why only exclude Marvel ?
To have a good villain you have to spend a lot of time on that villain. He has to get a lot of screentime. Loki did get that which is why people only remember him from Marvel. Most other villains didn't.
To have a good villain you have to spend a lot of time on that villain. He has to get a lot of screentime. Loki did get that which is why people only remember him from Marvel. Most other villains didn't.
...for you.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Add to ths there must without fail end upfighting the hero mano o mano in an "epic" third act battle regardless of how much sense it actually makes
See I have only seen rises a couple times and by no means is it my favourite, but some of the quotes are so god damn memorable such as this.
They didn't. One of Ock's recent storylines dealt with the fact his body couldn't keep up with his spider-beatings. He was basically rolling in an iron lung with arms.
Then Superior Spider-Man happened, and all was awesome! :x
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Rises has so many significant flaws but i had no issues with Bane himself. The fact he was usurped as primary antagonist in a such pointless and poorly thought out way is my main gripe for him as a vllain. I mean that voice was just too awesome.
Nemesis121
Member
Doubt Disney wants to scare the kiddies, they need to sell Merchandise...
My guess is they have more confidence in merchandise sales of heroes. As they build more recurring villains I'm sure they'll improve.
I think the Netflix side of the MCU is excelling with villains so much because they actually have more time to properly develop said villains. Kingpin in particular benefitted greatly from having more time for his story to be told. We actually got to see him grow from just Wilson Fisk to The Kingpin over the course of two seasons of Daredevil.
Hmm if i am honest i dont think any Marvel movie had even a passable villain.. no not even winter soldier.
But its not like i expect more than a loud popcorn action flick so dont have a problem... also i never got into superhero comics or marvel.. so i have almost no knowledge and can only talk from movies lol
But its not like i expect more than a loud popcorn action flick so dont have a problem... also i never got into superhero comics or marvel.. so i have almost no knowledge and can only talk from movies lol
It would be great to have recurring villains so they wouldn't always have to be set up and killed within the same movie, but since the quantity of movies is so much lower compared to comics I imagine they audience would dislike it. People are already annoyed by Magneto turning on the Xmen all the time.
People loved the Joker in Dark Knight, but would they have wanted him to be the villain again in Dark Knight rises? It's likely better to focus on the hero who you can reuse as often you like without repercussions
People loved the Joker in Dark Knight, but would they have wanted him to be the villain again in Dark Knight rises? It's likely better to focus on the hero who you can reuse as often you like without repercussions
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Funny thought.
Maybe the raimi and Nolan movies have great villains because the heroes spend most of the time just getting completely battered throughout the film.
Maybe the raimi and Nolan movies have great villains because the heroes spend most of the time just getting completely battered throughout the film.
RepairmanJack
Member
With Marvel I think it's a matter of time spent in the movies. I just don't think they want to commit too much time in the movies to Villains that will most likely not be around for much more than one movie. They would rather spend that time building up the heroes that they can get more money and movies out of and as long as they have someone to beat up on with at least some kind of motivation they don't seem to care about the villains development. I think it just shows that they're more interested in building their franchises then they are at building a good villain centric story.
And Loki is so lame. Besides the Goblin and Doc Ock none are memorable.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Winter Soldier is the only decent one imo. I can't believe how badly they fucked up Malekith and Ronan.
Edit: Loki too I guess...
Edit: Loki too I guess...
Winter solider didnt even have a Villain
Yeah it was. It was fookin brilliant!
I like Hydra as an organisation In Winter Soldier and though the corporate ashore was done well there, as he actually seemed to have a plan and power. The Winter Soldier himself was also ace.
Ultron was good but underutilised. Ultron was a villain who went straight for global destruction with his plan, rather than attacking individual cities for no reason. And the Avengers had to make some very bold moves to prevent it (Vision, which Ultron did not anticipate). The plot made the threat seem less personal and dramatic, but I thought he was most definitely threatening and almost successful.
I like the Iron Man 3 twist and didn't mind the final villain.
Loki is as charming as the heroes themselves.
The other villains were mostly nothing special indeed. But mostly not to the extent where it takes the film down for me, personally. I think Marvel should take a look at how they handle villains in their TV shows, as I can name several that are better than any in the films.
Ultron was good but underutilised. Ultron was a villain who went straight for global destruction with his plan, rather than attacking individual cities for no reason. And the Avengers had to make some very bold moves to prevent it (Vision, which Ultron did not anticipate). The plot made the threat seem less personal and dramatic, but I thought he was most definitely threatening and almost successful.
I like the Iron Man 3 twist and didn't mind the final villain.
Loki is as charming as the heroes themselves.
The other villains were mostly nothing special indeed. But mostly not to the extent where it takes the film down for me, personally. I think Marvel should take a look at how they handle villains in their TV shows, as I can name several that are better than any in the films.
I'm willing to overlook the villains terrible cardboard writing in any avengers films or any film involving more than 1 superhero. When you have more than 1 superhero in a film there's always conflicts and development between the heroes which the villain development always take a backseat due to time and money.
One of my (many) problems with Age of Ultron is that Ultron spends most of the film running away from The Avengers. Heck, the Hulk even gets a similar comedy takedown (in the Quinjet) to the one he did to Loki.
To answer the OP's question, I think the general problem that the Marvel film's (and comic book movies in general) have had when it comes to developing good villains for the screen, is that they often don't have much time to do so. When it comes to writing comic book movies, you usually have to work in the extra room to introduce fantastical concepts, in addition to laying the usual groundwork for introducing your main character, the supporting cast, establishing the world...etc, etc. This especially seems to be a problem with comic book movies that deal in origin stories, because you essentially have to devote the entire first Act of your movie towards detailing for your audience how the main character gets his or her larger than life powers, as well as how they learn to control them, how they eventually end up choosing the path of the hero, all that jazz.
Take Iron Man, for example...with Jeff Bridge's Iron Monger proving to be a particularly limp example. By its very nature, pretty much the entire first half of the film has to follow Tony Stark in isolation, establishing his character in this little cave with a box of scraps as he eventually comes around to building his Iron Suit. If my memory serves me right, Jeff Bridges only manages to turn up like 45 minutes into the movie when Tony returns home...so there's comparatively far less time to develop him into a character in his own right. The MCU in particular seems to encounter this problem in spades....Ronan and Malekith being particularly egregious examples when it comes to their practically sporadic development.
I certainly agree with the OP on all counts that Doc Ock in my beloved Spiderman 2 has certainly proved with time to be one of the best developed and thus more engaging super-villains ever introduced to us in a comic book movie. And I would argue, primarily, that that's because Sami Raimi really understands pacing in his movies in relation to developing characters, and much like Peter, Raimi actually took the time to chart Doc Ock's character arc from the very beginning...painting him early on, as a charming if slightly arrogant scientist who descends tragically into villainy as a result of his own hubris. Raimi takes every opportunity available to him in that film to further Ock's character...culminating in Ock's oh-so-satisfying redemption towards that film's end.
Loki too, is another interesting positive example, with his character being able to benefit from being developed in tandem with Thor's because of their shared back-story. Hell, their pretty much introduced to the audience standing side by side. So Loki escapes that usual problem of being completed neglected throughout Thor's first act on account of being right there from the beginning. Throughout that film, the hero and villain's journey are essentially twisted reflection's of each other, with Loki manipulating Thor and indirectly causing his banishment from the very beginning. As a result, we spend more time with him, thus making him a much more memorable character over-all.
Take Iron Man, for example...with Jeff Bridge's Iron Monger proving to be a particularly limp example. By its very nature, pretty much the entire first half of the film has to follow Tony Stark in isolation, establishing his character in this little cave with a box of scraps as he eventually comes around to building his Iron Suit. If my memory serves me right, Jeff Bridges only manages to turn up like 45 minutes into the movie when Tony returns home...so there's comparatively far less time to develop him into a character in his own right. The MCU in particular seems to encounter this problem in spades....Ronan and Malekith being particularly egregious examples when it comes to their practically sporadic development.
I certainly agree with the OP on all counts that Doc Ock in my beloved Spiderman 2 has certainly proved with time to be one of the best developed and thus more engaging super-villains ever introduced to us in a comic book movie. And I would argue, primarily, that that's because Sami Raimi really understands pacing in his movies in relation to developing characters, and much like Peter, Raimi actually took the time to chart Doc Ock's character arc from the very beginning...painting him early on, as a charming if slightly arrogant scientist who descends tragically into villainy as a result of his own hubris. Raimi takes every opportunity available to him in that film to further Ock's character...culminating in Ock's oh-so-satisfying redemption towards that film's end.
Loki too, is another interesting positive example, with his character being able to benefit from being developed in tandem with Thor's because of their shared back-story. Hell, their pretty much introduced to the audience standing side by side. So Loki escapes that usual problem of being completed neglected throughout Thor's first act on account of being right there from the beginning. Throughout that film, the hero and villain's journey are essentially twisted reflection's of each other, with Loki manipulating Thor and indirectly causing his banishment from the very beginning. As a result, we spend more time with him, thus making him a much more memorable character over-all.
Interfectum
Gold Member
MCU has terrible villains. Loki and to a much lesser extent Ultron have been the only serviceable baddies so far. It's easily the worst part of these Marvel movies. I mean, why do we even need so many heroes? The villains suck. Thor and Iron Man should be able to take care of most issues. The rest can retire.
RepairmanJack
Member
Yeah, I think this has been the issue with MCU overall. Any villain worthy enough for any decent story is probably going to warrant a bigger movie than a standalone or an in between like Ultron felt like. This excuse kind of runs out for Thanos though, they can't hint at a character for so long and then give him a paper then plot in the movie he's actually in.
Loki is the only villain in all of the modern marvel movies that has been remotely decent. The rest are absolute garbage as far as I'm concerned.
There is never any character development or real emphasis on the motivation of the villain. They just act evil because the comic book says so. Even Spiderman 3 has better villain motivation than the vast majority of the marvel movies which is absolutely hilarious.
Nolan managed to make the Joker so unhinging. You feel like this character has no motivation at all at the beginning but slowly you realise what drives him to do what he does.
The villains just aren't menacing or unhinging in marvel movies. They are laughably simple.
There is never any character development or real emphasis on the motivation of the villain. They just act evil because the comic book says so. Even Spiderman 3 has better villain motivation than the vast majority of the marvel movies which is absolutely hilarious.
Nolan managed to make the Joker so unhinging. You feel like this character has no motivation at all at the beginning but slowly you realise what drives him to do what he does.
The villains just aren't menacing or unhinging in marvel movies. They are laughably simple.
I really don't get what people enjoy about Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2. He's standard mad scientist throughout the movie with shit motivation. He was in no way interesting and certainly not threatening (the operating room scene was pure Evil Dead kitsch).
But I agree with the general point in the OP. Marvel seems pretty content in making their villains as bland as vanilla as possible. It's like they have no desire to rise up their obscure villains like they rise up their obscure heroes. I mean hell, outside of Loki, what MCU villain has gotten a substantial amount of attention in terms of merchandise or increased roles in other media?
But I agree with the general point in the OP. Marvel seems pretty content in making their villains as bland as vanilla as possible. It's like they have no desire to rise up their obscure villains like they rise up their obscure heroes. I mean hell, outside of Loki, what MCU villain has gotten a substantial amount of attention in terms of merchandise or increased roles in other media?
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Disney, do whatever you have to do
To get this guy in the MCU.
To get this guy in the MCU.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Well... Yeah.
Interfectum
Gold Member
Disney, do whatever you have to do
To get this guy in the MCU.
I fear they'd neuter even him to make the heroes look more heroic and awesome.
Glass Rebel
Member
This might be an unpopular opinion but I felt like Darren Cross was actually a compelling villain because of his relationship to Pym. He needed more explicit characterization and more shared screentime with Hank but the little bits and pieces we got were pretty cool.
Interfectum
Gold Member
I liked the actor who played Cross and, yeah, there was a little bit of depth there. And I felt like he was a viable threat, so that was good. But he just went total idiot at the end. Any nuance to his character, destroyed.
jackissocool
Member
I think Yellowjacket deserves a little more credit. His mentor/daddy issues fit perfectly with the themes of the movie. He was believably crazy and outraged about Scott taking his place in Hank's eyes. He actually had some development throughout the movie and came off as suitably threatening.
xmen vs magneto/stryker?
thehypocrite
Member
Which Hits? All MCU villains are weak sauce.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
In order to develop a convincing villain you have to let him survive the movie. MCU's problem is that there are two many Dust-off-your-hands-mission-accomplished stories. We need a pyrrhic victory or two. Doom is the best character for that.
I mean, yah. That's what makes their final success so satisfying. MCU lacks that so far. Heroes never feel outmatched. There is not as much struggle to Marvel's characters. No more powerful outer threat, or inner demons.
SomedayTheFire
Member
lmao at wanting Doom tho. that would only end one way.
Slayer-33
Liverpool-2
Doc Ock is great but nope
Magneto is probably the best. So great they use him again and again .... and again.
Wtf are those balls doing in his prison? Forgot
mystique.. iron tablets
We had 4 villain in Pierce, Zola, Crossbones and Bucky in one movie who all delivered on their roles and still had a memorable hero.
Contrast that to TDK where the Joker shined but Bats was completely forgettable aside from being the creepy big brother who tapped into your cell phones.
Mystique gives iron tabs to a guard. Magneto rips the iron from the guy's body and plays with his balls.
SomedayTheFire
Member
But I mean TDK was a good film and Winter Soldier was ehhh. Still probably top tier MCU tho.
Glass Rebel
Member
QuantumZebra
Member
fixed
- Status