MCU and DCCU Differences in Mentality

Marvel doesn't need villains which are THAT powerful (though they have a few...see Galactus, Thanos aso), because their heroes are not THAT powerful either. One of the major points in the MCU is that the earth is outclassed. It basically was lucky to be under Asgards protection all this time (though that didn't prevent Kree from doing strange experiments and the occasional human traffic into space), and now it has basically becoming a place of attention for one of the most powerful beings in the universe. The whole point in all this is that Marvel heroes will fight, even though the odds are stacked against them. In DC movies it is usually the other way around. Take man of Steel. Not only is Superman stronger than everyone on earth, he has soaked the empowering sunlight into his skin for years while Zod hasn't. the only reason why Zod is even a threat is because he has more men, knows more than Superman and can adapt pretty fast. But even though the movie tries to pretend otherwise, Superman actually is more powerful than him...otherwise he wouldn't be able to snap his neck in the end.

edited 29th Aug '15 10:00:01 AM by Swanpride

I don't think the movie tried to pretend Zod was more powerful than Superman it is just that Zod has more experience and Clark doesn't actually know what he's capable of; he didn't know he could fly until Jor-El said he had that ability so we saw him fly for the first time.

is not about power, is about control of the moment, in Man of steel, until much latter Zod and his men have corner the americna forces ans superman, also when Both star fighting is clear that Zod dosent care to win at that point, he just want to cause as many damage as he can.

or to put it in simple term: Zod dictate the terms of the fight "ether you die or I will" and is clear that no matter how much Clark tries, he cant bring him down so he acept Zod terms and kill him.

Marvel villians dosent get that far: Ultron never seen in control of the moment, having Pietro and Wanda slip from him, capturing Black widow for nothing and no only loosing his replacement body but his "father" making a better version of him, them in the last fight he....swarm everyone with ultrobots with only serve to show cast the avenger being awsome.

Compare that to Loki who manage to turn the avenger without moving, destroy the helicarrier and open the portal, is not until Stark figure out Loki next move that stand a change, for earth being outclass it dosent to be that much of a problem.

edited 29th Aug '15 10:22:05 AM by unknowing

Nearly every marvel movie has a moment in which it seems as if the hero is defeated, a low point in which everything seems lost. Iron man has Tony getting his heart ripped out. Iron Man 2 has alienating everyone. Thor has Loki on the throne in full power. The Winter Soldier has the moment when everyone is picked up by the Strike team. Got G has Ronan getting the stone. The Avengers has Loki destroying the Helicarrier and Age of Ultron's big "defeat" is the period on the farm, when Ultron has forced the Avengers into hiding and they have no idea how to defeat him. It is even the longest period of "being defeated" in any of the Marvel movies.

" Iron Man 2 has alienating everyone."

Again, that is not vanko(or whatever is call) doing, that is Tony being a dick from most of the point(which is my complain with Iron man 2, too much Drunk tony to care) his fight with Vanko is reaaaally short

"The Winter Soldier has the moment when everyone is picked up by the Strike team."

In which the next movie make a 180 and having Hydran being dismantle, for everyone not into Agent of Shield it come around as weird and Ultron victory is him pulling a loki thanks to Wanda, when they face him again they take their body, create vision and them complete dominate him from most part.

Aside from Winter soldier the only movies where the villian corner the hero are Iron man 3(because Tony hold the idiot ball for a moment) Thor 2 and Antman(for a moment) whihc is undercut because the villians are generic as hell there.

Well, the real enemy in Iron man 2 isn't Vanko, It's Tony himself.

Yeah, they are really dominating the situation in Age of Ultron when they are faced with the choice to kill everyone on the flying rock including themselves in order to rescue everyone else. In both, The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron they are lucky that Fury is always thinking ahead. (Though I admit, they really should abandon this particularly Deus ex machine for a while).

which is the problem for me: WHY stand evil tony#2 and #3 while the real one is being a dick for dying? by the time he resolve his strugle with a deus ex machina(because inventing a new element by seen your daddy table....yeah) the rest dosent matter.

And..yes, until Fury ex machina comes they where doing well as far they could, the ultron mooks barely care and of course the whole "in restrocpective" which it break supension of disbelief, almost as him saying "dont worry guys, is not that serious!"

There's a problem with that too. It's fine if Tony is his own worst enemy, so long as that is what the story leads to. It's also fine if the hero struggles in a fight because Worf Had the Flu. But in the case of Iron Man 3, if Tony was at peak condition the entire plot would have been solved earlier with a lot less headache.

Well, there is a reason why Iron Man 2 is considered one of the weakest MCU movies. In Iron Man 3 though, Tony is at disadvantage because he is actually fighting against the wrong enemy most of the movie.

Also because he hold the idiot ball by thinking the mandaring will atack him fare and square, granted I forgive this because his trauma and his friend getting hurt.

But from most part Killian dominate the movie, he blow up Tony house, send his extremis soldier against him or trying to cut the clue how his plan, while the flim bring a half ass Mandarin it really get across Tony.

Again, Marvel like to get the protagonist face himself, outside the villian while DC like more of a "thematic" foe who represent something the movie is try to point out, Marvel actually use this to time to time for the better(like Loki in thor or Hydra and bucky in winter soldier)so for me DC is having better time with villians

Marvel treats several of its heroes like Popeye sometimes - we know all along that as soon as he actually gets down to brass tacks the villain is going to go down like a sack of bricks, and the whole plot is the build-up/wait until when someone finally eats the proverbial spinach.

Thor is the worst about it, but Iron Man 2 and 3 were both like that too - Iron Man 3 arguably even worse about it (Iron Man 2 almost doesn't do it but makes the mistake of not giving Vanko enough presence, Iron Man 3 just fails to tonally make Tony feel like he's ever in much danger from his enemies). Even Ultron suffers from it - the moment the Avengers finally come together and start fighting, he and his army suffer an almost laughable curbstomp.

When it comes to being a physical threat, Ronan was the first villain in a long time to avert that. HYDRA also completely avoids it, as Winter Soldier does a good job of focusing on their power as a conspiracy rather than merely a collection of tough guys.

edited 30th Aug '15 12:49:37 AM by KnownUnknown

I don't think that DC has so much more luck with adapting their villains to the big screen than Marvel has. The only villain which always seems to work is the joker. Arguably Zod, considering that the version from Superman II was quite memorable. But otherwise? I am still waiting for a good Riddler on the big screen.

Nolanverse antagonists >>>>> MCU villains, in my opinion.

I don't see much of a difference. Nolan has the Joker and you could make a case for Harvey dent, even though his time is a villain is pretty short. Bane in the third movie doesn't work at all and the league of Assassins was a big disappointment Imho. (What is the point of taking a villain which is mainly interesting because of his magic abilities and then taking away all the magic?).

The MCU has Loki, Hydra and some really enjoyable antagonists, like Thunderbolt Ross, Yondu and (for now) The Winter Soldier.

Okay we are back to supervillians. I look for my previous comment on how to write standard supervillains again, which proves there's not much difference any from Marvel Studios to WB to Fox for their mainline verses apart from how much screen time they get a chance to show off.

" Iron Man 3 just fails to tonally make Tony feel like he's ever in much danger from his enemies" Uh what? Iron Man 3 was stylistically and thematically pensive. It challenged Tony to look inward into himself more so than the past two movies. As for the external conflict, Killian didn't have much screen time but oh boy did he make Tony's life hell. He overpowered Tony. Out thought Tony. Out bought Tony. If it wasn't for Pepper he would have died. In Iron Man 2 Tony was too ignorant to see the importance behind Black Widow's fighting lessons, while in Iron Man 3 he gets physical outside his suit because the threat forces him. This is the first time we get to see Tony really apply his genius against someone who does all the right things to end his life.

btw. Tony Stark has a very witty personality. He doesn't face threats straight faced like Batman just like Clint. The way he behaves is very much due to his personality. Don't except him to constantly brood. Not everyone responds with the text book definition of serious. Still he is the most emotionally vulnerable Avenger, being spooked by things he was not excepting and did not understand. This vulnerability makes him act recklessly, which in turn causes him to hinge on the ambiguous side. He always has to deal with the innate conflict of his egocentric, unethical self and his rouges remind him of that fact, being literal representations. Tony may not always do the right thing, but at this point he genuinely believes he’s doing what’s right. He is his own villain. Everyone else just acts as a metaphor that goes boom, bang pow. The bigger boom, bang, pows then the better the external conflict (que Killian, Stane, and the ending where Vanko finally got in his suit). Now give them something to stand out in the not annoying sense (looking at you Vanko's bird) and they are okay. For Tony's life we invest in everything he does. His actions. what they cause. Having someone he punches be awesome is icing on the cake though the time he has come for a lot more of that to happen when there are no more skeletons in the closet. He accepted who he is. He faced his demons. Now bring forth Mandarin.

As for Ultron, I agree his feats were underwhelming but note he was mainly based on Tony, being the Bizarro to Iron Man. If Tony went full evil this would be him in a suit. Tony goes for glamour and short cuts. He wants a speculate. Loud and grand. The only thing Ultron needed was better feats because he's Ultron, a character known for his nigh-villain sue status. Boom, bang, pow. Anything else would just be contributing to the metamorph he represented, which is directly linked to the protagonist.

edited 30th Aug '15 4:53:58 AM by xbimpy

Ra's al ghul is a much more competent and layered antagonist than any Marvel villain to date, and also pulls off the villainous parallel shit better than any other Marvel villain. Scarecrow is admittedly shallow, however much more enjoyable and competent than his fellow respective shallow antagonists. Hell, even Falcone is a super interesting dude.

The Joker is the Joker. I don't think I have to mention him. Two-Face is also a pretty solid antagonist. Like, A plus material; he's unfortunately overshadowed by the Joker, but he's a fantastic character in his own right.

The Dark Knight Rises has its problems, and it's also the most divisive film generally. Except for me, its problems don't entirely lie with Bane. Bane worked for me. I thought he was certainly a compelling and threatening character. Which brings me to my next point: each villain in the Nolanverse has competently introduced conflict in no way that Marvel villains have.

No Marvel movie has done completely what all great movies should: convince me. They do not convince me or sell me the conflict in each movie. The villains are not only not very threatening, they're just plain boring.

Some people would like to defend this by saying "Nah man it's about the hero! Marvel wants to focus on the hero." However, that does not mean they have to sacrifice character integrity or depth. It never has to, actually.

Ultron, for all his grandiose build-up, never really sold anyone his worth. It's a disappointing trend coming from a company with so many interesting rogue's galleries, especially when the most interesting antagonist has come from its television division rather than its main core of movies.

"What is the point of taking a villain which is mainly interesting because of his magic abilities and then taking away all the magic?"

Also cough cough the Mandarin. . . ....

Then again, this all comes down to opinion. But I'm just saying, I would love to see Marvel villains reach the same intensity in all of their scens, the same intensity that the Joker channeled through just that one interrogation scene.

Falcone isn't that interesting. He gives a good speech about the power of fear, but in the end, there isn't much more to him than "evil mob boss". I consider Alexander Pierce to be a good deal more interesting.

Because Pierece has better moments where he stood out. He had more flare that carried the scenes he was in. N Ot hard to figure out an interesting guy from a not so interesting guy. Would you want to sit down with him and have a chat or not? Like I said if you want to make the rouge stick out for awesomeness points then he she or it needs something that makes them stick out beyond boom, bang, pow - a quirk, personality, speech, virtue, vice, hobby, culture, backstory, presence, competence, etc... something that makes them worth watching for then 10 mintues. Otherwise the feats have to be kinda cool and for the majority that's all rouges come down to are feats. judge by their physical accomplishments, for example although Nolan's Scarecrow and Ras said some cool stuff they didn't have much to back it up on the battlefield in contrast to Joker and Bane. Their boom bang pow sucked. Pierce obviously wouldn't have any boom bang pow but instead he had the competence of any Bond villain done by a great actor who didn't come off over the top like someone out of a shonen anime. Now Synder's Zod was text book ham & cheese but sadly the story he was in needed someone not so over the top much like Russso's Winter Soldier. This is why when Falcon told Crossbones to shut up it fit (also helps when characters in the MCU are like us - if a guy in a cat suit starts shooting fire balls from his hand we all aren't going to do the Batman response).

edited 30th Aug '15 10:55:30 AM by xbimpy

Weather one likes the Mandarin twist or not (I am actually under the impression that the ones who don't are mostly those who had their heart set on seeing the Mandarin...the general audience seemed to like the idea, I have even read some reviews in which Iron Man 3 is considered the best Iron Man movie because of the twist) one has to admit that it was a really bold move by Marvel. Nobody saw this one coming.

Who was Falcone again?

edited 30th Aug '15 6:25:57 AM by Swanpride

That's because casual viewers are morons who go just to amuse themselves for an hour or two before going back to their meaningless lives.

Clearly, someone was not watching Batman Begins if they don't know who Falcone is.

edited 30th Aug '15 6:51:58 AM by SciFiSlasher

Clearly someone found Batman Begins mostly long-winded and boring. I don't really appreciate to get hit over the head every five minutes with the fact that the theme of the movie is "fear".

I can't really comment since as others have said, we've seen a grand total of one DCCU movie vs. Marvel's like 10 or so.

But I will say I appreciate the diverse casting in the announced slate of movies. Suicide Squad alone has more prominent minority characters in a single film than I've noticed in most prior superhero movies put together.

Though Marvel has been getting somewhat better with this as of Civil War.

edited 30th Aug '15 7:37:30 AM by comicwriter

If the Nolanverse had any flaw, it was the overbearing script that wanted to hold your hand so your head wouldnt explode from the "profound messages" of the film.

edited 30th Aug '15 7:53:54 AM by nervmeister

Batman villains usually have more of a psychological edge to them than most other villains. That isn't to say other villains are any lesser, just that Batrogues lean more towards the 'psychology' angle; most of them can't hold a candle to superpowered threats in terms of raw menace, or are that relatable or Well Intentioned, so they have to focus more on their psyches and what makes them tick instead of giving them super-duper fights or play them for sympathies too much (true, most of them have tragic pasts, but most of them are also irredeemable assholes). Only the Spider-Man villains come close to them in that regard, and until recently they were off-limits for Marvel Studios.

Flash's villains, for instance, are great, but most of them have their greatness coming from how relatively 'average Joe'-ish they are and their blue collar position. They don't need to be as psychologically twisted as most Spider-Man or Batman villains.

edited 30th Aug '15 7:51:57 AM by NapoleonDeCheese