Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
I understand that Hancock was about a superhero who used his powers selfishly and was generally kind of a dick.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersThat line came back to bite her pretty hard in the second season.
edited 13th May '15 9:11:41 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.They're absolutely right about Marvel's villain problem, although I don't understand the constant praise for Loki when IMO he works much better as an Anti-Hero or Anti-Villain figure, and the one time he was the villain proper he had the same problems all the other "bad" Marvel antagonists like Ronan and Malekith did except for not dying.
Also they seem to be under the impression that Bucky will be a recurring villain figure in the same vein as Loki or Eddie Brock Venom, and if anything he's got more in common with Fiora from Xenoblade (and nobody would regard them that way). This seems to be a recurring thing with write-ups about the character, and I'm guessing it can be excused by a lot of these people not reading the comics and knowing what happens to him there, but even so, his own movie made it pretty clear what his deal is.
edited 13th May '15 9:36:51 PM by AlleyOop
Loki was pretty fleshed out in the first Thor movie compared to the other villains before him. YMMV on whether he was as detailed as the article makes him out to be, but he was pretty much the Tritagonist of the first movie, and got all of the characterization that would imply.
But I'm a biased fanboy when it comes to the Thor movies so I dunno.
Edit: Though in Avengers, yeah. He had the same problems as everyone else.
edited 13th May '15 9:37:32 PM by HisInfernalMajesty
"A king has no friends. Only subjects and enemies."Does anyone know where these are from?
Or if they're real? They may be edited, or may be not. Would explain that one shot of Steve kicking down the door in Strucker's castle that wasn't in the movie.
Sounds like something a Stucky shipper might've made up. A lot of them are really bitter about AOU and its exclusion of Bucky, some of it justified and some of it not so much.
It is too bad that Agent Carter didn't join the fun and went for hacking of legs instead of hands....
Either way, screenrant is basically click-bait, and I totally disagree that Marvel even has a "villain problem" to begin with. They had eleven movies. In three of the eleven movies the villain was the main problem (Iron Man 2 and 3, and especially Thor 2). In two movies Loki was the main villain, and I think we can agree that he is a good one, in one it was Alexander Pierce who was pitch-perfect and I haven't read that many complain about Ultron yet, so I put him on the "mostly liked" pile. That leaves four movies, and I don't think that in either of those the villain is awful. Two of them have a "the villain worked fine until the last act"-problem (Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk), and I have actually zero complains about Red Skull or Ronan. They both work perfectly for the kind of movie they are in.
So no, Marvel has no villain problem, they have only three movies in which the villain didn't work at all. (And they have actually a bunch of compelling villains in the TV-shows). The only problem Marvel has is that everyone wants them to do a version of Loki in every movie, some sort of super-layered and perhaps even slightly sympathetic villain. But that's not what Marvel need. Marvel movies are about the heroes, not the villains. The heroes are interesting enough and the only reason Loki is, well, Loki, is because of the emotional pain he causes Thor.
edited 14th May '15 2:52:34 AM by Swanpride
Bucky wasn't excluded from Age of Ultron. He wasn't present for the film, because he's still an unresolved loose end out wandering the world, but Sam mentions him during the Revels while he and Steve are discussing the battle. Something to the effect of, "You've got your Avengers thing, I'm perfectly happy working on our Missing Persons case."
The implication was that Sam was doing the heavy lifting of trying to find Bucky while Cap was busy tearing down Hydra bases with the Avengers.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.In fairness, the MCU has been better at handling some of the archenemies by setting them up for possible returns like the Red Skull, or hopefully a proper Mandarin, Loki having a good presence in the franchise, or even the possibility of Ultron coming back (Whedon is a former comic book righter IIRC, giving ambiguous deaths is kinda in the job prescription.)
Also, I've stated to friends that since MCU can't user Doctor Doom, they should use Red Skull as a counterpart for the role of human Big Bad.
Ironically the X-men films have been the best at handling villains or Anti-Villain or Anti-Hero or whatever Magneto is at the time.
edited 14th May '15 9:15:18 AM by Archivist10
The X-Men films, unfortunately, tend to go back to Magneto as the villain no matter what. Even in films where he wasn't the main villain, he turns out to be the final villain. Hopefully, Apocalypse will rectify this.
Honestly, I don't see Red Skull working as a good recurring villain - Crossbones and possibly Sin, yes, but the actual Red Skull is too cartoonishly evil.
I do wish that in Ragnarok, they will introduce the Enchantress and Skurge the Executioner, two of the best Thor villains. Enchantress is a villain that I can totally see as recurring, Loki-like while still being new. (Plus, Skurge has one of the best Death Equals Redemption stories ever.)
edited 14th May '15 9:28:27 AM by alliterator
Set pics of Mackie, Evans and VanCamp
at the funeral. Yeah I definitely am thinking it's Peggy.
...They're praising the shows here though. They admit for all their faults, Dottie and Grant Ward are probably better handled and developed than 90 percent of the Marvel movie villains.
edited 14th May '15 9:40:26 AM by comicwriter
I guess having the running time of a tv show lets a character be more fleshed out. That's so crazy.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersMarvel's villains are not terrible, but they're consistently flat and mediocre, with the sole exception being Loki (and his status as an exception is disputed by some people here). Winter Soldier was effective, but less because of the individual personalities of the villains and more because of the nature of HYDRA and what it represented (that SHIELD has very seriously headed in the wrong direction, and that you need to look at the actions of the people you're working for and consider whether your side might me the bad guys; that Nick Fury's "security through power" strategy was wrong).
It stands out in comparison to the other comic book franchises who have had some very compelling villains. The best are Magneto, both Mc Kellan's version and Fassbender's version, in the X-Men moves; the Joker in The Dark Knight. Even ones who don't quite reach that level still have a lot of on-screen presence, strong acting, and/or character development: Stryker in X2; Doc Ock or the Lizard in the Spider-Man films; R'as al Ghul in Batman Begins. Ozymandias in Watchmen is another good one. Compared to any of these, the typical Marvel villain is one-dimensional and uninteresting.
The villains don't ruin the Marvel movies, but they've had almost a dozen films by now and they haven't produced any iconic villains, and they've had a lot of very flat, presence-less ones. So yes, it is a problem, and it holds the movies back from being great.
Marvel's best villain thus far is Wilson Fisk in Daredevil. Cal in Agents Of Shield has been pretty great too. Why? Because they've acted well and are fully fleshed-out characters rather than just templates with goals of "World domination!" or "Revenge!" But the strength of the villains in other comic book movies shows that it's not the medium that is holding Marvel back; it's the writing.
edited 14th May '15 9:51:41 AM by Galadriel

In this instance they're on the money, imo, though I suppose you could spin it as them echoing what fans have been saying for a while.