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 don't see The Winter Soldier as a villain. But I also liked Alexander Pierce, I think he was a very nuanced villain...not in the attention seeking way Loki is, he feels more realistic, like someone we could encounter in our everyday life. General Ross (who might have been the best part of The Incredible Hulk) falls more or less in the same category. And Hydra in general is a very good "villain", even if it is an organisation and not a person, just like "the military" is a very good antagonist. Talbot is a lot of fun to watch in Ao S
I also enjoyed Ronan and I am really looking forward to how Nebula will develop.
It's really mostly the Iron Man villains which don't work...and Malekith.
i wasn't really making a distinction between antagonist and villain in my post, though maybe i should have. the two are different things, yes, it's just that for the most part there's not much distinction between the two in the mcu.
as far as ronan goes...he was serviceable. i liked guardians of the galaxy but it didn't really have anything to do with ronan.
edited 19th Jul '15 1:47:35 AM by wehrmacht
Yeah, even in the comics, Iron Man hasn't had the best villains. All of his villains tended to be, well, evil Iron Men. Originally, there were a lot of Soviets, too, like the Crimson Dynamo, which you can't really use now.
Honestly, instead of Ivan Vanko, they should have used Madame Masque. And possibly the Ghost.
I think they should have left Justin Hammer in the movie, making him a little bit more competent (meaning, he develops the drones himself - or his company does) and then allowed his company to get used by the Ten Rings in a very smart and well-planed attack.
And instead of Vanko attack him during the Grand Prix, they could have put a terrorist attack into the movie which required Iron Man to do a lot of rescuing. Because a well staged rescue can sometimes be more exciting than a fight (case to point, the best scene of Iron Man 3 is definitely the one with the sky jumpers)
Since we are on the subject of antagonist I will say this (note: it’s a long read).
I am not sure you guys are aware, but supervillains do not need loads, and loads, and loads of development or personality since they exist below the three dimensional chart.
Instead they need:
Competence -
X rouge shouldn't stand below Y protagonist's power. In fact, for most of the story, he/she/it should put the hero in grave danger, at least appearing they would win. Defeating a crazy-competent villain is better for the hero. Why do I remember Daredevil? Because he defeated King Pin.
Style -
X rouge should dominate his/her/its scene with style, even if they don't have memorable or a few lines. They should go big. Extradited actions and speeches. Heck sometimes they are not needed to be on screen. Take Sylar for example. The incompetence of the cops was contrasted with the gruesomeness of the murder Sylar committed. They have no idea how depraved this killer was. He left an impression because he was obviously playing out of their league without being on screen.
Ambition -
X rouge should have an overarching and genuinely sinister plan because that makes them more memorable than a complication or low staked conflict. A guy ran over my foot, therefore I am going to chase him down till I die is an example of the former. A guy fired me, therefore I am going to get revenge against him and the company he works for. In Remi's Spiderman 1, what would the stakes of Spiderman NOT fighting the Green Goblin have been? Nothing… unless someone was among the board of directors at Os Corp. Now yes endangering the entire world or universe is cheesier than something mundane because the romanticized elements take away from the seriousness of the conflict. It's hard to take humanoid aliens invading Earth serious (looking at you Man of Steel). Still X rouge who plays for small stakes probably won't seem very competent or frightening because their action isn't big enough. Look at Doctor Octopus. He engendered many more innocent victims for something more personally attached to him.
Details that are okay for supervillains:
1. There's nothing wrong with being overpwoered. In fact, X rouge should stand above their superhero counterpart because the more our hero is challenged, the more impressive it is when he/she/it eventually succeeds.
2. Likability and relatability are much less important for villains than heroes. The quality of a villain almost always depends on his/her/its style, competence and scariness. If the audience isn't enthusiastically urging on Y hero to beat X rouge then they probably aren't thrilled about the story.
3. The villain's powers should usually be easier to explain in generic terms than whatever the hero can do. Rouges are often not on screen as much as the hero, so working in a really complex power for them when they only use said power for a few moments is a waste of time. Additionally, superheros have far greater powers, both quantity and quality, than supervillains. Star Wars is a none superhero story, yet the same concept still applies: Luke Skywalker has a variety of force powers, but the only power we see the Emperor use is lightning. In an actual superhero story: Thor has a variety of abilities and techniques, but his rouges are known for their one dimensional power.
4. Villains can usually get away with a voice and/or personality that are relatively over-the-top. The best example is Zod, someone loud enough and wild enough to work under Frieza as a henchman. Remember, villains have less time to make an impression in contrast to the hero because generally they aren't on-stage as much. If Y hero acts really over-the-top, flow-blown large ham DBZ style, he/she/it would have enough time to wear out their welcome. Additionally, over-the-top characters are hard to take serious. This is problematic for Y hero, but X rouge? Nope. If Y hero were ever to do MUWAHAHAHA then you know the story sucks.
5. Supervillains can embrace messed-up origins and mental disorders. In fact they should because it makes them more entertaining to watch when they're psychotic; it adds onto the competence and scariness, especially because it makes them go for the more dangerous feats. However, racism and other prejudices are harder to translate, so stay away from it unless you know what you're doing. Case in point, Dr. Doom. It's really hard to make a prejudiced villain that is remotely three-dimensional or sympathetic.
5. Generally, backstory and origin story for supervillains are nowhere near as important to take away screen time from the hero's tale. This is why exposition is acceptable or a quick flashback done in a matter of minutes or even seconds. There is even the lengthy monologue that atomically leads to their villainy rather than the director using concrete evidence shown and dramatized. If backstory is shown except it to be information dumping. Likewise, the family and love interests of the villain are more often than not forgettable. Furthermore, our X rouge is likable because of their style and good intentions may soften any megalomania they have left. The extreme actions they take should always remind the audience there's no turning back. They would burn the world down to save their daughter, but in the process any inherit good left is hardly noticeable.
6. Contrivance is totally fine. When something happens to X rouge for no particular reason, now that's dramatic because they get a lucky break. "Good thing those plasma riffles were laying around"! How will the hero respond? When Y hero gets a lucky break, that's usually bad writing. The audience wants the hero to save himself, not rely on corny deus ex machinas.
If you cannot tell by now, Marvel Studios often avoids putting emphasis on its supervillains in contrast to any superhero because these films are not told from the former's perspective. They don't have enough autonomy to act outside what the plot wants them to do. This fact is perfectly fine within a given context.
"Character development" and "flesh out" are poorly misused by critics who deem rouges here contain none. Scale (the amount of things accomplished by said character) is not the same as growth (who said character is and how they change internally). Let's be real, a supervillain, unless recurring, will never gain their own character arc. When they do recur we get people like Grant Douglas Ward, Kara, John Garrett, Daniel Whitehall, Jiaying, Arnim Zola, Dottie Underwood, Johann Fennhoff, and every thug in Hell's Kitchen. Marvel Studios doesn't know how to make supervillains, yet the smaller screen says otherwise.
Remember character arcs are not centered on the LEVEL of things someone does, their external conflicts, but WHO they are, internal. Character arc is based on a change in ethos, not a change in scale. Story models that rise in conflict rather than change in conflict tend to be dull than the latter. I haven't seen any supervillian from a sliver screen product Marvel Studios, Fox, Sony, or Waner Brothers thus far who break the trend apart from Fox's Magento, Marvel's Loki, and Sony's Henry Osborn. Even they are pretty over the top.
Character development is not when a character changes. Anyone can change on the outside through superficial details... i.e: rob a bank > find a mcguffin that makes me stronger > feels like a bigger bad ass > robs every bank on the planet. BAM, I developed!
True character development essentially revolves around how the character changes due to their personalities, vices, virtues, motivations, inspirations, necessities, and desires that become effected by their family, culture, society, class structure, education, work, relationships, and upbringing. By the end our perception of the character changes.
Personality is exactly what https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SoYouWantTo/DevelopCharacterPersonality?from=Main.SoYouWantToDevelopCharacterPersonality
says: A dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognition, motivations, and behaviors in various situations. In other words your character's personality will be the behavior your character has with themselves and with others. It's important to note that even though all people have personalities, the person isn't his/her personality.
Supervillians hardly contain enough multifaceted personality to warrant change beyond anything other than acting utterly insane because INPUT reason said so. This reason is not deep nor thoroughly justified. The result leads to an artificial impact on the rouge. For example, Harvey Dent suddenly became the psychopathic Two Face the moment Joker asked him. Yes we already knew he was going to change, but the reason had no weight behind it. It just happened and as a writer I asked so what? The film gave no response. Nothing dramatized. See prefect example of a rouge bending to the whim of the plot for a highly acclaimed movie. His autonomy reduced on demand of the author's vision. A puppet character.
The majority of rouges used thus far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe rank between D-B. Malekith the Accursed, Laufey, Ivan Vanko, Obadiah Stane, Darren Agonistes Cross, and several others are characters who do not warrant enough depth to read pages and pages about even in the source material, yet in live action the only reason more stick out than others is because they have better competence, style, and scariness. Ant Man's Darren Cross, the latest rouge, was far more entertaining and interesting than Iron Man 2's Ivan Vanko as a result. Even Malekith had better competence and scariness in contrast to Vanko fiddling with a pet bird. At least the latter put people in danger because he made the stakes higher, while the former didn't leave any consequences for the hero to contemplate over. Oh Iron Man's Thor's, and Ant Man's rouges are mainly meh by the way, so do not except anything amazing from them unless the top dogs are brought out. Half of Marvel's best rouges are not owned by Marvel Studios though Spiderman is here...
A good supervillain is not a supervillain. No one wakes up and says today I am going to be a supervillain! The world is much more complex than that. If someone has a mental illness then it shouldn't be downplayed for a more extradited portrayal. "I'm utterly insane, look at me blow up the world because of shell shock!" Instead examine it for a less black and white result. Heck, they shouldn't even be called a supervillain, just an antagonist. Most of all they should be fleshed out rather than an excuse for symbolism pitted against the protagonist and a reason for the hero to hit something. A good antagonist offers more than competence, style, scariness, and a life or moments irrelevant to villainy; guess who fits this description? Wilson Fisk... and there's no mainstream superhero movie from any company that matches the depth he has. Why? Because he exist in a place that is more grey than the larger than life realm Avengers protect. Remember this is superhero fiction. It's not the best example of how to write an antagonist if characters like Fisk are outweighed by Red Skull.
edited 19th Jul '15 8:08:45 AM by xbimpy
Kinda feeling my question is getting buried, so I'll ask again:
Guillermo del Toro directing The Inhumans movie.
Would you (as in everyone here) want to see that?
I agree that the backstory of a villain is not really what makes him good or bad. And I want to point out that the most well known Villains in the media have been NOT created by Marvel or DC. They have been created by Disney. No-one does villains as good as they do. And what have Maleficent, Scar, Chernabog aso in common what makes them so impressive villains? Certainly not their complicated backstory. Not even their motivation. No, it is pure style and power. Maleficent is not one of the big ones because it is so great that she curses a baby, but because she is devious and can turn into a dragon. Skar is not so popular because his motivation is so interesting but because he is over-the-top and kills Mufasa.
Marvel has a couple villains like this. Ronan (and honestly, I don't get the complains about him, the guy literally bathes in the blood of his enemies), The Red Skull, Stane fall in this category.
Pixar movies are widely praised, but let's be honest here, other than syndrome they don't have memorable villains to speak of. They mostly have either antagonists or the "surprise villain".
Marvel has this type of villain, too. Alexander Pierce for example, and General Ross as antagonist.
And then there is the third type of villain, the type which DOES have a backstory, preferable one which makes the audience sympathise with the villain. This type is the most difficult to pull of and therefore the rarest in the Media (I am currently trying to think of examples but come up blank...Snape perhaps, but he is not an outright villain, he just gets presented as one at times...mmm...). Other than Magneto, who Marvel can't use, they have given us three of this kind in the MCU with Loki, Grant Ward and Mr. Hyde. That is quite a feat.
And then there is the fourth kind...the kind which is half-villain half-antagonist. The kind of villain who is really, really smart, so smart that you want him to get away with it to a certain degree just because you are so impressed by it. A Xanathos-type villain like Lex Luther. That's the type of villain the MCU is missing so far...but I am hopeful that The Kingpin will shape up to be one of this kind.
And finally the fifth kind, the funny villain. Also difficult to pull off, but Disney has a few of them (Captain Hook, Madam Mim, Yzma). Those are hard because they easily can come off as pathetic. Justin Hammer is the attempt to create a funny villain and they came close to succeeding, but he was just not threatening enough, mainly because he was too stupid to really compete with Tony.
What went wrong with Malekith is that 1. His design wasn't threatening...there is nothing which looks less dangerous than a freaking elf. 2. He didn't seem that smart...he looses a battle and his solution is to send your own troops into their death? And he is not able to find the right target even though he can sense the location of the aether? 3. He didn't seem that threatening...when the hench-man seems to be more dangerous than his master you have a problem.
That's why I think that the idea that more backstory would have made Malekith better is nonsense.
![]()
Yeah Feige confirmed it was a scene from Civil War
they added in since it ties into Ant Man and was a good tease for the movie itself.
Which makes sense because it seemed like a very odd tonal fit. Everything from the lighting to the music struck me as oddly Darker and Edgier compared to the movie that it was attached to.
It would never happen. They aren't trying to get established, big name directors and established, big name directors don't particularly want to work for the MCU.
"I want to point out that the most well known Villains in the media have been NOT created by Marvel or DC. They have been created by Disney."
That's extremely subjective. Marvel and DC both still created very famous villains, and not just to comic book fans. I mean, seriously, I think The Joker is at the very least as famous as Scar. Same for Lex Luthor, Comic Book/Venom, to a lesser extent Doctor Doom... there are quite a few memorable villains in Marvel and DC.
Still, I guess it's a bit hard to completely blame Marvel for making poor villains, because in the end they do what they should: focus on their heroes, something even good movies like Tim Buron's Batman could forget about by focusing on the villain. A movie has a limited time, and they try focusing it on the heroes. Then again, they could still develop the villains if they didn't kill off so many of them right after the first movie... I can understand with some of them, but at other times...
Based on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xnbyefdpdk
apparently Tony made scholarships for smart students in urban neighborhoods. hnmmm more hints towards Spiderman?
Hey guys, were we doing that thing, where L Dragon comes in with a negative article and he just wants to know our thoughts for reasons, and then whatever? I just need to be sure.
@higher: That's what I thought. The scene was even in a different aspect ratio than the film it was attached to.
edited 19th Jul '15 8:17:02 AM by edvedd
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project@ Targetmaster Joe: Del Toro's already involved with a huge bunch of projects that he's working on (Crimson Peak, Pacific Rim 2, The Strain) plus stuff he wants to work on (A Justice League Dark movie), so I don't think that working with Marvel is high on his priority right now.
edited 19th Jul '15 8:17:42 AM by higherbrainpattern
The kind of villain who is really, really smart, so smart that you want him to get away with it to a certain degree just because you are so impressed by it. A Xanathos-type villain like Lex Luther. That's the type of villain the MCU is missing so far...but I am hopeful that The Kingpin will shape up to be one of this kind.
Actually, the MCU had two villains like this: Wilson Fisk (who is still alive, albeit in jail) and Raina (who survived for two seasons, but then died). Both manipulated situations and people, although Fisk was slightly more Lex Luthor (being a rich businessman), while Raina simply manipulated people to get whatever she wanted from them.
And, honestly, if they ever do introduce Madame Masque, that's what type of villain she should be.

Call me nitpicky but I'm not really sure why so many people describe the Winter Soldier as a good villain. Not for the Fandom Berserk Button reason listed here but because he lacks the kind of agency or motivation I associate with a good villain. He's certainly a great antagonist. But as a villain? He has more in common with the gun than the person firing it.
What makes the Winter Soldier's character compelling is the background drama regarding his identity as Bucky and the suffering he experiences as HYDRA's victim, not the deeds he commits in their name. He does bad things because he's told to. That's as far as his character goes villainwise. Not very interesting.Contrast that to Loki, who does commit evil actions of his own will, but has interesting and even sympathetic reasons for them. Or Pierce himself, who does despicable, inexcusable things but has the charisma, interesting backstory, and enough depth to feel like a fully realized character.
And this isn't directed at
but I get annoyed when I see articles talking about the Winter Soldier's villain status and how he could theoretically evolve into a Loki figure. It's comparing apples to oranges, and smacks of Genre Blindness. To me it was pretty clear even within The Winter Soldier that it wasn't a matter of if but when Bucky would be redeemed, and that unless Civil War introduces new negative characterization elements into the mixnote his "redemption" is less about making a Heel–Face Turn (as he was never even evil to begin with) and more about regaining his sense of self.
edited 19th Jul '15 1:45:01 AM by AlleyOop