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
They simplified Thanos' goals to be something a bit more grounded and relatable, but I always felt a disconnect between using cosmic powers to solve a mundane issue like overpopulation. The comics had him seeking to curry favor with a cosmic entity, which matched the powers he was using. Making the story focus on preventing Thanos from finishing the gauntlet and stopping one big event helped to mitigate that problem, but kept him from really becoming this godlike threat.
TBH, I prefer villains to have motives that are more complex than "I'm evil, so I do evil things." Thanos is like baby steps upward, but it's still something.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 16th 2020 at 6:09:19 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not really. Part of his thing is that he may be making up part of the story in his own mind. He is known as the Mad Titan, after all.
More importantly, he's been pursuing his goal for so long that it's its own justification. He's beyond any possible appeal to his better nature or whatever.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 16th 2020 at 6:34:04 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's a very good point.
I'm pretty much in line with Raven Wilder (
by the way) RE Thanos.
I don't really have an issue with the fact that Gamora was wrong as far as his genuine love for her goes, because that makes for a well-done gut punch. But with the emphasis that Thanos never lies, it's bad that the movie has him state that Gamora's planet is now a paradise.
I will note that I have come across the idea that Medieval Europe had improved social mobility following the Black Plague. So, it is believable that Thanos' mass murdering might have generated some improvements. Which goes back to Raven Wilder's point.
As I've mentioned in previous discussions, although I realize this would make things very Black-and-White Morality, I still think it should have been revealed that Thanos wiped out his own planet.
Edited by Hodor2 on Dec 16th 2020 at 7:26:49 AM
Disney is treading a careful line with the MCU. If you make a villain too sympathetic, the audience starts rooting for them and against the heroes. If you make a villain too one-note, the audience doesn't care about them at all. See Malekith for an example of the latter.
This is an artifact of Villains Act, Heroes React. We want to see our champions defeat the evil villain, but if the villain isn't entirely evil and might have a point, the goodguys seem a bit hypocritical. So even if they have a point, MCU villains must always jump off the slippery slope at some point to make sure we want them to lose.
Hence Thanos deciding to screw it and kill everything and everyone in Endgame.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Aren't the Deviants basically just a whole race of Evil Mutants? If the MCU is going to introduce both the Deviants and mutants, might they simplify things by making the Deviants mutants, or something to that effect?
Trope Editor (he/him)No, Deviants aren't Mutants. In the comics they're a third branch of humanity alongside the Eternals and "baseline" humans (which includes Mutants). They're also not all Evil.
The Skrulls in the comics are actually the "Deviant" branch of their own race. The "baseline" Skrulls and the "Eternal" Skrulls were wiped out by the Deviants in a massive race war, leaving the Deviants as the sole survivors.
Edited by M84 on Dec 16th 2020 at 9:40:46 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
I know the Deviants aren't actually mutants, I'm saying that they're similar enough that introducing both races separately in the MCU might be redundant.
The Deviants aren't really similar to Mutants, given they all universally have features that make them impossible to mistake for a baseline human. The Deviants are basically all like the Morlocks, a group of Mutants whose entire shtick was that their mutations made it impossible for them to blend in with human society.
Edited by M84 on Dec 16th 2020 at 9:44:21 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedWith Endgame we can assume Thanos was full of shit about Gamora’s planet too
He doesn’t have to be lying, just delusional
And Endgame makes it clear despite some baffling and conflicting “nature is healing” humanity as a whole is in a deep state of depression from which it might not recover
Forever liveblogging the Avengers![]()
I thought that in the comics the Deviants culled anyone who (ahem) deviated from the norm by being too humanlike, like Ransak the Reject.
Edited by ClancyGardener on Dec 16th 2020 at 5:46:32 AM
Trope Editor (he/him)This is an artifact of Villains Act, Heroes React. We want to see our champions defeat the evil villain, but if the villain isn't entirely evil and might have a point, the goodguys seem a bit hypocritical. So even if they have a point, MCU villains must always jump off the slippery slope at some point to make sure we want them to lose.
Hence Thanos deciding to screw it and kill everything and everyone in Endgame.
It's one of those ways superhero movies are just barely starting to catch up to other superhero media. Sympathetic villains aren't really new for anyone who grew up on your average superhero tv show, and definitely not if they read most comics series since every hero has at least one usually more major sympathetic antagonists. But they're a rarity in films, which tend to have more cut and dry narratives.
Superhero movies branched out of more pure, popcorn action movies, and thus have a lot of the same tropes: including narratives centered more solidly on the dashing hero, and a limited depth to the villains' schemes (even if they themselves are very charismatic or layered) so that it can end more easily with the hero punching out (or breaking the neck of, in Superman's case
) the villain. While other action movies have been known to dip into more sympathetic antagonists and drama-styled stories, superhero movies tend not to - which makes the ones that don't stand out from the pack.
Slowly, superhero movies have started weaning more sympathetic antagonism into . Compare Batman Forever's Two-Face (character's occasionally act like he could be better, but he's otherwise just your average wisecracking murderer) to Batman and Robin's Mr. Freeze ("oh, remember how he has a dead wife? So sad!" but otherwise a complete asshole), to Spider-Man 3's Sandman (basically the same as Mr. Freeze, but slightly heavier on the sympathetic backstory), to - full circle - The Dark Knight's Two-Face (starts as a well-meaning agent of justice who goes vigilante, then goes off the deep end and starts targeting everybody), and then guys like Killmonger (a terrible person who was created by a sympathetic means, and motivated by twisted fight against a legitimately bad thing).
They're getting better at it, but if they want to start adapting more and more characters the industry is going to need to get a handle on it. I want a decent Captain Cold in the Flash movies, a good adaptation of Mr. Freeze, etc.
I think the best actually sympathetic villain in the MCU so far (not counting the tv shows, in which case I might say Bushmaster) is Killmonger, yeah. But - to bring the conversation back to where it started - if we want a good character to look at for "some sympathetic traits, but still a completely awful excuse for a sapient being without an excuse" in the MCU, Ego works. He's got legitimately likeable traits and honestly believes in what he's doing, it's just that what he believes in is so blatantly self-centered and sociopathic that nobody would ever think those traits condone any of his actions. If they do DOOM the same way they did Ego, I wouldn't mind it.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Dec 16th 2020 at 5:49:28 AM
Not to mention that Word of God is that the Snap didn't spare any populations that Thanos hadn't already attacked, like Gamora's world or the Asgardian survivors.
![]()
Ransak wasn't culled, but he was treated like shit for being different. He ultimately went over to the Eternals because they didn't treat him like shit. Notably though, one of his best friends was the Deviant Karkas.
Edited by M84 on Dec 16th 2020 at 9:51:20 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedBut with the emphasis that Thanos never lies, it's bad that the movie has him state that Gamora's planet is now a paradise.
Ehhh, it's possible for Gamora's planet to be a paradise without it proving Thanos right. Maybe the rest of the planet decided to get along and unite their forces to be prepared to fight Thanos if he ever came back.
I would enjoy a mild Deconstruction of Doctor Doom. Like, because he has NO INDOOR VOICE and constantly talks about himself in the third person, everybody thinks he's just a pompous, melodramatic weirdo. Or, he's so overwhelmingly petty, thin-skinned and insufferably arrogant that absolutely everyone hates him.
Trope Editor (he/him)My view is that I like sympathetic villains if they’re given an actual worthwhile point for the heroes to struggle with. On the other hand, I think a nothing-but-evil villain can be compelling if they’re made into a real challenge for the heroes. I’ve replaying Ocarina of Time lately and Ganondorf in it doesn’t really have a motive besides “mwahaha, take over the world!” but he still cemented himself as an iconic villain by how he always seems to get one step ahead of the heroes. Likewise I don’t think a compelling Thanos as a worshipper of Death was an undoable concept. Or, in the future, Doom as a full egotist tyrant.
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Dec 16th 2020 at 5:59:20 AM
Take Hela as an example. She's entertainingly evil, but she's still just evil. No motive other than "I want to kill everybody and Daddy won't let me." Still, she points out a very important element of hypocrisy to the Asgardian ethos: it's built on a mountain of bones.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 16th 2020 at 9:12:56 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Weirdguy 149 Have to disagree, Thanos's viewpoint is actually pretty silly for a lot of reasons:
So it's a pointlessly cruel, ineffective solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Leviticus 19:34