Doctor Strange (Scott Derrickson, Nov 4, 2016) Movie • Page 8

The weird thing about that is that the only villain people remember is Loki. Who was kinda the opposite of that. lol

 

There's not set criteria. I think some possible factors include motivations, intimidation, charm, performance, look, how they contribute to the film's story/themes, etc.

 

Ledgers Joker is the ultimate example of a great superhero film villain. it's that intensity of the threat they pose on all levels. Marvel just has these cookie cutter characters that tend to represent your standard cliches which often times is acceptable in comic form, but really lacking once translated to the big screen.

 

Loki is such a weak villain. Reminds me of Plankton from Spongebob Squarepants.

 

I think a huge reason for the problem is that we don't get to know these characters at all. The great thing about Killgrave and Fisk was that you didn't see them for three or four episodes. By the time they were revealed, you were already terrified of them. It takes some build for me to get on board with a villainous character. Humanizing them is such a strong way to make them believable and memorable. I wish they were doing more with Thanos to get us there. You have been setting this guy up for 6 years and we know NOTHING about him at all. How is that going to change in a 2.5 hour film? Build a big bad. Make us fearful of him.

Civil War did a great job with Zemo, but at the end of the day, he's still forgettable, which is a huge bummer.

 

Doc Oc in Spiderman 2 was a very solid villain.

 

Loki is a great villain.

- His motivations are clear most of the time.
- His backstory is believable and fleshed out over three films.
- He's the perfect blend of humor and evil intention.
- He can be ambiguous in his allegiances.
- He is very vulnerable and flawed.

 

And that feeds into what I'm saying. His story was very human. Spider-man's rouges are a great example of what works. Lizard and Doc Oc were approached in a way that makes sense. The characters didn't want to be the way they were, but outside motivations pushed them to be what them became. Lizards execution could have been better, but I appreciate what they were going for.

 

I've always found him to be second rate. He's the villain you know will never really pose a true threat. The fact that he has been the "main" villain what, three times now? Is sad...

 

The basic need for a villain is a psyche that thematically challenges the protagonist's, Ledger's Joker is tops. Or a fleshed out sympathetic story that challenges what it means for the hero to be a hero, like Ock in S-M2

 

Donner's Lex and Zod are great.

 

Realizing a thread through my personal favorites - none of them want to destroy the world, they have far more specific and personal goals.

 

Twice. Malekith was the villain in Dark World. His role in that film was fantastic.

 

Kingpin in DD is another great example of well done villain. Granted he was given a lot of time to develop, but here is your stock mob boss villain done about as well as can be.

 

I think the most important thing for any villain, or anything in a film, is how it fits into the film that they're trying to make. I don't personally think that, outside of personal taste, there is any such thing as a villain who isn't fleshed out enough, or a villain who steals the show, or too many villains, or a villain who's too intense, or a villain who's too silly, as long as whatever is done works well in the final product. Not every story needs Fisk or Joker or even Loki; sometimes Ronan the Accuser is exactly what the film asks for.

I'm a massive proponent of Thanos not doing much of anything until Infinity War and, frankly, would at this point be mad if they DID show too much in, say, Thor: Ragnarok or GOTG vol. 2. I like the angle of him being this mysterious threat looming behind the scenes without any solid information thus far. It does create the danger of too much hype for something that the MCU style might not be able to deliver on, but if hypothetically they do deliver, it'll work just fine. Let these films leading up reveal that he exists but spend most of their time fleshing out these heroes. Then, in Infinity War and maybe the sequel in 2019, spend time that the heroes won't need anymore to talk about Thanos' background and let him demonstrate his power in some major ways. I don't need to see him kill someone in GOTG for him to have impact in Infinity War.

I think Zemo is a good example of "good villain" being influenced by taste because I honestly think he was the perfect villain for Civil War and served his purpose very nicely. I get why someone would be tired of villains with big, complicated plans. However, I thought he had clear motivations and a strong performance, and I think Black Panther confronting him at the end was a brilliant scene that got at the core themes of justice, vengeance, and accountability quite effectively. (I know that Steve breaking everyone out at the end undermines that accountability theme, but that's another conversation, lol.)

To talk about this film, yeah, I think a film clocking at under two hours could have afforded adding just one scene that better dealt with where the villain's past and journey. I think just a little more could have been done there. Even so, I think it could be argued that he was at least a decent villain due to how he reflected Stephen Strange's journey, as well as Mads' performance in the scene where he's face to face with Strange.

 

The more I think about Zemo the more I think he's one of the stronger villains superhero movies have put forth

 

I know you're mainly talking about Marvel movies, but I do hope we can all agree that it's certainly not the case for their TV series. Wilson Fisk, Kilgrave, and Cottonmouth were some of the best on-screen villains I've seen.

 

I agree, and I mentioned that earlier. And It isn't always easy to produce a great villain in a 150 min film. I understand that.

 

This was fun and flew past. Great visuals.

 

Would like to watch again in a state of altered consciousness

 

marvel (and DC now) are afraid to tell small stories in their movies now, it's really getting out of control. I get they think higher stakes will sell more tickets but if every new origin story has the new character saving the world from ultimate destruction right off the bat then where can you go from there?

 

Civil War dialed back well, the climactic action sequence was just two characters, two friends, fighting and confronting each other. Part of why I like Zemo a lot, his goal wasn't about destroying everything or even just simple revenge, he wanted to hold the Avengers accountable for the casualties of their missions and battles by dividing them. Granted, the film didn't quite justify the complete division it saw (it's been talked about before but Ant-Man, Spider-Man, Hawkeye, their motivations and inclusion weren't quite as well justified as other characters), but it worked really well in the Tony/Cap relationship, which was most important.

 

I think Spider-Man's motivations make sense: He's a kid who idolizes Tony and thus wants to impress him with this new opportunity. His inclusion also makes sense because his backstory (which is merely very loosely implied 'cause I think everyone knows it by now) is all about responsibility. The issue I see is that Tony being all about accountability and then bringing in a kid is weird, to say the least, but I'm willing to chalk that up to him not being in the best place mentally/emotionally, plus an intention to keep Spidey as a long-distance helper via webbing.

Ant-Man seems to make sense to me because he idolizes Steve and the Avengers, which is shown in Civil War and implied in his solo film. He also is probably used to (but still not happy with) being locked up for doing what he sees as the right thing, as well as wanted to be the hero that Cassie can be proud of.

Out of all the inclusions, Hawkeye is the hardest to make sense of. The little bit that we've previously seen of this character show that Steve's side is the one he'd more likely side with, but choosing to come out of retirement and get involved when his family needs him seems like a poor decision. I'm ultimately alright with it because Age of Ultron showed his wife reluctantly viewing him as emotionally necessary to the team, which means she'd probably reluctantly approve of him trying to take care of this Steve/Tony clash, but adding a brief scene of him being recruited at his home wouldn't have hurt.

 

true, I guess I was talking more about the origin stories. like in this movie they introduce a character and then he stops a time transcendent eater of worlds almost instantly. how can the stakes get any higher than that lol?

 

this was very dumb and very pretty