Marvel's Movie/TV Universe *SPOILERS*

[Zantera]

I think villains have definitely been the weak point of Marvel so far in the movies. Many of the movies have very generic villains, and their only motive seems to be "I want to conquer the universe because I'm bad". Loki is a bit of an exception because he isn't really a villain. I guess you could say he is a little bit of both, but he's more of an anti-hero who chooses a side that will benefit him. He has interesting motives and has more than one dimension to him, but on the other hand I don't really buy him as THE ultimate villain. If he didn't have the giant army in Avengers, he wouldn't have stood a chance against Avengers, and even with the army he was no match for them. Even in the Thor movies, his role is more of a minor villain who helps the greater villain, but isn't much of a threat just by himself.

Despite having pretty weak villains, I think other parts of their movies make up for it. I LOVED Guardians of the Galaxy, and so did a lot of people, but the villain was easily one of the most forgettable parts of that movie. Thor 2 also had pretty forgettable villains with a dark elf army and a cloud of mist, and most of the controversy surrounding Iron Man 3 was the villain. Captain America: Winter Soldier is probably the best one IMO, because while the villain was basically just an emo version of Cap himself, there was some setup involved, and he didn't have those clichéd & cartoon-y motivations for his actions.

I think there is a lot of potential in Ultron though. The way he gets created is interesting, and while the concept of a creation seeking out to destroy its maker is not completely new, it's a well proven formula that usually works pretty well. The fact that Tony Stark creates an enemy which becomes a massive threat to our world and existence, I think Ultron, especially being voiced by James Spader will be great. If Red Skull ever returns, there is potential there for a great villain. Hugo Weaving is amazing, but Red Skull in the first movie was not very interestingly written IMO. It probably won't be Hugo Weaving if Red Skull returns, but they could make something cool out of it.

[ariich]

Agree that, on the whole, Marvel villains aren't all that exciting. The films have been much more clear good vs evil than, say, the Dark Knight trilogy.

That said, it's not all black and white. A few have been evil for the sake of evil, but not many. As mentioned, Loki is a great anti-hero, and I think the whole Hydra storyline is excellent, particularly manifesting in Cap 2. Even the Iron Man villains have mostly had fairly clear motivations for their behaviours, even if their development wasn't great.

But I also agree that it doesn't really matter too much. These films have other things massively going for them.

[bosk1]

Zantera, I disagree with pretty much everything you said. 

[King Postwhore]

For the most part, Batman really is a side character.  Same with Superman.  Marvel's heroes are a little more colorful and take the forefront more compared to the villains.

[BlackInk]

Yeah it's still a very entertaining film. Not great, but still enjoyable.

This is where I'm at as well. I don't think IM2 is the weakest Marvel movie (that would be the first Thor in my eyes). My favorite parts of IM2 is actually not really 'Iron Man' related, it's when Tony Stark is being Tony Stark. Him finding out and creating the new element was cool.

[hefdaddy42]

Not sure why anyone would think that Loki isn't a villain.

[Zantera]

Not sure why anyone would think that Loki isn't a villain.

Because despite his ability to backstab others and change sides, he's also portrayed as being a good guy at heart. He does mostly villain-kind of things, but every bad action is countered with a good action, like him helping out Thor in the second Thor movie for example. Just calling him a villain would undermine most of his personality. He's kinda like the Gollum of the Marvel universe. He only does things for his own good, but he can sometimes help and take help from others if it helps him getting closer to his own goal.

Loki has become that bad character that everyone likes, and I think that goes to show that he still has likable and redeeming sides to him.

[bosk1]

I'm not sure manipulating others to achieve his own goals counts as "helping."  He manipulated and backstabbed everyone in Thor.  He manipulated Thanos and the Chitauri in the Avengers so he could get back to Asgard.  He manipulated things to his own end in Thor 2 so he could get the throne.  I mean, I don't really see any time in the development of his character where he did something "good."  Everyone "helps" their own allies if it is a means to their end.

[King Postwhore]

It just means that Loki could charm the pants off of Zantera.

[Zantera]

I'm not really a big Loki-fan, but he does have some depth to his character. Frankly I wouldn't mind if Loki got killed in Thor 3.

[hefdaddy42]

Not sure why anyone would think that Loki isn't a villain.

Because despite his ability to backstab others and change sides, he's also portrayed as being a good guy at heart. He does mostly villain-kind of things, but every bad action is countered with a good action, like him helping out Thor in the second Thor movie for example. Just calling him a villain would undermine most of his personality. He's kinda like the Gollum of the Marvel universe. He only does things for his own good, but he can sometimes help and take help from others if it helps him getting closer to his own goal.

Loki has become that bad character that everyone likes, and I think that goes to show that he still has likable and redeeming sides to him.

He's a villain.  Villains are basically selfish, and that's what Loki is.  He's a villain.  People like him because Tom Hiddleston is a fantastic actor who played him exactly right.  But please don't try to tell me he's not a villain.

[RuRoRul]

I was thinking more along the lines of there being a difference between a person that is a villain, as in they are bad, and more the old concept of "the villain", as in the primary antagonist of the story. Not all films a have a "villain" in this sense obviously, but superhero films have traditionally relied very much on a main antagonist to provide the plot and action, perhaps supported by a secondary antagonist (or more). Loki's role in the plot is usually a bit more complicated than being a traditional main antagonist. That Dark Elf was in the role of "the villain" in Thor 2 for example, not Loki, who was more a treacherous ally of the protagonist, even if he is still a villainous person. He is probably the main villain in Thor although the King Of The Frost Giants fits that too. In The Avengers Loki completely fulfills the role of the traditional primary antagonist imo (and even there he is framed more as a pawn of the leader of the Chitauri, but he has so little presence I'd count Loki as the primary antagonist), though incidentally I think that's Loki's worst film and could have used a different primary antagonist.

Of course maybe there's something to be said for Marvel relying less heavily on each superhero film basically being its villain ("The One Where Batman Faces The Joker", "The One Where Spiderman Faces Doctor Octopus"), but the fact remains that in my opinion if you go through the list of MCU main villains you don't get that many great or memorable ones, and their best one (Loki) is actually at his best when not playing the role of the Big Bad. It hasn't been much of a hindrance to them so far because many of the films have been introducing us to new main characters for the first time, and The Avengers had a bunch of different heroes interacting for the first time, so those films haven't been as dependent on a villain for their plot. I don't think it's a coincidence that two of the worst received films in the series were simple direct sequels (Iron Man 2, Thor 2), the type of films that could really have used a more interesting or memorable villain. Captain America 2, although a sequel, benefitted from a different setting for its main character and did a better job with its antagonists (The Winter Soldier was a pretty cool memorable "physical antagonist", and the old guy in the suit that is in charge of the organisation you work for being the villain may not be too original but it works well for action movies). And I think a big part of what made Iron Man 3 better than 2 was the... interesting approach taken with the antagonist(s).

By doing lots of different film franchises to keep things fresh, Marvel might be avoiding the need to rely on strong villains to stay good (you can bet they'd need a villain with the impact of Heath Ledger's Joker to stay successful if instead of having just had a 10th MCU film, we had just had Iron Man 7), but as we get into more direct sequels I'd like to see some better villains ahead. Though as has been pointed out to me, the best / most known Marvel villain IPs seem come from X Men and Spiderman so the MCU might not have great source material to work with...

[hefdaddy42]

I think Loki was just as much a villain in Thor 2 as he was in the first.  The prime villain of the film was, I suppose, Malekith, but Thor fighting alongside Loki was just because he was the lesser of two evils.  He wasn't ever not a villain.

[Zantera]

Maybe I'm naive but I like to think that there's more to it than someone either being good or bad. I want to think that there are various shades of personality traits and decisions, actions that goes into how we view someone. I'm not against labeling Loki as a villain, but if the characters are either heroes or villains, that just seems like a very black/white way to view it.

[bosk1]

I think Loki was just as much a villain in Thor 2 as he was in the first.  The prime villain of the film was, I suppose, Malekith, but Thor fighting alongside Loki was just because he was the lesser of two evils.  He wasn't ever not a villain.

Exactly.  His ambition is to rule Asgard.  That was set up in Thor.  In Avengers, he assured his return to Asgard.  In Thor 2, he cooperated with Thor because (1) it got him out of prison, and (2) it kept Asgard from being destroyed.  Both of these furthered Loki's goal.

Maybe I'm naive but I like to think that there's more to it than someone either being good or bad. I want to think that there are various shades of personality traits and decisions, actions that goes into how we view someone. I'm not against labeling Loki as a villain, but if the characters are either heroes or villains, that just seems like a very black/white way to view it.

You are blurring two concepts together.  A villain can have some good in him and/or do some good things, just as a hero can have some bad in him or have done some bad things.  Hero/villain and good/bad are not the same thing.

[hefdaddy42]

Loki is definitely a complex character, which is why he is so captivating to watch.  But he is still a villain.

[hefdaddy42]

Latino Review is reporting that a deal is done between Sony and Marvel for Spider-Man to appear in Avengers: Infinity War Pt. 1.  I don't want to discuss the full story because it involves mulitple massive spoilers regarding the Phase 3 films - if true, of course, which it may not be.

[bosk1]

Well, let me just say that I have NEVER known Latino Review to be wrong about anything.  Then again, I never heard of Latino Review before your post.  But still.

[hefdaddy42]

Well, let me just say that I have NEVER known Latino Review to be wrong about anything.  Then again, I never heard of Latino Review before your post.  But still.

Actually, they have a history of being hit or miss with "scoops."  They have definitely gotten some things right in the past, and have royally screwed up.

Until Marvel says something, this definitely just counts as "rumor."  But if so, it will be exciting.

[bosk1]

***Sorta spoilers related to Age of Ultron and beyond***










I have seen some references to a tie-in/introduction of Black Panther in Age of Ultron.  Based on some things in both trailers, it seems highly likely.  And, if true, I think it is a great move.  Outside hardcore comics geeks, a lot of people are not familiar with the character.  Heck, I was a comic geek, and I'm not familiar.  This is a great opportunity to create incentive for people to want to see the movie instead of perhaps writing it off as "just some random Marvel super hero movie." 

If so, that will also tie Black Panther to Ultron, which I think will likely directly play into Civil War. 

I think 'dis gon' be gud! 

[hefdaddy42]

Agreed.  No matter what happens.

[Zantera]

The Spidey situation is so messed up. I would never in a million ways think it was possible if someone had asked me a year ago, but after TASM2 under-performing, Sony as a company going really bad and their various "lets save our Spidey universe" meetings, who knows what will happen? On one hand it would be nice to see Spidey with the other Avengers, but on the other hands it would be annoying to only get a Spidey movie every 5th-6th year, because Marvel already has so many movies planned.

Sony completely dropped the ball no matter how this turns out. And they have a Sinister Six movie planned and TASM3 & TASM4 announced. So the situation is just weird.

[hefdaddy42]

I read one report that Sony has denied Spidey's inclusion in Infinity War.  We'll see what happens.

I would much rather Spidey be moved into the MCU than for Sony to make any more films having to do with him, much less nonsensical features about Venom of the Sinister Six.  *shudders*

[BlackInk]

I have for a rather long time had the opinion that Spider-Man needs to go away from movies for a while. By now it just feels as if they're covering up a murder by just murdering more people.

[hefdaddy42]

I have for a rather long time had the opinion that Spider-Man needs to go away from movies for a while.

That would be better than Sony making any more.

[Zantera]

At this point it feels like a loss either way it turns out:

Scenario A: Sony keeps making Spider-Man movies (clearly they have no idea how to do it well)
Scenario B: Spider-Man goes back to Marvel (and we get a second reboot and one Spidey movie every 5 years)
Scenario C: No Spider-Man Movies for a few years (so many great potential stories lost)

[hefdaddy42]

Scenario B wouldn't be a movie every 5 years.  Not sure where that number came from.

I would imagine that we are getting to the point where Downey, Hemsworth, and Evans are near the ends of their contracts, and one way or another, their characters won't be as prevalent post-Infinity War.  They are doing a good job of laying groundwork for future franchises, like GOTG and the upcoming Ant-Man, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and The Inhumans, but this would be the perfect time to get their heavy hitter Spider-Man back in the fold and make new films to carry the banner in the event the banner won't include Iron Man, Thor, or Captain America (in their present forms, at any rate). 

I don't see why it wouldn't be a new film every 2-3 years, like they have done with their other franchises.

[Zantera]

Well, even though I agree that the main Avengers are probably gonna be used very sparsely over the next few years (after Cap 3 and Thor 3), they have already announced basically 2 movies per year up until 2018/2019 or something. While they could probably squeeze Spider-Man into the mix somehow, I think there is a certain fatigue and disappointment in the air that doesn't just go away. The first Raimi movie was when, 2002? If Marvel gets their hands on this, we'll get our third Spider-Man incarnation in less than 15 years, which does seem like a lot.

Marvel would probably do well with Spider-Man since they know the character in and out, and has a good creative team making the movies (something Sony clearly lacks), but I think my main disappointment with another reboot is that it feels like we never get forward. They gotta do Green Goblin and Octopus again (because those are the main enemies) and we get further away from those fan favorite enemies a lot of people want to see. Like a good Venom/Carnage story, or Mysterio, Kraven or Vulture. It's kind of a bummer that Sony dropped the ball, because their idea of setting up Sinister Six was epic, and I think a lot of us would have nerdgasmed hard if they pulled it off. Marvel could probably pull a Sinister Six thing off, but that's another 10-15 years down the line after setting up their own Spidey universe. You don't lead with a Sinister Six movie.

[bosk1]

IMO, they don't need to do another reboot.  IF Marvel picks up Spidey at all, they can just drop him into the existing Marvel universe as if he's been there for awhile.  We don't NEED another origin story.  Absent a few tweaks in the two recent ones, Spider Man's origin is what it always has been.  We know how Spider Man became Spider Man.  They can do what they did with Hulk and just pick up down the road, assuming people basically know how he became who he is.  Or they can set it up with a post-credits scene or Marvel one-shot showing Von Strucker using gamma rays or Loki's staff to experiment on spiders or something for all I care.  But we do not need a "reboot" in the classic sense that starts with an origin story.  Just drop him in and go.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't know that there is a good Venom or Carnage story to tell.  But I would LOVE to see Mysterio or Kraven.

I actually think that, even though he is a huge, huge name, Spidey might be better off going the route of Marvel's Netflix line.  A 13-hour show.  It would be neat, and all of those characters are NYC based, as well.

And I agree, no need for another telling of the origin.

[Zantera]

That's a good point. They could probably make a stand-alone Spider-Man movie that starts with him already being Spider-Man, and maybe show it or explain how it happened as a quick re-cap during the credits when the movie starts. I was thinking something similar to how the Raimi Spider-Man movies started with all the web and going through different images, they could quite quickly tell how it happened without having to dedicate a full movie to it. Maybe even a 30 second-1 minute narration by Peter Parker himself explaining it.

On one hand, the transformation is kinda key. The main hook of Spider-Man for a lot of people was seeing this nerdy kid adjust to being a superhero, and if you already start with him being Spider-Man, some of that personality might be lost. But on the other hand Marvel has a fantastic track record, so they could pretty much do whatever they want, and it would still probably be good.

[bosk1]

I don't think they even need to do that much.  Again, in Hulk, they didn't do that, and I think the movie was better for it.  We know how Hulk became Hulk.  We don't need to see it again.

People know who Spider Man is.  Just drop him into one of the other films (Civil War would be perfect).  Boom!--people know he is an existing part of the universe, and you can do a standalone movie any time.

[Zook]

Yeah, just retire Spider-man, (give it up, Sony, you suck) end the story lines with their current characters. If Marvel can somehow get the rights to Spider-Man, reboot it again after The Infinity War (if he's not in that, oh well) and create a new Spider-Man centric universe, and have the original Avengers reprise their roles for support. I'm sure RDJ, CH, MR, and CE wouldn't mind that after a long break.

And for fucks sake, bring in Thomas Jane as The Punisher. Sure it wont be an R rating, but he belongs with the other characters. Hell, convince Wesley Snipes to not be a douche and come back as Blade. Then you can introduce Morbius. Yes, I did watch the animated series growing up.

[hefdaddy42]

I thought Thomas Jane did a pretty good job as the Punisher, but I doubt Marvel goes backwards like that if and when they make a new film (although I think the character would be ideal for a Netflix series).

I like the Blade films a lot, but I would be surprised if that character ever comes back.  Although Marvel did announce sometime in the last year or so that the film rights had reverted back to them (same with the Punisher).

As of right now, the only characters that Marvel Studios don't have the film rights to are the ones associated with Spider-Man, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four.  They sort of co-hold rights to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch with Fox, and they have the rights to Namor, but not free and clear - they could use him, but there is some red tape involved.

[Zantera]

I don't think we'll ever see Blade or Punisher on screen together with the Avengers. I think Blade and Punisher are characters that needs to be R-rated for them to work, and I think Marvel knows that. I know people said the same about Deadpool and it looks like Fox are making that movie PG-13, but I think the sheer nature of Blade/Punisher as characters makes it necessary to have a darker tone. I could sort of see Marvel create a separate kind of universe with a darker tone, where characters like Blade and Punisher could show up and cross over, but they feel kinda out of place in the context of Avengers.