Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 93
  1. #46
    Astonishing Member Of Atlantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    And they're all controlled by studios outside of Disney/Marvel, except the Thunderbolts. Which was part of my original question; Marvel has a lot of interesting villains who "could" carry a movie, but most of them fall under the X-Men or Spider-Man or Fantastic Four umbrellas, and thus are out of Marvel's reach.
    Then in that case, the only way they could pull off a straight up villain movie is to band them together.

  2. #47

    Default

    Here's the other thing about making a film about villains. If you pit them against the heroes again, wouldn't it create conflicting feelings for the audience as they just got sympathy towards those villains?

  3. #48
    Astonishing Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SXVA View Post
    There's always room for variety and a place for anti-heroes and redemption [if it be true and not simply for story], just saying i don't think it should be the standard where so many villains are on a journey, and sympathetic, etc.. it doesn't have to always be good vs evil but in my view and opinion that should remain the underlying narrative within the entirety of the greater picture, well.. more precisely "duality" not simply good vs evil, light vs dark would be more appropriate than good vs evil. I disagree obvs that it hasn't had an effect on the heroes though [as i previously stated]... i mean just look at the state of the heroes in the Marvel U, there's barely anyone i have to truly find hope with and that shines bright. If there's an impulse to mention Captain America, i'd preempt by stating i disagree with that, which if anyone has read some of my posts would know i'm not a Captain America fan an don't believe he shines brightly as it means to me. Captain America basically represents organized religion in my view, for a lack of a way to better explain it... not exactly but that's the easiest way to explain or translate in using that example. [Although, having true villains like Red Skull certainly helps and he definitely shines brighter than the dark side villains]

    Loki in the movies [as with the comics], with the Dark World specifically has shown to me that he's more "chaotic neutral" than villain. He's a potential threat for sure... but for now and at the moment i personally wouldn't classify him as villain.
    Up until the final scene I would agree, but he more than likely did something terrible to Odin, which calls most of his actions in the movie until then into question, it may have all been an elaborate ploy. I think he SHOULD be more chaotic neutral in the movies, I'd personally find that more interesting, and it is closer to the mythology. I have loved everything they've done with him in the comics since Siege. But the movies really are closer to his early comics appearances, just in a more handsome and charming package. I mean, he is still sympathetic, he's not without redeeming qualities. I just think he's a much darker shade of gray than his comic counterpart right now.


    And I don't think it is a standard, there are plenty of villains out there that snow no signs of redeeming. I think it's just that we've been hit recently with a few high profile redemption stories, or characters who had previously done a face turn getting a solo book, (also, Axis, but that is mostly temporary) which may give that impression, but it's not like there is a shortage of darker villains still running around, most of which probably will never switch sides. And some heroes have also been slipping towards the dark side, so it kinda evens out.

    I have no need to identify, relate or care for the villains... i already have that with the heroes. My connection isn't with the dark side, it is the threat to my connection that must be overcome. I don't care why Thanos does what he does for example, there usually isn't a logical reasoning behind dark chaos. I don't believe it makes good stories at all because as i already pointed out it fades the light and also my connection in the process. I read super-hero comics for the duality, for the light overcoming darkness and the hope it brings and my connection to the light/heroes. However, like i said... there is room for variety and a place for redemption, anti-heroes, etc...as long as balance is maintained and it's not the standard, which i feel it has become the standard recently.

    I have absolutely no interest in seeing the dark side/villains driving movies/TV series, i'd probably watch just because it would have subjects, actors and characters of interest to me [which, i'd basically watch anything relative] but it would be despite itself and it wouldn't be because of the villain at all, and i think it would've been a better approach hero driven to begin with. [Basically, it seems pointless not to focus on the heroes to begin with... i don't find heroes boring or the never ending fight for light to overcome uninteresting, and don't find the contrast to be a better story, etc.. and most heroes aren't perfect either, i know most people like there to be flaws so it's relatable and identifiable which most heroes do have flaws of some kind or some aspect, and so.. it's not like there's a great reason to seek out villains for this when the heroes can also have flaws]
    I guess I just don't really care if they are good or bad, I just care if they are interesting. Villains with no motivation beyond doing bad things for the lulz are rarely very interesting beyond a superficial level. This is my main problem with Dario Agger in Aaron's Thor stories, he is a straw man designed with no redeemable qualities, he's just there to represent the very worst aspects of mega corporations, and has no motivation beyond basically destroying the earth for.... reasons.... I think it would be a more interesting story, be more thought provoking etc. if he was more nuanced. But I have hope that there is more to him than appears, after what Aaron did with Malekith. I'm not saying it can't work, I've seen some utterly evil to the core villains with no redeeming qualities whatsoever work, but it needs a certain type of story. For me it's not about looking up to a character, or finding something to aspire to in them, it's more about what the stories they are involved in have to say, and character archetypes don't necessarily have anything to do with that. (though they sometimes do) A very dark character can be a protagonist in a story with a morally uplifting message and vice versa.

  4. #49
    Hold the Line! MIMIC616's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Thunderbolts v1 # 1-14, Comic book costumes, dark undertones, and villains you want to turn to good. Also lets the Avengers be out of the picture, and end with Thunderbolt vs Thunderbolt.

    Doom - Nuf said.

    Hobgoblin Phil Urich - Peter Parker of Super Villains, working from good goblin into bad.

    Taskmaster - So many cameos of good, bad, Z-Listers, AIM Hydra, Shield, world building.

    AIM and staring M.O.D.A.K.

    White Rabbit - Crazy Super Villain, with a lot of room to rewrite into whatever they need.

  5. #50
    More eldritch than thou Venomous Mask's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,863

    Default

    Eddie Brock Venom could be a really good movie if done right; a mixture of action and psychological thriller with a broken, deeply disturbed man trying to do some good while under the influence of a murderous alien parasite. Part of the movie could take place in the real world while part of it could take place in Eddie's mind, creating an Evil Within vibe.
    "I should describe my known nature as tripartite, my interests consisting of three parallel and disassociated groups; a) love of the strange and the fantastic, b) love of abstract truth and scientific logic, c) love of the ancient and the permanent. Sundry combinations of these strains will probably account for my...odd tastes, and eccentricities."

  6. #51
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonmp93 View Post
    Magneto. Seriously, that movie could even win an oscar for best actor or movie.
    To be fair, X-men First Class practically is a Magneto movie. Fox was going to make a Magneto movie, but they ultimately combined it with First Class and I think the results are good. He is practically the main character, he is the one with the character arc, the villain is more associated with him then anyone (they made Shaw really evil so Magneto would seem heroic by comparison). I am not sure what you could do with a Magneto movie that doesn't overlap with what First Class did.

  7. #52
    Astonishing Member JudicatorPrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Cosmic Shores of the Pacific
    Posts
    4,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Hound View Post
    It's not MCU, but Magneto easily. Especially as played by Fassbender.
    Agreed. And you wouldn't even need to show a single X-man, although it certainly wouldn't hurt sales if you did.

  8. #53
    explorer SXVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    1,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    Up until the final scene I would agree, but he more than likely did something terrible to Odin, which calls most of his actions in the movie until then into question, it may have all been an elaborate ploy. I think he SHOULD be more chaotic neutral in the movies, I'd personally find that more interesting, and it is closer to the mythology. I have loved everything they've done with him in the comics since Siege. But the movies really are closer to his early comics appearances, just in a more handsome and charming package. I mean, he is still sympathetic, he's not without redeeming qualities. I just think he's a much darker shade of gray than his comic counterpart right now.


    And I don't think it is a standard, there are plenty of villains out there that snow no signs of redeeming. I think it's just that we've been hit recently with a few high profile redemption stories, or characters who had previously done a face turn getting a solo book, (also, Axis, but that is mostly temporary) which may give that impression, but it's not like there is a shortage of darker villains still running around, most of which probably will never switch sides. And some heroes have also been slipping towards the dark side, so it kinda evens out.



    I guess I just don't really care if they are good or bad, I just care if they are interesting. Villains with no motivation beyond doing bad things for the lulz are rarely very interesting beyond a superficial level. This is my main problem with Dario Agger in Aaron's Thor stories, he is a straw man designed with no redeemable qualities, he's just there to represent the very worst aspects of mega corporations, and has no motivation beyond basically destroying the earth for.... reasons.... I think it would be a more interesting story, be more thought provoking etc. if he was more nuanced. But I have hope that there is more to him than appears, after what Aaron did with Malekith. I'm not saying it can't work, I've seen some utterly evil to the core villains with no redeeming qualities whatsoever work, but it needs a certain type of story. For me it's not about looking up to a character, or finding something to aspire to in them, it's more about what the stories they are involved in have to say, and character archetypes don't necessarily have anything to do with that. (though they sometimes do) A very dark character can be a protagonist in a story with a morally uplifting message and vice versa.
    Hmmm. I didn't get the impression he did anything to Odin, i thought something happened to Odin and he deceptively took his place... i might have missed something though. I'm having a difficult time remembering what even happened to Odin in the movie before that, or did we even see what happened to him... I guess taking the first movie into account and Avengers i could see him being more on the Dark order side of things... but... then taking the comics into consideration as well, i don't know... i guess being neutral or a villain isn't too far off for the character depending on interpretations and such.

    The rest i suppose we just have a much different approach. I look for connection and see a much broader picture. Which is fair enough. We all can't see things the same exact way.

    In a lot of ways i see a villain as representing darkness, and so... the actual person there, i don't need to know the motives and all of that because i see it as a metaphor of the darkness, basically... "the darkness" as it's own entity being the actual villain and threat and not that character representation specifically.

    In other ways i see them as representing the duality of the hero, like Lex Luthor is a duality of Superman which can be represented in many ways like how the Kents are a simple farming people and can represent humility and a simple life vs corporations, the rich, or greed, or Lex representing the persecution and fear of that which is different to Superman being alien but not only being alien also the hero being alien which can be a commentary on the weaknesses of humanity itself even, etc... a continuation of the dark/light duality to which a lot of the villains have basis but on a more subconscious level.

    Darkseid or "Dark side" is literally that, an embodiment of the dark side.. the darkness. Ultimately, within the greater picture one could break down the entire DCU or Marvel U into an allegory for the human struggle and/or with duality and light/darkness. As most stories are, like defeating the great dragon... or vanquishing/slaying evil demons.... it all breaks down to that core duality, and struggle between the light and darkness in some way.

    The heroes i view differently as the heroes and the light is where my connection is established, and so i don't view them in a similar way as the faceless/nameless darkness entity. There's many layers to it though.

    Too each their own though. I don't expect everyone to see it the same, it all means different things to different people.
    Last edited by SXVA; 11-29-2014 at 12:59 AM.
    I wanna ditch the logical... don't let me let you go...., living for the only thing i know, hanging by a moment... nom nom coffee nom nom tea.

  9. #54
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Battlepizza (aka - Cattleworld)
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Abomination. Lord knows he carried The Incredible Hulk.


  10. #55
    Junior Member Kangaroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Beyond that it gets pretty vague. Taskmaster....maybe? I dont know a *ton* about him but he doesnt seem to have the sympathetic angle, he mostly seems to be a black hearted mercenary with a rough origin story.
    Tasky is definitely sympathetic if u go by the ex-shield agent lost his memory origin
    Last edited by Kangaroo; 11-29-2014 at 05:07 AM.

  11. #56
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    And they're all controlled by studios outside of Disney/Marvel, except the Thunderbolts. Which was part of my original question; Marvel has a lot of interesting villains who "could" carry a movie, but most of them fall under the X-Men or Spider-Man or Fantastic Four umbrellas, and thus are out of Marvel's reach.
    Besides Loki there is also Enchantress and Executioner whose relationship can be played straight
    (where Exey is just Amora's henchperson) or a lot more twisted.

    Also: Elektra is technically a villain as she is a mostly a straight up contract hitwoman.

    This might not count, but since we have seen Crossbones, Batroc and Whiplash (albeit on tv),
    Marvel is well on its way to have a version of the all merc version of Thunderbolts around.

  12. #57
    Senior Member Abishai100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    518

    Lightbulb Cobra (G.I. Joe): Vigilantism Canvas

    The American paramilitary fantasy-adventure franchise "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero" (Hasbro) finds valiant patriots called Joes vying with a diabolical terrorist organization called Cobra for social dominion.

    The Joes are led by crusaders such as Duke, Snake Eyes, and Scarlett, while Cobra is led by cunning agents such as Serpentor, Storm Shadow, and the Baroness.

    Cobra represents human anxieties about terrorism and governance control. Its agents are embodiments of the intellectual diaspora associated with nihilism, anarchism, fascism, and/or vigilantism. Cobra agents are complex and offer glimpses into the oddly political features of criminal insanity in a world seemingly craving for revolutionary sentiments.

    If you've seen some of the Marvel Comics artwork for G.I. Joe issues (i.e., stories featuring adventures of individual Cobra agents such as Serpentor or the Baroness), you know that depicting these agents in their own mosaic is rather fertile for modern age urbanization paranoia themed art. Jurisprudence-paranoia Hollywood (USA) movies such as "Maniac Cop" (1988) and urbanization-paranoia comic book adapted American television programs such as "Gotham" (Fox TV) reflect this modern trend of 'terrorism art' marketing.


    I'd like to see a Guy Ritchie directed Hollywood (USA) movie just about the ninja assassin Cobra agent Storm Shadow perhaps titled "Rogue Hunter" (Miramax Pictures) and perhaps starring Keanu Reeves as Storm Shadow.







    Storm Shadow


    cobra.jpg

  13. #58
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    1,004

    Default

    I think Arcade would be a great villain for a Saw type horror movie. Magneto would work too for obvious reasons.

  14. #59
    BANNED dragonmp93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    To be fair, X-men First Class practically is a Magneto movie. Fox was going to make a Magneto movie, but they ultimately combined it with First Class and I think the results are good. He is practically the main character, he is the one with the character arc, the villain is more associated with him then anyone (they made Shaw really evil so Magneto would seem heroic by comparison). I am not sure what you could do with a Magneto movie that doesn't overlap with what First Class did.
    Well, Fisrt Class skipped basically all his childhood, isnt ?.

  15. #60
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonmp93 View Post
    Well, Fisrt Class skipped basically all his childhood, isnt ?.
    Well is his childhood before he gets imprisoned the Nazis really that relevant? It seems like the beginnings of Magneto in the movie universe start with Shaw killing his mother. I'm not sure how Magneto life as a peasant in Eastern Europe before that is really important.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •