Marvel Cinematic Universe General Discussion 4: Set Phases to 3

[CyanidePie]

Dp.

[trickster]

 

It's hard to say he needed it when he didn't even want it.

 

Also: F4 didn't bomb and although everyone apparently thought it was shit, in my experience most people liked him in it. It's not as if it buried his career; he didn't do much high profile stuff in between because he didn't want to, is my point.

 

Don't want a hypothetical what if debate on a minor point. So I will end it here. It is difficult to say how his career arc would have looked like if he did not join the MU. My opinion is he had a decent chance of achieving stardom without this. I always thought he is charismatic. But at the time he agreed to do Captain America, he was an actor with potential, but with not a major box office draw. But Marvel could sign him for cheap. If Evans had the asking price of the current time, Marvel might have gone in another direction.

 

F4 was a major disappointment for me. Evans did good, but until captain america, he was not a major star. He chose to don the superhero cape even though his first foray was not a major success. So I do think he thought his career needed a boost. Now as an A-lister  ( based  quite firmly on his success with the Marvel movies) he can pick and choose his projects. I hope this makes it clear.

[The Anti-Targ]

 

There is some chance that Chris Evans would have made it as a true A-lister even without being the Cap. But after the F4 bomb, he really needed that role.

 

 

 

It's hard to say he needed it when he didn't even want it.

 

Also: F4 didn't bomb and although everyone apparently thought it was shit, in my experience most people liked him in it. It's not as if it buried his career; he didn't do much high profile stuff in between because he didn't want to, is my point.

 Neither of the F4 movies bombed, they both made modest bank for Fox if you go by the 55% of gross = profit for the studio calc. But Rise of the Silver Surfer did drop by a little over $40 million at the box office while costing $30 million more to make, leaving a relative deficit of $70 million. So Fox probably thought the franchise was likely to head into loss making territory with rising bugets and dropping box office so best to quit at 2 and come out with profit than risk a third totally tanking. Having made movies with Doom and Silver Surfer they probably exhausted the "villain" roster in terms of name recognition for people with only a basic knowledge of the F4. And you do need a lot more than die hard franchise fans to go to movies for them to make a decent profit. The unfortunate thing about F4 is that the natural lead character of that unit is possible the least marketable ensemble lead. Being super stretchy as your main power just isn't as sexy as a high tech suit or super-soldier-serum powered muscles and arse kicking abilities, with an awesome shield. Indeed I think Disney/Marvel have a bit of a succession problem if they are looking to have someone other than Steve Rogers or Tony Stark be the lead character. Given Captain Marvel did lead the Avengers in the Comic book-verse it would be an awesome transition for her to become the lead, but that's only feasible if there's a phase 4 plan, because she comes into Phase 3 too late. If that is the plan then it makes casting her even more important.

[AndrewJ]

On the shallowness of MCU villains...

 

(I'm posting this here as it applies to the wider MCU, though it's following on mainly from current discussions in the Ant Man thread).

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. And I have no doubt people will disagree (possibly vehemently). But here goes...

 

No, I'm not going to say I think the villains are all deep and well realised. Far from it. But I've been thinking about it over the past day or so and I've been wondering if, perhaps, "paper thin" villains might be something of a necessary evil.

 

The only way to get depth of character for the villains is to devote sufficient time to those characters, in order to tell their story properly. In Guardians of The Galaxy, we do get 15 seconds of exposition as to why Ronan is the way he is. But that simply doesn't cut it. Without giving a lot more screen time to his story, nobody is going to care much.

 

But the problem is, every minute of screen time given to the villain is a minute taken away from the heroes and/or ancillary characters. And is that actually worth it? In the case of Ant Man, more time spent with Yellow Jacket means time taken away from Scott Lang and/or Hank Pym and/or Hope. For Guardians, it's even more difficult, as we have five main heroes that all need to have sufficient time devoted to them, not leaving much at all to spend with Ronan.

 

Do we really need fully fleshed out villains? Or do we just need something for the heroes to hit and the time is better spent devoted to our main characters who will be carrying current and future movies? Is all we really need from our villains "here he is, here's why he is - now it's time for him to hit and be hit".

 

To further illustrate the point - everyone agrees that the most fully realised villain is Loki. And I suggest that this is so, mainly because he was given almost equal time and attention as Thor. And let's face it - Thor is one of the least "developed" heroes as a result. But it works because he's probably the hero that needs the least development. We get what he is pretty quickly - he's a god, he hits things, he's funny and he has amazing abs (for those that are interested in such things). He's the shallowest of the heroes and that's pretty much ok. But Jane whats-her-face also suffers from being extremely under-developed, again partly due to the time devoted to Loki. (Sorry, Thor - your girl-friend may or may not be better than Tony's - but at least I remember Pepper Potts' name). And one of the main criticisms of the first Thor movie was that he fell from Odin's favour, saw the error of his ways and regained his position all in a couple of days. Again... there wasn't much time devoted to this story-line.

 

So... is it impossible to have a movie that thoroughly explores the heroes, the villains and the relevant side-characters and gives them all adequate time and investment? Possibly not. But I think it's extremely difficult. And isn't better to err on the side of giving the heroes more time and the villains less, rather than the other way round?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

So... is it impossible to have a movie that thoroughly explores the heroes, the villains and the relevant side-characters and gives them all adequate time and investment? Possibly not. But I think it's extremely difficult. And isn't better to err on the side of giving the heroes more time and the villains less, rather than the other way round?

 

 Not if the villain is more interesting than the heroes. I think Dr. Doom is more interesting than the FF, and maybe even Winter Soldier over Cap. You mentioned Loki being a deeper character than Thor. Perhaps we need a villain movie?  

 

 

 Thunderbolts anyone? I'd see that in a hot minute.

[Kindly Old Man]

*snip*

 

But do we even really need fleshed out heroes?  Isn't time spent with the heroes time taken away from watching CGI explosions?

 

- Michael Bay

[AndrewJ]

Yeah, a villain focussed movie is a different beast.

 

But that aside, I think a deep, well-rounded villain would have more chance if he is built over multiple movies - though that's something that's difficult to plan out/schedule. Where the villain is a "one and done", then it's very difficult to devote much time to him (or her).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Yeah, a villain focussed movie is a different beast.

 

But that aside, I think a deep, well-rounded villain would have more chance if he is built over multiple movies - though that's something that's difficult to plan out/schedule. Where the villain is a "one and done", then it's very difficult to devote much time to him (or her).

 

 They've had the opportunity to do that with Thanos, but I'd say they've kind of dropped the ball a bit.

[AndrewJ]

True.

 

And I'll just say before somebody posts it - I get the "accepting mediocrity because doing something worthwhile is too hard" argument.

[red snow]

 

 Not if the villain is more interesting than the heroes. I think Dr. Doom is more interesting than the FF, and maybe even Winter Soldier over Cap. You mentioned Loki being a deeper character than Thor. Perhaps we need a villain movie?  

 

 

 Thunderbolts anyone? I'd see that in a hot minute.

 

I can fully understand why Disney doesn't want to make a movie where the villains are the protagonists. If they were to do Thunderbolts I'd much rather it was the original version (villains masking as heroes some of which eventually realise being a hero is better) than the "look at all the kewl villain versions of the Avengers".

 

There's no reason they couldn't have more interesting villains or say a villain who isn't actually evil. Marvel has a load of them (even if other studios own the most prominent ones) but they could have an antagonist who isn't simply trying to destroy the world or be brainwashed.

Not even Loki escapes the "I'm evil" problem but at least he has the excuse of being the god of mischief - which is a pretty good excuse for having OTT schemes.

How about an industrialist selling weapons to a country they feel need the help? A hardcore environmentalist? Scarlet and Quicksilver actually had fairly good reasons for being antagonists. Maybe the Inhumans will work as semi-antagonists by being the x-men in the sense they are justified in defending themselves against humans?

 

 

 

 They've had the opportunity to do that with Thanos, but I'd say they've kind of dropped the ball a bit.

 

I was discussing this with friends at the weekend and we were agreed that 7 years of teasing Thanos is almost surely doomed to failure as how can he live to that kind of build-up. I also joked at how his end credit teasers could work leading up to Infinite.

 

Civil War - Thanos walks out of his throne room (saus it's time for action)

Dr Strange - Thanos realises he's forgotten something and walks back into the throne room (says then it's time for action)

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - Thanos roots around his throne trying to find the missing ring (says it'll be action once he finds it)

Spider-man - Thanos trips over something in this throne room (tries to say it's time for action but the stumble cuts him short)

Thor:Ragnarok - Thanos gets out of the Throne room and says something profound about how he's finally going to do something (but this time really means it)

 

Then we get Avengers Infinity. It's up in the air whether we get teasers after that. I think there's a chance, depending on how part 1 concludes that the next few films will have mid-credit teases of Thanos gloating and not appearing to do anything else.

[polishgenius]

I don't really have a problem with 'I'm evil' villains- I've never understood the need for every villain to need some explanatory backstory. In fact two of the most celebrated villains of all time are better without one - the Joker's being deliberately obfuscated and not really the point, Hannibal Lecter getting one in the books that is almost universally loathed because giving him reasons ruined the character.

 

That's not to say a backstory is bad, either, things work best with a mix, I just don't see why 'well he has no motivations to be evil' is necessarily a flaw.

The problem with most of Marvel's movie villains is they're just bland. It's not even as if all of them are just pure cackling villainy; Thor 2's just wants his quiet house back, in The Hulk General Ross wants control of this powerful thing whereas Abomination is more of a power junkie seeking a high, Iron Man 2 has one who isn't even really that evil, just incompetent in pursuit of money, and one who has the whole 'a Stark killed my father' motivation... They're just not very well drawn.

[Howdyphillip]

 Yes, I do not understand this modern need for an antagonist to have nuanced and relatable motivations. Certainly that kind of story can be told well, but it can also be told poorly. The same can be said with writers using the good vs evil trope.

 

For those that argue that the first example is more "real to life" than the second, I give you internet trolls...

 

Sometimes people are dicks just because they want to be dicks. 

[Myrddin]

 Yes, I do not understand this modern need for an antagonist to have nuanced and relatable motivations. Certainly that kind of story can be told well, but it can also be told poorly. The same can be said with writers using the good vs evil trope.

 

For those that argue that the first example is more "real to life" than the second, I give you internet trolls...

 

Sometimes people are dicks just because they want to be dicks. 

They need to come up with a villain based on internet trolls.

[Red Tiger]

True.

 

And I'll just say before somebody posts it - I get the "accepting mediocrity because doing something worthwhile is too hard" argument.

This whole idea saddens the fuck out of me....

 

 

 

They need to come up with a villain based on internet trolls.

Superboy-Prime? Wait that's DC, my bad.

[red snow]

I don't really have a problem with 'I'm evil' villains- I've never understood the need for every villain to need some explanatory backstory. In fact two of the most celebrated villains of all time are better without one - the Joker's being deliberately obfuscated and not really the point, Hannibal Lecter getting one in the books that is almost universally loathed because giving him reasons ruined the character.

 

 

Being evil is fine when it's on a sensible scale. I'm with you on the bland as marvel villains either want to destroy earth or make money selling super weapons. The two examples you gave work because neither of them just want to destroy the world - one is in it for chaos, money and winding the protagonist up, the other does it due to some extreme sense of rudeness and taste.

I guess when your heroes are the avengers it lends itself to over the top villains though. Spidey, Daredevil and other street level heroes lend themselves better to serial killers and the like.

[Rhom]

They need to come up with a villain based on internet trolls.

Thought that's what they are doing with the new Dr. Doom.

Or maybe that was just internet troll rage I read...

[Myrddin]

Thought that's what they are doing with the new Dr. Doom.

Or maybe that was just internet troll rage I read...

So, Fox is playing the part of internet troll in this. :)

[Kalbear]

I can fully understand why Disney doesn't want to make a movie where the villains are the protagonists. If they were to do Thunderbolts I'd much rather it was the original version (villains masking as heroes some of which eventually realise being a hero is better) than the "look at all the kewl villain versions of the Avengers".

Yeah, Disney would never do that, like Pirates of the Caribbean or...um...wait.

 

Maybe Marvel would never do that, like with Guardians of the Galaxy....um...

[red snow]

Yeah, Disney would never do that, like Pirates of the Caribbean or...um...wait.

 

Maybe Marvel would never do that, like with Guardians of the Galaxy....um...

 

 

There's a massive difference between Jack Sparrow and Rocket Raccoon and villains like Venom (evil version), Bullseye and Green Goblin. I don't think anyone watched those films and thought the Guardians or Sparrow's crew were the villains of the film - they were always the heroes (or significantly lesser of two evils)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Yeah, Disney would never do that, like Pirates of the Caribbean or...um...wait.

 

Maybe Marvel would never do that, like with Guardians of the Galaxy....um...

 

 

 That might actually be a decent formula for Thunderbolts in that you could have a Big Bad who is considerably worse than most of the team. Of course in time, once you reveal Zemo as being the leader, it would be harder to sell them as anti-heroes. I suppose you could frame most of the team members as dupes.