The Movie Thread Reloaded

[HappyDaze]

It was better than Thor 2 or IM3. So definitely middle of the road.

I agree that it was better than those two, but it also wasn't as good as roughly four times that many titles. So, I put it on the not-so-good side of the road, but not all the way into the ditch alongside it.

[Warboss Squee]

I agree that it was better than those two, but it also wasn't as good as roughly four times that many titles. So, I put it on the not-so-good side of the road, but not all the way into the ditch alongside it.

I didn't want to type out all the MCU movies that are forgettable.

[HappyDaze]

I didn't want to type out all the MCU movies that are forgettable.

Fair enough. I've enjoyed most of them, but I agree that they are all largely forgettable. I also tend to prefer the group movies (Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy along with with CA: Civil War) and "buddy movies" (CA: Winter Soldier, Ant Man and the Wasp, and Thor: Ragnarok) over most of the solo hero movies. I also strongly prefer well-developed villains, which helped me to like Black Panther over Doctor Strange (even though, in the comics, I vastly preferred the latter) and was the thing I most enjoyed about the most recent Spider-Man.

[Spinachcat]

I've been surprised at how few memorable villains there have been in the MCU movies. Most have been sadly one dimensional, which is weird considering how many awesome intricate villains exist in the Marvel comics.

[Spike]

I've been surprised at how few memorable villains there have been in the MCU movies. Most have been sadly one dimensional, which is weird considering how many awesome intricate villains exist in the Marvel comics.

All one needs to do is look up Ronan the Accuser on Wikipedia. He was the blue guy in the first Guardians of the Galaxy.  He's got a history on par with Magneto for ups and downs, villianny and anti-heroism.

So its not that the MCU is lacking for interesting villains, its that they aren't making full use of them.  Part of this has to do with Time. I noted this twenty god damn years ago with the first X-Men movie, which had... 9 major characters, and 87 minutes in which to use/develop all of them. And it fails on that level, despite being an enjoyable movie... though contrasting it with the current crop of Comic Movies shows just how weak it was in retrospect.

So when making a movie under a tight deadline, you give an emphasis to the Heroes and reduce the Villains to MacGuffins, who don't need a lot of development. It can work (honestly: How much development did Darth Vader actually receive in A New Hope?)

Another element, perhaps more subjective, is that modern directors and writers are simply weak storytellers, focusing on formulaic Rotes, and allowing visuals to carry them.  Just last night I watched a comparison of the Korean Old Boy with the Spike Lee remake, and the contrast was appalling, but it shows how much can be done in small, even short, scenes if you pay attention to details... and just how much those details can matter!  Again: Darth Vader is Illustrative. He had roughly the same amount of screen time as Ronan the Accuser, yet we got so much more out of that time, thanks in part to two excellent actors, and the simple fact that DV actually had a comprehensible purpose, while RA was... some sort of randomly genocidal maniac/generic goon with power.  

Its no shock to me that one of the most compelling villains came from Thor, as whatever other flaws Kenneth Branagh may have, he was telling a story about people. Loki is interesting because he is human, its his human flaws that make him interesting, and allow him to keep dancing across the lines between hero and villain while staying true to the character, and from what I can tell Killmonger from Black Panther carries a lot of that 'humanity' with him... we can sympathize and even admire what he does even when we are appalled by his methods and choices.  

I'm increasingly of the opinion that any would be author starting out should focus their energies on making the antagonist and his/her goals before they put any thought at all into the Hero, who is actually best served as a semi-anonymous proxy for the reader/viewer... but that's a minority opinion at best.

But its damn good GM advice, I'd say...

[Pat]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that any would be author starting out should focus their energies on making the antagonist and his/her goals before they put any thought at all into the Hero, who is actually best served as a semi-anonymous proxy for the reader/viewer... but that's a minority opinion at best.

The protagonist as proxy for the viewer isn't a minority view, it's straight out of the Hollywood blockbuster handbook. Critics and genre fans may dislike it, but it appeals to audiences. The usual poor development of villains is more Sturgeon's Law than anything.

[Spike]

The protagonist as proxy for the viewer isn't a minority view, it's straight out of the Hollywood blockbuster handbook. Critics and genre fans may dislike it, but it appeals to audiences. The usual poor development of villains is more Sturgeon's Law than anything.

How embarrassingly unclear of me. I was referring to the idea of writing the villain first as the minority opinion, not the idea of the hero as a semi-anonymous proxy.

[jhkim]

I saw Captain Marvel this weekend. I'd put it a little above average among the MCU films, and I agree with others that weak villains was its weakness - which to be fair is shared by most of the MCU films, even the good ones.

Darth Vader is Illustrative. He had roughly the same amount of screen time as Ronan the Accuser, yet we got so much more out of that time, thanks in part to two excellent actors, and the simple fact that DV actually had a comprehensible purpose, while RA was... some sort of randomly genocidal maniac/generic goon with power.  

Its no shock to me that one of the most compelling villains came from Thor, as whatever other flaws Kenneth Branagh may have, he was telling a story about people. Loki is interesting because he is human, its his human flaws that make him interesting, and allow him to keep dancing across the lines between hero and villain while staying true to the character, and from what I can tell Killmonger from Black Panther carries a lot of that 'humanity' with him... we can sympathize and even admire what he does even when we are appalled by his methods and choices.

I agree that the MCU movies have been weak on villains - but to be fair, you're comparing to one of the most memorable cinema villains from forty years ago. Within the MCU movies, I think the best villains have been Loki (from Avengers), Vulture (from Spider-Man: Homecoming), and Killmonger (from Black Panther); plus sort-of the Winter Soldier (who was not technically the main villain, but was the opponent with the most screen time).

[Ratman_tf]

I noticed that Ant Man and the Wasp didn't even have a villain, so much as a set of antagonists. I know the ghost-woman would probably qualify as a villain technically, but really, her sympathetic situation pushed her pretty far out of villain territory, IMO.

[Spike]

I agree that the MCU movies have been weak on villains - but to be fair, you're comparing to one of the most memorable cinema villains from forty years ago. Within the MCU movies, I think the best villains have been Loki (from Avengers), Vulture (from Spider-Man: Homecoming), and Killmonger (from Black Panther); plus sort-of the Winter Soldier (who was not technically the main villain, but was the opponent with the most screen time).

I think its less that Darth Vader was THAT memorable, but rather that the film(s) as a whole were that memorable.  Go back to A New Hope and tell me exactly what Darth Vader does that brings him to the level of complexity of Killmonger or The Vulture?   The only fair comparison winds up being Loki, as DV got three movies to build up his character arc.

Thank you for bringing up The Vulture, btw.  It makes an interesting example of my 'start with the Villain' theory of writing, as Spiderman:Homecoming literally starts with The Vulture!

[jhkim]

I agree that the MCU movies have been weak on villains - but to be fair, you're comparing to one of the most memorable cinema villains from forty years ago. Within the MCU movies, I think the best villains have been Loki (from Avengers), Vulture (from Spider-Man: Homecoming), and Killmonger (from Black Panther); plus sort-of the Winter Soldier (who was not technically the main villain, but was the opponent with the most screen time).

I think its less that Darth Vader was THAT memorable, but rather that the film(s) as a whole were that memorable.  Go back to A New Hope and tell me exactly what Darth Vader does that brings him to the level of complexity of Killmonger or The Vulture?   The only fair comparison winds up being Loki, as DV got three movies to build up his character arc.

Thank you for bringing up The Vulture, btw.  It makes an interesting example of my 'start with the Villain' theory of writing, as Spiderman:Homecoming literally starts with The Vulture!

I wouldn't say that Darth Vader has that much complexity - but I also don't think that strong characters are the same as complexity. With Killmonger and Vulture, we're treated to their origin backstory at the beginning of the film - but I think that's a crutch rather than being necessary. Backstory isn't the same thing as character. Good acting, writing, and directing can bring a lot to characters without any need for backstory or complexity - and I think Vader has that.

Regarding backstory, I really liked that the Tom Holland Spider-Man hasn't had an origin story. It's a tired formula, and over-rated in importance.

[Spike]

I wouldn't say that Darth Vader has that much complexity - but I also don't think that strong characters are the same as complexity. With Killmonger and Vulture, we're treated to their origin backstory at the beginning of the film - but I think that's a crutch rather than being necessary. Backstory isn't the same thing as character. Good acting, writing, and directing can bring a lot to characters without any need for backstory or complexity - and I think Vader has that.

Regarding backstory, I really liked that the Tom Holland Spider-Man hasn't had an origin story. It's a tired formula, and over-rated in importance.

Yer drifting, jhkim. This isn't really a discussion of backstory at all.  This is what I said just a few posts upthread:

Its no shock to me that one of the most compelling villains came from Thor, as whatever other flaws Kenneth Branagh may have, he was telling a story about people. Loki is interesting because he is human, its his human flaws that make him interesting, and allow him to keep dancing across the lines between hero and villain while staying true to the character, and from what I can tell Killmonger from Black Panther carries a lot of that 'humanity' with him... we can sympathize and even admire what he does even when we are appalled by his methods and choices.

Neither the word, nor the concept, of Backstory comes up.  I talk about being able to relate to, to understand, the villain and why they are doing what they are doing.

Loki doesn't start out evil, he starts out at the less favored son trying to win the approval of his father, competing with a beloved older brother, but his choices are bad, and as things spiral out of control, they get worse until he loses everything he wanted.  (Yes, that's a very facile treatment, but I'm keeping this modest and short).

Killmonger disagrees with the isolationist policies of Wakanda and wants to use their advanced technology to help outsiders. But to do that he has to kill everyone who opposes him and destroy a peaceful, stable (possibly stagnant) culture.  Backstory helps us know why, but it isn't necessary.

I think the Vulture largely gets carried on the strength of Michael Keaton's acting, as there is a strange gap between the 'fuck the system that screwed us, we'll get ours' we see at the beginning and the murderous sociopath we see for the rest of the film, but even then his motivations are human motivations.

Ronan the Accuser: Random genocidal monster with vague murmurings of 'because reasons'. How can you understand or sympathize with that? He's evil for the sake of evil, basically, and really we get sort of the same thing from Ego in the second film. We can understand (if not sympathize) with his bloody quest for offspring, but then he goes off the rails with some plot to absorb all life in the galaxy that just goes into cartoon villainy.


To bring this full circle, what about Darth Vader? Well, when we meet him he's trying to secure military secrets that have been captured by the 'other side'. We don't need to know who DV is under the mask, or what sort of childhood he had to understand his motivations, and his ruthless determination would almost be admirable. We can understand him and his actions because they are relatable. The entire conflict makes sense to us: Darth Vader is searching for the droids because they hold secrets dangerous to him/his side. Every step of the plot follows from that starting point like a well constructed set of dominoes.  Going back around to Spiderman, the conflict between the Vulture and Spidey is just as organic, if not as direct (and nothing at all wrong with that!) Spiderman is trying to be a Superhero and doing Hero stuff, and the Vulture is selling alien guns to criminals to make money because the Government screwed him out of a contract. Their rational, relatable goals put them into conflict, and the movie is stronger for it than say, the Captain America, or worse, Winter Soldier (which I enjoyed, but seriously: Hydra's motivation inside SHIELD is what, exactly?)

[Spinachcat]

100% agree with Spike. The quality of a fiction highly depends on the antagonist.

Its extremely important for GMs because your players need to strive against something they respect / fear / hate and that requires time and crafting to make the villains worthy of the players' actions and their character's sacrifices.

As for Hollywood, 90% is gonna be crap so I'm happy when even 10% is worth my time.

And I am with jhkim on Origin Stories. I'm bored to tears with them. Noticed the trailers for the Hellboy reboot are downplaying that aspect, but I wonder how the actual film will deal with that. I understand their need as a setup, but you got 30 minutes max. Makes me concerned about Shazam as it looks like all Origin.

Finally saw GLASS last night. I'm a happy camper. The Unbreakable / Split / Glass trilogy worked for me and nailed the "street level" / low power superhero concept while still feeling they were "super" in aspect. I enjoy M. Night's work even when his films don't work because I always find something creative and out of the ordinary, even when the overall film is a mess (The Happening).

Also saw BUMBLEBEE (Woot! $4 Double Feature!) and I'm good. I'm an unabashed Michael Bay fan and the Transformers reboot is totally an amalgam of Bay's Transformers & Speilberg's ET. Fun PG kid's movie, not an adult fan flick.

[deadDMwalking]

Is it on Netflix already?

Flixster (which uses Rotten Tomatoes).

[Pat]

Flixster (which uses Rotten Tomatoes).

Flixster hasn't existed for a couple years. Captain Marvel is on a number of the streaming sites that replaced it, like Fandango Now and Vudu, but only as a preorder.