Ant-Man (July 17, 2015)

[Salodin]

Not even that. Just Google "movie name" after credits. Guaranteed to find answers on the website dedicated to the answer lol.

[ronin sparthos]

If i didn't have friends who looked up the double ending, I wouldn't have known it was there.
Considering depending on theater they just speed the credits up to show the post-game scene, it's not exactly unreasonable to leave after the Wasp setup.

Overall Ant Man was a good grounded Marvel movie. It's almost something you'd have seen sent directly to Netflix with how little it tries to go for summer blockbuster. The biggest disappointment Yellowjacket is copy pasta Obadiah but Marvel is nothing if not consistent on weak villains.

[Salodin]

Eh, problem with a terrifying villain is that it ups the stakes and destruction. After awhile of escalating villain after villain you just become desensitized to anything that isn't the destruction of the galaxy. It's a breath of fresh air to have a new superhero fighting a more localized villain with only snippets and comments about the larger problems facing them.

[ronin sparthos]

Eh, problem with a terrifying villain is that it ups the stakes and destruction. After awhile of escalating villain after villain you just become desensitized to anything that isn't the destruction of the galaxy. It's a breath of fresh air to have a new superhero fighting a more localized villain with only snippets and comments about the larger problems facing them.

With Ant-Man the problem isn't a small scale villain (dun dun dun), but that Cross is essentially just a copy/paste on a villain we've seen before. There's no investment and he does nothing of consequence.

Malekith (Thor 2) tried to *literally* destroy the universe and that didn't make him a good villain either. Again, no investment.

But I've already conceded that the MCU is more concerned with playing up their heroes than fleshing out villains.

[vagus]

Watching it at the Richmond Silvercity? That's where I was yesterday :3

Colossus in Langley. Lady was working so I had time to kill.

[Eurell]

With Ant-Man the problem isn't a small scale villain (dun dun dun), but that Cross is essentially just a copy/paste on a villain we've seen before. There's no investment and he does nothing of consequence.

Malekith (Thor 2) tried to *literally* destroy the universe and that didn't make him a good villain either. Again, no investment.

But I've already conceded that the MCU is more concerned with playing up their heroes than fleshing out villains.

Didn't he put a vial of the formula in Hydra's hands?

[kuronosan]

Didn't he put a vial of the formula in Hydra's hands?

Without the suit and research docs that's like putting a piece of paper on a desk with nothing to write with and asking someone to take a note.

[Brill Weave]

Eh, problem with a terrifying villain is that it ups the stakes and destruction. After awhile of escalating villain after villain you just become desensitized to anything that isn't the destruction of the galaxy. It's a breath of fresh air to have a new superhero fighting a more localized villain with only snippets and comments about the larger problems facing them.

Part of the problem is most of the guys that have played villains just plain weren't memorable. Ronan? Pointless. Nebula's only memorable because she was played by Karen Gillan. Obadiah was great because Jeff Bridges played him fantastically. Abomination is an evil Hulk, the end. Mickey Rourke and Ben Kingsley as Whiplash and Mandarin were fucking pointless. Red Skull sucked despite being played by Hugo Weaving. Crossbones has legit potential just because of Frank Grillo. Winter Soldier wasn't at all a "bad guy" since anyone who reads comics know how this ends up. Ultron could/should have been so much more. He felt like a wasted opportunity. Sadly the only truly memorable villain is Loki.

Aside from Hiddleston killing it, Loki has been a major part in multiple movies. Marvel has yet to take a leap like that with anyone else. Thanos will be the next one but who knows how that's going to play out.

Part of the problem is when you think of major bad guys in the Marvel world you think of guys like Apocalypse, Magneto, Galactus, Doctor Doom, aka villains that Marvel can't use. Fuck, Vine has a top 50 Marvel villains list. List is suspect as fuck. But out of that 50 they mention 15 are characters that they could use right now without having to jump through the Sony/Fox hoops to get the characters back. Here's who was listed in case you're curious.

Thanos
Loki
Bullseye
Kingpin
Ultron
Red Skull
Abomination
Mephisto
Blackheart
Mandarin
Absorbing Man
Barracuda
Obadiah Stane
The Hood
Taskmaster

[Brill Weave]

Pretty shitty list imo.

[chazzyphizzle]

it's not about the actors playing the villains, it's the fact that the villains are written so thinly it doesn't matter who is playing them.

[Obsidian]

You forgot the guy from Iron Man 3, who I actually thought they made a decent attempt at humanizing.

[Brill Weave]

it's not about the actors playing the villains, it's the fact that the villains are written so thinly it doesn't matter who is playing them.

That and the fact that Marvel knows these guys are(for the most part) one and done in the movies. So why bother fleshing them out?

[Brill Weave]

You forgot the guy from Iron Man 3, who I actually thought they made a decent attempt at humanizing.

[kuronosan]

The way Marvel does this basically requires them to either kill the villain or spend time building them up for a potential sequel.

These aren't comics, where they can spend a lot of time on heroes and some time on villains. They're movies.

[ronin sparthos]

In the MCU, the villains are around to get verbally sassed. Loki's only popular because he's a sympathetic villain with a backstory and that he's a great character to trade quips with our heroes. Perks of a trickster god. Even children can agree that Loki isn't exactly threatening or intimidating.

If you want dour villainy, that's what DC exists for. It's the sole area where DC consistently hands Marvel their ass.

[Eurell]

Even children can agree that Loki isn't exactly threatening or intimidating.

Are we not assuming that he killed motherfucking Odin before he took the throne?

[Myrrh_Quetz]

Are we not assuming that he killed motherfucking Odin before he took the throne?

Cept he can't and didn't.

[Tyrath]

Odin dying off screen to Loki? Yeah, no.

Man the MCU would be so much more amazing if they just had the rights to the Xmen. Magneto and Apocalypse would be boss.

[Salodin]

Loki's only popular because he's a sympathetic villain with a backstory and that he's a great character to trade quips with our heroes.

That's just it though, they gave Loki the time of day and some decent writing. Aside from Bucky, they didn't give that treatment to any one else. That's their problem. It's a writing problem, nothing else. Every villain in the nolanverse had good writing and backstory, there's none of that in MCU movies even though there could be.

[Eurell]

So wait. What do we think happened to Odin? Because Loki is in charge right now lol