========================================
Spoilers Are Everywhere. You Have Been Warned
========================================
So Guardians of the Galaxy was a pretty good movie. That being said, I have to research to remember the name of the villain. The villain was practically a throwaway, never really menacing, never really making his mark in the film. Even Thanos, the eventual villain of the upcoming Avengers didn’t do much. Neither did The Collector. Um, as a matter of fact none of the enemies really left much of an impression. This is probably the one main weakness of Guardians of the Galaxy….and Thor: The Dark World…..and Iron Man 3….and Iron Man 2 (I lie, that one had a lot of weaknesses).
If you really think about it, the last 15 years have given us dozens of terrible to mediocre to even incredible comic book films that nearly all have one thing in common: their villains are whether weak or forgettable. Hey, quick question: what is the name of the villain in Thor: The Dark World? No, I am not talking about Loki, who ranges from villain to sympathetic anti-hero within his story arc. I am talking about the main baddie, and while you are at it name his second-hand man without researching it. Give up? Alright, move on.
The increase of comic book movies have unveiled the sad fact that nowadays there has been less focus on villains and a heavier focus on the heroes and their inner dilemmas. I know this is more a creative choice amongst the folks within Disney, within Marvel, and within DC, but this isn’t a direction I personally enjoy. And I bring up Disney because with the exception of Princess and the Frog’s Dr. Facilier they haven’t nailed the concept of a good villain in quite some time (Not like the good ol’ Disney Renaissance days) and own Marvel.
So in order for me to explain just why the current disappointing status of comic book villains is bogging down the comic book movies, let me give you the good examples and intertwine them with my complaints of The Mandarin, Bane, and whatever the hell that villain in Guardians of the Galaxy is called.
Spider-Man’s Green Goblin. Now I to this day still don’t accept the new Spider-Man movies simply because of my fond memories of the first two in the Raimi trilogy. What makes the first two Spider-Man movies work is the ying to Spider-Man’s yang (stop laughing). The original brought us the vindictive, rough, scary Green Goblin. And one of the smartest decisions made by pre-Disney Marvel was hiring the experienced and skillful horror director Sam Raimi into the series. And what Raimi did was added horror elements to the movie. And all the horror came from Green Goblin constantly attacking out of nowhere, wrecking havoc on the newspaper bugle, on poor Aunt May’s house, and even during a massive fire.
And something that Marvel isn’t afraid of doing is giving the hero a good whipping. And that my friends is what separates Bane’s ho-hum PG beatdown of Batman and Green Goblin’s utter near-destruction of Spider-Man in the climax. Batman was whipped pretty bad but never looked bloody, never looked bruised, and the fight doesn’t really ring in the ears. Even the part where Batman’s body breaks didn’t have as much of a crunch as it should have.
Spider-Man however was a different beast. Spider-Man was flung around, had his face smashed an assortment of times, and had his mask practically shredded from his face. You felt every hit because Marvel allows it. Superman could never have a bad hair day---look at how nice he looked despite his final fight that had him thrown from building to building a merciless amount of times. Now look at Spider-Man before Green Goblin nearly delivered the death blow. I feared Green Goblin, I never really feared Bane. Doc Ock also gave Spider-Man some good licks in Spider-Man 2 (Still one of my picks for top comic book movie ever).
Spider-Man 2’s Doc Ock was just as effective and not just because there was a bit of sympathy for him, but instead because he had been popping up multiple times throughout the film. Spider-Man had to fight him three times, as the threat of his appearance was always there. And even before he became the enemy, Octavious had lots of time shared with Peter Parker. The lead villain in Guardians had just one actual showdown against the Guardians while making a second appearance and had a short encounter with Drax. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 saw us with Green Goblin just once, and Rhino…just once. You can’t be menacing if you show up……once (Silver Samurai, Deadpool, Two-Face, Scarecrow, I’m looking at you). A good villain will be a consistent presence, a constant threat, always a step or a scene away.
This is where Spider-Man 3 got it wrong---although to this day I will always accuse Reimi of sabotaging this film since he didn’t get to make the film he wanted. Sandman? Twice. Venom, one of the most popular villains in the entire comic book universe? Once. And God it was a weak appearance. I shall never bring it up again…
….what it could have been….
…………………ugh………………
But even though Venom was bad…why doesn’t anyone ever talk about the travesty that was X-Men Origins’ Deadpool?!?!?!!?
We are getting closer to the ultimate cinematic comic book villain. A good enemy has close ties, a close bond (or anti-bond) to the hero. And we have our next two examples coming from the first two films of the rebooted Batman franchise. Ra’s Al Ghul from Batman Begins is an excellent example of a memorable enemy that has a lot of screentime, is a consistent threat, but also has that essential connection to the hero that makes him compelling. And if you hire a great actor to play the villain: extra points. Liam Neeson as Al Ghul is a perfect example of an excellent performance that lifted the movie to the next level. Al Ghul not only has an agenda that threatens the entire planet, but he also trained our hero to become as skillful as he was. Al Ghul could match Batman on wits and strength (Which led to the ONLY good climactic battle in the entire Batman Reboot trilogy. Don't argue this one). The second example will be brought up later.
Now, not every movie can pull off the closeness of the connections between good and evil. See: Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, Iron Man, Spider-Man 3 (Yea….............), Captain America: Winter Soldier (One of the better ones, but would have worked if "they" had not been so predictable). So just pitting them on a random connection doesn’t automatically make it appealing, you need to add weight to the connection in order to make it captivating. Al Guhl is there from the start to the very finish, and his cameo in Dark Knight Rises was an ugly tease—because that movie could have definitely used some more Neeson, among other things.
Lastly and most importantly, the villain needs to be the exact opposite in terms of character, belief, outlook on life, mannerism, and style of living from the hero. The enemy and the hero need to be like magnets and completely repel each other. This is where Iron Man 3 horrifically failed—they turned The Mandarin into just another Iron Man villain when he should have been the biggest foil and adversary in the Iron Man series. The Mandarin was supposed to be the magical enemy that is the total opposite to the technologically-driven Iron Man. And then we have Bane, whose young brute unstoppable strength was supposed to be the total opposite to Batman’s aging think-first-act-later style that needed to do now that he was older. Instead…well….Bane was just a lovestruck fool that was working for someone else.
ugh.......................nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything that could have made Bane great was demolished in this scene alone. His 1% vs. 99% mercenary schtick could have really worked...but it all turned out to be an act.............
ughhhhhhhhhhh.................................
Now Dark Knight’s Joker was perfectly done, and this is why he is arguably the most recognizable villain in the last 15 years. He has it all: he looks very different, he talks different, he thinks extremely different, and is the total polar opposite of Batman. He is menacing, he shares a lot of screentime with the hero and also has plenty of time on his own to wreck chaos in front of the audience. There is no random baseless twist to him, which were things that bogged down The Mandarin, Bane, Sandman, among others. Worst of all, it seemed like Batman never, ever had the advantage. It was a psychological horror that you just don't get in most movies, let alone comic book movies.
Joker was Heath Ledger’s performance and idea pretty much all the way. Through the mix of research, method acting, choice of wardrobe, and moments of unpredictability Ledger sunk into the role of the Joker in a way that Oscar-winning actors sink into their dramatic roles: full-force and fully embedded in the character’s mind. Dark Knight’s Joker not only fits the criteria, but set the bar to how a really good comic book villain should be: great actor/actress, plenty of screentime, and with a touch of sheer terror that can frighten the most avid moviegoers. Seems like a simple recipe---so why is it not being copied?
Loki belongs in a special category, because he has been in three different movies and was the villain in two of the three, while playing a slight anti-hero in the third. He fits the bill in some aspects (sympathetic, plenty of screentime, fantastic actor) but falters in others (Not enough screentime/battling in The Avengers and The Dark World, not really menacing enough). Loki is more like the Jack Sparrow of the cinematic Marvel Universe. Maybe in the third Thor movie the tables will turn, but for now I can’t call him the ultimate villain when he hasn’t even defeated a single main character. Yes my friends, Loki is in Jack Sparrow territory: not good by any means, but doesn’t quite threaten the environment within the movie like Joker. Final note though: if Ledger had been alive I’m sure his Joker would have carried a similar story arc as Loki—showing up in multiple movies and potentially even other DC franchises.
If you want what I consider to be the ultimate villain within the comic book films, it would have to be The Incredibles’ Syndrome. I totally comprehend that The Incredibles is the cop-out answer in the entire article but hear me out: Dark Knight’s Joker is the best amongst the comic book villains, but Syndrome is the top prime example of how a comic book villain should be. Stop screaming everybody, I know the article took a major curveball. But The Incredibles is heavily inspired by Fantastic Four and the entire culture of comic books.
Let’s look at Syndrome, shall we? Slightly charismatic, very menacing, selfish, a ruthless killer (did we see all the superheros that were killed in the infamous computer scene?), a constant premise, a devastating threat, and worst of all has an origin story that does unveil a lot of sympathy towards the tortured soul. He is a boy that became the biggest adversary in the movie because his superhero idol let him down and crushed him. The hero crafted his worst enemy. It became a fallen idol story, a Man vs. God complex that makes The Incredibles secretly the darkest Pixar movie of them all (Buddy is upset that he wasn’t as gifted as the superheros that had roamed the world he lived in). He doesn’t just randomly pop up, you see the transformation for yourself. He has the richness and smarts of an Iron Man, but a chaotic taste for disaster like the Joker. That's a devastating combination.
High death count, plenty of time, and was evil enough to even attempt to steal a child in revenge for not having his day to become a hero in the eyes of the public---of course after letting the robot he created blow up some buildings and threaten the lives of millions. And then after having his one day of killing and eventual faux saving of the town? Selling all his amazing weapons and inventions to allow everyone to kill each other. Syndrome is bad news six ways to Sunday, and much more rounded than your current run of enemies.
Come on DC and Marvel, you have good baddies in your universe, please use them and represent them well. We need the modern-day comic enemies to be more like Joker, Green Goblin, and Syndrome…and be less like…
Like……
…………………….
…..
Ronan the Accuser. Ah! That’s his name!
No comments:
Post a Comment