When Will We Finally Get a Scary Villain in the Avengers Movies?
Say what you will about Iron Man 2 -- and truth be told, it was at least as good, if not better, than the first -- one thing is borderline undeniable: As bad guys, the bad guys sucked. This is not to say that Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer wasn't the best part, by far of the entire movie (forget Thor; can Hammer have a Marvel spin-off?), but rather that his nefarious intentions were surprisingly low on the nefariousness. And while Mickey Rourke's Ivan Drago Vanko looked pretty tough, in the end -- SPOILER ALERT -- he was ultimately no match for Iron Man either. And that's a big problem for Marvel and their Avenger-based comic book movies: It's too easy for these superheroes.
I'll readily admit my knowledge of S.H.I.E.L.D. and The Avenger Initiative is severely lacking past the surface level, but: Where are the villains here? If you can name the heavies portrayed by Tim Roth in The Incredible Hulk and Jeff Bridges in the first Iron Man, you're probably unique. Hell, ask any of the millions who saw Iron Man 2 this weekend what the super-villain name of Rourke's character was and they probably won't have a clue. Though, to be fair, Iron Man 2 couldn't even bother to give him a proper alternate identity: Was he Whiplash or Crimson Dynamo? More important: Does it matter?
Part of the reason why The Dark Knight was so successful was because the Joker created a threat for Batman that felt legitimate and overwhelming. And that drove audiences to embrace the film simply because Heath Ledger's iconic performance gave them someone to root against. I understand Iron Man 2 is a different beast -- and didn't have that added (and, of course, posthumous) Ledger gottasee factor for audiences to latch on to -- but that doesn't mean it couldn't have some stakes. Was Tony Stark faced with one credible threat at any point during Iron Man 2? No, he wasn't.
And that's why Marvel should be at least a little bit concerned for The Avengers. Eventually, moviegoers are going to realize that these stories have no real conflict at all. It's one thing to pile a bunch of superheros into one movie; it's another to give them an actual villain that can strike fear into the hearts of ticket buyers. They don't necessarily need a Heath Ledger-like Joker, but they have to do better than Ivan Vanko.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
100% agree. I think lately the studios (and by that, mostly Marvel) have been relying on the fanboys to tell the world which supervillian the actors are playing.
In Wolverine, never once in the movie did I hear the name Sabretooth, yet that's who we were told he was for months before the movie came out (I do believe the action figure also called him that).
Somewhat similar was Spider-Man 3's villians. I don't remember "Sandman" and "Venom" benig drilled in our heads IN the movie - but we sure were made aware of their names before the movie came out.
One of my biggest gripes (somewhat unrelated) is the claim that people thought there were too MANY villians in Iron Man 2. What are they talking about? There was one corporate baddie (who was awesome and hilarious) and one "evil" one (I would have loved for him to say "Moose & squirrel" in his accent) - but they kinda worked together. So where do they get there were "too many" villians. If we are going by the Iron Man 2 standards, Batman Returns (which was amazing and loved by critics) had THREE - Penguin, Catwoman, and Walken's character Fisk. I don't remember people complaining with THAT one. Even The Dark Knight had two in that regards (with Two-Face), and his character was cut really short.
Yeah, I enjoyed IM2 a lot more than I thought I would given some of the bad reviews, but even walking out when the movie was over that was the one thing that my friends and I had negative to say about it - lame bad guys. Rourke looked like his personal hygiene was at sub-zero levels, but other than that didn't appear to be much of a long term threat (and the back story with his father and Stark was like a tossed off afterthought). And I generally love Rockwell, but he seemed to be just re-using some of his "Charlie's Angels" schtick (down to the little moonwalk style gloat-dancing), and just was more of a greedy doofus than anything (was his threat at the end - "you haven't heard the last of me etc." supposed to be scary?).
I agree, though, nowhere near the level of the unending stream of boring bad guys in Spiderman 3 (and that doesn't even count the dance number, which was some sort if evil force all its own).
Usually the Hulk is kind of the bad guy in Avengers stuff. He goes crazy and it's hard to stop him.
The Marvel line-up of villians was always a bit lame compared to the DC villians. Other than Magneto in the X-Men, they weren't all that interesting; especially if you followed the Avengers back in the day. But then take a look at The Avengers themselves...The Wasp, Ant Man, The Scarlet Witch...not all that interesting a roster of superheroes!
well if they do it like ultimate avengers hulk was more then enough of a badguy
maybe have apocalypse as the bad guy with his four horsemen ?