Here's a reason why Loki, Killmonger Vulture, and Thanos work and will be remembered for decades over 90% of MCU villains: they're _characters_ first, and obstacles second.
+[I. Th.] Hating on a Marvel villain with the same indiscriminate and unsupported hatred some on the Interwebz hate on a certain awesome animated girl who goes by the name of Korra? Come on, that's unbecoming of you.
@I. Th. By your logic, so is Joker. So is Magneto who is a one-note fanatic. Loki's character can be Shakespearean, and the TV shows have the time to develop villains the ways movies can't. Get with the times.
I agree partially with you. I would put Loki in the same category as James Franco Green Goblin. They get interesting by the time their arc is over (sm3 - ragnarok)
@@ShadowSonic2 Joker and Magneto are nothing like the mcu villains. Unlike Loki, Magneto is a developed character with a humanized motive. And Joker, even though he's chaotic, still has a motive and is more than just a tricky character. Face it, mcu can't make compelling villains. And being Shakespearean doesn't make Loki compelling.
"Batman is amazing, but he wouldn't be as good without the Joker; Luke skywalker is great, but his journey would be lessened without Darth Vader" I think i get the point You have to put Mark Hamill somewhere to get a good villain in a movie
True. I learned more about Thanos in Infinity war than in every Marvel movie before it: his live Style, his Family, his motivation, his goals, his past, his relationship with Gamora ect. ect. ect.
Honestly the scene that made me feel the most on edge in the entire mcu was the kitchen and car scene in spider man homecoming. Michael Keaton is actually terrifying in that movie
Vulture was great. He wasn't trying to take over the world, end humanity, or poisen people to get rich. He was just a dude trying to get his piece of the pie. Did he cause people to die? Yeah, but whatever...I get his motivation
Oh the tension was real in that scene. You could feel the uncomfortableness in the scene. Plus the way the stop light turned green and reflected on Vulture's face the moment he realized who Peter really was.
@@MrDumbElite The only part that felt like cheating was they'd already done that type of twist with Green Goblin in the first Toby McGuire Spider-Man. That said, the way they did it in Homecoming was so much more satisfying and impactful. But yea, those scenes were still brutally intense because it wasn't just the physical danger Peter was facing, it was the emotional danger. Sure, in a one-on-one fight without the vulture suit, Peter could have easily taken Adrian, but the fact that Adrian, as an adult, has so much more leverage - legally and emotionally - over teenager Peter is what made the tension work.
Ultron to me was very fun to watch and very charming for a sentient robot. His motivation may not be relatable, but there was still something human about him. He gets angry, he gets disappointed, he gets sarcastic, he gets confident, he gets sad and he didn't want to be alone in his new world.
Ultron is a complex villain that deserved more than one movie. If you know the comics, he was a constant thorn in the Avengers side. I thought they did their best explaining his evolution given the constraints of having to keep the overall mcu narrative moving towards infinity war. Loved age of ultron.
Zemo is a hidden gem of a villain. Showing what heroes destroy do have consequences. I mean he lost his family as a result of the Avengers battling and sought revenge. And manipulated them against each other especially Captain America (who doesn't want to lose Bucky/Winter Soldier because of his evil deeds in the past decades) and Iron Man (who lost his family because of Winter Soldier being evil) to the point where he want to make them know how it feel like to lose everything. And to me I feel that was a genuine villain.
Not only that. He served to redeem black Panther's character too. He was willing to suicide at the end of civil War and we were sorry about It, he was just another casualty
Zemo is so far above Hella realy. You also didn't mention that he was the first villain that actualy acomplished the goals he set out to acomplish. The fackt that he doesnt have overhelming presence or power does not change the fackt that he is dramaticaly on the same tier as Thanos.
To add to that, you can still feel the effects of the damage he did to the Avengers several movies down the line. Civil War came out 3 years ago, and its plot still has yet to have a true resolution, which is going to make the payoff in Endgame that much more enjoyable
Perhaps, but I barely even remember he existed. To me he's right down there with all those assholes-in-suits who always turn out to be the true villains in Iron Man films instead of the actual interesting and cool looking villain. Hell, I remember Crossbones more than I remember Zemo!
I remember him. He's easily my favourite of the MCU villains. No powers, and yet he tears the Avengers apart through sheer cunning and effective manipulation. I also find it neat how he tried to minimize the casualties of his evil plan, and it would be hard to call him evil; he's just a guy angry that the Avengers accidentally killed his family while they were fighting Ultron (a threat that Stark created).
Matthew St. Cyr I’d still call him pretty damn evil. A villain can be sympathetic but still evil. One can understand a man’s actions without condoning them.
*TL;DR* Little resume of the villains's story. *Hela* - Never viewed as a daughter, only a tool for Odin's ambitions. Vanished and forgotten from Asgard's history. *The Vulture* - A normal guy that was pushed too far, lost his job because of the goverment and became a thief to gain. *Ghost* - Victim of an accident. Doing everything she can do to preserve her literal "existence", trying to survive and cure from her "sickness". *Thanos* - Viewed himself as a hero. Believing to do what is necessary to preserve balance in the Universe, willing to use any means to achieve his goals.
When Marvel villains started acting like actual people and not throw away characters... that is when they began to "get good". Killmonger and Thanos are the optimum of this change in direction. Just because you are doing something "evil" or morally abhorrent... doesn't mean you see it that way. The best villains ever written do not act like a villain and nor do they consider themselves to be so. It is why I think that the live action Nolan films Batman villains are better than the Marvel and DC villains. Not one of them acts like a stereotypical villain. Ras always believed that he was working toward the greater good of mankind right up till his death. Completely unrepentant. The Joker believed that deep down all of humanity was just like him and in his own words he is simply "ahead of the curve". Harvey Dent was a good man who was just broken down mentally and physically by tragedy, that is something which could happen to any of us... Talia and Bane were seeking justice for the "murder" of someone they cared about and felt justified in their actions, no matter how disproportionate the response. And that is how real people in our reality function. There has never been a true war that wasn't fought between two sets of people who weren't certain they were in the right. The really dangerous people believe they are doing whatever they are doing solely and only because it is without question the right thing to do. And that is what makes them dangerous.
While more defined characters are always a huge plus that's not always the case with villains. You can have the most silly and overplayed bad guy but he will work if you can make him enjoyable to a viewer. That's how Loki is and people still mistake him for some deep portrait of a hurt man in reality he's just a fun character and so was the Joker. Believe me, in superhero movie that's enough.
You mean like Stane, Loki, Killian, Alexander Pierce, Bucky, Zemo, Ego, Toomes, Hela, etc? Sounds like it started at the beginning and about half of the movies have pretty good villains.
@@JSSTyger no, lol, MOST of those characters were all cartoonishly evil and had no real depth to them. I could sympathize with Ras and Harvey Dent, even Talia as someone in mourning, but none of the ones you mentioned were really humanized to the same degree as the villains in Batman were. Only Zemo and Loki made me feel anything for them at all. Zemo for the loss of his family which drove him to do what he did. And Loki who was only seeking the approval of a father figure while living in the shadow of his widely loved brute of an older brother.
Its a shame, Mickey Rourke did some intense reseach and preparation for whiplash, so much he even said each tattoo on his body was to mean something about the character, but early MCU fcked him over kinda like wb did with Stephenwolf. Ciaran Hinds has said that the Stephenwolf they showed is not the one he and Snyder had worked so hard for.
i'd never noticed til this video that they'd photoshopped Robert Downey Jnr's eyes and face over Mickey Rourkes chin and hair for the poster. Had to rewind to watch it again.
@@justice_productions_ i honestly liked the route Snyder was going. I know people generally didnt like it nd i can see why but i felt it was different from what we were used to. but suicide squad and Justice league defenetly felt very early mcu, the worst of it at least.
You know Thanos is the peak of live action superhero villain when you're actually feeling over a giant purple Mo-cap CGI character as an actual person.
you are deficient as a human being if you feel bad for a guy that murders his daughter for the bad reason that he needs to commit more genocide. Thanos is the Mad Titan. if you feel for him, you are insane. Loki was completely against Thanos, and it actually works even if we believe Loki was always evil, and even always damaged. Loki was never as insane as Thanos.
@@darthparallax5207 There's a difference between seeing where someone's coming from and fully agreeing with someone he says he can understand why Thanos is doing what he's doing and sympathsizes with the situation on his planet but is still aware that his methods are extreme.
To be fair Ronan was literally a joke. The rest of GOTG is so quippy, funny and lighthearted and then Ronan is just so dark and serious, even his introduction is like a Ridley Scott film.
I personally think Ronan is the most underrated MCU villain. He’s big, boisterous, over the top, and weird in the same way Guardians of the Galaxy is. He’s in no way a complex villain, and he’s better for it! Rather than make a nuanced character you can feel for, they went in the opposite direction, making the most over the top version of a 1 dimensional villain possible. That not only allows more screen time for the 5 protagonists they need to develop, but makes for a nearly unstoppable badass with a laser focus on his goals. Furthermore, despite his over the top alien nature, his motivations are surprisingly grounded. “They call me a terrorist, radical because I follow the ancient ways of my people the Cree, and punish those who do not.” As an American who grew up in the Bible Belt & 9-11 aftermath, I’ve been surrounded by the narratives of radicals who want to force their religious practices on others my entire life. And that’s what Ronan is. In one line they manage to give a deliberately one dimensional villain more depth & grounded realism than many of the others who came before & since.
Maybe that was part of the idea...make him a wet blanket so you hate him more. Nobody likes the party pooper😂 It's interesting you say that because a lot of the Alice in Wonderland adaptations that work (not tim Burton) made the villain as someone who was going to bring sense and order to a place where that just can't happen. But sadly this landing didn't stick and he was boring af
@@sussusamogus9596 Helmut Zemo from Captain America: Civil War. He was the Sokovia colonel who wanted to split up the Avengers after the death of his family during the battle with Ultron in Sokovia. Despite having no powers or tech, he's a super smart, cunning strategist with a tragic history, making him one of the more low-key interesting villains in the MCU.
Remember what the critic said focus is a key element zemo had good motivation and a good backstory but he was barely in it he was in a few scenes to build tension but never went anywhere I agree that zemo is a good villain but he wasn't the focus it's about the conflict of what can happen to a team when infighting is introduced you understand
@@haydenysidro9388 Zemo was a great manipulator that would be lauded as an amazin villain on a show like game of thrones but in a superhero movie he felt lacking because he never actually fought the heroes on exerted himself physically against them. True he made the avengers fight each other but theres just something satisfying about watching a great hero and a great villain duke it out on the big screen.
I believe that the real thing that makes these villains different is that they all could be the hero of the story if you told it from their perspective. Hera had a mission to seek revenge for her unfair banishment. Vulture is a family man who was forced by circumstance to enter into an unsavory business. He did what he did to do right by his family. Killmonger believes that his country is wrong for not intervening to help people that they could. That and he showed the absurdity of a tribal monarchy that chooses it king through individual combat. He actually didn't violate any laws in Wakanda. He as a citizen of that country had every right to do challenge for leadership. Thanos actually was the protagonist of Infinity War. He went through the entire hero's journey as described by Campbell in 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces'. He's willing to lose everything he cares about to save the entirety of the universe, at least from his perspective. Only Jeff Goldblum and Kurt Russell's character lack the ability to be a hero if the story was told from their perspective. Honestly, they work because they're fun and over the top villains.
Top 5 favorite MCU Antagonists: 5) Killmonger: his backstory and pain hits so close to home. He represents my own complicated relationship between the country in which I was born and the ancestry denied me. The anger of being rejected by both through no fault of your own. 4) Vulture: He's a blue collar man. He's beneath the notice of our wonderful Avengers. He's a reminder of the lower class who do get screwed and completely forgotten by the people higher up on the chain. In the greater scheme of events, it makes sense that Tony's company took over the clean up after the NY attack. Can't have all that tech getting in the wrong hands. It's dangerous. But what does that matter to a person just trying to pay their mortgage, provide for their family and put their kids through school? 3) Loki: He's a spoiled brat prone to tantrums but... haven't we all wanted to throw such a tantrum at being treated unfairly? And wouldn't we if we had such powers? I know he's entitled but it's pretty hard to hate him. I just wanna smack sense into his head. Like Thor, I can't give up on him. I don't think he's inherently evil. He's a friggin teenager lol 2) Alexander Pierce: He's waaaay too real. These are the bad guys I'm actually afraid of. The ones who come in the guise of looking out for the well being of all. Infiltrating the government. He's so sincere, so careful with his words, so good at convincing you that you want the same thing. He scares the crap outta me. 1) Thanos: What to say that hasn't been said before? He is so utterly fascinating. I could ponder him for hours on end... and I have. He's the kind of character you dream of analyzing. So thoroughly constructed.
Thanks for showing Pierce some love. He's not the most memorable but he is the most realistic. On top of that, Robert Redford never played him as anything but smart, snarky and sincere.
I wish they'd mentioned Zemo. I felt like Zemo is one of the most memorable villains beside Loki and Thanos. His motivation was grief and anger. All he wanted was revenge for the loved ones that he lost. Plus, he managed to do something past villains could never do: spilt up the Avengers. He didn't have unlimited power or resources. He was smart and stealthy. He was relatable. He made me cry. Also, I never thought Loki's smile would be a feature focus. (Speaking like a tiny lil girl, his grins kinda freaks me out)
Ego's reaction to finding out that Starlord had the Celestial Gene is the equivalent of a Pokémon Breeder's reaction to hatching a Shiny. Just putting that out there.
I agreed, he was a classic warmonger and though he was in it for his pride and lust for power, I believe choosing power over humanity is also a relatable trait because that's about as comment in villians as much they seeing themselves as the true heroes.
Nostalgia Critic I think they where 7 in a row including Civil War because Zemo is a good villian he represents a normal human that have been afected by the Avengers and they have no consecuenses
Still 6 in a row even if you count Zemo since Doctor Strange was between Civil War and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For me Zemo always seems underrated due to being in a film where the central conflict is between Cap and Iron Man.
@@johnrobinson3382 Yep at first just like everyone else, I considerd him just another MCU baddie but then also like everyone eIse, I started appreciating him more and more until now I really like him and can't wait for his return in the Falcon and Winter Soilder.
Since the chat is about marvel villains but what about Kingpin form Netflix's Daredevil and Killgrave from Jessica Jones I'm just saying that Kingpin and Killgrave should be in Favourite Marvel villains as well. EDIT: Wow thank you guys for the likes and I am surprised about how many people agree with me.
Will Slattery I think he specifically meant the MCU, not the Netflix shows. They're part of the same universe (sorta), but they're their own thing. Agents of Shield also had some decent villains. Also, don't forget about Booshmustuh, he was the Killmonger of Netflix Marvel. Davos was also kinda cool.
Man finally someone said it. I have been looking through the comments to see if anyone else caught that mistake. Killmonger is 3rd in line for the throne.
@jennifer Hess thank you. yes you can challenge, and as shown in the beginning you don't have to be in line for the thrown to do that. But rightful heir means first in line to be ruler and he was not. His father was the king's brother not the king.
Paul Johnson It sounds like they’re talking about prior to any challenge, i.e. by default it goes to T’Challa, but the video does make it sound like he should have been king instead. That said, usually ‘rightful heir’ is used in regards to who is next in line, so depending on the rules of succession Killmonger may be the ‘rightful heir’ after T’Challa.
There’s one villain I feel like should be included. Kaecilius from Doctor Strange. I know he’s not the best MCU villain but I feel like he was the first step in the right direction. His fight with strange, he was the only real villain at the time to have Banter with the hero other than Loki. Plus He though his name was Mr. Doctor for that whole encounter too lol
And that is why Fox being placed into Disney/Marvel hands has me excited. Xmen and Fantastic Four had great villain that has been wasted in bad films. So seeing a rejuvenated Magneto, Mr.Sinister, Apocalypse, Dr.Doom in the hands of Kevin Feigi will be amazing to see.
Cashman9111 the problem with Magneto is that every other villain was either okay or terrible except him. They overused Magneto because he’s really the only great one. They need to dial back on him.
Exactly. He had a funny charm to him, an identifiable goal (steal Vibranium to sell for LOTS of money and screw with Black Panther), we saw him in Age of Ultron, and I liked how they gave him the look and swagger of a White Sooth Eh-frican rapper. I wonder if they had anybody in mind.
@@imbatmanhi3363 because Killmonger wanted to be recognized by his people. So he brought the corpse of their greatest enemy to open the door. Just teaming up with Claue and taking Wakanda by force would have been too much of a hassle, and ruin Wakandan opinion of Killmonger. It would also be practically impossible to expect two guys with a tiny bit of vibranium to take on the entire nation of Wakanda. Having Killmonger bring in Claue is a much neater way for him to enter the nation to claim his birthright. That being said, the movie criminally underused Andy Serkis and I am not okay with that.
@@TheCNotes1 they could of faked his death and he would be running weapons in the background while killmonger was king we missed out on a martin freeman and andy serkis punch up at the end lol
Ego was the worst. His character makes no sense. Even Thor 2's very simplified villain was better, as Malekith was just a plot device, and not the center of the movie.
Alexander Forsman What do you mean he makes no sense? He wanted to overtake the universe with his essence, but needed a second celestial to have the power to do that. But his kids kept not having the power, so he killed them. When Star-Lord showed the powers, he planned on using him to overtake the universe.
Jimmy Karlsson, Killmonger is literally the opposite of spoiled he grew up with nothing and was taking his revenge against the world, his goals were actually really good just the way he wanted to see them through were bad in fact at the end of Blackpanther his goals were beginning to be fulfilled by the HERO of the story
Jacob Martin Loki is still my favorite. I love his transformation from villain to antihero to basically an Avenger. He’s had the most interesting journey to me so far. It also helps I was a Thor fan before the MCU started. I really hope he’s not dead. Hiddleston still has a good 5-10 years left in him I hope lol
I think once the movies got past the obligatory origin stories for their heroes, they were able to spend more time focusing on more complex, relatable villains. In the origin movies, so much time is spent explaining how the hero came to be that the villain often exists simply as a hurdle for the hero to overcome. It isn't much a coincidence that the most complex, relatable villains were either in sequels or in movies where the hero or heroes had already been introduced in a previous film. We already know who the Guardians are from their first movie by the time we get to Ego in Vol. 2. Both Spider-Man and Black Panther are introduced in Captain America: Civil War before we get Killmonger and Vulture in the heroes' standalone films. And all the other heroes are already introduced before we finally get to Thanos in Infinity War. Infinity War is essentially Thanos' movie, he gets far more development and explanation for the audience to understand his actions than any other of the nearly two dozen heroes in the film with him, and it's because he needs the most of it since everyone else has already had their motives and meanings set up beforehand in other movies. Loki may be the exception since he's been around as a major player since the first Thor movie, but if you can't be a complex villain, at least you can be a fun villain. You don't need to be complex to be interesting to watch.
I think the reason why the villains work in 1989 Batman, Batman Begins and Spider-Man is because not only are the actors who portray the villains great but because the villains also tie into the hero's origin: Jack made Bruce Wayne Batman who in turn made Jack the Joker, Ra's Al Ghul trained Batman and Norman Osborne already had a connection to Peter Parker
@@elliottknifton8902 A personal connection to the hero does add emotional weight to the villain's motives, but it isn't necessary. Using another Batman reference, look at The Joker from The Dark Knight. He really has no personal connection to anyone in the film. But he's interesting and relatable because his motives are understandable. While nearly all of us aren't anarchists and would never do the things he does, we can see where he's coming from when he says that the rules we live by are only as good as the world allows them to be, and those rules don't matter when even the best people can have random horrible acts happen to them, therefore the only way to live is without rules. We can understand his point of view. Also, this Joker is actually an example of how providing an origin to explain the villain's desires and motives doesn't make him a better villain. We don't need to know where he came from or how he got those scars, a fact that he seems to have fun with since he provides more than one explanation for them. He still works as a compelling villain because his existence is as random as the anarchy he believes in. And actually, one of the things that started to annoy me about the Iron Man movies was how so many of the villains were personally connected to Tony Stark. Obadiah Stane was Tony's mentor and ran Stark Industries in his place. Ivan Vanko was the son of a man screwed over by Tony's dad. Aldrich Killian was pushed to villainy because Tony rejected his request to join AIM and collaborate with him. It started to make me wonder if people only became bad because Tony pissed them off. Realistically, wouldn't there be more people out there with malicious intent that had nothing to do with Tony or his family? I mean, not every cop has a personal connection to each perp he busts. So why does almost every foe Stark have to face be someone from his past life as a playboy asshole?
you dont think George Lucas having spare time for hte past 6 years and basically having Disney Stock isnt possibly related to better villains? he writes great villains, vader, palpatine.... jar jar... not to mention what he did with Maul in just a few scenes in a film
I thought Zemo was a pretty good villain in CW. I mean, yes, he didn’t have any memorable, funny or emotional lines, but that’s how you would be if you had lost everything you love to a group of people proclaiming to be “heroes”. He lost his home wife and daughter, and mostly, his character - he has no emotion for anything. Also, he brings out the best, and worst, of the protagonists - Black Panther has a great scene towards the end about vengeance, Cap would go to the extreme to save those he loves most, Tony would stop at nothing to get what he wants, and the other heroes show their willingness to sacrifice their freedom to ensure that Cap and Bucky would get to the Winter Solider base, so the world wouldn’t be at danger. It isn’t Zemo’s character that is the best part, it’s his way of making the heroes embrace their traits within them, wether that’s for good, or what they believe should be done. That in my view of villains, is good. I’m not saying Zemo is on the level of the Joker, but the Joker has ways of doing the same things - he made Superman a global dictator, ruling the Earth with fear due to his killing habit, bringing out who he truly is. He even tried it with Commissioner Gordon, make him someone else by driving him insane, paralysing his daughter and showing naked imagery of her. Obviously Joker has a personality that makes him even better, but we really only know Joker’s motivation is to get the jollies or prove how anyone can go insane, whilst Zemo is basically just revenge.
6:20 To answer, I'd say the villains establish personal connection to the hero somehow. Ego is Peter Quill's father. Hela is Odin's daughter and Thor and Loki's sister. Vulture is Peter Parker's girlfriend's father (like Norman was his best friend's father). Erik was basically like a brother to T'Challa. Or cousin? I forgot, but I think it was a cousin. Thanos is Gamora and Nebula's father. So, like Scar, they are evil family members which is very relatable in a way. All personal connections. Also, relatability plays a large part in likeability. Lastly, Grandmaster has connections with Loki and is the brother (again familial) of The Collector.
All the recent ones have had some sort of personal or familial relation to the hero as well aside from Ant-man and the wasp Ego: Star-Lord's father Vulture: Father of Spider-Man's crush Hela: Sister of Thor and Loki Killmonger: Cousin of Black Panther Thanos: Father of Gamora and Nebula. I think making these villains actually matter to these characters more than "oh this guy is gonna destroy everything we gotta stop them!" is a big part in it too.
Iron Monger, Malekith, Ronan, Red Skull, Adrian Killan, Whiplash, Abomination (if it is considered MCU), Crossbones, Baron Von Striker, Armon Zola, Ultron, Shocker, Maderin (mostly cause he wasn't real-), Dormmamu, Dormmamu's servant's. All villians I can think of who didnt have Family Problems
Nuigi 12 It is canon though. The only thing was that Edward Norton was replaced by Mark Ruffalo. But Tony Stark appears at the end and General Ross appears in Civil War and Infinity War. The Abomination is even mentioned in Agents of Shield, so yeah, it's definitely canon.
For me, a good villain is a character that really makes me question myself, "Is this guy actually bad?" If the villain is written and acted well, you're supposed to doubt the hero. Is the hero actually doing the right thing, or is he just childish and naive? The world is not all black and white, and in real-life situations there is no definite "right" and "wrong". And that's what Marvel does so well. Their heroes and villains are complex, they both do good stuff as well as bad stuff. For example, in Civil War there's a point about collateral damage. Is it "worth it" if you saved a bunch of people, but let someone die in the process? Where does your responsibility become irresponsibility? I loved that theme and I wish there was more of it. Probably, Spider-Man will suffer the most from it, like he's supposed to. In his first appearances, he's a clumsy kid who accidentally wrecks stuff and endangers lives. However, as he sees shit hit the fan and starts to feel that actions have consequences, as depression hits him, he'll become the best character of the entire MCU, like he IMHO is in the comics. If Marvel is able to add Venom to the universe, things will be able to really roll out. Imagine an actually deep and depressing movie about Spider-Man. Like, him debating if he's a good guy or not, making compromises and losing faith. Like an actual adult. So, the best thing about Marvel's stuff is that there is no villain. And everybody is kinda the villain.
I say a villain can work both ways. It doesn't have to be "is this guy actually bad?" sometimes a villain can be great just by being a big of an asshole as they can be. How much they can relish in it making those who stand against them suffer. This is why a character like friza from dragon ball z is so popular. He wasin't relatable in any way but he oozed evil and loved every minute of it even laughing gleefully after committing genocide.
Hugo Weaving does what Hugo Weaving does. It's like saying Tim Curry is the best Charakter in a movie. It's Tim Curry of course he steals the spot light.
Loki is actually the worst MCU villain in terms of just pure villainy. But in terms of development and character, he's one of the best if not THE BEST MCU character....alongside Tony Stark, Cap America, Thor, Erik Killmonger, Vulture, Kingpin, Jessica Jones, and Punisher.
No one ever said he had to be good at being bad. Think of Bowser, King of the Koopa, he never wins, never beats the main character, or even his sidekicks, but when there is a greater evil, he joins the team of good guys, to get a job done. Bowser fails 99.9% of the time, and yet, we love him. Loki fails 99.9% of the time, and yet, he is also loved. A villain does not mean that they are void of character, unless of course that villain is in fact void of character.
I dunno...I think he had a distinct emotional impact and threat that few other villains have. He's the only villain who was/is loved by the hero, which meant he could cut a lot deeper than strangers could. And it meant defeating him wasn't as simple as killing him off, either. That makes for a more interesting villain.
The irony of the Marvel villains from Disney is that they’re getting better, while Disney’s own villains have been getting really terrible and even so forgettable!
I know right? Now if Disney can go back to their roots with their villains. Like Doug said, Marvel villains recently have been just as engaging and interesting as their heroes, which is what Disney successfully accomplished during the Renaissance era with their films. It will be like a second Disney renaissance wave if we can reach that again.
@Razzle Dazzle Doritos' Cousin. He’s a Pixar villain, not Disney’s animation studios, which Frozen, Zootopia, Moana have terrible villains. Even Mary Poppins Returns had a villain that ruined the film for me.
@@Markimark151 I wouldn't really count Moana in this case. It had more of the reverse twist involving a good character that ended up being corrupted due to unfortunate circumstances (meaning not by intentional choice) and then turned back to their normal self again after Moana put her heart back into the spiral.
I don't know, I kind of liked Ronan the Accuser. He didn't have much complexity about him like the more recent villains had but maybe that's what I liked? He's see' s himself as judge, jury and executioner and is just bad for the sake of being bad and not needing the audience to feel sorry for him. I loved when he back talked Thanos and told him he was going to whoop his ass if he kept talking to him like a child. Good video though and I do agree with what can make a good villain I just think sometimes we need bad guys just being bad guys you know?
I agree. He was the too serious villain to the happy go lucky Guardians and he becomes way scarier if you think of him as the quintessential religious extremist. Actually many of the phase 1 and 2 villains work in that sort of way. They aren't the most developed but the Fridge Brilliance in their characterization is of the charts if you look at it from the right point of view.
He and Red Skull don’t get nearly enough praise for the work they do in their movies. They’re not the most complex villains, but they serve as a nice base-line villainy, since one is a genocidal terrorist and the other is a literal Nazi.
Villains must feel like actual characters and have decent motives for becoming villains aftee that they must feel like dangerous obstacles that are powerful and actually a threat to the heroes
Obediah Stain is a bit underrated becuase he is a big mirror villain in the end, but Bridges performed him well. Also, Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce was solid.
James Moyner True, but he feels also a bit like he just started. Hell, I really want my Masters of Evil, so I hope he just started with Civil War and will get his second round.
@@davidgantenbein9362 because he just started. one of the reasons I liked this version of zemo so much, personally, is that this is just his begining. He was somewhat forced into this rout of vengence, having nothing left because of the avangers, and in a way, even though he is somewhat of an amature, he is pulling it off splendidly.
I cried during the Gamora death scene, not because Gamora died but because I felt sorry for Thanos! And I loved hating every moment of that! Good job, Marvel Studios!
Agreed he did a lot and got to the point where he could look at the work he had done and be content. CW should also be notable for having T'challa develop into revenge seeking prince, to a respectable king who learned from his father's death.
Interesting analysis of the MCU villain formula. I would personally argue that Ghost from Ant-Man 2 wasn't exactly a "good" villain but more of a sympathetic antagonist in the film. Also, I'm a bit surprised that Zemo was left out of this video.
SamgirlSpeaks zemo is overlooked as a villain. he obtained what he set out to get (splitting up the avengers), debilitating them in the process. he has a backstory that connects well with the other events of the mcu, and understandable motives. he’s a mastermind of sorts. i think he’s forgettable because we don’t see much of his personality, and he infiltrated the avengers without a big physical fight
The thing is, even though Zemo was definitely a good villain and one of the most successful ones in the franchise, he was still a bit "there". He worked in the shadows, but that meant that he wasn't one of the movie's biggest focus points, like the villains mentioned in the video turned out to be.
You know, I really hate this idea that the only good villains in cinematic history must, MUST be sympathetic. Like, I see so many people say that here.... then a few sentences later say The Joker, the epitome of unsympathetic characters you can get, is the best villain of all time. Or Anton Chigurgh. Or Hans Landa. Or Hannibal Lecter (that one is more flimsy, as they retconned him to have one of the worst origin stories). Or Agent Smith. Or.... you get my point. The fact is, the notion that sympathetic villains are the best is simply not true. What does make a good villain? They have to be INTERESTING. The Joker and Chigurgh are forces of nature with compelling ideologies; Landa is a Chess Master who effortlessly plays his opponents and is always two steps ahead of them; Lecter is cultured af, which hides the fact he's more monstrous than the patients around him. Agent Smith hates humanity far more than his other A.I. counterparts, to the point even the machines believe he's over stepping his boundaries. None of these villains are particularly sympathetic, but they're entertaining to watch, have interesting motives, and are threatening. That's why I really can't stand this "sympathetic=compelling" mindset that everyone and their dog seems to be believing in now, as they say one thing, then claim another entirely. Plus, the fact it's cliché as shit at this point in time doesn't help.
For me, I think that this problem is rooted in a few recurring flaws that I keep seeing, in terms of how “sympathetic” villains are often handled/understood, if one wants to read them all: *1.) People must always keep in mind that having understandable/relatable goals is not the same as being a sympathetic villain, which in turn is not the same as saying that the antagonist is blameless for becoming a villain, which in turn is still not the same as saying the antagonist’s actions/intentions are truly just:* Not knowing where the antagonist should stand on that broad spectrum can easily lead to a poorly written villain, especially in cases where people cannot tell the difference between a “sympathetic” antagonist and a “blameless” antagonist. The former case leaves it open for someone to be the bad guy because of his/her own choices, in addition to one’s circumstances. Seeing the choices which a villain like that makes in those circumstances should be what makes him/her interesting, not the circumstances themselves. Therefore, it creates a missed opportunity when the writer only focuses on the circumstances, and never the choices, which are what illustrate the villains sense of agency. Only in cases like the Winter Soldier, where Bucky Barnes was literally brainwashed and subjected to mind control, would it make sense to treat the antagonist purely as a victim and focus on tragic circumstances, since those are cases in fiction where it actually would be difficult to ascribe any culpability to the antagonist himself. *2.) To an extent, I would argue that there are many great villains which definitely are not sympathetic at all (like Smaug, Sauron, Maleficent, Audrey II, Mr Hyde, etc.) but could still be considered “relatable” in that they can perfectly symbolize real vices we can succumb to:* Smaug and Audrey II are symbols of what we can become, when we give into that temptation towards insatiable greed and a sense of being entitled to worldly fame/wealth above all else. Sauron with his One Ring of Power illustrates the struggle to fight against the evils in the world, without succumbing to your own concupiscence and becoming just as monstrous along the way. The personality of Mr. Hyde, which hides underneath Dr. Jekyll, can be interpreted as what we could turn into, if we started to mindlessly act on our baser instincts/appetites, without any discipline or regard for what’s morally right to keep them properly ordered. Maleficent could embody pride and vanity, where if she is not willingly idolized by everyone else, then she will ensure that her “respect” will still come in the form of being feared, even if it means cursing a baby princess to “punish” the king for publicly dishonoring her or proudly presenting herself as the dark mistress of all evil to humanity. *3.) If sympathetic circumstances are to be added to a villain’s backstory, they need to be circumstances that would believably make his/her actions more tempting from his/her perspective, in order to be effective:* For instance, when Mr. Freeze wants to hunt down and kill Boyle in “Batman: The Animated Series”, the presented backstory allows his goals and motivations to make sense, because he blames Boyle for interrupting his experiment, leaving his wife for dead, and him getting confined to the sub-zero suit from the chemical exposure. Because Mr. Freeze’s backstory allows him to see the murder of Boyle as a way of gaining revenge, we know why Batman has to intervene and stop him from committing the crime, while we find Mr. Freeze compelling too. Now if the episode just had Mr. Freeze wanting to murder Boyle, because Victor’s parents were mean to him, his heart was broken in college, he never got a PlayStation as a kid, etc. then he would not have motivations that logically connect with his goal, which would make it come off as cheap and lazy writing. *4.) If a villain is to have lots of layers and nuance, other traits/qualities must be allowed to shine besides the character just angsting about his tragic backstory, or else they become even more one-note than a typical “evil” villain and just plain dull:* Thanos in Infinity War is built up to be a far more sympathetic/relatable villain than most portrayals I have heard of, and even has a few emotional scenes. However, we still get chances to see plenty of other qualities shine, such as him being a formidable fighter, sharing some intelligent and quotable dialogue, being intimidating and charismatic around other villains, acting more subtle and conniving at times, being more bombastic and theatrical at other times, showing glimpses of respect towards his enemies like Tony Stark, occasionally smiling and basking in his expanding powers, and so on. He did not just sit and mope throughout the entire movie. Seeing many different sides/traits/qualities/quirks of the character can make a sympathetic villain engaging to watch just as they would for a non-sympathetic villains (like the ones mentioned earlier). So that should not be suddenly neglected, just because a writer is going for a “sympathetic” villain. As yet one more side-note, I would argue that even the Joker has had occasional sympathetic moments, like in the Killing Joke graphic novel, during his big monologue and towards the end, when Batman offers to try and help rehabilitate him. The Joker has considered himself the hero of his own story, when he falls into a nihilistic worldview after his “one bad day” that leaves him angry at the world, concludes that the humanity will forever be a cesspool of injustice and meaningless chaos, and believes that his actions are rightfully tearing off humanity’s flimsy facade so everyone else can see the truth that he perceives. When he sees Gordon live through his ordeal without snapping and Batman still continuing to fight for justice, he shows moments of doubt, where the Joker’s worldview is shaken and the he wonders if he truly is the monster of the story. When Batman then tries one last time to offer rehabilitation and a chance to end their suicide course, the Joker has a moment, where a part of him seems sorrowful and regretful of the path he went down, but feels it is too late and he is beyond any hope of redemption. So one way to interpret the ending is that the Joker might have finally seen himself as a mad dog that has to be put down, leading to one more (possibly successful) attempt to make Batman kill him once and for all. Now the reason I bring this up is because this could sort of expand on my last point, where we see so many other sides/quirks/traits/mentalities of the Joker being showcased and fleshed-out. So when he finally do see a moment where he comes off as more vulnerable and sympathetic, it feels unique rather than repetitive. Because the Joker DOES NOT constantly act all angsty each time he appears, like a typical badly-written “sympathetic” villain, this prevents him from feeling plain dull and one-note, once we do get a moment like that.
Wait, did they mean the DCEU has better villains, or that DC in general has better villains? Because if it's the DCEU, other than Michael Shannon as Zod, I'm not seeing them. Eisenberg's Lex Luthor blows, Doomsday was a waste, the three villains from Wonder Woman were underwhelming at best, Suicide Squad's only redeeming quality was Katana being hotter than Harley, and Aquaman is too new to have been included in that press conference where L. Jackson made that statement.
yeah, other than the dark knight trilogy, DC didnt really do that well on the villain front either. the dark knight trilogy did have some great villains though.
TDK Trilogy: The joker Ra'as al ghul Two face Bane Watchmen: Ozymandias (er he's not a villain but idk) Burton's: Joker Penguin DCEU: Zod Ocean Master Black Manta Gotham: Jerome Jeremiah,
I actually kinda liked the design and demeanor of Steppenwolf, but God did the plot not treat him well. He was soo badly written, especially towards the end
I would have to disagree: Joker, Penguin and Catwoman from Batman and Batman Returns were great. And so were Lex Luthor and Zod from old Superman movies. Even Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor wasn't that bad.
There is one major thing that Loki had that none save Thanos (kind of) had: Repetition. One thing that comic book and television villains can have that movie villains rarely get is multiple appearances. A second or third round where the audience already knows who they are (and, ideally, how dangerous they are) can have a major impact. Imagine, for example, if Heath Ledger had been alive and his Joker had shown up in The Dark Knight Rises - he'd have instant credibility with the audience, and just the knowledge that the character would be returning would fill people with hype. Additionally, many of the best comic book characters are defined by hero/villain rivalries - Batman/Joker, Superman/Lex Luthor, Professor X/Magneto, Reed Richards/Dr. Doom, etc. These legendary relationships need time and multiple rounds to form, something that is quite hard for ordinary movies (especially when sequels are uncertain), but that Marvel, with its giant plan, should be much more able to pull off. The only examples of something remotely like this I can think of in big movies are Thor and Loki from the MCU, Spider-man and Harry Osborne in the original Spider-man trilogy (even if they weren't exactly fighting for most of it, Evil Harry had 2 movies of build-up), Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in Star Wars (and their Sequel Trilogy equivalents, Rey and Kylo Ren) and, I guess, Professor X and Magneto from the X-Men movies.
I would think the Harry Potter series would qualify, as would the Terminator series (to an extent). You also had Lex Luthor appearing in several of the Reeve Superman films, Megatron in the Transformers series (though I only cared to watch the first), and others.
TheBatmeme368 for Harry Potter, I never felt anything for Voldemort. Even though he shows up a lot, but never as much as Snape. For 6 movies, he's like a threat in the background, hardly ever appearing in the foreground. Now, Snape, I was able to get to know HIM as a character.
A personal connection helps the loss hit harder. Ego is bad enough as a villain but the fact he's Star Lord's father and murdered countless children (Quills siblings) and the only woman he loved (Quill's mother) makes it that bit worse.
Loki - Adopted brother of the main protagonist. Ego - Father of the main protagonist. Vulture - Father of the main protagonist’s love interest. Hela - Sister of the main protagonist. Killmonger - Cousin of the main protagonist. Thanos - Adopted father of the main protagonist.
darkchamberofdark666 Thanos and Gamora are the two characters that have the most screen time in Infinity War (Thanos 31 minutes and Gamora 20 minutes), so I consider both of them the protagonists of the film.
I think Zemo was a great villain considering his motivation and what sets him apart from the rest of the villains is his plan was full proof no matter if he got away. He wanted the destruction of the avengers and he knew the perfect way to do it; get them to lose trust in each other.
I think you will get a kick out of the next spidey villain too, venom was fun but aside from Spiderman 3's topher grace venom we won't having fight spiderman anytime soon, but kingpin, doc ock, Norman/Harry Osborn, Kraven, the symbiote, are spider-man's main villains and putting vulture in his high school years was inspired but you haven't seen anything until you see his main line up, I just hope mysterio is as good as Micheal Keatons vulture.
For me, the "decent villains" train started with the Defenders shows (as an aside, I never loved Loki even half as much as the general audience). Kingpin, Purple Man, and Cottonmouth were so damn good that it was unbelievable that they were from Marvel.
I remember watching Jessica Jones because I had a David Tennant watch-list. I can't believe he played a character like Kilgrave and then went on to play Crowley on Good Omens. Kilgrave was such a charismatic villain.
I would agree with the points you brought up, but also include that it is the fact that we can have time given to the villains now. Like you stated earlier, we needed to focus on the heroes first and establish them before moving onto their opponents. Also, with what you said in your "Avengers: Infinity War" review, we have seen these characters(heroes) a lot and know a good amount of them already. Seeing them sit and talk and be their usual selves would just feel like more of the same. Something good with crossovers is that we can have a preview of certain characters that will appear in their own future movies. Black Panther was set up a bit in "Civil War", so we could focus on killmonger as a character, Tom Holland as Spider-Man as well. By the time Thor 3 came around, Thor and Loki have been seen in several movies so we already know them. Meaning other aspects like Hella and their relationships with her can be focused on. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in order to make gains. Early on, Marvel sacrificed the villain characters for the heroes. Now they have the heroes and can regain the villains.
I am a little sad that Ultron isn’t mentioned more often, I found him pretty entertaining as a villain, I’m probably one of the few who enjoyed Age of Ultron as much as the first Avengers movie
1.) Watches Death Battle about Thanos vs Darkseid while resisting the spoilers. 2.) Watches Infinity War for the first time, and it ends with me adoring Thanos for his backstory, goals, motivations, and threatening sympathetic presence. 3.) Darkseid is an awesome badass villain, but i kinda admired MCU/Comics Thanos more.
Give credit where credit is due. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy had some of the most memorable and great villians in any comic book movie and set the stage the the massive comic book movie craze that exists today
Villains of original spiderman are laughable, they are so over the top, you cant help but cringe from a scene where Goblin-Sr has MJ in one had and literal box of kids in the other. They rarely pursue some clear goal, Sandman had little reason ro fight Spiderman, Doc was hilariously incompetent and irresponsible with his experiment and was ultimately his own demise. Goblin-Jr has a literal AMNESIA, which is the most pathetic plot device, and Venom was crammed along others for the luls and is evil for the sake of being evil. So no, credit is definetely not due.
Ultron was charming but didnt really have a sympathetic motivation.. he just wakes up and is immediately like "kill all the avengers the humans must die" Theres no solid explaination to allow us to understand why he wants to kill everybody
The concept of Ultron was nice but I think his execution left a lot to be desired. The greater impact and repercussions he left on the MCU made me more interested tho. Sokovia Accords and Vision, being a main thing. Then one thing led to another, you know the rest.
@@lurkzie I don't know Ultron at the end of the day is a machine and puts facts over anything without human emotions that's what makes him scary and a great villain for me
Going to have to strongly disagree here. Ultron was the villain who really introduced the idea of villains in the mcu wanting more than just power or to rule and instead wanted a misguided since of improvement, and zemo has a for more relatible quality to him than loki ever did.
@@DURIEL1 yeah but really they have the same problems as early marvel villains and meaning that there kinda dull at beginning with pilaf the red ribbons king piccolo all just interested in taking over the world then in Dbz all the main villains didn't care about ruleing the world because some already do or can take over the world but don't because they could do it later or just destroy it and do I even need to talk about gt dbs has good villains minus mimic vegeta because they don't really see themselves as some are in a pure since are force or just believe that actions justified hell even frieza dullness has been cured because in the new canon he can still be menacing but be a screw up and funny hell before the show the most interesting bad guys are the ones who eventually become goku's friends which is cool but it kinda lessens the in pack they had as villains so I'm just going to in with this Akira toriyama is a great storyteller but needs help in the bad guy department
What about Zemo? The only guy to break up the Avengers? He didn't need an army, superpowers, or even high-tech weaponry to defeat them. He just used a red journal and a date.
Yeah james spaders performance was phenomenal in fact that’s one of the reasons I love age of ultron yes it’s pretty week when compared to films like civil war, infinity war and the first avengers but damnit I love it
@@SJ_RANKS i love age of ultron as well because of james spader and i think the movie is underrated because of the bigger movies in the series and don't get me started on klaue and killmonger lol
SJ RANKS I rewatched Age of Ultron recently and it seems kind of underwhelming and falls way short compared to how good Infinity War and The Avengers are. I must say James Spader did a great performance though.
I think there's also something to be said for the fact that because we now know all the heroes (their personalities, character traits, flaws, hopes, fears, etc), there's less a need to convince the audience that the heroes are worth their attention, so the writers are able to naturally shift their focus onto making the villains stand out. Actually, there's an interesting argument to be made about whether the process has actually been inverted with the villains getting stronger and becoming more memorable as the heroes lose some of their individuality and sort of blend together. Don't get me wrong, I love all the heroes but you can't deny that they all now share very similar traits (most of them being modelled after RDJ, let's be honest). The constant quips, in particular. Even the heroes who didn't start out as constantly-snarking masters of wit are now able to spout one-liners at the drop of a hat...
I just hate how Ulysses Klaw was dumbed down for the movies. In the comics he's one of Black Panthers greatest villains but for the movie he's just a throwaway flunky.
He wasn't really a flunky. He was the main villain. Until Killmonger revealed his true intentions. No one saw Killmonger coming he was just a soldier under Klaws payment. Then Killmonger reveals the truth and suddenly brings everything full circle.
geardog24, while this is true to a point, remember that the MCU follows its own continuity, not that of Marvel Earth 616. Many characters have had their roles changed and/or backstories fudged around with.
Doug, with all due respect, I think there's an elephant in the room that you're overlooking. You have to remember that some of the deepest, most complex villains in the Marvel universe just so happen to be the ones that Marvel Studios, at the time, didn't have the films rights to. Magneto, Doctor Doom, Norman Osborn, Doctor Octopus, Venom, Kingpin, Galactus, any of the human villains that plague the X-Men, these are psychologically well-developed villains, but the MCU simply couldn't use them. Yes, that will likely change with the Fox merger, but for the first two phases of the MCU, they had to the make due with the rogues galleries they had, and, well, there is a reason that until now Iron Man's villains weren't as well known to the public as Spider-Man's were. The most glaring example of this, I think, is Magneto. Arguably the most complex villain in Marvel Comics, maybe in comics overall, for reasons we all know and have seen very well realized in the nearly two decades of X-Men movies...and the MCU simply can't use him. Similarly, Doctor Doom is arguably the greatest Marvel villain ever, Stan Lee's personal favorite in fact, and someone who has tragically been mishandled by Hollywood over and over again. But in the comics, while he is a world conquering dictator with an extremely large ego, even by villain standards, his reasons for world conquest are fascinating. If you want an idea of what I mean, go watch the Death Battle episode where he fights Darth Vader, I guarantee you will be shocked at the untapped potential that Doom has...But again, Marvel can't use him for now. Now, I admit, I have been kind of an apologist to the previous MCU villains, but that was mainly thanks to what the highly talented actors have been able to bring to their performance as opposed to what they had on paper. The glaring exception to this was Malekith; I'm sorry, but not even an actor of Christopher Eccleston's talent couldn't have done anything with that role. But I will defend some villains like Zemo, who may be unassuming and not visually interesting to watch, but who did have a very human motivation and, hey, his plan actually WORKED. Alexander Pierce from Winter Soldier is another villain that doesn't get nearly enough credit. Another one I will defend, believe it or not, is the Red Skull. I know, I know, generic take over the world bad guy...but that's exactly the point. If you've ever known Red Skull from the comic books, this is, as Kevin Feige himself has said on camera, the one villain Marvel intentionally does not create a lot of sympathy for. His whole point is that he is Captain America's polar opposite, someone who embodies everything he is against, who's beliefs are the exact opposite of Cap's, two extremes like Batman as Joker. Besides, he's a freakin' Nazi super soldier! How sympathetic do you want that to be?! I'm just trying to offer another opinion, and I don't expect to change yours of anyone's mind in any way. Make of my words as you will.
Anthony Castaneda EXACTLY Anthony!! I keep telling people this, Spiderman ,FF, and XMEN have the best rouge gallery of villians in the Marvel Universe. And now we'll get to see her intergatrted in the MCU!
Wow, watching this five years later, after a series of bumps in the road for Marvel, was VERY interesting. Even hearing praise and referring to time where there were basically no misses for the company; you almost forget how rock solid they used to be.
Can you review Scooby Doo and the Ghoul school please? After reviewing three bad live-action Scooby films, I think you deserve to see one good animated one.
Favorite MCU movie villains in no particular order: Loki Thanos The Vulture Erik Killmonger Hela The Mandarin The Red Skull The Winter Soldier Ultron Ego Baron Zemo Klaw Ghost
I'm more of a DC, but Marvel I can get a rise outta Marvel content too. With the villains getting better, I see the films as getting better too. With any luck, he'll be seeing enjoyable baddies and enjoyable heroes from here on out.
@@TheRezro Yeah I know.. I'm one of those people. Batman is my god. But that DCEU shit needs to die. It's down right blasphemous if you ask me. What's worse is that the younger generation think the DCEU is what DC characters are really like and that saddens me. The only one who is legitimately likable in the entire DCEU is Jason Momoa as Aquaman and the only character who is faithful to the source material is Wonder Woman. That's about it.
Thomas Christopher White I think they're shit. Eisenberg's Luther is an annoying little pixie that wants to be written better, and their Doomsday creature is just a monster of the week that could've been replaced with Bizzaro and it make more sense. The DCEU is often embarrassing, often cringeworthy and a holdover from when superhero movie weren't taken seriously. Hopefully, I'll be able to watch good new DC films before I die.
for me a good villain is someone I can fear, someone who can intimidate me, entertain me, rein down hardships upon our hero AND have good character. Case in point: Mister Freeze, Darth Vader, Kylo Ren (before the mask came off though he is a good character still), Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin, Alfred Molina's Doc Ock, Bane, Prowler from Into the Spider-Verse, Scar, comics Venom, Kingpin, Doctor Doom. I feel thought the MCU still hasn't given us THE best villains they can offer. Don't me wrong Thanos and Loki have great character but I didn't feel that Thanos was intimidating enough in the film outside of the opening scene. People might say because he was technically the main character of the film but as a genocidal tyrant who will stop at nothing to get what he seeks I never truly feared for the main cast. I dunno, maybe more intense moments and more powerhouse moments with his strength and maybe if he killed one of the heroes on Titan during the fight then he would've been the whole package. Ultron had some cool lines but overall I was disappointed. Ultron needed to be scarier, I don't care if he is based off Tony Stark they could've made him scarier. Instead have him know he reflects Stark and hate that so he is built with more restrained rage and have him come close to achieving victory more and more with him always feeling like he's 3 steps ahead the whole time. Like the Sentinels in Days of Future Past he should feel overwhelming and near unstoppable The sentinels in Days of Future Past have NO character, they are just there to kill mutants but the way they are presented is what makes them so damn good. I don't need to sympathise with a villain, I prefer a villain I can despise not one I can go "oh they are just misunderstood" I look at it this way. The MCU can do good antagonists but they aren't that good with villains/bad guys, somone you can hate
Kylo Ren is a terrible villain; the only good things about him are his design and being portrayed by Adam Driver. As a character, he is wildly inconsistent. As a villain, he's a wimp. He's basically a cheap knockoff of Zuko from Avatar: the Last Airbender, and saying that is an insult to Zuko, as Zuko's one of the best-written antagonists in animated media.
Hit or miss? I guess they- * breathes in * -they did miss for quite a while, because they needed to build up our heroes's personalities, but fortunatly it turned out great in the end, and they hit for like 6 movies in a row now- huh!
I think Marvel Studios fixed the villain problem for good now. this is how good this studio works I think, having the humility even when winning big time, to learn from the mistakes committed. I think Mysterio will also be a great villain in the upcoming SM Far From Home I'm really hyped because Jake Gyllenhaal is an amazing actor and if his Mysterio is written half as good as Vulture was in Homecomig we have another great one here
Who is your favorite MCU villain?
Also.....GREY WINS!!!
Thanos
The Mandarin
Thanos and Killmonger
Thanos!
Thanos 10/10
Here's a reason why Loki, Killmonger Vulture, and Thanos work and will be remembered for decades over 90% of MCU villains:
they're _characters_ first, and obstacles second.
Volture
+[I. Th.]
Hating on a Marvel villain with the same indiscriminate and unsupported hatred some on the Interwebz hate on a certain awesome animated girl who goes by the name of Korra? Come on, that's unbecoming of you.
@I. Th. By your logic, so is Joker. So is Magneto who is a one-note fanatic. Loki's character can be Shakespearean, and the TV shows have the time to develop villains the ways movies can't. Get with the times.
I agree partially with you. I would put Loki in the same category as James Franco Green Goblin. They get interesting by the time their arc is over (sm3 - ragnarok)
@@ShadowSonic2 Joker and Magneto are nothing like the mcu villains. Unlike Loki, Magneto is a developed character with a humanized motive. And Joker, even though he's chaotic, still has a motive and is more than just a tricky character. Face it, mcu can't make compelling villains. And being Shakespearean doesn't make Loki compelling.
"Batman is amazing, but he wouldn't be as good without the Joker;
Luke skywalker is great, but his journey would be lessened without Darth Vader"
I think i get the point
You have to put Mark Hamill somewhere to get a good villain in a movie
Firelord Ozai
Disney! Get Mark in the MCU ASAP
@@Yougotcaged102 not everything has to happen immediately
@@TheVideoGuyfromOhio I'm joking m8
@@TheVideoGuyfromOhio Plus it's been over ten years
“It’s when you show respect for the problem that you can appreciate the magnitude of the solution.”
Holy shit, Doug. That’s a quote to remember.
Agreed!!!
Jack sparrow "the problem is not the problem, it's your attitude about the problem"
In Infinity War, we already know the main characters. So, to have the movie focus on the villain instead was a good idea.
Couldn't have said it any better.
I know it's so good
That's literally what doug said in this video you dumbass
True. I learned more about Thanos in Infinity war than in every Marvel movie before it: his live Style, his Family, his motivation, his goals, his past, his relationship with Gamora ect. ect. ect.
@@meavyhetalderzweitegrafvon8240 after you said that, I read what he said in Doug's voice.
Honestly the scene that made me feel the most on edge in the entire mcu was the kitchen and car scene in spider man homecoming. Michael Keaton is actually terrifying in that movie
Not gonna lie I felt kinda cheated when tge twist was revealed.
Vulture was great. He wasn't trying to take over the world, end humanity, or poisen people to get rich. He was just a dude trying to get his piece of the pie. Did he cause people to die? Yeah, but whatever...I get his motivation
Oh the tension was real in that scene. You could feel the uncomfortableness in the scene. Plus the way the stop light turned green and reflected on Vulture's face the moment he realized who Peter really was.
“Good ol’ Spider-Man”
@@MrDumbElite The only part that felt like cheating was they'd already done that type of twist with Green Goblin in the first Toby McGuire Spider-Man. That said, the way they did it in Homecoming was so much more satisfying and impactful.
But yea, those scenes were still brutally intense because it wasn't just the physical danger Peter was facing, it was the emotional danger. Sure, in a one-on-one fight without the vulture suit, Peter could have easily taken Adrian, but the fact that Adrian, as an adult, has so much more leverage - legally and emotionally - over teenager Peter is what made the tension work.
Ultron to me was very fun to watch and very charming for a sentient robot. His motivation may not be relatable, but there was still something human about him. He gets angry, he gets disappointed, he gets sarcastic, he gets confident, he gets sad and he didn't want to be alone in his new world.
Neither were most of the new ones.
All the kind of character traits that original Ultron didn't have and SHOULDN'T have.
@@Commander_Shepard. Wouldn't be as entertaining to watch like that. The original Ultron was kinda blant and typical like most machine villains.
Say what you want about that movie James Spader did a great job
Ultron is a complex villain that deserved more than one movie. If you know the comics, he was a constant thorn in the Avengers side.
I thought they did their best explaining his evolution given the constraints of having to keep the overall mcu narrative moving towards infinity war. Loved age of ultron.
Zemo is a hidden gem of a villain. Showing what heroes destroy do have consequences. I mean he lost his family as a result of the Avengers battling and sought revenge. And manipulated them against each other especially Captain America (who doesn't want to lose Bucky/Winter Soldier because of his evil deeds in the past decades) and Iron Man (who lost his family because of Winter Soldier being evil) to the point where he want to make them know how it feel like to lose everything. And to me I feel that was a genuine villain.
Not only that. He served to redeem black Panther's character too. He was willing to suicide at the end of civil War and we were sorry about It, he was just another casualty
Zemo is so far above Hella realy. You also didn't mention that he was the first villain that actualy acomplished the goals he set out to acomplish. The fackt that he doesnt have overhelming presence or power does not change the fackt that he is dramaticaly on the same tier as Thanos.
Absolutely agree
To add to that, you can still feel the effects of the damage he did to the Avengers several movies down the line. Civil War came out 3 years ago, and its plot still has yet to have a true resolution, which is going to make the payoff in Endgame that much more enjoyable
Perhaps, but I barely even remember he existed. To me he's right down there with all those assholes-in-suits who always turn out to be the true villains in Iron Man films instead of the actual interesting and cool looking villain. Hell, I remember Crossbones more than I remember Zemo!
Also I can't be the only one who enjoyed Daniel Bruhl as Zemo, right?
I remember him. He's easily my favourite of the MCU villains. No powers, and yet he tears the Avengers apart through sheer cunning and effective manipulation. I also find it neat how he tried to minimize the casualties of his evil plan, and it would be hard to call him evil; he's just a guy angry that the Avengers accidentally killed his family while they were fighting Ultron (a threat that Stark created).
Matthew St. Cyr I’d still call him pretty damn evil. A villain can be sympathetic but still evil. One can understand a man’s actions without condoning them.
I thought he was really good because the avengers torn his family apart so he decided to make them feel that exact pain
I enjoyed him a lot, and can’t wait to see more of him in “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier”.
And he's back now.
Avgn: this was your Home?
NC: Yes...
(The grey walls turn white then tan)
NC: And it was Glorious...
The line is
DS:“Let me guess, your home?”
T:“It was, and it was beautiful.”
@@connor4435 Who cares. The joke is amazing.
I missed the editorials, I'm glad they're back
Same here
yeah same iv always looked forward in those
*TL;DR* Little resume of the villains's story.
*Hela* - Never viewed as a daughter, only a tool for Odin's ambitions. Vanished and forgotten from Asgard's history.
*The Vulture* - A normal guy that was pushed too far, lost his job because of the goverment and became a thief to gain.
*Ghost* - Victim of an accident. Doing everything she can do to preserve her literal "existence", trying to survive and cure from her "sickness".
*Thanos* - Viewed himself as a hero. Believing to do what is necessary to preserve balance in the Universe, willing to use any means to achieve his goals.
I love your profile pic. The Last Unicorn is one of my most favourite movies
Maria Paz G. Lesme What about Nebula ? She got a lot of devolpmemt
@@DjPon3thePonyDj Me too! One of my favs.
@@clarecarey2594 Nebula isn't a villain. I'd classify her as more of an anti-hero.
@@clarecarey2594 Nebula is not really an villain per say, her role is more of an antagonist and reluctant ally for the heroes.
When Marvel villains started acting like actual people and not throw away characters... that is when they began to "get good". Killmonger and Thanos are the optimum of this change in direction. Just because you are doing something "evil" or morally abhorrent... doesn't mean you see it that way. The best villains ever written do not act like a villain and nor do they consider themselves to be so. It is why I think that the live action Nolan films Batman villains are better than the Marvel and DC villains. Not one of them acts like a stereotypical villain. Ras always believed that he was working toward the greater good of mankind right up till his death. Completely unrepentant. The Joker believed that deep down all of humanity was just like him and in his own words he is simply "ahead of the curve". Harvey Dent was a good man who was just broken down mentally and physically by tragedy, that is something which could happen to any of us... Talia and Bane were seeking justice for the "murder" of someone they cared about and felt justified in their actions, no matter how disproportionate the response. And that is how real people in our reality function. There has never been a true war that wasn't fought between two sets of people who weren't certain they were in the right. The really dangerous people believe they are doing whatever they are doing solely and only because it is without question the right thing to do. And that is what makes them dangerous.
While more defined characters are always a huge plus that's not always the case with villains. You can have the most silly and overplayed bad guy but he will work if you can make him enjoyable to a viewer. That's how Loki is and people still mistake him for some deep portrait of a hurt man in reality he's just a fun character and so was the Joker. Believe me, in superhero movie that's enough.
I disagree. I think what makes loki so likeable is some of his human elements.
You mean like Stane, Loki, Killian, Alexander Pierce, Bucky, Zemo, Ego, Toomes, Hela, etc? Sounds like it started at the beginning and about half of the movies have pretty good villains.
...and Talia Al Ghul was NOT a good villain.
@@JSSTyger no, lol, MOST of those characters were all cartoonishly evil and had no real depth to them. I could sympathize with Ras and Harvey Dent, even Talia as someone in mourning, but none of the ones you mentioned were really humanized to the same degree as the villains in Batman were. Only Zemo and Loki made me feel anything for them at all. Zemo for the loss of his family which drove him to do what he did. And Loki who was only seeking the approval of a father figure while living in the shadow of his widely loved brute of an older brother.
Its a shame, Mickey Rourke did some intense reseach and preparation for whiplash, so much he even said each tattoo on his body was to mean something about the character, but early MCU fcked him over kinda like wb did with Stephenwolf. Ciaran Hinds has said that the Stephenwolf they showed is not the one he and Snyder had worked so hard for.
Yeah they really fucked Whiplash over towards the end of it. Honestly I really liked him throughout most of it
i'd never noticed til this video that they'd photoshopped Robert Downey Jnr's eyes and face over Mickey Rourkes chin and hair for the poster. Had to rewind to watch it again.
So Dc is just going through their Early Marvel Phase right now, and their getting better :)
@@justice_productions_ i honestly liked the route Snyder was going. I know people generally didnt like it nd i can see why but i felt it was different from what we were used to. but suicide squad and Justice league defenetly felt very early mcu, the worst of it at least.
@@venomtron the style might be alright but the execution is severely lacking
You know Thanos is the peak of live action superhero villain when you're actually feeling over a giant purple Mo-cap CGI character as an actual person.
Steppenwolf can go fuck himself.
True dat. In recent years there have been anime body pillows more relatable than some of the villains we've seen.
100% agreed
you are deficient as a human being if you feel bad for a guy that murders his daughter for the bad reason that he needs to commit more genocide. Thanos is the Mad Titan. if you feel for him, you are insane. Loki was completely against Thanos, and it actually works even if we believe Loki was always evil, and even always damaged. Loki was never as insane as Thanos.
@@darthparallax5207 There's a difference between seeing where someone's coming from and fully agreeing with someone he says he can understand why Thanos is doing what he's doing and sympathsizes with the situation on his planet but is still aware that his methods are extreme.
To be fair Ronan was literally a joke. The rest of GOTG is so quippy, funny and lighthearted and then Ronan is just so dark and serious, even his introduction is like a Ridley Scott film.
I personally think Ronan is the most underrated MCU villain. He’s big, boisterous, over the top, and weird in the same way Guardians of the Galaxy is. He’s in no way a complex villain, and he’s better for it! Rather than make a nuanced character you can feel for, they went in the opposite direction, making the most over the top version of a 1 dimensional villain possible. That not only allows more screen time for the 5 protagonists they need to develop, but makes for a nearly unstoppable badass with a laser focus on his goals.
Furthermore, despite his over the top alien nature, his motivations are surprisingly grounded. “They call me a terrorist, radical because I follow the ancient ways of my people the Cree, and punish those who do not.” As an American who grew up in the Bible Belt & 9-11 aftermath, I’ve been surrounded by the narratives of radicals who want to force their religious practices on others my entire life. And that’s what Ronan is. In one line they manage to give a deliberately one dimensional villain more depth & grounded realism than many of the others who came before & since.
Pretty much
Maybe that was part of the idea...make him a wet blanket so you hate him more. Nobody likes the party pooper😂
It's interesting you say that because a lot of the Alice in Wonderland adaptations that work (not tim Burton) made the villain as someone who was going to bring sense and order to a place where that just can't happen.
But sadly this landing didn't stick and he was boring af
You're talking about how Marvel never started making good villains until 2017? No Zemo? To me, he felt like the first really good villain after Loki.
Metaluigi Dahedgehog 28 AGREED. Zemo, Loki and Killmonger were the only MCU Villains to ever make me cry.
@@sussusamogus9596
Helmut Zemo from Captain America: Civil War. He was the Sokovia colonel who wanted to split up the Avengers after the death of his family during the battle with Ultron in Sokovia.
Despite having no powers or tech, he's a super smart, cunning strategist with a tragic history, making him one of the more low-key interesting villains in the MCU.
Remember what the critic said focus is a key element zemo had good motivation and a good backstory but he was barely in it he was in a few scenes to build tension but never went anywhere I agree that zemo is a good villain but he wasn't the focus it's about the conflict of what can happen to a team when infighting is introduced you understand
@@haydenysidro9388 Zemo was a great manipulator that would be lauded as an amazin villain on a show like game of thrones but in a superhero movie he felt lacking because he never actually fought the heroes on exerted himself physically against them. True he made the avengers fight each other but theres just something satisfying about watching a great hero and a great villain duke it out on the big screen.
Alexander Pierce was good too.
I believe that the real thing that makes these villains different is that they all could be the hero of the story if you told it from their perspective.
Hera had a mission to seek revenge for her unfair banishment.
Vulture is a family man who was forced by circumstance to enter into an unsavory business. He did what he did to do right by his family.
Killmonger believes that his country is wrong for not intervening to help people that they could. That and he showed the absurdity of a tribal monarchy that chooses it king through individual combat. He actually didn't violate any laws in Wakanda. He as a citizen of that country had every right to do challenge for leadership.
Thanos actually was the protagonist of Infinity War. He went through the entire hero's journey as described by Campbell in 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces'. He's willing to lose everything he cares about to save the entirety of the universe, at least from his perspective.
Only Jeff Goldblum and Kurt Russell's character lack the ability to be a hero if the story was told from their perspective. Honestly, they work because they're fun and over the top villains.
Top 5 favorite MCU Antagonists:
5) Killmonger: his backstory and pain hits so close to home. He represents my own complicated relationship between the country in which I was born and the ancestry denied me. The anger of being rejected by both through no fault of your own.
4) Vulture: He's a blue collar man. He's beneath the notice of our wonderful Avengers. He's a reminder of the lower class who do get screwed and completely forgotten by the people higher up on the chain. In the greater scheme of events, it makes sense that Tony's company took over the clean up after the NY attack. Can't have all that tech getting in the wrong hands. It's dangerous. But what does that matter to a person just trying to pay their mortgage, provide for their family and put their kids through school?
3) Loki: He's a spoiled brat prone to tantrums but... haven't we all wanted to throw such a tantrum at being treated unfairly? And wouldn't we if we had such powers? I know he's entitled but it's pretty hard to hate him. I just wanna smack sense into his head. Like Thor, I can't give up on him. I don't think he's inherently evil. He's a friggin teenager lol
2) Alexander Pierce: He's waaaay too real. These are the bad guys I'm actually afraid of. The ones who come in the guise of looking out for the well being of all. Infiltrating the government. He's so sincere, so careful with his words, so good at convincing you that you want the same thing. He scares the crap outta me.
1) Thanos: What to say that hasn't been said before? He is so utterly fascinating. I could ponder him for hours on end... and I have. He's the kind of character you dream of analyzing. So thoroughly constructed.
But what about Kingping?
Vulture personaly bored me.
Yes, he did.
Alexander Pierce? Wow. Kinda reminds me of President Snow in Hunger Games.
Thanks for showing Pierce some love. He's not the most memorable but he is the most realistic. On top of that, Robert Redford never played him as anything but smart, snarky and sincere.
Honestly Thanos is practically a modern day Darth Vader. He's really become that iconic.
I mean the infinity gauntlet is basically the new Darth Vader helmet of the modern age.
So you're right.
Infinity War is the modern day Empire Strikes back.
A movie larger than life
@@laurocoman Guts is da man ,also man of culture ? What is it a new superman nickname ?
@@laurocoman Dude I love Spike Spiegel.
Also you might have watch Samurai Champloo
@@laurocoman You've good taste my friend
I wish they'd mentioned Zemo. I felt like Zemo is one of the most memorable villains beside Loki and Thanos. His motivation was grief and anger. All he wanted was revenge for the loved ones that he lost. Plus, he managed to do something past villains could never do: spilt up the Avengers. He didn't have unlimited power or resources. He was smart and stealthy. He was relatable. He made me cry.
Also, I never thought Loki's smile would be a feature focus. (Speaking like a tiny lil girl, his grins kinda freaks me out)
Ego's reaction to finding out that Starlord had the Celestial Gene is the equivalent of a Pokémon Breeder's reaction to hatching a Shiny.
Just putting that out there.
h
Nah, It has to be Shiny with the right Nature and IVs.
Or it could just be coming across a shiny.... I don’t get many shinies 😞
I don't remember him running back and forth through his house screaming for like 10 minutes. But hey maybe that's just me.
Also while I’m at it can I just say getting a shiny in let’s go is like reaaaally easy?
I actually always enjoyed the Red Skull in Captain America: The First Avenger. Sure, he was over the top but he was fun.
and hugo weavings portrayal as him was awesome
Yeah I was a little sad it wasn't Hugo in infinity war
I agreed, he was a classic warmonger and though he was in it for his pride and lust for power, I believe choosing power over humanity is also a relatable trait because that's about as comment in villians as much they seeing themselves as the true heroes.
For me he was lacking.
@@FullmetalAsian Wait...it wasn't?
The vulture was amazing, Michael keaton was giving a Oscar nomination worth performance
Nostalgia Critic I think they where 7 in a row including Civil War because Zemo is a good villian he represents a normal human that have been afected by the Avengers and they have no consecuenses
Still 6 in a row even if you count Zemo since Doctor Strange was between Civil War and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For me Zemo always seems underrated due to being in a film where the central conflict is between Cap and Iron Man.
@@johnrobinson3382 Yep at first just like everyone else, I considerd him just another MCU baddie but then also like everyone eIse, I started appreciating him more and more until now I really like him and can't wait for his return in the Falcon and Winter Soilder.
You should review Disney’s first successful live action remake: 101 Dalmatians
justanotherchannelonyoutube yeah
Oh noooo!!!!!
justanotherchannelonyoutube yea.That was pretty good.
@@TabularJoker surprisingly
I almost forgot that 101 Dalmatians reboot is a thing before CGI happens. So this means Disney has the reason for rebooting all the opus magnum?
Anyone else here thought it was nice and a surprise to see a new editorial video after all this time ?
Nathaniel Foga i did miss the editorials but I'm also boycotting marvel so I wasn't sure how i felt
@@leephillips4402 ok
Felt REALLY good, I always loved them and I don't know why they stopped.
@@leephillips4402 yeah lets see how a miserable drop of water shakes the sea
The channel needs desperately more of them, imo.
I love all the Loki appreciation there is in this video. :)
Loki is BAE
Since the chat is about marvel villains but what about Kingpin form Netflix's Daredevil and Killgrave from Jessica Jones
I'm just saying that Kingpin and Killgrave should be in Favourite Marvel villains as well.
EDIT: Wow thank you guys for the likes and I am surprised about how many people agree with me.
Couldn't agree more
Will Slattery I think he specifically meant the MCU, not the Netflix shows. They're part of the same universe (sorta), but they're their own thing. Agents of Shield also had some decent villains. Also, don't forget about Booshmustuh, he was the Killmonger of Netflix Marvel. Davos was also kinda cool.
@@nahor88 Uhh, did you meant Bushmaster mate. And what about Cottonmouth
@@Winchesterfilmmaker Yes Cottonmouth was also great, and I was clearly imitating his accent, come on dude.
@@nahor88 my bad mate. Its been awhile since I watched season 1
9:39
Killmonger wasn't the rightful heir. His uncle was the king so T'Challa was the rightful heir.
Man finally someone said it. I have been looking through the comments to see if anyone else caught that mistake. Killmonger is 3rd in line for the throne.
I thought he had the right to challenge for the throne, then by winning the fight he became the rightful ruler?
What movie did you watch? The entire culture is built on the right to challenge someone for it and he did and won. Hence, you're wrong
@jennifer Hess thank you. yes you can challenge, and as shown in the beginning you don't have to be in line for the thrown to do that. But rightful heir means first in line to be ruler and he was not. His father was the king's brother not the king.
Paul Johnson It sounds like they’re talking about prior to any challenge, i.e. by default it goes to T’Challa, but the video does make it sound like he should have been king instead.
That said, usually ‘rightful heir’ is used in regards to who is next in line, so depending on the rules of succession Killmonger may be the ‘rightful heir’ after T’Challa.
“Mr. critic, I don’t feel so good....”
Good
this will put a smile to my face
*snaps fingers*
"Perfectly balanced, as all things should be"
Too soon!
There’s one villain I feel like should be included. Kaecilius from Doctor Strange. I know he’s not the best MCU villain but I feel like he was the first step in the right direction. His fight with strange, he was the only real villain at the time to have Banter with the hero other than Loki.
Plus He though his name was Mr. Doctor for that whole encounter too lol
And that is why Fox being placed into Disney/Marvel hands has me excited. Xmen and Fantastic Four had great villain that has been wasted in bad films. So seeing a rejuvenated Magneto, Mr.Sinister, Apocalypse, Dr.Doom in the hands of Kevin Feigi will be amazing to see.
Let's just hope that for once, Dr Doom will at least - at the VERY least - have a goddamn accent! ;)
@@gretchen8100 Here's hoping they don't nerf the shit out of him after seeing how OP he is.
Personal I'd love to see what they do with silver surfer and galactus too. They were wasted in one shitty movie and never touched on again
ummmm.... Magneto was wasted ? dude... did you see an X-men movie ?
Cashman9111 the problem with Magneto is that every other villain was either okay or terrible except him. They overused Magneto because he’s really the only great one. They need to dial back on him.
Don’t forget Andy Serkis as Claue; he was great.
Exactly. He had a funny charm to him, an identifiable goal (steal Vibranium to sell for LOTS of money and screw with Black Panther), we saw him in Age of Ultron, and I liked how they gave him the look and swagger of a White Sooth Eh-frican rapper. I wonder if they had anybody in mind.
that twist made no sense klaw wanted vibranium weapons and killmonger wanted to be king why did they not work together to take down wakanda
@@imbatmanhi3363 because Killmonger wanted to be recognized by his people. So he brought the corpse of their greatest enemy to open the door. Just teaming up with Claue and taking Wakanda by force would have been too much of a hassle, and ruin Wakandan opinion of Killmonger. It would also be practically impossible to expect two guys with a tiny bit of vibranium to take on the entire nation of Wakanda. Having Killmonger bring in Claue is a much neater way for him to enter the nation to claim his birthright. That being said, the movie criminally underused Andy Serkis and I am not okay with that.
@@TheCNotes1 they could of faked his death and he would be running weapons in the background while killmonger was king we missed out on a martin freeman and andy serkis punch up at the end lol
I liked him =)
They started getting good with GOTG2
kremit the frog Don’t forget Zemo in Civil War.
Red Skull was aight, Loki was fun, Pierce was interesting, Zemo onward was great minus the guy from Dr Strange
Ego was the worst. His character makes no sense. Even Thor 2's very simplified villain was better, as Malekith was just a plot device, and not the center of the movie.
They were bad in ant man and the wasp though
Alexander Forsman What do you mean he makes no sense? He wanted to overtake the universe with his essence, but needed a second celestial to have the power to do that. But his kids kept not having the power, so he killed them. When Star-Lord showed the powers, he planned on using him to overtake the universe.
You know you have a great villain when you have to say, "I don't agree with it, and I don't approve of it... but I understand it."
Loki was my favorite for the longest time, but then Killmonger and Thanos showed up...
For me, it was Toomes. God, that's an awesome villain. But Loki will forever have a special place in our hearts...
*sheds a tear*
That’s probably the case with a lot of people
i think that Killmonger was just a spoiled brat
Jimmy Karlsson, Killmonger is literally the opposite of spoiled he grew up with nothing and was taking his revenge against the world, his goals were actually really good just the way he wanted to see them through were bad in fact at the end of Blackpanther his goals were beginning to be fulfilled by the HERO of the story
Jacob Martin Loki is still my favorite. I love his transformation from villain to antihero to basically an Avenger. He’s had the most interesting journey to me so far. It also helps I was a Thor fan before the MCU started. I really hope he’s not dead. Hiddleston still has a good 5-10 years left in him I hope lol
I think once the movies got past the obligatory origin stories for their heroes, they were able to spend more time focusing on more complex, relatable villains. In the origin movies, so much time is spent explaining how the hero came to be that the villain often exists simply as a hurdle for the hero to overcome. It isn't much a coincidence that the most complex, relatable villains were either in sequels or in movies where the hero or heroes had already been introduced in a previous film. We already know who the Guardians are from their first movie by the time we get to Ego in Vol. 2. Both Spider-Man and Black Panther are introduced in Captain America: Civil War before we get Killmonger and Vulture in the heroes' standalone films. And all the other heroes are already introduced before we finally get to Thanos in Infinity War. Infinity War is essentially Thanos' movie, he gets far more development and explanation for the audience to understand his actions than any other of the nearly two dozen heroes in the film with him, and it's because he needs the most of it since everyone else has already had their motives and meanings set up beforehand in other movies. Loki may be the exception since he's been around as a major player since the first Thor movie, but if you can't be a complex villain, at least you can be a fun villain. You don't need to be complex to be interesting to watch.
Most origin storys tempt to go the safe route, by using an Nemesis that look and similiar powers to the hero.
I think the reason why the villains work in 1989 Batman, Batman Begins and Spider-Man is because not only are the actors who portray the villains great but because the villains also tie into the hero's origin: Jack made Bruce Wayne Batman who in turn made Jack the Joker, Ra's Al Ghul trained Batman and Norman Osborne already had a connection to Peter Parker
Killmonger was the worst MCU villain for certain. Save for maybe wiplash
@@elliottknifton8902 A personal connection to the hero does add emotional weight to the villain's motives, but it isn't necessary. Using another Batman reference, look at The Joker from The Dark Knight. He really has no personal connection to anyone in the film. But he's interesting and relatable because his motives are understandable. While nearly all of us aren't anarchists and would never do the things he does, we can see where he's coming from when he says that the rules we live by are only as good as the world allows them to be, and those rules don't matter when even the best people can have random horrible acts happen to them, therefore the only way to live is without rules. We can understand his point of view. Also, this Joker is actually an example of how providing an origin to explain the villain's desires and motives doesn't make him a better villain. We don't need to know where he came from or how he got those scars, a fact that he seems to have fun with since he provides more than one explanation for them. He still works as a compelling villain because his existence is as random as the anarchy he believes in.
And actually, one of the things that started to annoy me about the Iron Man movies was how so many of the villains were personally connected to Tony Stark. Obadiah Stane was Tony's mentor and ran Stark Industries in his place. Ivan Vanko was the son of a man screwed over by Tony's dad. Aldrich Killian was pushed to villainy because Tony rejected his request to join AIM and collaborate with him. It started to make me wonder if people only became bad because Tony pissed them off. Realistically, wouldn't there be more people out there with malicious intent that had nothing to do with Tony or his family? I mean, not every cop has a personal connection to each perp he busts. So why does almost every foe Stark have to face be someone from his past life as a playboy asshole?
you dont think George Lucas having spare time for hte past 6 years and basically having Disney Stock isnt possibly related to better villains? he writes great villains, vader, palpatine.... jar jar... not to mention what he did with Maul in just a few scenes in a film
I thought Zemo was a pretty good villain in CW. I mean, yes, he didn’t have any memorable, funny or emotional lines, but that’s how you would be if you had lost everything you love to a group of people proclaiming to be “heroes”. He lost his home wife and daughter, and mostly, his character - he has no emotion for anything. Also, he brings out the best, and worst, of the protagonists - Black Panther has a great scene towards the end about vengeance, Cap would go to the extreme to save those he loves most, Tony would stop at nothing to get what he wants, and the other heroes show their willingness to sacrifice their freedom to ensure that Cap and Bucky would get to the Winter Solider base, so the world wouldn’t be at danger. It isn’t Zemo’s character that is the best part, it’s his way of making the heroes embrace their traits within them, wether that’s for good, or what they believe should be done. That in my view of villains, is good. I’m not saying Zemo is on the level of the Joker, but the Joker has ways of doing the same things - he made Superman a global dictator, ruling the Earth with fear due to his killing habit, bringing out who he truly is. He even tried it with Commissioner Gordon, make him someone else by driving him insane, paralysing his daughter and showing naked imagery of her. Obviously Joker has a personality that makes him even better, but we really only know Joker’s motivation is to get the jollies or prove how anyone can go insane, whilst Zemo is basically just revenge.
I thought he had some great lines towards the end when he finally meets Cap at that secret Hydra base.
Mission Report: December 16, 1991. That was so memorable it became a meme 😂
He doesn't need to be funny tbh I mean he lost his family why would he smile or crack jokes.
Comic Culture That’s what I wrote
@@WearDreamer73 Oh okay sorry man
6:20 To answer, I'd say the villains establish personal connection to the hero somehow.
Ego is Peter Quill's father.
Hela is Odin's daughter and Thor and Loki's sister.
Vulture is Peter Parker's girlfriend's father (like Norman was his best friend's father).
Erik was basically like a brother to T'Challa. Or cousin? I forgot, but I think it was a cousin.
Thanos is Gamora and Nebula's father.
So, like Scar, they are evil family members which is very relatable in a way.
All personal connections.
Also, relatability plays a large part in likeability.
Lastly, Grandmaster has connections with Loki and is the brother (again familial) of The Collector.
Killmonger’s name is Eric?
Poever yup. Erik Stevens. His Wakandan name is N'Jedaka.
@RufRgTFan yeah, killmonger is T'Challa's cousin
All the recent ones have had some sort of personal or familial relation to the hero as well aside from Ant-man and the wasp
Ego: Star-Lord's father
Vulture: Father of Spider-Man's crush
Hela: Sister of Thor and Loki
Killmonger: Cousin of Black Panther
Thanos: Father of Gamora and Nebula.
I think making these villains actually matter to these characters more than "oh this guy is gonna destroy everything we gotta stop them!" is a big part in it too.
"Excelsior!"
R.I.P, Stan Lee.
He will be remembered.
@@opgengar-985 yeah
Im getting sick of people like you using his death for likes. Fuck. Off.
All villains in MCU have a family problem .
Iron Monger, Malekith, Ronan, Red Skull, Adrian Killan, Whiplash, Abomination (if it is considered MCU), Crossbones, Baron Von Striker, Armon Zola, Ultron, Shocker, Maderin (mostly cause he wasn't real-), Dormmamu, Dormmamu's servant's.
All villians I can think of who didnt have Family Problems
@Oliver Kennedy No one has a direct answer to if that whole movie was canon or not.
Nuigi 12 It is canon though. The only thing was that Edward Norton was replaced by Mark Ruffalo. But Tony Stark appears at the end and General Ross appears in Civil War and Infinity War. The Abomination is even mentioned in Agents of Shield, so yeah, it's definitely canon.
@@1Drakorn I wasnt 100% sure
Not Ok but I was mentioning the fact that they didnt have family problems. Never said anything about how good they were
Thanos's finger snap is the modern day Vader force choke.
For me, a good villain is a character that really makes me question myself, "Is this guy actually bad?" If the villain is written and acted well, you're supposed to doubt the hero. Is the hero actually doing the right thing, or is he just childish and naive? The world is not all black and white, and in real-life situations there is no definite "right" and "wrong". And that's what Marvel does so well. Their heroes and villains are complex, they both do good stuff as well as bad stuff. For example, in Civil War there's a point about collateral damage. Is it "worth it" if you saved a bunch of people, but let someone die in the process? Where does your responsibility become irresponsibility? I loved that theme and I wish there was more of it. Probably, Spider-Man will suffer the most from it, like he's supposed to. In his first appearances, he's a clumsy kid who accidentally wrecks stuff and endangers lives. However, as he sees shit hit the fan and starts to feel that actions have consequences, as depression hits him, he'll become the best character of the entire MCU, like he IMHO is in the comics. If Marvel is able to add Venom to the universe, things will be able to really roll out. Imagine an actually deep and depressing movie about Spider-Man. Like, him debating if he's a good guy or not, making compromises and losing faith. Like an actual adult. So, the best thing about Marvel's stuff is that there is no villain. And everybody is kinda the villain.
It might take a while since Marvel will have to strike a deal with Sony in order to do that.
@@firrigagamer8281 Yup((
you literally just explained the entire a peal of "Berserk".
@@concernedfish5574 Nah, Griffith did everything wrong.
I say a villain can work both ways. It doesn't have to be "is this guy actually bad?" sometimes a villain can be great just by being a big of an asshole as they can be. How much they can relish in it making those who stand against them suffer. This is why a character like friza from dragon ball z is so popular. He wasin't relatable in any way but he oozed evil and loved every minute of it even laughing gleefully after committing genocide.
the best MCU villian was that guy who cut Thor´s hair in TR, he was soulless
So...Stan Lee?
Yeah....was *sniff*
and now hes lifeless. R.I.P Stan Lee the best comic creator of infinity.
Rip stan Lee funny comment btw
The best hero and villian altogether
I disagree with Red Skull being a boring villain before the MCU started investing in their villains, Hugo Weaving chewed the scenery in that film.
Hugo Weaving does what Hugo Weaving does.
It's like saying Tim Curry is the best Charakter in a movie.
It's Tim Curry of course he steals the spot light.
Oddly enough, Weaving did not enjoy playing Red Skull.
CJ Phoenix
Not even. Everyone still considers the first Avengers one of the best of Marvel.
Loki is actually the worst MCU villain in terms of just pure villainy.
But in terms of development and character, he's one of the best if not THE BEST MCU character....alongside Tony Stark, Cap America, Thor, Erik Killmonger, Vulture, Kingpin, Jessica Jones, and Punisher.
Yup Loki became trash as a villain at the very end
@@marshmallownerd5756 where is daredevil???
No one ever said he had to be good at being bad. Think of Bowser, King of the Koopa, he never wins, never beats the main character, or even his sidekicks, but when there is a greater evil, he joins the team of good guys, to get a job done.
Bowser fails 99.9% of the time, and yet, we love him. Loki fails 99.9% of the time, and yet, he is also loved.
A villain does not mean that they are void of character, unless of course that villain is in fact void of character.
I dunno...I think he had a distinct emotional impact and threat that few other villains have. He's the only villain who was/is loved by the hero, which meant he could cut a lot deeper than strangers could. And it meant defeating him wasn't as simple as killing him off, either. That makes for a more interesting villain.
@@dr.s8972 I'm not going to mention all the good ones. I mean: do I have to? But, yes, he's up there. I suppose.
The irony of the Marvel villains from Disney is that they’re getting better, while Disney’s own villains have been getting really terrible and even so forgettable!
I know right? Now if Disney can go back to their roots with their villains. Like Doug said, Marvel villains recently have been just as engaging and interesting as their heroes, which is what Disney successfully accomplished during the Renaissance era with their films. It will be like a second Disney renaissance wave if we can reach that again.
Matt R
Very true. I think the latest memorable villain for Disney is Ernesto Del La Cruz from Coco. I can’t think of any other good one.
@Razzle Dazzle Doritos' Cousin. He’s a Pixar villain, not Disney’s animation studios, which Frozen, Zootopia, Moana have terrible villains. Even Mary Poppins Returns had a villain that ruined the film for me.
@@Markimark151 I wouldn't really count Moana in this case. It had more of the reverse twist involving a good character that ended up being corrupted due to unfortunate circumstances (meaning not by intentional choice) and then turned back to their normal self again after Moana put her heart back into the spiral.
Dr. Facilier from TPATF is pretty great. I enjoyed him.
I don't know, I kind of liked Ronan the Accuser. He didn't have much complexity about him like the more recent villains had but maybe that's what I liked? He's see' s himself as judge, jury and executioner and is just bad for the sake of being bad and not needing the audience to feel sorry for him. I loved when he back talked Thanos and told him he was going to whoop his ass if he kept talking to him like a child. Good video though and I do agree with what can make a good villain I just think sometimes we need bad guys just being bad guys you know?
Me too. I liked Ronan.
@@ItsAnIsaac Well Ronan is in Captain Marvel too so will get to see more of him soon.
I agree. He was the too serious villain to the happy go lucky Guardians and he becomes way scarier if you think of him as the quintessential religious extremist.
Actually many of the phase 1 and 2 villains work in that sort of way. They aren't the most developed but the Fridge Brilliance in their characterization is of the charts if you look at it from the right point of view.
He served the story
He and Red Skull don’t get nearly enough praise for the work they do in their movies. They’re not the most complex villains, but they serve as a nice base-line villainy, since one is a genocidal terrorist and the other is a literal Nazi.
1. Thanos
2. Loki
3. Killmonger
4. Vulture
5. Hela
Villains must feel like actual characters and have decent motives for becoming villains aftee that they must feel like dangerous obstacles that are powerful and actually a threat to the heroes
Obediah Stain is a bit underrated becuase he is a big mirror villain in the end, but Bridges performed him well. Also, Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce was solid.
You forgot to mention Zemo from “Captain America Civil War” he was a good antagonist for the Avengers and was able to be the one to tear them apart!
James Moyner True, but he feels also a bit like he just started. Hell, I really want my Masters of Evil, so I hope he just started with Civil War and will get his second round.
@@davidgantenbein9362 because he just started.
one of the reasons I liked this version of zemo so much, personally, is that this is just his begining.
He was somewhat forced into this rout of vengence, having nothing left because of the avangers, and in a way, even though he is somewhat of an amature, he is pulling it off splendidly.
Top Tier:
Loki
Thanos
Killmonger
Winter Soldier
Pretty Good Tier:
Hela
Vulture
Ghost
Ego
Zemo
Bipolar Tier:
Ultron
Mandarin
Forgettable Tier:
Ronan
Malekith
Red Skull
Abomination
Obadiah Stane
Yellowjacket
Kaecillius
Whiplash
I cried during the Gamora death scene, not because Gamora died but because I felt sorry for Thanos! And I loved hating every moment of that! Good job, Marvel Studios!
I hope they remember you.........so we don't have to
Daniel Brühl's Zemo was a good villain too (in my opinion)
Agreed he did a lot and got to the point where he could look at the work he had done and be content. CW should also be notable for having T'challa develop into revenge seeking prince, to a respectable king who learned from his father's death.
Interesting analysis of the MCU villain formula. I would personally argue that Ghost from Ant-Man 2 wasn't exactly a "good" villain but more of a sympathetic antagonist in the film.
Also, I'm a bit surprised that Zemo was left out of this video.
SamgirlSpeaks zemo is overlooked as a villain. he obtained what he set out to get (splitting up the avengers), debilitating them in the process. he has a backstory that connects well with the other events of the mcu, and understandable motives. he’s a mastermind of sorts. i think he’s forgettable because we don’t see much of his personality, and he infiltrated the avengers without a big physical fight
The thing is, even though Zemo was definitely a good villain and one of the most successful ones in the franchise, he was still a bit "there". He worked in the shadows, but that meant that he wasn't one of the movie's biggest focus points, like the villains mentioned in the video turned out to be.
I think it started with Helmut Zemo and Loki, they're almost perfect, Zemo IS perfect though
Whedon nerfed Ultron so hard.
He butchered Ultron
To be fair, almost everything in the MCU feels highly nerfed.
You know, I really hate this idea that the only good villains in cinematic history must, MUST be sympathetic. Like, I see so many people say that here.... then a few sentences later say The Joker, the epitome of unsympathetic characters you can get, is the best villain of all time. Or Anton Chigurgh. Or Hans Landa. Or Hannibal Lecter (that one is more flimsy, as they retconned him to have one of the worst origin stories). Or Agent Smith. Or.... you get my point.
The fact is, the notion that sympathetic villains are the best is simply not true. What does make a good villain? They have to be INTERESTING. The Joker and Chigurgh are forces of nature with compelling ideologies; Landa is a Chess Master who effortlessly plays his opponents and is always two steps ahead of them; Lecter is cultured af, which hides the fact he's more monstrous than the patients around him. Agent Smith hates humanity far more than his other A.I. counterparts, to the point even the machines believe he's over stepping his boundaries. None of these villains are particularly sympathetic, but they're entertaining to watch, have interesting motives, and are threatening. That's why I really can't stand this "sympathetic=compelling" mindset that everyone and their dog seems to be believing in now, as they say one thing, then claim another entirely. Plus, the fact it's cliché as shit at this point in time doesn't help.
Thank you!
For me, I think that this problem is rooted in a few recurring flaws that I keep seeing, in terms of how “sympathetic” villains are often handled/understood, if one wants to read them all:
*1.) People must always keep in mind that having understandable/relatable goals is not the same as being a sympathetic villain, which in turn is not the same as saying that the antagonist is blameless for becoming a villain, which in turn is still not the same as saying the antagonist’s actions/intentions are truly just:* Not knowing where the antagonist should stand on that broad spectrum can easily lead to a poorly written villain, especially in cases where people cannot tell the difference between a “sympathetic” antagonist and a “blameless” antagonist. The former case leaves it open for someone to be the bad guy because of his/her own choices, in addition to one’s circumstances. Seeing the choices which a villain like that makes in those circumstances should be what makes him/her interesting, not the circumstances themselves. Therefore, it creates a missed opportunity when the writer only focuses on the circumstances, and never the choices, which are what illustrate the villains sense of agency. Only in cases like the Winter Soldier, where Bucky Barnes was literally brainwashed and subjected to mind control, would it make sense to treat the antagonist purely as a victim and focus on tragic circumstances, since those are cases in fiction where it actually would be difficult to ascribe any culpability to the antagonist himself.
*2.) To an extent, I would argue that there are many great villains which definitely are not sympathetic at all (like Smaug, Sauron, Maleficent, Audrey II, Mr Hyde, etc.) but could still be considered “relatable” in that they can perfectly symbolize real vices we can succumb to:* Smaug and Audrey II are symbols of what we can become, when we give into that temptation towards insatiable greed and a sense of being entitled to worldly fame/wealth above all else. Sauron with his One Ring of Power illustrates the struggle to fight against the evils in the world, without succumbing to your own concupiscence and becoming just as monstrous along the way. The personality of Mr. Hyde, which hides underneath Dr. Jekyll, can be interpreted as what we could turn into, if we started to mindlessly act on our baser instincts/appetites, without any discipline or regard for what’s morally right to keep them properly ordered. Maleficent could embody pride and vanity, where if she is not willingly idolized by everyone else, then she will ensure that her “respect” will still come in the form of being feared, even if it means cursing a baby princess to “punish” the king for publicly dishonoring her or proudly presenting herself as the dark mistress of all evil to humanity.
*3.) If sympathetic circumstances are to be added to a villain’s backstory, they need to be circumstances that would believably make his/her actions more tempting from his/her perspective, in order to be effective:* For instance, when Mr. Freeze wants to hunt down and kill Boyle in “Batman: The Animated Series”, the presented backstory allows his goals and motivations to make sense, because he blames Boyle for interrupting his experiment, leaving his wife for dead, and him getting confined to the sub-zero suit from the chemical exposure. Because Mr. Freeze’s backstory allows him to see the murder of Boyle as a way of gaining revenge, we know why Batman has to intervene and stop him from committing the crime, while we find Mr. Freeze compelling too. Now if the episode just had Mr. Freeze wanting to murder Boyle, because Victor’s parents were mean to him, his heart was broken in college, he never got a PlayStation as a kid, etc. then he would not have motivations that logically connect with his goal, which would make it come off as cheap and lazy writing.
*4.) If a villain is to have lots of layers and nuance, other traits/qualities must be allowed to shine besides the character just angsting about his tragic backstory, or else they become even more one-note than a typical “evil” villain and just plain dull:* Thanos in Infinity War is built up to be a far more sympathetic/relatable villain than most portrayals I have heard of, and even has a few emotional scenes. However, we still get chances to see plenty of other qualities shine, such as him being a formidable fighter, sharing some intelligent and quotable dialogue, being intimidating and charismatic around other villains, acting more subtle and conniving at times, being more bombastic and theatrical at other times, showing glimpses of respect towards his enemies like Tony Stark, occasionally smiling and basking in his expanding powers, and so on. He did not just sit and mope throughout the entire movie. Seeing many different sides/traits/qualities/quirks of the character can make a sympathetic villain engaging to watch just as they would for a non-sympathetic villains (like the ones mentioned earlier). So that should not be suddenly neglected, just because a writer is going for a “sympathetic” villain.
As yet one more side-note, I would argue that even the Joker has had occasional sympathetic moments, like in the Killing Joke graphic novel, during his big monologue and towards the end, when Batman offers to try and help rehabilitate him. The Joker has considered himself the hero of his own story, when he falls into a nihilistic worldview after his “one bad day” that leaves him angry at the world, concludes that the humanity will forever be a cesspool of injustice and meaningless chaos, and believes that his actions are rightfully tearing off humanity’s flimsy facade so everyone else can see the truth that he perceives. When he sees Gordon live through his ordeal without snapping and Batman still continuing to fight for justice, he shows moments of doubt, where the Joker’s worldview is shaken and the he wonders if he truly is the monster of the story. When Batman then tries one last time to offer rehabilitation and a chance to end their suicide course, the Joker has a moment, where a part of him seems sorrowful and regretful of the path he went down, but feels it is too late and he is beyond any hope of redemption. So one way to interpret the ending is that the Joker might have finally seen himself as a mad dog that has to be put down, leading to one more (possibly successful) attempt to make Batman kill him once and for all. Now the reason I bring this up is because this could sort of expand on my last point, where we see so many other sides/quirks/traits/mentalities of the Joker being showcased and fleshed-out. So when he finally do see a moment where he comes off as more vulnerable and sympathetic, it feels unique rather than repetitive. Because the Joker DOES NOT constantly act all angsty each time he appears, like a typical badly-written “sympathetic” villain, this prevents him from feeling plain dull and one-note, once we do get a moment like that.
But...all the villains you named are relatable.
What about Hela and and Egos, they weren't really sympathetic.
@Robert the Komodo Dragon not all of them
Wait, did they mean the DCEU has better villains, or that DC in general has better villains? Because if it's the DCEU, other than Michael Shannon as Zod, I'm not seeing them. Eisenberg's Lex Luthor blows, Doomsday was a waste, the three villains from Wonder Woman were underwhelming at best, Suicide Squad's only redeeming quality was Katana being hotter than Harley, and Aquaman is too new to have been included in that press conference where L. Jackson made that statement.
The way he said it sounded to me like he meant DC in general
yeah, other than the dark knight trilogy, DC didnt really do that well on the villain front either. the dark knight trilogy did have some great villains though.
TDK Trilogy:
The joker
Ra'as al ghul
Two face
Bane
Watchmen:
Ozymandias (er he's not a villain but idk)
Burton's:
Joker
Penguin
DCEU:
Zod
Ocean Master
Black Manta
Gotham:
Jerome
Jeremiah,
I actually kinda liked the design and demeanor of Steppenwolf, but God did the plot not treat him well. He was soo badly written, especially towards the end
I would have to disagree: Joker, Penguin and Catwoman from Batman and Batman Returns were great. And so were Lex Luthor and Zod from old Superman movies. Even Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor wasn't that bad.
There is one major thing that Loki had that none save Thanos (kind of) had: Repetition. One thing that comic book and television villains can have that movie villains rarely get is multiple appearances. A second or third round where the audience already knows who they are (and, ideally, how dangerous they are) can have a major impact. Imagine, for example, if Heath Ledger had been alive and his Joker had shown up in The Dark Knight Rises - he'd have instant credibility with the audience, and just the knowledge that the character would be returning would fill people with hype. Additionally, many of the best comic book characters are defined by hero/villain rivalries - Batman/Joker, Superman/Lex Luthor, Professor X/Magneto, Reed Richards/Dr. Doom, etc. These legendary relationships need time and multiple rounds to form, something that is quite hard for ordinary movies (especially when sequels are uncertain), but that Marvel, with its giant plan, should be much more able to pull off. The only examples of something remotely like this I can think of in big movies are Thor and Loki from the MCU, Spider-man and Harry Osborne in the original Spider-man trilogy (even if they weren't exactly fighting for most of it, Evil Harry had 2 movies of build-up), Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in Star Wars (and their Sequel Trilogy equivalents, Rey and Kylo Ren) and, I guess, Professor X and Magneto from the X-Men movies.
I would think the Harry Potter series would qualify, as would the Terminator series (to an extent).
You also had Lex Luthor appearing in several of the Reeve Superman films, Megatron in the Transformers series (though I only cared to watch the first), and others.
TheBatmeme368 for Harry Potter, I never felt anything for Voldemort. Even though he shows up a lot, but never as much as Snape. For 6 movies, he's like a threat in the background, hardly ever appearing in the foreground. Now, Snape, I was able to get to know HIM as a character.
Deadpool for Disney princess 2019!
That's a weird way to spell Gwenpool.
@@DugFin2 not her, deadpool, remember deadpool musical 2, in the end he was with them.
@@alwest4472 wasn't that squirrel girl? She could be a Disney princess!
When did LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga become so great?
Just kidding, it’s always been amazing.
Unlike its prequel on the DS
LEGO Star Wars II DS is crap
Notice how all the good Marvel villain's are related to one of the protagonist?
Zaxor Von Skyler Not that surprising for anybody that actually read Stan Lee‘s run of Spider-man ;)
David Gantenbein what? None of his Villains are related to him in Stan Lee’s run.
A personal connection helps the loss hit harder. Ego is bad enough as a villain but the fact he's Star Lord's father and murdered countless children (Quills siblings) and the only woman he loved (Quill's mother) makes it that bit worse.
Loki - Adopted brother of the main protagonist.
Ego - Father of the main protagonist.
Vulture - Father of the main protagonist’s love interest.
Hela - Sister of the main protagonist.
Killmonger - Cousin of the main protagonist.
Thanos - Adopted father of the main protagonist.
darkchamberofdark666 Thanos and Gamora are the two characters that have the most screen time in Infinity War (Thanos 31 minutes and Gamora 20 minutes), so I consider both of them the protagonists of the film.
I think Zemo was a great villain considering his motivation and what sets him apart from the rest of the villains is his plan was full proof no matter if he got away. He wanted the destruction of the avengers and he knew the perfect way to do it; get them to lose trust in each other.
*Plot Twist:* Nostalgia Critics has all this Infinity Stones.
I knew it
He's saving them for a rainy day
*Starts playing Avengers theme song*
The Infinity Stones he has are kept secretly in a box-set of Care-Bear episodes...
Did he not do a Thanos snap once? Pretty sure he had on one rental guy
When they started making people not feel so good
You'd know ALOT about people turning to dust right Chara?
The best MCU villain is Thanos
My favorite MCU villain is Vulture
Neh. Kingpin is better..
"Good ol' Spider-Man"
That line made me shit my pants
I love Vulture! I wanted more Vulture!
@@BeczaBot He is recurring Spider-Man villain so he definitely would be in Sinister Six.
I think you will get a kick out of the next spidey villain too, venom was fun but aside from Spiderman 3's topher grace venom we won't having fight spiderman anytime soon, but kingpin, doc ock, Norman/Harry Osborn, Kraven, the symbiote, are spider-man's main villains and putting vulture in his high school years was inspired but you haven't seen anything until you see his main line up, I just hope mysterio is as good as Micheal Keatons vulture.
For me, the "decent villains" train started with the Defenders shows (as an aside, I never loved Loki even half as much as the general audience).
Kingpin, Purple Man, and Cottonmouth were so damn good that it was unbelievable that they were from Marvel.
I remember watching Jessica Jones because I had a David Tennant watch-list. I can't believe he played a character like Kilgrave and then went on to play Crowley on Good Omens.
Kilgrave was such a charismatic villain.
Why do I keep forgetting that NC always uploads videos on Wednesday's? XD
Btw I'm really loving the new backdrop!
We've become spoiled
He uploads them on the Channel Awesome site every Tuesday.
@@louisduarte8763 Well, it's every Wednesday over on my end
Who here would want to see Doug review Cats and Dogs : Revenge of Kitty Galore 😁
Yes! Yes! Immediately! We get to see good-guy Cats that the first movie never acknowledged existed.
It would be an awesome movie if he did sequel month this month.
I would agree with the points you brought up, but also include that it is the fact that we can have time given to the villains now. Like you stated earlier, we needed to focus on the heroes first and establish them before moving onto their opponents. Also, with what you said in your "Avengers: Infinity War" review, we have seen these characters(heroes) a lot and know a good amount of them already. Seeing them sit and talk and be their usual selves would just feel like more of the same. Something good with crossovers is that we can have a preview of certain characters that will appear in their own future movies. Black Panther was set up a bit in "Civil War", so we could focus on killmonger as a character, Tom Holland as Spider-Man as well. By the time Thor 3 came around, Thor and Loki have been seen in several movies so we already know them. Meaning other aspects like Hella and their relationships with her can be focused on. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in order to make gains. Early on, Marvel sacrificed the villain characters for the heroes. Now they have the heroes and can regain the villains.
I am a little sad that Ultron isn’t mentioned more often, I found him pretty entertaining as a villain, I’m probably one of the few who enjoyed Age of Ultron as much as the first Avengers movie
1.) Watches Death Battle about Thanos vs Darkseid while resisting the spoilers.
2.) Watches Infinity War for the first time, and it ends with me adoring Thanos for his backstory, goals, motivations, and threatening sympathetic presence.
3.) Darkseid is an awesome badass villain, but i kinda admired MCU/Comics Thanos more.
Thanos is Darkseid, both are Jack Kirby creations, Darkseid is older and he made Thanos when he came back to Marvel
@@BLasherman Yet Mongul from DC was created as a homage to Thanos, what a strange cycle.
@@jasoethesentienteyeshapedg4847 Your all seeing eye will get cross eyed if you think about it too much. Comics are weird.
@@BLasherman I'm pretty sure my other eye is currently tired of my non-sensical bullshit temporarily.
Hell, don't get me started on the Mangas either.
Just an All Seeing Omnipresent Eye comic Thanos sucked. Dude wanted bone pussy. Movie Thanos is way better.
Give credit where credit is due. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy had some of the most memorable and great villians in any comic book movie and set the stage the the massive comic book movie craze that exists today
Completely agree. They should have made a video praising the Rami Spiderman villains instead of the same overrated MCU villains over and over again
Uh no.
@@sonicsucks20 uh yes
Villains of original spiderman are laughable, they are so over the top, you cant help but cringe from a scene where Goblin-Sr has MJ in one had and literal box of kids in the other. They rarely pursue some clear goal, Sandman had little reason ro fight Spiderman, Doc was hilariously incompetent and irresponsible with his experiment and was ultimately his own demise. Goblin-Jr has a literal AMNESIA, which is the most pathetic plot device, and Venom was crammed along others for the luls and is evil for the sake of being evil. So no, credit is definetely not due.
@@goblintributemaker2539 I understand your criticism, but this video is not about Spiderman trilogy, it's about the mcu
Thanos is my favorite Marvel Hero. He always defeats himself!
ziljin He’s so much better in the comics
it wouldn't be as good in the movies. They made the good choice and Thanos is their most compelling character@@braydenc1791
Anyone else laughed when he chose Batman/joker and Luke/Vader?
Because Mark Hamil was both the Joker and Luke
No mention of Ultron? I found him pretty entertaining, personally.
Roge9 Videos agree. I especially like his voice and body language, very cool. The movie was just meh but Ultron was great.
He was pretty intimidating
Ultron was charming but didnt really have a sympathetic motivation..
he just wakes up and is immediately like "kill all the avengers the humans must die"
Theres no solid explaination to allow us to understand why he wants to kill everybody
The concept of Ultron was nice but I think his execution left a lot to be desired. The greater impact and repercussions he left on the MCU made me more interested tho. Sokovia Accords and Vision, being a main thing. Then one thing led to another, you know the rest.
@@lurkzie I don't know Ultron at the end of the day is a machine and puts facts over anything without human emotions that's what makes him scary and a great villain for me
Going to have to strongly disagree here. Ultron was the villain who really introduced the idea of villains in the mcu wanting more than just power or to rule and instead wanted a misguided since of improvement, and zemo has a for more relatible quality to him than loki ever did.
"What were you the God of again?"
*Immigrant Song intensifies*
Marvel movie fanboy smh probly doesn't even read comics
@@wesusaa
It's been nearly four years since this comment, and I still don't know what it means...
*Yeah, all that shit is good and all, but I also really like Simple Villains too, like Sauron from Lord of the Rings or Classic Disney Villains.*
Crazy thing is even Sauron had good motivations/deph.
@@justchilling704 He's still a simple villain, also getting sick and tired of this deph BS, because it just makes it more annoying.
@@DURIEL1 I concur I just think it's cool that Sauron is simple and has simple but sensible and realistic motivations J.R.R is a great writer.
@@justchilling704 Yeah, some of my favorite Villain are Dragon Ball ones, because I love powerful and badass ones, but there simple too.
@@DURIEL1 yeah but really they have the same problems as early marvel villains and meaning that there kinda dull at beginning with pilaf the red ribbons king piccolo all just interested in taking over the world then in Dbz all the main villains didn't care about ruleing the world because some already do or can take over the world but don't because they could do it later or just destroy it and do I even need to talk about gt dbs has good villains minus mimic vegeta because they don't really see themselves as some are in a pure since are force or just believe that actions justified hell even frieza dullness has been cured because in the new canon he can still be menacing but be a screw up and funny hell before the show the most interesting bad guys are the ones who eventually become goku's friends which is cool but it kinda lessens the in pack they had as villains so I'm just going to in with this Akira toriyama is a great storyteller but needs help in the bad guy department
Hey Godzilla 1998 is the best
Jurassic park sequel
What about Zemo? The only guy to break up the Avengers? He didn't need an army, superpowers, or even high-tech weaponry to defeat them. He just used a red journal and a date.
Just watch Avengers EMH with the real Baron Zemo.
With a very dumb plan that only worked due to coincidences and pure luck, not to me anyway
@@DHynes5 How so? He simply wanted to break up the Avengers. He knew to do that Bucky was the key. Besides that he adapted.
@@DHynes5 So like Joker in TDK.
I forgot what's the date. Can you remind me again, Zemo? 😏
My favourite marvel villains
Vulture
Thanos
Loki
Ego the living planet
Ultron
Zemo
Klaue
Killmonger
ultron was a twisted verison of tony stark which i enjoyed
Yeah james spaders performance was phenomenal in fact that’s one of the reasons I love age of ultron yes it’s pretty week when compared to films like civil war, infinity war and the first avengers but damnit I love it
@@SJ_RANKS i love age of ultron as well because of james spader and i think the movie is underrated because of the bigger movies in the series and don't get me started on klaue and killmonger lol
SJ RANKS I rewatched Age of Ultron recently and it seems kind of underwhelming and falls way short compared to how good Infinity War and The Avengers are. I must say James Spader did a great performance though.
Yes even though we are somewhat the minority Klaue is better than Killmonger.
I think there's also something to be said for the fact that because we now know all the heroes (their personalities, character traits, flaws, hopes, fears, etc), there's less a need to convince the audience that the heroes are worth their attention, so the writers are able to naturally shift their focus onto making the villains stand out.
Actually, there's an interesting argument to be made about whether the process has actually been inverted with the villains getting stronger and becoming more memorable as the heroes lose some of their individuality and sort of blend together. Don't get me wrong, I love all the heroes but you can't deny that they all now share very similar traits (most of them being modelled after RDJ, let's be honest). The constant quips, in particular. Even the heroes who didn't start out as constantly-snarking masters of wit are now able to spout one-liners at the drop of a hat...
I just hate how Ulysses Klaw was dumbed down for the movies. In the comics he's one of Black Panthers greatest villains but for the movie he's just a throwaway flunky.
He wasn't really a flunky.
He was the main villain. Until Killmonger revealed his true intentions. No one saw Killmonger coming he was just a soldier under Klaws payment. Then Killmonger reveals the truth and suddenly brings everything full circle.
Are you kidding? He was great. Just because Killmonger was amazing doesn't mean Klaw wasn't entertaining and fun
He was the best part of Black Panther, Killmonger was just meh at best.
geardog24, while this is true to a point, remember that the MCU follows its own continuity, not that of Marvel Earth 616. Many characters have had their roles changed and/or backstories fudged around with.
@@michaelcharlton5972 Yes, because Kilmonger in the comics was just a beefy meathead who fought T'Challa because Man needs throne.
Doug, with all due respect, I think there's an elephant in the room that you're overlooking. You have to remember that some of the deepest, most complex villains in the Marvel universe just so happen to be the ones that Marvel Studios, at the time, didn't have the films rights to. Magneto, Doctor Doom, Norman Osborn, Doctor Octopus, Venom, Kingpin, Galactus, any of the human villains that plague the X-Men, these are psychologically well-developed villains, but the MCU simply couldn't use them. Yes, that will likely change with the Fox merger, but for the first two phases of the MCU, they had to the make due with the rogues galleries they had, and, well, there is a reason that until now Iron Man's villains weren't as well known to the public as Spider-Man's were.
The most glaring example of this, I think, is Magneto. Arguably the most complex villain in Marvel Comics, maybe in comics overall, for reasons we all know and have seen very well realized in the nearly two decades of X-Men movies...and the MCU simply can't use him. Similarly, Doctor Doom is arguably the greatest Marvel villain ever, Stan Lee's personal favorite in fact, and someone who has tragically been mishandled by Hollywood over and over again. But in the comics, while he is a world conquering dictator with an extremely large ego, even by villain standards, his reasons for world conquest are fascinating. If you want an idea of what I mean, go watch the Death Battle episode where he fights Darth Vader, I guarantee you will be shocked at the untapped potential that Doom has...But again, Marvel can't use him for now.
Now, I admit, I have been kind of an apologist to the previous MCU villains, but that was mainly thanks to what the highly talented actors have been able to bring to their performance as opposed to what they had on paper. The glaring exception to this was Malekith; I'm sorry, but not even an actor of Christopher Eccleston's talent couldn't have done anything with that role. But I will defend some villains like Zemo, who may be unassuming and not visually interesting to watch, but who did have a very human motivation and, hey, his plan actually WORKED. Alexander Pierce from Winter Soldier is another villain that doesn't get nearly enough credit. Another one I will defend, believe it or not, is the Red Skull. I know, I know, generic take over the world bad guy...but that's exactly the point. If you've ever known Red Skull from the comic books, this is, as Kevin Feige himself has said on camera, the one villain Marvel intentionally does not create a lot of sympathy for. His whole point is that he is Captain America's polar opposite, someone who embodies everything he is against, who's beliefs are the exact opposite of Cap's, two extremes like Batman as Joker. Besides, he's a freakin' Nazi super soldier! How sympathetic do you want that to be?!
I'm just trying to offer another opinion, and I don't expect to change yours of anyone's mind in any way. Make of my words as you will.
Anthony Castaneda EXACTLY Anthony!! I keep telling people this, Spiderman ,FF, and XMEN have the best rouge gallery of villians in the Marvel Universe. And now we'll get to see her intergatrted in the MCU!
Please do the Psycho Remake Doug.
TabularJoker :Random Videos this has to be coming.
**pick ups the knife in your shower**
TabularJoker :Random Videos NO he should do an old vs new of the psycho movie and also I think he should review psycho 2 3 and 4
Yeah! Bring back "Old vs. New"!
I know I’m gonna sound stupid but they made a Psycho remake
Wow, watching this five years later, after a series of bumps in the road for Marvel, was VERY interesting. Even hearing praise and referring to time where there were basically no misses for the company; you almost forget how rock solid they used to be.
Can you review Scooby Doo and the Ghoul school please? After reviewing three bad live-action Scooby films, I think you deserve to see one good animated one.
The best animated Scooby Doo is the one with the dinosaur and biker gang. IT IS SO AWESOME
That one is pretty cool, I will admit.
Favorite MCU movie villains in no particular order:
Loki
Thanos
The Vulture
Erik Killmonger
Hela
The Mandarin
The Red Skull
The Winter Soldier
Ultron
Ego
Baron Zemo
Klaw
Ghost
I'm more of a DC, but Marvel I can get a rise outta Marvel content too. With the villains getting better, I see the films as getting better too. With any luck, he'll be seeing enjoyable baddies and enjoyable heroes from here on out.
So how do you feel about Mark Zuckerberg and the Cave troll in BvS?
@@thomaschristopherwhite9043 You do know that most DC fans hate DCEU, aren't you?
@@TheRezro Yeah I know.. I'm one of those people. Batman is my god. But that DCEU shit needs to die. It's down right blasphemous if you ask me. What's worse is that the younger generation think the DCEU is what DC characters are really like and that saddens me. The only one who is legitimately likable in the entire DCEU is Jason Momoa as Aquaman and the only character who is faithful to the source material is Wonder Woman. That's about it.
Thomas Christopher White I think they're shit. Eisenberg's Luther is an annoying little pixie that wants to be written better, and their Doomsday creature is just a monster of the week that could've been replaced with Bizzaro and it make more sense. The DCEU is often embarrassing, often cringeworthy and a holdover from when superhero movie weren't taken seriously. Hopefully, I'll be able to watch good new DC films before I die.
@@15oClock There are good DC movies, just not many as it should.
for me a good villain is someone I can fear, someone who can intimidate me, entertain me, rein down hardships upon our hero AND have good character.
Case in point: Mister Freeze, Darth Vader, Kylo Ren (before the mask came off though he is a good character still), Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin, Alfred Molina's Doc Ock, Bane, Prowler from Into the Spider-Verse, Scar, comics Venom, Kingpin, Doctor Doom.
I feel thought the MCU still hasn't given us THE best villains they can offer. Don't me wrong Thanos and Loki have great character but I didn't feel that Thanos was intimidating enough in the film outside of the opening scene. People might say because he was technically the main character of the film but as a genocidal tyrant who will stop at nothing to get what he seeks I never truly feared for the main cast. I dunno, maybe more intense moments and more powerhouse moments with his strength and maybe if he killed one of the heroes on Titan during the fight then he would've been the whole package.
Ultron had some cool lines but overall I was disappointed. Ultron needed to be scarier, I don't care if he is based off Tony Stark they could've made him scarier. Instead have him know he reflects Stark and hate that so he is built with more restrained rage and have him come close to achieving victory more and more with him always feeling like he's 3 steps ahead the whole time. Like the Sentinels in Days of Future Past he should feel overwhelming and near unstoppable
The sentinels in Days of Future Past have NO character, they are just there to kill mutants but the way they are presented is what makes them so damn good. I don't need to sympathise with a villain, I prefer a villain I can despise not one I can go "oh they are just misunderstood"
I look at it this way. The MCU can do good antagonists but they aren't that good with villains/bad guys, somone you can hate
Kylo Ren is a terrible villain; the only good things about him are his design and being portrayed by Adam Driver. As a character, he is wildly inconsistent. As a villain, he's a wimp. He's basically a cheap knockoff of Zuko from Avatar: the Last Airbender, and saying that is an insult to Zuko, as Zuko's one of the best-written antagonists in animated media.
Hit or miss?
I guess they-
* breathes in *
-they did miss for quite a while, because they needed to build up our heroes's personalities, but fortunatly it turned out great in the end, and they hit for like 6 movies in a row now-
huh!
I think Marvel Studios fixed the villain problem for good now. this is how good this studio works I think, having the humility even when winning big time, to learn from the mistakes committed. I think Mysterio will also be a great villain in the upcoming SM Far From Home I'm really hyped because Jake Gyllenhaal is an amazing actor and if his Mysterio is written half as good as Vulture was in Homecomig we have another great one here
Infinity war didn't just have more characters than the other avengers movies, it has more characters than any other movie period.
What about Bobby?
I don't know.. even more than X men? Future past or something?
@@HelgaCavoli yeah, definitely
The way Hela says "your queen" gets me every time. She's having fun and she's fun to watch.