[ SECRET POST #3603 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3603 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #515.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[kallanda_lee]

TBH, a lot f those villains were pretty bland in the comics too, especially in the early days.

And Netflix has the opportunity to do characters development over 10+ episodes, but everything is very tight storytelling-wise in the MCU.

[philstar22]

So much agreed to the second one. In a movie, you can't have too many scenes just about the villains, especially multi-hero movies or origin stories that need to get us to understand the heroes and root for them. Marvel concentrates on making their heroes complex while giving us just enough to understand the villain's motivations. I think it make sense that they do it that way.

[kallanda_lee]

Yeah, I don't see another way unless they make the villain the main character.

[(Anonymous)]

But for instance, the first Thor movie has a villain with lots of scenes and even character development and most people still probably rooted for Thor and his pals and not Loki, didn't they? I personally rooted for Loki because he was more sympathetic and likable than Thor and I always root for my favorite characters no matter how evil and wrong they are (that's what fiction is for, isn't it), but I'm sure most people didn't.

Marvel already has a movie with a complex and interesting villain, it can be done. They just choose to stick to generic one dimensional "I want power" villains because it's safer.

[philstar22]

I think the difference with Loki and the other villains is that Loki, as Thor's brother, is tied to his story. So they could weave them both together and have villain scenes while still keeping the focus on the hero. I didn't find Loki sympathetic at all personally, but I do think that the reason they were able to do it differently was because Loki lived in Asgard and was tied to Thor in a way the other villains weren't tied to their hero.

[nightscale]

I'd also argue that the heroes were very one-dimensional back then too, superhero comics really have changed a lot over the years to allow their heroes to be flawed and their villains to have reasons for their villainy outside of 'because the plots needs them to be'.

But I do also think that the shows mostly allow for their villains to get more development and aren't quite as bog-standard as the movies, though I do very much enjoy some of the movie villains and have been meh over some TV ones.

[dethtoll]

To be fair to Thanos he was actually an entertaining and interesting villain from early on. The Infinity Saga is easily one of his greatest moments, and the MCU has clearly been building up to an adaptation of it.