Marvel has yet to make a formidable villian

[AllHolosEve]

Regardless of the fact it was Catwoman that done it, taking a missile to the chest is a hardcore way to go out.... Winter Soldier pretty much simped into Bucky mode instead.

catwoman or not, that shyt wasnt hardcore at all, it was bullshyt.. at least Bucky goin soft was storyline driven & made sense... Bane dyin was

So y'all still arguing about development when the thread is about how formidable
Even the haters can't get their hating right

i know, right... Guardians had to establish a cast most people dont know about, then tie in Tanos, The Collector & the gems to set up the overall story & even though Ronan put in work he wasnt formidable because we dont know his childhood grief... even though i admit i wouldnt mind the backstory it wasnt needed....

Jokers my dude but LOL at character developement, we dont know shyt about him beyond chaos.... we let him speak through his actions....

The same fakkits who were clowning FOX and crying that Marvel Studios should have the X-Men rights back are now trying to claim the X-Men franchise as their own

yeah, its our fault they been fukkin up characters & stories repeatedly but we can still admit when they get it right... the last X-Men were good flicks but i still want the franchise to go back... i want those character features & cross overs... now i gotta see the Inhuman struggle when we all know it should be Mutants...

 

[gluvnast]

And the main villain in Days of Future's past was a fukking midget.

No he actually wasn't the villain. He's the one that needed to be kept alive so the true antagonists won't exist in the future. The actual villains in DoFP were Magneto was in the past, and Sentinels in the future.

 

[gluvnast]

DC got Marvel in Villians. Thats cool

But how that box office money looking like

Last time I checked, DC wasn't hurting lately at the box office. Just because Marvel is the cinematic version of the old No Limit Records, does not mean it's fast food style of pushing out movies equates to quality. This is why so many of these antagonists aren't flushed out and aren't necessary good. They just generic means to give Marvel stans a quick fix.

 

[BillBanneker]

No he actually wasn't the villain. He's the one that needed to be kept alive so the true antagonists won't exist in the future. The actual villains in DoFP were Magneto was in the past, and Sentinels in the future.

No, Trask and the Sentinels are the villains in DOFP.

 

[gluvnast]

No, Trask and the Sentinels are the villains in DOFP.

Trask was merely a MacGRUFFIN. He was only a plot device. The entire point was for him to be kept alive and not assassinated by Mystique. The individual who who was the true antagonist in the past was MAGNETO.

 

[BillBanneker]

Trask was merely a MacGRUFFIN. He was only a plot device. The entire point was for him to be kept alive and not assassinated by Mystique. The individual who who was the true antagonist in the past was MAGNETO.

No, in that case Magneto was just as much of a "plot device" as Trask, using your logic, since Mystique is the actual one who triggers the future plotline (emabling the creation of the Sentinels and her actual DNA is used to make them unbeatable). Magneto's takeover of the Sentinels in the past is just filler.

 

[gluvnast]

No, in that case Magneto was just as much of a "plot device" as Trask, using your logic, since Mystique is the actual one who triggers the future plotline (emabling the creation of the Sentinels and her actual DNA is used to make them unbeatable). Magneto's takeover of the Sentinels in the past is just filler.

You DO know the definition of MacGruffin, right?

Lemme, break it down to you in elementary understanding. The plot of the film was for Mystique not to assassinate Trask in order the true antagonist of the future, the Sentinels, not to exist. Trask is the PLOT DEVICE, he serves no purpose but be the glue to the entire plot. The person who was preventing that from happening was Magneto. He, first tries to kill Mystique. He then hi-jacked the prototyped Sentinels and used him for his own bidding and nearly made the future catastrophically worse than it already was. If that does not reeks MAIN VILLAIN to you, then you got issues in comprehension.

 

[BillBanneker]

You DO know the definition of MacGruffin, right?

Lemme, break it down to you in elementary understanding. The plot of the film was for Mystique not to assassinate Trask in order the true antagonist of the future, the Sentinels, not to exist. Trask is the PLOT DEVICE, he serves no purpose but be the glue to the entire plot. The person who was preventing that from happening was Magneto. He, first tries to kill Mystique. He then hi-jacked the prototyped Sentinels and used him for his own bidding and nearly made the future catastrophically worse than it already was. If that does not reeks MAIN VILLAIN to you, then you got issues in comprehension.

You really just have an basic understanding of the story, which is why you keep trying to creating little boxes for characters.

He is not the "main villian" there are no "main villian(s)". Trask isn't a villain? He doesn't create the sentinels with the intent of destroying/subjugating all mutants? (which both Magneto and Professor X are against)? And his death is what triggers the future timeline not Magneto.

Magneto teeters both sides of the plot, where he's defintely not a villain in the future timeline and toes the line in the past timeline.

 

[Supercoolmayo]

Last time I checked, DC wasn't hurting lately at the box office. Just because Marvel is the cinematic version of the old No Limit Records, does not mean it's fast food style of pushing out movies equates to quality. This is why so many of these antagonists aren't flushed out and aren't necessary good. They just generic means to give Marvel stans a quick fix.

And it's working

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

You DO know the definition of MacGruffin, right?

Lemme, break it down to you in elementary understanding. The plot of the film was for Mystique not to assassinate Trask in order the true antagonist of the future, the Sentinels, not to exist. Trask is the PLOT DEVICE, he serves no purpose but be the glue to the entire plot. The person who was preventing that from happening was Magneto. He, first tries to kill Mystique. He then hi-jacked the prototyped Sentinels and used him for his own bidding and nearly made the future catastrophically worse than it already was. If that does not reeks MAIN VILLAIN to you, then you got issues in comprehension.

So trask was like the rabbits foot in mission impossible 3. Or that light inside the brief case in pulp fiction






Trask started that shyt by capturing and experimenting on mutants in the first place. Mystique only spread up the process by getting captured her damn self as would magneto if he would've killed him.

 

[gluvnast]

And it's working

Worked for Master P too... but hey

 

[gluvnast]

You really just have an basic understanding of the story, which is why you keep trying to creating little boxes for characters.

He is not the "main villian" there are no "main villian(s)". Trask isn't a villain? He doesn't create the sentinels with the intent of destroying/subjugating all mutants? (which both Magneto and Professor X are against)? And his death is what triggers the future timeline not Magneto.

Magneto teeters both sides of the plot, where he's defintely not a villain in the future timeline and toes the line in the past timeline.

Again, Trask is merely a MacGruffin. A plot device to give purpose to the plot in general. He served no purpose except for give reason as to why Sentinels exist, and nothing more. The protagonists mission was to keep him alive. The antagonist position was to prevent or disrupt the mission. Magneto was the antagonist. He was the villain that was in the way.

 

[gluvnast]

So trask was like the rabbits foot in mission impossible 3. Or that light inside the brief case in pulp fiction






Trask started that shyt by capturing and experimenting on mutants in the first place. Mystique only spread up the process by getting captured her damn self as would magneto if he would've killed him.

In short. YES.

Mc·Guf·fin
məˈgəfin/
noun
British
noun: MacGuffin

1. an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.

 

[hex]

Last time I checked, DC wasn't hurting lately at the box office. Just because Marvel is the cinematic version of the old No Limit Records, does not mean it's fast food style of pushing out movies equates to quality. This is why so many of these antagonists aren't flushed out and aren't necessary good. They just generic means to give Marvel stans a quick fix.

If this was the cinematic version of No Limit these movies wouldn't be critically acclaimed.

If the sole motivation for these movies was to give "Marvel stans" a quick fix then they wouldn't be doing $1+ billion. Keep in mind "Marvel stans" almost bankrupted the company because nobody was buying the comics. It's 2014, everybody is going to see these movies. I have no idea how you cats are going to the theater, seeing a wide variety of demographics, age, race, whatever....and still thinking "look at all these Marvel stans".

Hell, the Search function on this board works just fine. Find me all these Marvel references in the posts of the people you guys are arguing with. You can't, because they don't exist. You guys toss the term "Marvel stans" at anyone that disagrees with you.

And let's be real here, DC ain't rationing out their movies because they want quality over quantity. They're rationing them out because they don't have much to work with. The MCU actually blowing up took everyone by surprise, because that gamble could've just as easily ended the company.

Fred.

 

[gluvnast]

If this was the cinematic version of No Limit these movies wouldn't be critically acclaimed.

If the sole motivation for these movies was to give "Marvel stans" a quick fix then they wouldn't be doing $1+ billion. Keep in mind "Marvel stans" almost bankrupted the company because nobody was buying the comics. It's 2014, everybody is going to see these movies. I have no idea how you cats are going to the theater, seeing a wide variety of demographics, age, race, whatever....and still thinking "look at all these Marvel stans".

Hell, the Search function on this board works just fine. Find me all these Marvel references in the posts of the people you guys are arguing with. You can't, because they don't exist. You guys toss the term "Marvel stans" at anyone that disagrees with you.

And let's be real here, DC ain't rationing out their movies because they want quality over quantity. They're rationing them out because they don't have much to work with. The MCU actually blowing up took everyone by surprise, because that gamble could've just as easily ended the company.

Fred.

So you're saying the blind façade of No Limit didn't have 4 mic albums in its prime?? I certainly recall it DID. But that negated, Marvel pushes out a gain of films between 2008 to now. Ten to be exact which is impressive. Even James Bond films have a breaks of a few years in between. Marvel dropped 10 in 6 years. how could it NOT be compared to No Limit in it's way of dropping movie after movie in a rapid rate, knowing that people would flock to go see it just because of the brand name? And that's not even hating.

But what people need to realize, LIKE those old No Limit albums which TODAY, people view a lot of them as mediocre, most of those Marvel films were average to mediocre to outright trash. Truthfully, outside of the first Iron Man, Winter Soldier, Avengers, and Gaurdians... the REST of those were average to outright BAD and nothing more than filler. And you know that's a truth I am saying. And none of them really had a great adversary, the closest was Loki, and it took to that Thor 2 bullshyt movie for him to truly shine. Even HE in Avengers and the 1st Thor was soft and kept being punked. Even Coulson sonned him.

As for DC, it is IMPOSSIBLE to even cast judgment for something they technically yet haven't started. When THEY are in their 10th film then you can have this discussion about how good or bad their rogue gallery have been. It is funny they're even in the conversation when this is about MARVEL STUDIOS. But it is "Marvel stans" that want to throw that DC sh*t in the conversation because they struggle to counterpoint on their own about Marvel's inability. THAT'S why we call you stans. If you wasn't then instead of being defensive about it, why not have a rational argument countering the general consensus. There was only ONE poster from what I saw that actually have done that, everybody else are "straw-manning" it like a muthafuccka!