Bryan Cranston wants to join MCU, but only as an original villain

There're enough villains and stories in the comics to not need new ones. I'd be annoyed to see a new villain when i know of the existing ones that haven't been used.

quote:

---

I really think Cranston is onto something, and we should see more original villains from superhero films.

---

Should we see original superheroes too?

That's kind of lame. Nothing says we can't take an established villain and play with it heavily to create something "new." In fact, I think that's the best way to go, very much in the way of the origin stories we've already seen. They are all well done, but mashups of several different stories.

Someone like a Molten Man, Baron Blood, Flag Smasher, Dr. Faustus, etc.

(Really, a Faustus storyline would be fantastic).

I've always said take the Flag Smasher character and play up the GeoPolitics in a Cap film. Lame D-Level villains turned cool. (And yeah don't call him Flag Smasher).

quote:

---

Heisenberg is kidnapped by the guardians of the galaxy while out in the desert one day.

---

He said he wants to play a villain, not a hero.

Marvel's villains are forgettable because they've used them in very similar ways. It's like watching every James Bond film and then realizing that most of the bad guys are so similar that you can't tell them apart.

In the Iron Man films and Ant-Man you have competing corporate villains in every film. Loki is the villain in both Thor movies and the Avengers film. The Captain America movies are Cap vs Nazis and Cap vs Shield (the Red Skull didn't make much of an impression on fans). Even with Age of Ultron being a checklist sort of film, at least the villain stands out. He wasn't a corporate or government rival and, while he ended up looking for an Infinity Stone like everyone else, he was a new type of villain for the films.

quote:

---

The problem is Ledger's joker ruined comic book movie villains forever. He set the bar so impossibly high so early in the Superhero movie revival that every single villain will forever be compared to him and never measure up. Without that performance, Loki and Ultron would be considered good villains. Now they seem like over the top and cartoony by comparison.

---

Here's the thing with Ledger's Joker though: He served the plot first. When Nolan was coming up with the sequel, it's clear that Batman had to fall and Ra's al Ghul had to be proven as partially right in that merely standing up to evil civilly wouldn't end up accelerating evil. Joker is the perfect foil to Batman in this regard. And Batman has by far the strongest rouges gallery, to where just about any plot you can throw at Batman, some villain at this point could take it over. But with Superman, if you want a worldwide super powered threat who has his own agenda and isn't extraterrestrial, who are you going to go with? Metallo, Parasite, and Atomic Skull don't give a shite about taking over the world. The only one in his rouge's gallery that cares about this is Luthor, and he doesn't have powers. I'm just curious why Superman doesn't have his own version of Ra's al Ghul, and why this limitation should keep any filmmaker from making their own villain to fill it.

Aside from Loki and the Winter Soldier, is there a single Marvel villain that serves the plot first and isn't simply shoehorned in? All the other villains are just the same old bullshite in the end, with the exception of Ultron, who was severely held back by the censors. Who gives a shite with all these generic crappy villains? For the most part, most of Marvel's villains aren't best suited to the plot they're trying to tell. Loki and the Winter Soldier are the only ones there that are the true natural foils and plot points to what the story is trying to tell.

And yes I'm bitter about Ultron. If they had gone nuts with his concept, he could have been on the same level as Ledger's Joker. The fact that it's probable Loki killed more people in the Avengers 1 is ridiculous. Tens of millions should have been killed by Ultron, but they really just held him back.

Well. Cranston has just come out and said he'd like to play Mister Sinister: LINK

Great villain, but I'm not sure if Cranston is the right guy to play him. If he weren't playing Thanos, I'd say Josh Brolin would be perfect for him.

Sinister is one of those guys that might look silly in a live action movie. I dunno. I don't picture Cranston anyway.

Why not Maximus the mad?

quote:

---

Loki was a great villain

---

I might be in the minority but I'm not a fan of Loki. There's nothing about him that I find compelling. What exactly makes him so great?