Marvel's Doctor Strange (2016)

[willtopower]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

I just hope they don't waste another amazing actor on an underdeveloped villain. This sounds like a good character with a lot of depth, but I remember being excited for a few good actors before (Hugo Weaving, Christopher Eccleston, Lee Pace).

This is definitely the film I have the most interest in of the new characters.

I think those fears are justified. MCU's villains have always been their weakest link imo.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by willtopower

I think those fears are justified. MCU's villains have always been their weakest link imo.

doesn't matter.

They're not movies about villains, they're movies about heroes. The point of Marvel movies is, and always will be, first and foremost to develop the heroes. The villains simply aren't important except in very rare circumstances (Loki)

[willtopower]

Originally Posted by spectre08

doesn't matter.

They're not movies about villains, they're movies about heroes. The point of Marvel movies is, and always will be, first and foremost to develop the heroes. The villains simply aren't important except in very rare circumstances (Loki)

I disagree. If villains didn't matter, why not just have the hero go an adventure quest to retrieve <insert item such as infinity gem> and just face natural dangers? Or only use minor npc villains a la chitauri? Villains (should) add spice to the film, add another layer to the story, set up interesting dynamics and interactions with the hero, and provide another character for the audience to be invested in, regardless if they're being rooted for or not.

There are a plethora of amazing villains available to marvel and they have used most poorly. I find that disappointing.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by willtopower

I disagree. If villains didn't matter, why not just have the hero go an adventure quest to retrieve <insert item such as infinity gem> and just face natural dangers? Or only use minor npc villains a la chitauri? Villains (should) add spice to the film, add another layer to the story, set up interesting dynamics and interactions with the hero, and provide another character for the audience to be invested in, regardless if they're being rooted for or not.

Agreed. Every protagonist needs a good antagonist; if anything, it is their opposite that defines who they are.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by willtopower

I disagree. If villains didn't matter, why not just have the hero go an adventure quest to retrieve <insert item such as infinity gem> and just face natural dangers? Or only use minor npc villains a la chitauri? Villains (should) add spice to the film, add another layer to the story, set up interesting dynamics and interactions with the hero, and provide another character for the audience to be invested in, regardless if they're being rooted for or not.

There are a plethora of amazing villains available to marvel and they have used most poorly. I find that disappointing.

Villains matter, and very much for all the reasons you stated. But I do think Marvel gets too much crap over their villains. A lot of people complained about Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy because he didn't have a lot of development, or back story, and so on. For me, I don't need a villain that's as developed or explored as in-depth as the hero is. After all, it's the hero's movie. Joker had no back story or development in The Dark Knight, he was practically just a force of nature... but he's touted as the best villain in any CBM (he certainly is for me). And true, it's because he does all those things you stated (add another layer, spice, etc.)

But at the same time, I don't need every villain to be a Joker. Growing up reading comics, a lot of the times the bad guys just show up. They're out to do something bad or evil, they're diametrically opposed with our hero, and our hero has to stop them. "Is this guy bad?" "Does he do bad things?" "Is he a threat to the hero, and possibly even more powerful than him?" If the answer to all those is "yes," I'm satisfied with that villain.

All we need to know about Ronan, for example, was that he was basically a fanatical terrorist. He had a goal, he had a philosophy, and then he does bad things. Good enough for me. The heroes come first, and there were five of them that needed attention in that movie. They take precedence over the villain.

I said this when GOTG came out: look at Darth Vader in A New Hope. He's basically Ronan. We don't know too much about him, but he has goals, he holds belief in some philosophy, and he does bad things and is clearly the bad guy. Good enough for me!

Some bad guys will get more attention and development than others, but at the end of the day, sometimes the heroes just need someone really bad to fight. If it's not deeper than that, and as long as they're a good villain, it works for me. But that's just me. I completely understand why a lot of people are often underwhelmed with Marvel Studios' villains.

[willtopower]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

[Show spoiler]Villains matter, and very much for all the reasons you stated. But I do think Marvel gets too much crap over their villains. A lot of people complained about Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy because he didn't have a lot of development, or back story, and so on. For me, I don't need a villain that's as developed or explored as in-depth as the hero is. After all, it's the hero's movie. Joker had no back story or development in The Dark Knight, he was practically just a force of nature... but he's touted as the best villain in any CBM (he certainly is for me). And true, it's because he does all those things you stated (add another layer, spice, etc.)

But at the same time, I don't need every villain to be a Joker. Growing up reading comics, a lot of the times the bad guys just show up. They're out to do something bad or evil, they're diametrically opposed with our hero, and our hero has to stop them. "Is this guy bad?" "Does he do bad things?" "Is he a threat to the hero, and possibly even more powerful than him?" If the answer to all those is "yes," I'm satisfied with that villain.

All we need to know about Ronan, for example, was that he was basically a fanatical terrorist. He had a goal, he had a philosophy, and then he does bad things. Good enough for me. The heroes come first, and there were five of them that needed attention in that movie. They take precedence over the villain.

I said this when GOTG came out: look at Darth Vader in A New Hope. He's basically Ronan. We don't know too much about him, but he has goals, he holds belief in some philosophy, and he does bad things and is clearly the bad guy. Good enough for me!

Some bad guys will get more attention and development than others, but at the end of the day, sometimes the heroes just need someone really bad to fight. If it's not deeper than that, and as long as they're a good villain, it works for me. But that's just me. I completely understand why a lot of people are often underwhelmed with Marvel Studios' villains.

I think you're pretty much completely right. Using Ronan as an example, I wouldn't say he was the worst, but he's not at the top either. For me, Ronan just lacked a moment or two more that I could take away from the theatre and go, "that was bad ass," which is a feeling I really enjoy getting when watching any super hero villain (I'm not saying bad ass moments were completely absent, the final scenes were). I think his fight with Drax just left me wanting.

In comparison with Joker, not only was Ledger's performance stellar, but Joker's attacks and antics always seemed to carry so much weight. Everything he did meaningfully affected the story. When I look at someone like Malekith, who was the weakest MCU villain imo, his actions just seemed fleeting. Despite causing massive amounts of destruction, Malekith just wasn't memorable.

Your point about villains in comics is a great one, and it's so true. That being said, the good villains, even if not developed thoroughly, always have one or two moments that make me go, "ffuuuu, this guy is the real deal." Since these MCU movies pop up about twice a year, as opposed to monthly comic issues, I don't think MCU gets as much of a pass if their villain is forgettable. I think the winter soldier is the perfect example of a not-so-developed villain that is bad ass and excels on every level. Granted, he's a bit more meaningful to the audience because of his identity, but his skills were showcased phenomenally. That's what I found so rewarding about him.

[JamesBenjamin]

Originally Posted by Mandalorian

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Docto...e-Blu-ray/452/

Originally Posted by Diesel

The animated film is what sparked my interest in the live action when I watched it a good while back now. Its very good.

Also on Netflix for those who don't want to blind buy (unless its been removed in the last year and a half )

Thanks! Unfortunately it appears to have been pulled from Netflix, but a $5 blu ray isn't too bad.

[Forever Knight]

^ That is one of the best Animated Marvel releases.

[DisneyBlu]

RUMOR: Rachel McAdams Offered Female Lead In DOCTOR STRANGE

With SDCC right around the corner, we have a juicy casting rumor for you guys before the madness ensues. Word is Marvel has offered Rachel McAdams (currently killing it on the second season of HBO's True Detective) the female lead in Doctor Strange... but who would she play?



According to Heroic Hollywood, Rachel McAdams (Mean Girls, Red Eye, True Detective) has been offered the female lead role in Marvel's Doctor Strange alongside Benedict Cumberbatch as the Sorcerer Supreme. The site makes no mention of which character she'd play, but if it's Strange's love interest then one would assume it's Clea, or possibly Morganna Blessing.

Of course even if McAdams has been offered the role, there no guarantee she'll accept - but if she does sign on she'll also join Chiwetel Ejiofor as Baron Mordo, and Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One.

Scott Derrickson is directing the film from a script by Jon Sphaits, and shooting is set to commence in London this Fall. Doctor Strange will hit theaters November 4, 2016.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit...news/?a=122480

[Diesel]

Rachel McAdams in anything is always welcome by me.

[walruswarrior]

Yes please!

[vegeta88]

So we'll see Sherlock and Irene Adler on screen together in a movie series with another Sherlock... Okay.

I've always enjoyed her performances. I could see her fitting in this really well.

Casting in these movies is just a drumroll now. I have been happy with the vast majority of their decisions.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

So we'll see Sherlock and Irene Adler on screen together in a movie series with another Sherlock... Okay.

I've always enjoyed her performances. I could see her fitting in this really well.

Casting in these movies is just a drumroll now. I have been happy with the vast majority of their decisions.

Not to mention Watson being along for the ride in the Universe in Civil War

[dgoswald]

Oh man, McAdams deserves a huge role as a character that's more widely known in one of these types of films (no offence, Strange fans).

[jsobko]

Love McA she is great in TDS2.

[chris_sc77]

As long as she isnt blond its an ok casting decision to me

[Elbie]

If she gets cast, this will be so fetch!

[MrBlonde]

Originally Posted by Elbie

If she gets cast, this will be so fetch!

inb4AstroZombie

[Santa Barbara]

Great choice! It looks like the film is shaping up nicely.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Elbie

If she gets cast, this will be so fetch!