|
Post by skaathar on Jul 25, 2023 15:19:16 GMT
Pierce was the big bad pulling the strings from behind the curtain but he wasn't the main antagonist. The main antagonist is the one that the main protagonist has to go up against, and in this case that was the Winter Soldier. He was a villain in that movie from start to finish, with just a brief hint of empathy as he saved Cap from drowning. But throughout the movie he was the one Cap had to regularly go up against. So like I said, the villain was Winter Soldier and the movie was even named after him. He was the Heavy, not the real villain. Pierce was, and by extension HYDRA in general. I didn't say he was the real villain, I said he was the main antagonist. Nothing you have said so far contradicts this.
|
|
|
Post by hauntedknight87 on Jul 25, 2023 15:22:05 GMT
What are you talking about? Batman and his villains work well together. If the villain isn't engaging enough, why should I care about the hero journey? Every hero needs a good villain and vice versa. If either of them are not engaging, it completely throws off the film. Batman is always overshadowed by his villains, Joker is a key example.
If the hero and the internal conflict they have with their allies and others is engaging enough, the villain doesn't need to steal the show. The Heroes' Journey is outdated in some ways. Yes it does throw off the film, that's why older CBMs usually had the villain be the real star because the director and writers had no faith in the hero to be a real lead.
Joker only had 25 minutes of screen time in a 2 and a half hour movie. He didn't take up the film, the main reason he was memorable was because of Heath Ledger performance. A better villain doesn't mean "stealing the movie from the hero" I don't know why you keep saying that. If you have a villain that the audience can find interesting and compelling, that's not stealing the movie away from the Hero. Unless the hero is so awful and boring that the villain is the only highlight of the movie. There's a reason why only a handful of MCU villains are memorable while the rest are either trash or so forgettable that people go "oh wait he/she was in that movie?"
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 25, 2023 17:29:14 GMT
The only answer to this is, well, once again… Fuck off you twat.
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jul 25, 2023 23:32:00 GMT
He was the Heavy, not the real villain. Pierce was, and by extension HYDRA in general. I didn't say he was the real villain, I said he was the main antagonist. Nothing you have said so far contradicts this. He was the Heavy, Pierce and HYDRA by extension were the real villains without which the Winter Soldier would be nothing. Which doesn't change that the movie was more about Steve and his side than the villains.
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jul 25, 2023 23:33:08 GMT
Batman is always overshadowed by his villains, Joker is a key example.
If the hero and the internal conflict they have with their allies and others is engaging enough, the villain doesn't need to steal the show. The Heroes' Journey is outdated in some ways. Yes it does throw off the film, that's why older CBMs usually had the villain be the real star because the director and writers had no faith in the hero to be a real lead.
Joker only had 25 minutes of screen time in a 2 and a half hour movie. He didn't take up the film, the main reason he was memorable was because of Heath Ledger performance. A better villain doesn't mean "stealing the movie from the hero" I don't know why you keep saying that. If you have a villain that the audience can find interesting and compelling, that's not stealing the movie away from the Hero. Unless the hero is so awful and boring that the villain is the only highlight of the movie. There's a reason why only a handful of MCU villains are memorable while the rest are either trash or so forgettable that people go "oh wait he/she was in that movie?" Only 25 minutes and yet he was more memorable than the hero. Sad.
It means that the audience remembers the villain more than the hero and the story makes the villain be the cause of everything. That's poor writing.
Yes, it's because the MCU is about its heroes and not its villains. The heroes are the ones who matter.
|
|
|
Post by hauntedknight87 on Jul 26, 2023 0:39:07 GMT
Joker only had 25 minutes of screen time in a 2 and a half hour movie. He didn't take up the film, the main reason he was memorable was because of Heath Ledger performance. A better villain doesn't mean "stealing the movie from the hero" I don't know why you keep saying that. If you have a villain that the audience can find interesting and compelling, that's not stealing the movie away from the Hero. Unless the hero is so awful and boring that the villain is the only highlight of the movie. There's a reason why only a handful of MCU villains are memorable while the rest are either trash or so forgettable that people go "oh wait he/she was in that movie?" Only 25 minutes and yet he was more memorable than the hero. Sad. It means that the audience remembers the villain more than the hero and the story makes the villain be the cause of everything. That's poor writing. Yes, it's because the MCU is about its heroes and not its villains. The heroes are the ones who matter.
You need villains that matter as well. Otherwise you have a dull universe with nothing but heroes. Marvel Comics have developed villains that matter just as much as the heroes, there's no reason as to why it shouldn't be the same with the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by skaathar on Jul 26, 2023 2:53:11 GMT
I didn't say he was the real villain, I said he was the main antagonist. Nothing you have said so far contradicts this. He was the Heavy, Pierce and HYDRA by extension were the real villains without which the Winter Soldier would be nothing. Which doesn't change that the movie was more about Steve and his side than the villains. I see you don't understand what the definition of a main antagonist is. Let me educate you: The role of the main antagonist is to be the main challenge to the protagonist. He/she is the one the protagonist regularly goes up against and will need to overcome. The Winter Soldier is the one whom Cap had to go up against in that movie. Pierce might have been the one pulling strings in the background but he wasn’t the one Cap had to face off against. In fact Cap never had to fight him. Claiming Pierce is the main villain in CATWS is about as stupid as saying The Other was the main villain in Avengers just because he was the one giving Loki orders. P.S. - Funny how you keep referring to him as the "heavy". You realize that "the heavy" is another terminology for "the big bad" right? It's the villain that gets the most development and who presents the most challenge to the hero. So I guess in the end you're actually agreeing with me.
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jul 27, 2023 13:38:30 GMT
Only 25 minutes and yet he was more memorable than the hero. Sad. It means that the audience remembers the villain more than the hero and the story makes the villain be the cause of everything. That's poor writing. Yes, it's because the MCU is about its heroes and not its villains. The heroes are the ones who matter.
You need villains that matter as well. Otherwise you have a dull universe with nothing but heroes. Marvel Comics have developed villains that matter just as much as the heroes, there's no reason as to why it shouldn't be the same with the MCU. If the internal conflicts are entertaining enough, then that's watchable.
Yes, and when it's villains like Magneto they usually overshadow the heroes completely. Like in the X-Men movies.
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jul 27, 2023 13:40:00 GMT
He was the Heavy, Pierce and HYDRA by extension were the real villains without which the Winter Soldier would be nothing. Which doesn't change that the movie was more about Steve and his side than the villains. I see you don't understand what the definition of a main antagonist is. Let me educate you: The role of the main antagonist is to be the main challenge to the protagonist. He/she is the one the protagonist regularly goes up against and will need to overcome. The Winter Soldier is the one whom Cap had to go up against in that movie. Pierce might have been the one pulling strings in the background but he wasn’t the one Cap had to face off against. In fact Cap never had to fight him. Claiming Pierce is the main villain in CATWS is about as stupid as saying The Other was the main villain in Avengers just because he was the one giving Loki orders. P.S. - Funny how you keep referring to him as the "heavy". You realize that "the heavy" is another terminology for "the big bad" right? It's the villain that gets the most development and who presents the most challenge to the hero. So I guess in the end you're actually agreeing with me. Okay, then I'll use the term you're properly more understanding of: The Dragon. That's what the Winter Soldier was.
Oh, and he didn't completely dominate the plot or undergo more development than the lead did. Unlike "Proper" villains.
|
|
|
Post by skaathar on Jul 27, 2023 14:40:40 GMT
I see you don't understand what the definition of a main antagonist is. Let me educate you: The role of the main antagonist is to be the main challenge to the protagonist. He/she is the one the protagonist regularly goes up against and will need to overcome. The Winter Soldier is the one whom Cap had to go up against in that movie. Pierce might have been the one pulling strings in the background but he wasn’t the one Cap had to face off against. In fact Cap never had to fight him. Claiming Pierce is the main villain in CATWS is about as stupid as saying The Other was the main villain in Avengers just because he was the one giving Loki orders. P.S. - Funny how you keep referring to him as the "heavy". You realize that "the heavy" is another terminology for "the big bad" right? It's the villain that gets the most development and who presents the most challenge to the hero. So I guess in the end you're actually agreeing with me. Okay, then I'll use the term you're properly more understanding of: The Dragon. That's what the Winter Soldier was.
Oh, and he didn't completely dominate the plot or undergo more development than the lead did. Unlike "Proper" villains.
The term you're looking for is "the muscle". The henchman. And while Bucky was indeed the muscle, he was also the main antagonist in that movie. So far nothing you have said proves otherwise. At the moment you seem to be arguing just for the sake of stubbornness even though you haven't presented any real argument. I also never claimed that the villain should get more development than the hero. You're confusing me for someone else. I simply pointed out that Bucky got a lot of focus in that movie and was nowhere close to being a forgettable villain.
|
|
|
Post by hauntedknight87 on Jul 27, 2023 16:12:51 GMT
You need villains that matter as well. Otherwise you have a dull universe with nothing but heroes. Marvel Comics have developed villains that matter just as much as the heroes, there's no reason as to why it shouldn't be the same with the MCU. If the internal conflicts are entertaining enough, then that's watchable.
Yes, and when it's villains like Magneto they usually overshadow the heroes completely. Like in the X-Men movies.
Maybe...if you're ashamed of the comics. I'M BRINGING IT BACK!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2023 19:17:55 GMT
If the internal conflicts are entertaining enough, then that's watchable.
Yes, and when it's villains like Magneto they usually overshadow the heroes completely. Like in the X-Men movies.
Maybe...if you're ashamed of the comics. I'M BRINGING IT BACK! 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 27, 2023 19:23:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hauntedknight87 on Jul 27, 2023 20:15:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anwar on Jul 28, 2023 1:26:58 GMT
Okay, then I'll use the term you're properly more understanding of: The Dragon. That's what the Winter Soldier was.
Oh, and he didn't completely dominate the plot or undergo more development than the lead did. Unlike "Proper" villains.
The term you're looking for is "the muscle". The henchman. And while Bucky was indeed the muscle, he was also the main antagonist in that movie. So far nothing you have said proves otherwise. At the moment you seem to be arguing just for the sake of stubbornness even though you haven't presented any real argument. I also never claimed that the villain should get more development than the hero. You're confusing me for someone else. I simply pointed out that Bucky got a lot of focus in that movie and was nowhere close to being a forgettable villain. If Bucky was the main antagonist, he wouldn't be manipulated by Hydra and Pierce and be his own man. And Bucky didn't really get much development in the movie, just "Wait, your name is Steve..."
|
|