Comments on: Why We’re All Wrong About Multiple Villains in Films http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php A Website About Movies Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gwynplaine80 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-257114 Gwynplaine80 Sun, 29 May 2011 16:55:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-257114 Great article, man! The now most famOus villain in a comic movie is Heath Ledger's Joker, that, apart for a couple of lies, has no backstory and worked tremendously well on screen! Heck, he is scary, hellbent on chaos yet we can help but root for the guy! And no origin or whatsoever!!! I just wish that Nolan pull a witty nod on The Dark Knight Returns on the end of the movie! Great article, man! The now most famOus villain in a comic movie is Heath Ledger’s Joker, that, apart for a couple of lies, has no backstory and worked tremendously well on screen! Heck, he is scary, hellbent on chaos yet we can help but root for the guy! And no origin or whatsoever!!!
I just wish that Nolan pull a witty nod on The Dark Knight Returns on the end of the movie!

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-257106 Anonymous Sat, 28 May 2011 21:26:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-257106 The same should go for superheroes. We know who the Hulk is. No need to show us again. The same should go for superheroes. We know who the Hulk is. No need to show us again.

]]> By: [A] http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-257101 [A] Sat, 28 May 2011 17:07:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-257101 Wait.. I see "high-quality films" and right after that, "The Incredible Hulk". Something's off.. Wait.. I see “high-quality films” and right after that, “The Incredible Hulk”. Something’s off..

]]> By: T O R M E N T http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-103653 T O R M E N T Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:08:20 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-103653 Hmm, interesting theory. But I would say that the Multiple Villain Syndrome is not a very good idea (hear me out first) when you are talking about random killings and mass chaos. In fact, no two Nolan film is alike. So I'd say that in terms of pace and storytelling, the Nolan-Brothers would focus on something different next time; Batman Begins was all about a traditional, if i daresay epic format with 3 acts gradually increasing into the climax, while Memento (another Nolan masterpiece) followed something completely unconventional in Hollywood: a format that ran backwards. So in my observation, I'd say that the third Batman film will indeed have more villains, that's not a doubt, but it won't necessarily focus on extreme chaos. In fact, my vote goes to the opposite pole of the extremity: meticulous efforts. I'm guessing the Riddler's going to be a very nice inclusion into Nolan's Gotham, and yes, there will and should be multiple villains, perhaps some whose backstory, as this article says, would be sidestepped, but not too much. X-Men and The Dark Knight are perfect balances, Batman Begins too. We had multiple threats, but the reason those films worked are not the same. Batman Begins worked because each villain had an act for themselves. Chinese Ra's Al Ghul and flashback-Falcone had act I, while Scarecrow and Falcone had act II, and finally the real Ra's had act III. AND, Batman Begins was about the protagonist and his rise in Gotham, so the backstory of his foes were tactfully obscured. Like this article says, it's the use of existentialism that made the bad guys believable and compelling: they exist, they simple do and it does not matter how they came to be. But for someone like, say, Two-Face, that would not have been the best use of his character. For Catwoman, I would definitely agree that her backstory is not as important as her current state, but for someone like Bane who has meant to break the Bat, we need these precious screen time to ESTABLISH character. It may not be the origin story, but it should give them a reason for their lunacy. Now both Ra's and the Joker has come to explain the reasons behind their actions though dialogue and speech; that's the sort of thing we should focus in on. The idea for brief cameos are perfect; like when Zsasz appeared in Batman Begins, and even Scarecrow on Dark Knight, but the scene described here is too much in sync with the chaotic theme in The Dark Knight; lets not forget that the streets of Gotham erupting into mass chaos with the criminally deranged is something we should expect in an adaptation of Knightfall: and although I'm a big fan of Bane, I just don't want to see him facing Christian Bale just yet... lets tackle some more of these more notorious bad guys; those comical mishaps that big brother Eric teased us with when we got their action figures; yes i'm talking about the lunatics such as the Riddler and Mr. Freeze; or even Talia, and since i'm a big comic-buff as well, why shouldn't we keep things in perspective seeing as how that indeed is the meat and potatoes of the Nolan-franchise: why shouldn't we follow Year One and Long Halloween into Dark Victory? There's a rumor going around the Super Hero Hype boards that Sony is thinking about making a Venom-spinoff film for the Spiderman franchise. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the webhead and only enjoyed the first movie, but the last thing the studio needs now is to promote a film based on an awesome character which was handled wrongly in the live-action adaptation; the last thing we need is a villain film from a flopped villain (movie-wise). On the other hand, the Spidey franchise can be amped up with a Sinister-Six esque tale. And that is the sort of thing this article suggests; then it would be fitting: streets in chaos and the such. But not with the next Bat-flick. We could stick to two major villains and stop there, there would be CRIMINALS, sure, and cameos yes, but not ANTAGONISTS. The Multiple Villain Syndrome is risky business, and the Brothers Nolan have successfully tackled the case with two of their adaptations. I suppose I'm really not making much of a point here, just repeating the known things, but one thing still stings my gut: the next Bat-film isn't going to be about chaos, not a world without rules, that was the Joker's schizophrenic mass-murdering ways, the next rogue would pose somethign even more terrifying... and I have yet to think of a better way to top that which is arguably the best superhero movie to date; What do you do after everything is done? Can the Brothers Nolan top themselves without two of Batman's greatest foes in the third round? Given there is one... now there's a riddle for ya. Hmm, interesting theory. But I would say that the Multiple Villain Syndrome is not a very good idea (hear me out first) when you are talking about random killings and mass chaos. In fact, no two Nolan film is alike. So I’d say that in terms of pace and storytelling, the Nolan-Brothers would focus on something different next time; Batman Begins was all about a traditional, if i daresay epic format with 3 acts gradually increasing into the climax, while Memento (another Nolan masterpiece) followed something completely unconventional in Hollywood: a format that ran backwards. So in my observation, I’d say that the third Batman film will indeed have more villains, that’s not a doubt, but it won’t necessarily focus on extreme chaos. In fact, my vote goes to the opposite pole of the extremity: meticulous efforts. I’m guessing the Riddler’s going to be a very nice inclusion into Nolan’s Gotham, and yes, there will and should be multiple villains, perhaps some whose backstory, as this article says, would be sidestepped, but not too much. X-Men and The Dark Knight are perfect balances, Batman Begins too. We had multiple threats, but the reason those films worked are not the same. Batman Begins worked because each villain had an act for themselves. Chinese Ra’s Al Ghul and flashback-Falcone had act I, while Scarecrow and Falcone had act II, and finally the real Ra’s had act III. AND, Batman Begins was about the protagonist and his rise in Gotham, so the backstory of his foes were tactfully obscured. Like this article says, it’s the use of existentialism that made the bad guys believable and compelling: they exist, they simple do and it does not matter how they came to be. But for someone like, say, Two-Face, that would not have been the best use of his character. For Catwoman, I would definitely agree that her backstory is not as important as her current state, but for someone like Bane who has meant to break the Bat, we need these precious screen time to ESTABLISH character. It may not be the origin story, but it should give them a reason for their lunacy. Now both Ra’s and the Joker has come to explain the reasons behind their actions though dialogue and speech; that’s the sort of thing we should focus in on.

The idea for brief cameos are perfect; like when Zsasz appeared in Batman Begins, and even Scarecrow on Dark Knight, but the scene described here is too much in sync with the chaotic theme in The Dark Knight; lets not forget that the streets of Gotham erupting into mass chaos with the criminally deranged is something we should expect in an adaptation of Knightfall: and although I’m a big fan of Bane, I just don’t want to see him facing Christian Bale just yet… lets tackle some more of these more notorious bad guys; those comical mishaps that big brother Eric teased us with when we got their action figures; yes i’m talking about the lunatics such as the Riddler and Mr. Freeze; or even Talia, and since i’m a big comic-buff as well, why shouldn’t we keep things in perspective seeing as how that indeed is the meat and potatoes of the Nolan-franchise: why shouldn’t we follow Year One and Long Halloween into Dark Victory?

There’s a rumor going around the Super Hero Hype boards that Sony is thinking about making a Venom-spinoff film for the Spiderman franchise. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the webhead and only enjoyed the first movie, but the last thing the studio needs now is to promote a film based on an awesome character which was handled wrongly in the live-action adaptation; the last thing we need is a villain film from a flopped villain (movie-wise). On the other hand, the Spidey franchise can be amped up with a Sinister-Six esque tale. And that is the sort of thing this article suggests; then it would be fitting: streets in chaos and the such. But not with the next Bat-flick. We could stick to two major villains and stop there, there would be CRIMINALS, sure, and cameos yes, but not ANTAGONISTS. The Multiple Villain Syndrome is risky business, and the Brothers Nolan have successfully tackled the case with two of their adaptations. I suppose I’m really not making much of a point here, just repeating the known things, but one thing still stings my gut: the next Bat-film isn’t going to be about chaos, not a world without rules, that was the Joker’s schizophrenic mass-murdering ways, the next rogue would pose somethign even more terrifying… and I have yet to think of a better way to top that which is arguably the best superhero movie to date; What do you do after everything is done? Can the Brothers Nolan top themselves without two of Batman’s greatest foes in the third round? Given there is one… now there’s a riddle for ya.

]]> By: T O R M E N T http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197127 T O R M E N T Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:08:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197127 Hmm, interesting theory. But I would say that the Multiple Villain Syndrome is not a very good idea (hear me out first) when you are talking about random killings and mass chaos. In fact, no two Nolan film is alike. So I'd say that in terms of pace and storytelling, the Nolan-Brothers would focus on something different next time; Batman Begins was all about a traditional, if i daresay epic format with 3 acts gradually increasing into the climax, while Memento (another Nolan masterpiece) followed something completely unconventional in Hollywood: a format that ran backwards. So in my observation, I'd say that the third Batman film will indeed have more villains, that's not a doubt, but it won't necessarily focus on extreme chaos. In fact, my vote goes to the opposite pole of the extremity: meticulous efforts. I'm guessing the Riddler's going to be a very nice inclusion into Nolan's Gotham, and yes, there will and should be multiple villains, perhaps some whose backstory, as this article says, would be sidestepped, but not too much. X-Men and The Dark Knight are perfect balances, Batman Begins too. We had multiple threats, but the reason those films worked are not the same. Batman Begins worked because each villain had an act for themselves. Chinese Ra's Al Ghul and flashback-Falcone had act I, while Scarecrow and Falcone had act II, and finally the real Ra's had act III. AND, Batman Begins was about the protagonist and his rise in Gotham, so the backstory of his foes were tactfully obscured. Like this article says, it's the use of existentialism that made the bad guys believable and compelling: they exist, they simple do and it does not matter how they came to be. But for someone like, say, Two-Face, that would not have been the best use of his character. For Catwoman, I would definitely agree that her backstory is not as important as her current state, but for someone like Bane who has meant to break the Bat, we need these precious screen time to ESTABLISH character. It may not be the origin story, but it should give them a reason for their lunacy. Now both Ra's and the Joker has come to explain the reasons behind their actions though dialogue and speech; that's the sort of thing we should focus in on. The idea for brief cameos are perfect; like when Zsasz appeared in Batman Begins, and even Scarecrow on Dark Knight, but the scene described here is too much in sync with the chaotic theme in The Dark Knight; lets not forget that the streets of Gotham erupting into mass chaos with the criminally deranged is something we should expect in an adaptation of Knightfall: and although I'm a big fan of Bane, I just don't want to see him facing Christian Bale just yet... lets tackle some more of these more notorious bad guys; those comical mishaps that big brother Eric teased us with when we got their action figures; yes i'm talking about the lunatics such as the Riddler and Mr. Freeze; or even Talia, and since i'm a big comic-buff as well, why shouldn't we keep things in perspective seeing as how that indeed is the meat and potatoes of the Nolan-franchise: why shouldn't we follow Year One and Long Halloween into Dark Victory? There's a rumor going around the Super Hero Hype boards that Sony is thinking about making a Venom-spinoff film for the Spiderman franchise. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the webhead and only enjoyed the first movie, but the last thing the studio needs now is to promote a film based on an awesome character which was handled wrongly in the live-action adaptation; the last thing we need is a villain film from a flopped villain (movie-wise). On the other hand, the Spidey franchise can be amped up with a Sinister-Six esque tale. And that is the sort of thing this article suggests; then it would be fitting: streets in chaos and the such. But not with the next Bat-flick. We could stick to two major villains and stop there, there would be CRIMINALS, sure, and cameos yes, but not ANTAGONISTS. The Multiple Villain Syndrome is risky business, and the Brothers Nolan have successfully tackled the case with two of their adaptations. I suppose I'm really not making much of a point here, just repeating the known things, but one thing still stings my gut: the next Bat-film isn't going to be about chaos, not a world without rules, that was the Joker's schizophrenic mass-murdering ways, the next rogue would pose somethign even more terrifying... and I have yet to think of a better way to top that which is arguably the best superhero movie to date; What do you do after everything is done? Can the Brothers Nolan top themselves without two of Batman's greatest foes in the third round? Given there is one... now there's a riddle for ya. Hmm, interesting theory. But I would say that the Multiple Villain Syndrome is not a very good idea (hear me out first) when you are talking about random killings and mass chaos. In fact, no two Nolan film is alike. So I’d say that in terms of pace and storytelling, the Nolan-Brothers would focus on something different next time; Batman Begins was all about a traditional, if i daresay epic format with 3 acts gradually increasing into the climax, while Memento (another Nolan masterpiece) followed something completely unconventional in Hollywood: a format that ran backwards. So in my observation, I’d say that the third Batman film will indeed have more villains, that’s not a doubt, but it won’t necessarily focus on extreme chaos. In fact, my vote goes to the opposite pole of the extremity: meticulous efforts. I’m guessing the Riddler’s going to be a very nice inclusion into Nolan’s Gotham, and yes, there will and should be multiple villains, perhaps some whose backstory, as this article says, would be sidestepped, but not too much. X-Men and The Dark Knight are perfect balances, Batman Begins too. We had multiple threats, but the reason those films worked are not the same. Batman Begins worked because each villain had an act for themselves. Chinese Ra’s Al Ghul and flashback-Falcone had act I, while Scarecrow and Falcone had act II, and finally the real Ra’s had act III. AND, Batman Begins was about the protagonist and his rise in Gotham, so the backstory of his foes were tactfully obscured. Like this article says, it’s the use of existentialism that made the bad guys believable and compelling: they exist, they simple do and it does not matter how they came to be. But for someone like, say, Two-Face, that would not have been the best use of his character. For Catwoman, I would definitely agree that her backstory is not as important as her current state, but for someone like Bane who has meant to break the Bat, we need these precious screen time to ESTABLISH character. It may not be the origin story, but it should give them a reason for their lunacy. Now both Ra’s and the Joker has come to explain the reasons behind their actions though dialogue and speech; that’s the sort of thing we should focus in on.

The idea for brief cameos are perfect; like when Zsasz appeared in Batman Begins, and even Scarecrow on Dark Knight, but the scene described here is too much in sync with the chaotic theme in The Dark Knight; lets not forget that the streets of Gotham erupting into mass chaos with the criminally deranged is something we should expect in an adaptation of Knightfall: and although I’m a big fan of Bane, I just don’t want to see him facing Christian Bale just yet… lets tackle some more of these more notorious bad guys; those comical mishaps that big brother Eric teased us with when we got their action figures; yes i’m talking about the lunatics such as the Riddler and Mr. Freeze; or even Talia, and since i’m a big comic-buff as well, why shouldn’t we keep things in perspective seeing as how that indeed is the meat and potatoes of the Nolan-franchise: why shouldn’t we follow Year One and Long Halloween into Dark Victory?

There’s a rumor going around the Super Hero Hype boards that Sony is thinking about making a Venom-spinoff film for the Spiderman franchise. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the webhead and only enjoyed the first movie, but the last thing the studio needs now is to promote a film based on an awesome character which was handled wrongly in the live-action adaptation; the last thing we need is a villain film from a flopped villain (movie-wise). On the other hand, the Spidey franchise can be amped up with a Sinister-Six esque tale. And that is the sort of thing this article suggests; then it would be fitting: streets in chaos and the such. But not with the next Bat-flick. We could stick to two major villains and stop there, there would be CRIMINALS, sure, and cameos yes, but not ANTAGONISTS. The Multiple Villain Syndrome is risky business, and the Brothers Nolan have successfully tackled the case with two of their adaptations. I suppose I’m really not making much of a point here, just repeating the known things, but one thing still stings my gut: the next Bat-film isn’t going to be about chaos, not a world without rules, that was the Joker’s schizophrenic mass-murdering ways, the next rogue would pose somethign even more terrifying… and I have yet to think of a better way to top that which is arguably the best superhero movie to date; What do you do after everything is done? Can the Brothers Nolan top themselves without two of Batman’s greatest foes in the third round? Given there is one… now there’s a riddle for ya.

]]> By: Zilla http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-103348 Zilla Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:33:52 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-103348 If the villains are well-developed and given ample screen-time, then I don't feel it detracts from the experience. Plus, sometimes it's necessary for villains to work together. One has to be the brains and one the muscle, right? http://oddsight.blogspot.com If the villains are well-developed and given ample screen-time, then I don’t feel it detracts from the experience. Plus, sometimes it’s necessary for villains to work together. One has to be the brains and one the muscle, right?

http://oddsight.blogspot.com

]]> By: Zilla http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197126 Zilla Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:33:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197126 If the villains are well-developed and given ample screen-time, then I don't feel it detracts from the experience. Plus, sometimes it's necessary for villains to work together. One has to be the brains and one the muscle, right? http://oddsight.blogspot.com If the villains are well-developed and given ample screen-time, then I don’t feel it detracts from the experience. Plus, sometimes it’s necessary for villains to work together. One has to be the brains and one the muscle, right?

http://oddsight.blogspot.com

]]> By: Nevernude http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-102082 Nevernude Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:32:58 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-102082 Anton Chigurgh from No Country For Old Men... Anton Chigurgh from No Country For Old Men…

]]> By: Nevernude http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197125 Nevernude Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:32:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197125 Anton Chigurgh from No Country For Old Men... Anton Chigurgh from No Country For Old Men…

]]> By: Auriette http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-102080 Auriette Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:29:22 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-102080 Multiple villains isn't even a trend, it's just become standard. I suppose in this age of ADD, we really don't need plot to sell tickets, but it would be nice to see a film that actually has a good story and that might be a respected and remembered film 20 years from now. Multiple villains isn’t even a trend, it’s just become standard. I suppose in this age of ADD, we really don’t need plot to sell tickets, but it would be nice to see a film that actually has a good story and that might be a respected and remembered film 20 years from now.

]]> By: Auriette http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197124 Auriette Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:29:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197124 Multiple villains isn't even a trend, it's just become standard. I suppose in this age of ADD, we really don't need plot to sell tickets, but it would be nice to see a film that actually has a good story and that might be a respected and remembered film 20 years from now. Multiple villains isn’t even a trend, it’s just become standard. I suppose in this age of ADD, we really don’t need plot to sell tickets, but it would be nice to see a film that actually has a good story and that might be a respected and remembered film 20 years from now.

]]> By: Cole Abaius http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-102057 Cole Abaius Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:54:03 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-102057 It's not even a matter of appeasing fanboys and the general audience. Modern audiences are savvy enough to understand when a character is 1)Bad and 2) Insane. Now, a character like Crazy Quilt may need further explanation...but other than that, most Batman villains are solid. It’s not even a matter of appeasing fanboys and the general audience. Modern audiences are savvy enough to understand when a character is 1)Bad and 2) Insane. Now, a character like Crazy Quilt may need further explanation…but other than that, most Batman villains are solid.

]]> By: Cole Abaius http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197123 Cole Abaius Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:54:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197123 It's not even a matter of appeasing fanboys and the general audience. Modern audiences are savvy enough to understand when a character is 1)Bad and 2) Insane. Now, a character like Crazy Quilt may need further explanation...but other than that, most Batman villains are solid. It’s not even a matter of appeasing fanboys and the general audience. Modern audiences are savvy enough to understand when a character is 1)Bad and 2) Insane. Now, a character like Crazy Quilt may need further explanation…but other than that, most Batman villains are solid.

]]> By: Nevernude http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-101977 Nevernude Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:40:46 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-101977 wow, i never realised that but you are..totally right man. I suppose adapting comic books to movie is in itself a bit of a curse and a blessing. Blessing because all the source material is like right there waiting to be captured and translated..its like a ready made script with a ready made audience waiting in the wings, quite why hollywood has been very coy and lazy about comic books in the past is beyond me. But its also a curse: all the "fanboys" may have different opinions on how the comic should be translated, i know i do and most times that can be a hindrance. a fanboy needs no introduction characters but the normal moviegoing audience do! also, like this article says, most times directors feel obligated to a) make an origin movie b) probe into villians, and simplify their threat by explaining where they come from. For me, a comic book translated from comic to screen is just..pure heaven. 300 and watchmen are exactly what i want! anyway, great article. was this some sort of epiphany for you Cole? sure is for moi wow, i never realised that but you are..totally right man. I suppose adapting comic books to movie is in itself a bit of a curse and a blessing. Blessing because all the source material is like right there waiting to be captured and translated..its like a ready made script with a ready made audience waiting in the wings, quite why hollywood has been very coy and lazy about comic books in the past is beyond me. But its also a curse: all the “fanboys” may have different opinions on how the comic should be translated, i know i do and most times that can be a hindrance. a fanboy needs no introduction characters but the normal moviegoing audience do! also, like this article says, most times directors feel obligated to a) make an origin movie b) probe into villians, and simplify their threat by explaining where they come from.

For me, a comic book translated from comic to screen is just..pure heaven. 300 and watchmen are exactly what i want!

anyway, great article. was this some sort of epiphany for you Cole? sure is for moi

]]> By: Nevernude http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197122 Nevernude Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:40:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197122 wow, i never realised that but you are..totally right man. I suppose adapting comic books to movie is in itself a bit of a curse and a blessing. Blessing because all the source material is like right there waiting to be captured and translated..its like a ready made script with a ready made audience waiting in the wings, quite why hollywood has been very coy and lazy about comic books in the past is beyond me. But its also a curse: all the "fanboys" may have different opinions on how the comic should be translated, i know i do and most times that can be a hindrance. a fanboy needs no introduction characters but the normal moviegoing audience do! also, like this article says, most times directors feel obligated to a) make an origin movie b) probe into villians, and simplify their threat by explaining where they come from. For me, a comic book translated from comic to screen is just..pure heaven. 300 and watchmen are exactly what i want! anyway, great article. was this some sort of epiphany for you Cole? sure is for moi wow, i never realised that but you are..totally right man. I suppose adapting comic books to movie is in itself a bit of a curse and a blessing. Blessing because all the source material is like right there waiting to be captured and translated..its like a ready made script with a ready made audience waiting in the wings, quite why hollywood has been very coy and lazy about comic books in the past is beyond me. But its also a curse: all the “fanboys” may have different opinions on how the comic should be translated, i know i do and most times that can be a hindrance. a fanboy needs no introduction characters but the normal moviegoing audience do! also, like this article says, most times directors feel obligated to a) make an origin movie b) probe into villians, and simplify their threat by explaining where they come from.

For me, a comic book translated from comic to screen is just..pure heaven. 300 and watchmen are exactly what i want!

anyway, great article. was this some sort of epiphany for you Cole? sure is for moi

]]> By: john truth http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-101956 john truth Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:57:46 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-101956 Cole, you are a punk. I was thinking about your mother in the wee hours last night. Cole, you are a punk. I was thinking about your mother in the wee hours last night.

]]> By: john truth http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197121 john truth Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:57:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197121 Cole, you are a punk. I was thinking about your mother in the wee hours last night. Cole, you are a punk. I was thinking about your mother in the wee hours last night.

]]> By: Batman Villains http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-101929 Batman Villains Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:12:15 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-101929 When it comes to villains, Christopher Nolan is the man ... :) He should have more DC comic based movies on his hand ....... When it comes to villains, Christopher Nolan is the man … :) He should have more DC comic based movies on his hand …….

]]> By: Batman Villains http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-197120 Batman Villains Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:12:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-197120 When it comes to villains, Christopher Nolan is the man ... :) He should have more DC comic based movies on his hand ....... When it comes to villains, Christopher Nolan is the man … :) He should have more DC comic based movies on his hand …….

]]> By: Adam Sweeney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/why-were-all-wrong-about-multiple-villains-in-films.php/comment-page-1#comment-101886 Adam Sweeney Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:10:44 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=8426#comment-101886 Kevin, I agree with your opinion. What was even more fascinating is how the mystery of the Joker's origin allowed him to play with his victims. His first attack/story with Gamble's character had me cringing (in a good way). But then we find out he makes these stories up just to terrify those he kills. Perfect. Also, the lack of an origin story makes us less sympathetic to the character, which in the Dark Knight's version of the Joker is just what we need. The Joker and the other villains don't want sympathy. They want chaos. Kevin, I agree with your opinion. What was even more fascinating is how the mystery of the Joker’s origin allowed him to play with his victims. His first attack/story with Gamble’s character had me cringing (in a good way). But then we find out he makes these stories up just to terrify those he kills. Perfect.

Also, the lack of an origin story makes us less sympathetic to the character, which in the Dark Knight’s version of the Joker is just what we need. The Joker and the other villains don’t want sympathy. They want chaos.

]]>