The Importance Of Having A Good Antagonist

The Importance Of Having A Good Antagonist

How important is having a good antagonist?

Editorial Opinion
By Thanos005 - May 05, 2012 10:05 PM EST
Filed Under: Other

This is probably a dumb article, because it seems pretty obvious, but it is for a purpose.

I will start off by saying it is VERY IMPORTANT.

Think back to a few years, what was the biggest dissapointment about Fantastic Four 2, A Reed Richards who dances and smiles at the camera? A bland, boring Jessica Alba? A pretty boy emo Victor Von Doom? A perfectly casted, yet comletely underutilized Michael Chiklas as the Thing? Odds are you disliked all of those (Even if you still enjoyed looking at Jessica Alba) But the biggest disappointment was most likely Galactus as a cloud.


This badass was depicted as dirt. Space dirt.

Need another exmple?


Nuff said.

Now, a great villain can also carry, or further bolster a good film. Case in point, Heath Ledger.


His performance was breath taking. He was the Joker. Now the Joker is a complicated fellow, while most have adopted The Killing Joke by Alan Moore as his canonical back story, he doesn't formally have one. This helps because there is no way to "betray the lore" so to speak. However, he is also such a well known and beloved character that at the slightest sign of a weak performance, all hell breaks loose, but still. Ledger delivered.



Another example, which also includes the Joker, is Mark Hammills performance in Batman: The Animated Series. His delivery as the Joker was incredible. His laugh alone is reason enough to love this characters portrayal. He changed it up for each one. His performance was so loved that he even came back in the recent games Batman Arkham City and Arkham Asylum. As well as the less than successful DC Online.

This is not news to anyone. But boredom on a Saturday night leads to rambling. And this was all to prove a point.



I think that a Green Lantern sequel would be much better movie than its predecessor because while it did have its problems, it also had very uninteresting, and frankly dumb villains. I am no Green Lantern fanatic, but even I know that they really messed up with Parallax. and Hector Hammond was pointless and cheesy at certain parts. No real threat from him. But that scene after the movie did get me excited. I know how good a villain Sinestro and the Sinestro Corps would be. Sinestro is easily Green Lanterns most popular villain. And jumping into him straight out of the gate would have been difficult. So if DC pursues a Green Lantern sequel, I think I would actually get excited, because I know it would have the potential for a great villain in Sinestro.

And it may be wishful thinking, but it wouldn't be impossible for WB to connect Superman with Green Lantern since Mongul is a member of the Sinestro Corps.
THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
Related:

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking

REAGAN Interview: Jon Voight On His Approach To Playing A KGB Agent And Pandemic Challenges (Exclusive)
Recommended For You:

REAGAN Interview: Jon Voight On His Approach To Playing A KGB Agent And Pandemic Challenges (Exclusive)

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Knightrider
Knightrider - 5/6/2012, 12:39 AM
Some interesting points. However I see your point about Mongul, but you could connect them by having the GL Corps deal with Brainic after he has destroyed Krypton, but before Hal's time as a Lantern, could set up an Easter Egg where Hal is going over the records and you get a glimpse of him or a case file around Krypton destruction.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 5/6/2012, 6:24 AM
You're absolutley right. A good villain is what defines our heroes. It is hard to think our heroes are truly badass when the villain they are fighting is totally uninteresting or weak. Like u said, galactus and doom may be the best examples of this.

Ive always said that a hero is only as good as the villain. Also, the villain is probably even more important than tbe heroes themselves. When you think about it, there would be no need for the hero if there were no villains causing trouble.

If you can't tell Ive always liked villains a lottle more than the heroes in comics. 90% of the time they tend to be the more interesting character. To me at least. :)

Good article, bud. This wasnt dumb at all.
BigK1337
BigK1337 - 5/6/2012, 12:55 PM
Well the article is dumb in the sense that it is restating how important villains are to a super hero movie; it just sound repetitive and anvilous.

However, your position isn't dumb at all since everybody knows that what makes a good hero is how menacing and intriguing the villain is. If the vIllain isn't great; than nobody will take the hero seriously once he/she overcome their foe.
View Recorder