Was completely wasted in Doctor Strange.
-
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 10:29 AM)
Get over yourself. The era where the villain is the star of the show and the heroes do nothing but react to them is finally being challenged.
Civil War disagrees with you. The entire premise of that movie revolves around manipulations of one villain who turns heroes against each other 5b4because they're too stupid to see the elephant in the room. -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 12:49 PM)
Civil War keeps the villain from being the star of the show while still being important.
Zemo did stole the show. His role took bigger chunk of the movie that couldve been used to explore some of the heroes better (since I still dont know why Ant-Man joined the battle). Zemo basically made all heroes look like spineless, inept idiots who cant make self-conscious decision unless someone forces them. In short, its fair to say that Zemo was smarter and stronger than the heroes, but not because hes strong as villain. He outmatched them because the heroes themselves were weak and easy to manipulate. This movie portrays heroes very poorly, since it doesnt try to give them self-conscious decisions. So I guess you want heroes to act like spineless idiots who can be tricked by any disposable villain with weak motivation. I certainly want my heroes to be above that.
Which you just ca2000n't stand.
I can't stand hypocrites who at first say that the hate when movies have villains with significant presence in the movie, but then go and defend someone like Zemo in Civil War. -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 10:26 AM)
So in other words, you'd have been unsatisfied unless the villain was the star of the show because there's no other way the actor can spread their wings.
I think my original post illustrates my main dissatisfaction. I don't like that such a good actor was wasted in such a mediocre role.
And you still can't stand the notion of the villain not being the main character with the hero being a secondary.
Are you just spreading out this nonsense for the sake of it because you don't know how to give reasonable arguments, or are you just trolling? I said that I dislike the villain in the movie because the actor which played him was too talented to be wasted in such an awful role. The villain himself - despite being lame - is not the main problem. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 05:30 PM)
I think my original post illustrates my main dissatisfaction.
That Mads should've overshadowed every other actor.
Are you just spreading out this nonsense for the sake of it because you don't know how to give reasonable arguments, or are you just trolling? I said that I dislike the villain in the movie because the actor which played him was too talented to be wasted in such an awful role. The villain himself - despite being lame - is not the main problem.
And if they'd gone with the bankrupt notion of Kaecilius being the star of the movie with Strange doing nothing, you wouldn't be complaining because apparently it's okay when the Protagonist is the one who isn't the star. -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 01:34 PM)
That Mads should've overshadowed every other actor.
That Mads should've had the role that is more situated for his talent, instead of being shamefully wasted in a role that could've been played even by an extra - and there wouldn't be any difference.
And if they'd gone with the bankrupt notion of Kaecilius being the star of the movie with Strange doing nothing, you wouldn't be complaining because apparently it's okay when the Protagonist is the one who isn't the star.
If Kaecilus was still the same character, it wouldn't help. His character was another disposable villain with weak motivation and plastic personality. It would only make the movie worse if you'd make such a garbage character the main star of the movie. That's not to sat as if Strange is an amazing character, he's not. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 07:15 PM)
That Mads should've had the role that is more situated for his talent, instead of being shamefully wasted in a role that could've been played even by an extra
So his character should've been the star, every other actor be damned. Got it.
If Kaecilus was still the same character, it wouldn't help. His character was another disposable villain with weak motivation and plastic personality.
He had better motives than Nolan's Joker did. -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 07:44 AM)
So his character should've been the star, every other actor be damned. Got it.
His character should've been played by some mediocre actor with poor acting skills, since that's all what this character deserves. Madds is better than this garbage. As I said, it's not about the character, but more about the actor that was wasted by playing such an awful character.
He had better motives than Nolan's Joker did.
You mean him being dumb enough to believe that if he'll bring an ancient space demon into our reality, he'll have a better life? I wouldn't call blatant stupidity a better motivation. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 07:15 PM)
His character should've been played by some mediocre actor with poor acting skills, since that's all what this character deserves. Madds is better than this garbage. As I said, it's not about the character,
It is, it's all about how you wanted Kaecilius to be the star of the show.
You mean him believing that if he'll bring an ancient space demon into our reality, he'll have a better life?
Yes.