Marvel's Villains Suck. So What?

Thirteen movies deep into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and one of the biggest problems with the franchise has yet to be fixed: the villains of the pictures tend to fall flat.  The consensus seems to be that the only foe with any heft is Loki, the malevolent God of Mischief and adopted brother to Thor, who is ironically the star of the weakest link in the chain.  The Captain America series, under the hand of the Russo Brothers, had proven to be the strongest link but has far weaker villains.  Alexander Pierce, the antagonist of the near-perfect film Captain America: Winter Soldier, was really only interesting because he was played by Robert Redford, who admittedly played the hell out of the role. The Russos barely even tried to make Helmut Zemo, the puppet-master of Captain America: Civil War, interesting.  He would have just been a distraction from the battle between heroes any which way.   Everyone else in between falls just as flat.  From the backstabbing Obadiah Stane in Iron Man to Thunderbolt Ross and his army in The Incredible Hulk to the charismatic but toothless Justin Hammer and the monosyllabic Ivan Vanko  in Iron Man 2 to the heavily war-painted extraterrestrial Ronan in Guardians of the Galaxy.  They're all little more than a speed bump for the hero to drive over.  Especially Ronan.  My question is "why does anyone give a shit?"

People like to say that the villain makes the movie but that's not written in stone, it's just something people say.  Albeit there is a precedent.  Many of the best superhero movies have the best villains: Magneto in X-Men, Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2, General Zod in Superman II, and of course the never duplicated but far too often imitated Joker as played by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight.  Then there's the worst of the worst: Venom in Spider-Man 3, a cloud called Galactus in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and of course the entirely forgotten Lenny Luthor as played by Jon Cryer in Superman IV.  So perhaps there is a case to be made that historically a good villain is needed to make a good superhero movie, however Marvel has proven over and over again that they are not beholden to any of the old ways of film making.

Marvel loves to break the rules.  Nine years ago Iron Man was a B-list superhero, A-minus at best.  Then Robert Downey Jr. nailed the role so hard Marvel thought they could build a previously unheard of cinematic universe on that foundation and they were right.  Marvel called their shot with a few seconds of Nick Fury after everyone had already left the theater then in 2012 they knocked it out of the park.  Before Guardians of the Galaxy the world assumed that James Gunn's greatest talking animal movie would always be Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed.  Not long ago the idea of a movie about a shrinking superhero was laughable but it turns out Paul Rudd backed by some of the best comedy writers in the business proved far funnier.

Marvel's ability to make fantastic films without what has always been considered a necessity of the genre is simply another testament to their dedication to playing by their own rules.  As long as Paul Rudd is capable of quipping his way out of a paper bag maybe Corey Stoll doesn't need to be there at all.  (That's not just a turn of phrase.  With Ant-Man's powers I really think you could get a whole act out of just Paul Rudd being trapped in a sack lunch.)  As fantastic as Robert Redford is, no one went to the theater in 2014 for the Sundance Kid.  They were there for patriotic kickboxing and homoeroticism.  Did I mention that Winter Soldier is a great movie?  So, I just don't care if Marvel's villains are good or bad as long as the movies are great, although I would love to see them make an entire movie starring villains like DC's upcoming Suicide Squad just to say "you wanted villains, you got 'em, any more complaints?"