Well like I stated it's like Megamind in a way. Zuko had good in him still so there is a high chance of redemption. But villains like Shredder.....that would make zero sense. Also from what I remember from TMNT 2003 Baxter and Bishop had redemption arc....well mostly Bishop it even had a flashback and the turtles didn't exactly trust him. In the future Bishop became president which is interesting. And we had Hun switching sides and getting killed in the episode that had a future where Casey and Splinter was dead and their Donatello disappeared, Leo was killed by Karai so was Raph, And Mikey was also killed by giant Karai bots. Oh and April killed Karai. I believe that particular episode is called "Same as it never was" and it was dark. 🤔
The most excellent redemptive villain in my eyes is Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender, while Ozai fits that Real Evil ticket. And a couple of the villains from Korra make good relatable villains, like Kuvira.
I know all these villains and that they're different but it's nice to have a voice with the idea because it's not as easy to figure out why they're so varriedly effective.
A thing I should say, not every villain should have a reason that "made" them evil. Plenty of sadistic or psychotic people in real life had relatively normal upbringings too. Everybody is different and that should show in the backstories of multiple villains in the same world
Exactly! That's why I say that sometimes including back stories for "Real Evil" villains can be fruitless. Some villains are just evil for no reason 🤷♀️
Very timely. The concept of writing villains without it being cringe or icky has been boring into my mind the last few months. Sometimes there are people in my books who are flat out bad/evil. I don't want to dig into their brain and dwell on the abyss inside. It feels like justifying or validating them some how, even though they don't exist. I want to be as emotionally and literally detached from them as possible. Redemptive and Relatable though, I hear ya there. Ghost Rider, Spawn, Hellboy, Venom and most of all Punisher are all favorite characters of mine. Those are like Redeemable, then Relatable would be like Magneto.
I like the breakdown of villains: 1) Redemptive, 2) Relatable, 3) Real Evil. This is helping me as I write my fantasy series. I have 3 villains that I can see as filling these roles, and this framework helps to think about it. My first villain is redemptive, similar to Vadar, he sacrifices himself for his granddaughter. My second villain(s) are real evil, mortals caught in an eternity so long their minds eroded, filled only with their desire to maintain power. And my third villain an immortal who has seen so much of mortal life and pain and malice and pointless suffering that he is relatable. He's jaded, pessimistic, logical, yet compassionate in his own way. He's my attempt to show how long it can take to learn some lessons so that many people never do. And he won't return until the distant sequels ;)
Can you find an example of a chaotic-evil villain backstory done really well? I hear you on why leaving much of it a mystery can be good, but I'm curious about the counterpoint. Great video!
@@darkprinceofdorne It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create... life. He had such a knowledge of the Dark Side, he could even keep the ones he cared about...from dying.
That's fair, and I don't think I hit this hard enough in this video (it was one of my first few video essays lol). My main point is that it's a spectrum. I think if you spend time giving a chaotic villain a backstory, it usually serves to show the audience how someone can become so evil, which pushes them towards the relatable end of the spectrum. Like you said, that shouldn't excuse their actions. Rather, it should give them depth. But if you spend a lot of time giving a chaotic villain backstory and it doesn't recontextualize them in some way, it can often feel like a waste of time. Like with Michael Myers, the backstory they added didn't change how I feel about his character. If anything, it stole some of his ultra evil mystique for me (which I guess is a recontextualization but in the wrong direction). Not to say chaotic evil backstories can't serve some purpose other than making them relatable. They can give context to other aspects of the story or build the world and create a sense of emersion. The key is it should accomplish something or else there's not much reason to include it.
@@AroundTheCampfire in the battle between kirk and parcard and TNG vs TOS, the correct answers are Sisko and DS9. Here's one of my favorite scenes in the entire series and it gives nothing away except the masterful and creative writing of the show ua-cam.com/video/cl66ilQCCNs/v-deo.html
The reason true-evil villains work is that it is immensely satisfying when they get their comeuppance. Readers and viewers truly learn to hate them. They work at the emotional level.
The villain must always be a level ABOVE the hero regardless of their origin. The underdog hero overcoming the big bad wolf lifts us all up with HOPE. David slew GOLIATH. Hitler not got one second thought what he was doing was evil. When I realized that, that's when my screeneriting impress dramatically. I used to work the villain based on the hero, now I do it the opposite way. "Racers Edge" "Stunt X" "Roswell, the Beginning" "Dead Presidents 2" * *work in progress facebook.com/roswellthebeginning
Maybe it's where I grew up in Darfur. But your relatable villain arguments fall utterly flat to me. They're evil to the core, there are no justifications for their actions, and I feel zero sympathy for them at all. But that's just me.
![On Writing: Villains [ Zuko l Joker l Watchmen l Vikings l Game of Thrones l Javert ]](/img/n.gif)
Best Redemptive Villian is Zuko!
Agreed. 100%
You are 100% correct. Zuko is S tier Redemptive villain!
I would argue he was an antagonist, not a villain.
Well like I stated it's like Megamind in a way. Zuko had good in him still so there is a high chance of redemption. But villains like Shredder.....that would make zero sense. Also from what I remember from TMNT 2003 Baxter and Bishop had redemption arc....well mostly Bishop it even had a flashback and the turtles didn't exactly trust him. In the future Bishop became president which is interesting. And we had Hun switching sides and getting killed in the episode that had a future where Casey and Splinter was dead and their Donatello disappeared, Leo was killed by Karai so was Raph, And Mikey was also killed by giant Karai bots. Oh and April killed Karai. I believe that particular episode is called "Same as it never was" and it was dark. 🤔
"He ordered the murder of two unnamed children....but he protect Bran. That's what matters." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Hilarious!!!!
The most excellent redemptive villain in my eyes is Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender, while Ozai fits that Real Evil ticket. And a couple of the villains from Korra make good relatable villains, like Kuvira.
Hard agree on Zuko! In his first episode, Jet could be considered a relatable villain as well 🙂
I know all these villains and that they're different but it's nice to have a voice with the idea because it's not as easy to figure out why they're so varriedly effective.
brb spending the rest of the day figuring out where bat-man-the-man-with-the-bat falls on the villain grid
unrelenting chaotic evil
A thing I should say, not every villain should have a reason that "made" them evil. Plenty of sadistic or psychotic people in real life had relatively normal upbringings too. Everybody is different and that should show in the backstories of multiple villains in the same world
Exactly! That's why I say that sometimes including back stories for "Real Evil" villains can be fruitless. Some villains are just evil for no reason 🤷♀️
Thank you very nice video. Considering adding a villain now to the novel I am writing
Very timely. The concept of writing villains without it being cringe or icky has been boring into my mind the last few months.
Sometimes there are people in my books who are flat out bad/evil. I don't want to dig into their brain and dwell on the abyss inside. It feels like justifying or validating them some how, even though they don't exist. I want to be as emotionally and literally detached from them as possible. Redemptive and Relatable though, I hear ya there. Ghost Rider, Spawn, Hellboy, Venom and most of all Punisher are all favorite characters of mine. Those are like Redeemable, then Relatable would be like Magneto.
Magneto is a great Relatable Villain 👌
I like the breakdown of villains: 1) Redemptive, 2) Relatable, 3) Real Evil. This is helping me as I write my fantasy series. I have 3 villains that I can see as filling these roles, and this framework helps to think about it. My first villain is redemptive, similar to Vadar, he sacrifices himself for his granddaughter. My second villain(s) are real evil, mortals caught in an eternity so long their minds eroded, filled only with their desire to maintain power. And my third villain an immortal who has seen so much of mortal life and pain and malice and pointless suffering that he is relatable. He's jaded, pessimistic, logical, yet compassionate in his own way. He's my attempt to show how long it can take to learn some lessons so that many people never do.
And he won't return until the distant sequels ;)
Notification squad is the true villain for being asleep.
Can you find an example of a chaotic-evil villain backstory done really well? I hear you on why leaving much of it a mystery can be good, but I'm curious about the counterpoint. Great video!
Hi, Thanks a lot for the video. Actually been waiting for this one.
Thanks! Glad you liked it 😊
Good, gooooood
Let the hate flow through you
"Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?"
Campfire Technology "No"
Campfire Technology "It’s a Sith legend?"
@@darkprinceofdorne It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create... life. He had such a knowledge of the Dark Side, he could even keep the ones he cared about...from dying.
Good stuff
Thanks!
I think it's ok to give chaotic evil a backstory...just make it so that it doesnt justify what they do
That's fair, and I don't think I hit this hard enough in this video (it was one of my first few video essays lol). My main point is that it's a spectrum. I think if you spend time giving a chaotic villain a backstory, it usually serves to show the audience how someone can become so evil, which pushes them towards the relatable end of the spectrum. Like you said, that shouldn't excuse their actions. Rather, it should give them depth.
But if you spend a lot of time giving a chaotic villain backstory and it doesn't recontextualize them in some way, it can often feel like a waste of time. Like with Michael Myers, the backstory they added didn't change how I feel about his character. If anything, it stole some of his ultra evil mystique for me (which I guess is a recontextualization but in the wrong direction).
Not to say chaotic evil backstories can't serve some purpose other than making them relatable. They can give context to other aspects of the story or build the world and create a sense of emersion. The key is it should accomplish something or else there's not much reason to include it.
I'd love your thoughts on the villain from Star Trek DS9 - Gul Dukat.
Sadly haven't watched DS9!
Ah, Dukat. The villain we all love to hate. I feel he got a mini-redemption?????? It's been a while since I watched DS9.
@@AroundTheCampfire in the battle between kirk and parcard and TNG vs TOS, the correct answers are Sisko and DS9. Here's one of my favorite scenes in the entire series and it gives nothing away except the masterful and creative writing of the show ua-cam.com/video/cl66ilQCCNs/v-deo.html
The reason true-evil villains work is that it is immensely satisfying when they get their comeuppance. Readers and viewers truly learn to hate them. They work at the emotional level.
Very true. There is no greater delight than watching the big chaotic evil baddie get RANCHED
The villain must always be a level ABOVE the hero regardless of their origin.
The underdog hero overcoming the big bad wolf lifts us all up with HOPE.
David slew GOLIATH.
Hitler not got one second thought what he was doing was evil.
When I realized that, that's when my screeneriting impress dramatically. I used to work the villain based on the hero, now I do it the opposite way.
"Racers Edge"
"Stunt X"
"Roswell, the Beginning"
"Dead Presidents 2" * *work in progress
facebook.com/roswellthebeginning
This is a great point. The villain being a step above requires the hero to change and grow!
What is the move with death knocking on the guys door?
Maybe it's where I grew up in Darfur. But your relatable villain arguments fall utterly flat to me. They're evil to the core, there are no justifications for their actions, and I feel zero sympathy for them at all. But that's just me.
No one likes Snape oof
@Mihael Keehl He wasn't a hero. The closest he was, was an anti-hero.