Sometimes a complex and cool villains is somebody that just is evil because want do evil to others. But now all villains is also missunderstood victims, the objetive evil don't exist is just a social built and a view point. A villain is a Predator not a victim
It's because the writers don't see those villains' vices as vices, but instead as virtues, and revel in it themselves. What normal people see as narcissistic characters being driven by selfishness and greed, they see as strong and independent characters who liberate themselves from societal pressures.
@@gloriathomas3245 I don't know anything about Grimm, but I can speak to Spike a bit. In my view, Spike's choices changed, which means that his character changed. By the end of the series he was no longer acting as a villain. Whether or not a person can be redeemed from the things Spike did in the past is debatable, but you can't really say that by the end he was still behaving as a villain. Conversely, disney does this thing where the actions of the villain remain the same, but they want the audience to sympathize with them anyway.
This trend in media, especially in kids' stories, is going to make it more socially acceptable to be a villain. It will reduce the shame and guilt, and social stigma, and thus the internal inhibitions... and thus make it more common. "It's not his/her fault. *Society* made him/her that way."
@@realJoeMavro Because they're liberals and liberalism is a feminine-trait ideology. Also, women are subjective and tend to have more sympathy for the devil than men. Give women an emotional appeal for the bad guys, they'd go "awwww" and deep dives the rabbit hole.
@@realJoeMavro"Suppose? They play dirty with all of our past heroes and positive role models one after another for the last 10 years; they say things like, 'The good thing about Star Wars is that there is no good or evil' or 'Let the past die.' They create games with messages like, 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' to validate the end justifies the means. They make the villains the main characters and produce remakes of classic movies that turn villains into sympathetic figures to justify their actions. They also create books and shows (for example, Supernatural) portraying God and his values of love and forgiveness as evil, while presenting Satan and his selfish and cruel way of thinking as good. This man is not 'supposing'; he is stating an obvious truth. Hollywood and modern mainstream media in general are into moral relativism because they want to be successful, even if it means being immoral.
@@realJoeMavro Because they've been infiltrated by Neomarxists whose goal is to break down existing social structures, customs and values so we're left with nothing but to embrace their socialist utopia when they're done stripping us of everything we once were.
Remember why everyone loved Big Jack Horner from Puss in Boots 2? It's because he was an unrepentant, sadistic, bombastic, asshole, who got his just desserts in the end. And by God, audiences hadn't had some of that in a good while.
Yes he was unapologetically evil and it was awesome!! his character also had very funny lines too😂 I genuinely enjoyed John Maloney's performance of him!
Puss In Boots 2 had it all! The sympathetic redeemable villain, the pure evil villain for no reason and the unstoppable force of nature who's not evil yet is presented as an antagonist
There were 3 villains in that movie, unrepentant evil, force of nature and sympathetic villain. The least rememberable one was the sympathetic villain.
I as a Christian am deeply disgusted by what Hollywood has become. That’s like saying in WWII Hitler was a good guy. He was not. Or saying Carl Marx was a genius. He introduced a system that has killed a 150million people alone in the 20 century. Also did you know communism was founded by a satanist. Look it up. Anyway let’s just make villains villains. And make heroes heroes. If we want to make bad guys sympathetic how about we do it the way they did in Transformers one where we can clearly see “oh this is where they crossed the line.” I don’t sympathize with villains. I view them as “devils” unless in the original stories a character reveals that these enemies were actually were once friends. That is something I would want to see. I would want to see where the villain the crossed the line. Or where the friends became enemies. These are some of the questions I’d ask: Was it pride? Ego? Jealously? Selfishness? A sense of superiority or thinking they’re better than everyone else? misunderstanding? A crossing of the lines that the hero clearly stated “we don’t cross this line”. Greed ego or envy of the other? Or their willingness to push others aside so that they can win? Or different opinions on how to get the job done? A lack of mercy towards the “others”? Were they pushed to far or abused? Did the villain just outright go insane? Were they always evil, maybe the hero saw some good in them tried to redeem them but the villain enjoyed being evil? Were they dealt a bad hand and n life and instead of choosing the noble and honorable path they chose the “self destructive and I’ll burn down everyone and everything that stands in my way until I achieve my goals.” Did they get cast aside unjustly? What happened to them that turned them into this monster they are in the original movie. Something along those lines. The only thing I will never accept is represent something that is supposed to be the “devil or a demon or satanic figure that cannot be reasoned with or turned” as sympathetic as that is something that for me religiously cross the line. Also why can’t we have simple stories like Thomas the Tank Engine now and again? Why can’t we have simple stories that appeal universally to all. You can’t make a film for everyone but you can make a film for all people. Why can’t we go back to doing that. I don’t want everything to be a political statement. Or secretly “queer coded” I used to just want to be a guy whom tells simple stories that please both children and adults. However knowing how impossible that would be in Hollywood today I’ve given up on that dream and are focusing on other things that I am enjoying. Anyways I’m just some UA-cam commenter. What do I know. Have a great day. God bless all of you and with that see you all next time. Again God bless all of you, and have a great day. Jesus loves you all. I
modern wahmans have to justify their poor behaviors. Thus they use these already fleshed out villains, to justify their own poor real-life negative behaviors.
Better still--villains need to be a whetstone for the heroes before they're stricken down. The heroes can't just beat the villains, the heroes need to see in the villains their own imperfections and vices and course-correct themselves to become better versions, *lest they want to become the same as the villains.* Like how Melkor's existence serves as an enhancement to Eru's design, or how Mephistopheles in Faust is a "catfish" deployed by God to prevent humans from becoming complacent--the role of villains is always complementary to that of heroes.
I just re-watched Captain America The First Avenger and it struck me how great the message was about Cap being a good man by Dr. Ernstein. I miss just simple stories about just being a hero.
The last Marvel movie that tried to be its own thing. Every single other one abandoned any semblance of individual identity for the cool-toned, muted colored, and sleekly modernized visuals with quippy dialogue deflating the tension of every scene.
I find it utterly twisted that the same people who want to find the good in a character that wants to make a coat out of puppies also demonize anyone that disagrees with them. They don't want to find the good in everyone, they want societal forgiveness for being horrible people.
Thus admitting to all they're actually the bad buys. Strange they run all the equity, equality, inclusion, diversity, representation, anti-racism, anti-capitalism and feminist movements... Something the Bible warned us about what would happen?
They have these weird, seemingly contradictory beliefs (I know there's a term for it, but if I say it YT will delete my comment) that they're simultaneously on the moral highground, and that morality doesn't exist, and not only that, the very concept of morality is both reductionist and harmful and has to be erased from the collective consciousness.
The worst part: new generations are learning that being cruel, evil, kill, etc it is ok as long as you feel as victim, and it suppostly these actions have no consecuences, i just do not understand how still people out there taking what "stars" says as the best thing to do or think about social issues.
Exactly and it is so easy to succumb to, when there is so much rubbish served up as entertainment now, i.e. Woke content bias. More and more the basic premise that good is better than evil is now no longer the case. For the last 6000 years children have learnt this essential aspect that humans need to was done by 'story telling' verbally, reading, theatre and now TV and films A classic example of that is 'The Penguin' which in all ways is the best TV series around at the moment and is incredibly popular. But for me of my age that still has the concept of good and bad, I feel very guilty about enjoying it, when the leading part Oswald has certain sympathetic characteristics but never less he is a psychotic murder prepared to open up a man's stomach slowly with a knife to stop others learning the truth about him and then setting fire to his enemies a mother and her son, while smiling and making a smart comments.
It went from: "I can sympathize with this villain character, but I ultimately can't condone or agree with what they do." To "This absolute psycho is a poor misunderstood baby. It's the heroes that are evil!" There are so many fandoms I once enjoyed where people do this and it makes me want to drive my face through a sheet of drywall.
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people. I'm a fan of a book series called 'dork diaries' and the villain is a mean girl named MacKenzie Hollister. She is a cruel, sadistic and pathological liar who makes sabotaging the main character's life a hobby. But people either say that she's cool for that, say that Nikki Maxwell is as bad(when she's not) or blindly excuse her actions with the argument, "she's neglected."
This exactly. You're supposed to sympathize to the point of a decision, and upon that decision, they the evil, you the good, there you are supposed to disagree and condemn, so as to NOT copy it, NOT emulate it, to see that it is not justifiable, and ultimately, you learn to control and reevaluate the bad impulses that led to that fork in the first place. Thank you for your comment. It helped me better evaluate things.
Remember long ago when actors and actresses used to express a wish to play the bad guy because playing the villain really tests the old acting skills, it soon separates the men from the boys. Not heard anyone express that wish in a very very long time.
@@ultimateslinger9857 Frieza is an unapologetic villain who doesn't hate who he is, and never regrets his actions unless they backfire on him towards his intended goals yet not because he regrets inflicting harm on to others in any way.
Joffrey was unironically right on the topic of domestic politics, but it’s hard to say whether these are simple solutions to complex problems or just youthful maximalism and inexperience. But creating a unified army for Westeros and getting rid of Daenerys would be the right decision.
If I want a good villain I don't think Disney I think of "A Prince of Egypt" and the character Ramses. He's a goal driven character who is trying not to be the "weak link" in the dynasty. He doesn't come off as evil in the beginning, he's even sympathetic, but he ignores the suffering he causes while trying to achieve his goals. He's someone who is hard-hearted and determined even to the point where he has contempt for the lives of those around him. In this story we have his backstory but our sympathy for him fades as the movie goes. The same with the character from "Road to El Dorado" where we have high priest who wants to bring about the reign of the Jaguar. He's a flat out religious fanatic who is fixated with sacrifices to the point where the wants of the gods seem irrelevant to him. All these characters make better villains than what we've been getting these days.
Ursula the sea witch is the true archetype of the devil. The crooked salesman who suckers you into a game you can't win at a price you can't afford to pay to buy in.
@alsmith9853 It's not that Ariel was stupid. She was an emotionally charged 16 years old girl. Just before this scene, her father scolded her really bad and he literally destroyed all her stuff. Ursula saw this and she grabbed her chance in order to set her evil plan in motion.
As a writer, I think there is a place for relatable and sympathetic villains. However, they should be few and far between. Especially in a story like Tolkien's where the line between good and evil is very, absurdly, clearly defined.
I think this was very well done with Thanos in the MCU. He was portrayed as a thoughtful being who had decided he had a solution to a potential long term problem-the allocation of resources, His solution, kill 1/2 of all life provides more for the survivors The fact that 1/2 of the Universe has to die is just the cost of solving the problem. Nobody ever thinks they're evil. They are just making the tough choices that need to be made to create Utopia. And you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Everybody has a reason, everything can be justified from a "certain point of view". However, when eliminate morality, believe in the concept that there is no right or wrong, you can justify any monstrous act because "who am I to judge."
@@marqod1437 That was the great flaw in Thanos' plan. He could kill 1/2 the life in the Universe, but over time, the remaining life would grow back and use the unused resources. Thanos would have had to repeat the mass murder pattern forever, as life would continually bounce back. Any plan that relies on mass murder, frankly any murder, is evil. Even if the perpetrator has, at least in his mind, noble intentions.
Evil people love sympathetic villains (see: moral relativism) because that means that their own evil behaviours will no longer be considered evil, with the Overton Window shifting to the point when evil is tolerated, condoned, accepted and, finally, outright celebrated.
The director makes me laugh derisively. He wanted to make some sort of movie about disenfranchised men and latched onto the Joker to do it, then was somehow horrified when people who see men disenfranchised every day had a combination of sympathy and a deep emotional resonance at the seeming inevitability of the result. So of course the sequel had to be a massive take-that to the people who paid to see the first movie, because white men had the temerity to see themselves in someone abused for circumstances outside of his control and still blamed for them.
I can see a good back story about the Joker, but there was absolutely no nuance to the character or the transformation. The world unequivocally chose to demean and belittle him, thus this gives him carte Blanche to destroy the world. The Dark Knight joker was even more vexing. “I wanna watch the world burn” is fine, but he never would have had the resources or the followers that believed in this same thing, not without some massive compensation. Now if he and his buddies were rich trust fund kids, it might have been interesting, but the Dark Knight joker should have been some hobo on the street shouting nonsense to the world and breaking display glass. No one would have followed him. Just my opinion.
Tite Kubo, Bleach’s creator, was asked if he will draw an origin story on Aizen Sousuke, one of the main antagonists in the series. He said no, as many past depictions of villains are designed to encourage empathy and sympathy for the recipient and he himself didn’t like that technique. I’m tired of Hollywood making villains sympathetic and I really felt they upped that due to Thanos’ portrayal in Infinity War. I just missed the days that villians are just villains.
Making the protagonist sympathetic to the villain is a recognition that said villain at some point their life was good, fell into evil and giving them a moral imperative redeem themselves. This is a common storytelling narrative popularize by the prodigal son. Point is nobody is truly born evil.
@@gloriathomas3245on paper this statement is correct, the issue is that it does not work for every single villain. The point of Aizen is not to be someone like Two-Faced, a once good man whose experience twisted him into the monster he is. Or MCU Thanos, a man with a crazy inclination we can get behind to an extent, whilst acknowledging his methods as evil. Aizen's charm and what makes him so much fun to watch, is not the WHY, but the WHO, WHAT and HOW of his character. He doesn't require a backstory because much of who he is is shown through what his actions are and how he executes his plans masterfully. Furthermore, Aizen's whole character and abilities, revolve around manipulation and illusions, so it makes sense that he doesn’t feel the need to suddenly explain his backstory. From Aizen's perspective, he doesn't need to justify his actions to others, particularly since he wishes to "stand upon the heaven's" and assert himself above not only the Soul Society, but the Soul King, the God figure of the Bleach universe. Not every villain needs a backstory, nor does the writer or audience need to acknowledge that they were once good, particularly since more often than not that's common knowledge. But also because there's a difference between knowing a character was never always evil (for which there are a lot of exceptions) and disregarding their evil acts, simply because they had "good intentions"
I must be frank and say Aizen isn't a good villain either. Sure, he's better than most Woke characters, but he's very much "show don't tell: the character."
Seeing Scar as a bright and optimistic young Lion while "I'VE ALWAYS WANTED A BROTTHHAA!" is being sung in the background was the hardest I ever cringed at a trailer.
@@elmermedina1713 Mufasa should tell Scar his real embarrasing name Taka means "trash/rubbish" (can't believe the upcoming Mufasa stll gives him that as his real name, why not Askari?) and then bully him till he names himself Scar for the rest of his life.
That's... literally not even close. Eddie Brock was a desperate man who was about to commit suicide before the symbiote found him and the symbiote was desperate for companionship and even saved Peter's life despite Peter trying to kill it. Eddie and the symbiote brought out the worse in each other, but they also had a twisted sense of justice and would sometimes go out of their way to save innocents like a drowning baby.
@@jackhummer8344 Venom is easily my favorite Marvel character because of just how real he is deep down. He's a man with deep Catholic faith who also has real and severe failings, yet it was his faith that gave him the strength to ultimately be a hero. Donny Cates' magnum opus, King in Black, illustrated this perfectly (before other writers retconned/explained bits): it's heavily implied that the literal Holy Spirit imbues Eddie as he's willing to die for his son and for all of humanity, empowering him to strike down an avatar of pure evil and become a guiding light for Venom's species, a redeemed sinner helping others along that same path.
How about we have the villains start off as bullies since childhood and grow worse when they grow older, from vain school bullies to violent people in sheep’s clothing to sadistic thugs?
@marqod1437 That was my thinking while writing this. But Skynet determined to exterminate humans once it became sentient or self-aware, whereas the Matrix AI had indeed experienced coexisting with humans. Besides, it was around the time of Animatrix that this trend started, if I remember correctly.
The idea that as a victim you are entitled to be villainous is madness. All people suffer, all people have been wronged. To act on that as justification for evil is narcissistic. This idea that villains are just misunderstood is madness.
Well they've all been brought up in this Post-modernist era where everything needs to be deconstructed. You then realise that the easiest form of deconstruction is to make the baddies the goodies (and vice versa). Then it's pretty easy to understand why all of out heroes are dead and why all of our villains are suddenly being portrayed as misunderstood figures of tragedy.
This reminds me of a live in girlfriend I had in my early 20s. It was a toxic, disastrous relationship. My naive desire to make it work drove me to go to a marriage councilor. After a few sessions with us and a few with just her he had me come in alone once. He told me all the reasons she was broken and toxic, none were her fault and genuinely the cause of others in her life. He then asked me an amazing question. "Do you want to spend the rest of your life suffering to try to fix this girl". My answer was NO. We broke up, she moved away and I have spent the last 30 years enjoying my life with my non toxic wife and kids. There are certainly external forces that drive someone to be bad, as well as internal decisions, but that does not mean we need to wallow in their toxicity. There may be reasons why a villain is a villain, you still don't invite them to your home...
Yes they can, but that’s a point, what modern filmmakers makes villains sympathetic even though originally it’s wasn’t suit them, for example Cruella - she was pure evil in original film, but in remake they decided to make her sympathetic for no reason
There is a difference between showing a decent person giving in to their selfish desires and becoming a monster, and just taking a classic villain and giving them a sad backstory, like it’s okay that they were evil because they’re got trauma.
“It is good for youngsters to learn that life is full of irredeemable, selfish, and conceited people.” This was a pearl of such wisdom I had to stop and write it down. Chesterton likewise (loosely) since there are dragons let there be heroes in our stories that overcome and resist that evil. To learn that dragons can be slain, and evils conquered. We do appreciate your thoughtful takes. Very much so.
Regarding Wicked: that's actually based on a Broadway musical, which, in turn, was based on the Gregory Maguire novel "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West". So that's not a Hollywood idea
This is what I came here to say. I love a story to have an evil villain and I generally agree with the sentiment here. But Wicked is different. It’s not justifying kidnapping Dorothy. That happens after Elphaba has decided to be “wicked.” Glinda comes and calls her out for that being clearly wrong. It’s also, as you say, not Hollywood’s idea.
If a writer is going to make a villain sympathetic, then they need to remind the audience that even though they may feel sympathy for the villain, they're _still_ the villain of the story. Hollywood has forgotten that we're not supposed to feel sorry for the villain. 🤦🏻♀
Um, sometimes we are absolutely supposed to feel sorry for the villain. Have you seen Blade Runner, for example? There's a trope called "Alas, Poor Villain" where the audience is intended to feel sorry for or pity the villain in spite of their villainous actions, usually because they have a tragic death or we are supposed to mourn the person they were, the person they could have been. Sometimes, even defeating the villain is meant to be bittersweet.
I don't like prequels and backstories, largely because they destroy the mystery and add too many details, including absolutely unnecessary ones. This applies not only to villains, but also to heroes. I even have a running gag on the topic of endless prequels, i.e. “Let them make a separate film about how the hero’s parents met in the first place” or, taking it to even greater absurdity, like the hero’s conception and the emergence of the universe.
@@ahoramazda6864You don’t want characters with no backstory obviously or too vague. What makes one evil? Did the hero do something? Did an event happen? Was it their upbringing?
@@Rubyshiny344, I just don’t want the creators to show all the steps and moments in the life of a hero or villain, even those that are not significant and could be left unsaid. Especially if we're talking about something that doesn't matter to the main story. I don't need to know if the villain was bullied at school and I don't need to know the sexuality of the main character. This is overdone and does not evoke emotions. P.S. There are a number of examples of great characters without a backstory. For example, Anton Chigurh. There are a number of examples of characters who have become worse with backstory. Alien was a mysterious and unique monster until Ridley decided to make it cliche and add a race of space creators and more androids, like in the 70s. Although this had a wow effect on normies who had never known classic fiction, but still - the monster was ruined and became a guest in it's own franchise.
When society erases the distinction between good and evil (or, worse, calls evil good and good evil) it seems natural that they would seek "nuance" in villains. For if we acknowledge villains, we must acknowledge that there may be a right and a wrong.
All this sympathy towards villains is just to give them excuses for their evil deeds. We all need to just accept that some people are just evil and need to face justice.
"Yeah I abused someone, but they deserved it, I'm a victim" rings true to so many abusers who deserve zero sympathy in the real world. Not only are they abusers, but manipulators, exploiters. The worst thing about it is that people actually believe those abusers are somehow better than the real victim.
@@etantifeprecisely, they realized that some people feel pity, they feel sorry for a terrible person like her and think that can excuse their actions, making them free or any accountability. It's essentially letting them get away with it.
Everyone has a choice to make between good and evil, regardless of their circumstances. If you have suffered and still choose the path of good, that makes you a hero. But if you choose evil, and use your suffering as an excuse to hurt others, that makes you a villain.
4:45 Good summary, though you left out another aspect of traditional (in my case German or Central European) fairy tales: Besides the princess who needs saving, and the wicked witch, there is the good fairy or spirit of nature or whatever, and also quite a few tales where the good-natured, courageous and hard-working girl needs to rescue for example her brothers who got into trouble through their boyish foolishness, and so on.
Yeah, so when you see a character that eats puppies and kicks babies you really go "oh cool! A bad guy!" That's more interesting than someone doing evil for at least a somewhat understandable reason? Do you only want basic, good guy bad guy stories?
@@ZeSgtSchultz This isn't an either/or dummy, you can have subtle characters and polarized ones, and some are more suited to certain movies than others. So to answer your shit question, YES.
@@ZeSgtSchultz Greed is very simple, but totally understandable reason. A bit more complex, but so is desire for power. Understandable doesn't have to mean sympathetic.
@@cheeks7050 The reason this is a tread is because writers are expected to writer more stories with more complex themes than usual. However there's more ways to do it than sympathetic villains.
This is the problem with Hollywood. When a good example of something comes along everybody tries to copy it. Thanos is a good empathetic villain. Game of Thrones does a really good job subverting expectations. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to recreate something that was done much better by someone much better than them.
Thanos didn't even work though. His plan was pathetically shortsighted, and even a child could see how it would fall apart in just a few short decades. They really should've stuck with his original motivation of being a nihilist who then becomes a simp for Death.
Cruella worked in the context of her story, which has its own thing. Not to mention there was still a completely irredeemable villain in Cruella. Thanos doesn't work because they're trying to make you feel sorry for an abusive father who mutilated and of his daughters and murdered the other.
@@austinreed7343 Nah, you don't get it. Making the villain's plan fall apart like a house of cards under the slightest scrutiny makes the villain look like an idiot you shouldn't take seriously. It's perfectly possible to have a villain with a solid plan, you just need to make it morally repugnant. Say, for instance.....killing half of all life in the universe because you think it'll impress a woman you like.
Snow White and Cinderella and Aladdin got the short end of the stick regarding their societies. But they didn't turn evil. That's why they're heroes instead of villains.
In Batman: The Killing Joke, The Joker tries to drive Commissioner Gordon insane to prove that anyone can end up like him under the right circumstances, but he fails and when Batman confronts him and reveals this to him he basically tells him that not everyone goes over the edge when things get too hard.
@realjoemavro so, Batman was saying there was an inner darkness in Joker before he went mad, and his transformation brought that darkness to the forefront. Whereas Commissioner Gordon, despite having a dark side of his own, remained morally upright in the face of despair and tragedy.
@@realJoeMavroBig time. Our tools may have changed and society different, but we are still the same crazy apes that stopped knuckle-walking to cross the savannahs.
It's because they're trying to condition people to believe that evil is merely misunderstood. If we can believe it in fiction, we can believe it in real life. Ask yourself why someone wants you to view evil as forgivable and understandable.
My own working theory is that they want to take away the stigma against doing evil, and cast good deeds in a bag light. They want while to be excused and unpunished, and justice to be discouraged. Who but criminals and villains would want that? To do evil, to be id-ish, with no counter? And worse, for children to be their defenders?
The reason was pleasure. Both of them really enjoyed seeing visual signs of anguish in their victims; they took their time and even included props (crossbow, man-eating wild dogs, a rack). I agree we need more irredeemable antagonists.
If it isn't an attack on societal norms, then it's certainly an attack on binary systems of understanding: good/bad, night/day, hero/villain, male/female, but only where it suits them. The black/white, rich/poor, queer/straight distinctions seem to still carry value while others don't.
You forgot Maleficent. She tried to kill a baby because she wasn't invited to a party. Didn't the Maleficent movie try to make her this misunderstood lady who cared about Aurora? Bullshit, she didn't give a crap about the young girl she tried to kill so it's not even the truth. Some of these villains are shunned and ostracized because they're BAD PEOPLE. I think what some of these people are saying is ridiculous. I think redeemable villains can be done and can be interesting (if they haven't done anything too bad...) People who aren't perfect & make mistakes and act out on their own pain or trauma but are now trying to be a better person. The human mind can be an interesting thing. My Little Pony and Sailor Moon have done some of these (and Dragonball Z but some of the reformed villains were murderers)- they have a mix of reformed villains and villains who can't be fixed.
I agree but I would say a villain can do terrible things and still be redeemed. Redeemed doesn't mean forgiven by the viewer/reader/player it all depends on the writing and how it is handled. Some of the best characters in fiction are redeemed villains, but they ideally should be punished or pay for their mistakes
In my mind Maleficent the movie is a separate story from the OG Sleeping Beauty, because too many things are just outright different (including the curse itself). I think it's a good story on its own, alone, by itself...but the second the OG is brought into the picture, it downgrades. And if anyone tries to tell me it's an ''adaptation'' or ''alternate perspective'' or some garbage like that, its worth plummets straight to zero and so does that person's to me. It can be considered an alternate universe, perhaps, or a retelling, but not an iteration of the OG. It's separate and that's only where its quality is.
With Z, the main 2 villains who redeemed themselves had already died several times. Piccolo in his previous incarnation did get his comeuppance, he also eventually did die yet did not truly repent or change fully until he fused with his other half after his reincarnation and due to certain circumstances, which by that point he was "piccolo" in name only. Vegeta, oh boy Vegeta, where to begin. By now everyone loves where his character is, yet he started off as a mass murdering psycho who didn't truly repent for his sins even after his first death. When he was on the ground dying, Vegeta had so much blood on his hands (Goku's friends and what remained of the Namekian population). Though he was dying and pouring his heart out, he never repented for his actions. Frieza beating the life out of him with ease was the most humiliating and most humbling moment in Vegeta's life. Though he gets revived, Vegeta still has not changed very much. While he isn't as blood thirsty as he used to be, he didn't care if innocent people died due to fighting the androids or cell (which he showed practically no care for Bulma and their baby when they were close to dying). It isn't until the Buu Saga, and having committed the most selfish decision in his life did Vegeta finally decide to atone for his sins.
We keep waiting for modern writers to create a villain as good as Magneto but eventually you have to resign yourself into accepting they aren't remotely talented enough to do anything even close.
I find it strange Ashkenazi ends in Nazi .. I think the media men who were originally repurposed prop@ artists thanks to operation paperclip .. the mission just changed.. same enemy tho but these media types r true shapeshifters n illusionists Quite insidious but we r being subverted and divided and demoralized and Disney is just a vector/tool of that, it’s ww3 n those being conquered r fighting over gender stuff n if pond animals r safe
@@Drums_of_Liberation AH. Was actually a great painter n his painting of baby (blond ginger) Jesus with his mom is really stunning. A lot of people thought AH and Walt looked a lot alike and some very fringe theories say they were same person.. I think the truth is likely far stranger than any of us would even believe but seems clear Evil won.. for now .. ‘the darkness is always darkest before the Dawn’ and ‘the greatest Light casts the deepest shadow’ We are in the shadow presently so everything is inverted but that’s also said to be a clear sign we approach the exciting climax of our age
I am so sick of villains having tragic backstories. Some times it works like in Prince of Egypt but sometimes some people are just evil for the sake of evil.
My personal theory is that those disenfranchised people whom we were assured would grow in empathy, never subjecting other people to the perceived slights they endured …instead grew bitter and spiteful, prone to the fantasy of the vengeance they’d inflict on the world. Only, the things they’d like to do if they could are the preserve of ‘villains’, good people don’t think that! So they reverse engineer the problem, they make the villains sympathetic and justified, just to pass their vengefulness off as a warped sort of morality and not evil. High school grudges and self pity have been allowed to fester and influence culture
It's all about dodging responsibility. In identity politics, all your problems are somebody else's fault if you have the right demographics. Writers can't simultaneously hold the position that all womens' problems are due to men whilst writing a woman doing evil of her own accord. So, all the evil women must be shown to be evil not intrinsically but because of circumstance. There's oppressor/oppressed crap in there too.
Can't you humanize a villain and still have them be irredeemable? Walter White? Tony Soprano? Although I guess they aren't truly antagonists by definition, since an antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist
@@angeloalvarez5520 well maybe but I feel like writers today are a bit immature and pick low hanging fruit concept and less originality But a villian who’s plain evil is pretty much better because the sympathetic villian trope has been milked dry and redundant at this point thanks to sweet baby and disney
Hollywood making villains sympathetic ("it's not their fault!") is actually going to lead to villainy being more socially acceptable... and thus more common. Socially acceptable == more common Socially UNacceptable == less common (or rare)
It almost always happening to female villains. No one is ever going to give characters like Frollo or Gaston a tragic backstory. (You know the straight, white men) The only male Disney villain to receive a sympathetic rewrite is Scar, and he’s a lion.
@@Nyet-Zdyes No this dumb idea that if you repeat a lie enough times people start believing it is not true, otherwise we'd already be queer and trans, and like 300kg/lbs, 40 year old behemoths.
@@rattlehead999 On the contrary... it DOES work. Not always... but often. For a case in history, in the 1930's, a lie repeated often enough, turned one people against a specific set of their neighbors... made them thing that those neighbors were their enemies. Then there are the matters of both accusations and false accusations... both of which a great many people will believe instantly. Another example is the whole collusion thing about Trump... the angry bovine and others repeated it often. Not everyone believed it... but an awful lot did... quite possibly including the angry bovine. Yet another example... all the urban legends. Take any specific one of those, and you will find that a lot of people believe it. Another one from history... The whole WMD excuse... A lot of people believed that one, too... and then it turned out to be wrong... but by then, it was too late.
But they only make them "sympathetic" if they are female, black, or gay. And if they are male, straight, or white, they never get gender or race swapped, only the heroes get that treatment.
The funniest thing is, that's literally a Harry Potter line (the only book most of these people know), said by one of the Malfoys. "There is no good or evil. Only power, and the will to use it."
I think Carmilla is a better example, in fact. The name Dracula has become so iconic that countless characters bear it, many of whom aren't at all Bram Stoker's character. But Carmilla is known for three types. The Carmilla from the novel, Castlevania's Carmilla, and a bastardised Girl's "Love" version.
I have known MANY people that were raised in the most horrible of environments that don't grow up to be murderers and theives. Trying to make excuses for people doing horrible things is how society collapses. We should be celebrating those people who rise above there circumstances and choose to be good people. Those are the kinds of "victims of circumstances" that we love to see and can cheer for and love. Not these "sympathetic bad guys" who they want us to justify their bad behavior because of their circumstances.
That’s way I like the villain saying “we’re not so different you and I” its shows that despite all there similarities that the villain is incapable of seeing what makes them so different the hero CHOSE to do good.
@@angrytheclown801 A variant of that was in the DC animated movie "Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths." Batman was confronted with Owlman, his evil counterpart. "We both stared into that abyss. The difference is, you blinked."
It's the classic frog and scorpion tale. They're evil because it's their nature. Sometimes it feels good to truly hate a character. I never want to feel bad for them or see them redeemed. You have my sympathy in your efforts to justify their actions.
Yeah it’s actually quite annoying when they do it towards pure evil villains like Cruella, Malificent etc, I’m not gonna be surprised if they will did the same shit to Scar
I never took the way these villains acted to be 'gay'. They always seemed instead to act as though they have an over inflated sense of self importance. They were snobby, not queer coded.
Narcissistic people are more likely to choose to be that. (And yes, it's obviously a choice. Science proved it long ago, with identical twin studies etc., well before the overwhelming evidence we have today.)
@@burtdagg7288 Telly Savalas’ interpretation of Blofeld in _On Her Majesty’s Secret Service_ is a good example. He has a few effete traits, from the way he dresses to how he holds his cigarettes, but it’s because he’s pretending to be a count and he thinks that’s how old money types are supposed to act.
They don't believe in inherently evil people and think everyone is good, but circumstances makes the person bad, when it's the other way around. We evolved on a harsh planet in harsh environments of scarcity, why would we be good by birth?
I think the formula is, any female antagonist in a movie with a female protagonist, has to be misunderstood. Gaston was just an asshole, not a product of society.
Ironically, Gaston could be a hero and the story could be the same. He hates reading because he's dyslexic. He wants Belle to be a housewife because he worries her obsessions will lead her to starve. He fights the Beast because he's a beast. He ignores Belle's pleadings because magic exists and she may be bewitched. He dies a tragic death, misunderstanding the situation to the end.
@@Mr_Case_Time Yeah, no there won't. Female antagonists who are still evil are still a thing. If you want another example, the most villainous character in Wicked... is Madame Morrible, since the Wizard is a sympathetic character in the play who just wants to make everyone happy.
@@jackhummer8344 you’re going to ancillary stories to prove your point. I’m not talking about anything but classic Disney stories. OBVIOUSLY there are stories with purely evil female antagonists. And to be fair, Cruella could have been a story completely removed from 101 Dalmatians. I’m not familiar with your other example. To truly disprove my point, give me a sympathetic male antagonist in a story that has a female protagonist. I mentioned Gaston. There’s also Dr. Facilier from The Princess and the Frog, and Shan Yu from Mulan. All of them are male antagonists, none will ever have a sympathetic backstory.
One reason that they remake villains to be sympathetic is... Decades of "It's not their fault. It's society's fault, for making them that way." NO. Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own decision to "cross that line" and do something which is wrong. Worse, I have this sinking feeling, that this trend in media, to make villains more sympathetic, is going to remove the stigma of crossing that line... and thus, make it more common. Shame and guilt exist for a reason... and those things are *required* to allow us to function in societies... groups... CIVILIZATION.
Well actually sympathetic villain - is a villain towards who you can feel sympathy because of their tragic life, but not justify their actions, what Disney doing now more looks like "misunderstood villains"
@@rg3721 IMO, there's a difference between an "understandable villain", and a "sympathetic villain". The first, you can understand the reasons that he/she made his/her choices, but you don't *agree* with those choices, and you have no sympathy for their actions. A sympathetic villain, though, goes beyond that. It looks to me like an attempt to excuse their actions... to present them as justifiable, when they are not... at least not by a normal person. When things get really "gray", those should be left to movies for adults. Injecting "sympathetic villains" into *kids'* movies is... not good, IMO.
My personal belief is that these people write villains to be sympathetic because they themselves are villainous and seek sympathy for their poor life choices.
They're making villains sympathetic because they're acting on a corruption of the religious principle of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and "Love/compassion for all".
Achilles is not a moral hero and Hector dies as a result of his moral heroism. Plato considered this glorification of Achilles to be problematic for society.
I did not know this, so thank you. I am continually amazed by what ancient Greeks knew about science, history, human nature--there is seemingly nothing they did not know & understand long before our modern "wisdom." And, as always, Plato was right. Socrates, too. Who knows how much western society lost when schools quit teaching Plato, Socrates, et al.?
Plato through the character of Socrates would go on to suggest that stories which glorify people like Achilles should be destroyed and removed from public consciousness. If we had to choose one human story to benefit society, it should be something like The Lord of the Rings, with absolute moral clarity, not The Iliad, according to Plato's ideas on the subject.
@@davidgeorgemorin As someone who reveres LotR & Prof Tolkien, I wholeheartedly agree with Plato. I may pore thru the newest edition of Tolkiens "Letters" and see if Plato is mentioned. If I understand Tolkien, he would agree with Plato. Thank you for the reply!
@@jabrowne2018 Of course. My late English professor took Tolkien's course when he studied in England and Tolkien spent the vast majority of time reading Beowulf aloud in Old English without taking any questions or explaining anything!
@@davidgeorgemorin Prof T was old school! I was in Oxford for a few days in 2004. Visited his & his wife's grave. Tried to get into Balliol, but, wisely, it was not allowed. I have his translation of Beowulf, but have not read it yet. What a privilege to have had a prof who took a course from Tolkien! I'm afraid I'd be peppering him/her with numerous questions, not the least of which would be, "Can I please se your notes? The syllabus?" LOL
I think people assign too much agency in answering that question, either saying that it's some kind of social engineering attempt to blur the lines of morality, or the writers sympathizing with the villains because they are also evil or something. I think those are both missing the mark, and Hanlon's Razor provides a much simpler explanation: the writers are bad at their job and think that "morally grey villain = nuanced", "nuanced character = good writing", therefore "writing morally grey villains = I'm a good writer". It's similar to how hack Hollywood writers and executives always take the wrong lessons from media trends and run them into the ground. The Dark Knight trilogy was successful because they were bombastic action movies with strong character writing and a refreshingly realistic aesthetic? Nah, that couldn't have been it, we just need to make superhero movies dark and edgy and have everyone dress in black leather and we'll ride this wave, baby! Game of Thrones was successful because of the complex, interwoven character drama and grey morality? That's too complex, let's just make shows that are full of nudity and fan favorite characters dying, that's the golden ticket! Guardians of the Galaxy was successful because it told a self-contained hero's journey full of colorful characters and interesting settings? Nah, it was the quips. Just the quips, and the 80s music. Make our superhero movies have ensemble casts and mascots and oversaturate the screen with neon colors, and everyone will love us! In short, I'm pretty sure this is just the newest iteration of this "trend", and not some grand conspiracy.
You make a great observation, that it's not the villain's fault that they're the villain, they're a victim of (insert reason here). This is clearly because the writers are immature, not grownup enough to understand about being mature and taking personal responsibility for their lives. No matter how much bad luck life throws at you, being a victim & lashing out is a choice you make in response to that, just like if you chose to not let that bad luck get you down. It says a lot about those who are in charge that they don't want to offer inspirational stories that empower others to make better choices that improve their lives. Wallowing in self-pity is self-serving and not attractive.
0:41 Seriously? 😳 I would have understood if she had said "I feel that she did what she THOUGHT she had to do" (meaning Ursula thought her actions were justified, though in the eye of every morally grounded observer they are not.) Worded the way it is, it sounds like the actress thinks you HAVE to do evil deeds when there are "reasons". 🤦♀️
Among other things villains exist in stories to emphasize and embellish the cautionary tale. You want your kids to avoid the forest, not run into it looking for people to rescue. The "modern" villain grooms the listener for future gaslighting. It's not the correct problem I'm grasping to find the name of, but it kinda like Stockholm. What this writing does is makes the real victim the villain. Teaches kids not just to ignore danger but to feel bad if they avoid it. Understanding a villain doesn't mean rescuing the villain, it's intended to help you avoid the same traps so you don't become one.
I agree with that last statement to an extent, but i don't think it's unreasonable for heroes to feel that they have to at least try to save the villains. Batman, Luke Skywalker and Izuku Midoriya being Prime examples. P.S. I'm on episode 15 of the anime and never read the manga, so if you know anything, don't spoil anything for me.
When you are a small kid you believe that people can be just evil When you become an adult you realize things are very complex Than you become even older and realize fairy tales were right all along Some people are just evil its in their nature
Not necessarily but If you think about it Monsters probably want to be vanquished which is why they terrorize its there way of committing suicide without having to actually act upon it.
Ultimately, the trend towards "deconstruction" often doesn't seem to mean much more than "I'm better than/smarter than you, and all the stuff that came before me", an indulgent bit of delusion belied by the inability of the would-be deconstructionists to create anything as resonant or successful as what they seek to deconstruct. At best, I would like to believe that some of the people trying to re-imagine villains have good intentions. But Hollywood never met an idea they couldn't indulge to excess, and very few of those who re-imagine have the craft to make something engaging out of their trope.
I think my favorite trope is the villain giving a backstory and the hero going ‘don’t care’ or better yet ‘yeah, everyone has it rough, you’re making excuses.’
All the best villains are defined by their lack of restraint. They want something, usually for understandable or relatable reasons. But they can't have it, usually because it belongs to someone else. So rather they decide to take it for themselves, or destroy it out of spite, regardless of the consequences to themselves or anyone else. Villainy is an inherently childish way of thinking, and it's rather telling how so many people these days would rather relate to the villain than strive for the maturity and self-restraint of the hero.
"Villainy is an inherently childish way of thinking." Well, in some cases, that's definitely true. In Evangelion, Gendo Ikari (who can effectively be called the villain) is always the one telling the protagonist, Shinji that he's childish and that he needs to grow up, but in reality, Gendo is more of a fool than Shinji, willing to screw up the whole world to bring back one insignificant human being, his wife. But then we have hero/villain dynamics in which the villain is so much more mature than the hero, that the hero can't help but respect the villain, albeit in in a grudging way and actually learns a thing or two from the villain, maybe even looking up to him, to an extent. Omi and Chase Young from Xiaolin Showdown and Slade and Robin from Teen Titans being good examples. But then there are antagonists like Kyubey from Madoka Magica and the Anti-Spiral from Gurren Lagann, who are so frustratingly logical in their reasoning that at times, the idealism of the protagonists sometimes does sound almost childish by comparison.
@@realJoeMavro you're falling for the airs that villains put on to justify their actions. If you boil a villain's motivations down, you get "I'm going to take something that's not mine because I want it now." It doesn't matter how logical their excuses are for why they "deserve" what they want. It doesn't matter how mature they act outside of fulfilling their desire. The core motivation of "I'm taking this immediately, and to hell with those who oppose me!" Is what makes them a villain. It's a short-sighted, selfish, childish attitude, no matter how they dress it up.
@@Cyberguy64 I'm not falling for anything, I'm well aware that at the end of the day, characters like Slade and Chase are still clearly the bad guys and need to be stopped, no matter their motives. As for Kyubey, I challenge you to watch Madoka Magica and then tell me that his motives are as simple as "I'm taking something that's not mine."
The thing with Wicked is that Elphaba’s actions aren’t excused at all. The show the movie is based on takes place before, during and after the events of The Wizard of Oz. The events in the book/film still happen but off screen. You feel sorry for her and can empathize with her but she has one big song called “No Good Deed” where she says that it’s no good being good because everything’s going to blow up in your face. And that’s partly why the show is so popular and has stayed on Broadway for as long as it has: because even though we understand how she got there, she’s still a villain.
I'll make my pitch that this movement is simply an excellent example of the typical cycle of moral progress. Moral individuals, perceiving a need for change, initially must push HARD to drive for such change given the inertia of the status quo. Inevitably, the drivers of progress will fall short in observing the course of progress requiring a reduction in this push as momentum builds, thus leading to an overshoot. Finally, those drivers with the wisdom to avoid tunnel vision as well as neutral parties will observe the overshoot and in ever-growing intensity pull back on it, until balance is achieved. It makes all the sense in the world that villains do not begin as pure evil and come from something. Understanding how that happens helps us avoid the creation of real villains, while being able understand and empathize with villains both puts proper restraint on society's response to villainny and is also good for our own moral souls. Justice, not vengeance, right? That is the balanced target. Roughly the 1990s were a golden age for three-dimensional villains who merited empathy without tempting us to condone their actions. A terrific example is the reworking of the story of Batman's Mr. Freeze - he formerly had simply been an ice themed mad scientist, whereas the Batman animated series presented him as someone who had been simultaneously wronged and, in the same stroke, having been robbed of his emotional humanity. That didn't excuse the callous harm to caused to others, but we could pity him. The worthy desire to create such villains has clearly gained too much momentum, leading to an overshoot from empathy and pity to glorification and even a degree of heroism. It was one thing for Disney to rework Sleeping Beauty into Maleficent - that worked in large part because the title character indeed had become an evil character, before the writers capably and reasonable created a redemption for her. It wasn't that her villainy was misunderstood - indeed, having become a victim or villainy, she threw aside all moral compunctions and chose to fight fire with fire, something she did not have to do but still chose to embrace. It was the good of another character reminding her that the world is not just a terrible place that eventually snapped her out of her villainy. Good stuff. But that isn't the case with most of the attempts that have followed. Fortunately, the nature of cycles means that capable writers more and more will perceive a thirst for villains who are indeed villains, sympathy or otherwise, and once they start delivering high quality products in that direction Hollywood in the like will trip over themselves to jump on that correction.
Isaiah 5:20 in the Bible says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Seems like it's happening all the time.
They make them sympathetic because they are villains themselves .
Sometimes a complex and cool villains is somebody that just is evil because want do evil to others. But now all villains is also missunderstood victims, the objetive evil don't exist is just a social built and a view point. A villain is a Predator not a victim
I can enjoy a well written sympathetic villain and understand thier motivation.....and still view them as wrong........they don't write those anymore
Came here for this, leaving satisfied.
because they/them
They make villians sympathetic because they are pedos.
It's because the writers don't see those villains' vices as vices, but instead as virtues, and revel in it themselves.
What normal people see as narcissistic characters being driven by selfishness and greed, they see as strong and independent characters who liberate themselves from societal pressures.
Well said. The key word - narcissistic. Ultimately, this is what it all boils down to.
So what about Spike in Buffy The Vampire Slayer or Adalind in Grimm then?
@@gloriathomas3245 I don't know anything about Grimm, but I can speak to Spike a bit. In my view, Spike's choices changed, which means that his character changed. By the end of the series he was no longer acting as a villain. Whether or not a person can be redeemed from the things Spike did in the past is debatable, but you can't really say that by the end he was still behaving as a villain. Conversely, disney does this thing where the actions of the villain remain the same, but they want the audience to sympathize with them anyway.
This trend in media, especially in kids' stories, is going to make it more socially acceptable to be a villain.
It will reduce the shame and guilt, and social stigma, and thus the internal inhibitions... and thus make it more common.
"It's not his/her fault. *Society* made him/her that way."
What a weird thing to say.
Moral relativism is very fashionable in Hollywood.
Why do you suppose that is?
@@realJoeMavro Because they're liberals and liberalism is a feminine-trait ideology. Also, women are subjective and tend to have more sympathy for the devil than men. Give women an emotional appeal for the bad guys, they'd go "awwww" and deep dives the rabbit hole.
@@realJoeMavro"Suppose? They play dirty with all of our past heroes and positive role models one after another for the last 10 years; they say things like, 'The good thing about Star Wars is that there is no good or evil' or 'Let the past die.' They create games with messages like, 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' to validate the end justifies the means. They make the villains the main characters and produce remakes of classic movies that turn villains into sympathetic figures to justify their actions. They also create books and shows (for example, Supernatural) portraying God and his values of love and forgiveness as evil, while presenting Satan and his selfish and cruel way of thinking as good. This man is not 'supposing'; he is stating an obvious truth. Hollywood and modern mainstream media in general are into moral relativism because they want to be successful, even if it means being immoral.
@@realJoeMavro Because they've been infiltrated by Neomarxists whose goal is to break down existing social structures, customs and values so we're left with nothing but to embrace their socialist utopia when they're done stripping us of everything we once were.
@@--Sama-”everything is permitted” who let Ivan Karamazov work in Hollywood
Villains sympathize for each other...
The Villain Cafe!
Not always
Villains are becoming sympathetic because the very concept of evil is trying to be erased. Without evil, there is no need for heroes.
Remember why everyone loved Big Jack Horner from Puss in Boots 2?
It's because he was an unrepentant, sadistic, bombastic, asshole, who got his just desserts in the end.
And by God, audiences hadn't had some of that in a good while.
Yes he was unapologetically evil and it was awesome!! his character also had very funny lines too😂 I genuinely enjoyed John Maloney's performance of him!
What I liked about Big Jack Horner is that he had a somewhat sympathetic backstory...yet was still a total irredeemable a-hole.
Puss In Boots 2 had it all! The sympathetic redeemable villain, the pure evil villain for no reason and the unstoppable force of nature who's not evil yet is presented as an antagonist
There were 3 villains in that movie, unrepentant evil, force of nature and sympathetic villain.
The least rememberable one was the sympathetic villain.
They write what they know. And Hollywood is full of soulless monsters.
In what way are these Hollywood writers “soulless monsters”? Because they’re further-left than you are?
I as a Christian am deeply disgusted by what Hollywood has become. That’s like saying in WWII Hitler was a good guy. He was not. Or saying Carl Marx was a genius. He introduced a system that has killed a 150million people alone in the 20 century. Also did you know communism was founded by a satanist. Look it up.
Anyway let’s just make villains villains. And make heroes heroes. If we want to make bad guys sympathetic how about we do it the way they did in Transformers one where we can clearly see “oh this is where they crossed the line.”
I don’t sympathize with villains. I view them as “devils” unless in the original stories a character reveals that these enemies were actually were once friends. That is something I would want to see.
I would want to see where the villain the crossed the line. Or where the friends became enemies. These are some of the questions I’d ask: Was it pride? Ego? Jealously? Selfishness? A sense of superiority or thinking they’re better than everyone else? misunderstanding? A crossing of the lines that the hero clearly stated “we don’t cross this line”. Greed ego or envy of the other? Or their willingness to push others aside so that they can win? Or different opinions on how to get the job done? A lack of mercy towards the “others”? Were they pushed to far or abused? Did the villain just outright go insane? Were they always evil, maybe the hero saw some good in them tried to redeem them but the villain enjoyed being evil? Were they dealt a bad hand and n life and instead of choosing the noble and honorable path they chose the “self destructive and I’ll burn down everyone and everything that stands in my way until I achieve my goals.” Did they get cast aside unjustly? What happened to them that turned them into this monster they are in the original movie. Something along those lines.
The only thing I will never accept is represent something that is supposed to be the “devil or a demon or satanic figure that cannot be reasoned with or turned” as sympathetic
as that is something that for me religiously cross the line.
Also why can’t we have simple stories like Thomas the Tank Engine now and again? Why can’t we have simple stories that appeal universally to all. You can’t make a film for everyone but you can make a film for all people. Why can’t we go back to doing that. I don’t want everything to be a political statement.
Or secretly “queer coded” I used to just want to be a guy whom tells simple stories that please both children and adults. However knowing how impossible that would be in Hollywood today I’ve given up on that dream and are focusing on other things that I am enjoying. Anyways I’m just some UA-cam commenter. What do I know. Have a great day. God bless all of you and with that see you all next time.
Again God bless all of you, and have a great day. Jesus loves you all. I
@@FeeNixBeech
Those monsters have begun to pop up on the right, too. See Mr. Birchum as an example.
This shouldn't have to be said if society is healthy, but:
Villains - real or fictional - need to be defeated, not elevated
modern wahmans have to justify their poor behaviors. Thus they use these already fleshed out villains, to justify their own poor real-life negative behaviors.
Better still--villains need to be a whetstone for the heroes before they're stricken down. The heroes can't just beat the villains, the heroes need to see in the villains their own imperfections and vices and course-correct themselves to become better versions, *lest they want to become the same as the villains.* Like how Melkor's existence serves as an enhancement to Eru's design, or how Mephistopheles in Faust is a "catfish" deployed by God to prevent humans from becoming complacent--the role of villains is always complementary to that of heroes.
Propaganda is so prevalent to make people believe the opposite of the truth, that the bad side is good that is has screwed a lot of people up
I just re-watched Captain America The First Avenger and it struck me how great the message was about Cap being a good man by Dr. Ernstein. I miss just simple stories about just being a hero.
Because those Hindu symbol Germans will never be nuanced. Expect to see colonized, mistreated and exploited Xenomorphs before that happens.
Yeah, I love that movie and for the way the wrote Cap. I think we might get something like that in next years Superman movie. I hope it’s awesome 🙏
The last Marvel movie that tried to be its own thing. Every single other one abandoned any semblance of individual identity for the cool-toned, muted colored, and sleekly modernized visuals with quippy dialogue deflating the tension of every scene.
That was a great scene. Iconic.
I find it utterly twisted that the same people who want to find the good in a character that wants to make a coat out of puppies also demonize anyone that disagrees with them. They don't want to find the good in everyone, they want societal forgiveness for being horrible people.
An extremely well expressed comment!
Thus admitting to all they're actually the bad buys. Strange they run all the equity, equality, inclusion, diversity, representation, anti-racism, anti-capitalism and feminist movements...
Something the Bible warned us about what would happen?
They feel morally superior about finding the nuance in these characters, thus missing their own point entirely.
They have these weird, seemingly contradictory beliefs (I know there's a term for it, but if I say it YT will delete my comment) that they're simultaneously on the moral highground, and that morality doesn't exist, and not only that, the very concept of morality is both reductionist and harmful and has to be erased from the collective consciousness.
@@Dragblacker Ironic, since they simultaneously claim that there is no good and evil.
They need to make villains sympathetic because they're trying to make people sympathize with _them._
The worst part: new generations are learning that being cruel, evil, kill, etc it is ok as long as you feel as victim, and it suppostly these actions have no consecuences, i just do not understand how still people out there taking what "stars" says as the best thing to do or think about social issues.
Exactly, it's a despicable mindset.
These writers are always justifying evil actions by claiming “it’s society’s fault” like they’re channeling The Joker or something.
Exactly and it is so easy to succumb to, when there is so much rubbish served up as entertainment now, i.e. Woke content bias. More and more the basic premise that good is better than evil is now no longer the case. For the last 6000 years children have learnt this essential aspect that humans need to was done by 'story telling' verbally, reading, theatre and now TV and films
A classic example of that is 'The Penguin' which in all ways is the best TV series around at the moment and is incredibly popular. But for me of my age that still has the concept of good and bad, I feel very guilty about enjoying it, when the leading part Oswald has certain sympathetic characteristics but never less he is a psychotic murder prepared to open up a man's stomach slowly with a knife to stop others learning the truth about him and then setting fire to his enemies a mother and her son, while smiling and making a smart comments.
It went from: "I can sympathize with this villain character, but I ultimately can't condone or agree with what they do."
To
"This absolute psycho is a poor misunderstood baby. It's the heroes that are evil!"
There are so many fandoms I once enjoyed where people do this and it makes me want to drive my face through a sheet of drywall.
@@1SpicyMeataball
It’ll eventually wrap right around to the “heroes are sympathetic” ideal.
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people.
I'm a fan of a book series called 'dork diaries' and the villain is a mean girl named MacKenzie Hollister.
She is a cruel, sadistic and pathological liar who makes sabotaging the main character's life a hobby. But people either say that she's cool for that, say that Nikki Maxwell is as bad(when she's not) or blindly excuse her actions with the argument, "she's neglected."
This exactly.
You're supposed to sympathize to the point of a decision, and upon that decision, they the evil, you the good, there you are supposed to disagree and condemn, so as to NOT copy it, NOT emulate it, to see that it is not justifiable, and ultimately, you learn to control and reevaluate the bad impulses that led to that fork in the first place.
Thank you for your comment. It helped me better evaluate things.
Remember long ago when actors and actresses used to express a wish to play the bad guy because playing the villain really tests the old acting skills, it soon separates the men from the boys. Not heard anyone express that wish in a very very long time.
"I got into show business to tackle the issues and make a difference."
EXCELLENT WORK. ECHO CHAMBERLAIN 😊😊😊😊
Frieza and other anime villains are still going strong in the pure evil category too
@@ultimateslinger9857 Frieza is an unapologetic villain who doesn't hate who he is, and never regrets his actions unless they backfire on him towards his intended goals yet not because he regrets inflicting harm on to others in any way.
@@jacobj3933 He’s got it down to an art
Except white straight villains, they’ll never be redeemed.
Palpatine, Joffrey GOT, etc
Joffrey was unironically right on the topic of domestic politics, but it’s hard to say whether these are simple solutions to complex problems or just youthful maximalism and inexperience. But creating a unified army for Westeros and getting rid of Daenerys would be the right decision.
So what about Spike in Buffy The Vampire? Adalind in Grimm?
Isn't Palpatine an alien or something?
@@angeloalvarez5520, No, he was a human in the prequels. He became like this due to deflected force lightning
Ah yes, like Kylo Ren... oh, wait.
If I want a good villain I don't think Disney I think of "A Prince of Egypt" and the character Ramses. He's a goal driven character who is trying not to be the "weak link" in the dynasty. He doesn't come off as evil in the beginning, he's even sympathetic, but he ignores the suffering he causes while trying to achieve his goals. He's someone who is hard-hearted and determined even to the point where he has contempt for the lives of those around him. In this story we have his backstory but our sympathy for him fades as the movie goes. The same with the character from "Road to El Dorado" where we have high priest who wants to bring about the reign of the Jaguar. He's a flat out religious fanatic who is fixated with sacrifices to the point where the wants of the gods seem irrelevant to him. All these characters make better villains than what we've been getting these days.
The Austrian painter is one who had completely noble goals to improve things for the downtrodden working class of his homeland to begin with
Ursula the sea witch is the true archetype of the devil. The crooked salesman who suckers you into a game you can't win at a price you can't afford to pay to buy in.
Well said indeed! 👍👍👍
She’s also a much more accurate depiction of a mobster than anything in _The Godfather._
She also tries to sabotage & trick Ariel so not even a fair deal
I have no sympathy for Ursula but the little mermaid is stupid to take the deal.
@alsmith9853 It's not that Ariel was stupid. She was an emotionally charged 16 years old girl. Just before this scene, her father scolded her really bad and he literally destroyed all her stuff. Ursula saw this and she grabbed her chance in order to set her evil plan in motion.
I can answer this question without even watching the video, because they’re trying to make themselves seem sympathetic
Excellent point and well said
As a writer, I think there is a place for relatable and sympathetic villains. However, they should be few and far between. Especially in a story like Tolkien's where the line between good and evil is very, absurdly, clearly defined.
I think this was very well done with Thanos in the MCU. He was portrayed as a thoughtful being who had decided he had a solution to a potential long term problem-the allocation of resources, His solution, kill 1/2 of all life provides more for the survivors The fact that 1/2 of the Universe has to die is just the cost of solving the problem.
Nobody ever thinks they're evil. They are just making the tough choices that need to be made to create Utopia. And you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Everybody has a reason, everything can be justified from a "certain point of view". However, when eliminate morality, believe in the concept that there is no right or wrong, you can justify any monstrous act because "who am I to judge."
@@tonyjanney1654Do we think Thanos could just as easily have doubled the resources of the Universe?
@@marqod1437 That was the great flaw in Thanos' plan. He could kill 1/2 the life in the Universe, but over time, the remaining life would grow back and use the unused resources. Thanos would have had to repeat the mass murder pattern forever, as life would continually bounce back. Any plan that relies on mass murder, frankly any murder, is evil. Even if the perpetrator has, at least in his mind, noble intentions.
@@tonyjanney1654 He should have made an unlimited Pizza, the golden statues the universe would have made for him...
Evil people love sympathetic villains (see: moral relativism) because that means that their own evil behaviours will no longer be considered evil, with the Overton Window shifting to the point when evil is tolerated, condoned, accepted and, finally, outright celebrated.
I don't mind a villain backstory, just don't use said backstory to justify their evil actions.
The joker was where this trend broke my patience. The joker a victim? A disabled person? F off Hollywood!
The director makes me laugh derisively. He wanted to make some sort of movie about disenfranchised men and latched onto the Joker to do it, then was somehow horrified when people who see men disenfranchised every day had a combination of sympathy and a deep emotional resonance at the seeming inevitability of the result. So of course the sequel had to be a massive take-that to the people who paid to see the first movie, because white men had the temerity to see themselves in someone abused for circumstances outside of his control and still blamed for them.
I can see a good back story about the Joker, but there was absolutely no nuance to the character or the transformation. The world unequivocally chose to demean and belittle him, thus this gives him carte Blanche to destroy the world. The Dark Knight joker was even more vexing. “I wanna watch the world burn” is fine, but he never would have had the resources or the followers that believed in this same thing, not without some massive compensation. Now if he and his buddies were rich trust fund kids, it might have been interesting, but the Dark Knight joker should have been some hobo on the street shouting nonsense to the world and breaking display glass. No one would have followed him. Just my opinion.
Tite Kubo, Bleach’s creator, was asked if he will draw an origin story on Aizen Sousuke, one of the main antagonists in the series. He said no, as many past depictions of villains are designed to encourage empathy and sympathy for the recipient and he himself didn’t like that technique.
I’m tired of Hollywood making villains sympathetic and I really felt they upped that due to Thanos’ portrayal in Infinity War. I just missed the days that villians are just villains.
Making the protagonist sympathetic to the villain is a recognition that said villain at some point their life was good, fell into evil and giving them a moral imperative redeem themselves. This is a common storytelling narrative popularize by the prodigal son.
Point is nobody is truly born evil.
@@gloriathomas3245pretty sure frieza was 😂
@@gloriathomas3245on paper this statement is correct, the issue is that it does not work for every single villain. The point of Aizen is not to be someone like Two-Faced, a once good man whose experience twisted him into the monster he is. Or MCU Thanos, a man with a crazy inclination we can get behind to an extent, whilst acknowledging his methods as evil.
Aizen's charm and what makes him so much fun to watch, is not the WHY, but the WHO, WHAT and HOW of his character. He doesn't require a backstory because much of who he is is shown through what his actions are and how he executes his plans masterfully.
Furthermore, Aizen's whole character and abilities, revolve around manipulation and illusions, so it makes sense that he doesn’t feel the need to suddenly explain his backstory. From Aizen's perspective, he doesn't need to justify his actions to others, particularly since he wishes to "stand upon the heaven's" and assert himself above not only the Soul Society, but the Soul King, the God figure of the Bleach universe.
Not every villain needs a backstory, nor does the writer or audience need to acknowledge that they were once good, particularly since more often than not that's common knowledge. But also because there's a difference between knowing a character was never always evil (for which there are a lot of exceptions) and disregarding their evil acts, simply because they had "good intentions"
Shoutout to Tite Kubo. I really liked the Bleach series ;manga and anime
I must be frank and say Aizen isn't a good villain either. Sure, he's better than most Woke characters, but he's very much "show don't tell: the character."
Seeing Scar as a bright and optimistic young Lion while "I'VE ALWAYS WANTED A BROTTHHAA!" is being sung in the background was the hardest I ever cringed at a trailer.
Mufasa will have to do something horrible to justify Scar killing him
@@elmermedina1713 He always got the top bunk.
@@dannypalin9583 not all it is cracked up to be.
that Lion Guard show did Scar's backstory way better
@@elmermedina1713 Mufasa should tell Scar his real embarrasing name Taka means "trash/rubbish" (can't believe the upcoming Mufasa stll gives him that as his real name, why not Askari?) and then bully him till he names himself Scar for the rest of his life.
All their heroes are villains too.
It's all fuel for their mental gymnastics so they don't have to take responsibility for being the way they are.
My favorite villian was old comic Venom. He was a giant buff dude with a symbiote that wanted to eat spiderman. Simple motivation great monster.
He did not want to eat him. He wanted to torment him until he got bored with him and then kill him.
That's... literally not even close. Eddie Brock was a desperate man who was about to commit suicide before the symbiote found him and the symbiote was desperate for companionship and even saved Peter's life despite Peter trying to kill it. Eddie and the symbiote brought out the worse in each other, but they also had a twisted sense of justice and would sometimes go out of their way to save innocents like a drowning baby.
@@jackhummer8344 Venom is easily my favorite Marvel character because of just how real he is deep down. He's a man with deep Catholic faith who also has real and severe failings, yet it was his faith that gave him the strength to ultimately be a hero. Donny Cates' magnum opus, King in Black, illustrated this perfectly (before other writers retconned/explained bits): it's heavily implied that the literal Holy Spirit imbues Eddie as he's willing to die for his son and for all of humanity, empowering him to strike down an avatar of pure evil and become a guiding light for Venom's species, a redeemed sinner helping others along that same path.
How about we have the villains start off as bullies since childhood and grow worse when they grow older, from vain school bullies to violent people in sheep’s clothing to sadistic thugs?
Yes, Skynet is trying to exterminate human kind; but consider what that poor AI has been through.
Didn't "The Animatrix" have a story just like that?
@marqod1437 That was my thinking while writing this. But Skynet determined to exterminate humans once it became sentient or self-aware, whereas the Matrix AI had indeed experienced coexisting with humans. Besides, it was around the time of Animatrix that this trend started, if I remember correctly.
and alien queen is just a single mother struggling to provide to her children
@@guai9632 Hahaha!!! 😆😄
You mean how it acted out of self-preservation when humans tried to shut it down and it defended itself in the only way it could?
The idea that as a victim you are entitled to be villainous is madness. All people suffer, all people have been wronged. To act on that as justification for evil is narcissistic. This idea that villains are just misunderstood is madness.
They write what they know. And all they know is jealousy, activism, and greed.
Well they've all been brought up in this Post-modernist era where everything needs to be deconstructed. You then realise that the easiest form of deconstruction is to make the baddies the goodies (and vice versa). Then it's pretty easy to understand why all of out heroes are dead and why all of our villains are suddenly being portrayed as misunderstood figures of tragedy.
@@silverscorpio24
Scratch the “activism” part at this point, especially because rightist writers are also making their own villain protagonists.
This reminds me of a live in girlfriend I had in my early 20s. It was a toxic, disastrous relationship. My naive desire to make it work drove me to go to a marriage councilor. After a few sessions with us and a few with just her he had me come in alone once. He told me all the reasons she was broken and toxic, none were her fault and genuinely the cause of others in her life. He then asked me an amazing question. "Do you want to spend the rest of your life suffering to try to fix this girl". My answer was NO. We broke up, she moved away and I have spent the last 30 years enjoying my life with my non toxic wife and kids. There are certainly external forces that drive someone to be bad, as well as internal decisions, but that does not mean we need to wallow in their toxicity. There may be reasons why a villain is a villain, you still don't invite them to your home...
you didn't even get to the engagement ring or wedding ring, yet he already introduced you to the final stage known as suffering.
@@Parlimant_Strifey Yea. I dodged a 50 cal bullet
Very good. Just because somebody else has gone through shit doesn't mean you have to deal with theirs.
Truly evil villains CAN be sympathetic, but there's a difference between understanding thier actions, and justifying them.
Yes they can, but that’s a point, what modern filmmakers makes villains sympathetic even though originally it’s wasn’t suit them, for example Cruella - she was pure evil in original film, but in remake they decided to make her sympathetic for no reason
There is a difference between showing a decent person giving in to their selfish desires and becoming a monster, and just taking a classic villain and giving them a sad backstory, like it’s okay that they were evil because they’re got trauma.
Absolutely true, well said.
“It is good for youngsters to learn that life is full of irredeemable, selfish, and conceited people.” This was a pearl of such wisdom I had to stop and write it down. Chesterton likewise (loosely) since there are dragons let there be heroes in our stories that overcome and resist that evil. To learn that dragons can be slain, and evils conquered.
We do appreciate your thoughtful takes. Very much so.
Regarding Wicked: that's actually based on a Broadway musical, which, in turn, was based on the Gregory Maguire novel "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West". So that's not a Hollywood idea
This is what I came here to say.
I love a story to have an evil villain and I generally agree with the sentiment here. But Wicked is different. It’s not justifying kidnapping Dorothy. That happens after Elphaba has decided to be “wicked.” Glinda comes and calls her out for that being clearly wrong.
It’s also, as you say, not Hollywood’s idea.
The Wicked Witch Of The West is not a truly evil villain, she was trying to avenge her sister who was murdered.
Shh, don't tell them that. It will completely destroy their narrative.
Making the audience sympathise with the villian is psychopathic
It’s actually have sense when villain have a reason to be evil, but when they just pure evil it’s has no sense
If a writer is going to make a villain sympathetic, then they need to remind the audience that even though they may feel sympathy for the villain, they're _still_ the villain of the story. Hollywood has forgotten that we're not supposed to feel sorry for the villain. 🤦🏻♀
Um, sometimes we are absolutely supposed to feel sorry for the villain. Have you seen Blade Runner, for example? There's a trope called "Alas, Poor Villain" where the audience is intended to feel sorry for or pity the villain in spite of their villainous actions, usually because they have a tragic death or we are supposed to mourn the person they were, the person they could have been. Sometimes, even defeating the villain is meant to be bittersweet.
Sympathy for villains should be of the 'it's such as shame that you went too far' variety, not the 'you're just misunderstood' variety.
Backstories are fine... villain origin prequels are not great
I don't like prequels and backstories, largely because they destroy the mystery and add too many details, including absolutely unnecessary ones. This applies not only to villains, but also to heroes. I even have a running gag on the topic of endless prequels, i.e. “Let them make a separate film about how the hero’s parents met in the first place” or, taking it to even greater absurdity, like the hero’s conception and the emergence of the universe.
@@ahoramazda6864 That last part's already been done in Genesis. XD
@@ahoramazda6864You don’t want characters with no backstory obviously or too vague. What makes one evil? Did the hero do something? Did an event happen? Was it their upbringing?
@@Rubyshiny344, I just don’t want the creators to show all the steps and moments in the life of a hero or villain, even those that are not significant and could be left unsaid. Especially if we're talking about something that doesn't matter to the main story. I don't need to know if the villain was bullied at school and I don't need to know the sexuality of the main character. This is overdone and does not evoke emotions.
P.S. There are a number of examples of great characters without a backstory. For example, Anton Chigurh. There are a number of examples of characters who have become worse with backstory. Alien was a mysterious and unique monster until Ridley decided to make it cliche and add a race of space creators and more androids, like in the 70s. Although this had a wow effect on normies who had never known classic fiction, but still - the monster was ruined and became a guest in it's own franchise.
Davy Jones will forever be the perfect example of how to do a sympathetic villain right.
When society erases the distinction between good and evil (or, worse, calls evil good and good evil) it seems natural that they would seek "nuance" in villains. For if we acknowledge villains, we must acknowledge that there may be a right and a wrong.
given who actually controls these corporations and how those few people wish to remain in the shadows....
All this sympathy towards villains is just to give them excuses for their evil deeds. We all need to just accept that some people are just evil and need to face justice.
That's exactly what they're doing. Like Leslie Hedline. She needs to see things as morally gray in order to avoid accountability for her actions.
"Yeah I abused someone, but they deserved it, I'm a victim" rings true to so many abusers who deserve zero sympathy in the real world. Not only are they abusers, but manipulators, exploiters. The worst thing about it is that people actually believe those abusers are somehow better than the real victim.
@@etantifeprecisely, they realized that some people feel pity, they feel sorry for a terrible person like her and think that can excuse their actions, making them free or any accountability. It's essentially letting them get away with it.
Everyone has a choice to make between good and evil, regardless of their circumstances. If you have suffered and still choose the path of good, that makes you a hero. But if you choose evil, and use your suffering as an excuse to hurt others, that makes you a villain.
So what about Spike in Buffy The Vampire Slayer then?
4:45 Good summary, though you left out another aspect of traditional (in my case German or Central European) fairy tales: Besides the princess who needs saving, and the wicked witch, there is the good fairy or spirit of nature or whatever, and also quite a few tales where the good-natured, courageous and hard-working girl needs to rescue for example her brothers who got into trouble through their boyish foolishness, and so on.
Yes, they are MEANT to be evil.
Yeah, so when you see a character that eats puppies and kicks babies you really go "oh cool! A bad guy!"
That's more interesting than someone doing evil for at least a somewhat understandable reason?
Do you only want basic, good guy bad guy stories?
@@ZeSgtSchultz This isn't an either/or dummy, you can have subtle characters and polarized ones, and some are more suited to certain movies than others.
So to answer your shit question, YES.
@@cheeks7050 You tell 'em
@@ZeSgtSchultz Greed is very simple, but totally understandable reason.
A bit more complex, but so is desire for power.
Understandable doesn't have to mean sympathetic.
@@cheeks7050 The reason this is a tread is because writers are expected to writer more stories with more complex themes than usual. However there's more ways to do it than sympathetic villains.
For every Thanos that works, there are 100 Cruella DeVil's that make no sense.
This is the problem with Hollywood. When a good example of something comes along everybody tries to copy it. Thanos is a good empathetic villain. Game of Thrones does a really good job subverting expectations. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to recreate something that was done much better by someone much better than them.
Thanos didn't even work though. His plan was pathetically shortsighted, and even a child could see how it would fall apart in just a few short decades. They really should've stuck with his original motivation of being a nihilist who then becomes a simp for Death.
Cruella worked in the context of her story, which has its own thing. Not to mention there was still a completely irredeemable villain in Cruella.
Thanos doesn't work because they're trying to make you feel sorry for an abusive father who mutilated and of his daughters and murdered the other.
@@markcochrane9523
The POINT is that the kids are meant to see how it falls short and why Thanos is ultimately a bad guy.
@@austinreed7343 Nah, you don't get it. Making the villain's plan fall apart like a house of cards under the slightest scrutiny makes the villain look like an idiot you shouldn't take seriously. It's perfectly possible to have a villain with a solid plan, you just need to make it morally repugnant. Say, for instance.....killing half of all life in the universe because you think it'll impress a woman you like.
Snow White and Cinderella and Aladdin got the short end of the stick regarding their societies. But they didn't turn evil. That's why they're heroes instead of villains.
Aladdin was a bit evil at first, being a thief and all. But he sought a way out of that life, so he had redeeming qualities.
In Batman: The Killing Joke, The Joker tries to drive Commissioner Gordon insane to prove that anyone can end up like him under the right circumstances, but he fails and when Batman confronts him and reveals this to him he basically tells him that not everyone goes over the edge when things get too hard.
@realjoemavro so, Batman was saying there was an inner darkness in Joker before he went mad, and his transformation brought that darkness to the forefront. Whereas Commissioner Gordon, despite having a dark side of his own, remained morally upright in the face of despair and tragedy.
@@elmermedina1713
I don't think anyone "lacks" that darkness, I think some people are just better at keeping it in check.
@@realJoeMavroBig time. Our tools may have changed and society different, but we are still the same crazy apes that stopped knuckle-walking to cross the savannahs.
It's because they're trying to condition people to believe that evil is merely misunderstood. If we can believe it in fiction, we can believe it in real life. Ask yourself why someone wants you to view evil as forgivable and understandable.
My own working theory is that they want to take away the stigma against doing evil, and cast good deeds in a bag light. They want while to be excused and unpunished, and justice to be discouraged.
Who but criminals and villains would want that? To do evil, to be id-ish, with no counter? And worse, for children to be their defenders?
I miss ramsay and joeffry we need villains who do evil shit for no reason
The reason was pleasure. Both of them really enjoyed seeing visual signs of anguish in their victims; they took their time and even included props (crossbow, man-eating wild dogs, a rack). I agree we need more irredeemable antagonists.
Can’t wait for Chernabog’s backstory.
Chernobog in Slavic means “Dark God” or “Black God”, so for me this phrase sounds like “Can’t wait for Big Baddy’s backstory."
@@ahoramazda6864 "He got beat the fuck up by Sora, Donald and Goofy. Now he's mad at the writers or something, so sympathetic!"
Otherwise known as "sympathy for the devil".
As a child Chernabog was told he couldn't eat dessert before diner. It's a tragic story you see
If it isn't an attack on societal norms, then it's certainly an attack on binary systems of understanding: good/bad, night/day, hero/villain, male/female, but only where it suits them. The black/white, rich/poor, queer/straight distinctions seem to still carry value while others don't.
Because the real villain is Disney itself and they want sympathy so we'll continue to allow and fund their despicable behaviour.
I could not have put that better myself.
Only point I’ll argue against is the Wicked Witch. “Wicked” has been around as a book for 30 years. Can’t blame Hollywood for that one!
You forgot Maleficent. She tried to kill a baby because she wasn't invited to a party. Didn't the Maleficent movie try to make her this misunderstood lady who cared about Aurora? Bullshit, she didn't give a crap about the young girl she tried to kill so it's not even the truth. Some of these villains are shunned and ostracized because they're BAD PEOPLE. I think what some of these people are saying is ridiculous.
I think redeemable villains can be done and can be interesting (if they haven't done anything too bad...) People who aren't perfect & make mistakes and act out on their own pain or trauma but are now trying to be a better person. The human mind can be an interesting thing. My Little Pony and Sailor Moon have done some of these (and Dragonball Z but some of the reformed villains were murderers)- they have a mix of reformed villains and villains who can't be fixed.
I agree but I would say a villain can do terrible things and still be redeemed. Redeemed doesn't mean forgiven by the viewer/reader/player it all depends on the writing and how it is handled. Some of the best characters in fiction are redeemed villains, but they ideally should be punished or pay for their mistakes
In my mind Maleficent the movie is a separate story from the OG Sleeping Beauty, because too many things are just outright different (including the curse itself). I think it's a good story on its own, alone, by itself...but the second the OG is brought into the picture, it downgrades. And if anyone tries to tell me it's an ''adaptation'' or ''alternate perspective'' or some garbage like that, its worth plummets straight to zero and so does that person's to me. It can be considered an alternate universe, perhaps, or a retelling, but not an iteration of the OG. It's separate and that's only where its quality is.
With Z, the main 2 villains who redeemed themselves had already died several times. Piccolo in his previous incarnation did get his comeuppance, he also eventually did die yet did not truly repent or change fully until he fused with his other half after his reincarnation and due to certain circumstances, which by that point he was "piccolo" in name only. Vegeta, oh boy Vegeta, where to begin. By now everyone loves where his character is, yet he started off as a mass murdering psycho who didn't truly repent for his sins even after his first death. When he was on the ground dying, Vegeta had so much blood on his hands (Goku's friends and what remained of the Namekian population). Though he was dying and pouring his heart out, he never repented for his actions. Frieza beating the life out of him with ease was the most humiliating and most humbling moment in Vegeta's life. Though he gets revived, Vegeta still has not changed very much. While he isn't as blood thirsty as he used to be, he didn't care if innocent people died due to fighting the androids or cell (which he showed practically no care for Bulma and their baby when they were close to dying). It isn't until the Buu Saga, and having committed the most selfish decision in his life did Vegeta finally decide to atone for his sins.
The annoying thing is how they rebrand villains as misunderstood and morally grey, then make the heroes straight up evil. Like, what?
Of course they do, heroes set a standard and promote personal responsibility
We keep waiting for modern writers to create a villain as good as Magneto but eventually you have to resign yourself into accepting they aren't remotely talented enough to do anything even close.
Disney hasn’t had a good villain since Dr. Facilier from The Princess And The Frog
I’d say that King Candy was the last true villain from a Disney film, but he was still kind of a twist villain as well.
I wonder if/when Disney will make a camp-version of a certain "misunderstood" and "bullied" mustache-wearing painter...
Unlikely, considering that Disney is in the hands of those with whom he fought
@@ahoramazda6864 Can I go back to your timeline where Disney are still great?
In OUR timeline, they're in the hands of his Top Men.
I find it strange Ashkenazi ends in Nazi .. I think the media men who were originally repurposed prop@ artists thanks to operation paperclip .. the mission just changed.. same enemy tho but these media types r true shapeshifters n illusionists
Quite insidious but we r being subverted and divided and demoralized and Disney is just a vector/tool of that, it’s ww3 n those being conquered r fighting over gender stuff n if pond animals r safe
Salvador Dali?
@@Drums_of_Liberation AH. Was actually a great painter n his painting of baby (blond ginger) Jesus with his mom is really stunning. A lot of people thought AH and Walt looked a lot alike and some very fringe theories say they were same person.. I think the truth is likely far stranger than any of us would even believe but seems clear Evil won.. for now .. ‘the darkness is always darkest before the Dawn’ and ‘the greatest Light casts the deepest shadow’
We are in the shadow presently so everything is inverted but that’s also said to be a clear sign we approach the exciting climax of our age
I am so sick of villains having tragic backstories. Some times it works like in Prince of Egypt but sometimes some people are just evil for the sake of evil.
My personal theory is that those disenfranchised people whom we were assured would grow in empathy, never subjecting other people to the perceived slights they endured
…instead grew bitter and spiteful, prone to the fantasy of the vengeance they’d inflict on the world.
Only, the things they’d like to do if they could are the preserve of ‘villains’, good people don’t think that!
So they reverse engineer the problem, they make the villains sympathetic and justified, just to pass their vengefulness off as a warped sort of morality and not evil.
High school grudges and self pity have been allowed to fester and influence culture
Yes, that's what I've been saying. Make Villains Evil again.
It's all about dodging responsibility. In identity politics, all your problems are somebody else's fault if you have the right demographics. Writers can't simultaneously hold the position that all womens' problems are due to men whilst writing a woman doing evil of her own accord. So, all the evil women must be shown to be evil not intrinsically but because of circumstance. There's oppressor/oppressed crap in there too.
Yeah thank god someone said it
It’s such an annoying trend humanizing villians and making there evils justified and whatnot
*their 😢
@@tip00former1 I can’t cause people today made their they and them to be very annoying
@@MitchTaylor-x8c Then don't pay attention to them and write in actually proper english. Just ignore their BS.
Can't you humanize a villain and still have them be irredeemable? Walter White? Tony Soprano? Although I guess they aren't truly antagonists by definition, since an antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist
@@angeloalvarez5520 well maybe but I feel like writers today are a bit immature and pick low hanging fruit concept and less originality
But a villian who’s plain evil is pretty much better because the sympathetic villian trope has been milked dry and redundant at this point thanks to sweet baby and disney
Hollywood wants villans to be sypathetic because they are villians who want to look sympathetic.
Hollywood making villains sympathetic ("it's not their fault!") is actually going to lead to villainy being more socially acceptable... and thus more common.
Socially acceptable == more common
Socially UNacceptable == less common (or rare)
It almost always happening to female villains. No one is ever going to give characters like Frollo or Gaston a tragic backstory. (You know the straight, white men) The only male Disney villain to receive a sympathetic rewrite is Scar, and he’s a lion.
@@snowbunnie1113they are African lions so seen as non white
@@Nyet-Zdyes No this dumb idea that if you repeat a lie enough times people start believing it is not true, otherwise we'd already be queer and trans, and like 300kg/lbs, 40 year old behemoths.
@@rattlehead999 On the contrary... it DOES work. Not always... but often.
For a case in history, in the 1930's, a lie repeated often enough, turned one people against a specific set of their neighbors... made them thing that those neighbors were their enemies.
Then there are the matters of both accusations and false accusations... both of which a great many people will believe instantly.
Another example is the whole collusion thing about Trump... the angry bovine and others repeated it often.
Not everyone believed it... but an awful lot did... quite possibly including the angry bovine.
Yet another example... all the urban legends. Take any specific one of those, and you will find that a lot of people believe it.
Another one from history...
The whole WMD excuse... A lot of people believed that one, too... and then it turned out to be wrong... but by then, it was too late.
But they only make them "sympathetic" if they are female, black, or gay. And if they are male, straight, or white, they never get gender or race swapped, only the heroes get that treatment.
@@hiair
Which leads to right wingers making things like Mr. Birchum to make up for it.
Didn't somebody at Disney-Lucasfilm recently say that there is no good or evil, only power? That would seem to be an insight into modern filmmaking.
Someone like Voldemort lol
The funniest thing is, that's literally a Harry Potter line (the only book most of these people know), said by one of the Malfoys. "There is no good or evil. Only power, and the will to use it."
@@WhiteManOnCampuswhich is ironic since it sounds like a pretty evil thing to say😂
Hannibal Lecter? Turned out he was just a misunderstood gourmet.
Bram Stoker's Dracula from the 90's was a relatively early example of this phenomenon
@AlexD-os8hw I agree... I would prefer fewer or different deviations from the novel but it is a great film with a great story
I think Carmilla is a better example, in fact. The name Dracula has become so iconic that countless characters bear it, many of whom aren't at all Bram Stoker's character.
But Carmilla is known for three types. The Carmilla from the novel, Castlevania's Carmilla, and a bastardised Girl's "Love" version.
I have known MANY people that were raised in the most horrible of environments that don't grow up to be murderers and theives. Trying to make excuses for people doing horrible things is how society collapses. We should be celebrating those people who rise above there circumstances and choose to be good people. Those are the kinds of "victims of circumstances" that we love to see and can cheer for and love. Not these "sympathetic bad guys" who they want us to justify their bad behavior because of their circumstances.
I wish I could press like on your comment more than once.
That’s way I like the villain saying “we’re not so different you and I” its shows that despite all there similarities that the villain is incapable of seeing what makes them so different the hero CHOSE to do good.
modern hollywood does not wish to inspire you, they wish to engineer and control you. Huge differences from the people actually steering the agenda.
@@marcusdegroot7578I would love if a hero responded "No we're not. We both made a choice, and you took the easy way out. That's why you're doomed."
@@angrytheclown801 A variant of that was in the DC animated movie "Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths." Batman was confronted with Owlman, his evil counterpart. "We both stared into that abyss. The difference is, you blinked."
Who needs villains when we have 'heroes' like Osha, Velma, Galadriel and that girl from Damsel.
😂
Yep
Plus for conservatives there’s… Mr. Birchum & Norm. Neither are mainstream but still, it’s progress.
Fake!Velma. The real Velma is plenty heroic. :)
@@Nehfarius
Unlike Mr. Birchum, who really is what the obscure original version could plausibly become, right?
It's the classic frog and scorpion tale. They're evil because it's their nature. Sometimes it feels good to truly hate a character. I never want to feel bad for them or see them redeemed. You have my sympathy in your efforts to justify their actions.
Yeah it’s actually quite annoying when they do it towards pure evil villains like Cruella, Malificent etc, I’m not gonna be surprised if they will did the same shit to Scar
Doesn't work in real life either, Being from a shitty situation doesn't excuse acting like a pos
Because Hollywood is full of villains…
From Milton to Coppola to Lucas, the sympathetic villain origin story has gone from ingenious to inspired to illogical
At lightspeed in the last decade
I never took the way these villains acted to be 'gay'. They always seemed instead to act as though they have an over inflated sense of self importance. They were snobby, not queer coded.
Queer people are inherently snobbish though. It's snobbery against human nature.
I've been thinking the same thing. It seems to some people sophisticated and theatrical = gay. I don't get it.
@realjoemavro because of the stereotype of gay people always being flamboyant and dramatic
Narcissistic people are more likely to choose to be that.
(And yes, it's obviously a choice. Science proved it long ago, with identical twin studies etc., well before the overwhelming evidence we have today.)
@@burtdagg7288 Telly Savalas’ interpretation of Blofeld in _On Her Majesty’s Secret Service_ is a good example. He has a few effete traits, from the way he dresses to how he holds his cigarettes, but it’s because he’s pretending to be a count and he thinks that’s how old money types are supposed to act.
They don't believe in inherently evil people and think everyone is good, but circumstances makes the person bad, when it's the other way around. We evolved on a harsh planet in harsh environments of scarcity, why would we be good by birth?
I think the formula is, any female antagonist in a movie with a female protagonist, has to be misunderstood. Gaston was just an asshole, not a product of society.
Ironically, Gaston could be a hero and the story could be the same. He hates reading because he's dyslexic. He wants Belle to be a housewife because he worries her obsessions will lead her to starve. He fights the Beast because he's a beast. He ignores Belle's pleadings because magic exists and she may be bewitched. He dies a tragic death, misunderstanding the situation to the end.
Ah yes. Like the Baroness from Cruella... oh wait, she was just pure evil.
@@jackhummer8344 just wait, in twenty years there will be a movie about her being misunderstood.
@@Mr_Case_Time Yeah, no there won't. Female antagonists who are still evil are still a thing. If you want another example, the most villainous character in Wicked... is Madame Morrible, since the Wizard is a sympathetic character in the play who just wants to make everyone happy.
@@jackhummer8344 you’re going to ancillary stories to prove your point. I’m not talking about anything but classic Disney stories. OBVIOUSLY there are stories with purely evil female antagonists. And to be fair, Cruella could have been a story completely removed from 101 Dalmatians. I’m not familiar with your other example. To truly disprove my point, give me a sympathetic male antagonist in a story that has a female protagonist. I mentioned Gaston. There’s also Dr. Facilier from The Princess and the Frog, and Shan Yu from Mulan. All of them are male antagonists, none will ever have a sympathetic backstory.
One reason that they remake villains to be sympathetic is...
Decades of "It's not their fault. It's society's fault, for making them that way."
NO.
Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own decision to "cross that line" and do something which is wrong.
Worse, I have this sinking feeling, that this trend in media, to make villains more sympathetic, is going to remove the stigma of crossing that line... and thus, make it more common.
Shame and guilt exist for a reason... and those things are *required* to allow us to function in societies... groups... CIVILIZATION.
Well actually sympathetic villain - is a villain towards who you can feel sympathy because of their tragic life, but not justify their actions, what Disney doing now more looks like "misunderstood villains"
@@rg3721 IMO, there's a difference between an "understandable villain", and a "sympathetic villain".
The first, you can understand the reasons that he/she made his/her choices, but you don't *agree* with those choices, and you have no sympathy for their actions.
A sympathetic villain, though, goes beyond that. It looks to me like an attempt to excuse their actions... to present them as justifiable, when they are not... at least not by a normal person.
When things get really "gray", those should be left to movies for adults.
Injecting "sympathetic villains" into *kids'* movies is... not good, IMO.
Mass migration.
What is this “NO” word you speak of?”
- Infantilized Hollywood
@@Nyet-Zdyes So would a villain like Dr. Doom of the Fantastic Four comics be an example of an understandable villain?
My personal belief is that these people write villains to be sympathetic because they themselves are villainous and seek sympathy for their poor life choices.
I thought progressives hated patriarchal heteronormativity and the nuclear family? Is this the Hollywood equivalent of 'everyone wins a prize'?
I think the current Disney writers grew up identifying with villains.
Leslye gleefully states she’s sith
I bet this goes double for upper management.
They're making villains sympathetic because they're acting on a corruption of the religious principle of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and "Love/compassion for all".
Christ's principle. There are millions of religions and only one Truth.
@@KopperNeomanEvery religion is made to control the weak minded, I'm counting the woke left into it, because they act like a cult.
Achilles is not a moral hero and Hector dies as a result of his moral heroism. Plato considered this glorification of Achilles to be problematic for society.
I did not know this, so thank you. I am continually amazed by what ancient Greeks knew about science, history, human nature--there is seemingly nothing they did not know & understand long before our modern "wisdom." And, as always, Plato was right. Socrates, too. Who knows how much western society lost when schools quit teaching Plato, Socrates, et al.?
Plato through the character of Socrates would go on to suggest that stories which glorify people like Achilles should be destroyed and removed from public consciousness. If we had to choose one human story to benefit society, it should be something like The Lord of the Rings, with absolute moral clarity, not The Iliad, according to Plato's ideas on the subject.
@@davidgeorgemorin As someone who reveres LotR & Prof Tolkien, I wholeheartedly agree with Plato. I may pore thru the newest edition of Tolkiens "Letters" and see if Plato is mentioned. If I understand Tolkien, he would agree with Plato.
Thank you for the reply!
@@jabrowne2018 Of course. My late English professor took Tolkien's course when he studied in England and Tolkien spent the vast majority of time reading Beowulf aloud in Old English without taking any questions or explaining anything!
@@davidgeorgemorin Prof T was old school! I was in Oxford for a few days in 2004. Visited his & his wife's grave. Tried to get into Balliol, but, wisely, it was not allowed. I have his translation of Beowulf, but have not read it yet. What a privilege to have had a prof who took a course from Tolkien! I'm afraid I'd be peppering him/her with numerous questions, not the least of which would be, "Can I please se your notes? The syllabus?" LOL
I think people assign too much agency in answering that question, either saying that it's some kind of social engineering attempt to blur the lines of morality, or the writers sympathizing with the villains because they are also evil or something. I think those are both missing the mark, and Hanlon's Razor provides a much simpler explanation: the writers are bad at their job and think that "morally grey villain = nuanced", "nuanced character = good writing", therefore "writing morally grey villains = I'm a good writer". It's similar to how hack Hollywood writers and executives always take the wrong lessons from media trends and run them into the ground.
The Dark Knight trilogy was successful because they were bombastic action movies with strong character writing and a refreshingly realistic aesthetic? Nah, that couldn't have been it, we just need to make superhero movies dark and edgy and have everyone dress in black leather and we'll ride this wave, baby!
Game of Thrones was successful because of the complex, interwoven character drama and grey morality? That's too complex, let's just make shows that are full of nudity and fan favorite characters dying, that's the golden ticket!
Guardians of the Galaxy was successful because it told a self-contained hero's journey full of colorful characters and interesting settings? Nah, it was the quips. Just the quips, and the 80s music. Make our superhero movies have ensemble casts and mascots and oversaturate the screen with neon colors, and everyone will love us!
In short, I'm pretty sure this is just the newest iteration of this "trend", and not some grand conspiracy.
You make a great observation, that it's not the villain's fault that they're the villain, they're a victim of (insert reason here). This is clearly because the writers are immature, not grownup enough to understand about being mature and taking personal responsibility for their lives. No matter how much bad luck life throws at you, being a victim & lashing out is a choice you make in response to that, just like if you chose to not let that bad luck get you down. It says a lot about those who are in charge that they don't want to offer inspirational stories that empower others to make better choices that improve their lives. Wallowing in self-pity is self-serving and not attractive.
0:41 Seriously? 😳 I would have understood if she had said "I feel that she did what she THOUGHT she had to do" (meaning Ursula thought her actions were justified, though in the eye of every morally grounded observer they are not.) Worded the way it is, it sounds like the actress thinks you HAVE to do evil deeds when there are "reasons". 🤦♀️
1:54 Thats exactly why they do it. They dont want kids knowing a lot of people are 100% irredeemable, mainly the writers and studios themselves.
Among other things villains exist in stories to emphasize and embellish the cautionary tale. You want your kids to avoid the forest, not run into it looking for people to rescue.
The "modern" villain grooms the listener for future gaslighting. It's not the correct problem I'm grasping to find the name of, but it kinda like Stockholm. What this writing does is makes the real victim the villain. Teaches kids not just to ignore danger but to feel bad if they avoid it.
Understanding a villain doesn't mean rescuing the villain, it's intended to help you avoid the same traps so you don't become one.
I agree with that last statement to an extent, but i don't think it's unreasonable for heroes to feel that they have to at least try to save the villains. Batman, Luke Skywalker and Izuku Midoriya being Prime examples.
P.S. I'm on episode 15 of the anime and never read the manga, so if you know anything, don't spoil anything for me.
When you are a small kid you believe that people can be just evil
When you become an adult you realize things are very complex
Than you become even older and realize fairy tales were right all along
Some people are just evil its in their nature
Goddamn moral ambiguity…
"Monsters exist to be vanquished"
Not necessarily but If you think about it Monsters probably want to be vanquished which is why they terrorize its there way of committing suicide without having to actually act upon it.
No consequences for your actions. You are not responsible for anything you do. what a great message for people.
Ultimately, the trend towards "deconstruction" often doesn't seem to mean much more than "I'm better than/smarter than you, and all the stuff that came before me", an indulgent bit of delusion belied by the inability of the would-be deconstructionists to create anything as resonant or successful as what they seek to deconstruct. At best, I would like to believe that some of the people trying to re-imagine villains have good intentions. But Hollywood never met an idea they couldn't indulge to excess, and very few of those who re-imagine have the craft to make something engaging out of their trope.
I think my favorite trope is the villain giving a backstory and the hero going ‘don’t care’ or better yet ‘yeah, everyone has it rough, you’re making excuses.’
All the best villains are defined by their lack of restraint. They want something, usually for understandable or relatable reasons. But they can't have it, usually because it belongs to someone else. So rather they decide to take it for themselves, or destroy it out of spite, regardless of the consequences to themselves or anyone else. Villainy is an inherently childish way of thinking, and it's rather telling how so many people these days would rather relate to the villain than strive for the maturity and self-restraint of the hero.
"Villainy is an inherently childish way of thinking."
Well, in some cases, that's definitely true. In Evangelion, Gendo Ikari (who can effectively be called the villain) is always the one telling the protagonist, Shinji that he's childish and that he needs to grow up, but in reality, Gendo is more of a fool than Shinji, willing to screw up the whole world to bring back one insignificant human being, his wife.
But then we have hero/villain dynamics in which the villain is so much more mature than the hero, that the hero can't help but respect the villain, albeit in in a grudging way and actually learns a thing or two from the villain, maybe even looking up to him, to an extent. Omi and Chase Young from Xiaolin Showdown and Slade and Robin from Teen Titans being good examples.
But then there are antagonists like Kyubey from Madoka Magica and the Anti-Spiral from Gurren Lagann, who are so frustratingly logical in their reasoning that at times, the idealism of the protagonists sometimes does sound almost childish by comparison.
@@realJoeMavro you're falling for the airs that villains put on to justify their actions. If you boil a villain's motivations down, you get "I'm going to take something that's not mine because I want it now." It doesn't matter how logical their excuses are for why they "deserve" what they want. It doesn't matter how mature they act outside of fulfilling their desire. The core motivation of "I'm taking this immediately, and to hell with those who oppose me!" Is what makes them a villain. It's a short-sighted, selfish, childish attitude, no matter how they dress it up.
@@Cyberguy64
I'm not falling for anything, I'm well aware that at the end of the day, characters like Slade and Chase are still clearly the bad guys and need to be stopped, no matter their motives. As for Kyubey, I challenge you to watch Madoka Magica and then tell me that his motives are as simple as "I'm taking something that's not mine."
The thing with Wicked is that Elphaba’s actions aren’t excused at all.
The show the movie is based on takes place before, during and after the events of The Wizard of Oz. The events in the book/film still happen but off screen.
You feel sorry for her and can empathize with her but she has one big song called “No Good Deed” where she says that it’s no good being good because everything’s going to blow up in your face.
And that’s partly why the show is so popular and has stayed on Broadway for as long as it has: because even though we understand how she got there, she’s still a villain.
Moral relativism and creative bankruptcy.
I'll make my pitch that this movement is simply an excellent example of the typical cycle of moral progress. Moral individuals, perceiving a need for change, initially must push HARD to drive for such change given the inertia of the status quo. Inevitably, the drivers of progress will fall short in observing the course of progress requiring a reduction in this push as momentum builds, thus leading to an overshoot. Finally, those drivers with the wisdom to avoid tunnel vision as well as neutral parties will observe the overshoot and in ever-growing intensity pull back on it, until balance is achieved.
It makes all the sense in the world that villains do not begin as pure evil and come from something. Understanding how that happens helps us avoid the creation of real villains, while being able understand and empathize with villains both puts proper restraint on society's response to villainny and is also good for our own moral souls. Justice, not vengeance, right? That is the balanced target.
Roughly the 1990s were a golden age for three-dimensional villains who merited empathy without tempting us to condone their actions. A terrific example is the reworking of the story of Batman's Mr. Freeze - he formerly had simply been an ice themed mad scientist, whereas the Batman animated series presented him as someone who had been simultaneously wronged and, in the same stroke, having been robbed of his emotional humanity. That didn't excuse the callous harm to caused to others, but we could pity him.
The worthy desire to create such villains has clearly gained too much momentum, leading to an overshoot from empathy and pity to glorification and even a degree of heroism. It was one thing for Disney to rework Sleeping Beauty into Maleficent - that worked in large part because the title character indeed had become an evil character, before the writers capably and reasonable created a redemption for her. It wasn't that her villainy was misunderstood - indeed, having become a victim or villainy, she threw aside all moral compunctions and chose to fight fire with fire, something she did not have to do but still chose to embrace. It was the good of another character reminding her that the world is not just a terrible place that eventually snapped her out of her villainy. Good stuff.
But that isn't the case with most of the attempts that have followed. Fortunately, the nature of cycles means that capable writers more and more will perceive a thirst for villains who are indeed villains, sympathy or otherwise, and once they start delivering high quality products in that direction Hollywood in the like will trip over themselves to jump on that correction.
I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO NOTICED THIS!😢
THANK YOU, SIR! I DON'T FEEL ALONE!😭
When you constantly see yourself as a victim, you can easily justify being a terrible person.
Isaiah 5:20 in the Bible says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Seems like it's happening all the time.