I think a good villain should always fit the story one is trying to tell. There is 100% space for pure evil villians and force of nature villians for example. It all depends on the story one is trying to tell, and the themes they want to explore.
Also in terms of being remembered, basically just marketing, that isn't always the case, but when you think of villains they tend to be ones from big franchises
After all the videos I’ve come across saying how to make a great villain, all which ignore all the great villains that go against their rules and advice, this one is rather refreshing.
My personal favorite types of villains that you highlighted in this video are Character Vs Self, and The Villain as Darkness. The former helps the main character (or other characters) see what they could become if they let their personal flaws or struggles defeat them. You can consider that kind of villain to be the character's greatest test. The Villain as Darkness also works as this but can be applied more generally. These villains can have sympathetic motivations or they can just be there to cause havoc. Villainy comes in different shades, all of which are valid.
One thing I see a lot of in “How to write a good villain.” videos is that they tend to focus on one or a few types of the same villain archetype (usually it’s the intimidating, dark type like Darth Vader or Homelander) without really going into to depth as to what makes them interesting as villains outside of “The plot takes them seriously.” (Which is a part of making an interesting villain, but that should just be the end of it.) or “They look cool.” (Which is a subjective opinion.) With this vid, I’m glad that you at least go in depth about the different types of villains and how they relate to the main conflict of a story which I feel like should be the most important thing when writing a villain/antagonist. Also, Big thumbs up for mentioning Monster.
One of the more baffling things I see in discussions about villains is that complexity and moral ambiguity are treated like synonyms. This really doesn't make sense. A villain can be an absolutely despicable person with no redeeming qualities and still be a very complex and three dimensional character. People are more than just their position on a moral alignment chart. And I think a lot of my favorite villains are the ones that are fascinating and despicable at the same time. What goes on in the head of some like that? What do they want, and how do they go about getting it? "The villain is actually kind of right" can be interesting, but so can "the villain is absolutely, completely, bafflingly wrong". And often seeing someone completely wrong and picking apart WHY they're wrong can lead us to reevaluating ourselves just as much as a villain who's making uncomfortable but valid points. One of my favorite villains is Doflamingo from One Piece. There's a huge amount that can be and has been said about him, but one thing that's really stuck with me is something he said that a lot of people seem to think is true: "Pirates are Evil? Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history. Kid's who have never seen peace and kid's who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is a neutral ground! Justice will prevail you say, of course it will. Those who win the war, become the Justice. " I think this is interesting because so much of One Piece as a story is about showing that this is NOT TRUE. This isn't how it works and it never has been. Because the past always comes back, and people's will ALWAYS carries on. The winner of a war may get to proclaim themselves as righteous and, for a time, keep anyone from saying otherwise. But that doesn't make them right, and people's desire for freedom will carry on. Doflamingo tried to rewrite Dressarosa's history to create a narrative that served him. But he failed to erase the past and it caught up to him. The world government has been trying and failing to erase joyboy's legacy for the past eight hundred years, but still it prevails. Doflamingo thought that the winners got to decide right from wrong, that might makes right. But, there's another quote that's applicable: "Behind this mask are ideas. And ideas, are bulletproof."
A example of this is Michael Myers, while I have my own views of him (More of a Jason guy) but the good Halloween movies (As in one) don't try to explain him, he's just a killer
@@ExtremeMadnessX It's been years and some people still haven't considered that maybe when the cackling, lightning-flinging nazi space wizard says "evil is a point of view" and his newly converted sidekick who just killed a bunch of kids says "from my point of view, the jedi are evil!", they might not be the most reliable sources on moral philosophy.
My favourite villain is Nui Harime from Kill la Kill. I think she might really fit multiple of the conflict types as character, society, nature, and a dark reflection of the heroine. Her introduction is coming as it looks like the conflict with the established villains is reaching its climax, and she breaks it as she breaks the very medium of the story. All done with screen stealing charisma.
I don’t really have a bias towards a certain type of villain I have mood swings when it comes to it but in my writing I like to make the main antagonist be the evil one but surround him either more nuanced characters
I like villains, no I love villains. I love ruthless villain's, I love destructive Villains, I love sympathetic villain's. I love manipulative villains, reckless villains, I love cutthroat villains, and cautious villains. Villain's in love stories, societal stories, war stories, slice of life stories, survival stories, stories of hardship, stories of exploration and discovery, and stories of freedom. That's about as much of the speech as I am willing to reference, but you get the idea.
the dramatic paralel is what i think makes a great villian. if a cackling maniac is the theoretical opposite to your hero it plays well into anything. in disney epics with one note characters simply being the opposite of fair is what makes aurora's arch enemy so alluring. after all not only is she blanket evil but for most of the run shes in control while aurora rests.
I think this video represents the strongest arguments for what makes compelling villains. I think it highlights why the "charismatic villains" in the Far Cry series have begun to fall flat in a big way. Vaas was a lightning in a bottle moment, and many credit Michael Mando's incredible performance, but I think it's also that in the story he functions as a clear warning for Jason. He IS Jason, just much further along on the same arc. Far Cry 4 does pretty well by making its villain Pagan Min have a personal investment in the protagonis. But Joseph Seed and Giancarlo Esposito's character (Can't remember his name lol) felt incredibly weak because their presence doesn't really contribute thematically to those games, despite solid performances in both cases.
A good villain doesn't have to be sympathetic,pure evil,or have a deep back story or no motive. All they have to do is be a conflict of interest for the main character(s) and they move the story forward and aren't treated as an incompetent fool.
I am so glad you made this video. As someone who has seen so many kinds of villians and can actually differentiate them along with being able to break them down, you are quite admirable. Antagonists have always been the more interesting part of media for me, which is most likely why I gravitate towards fantasy and horror. Watching this essay really opened my eyes to the potential and complexity a good villain can have. Even for the villains that aren't very complex, they can be considered interesting because they impact the other characters in a story through the conflict they bring. I am currently writing a series of three books for the first time, and I've fully written the first two. It would be a miracle for someone like you to read and analyze the character building because you have such an amazing grasp on what makes a good story, especially the villains. My stories have minor antagonists, but it slowly becomes a story about a villain that is mysterious at first. The protagonists learn over time what truly motivates this villain, and I want it to be truly thought-provoking. If any of that interests you, I would love if you gave it a shot. This is my first work, and I don't expect perfection. But I feel like I truly have a story I want to tell, one that I'm passionate about; but I want it to be impactful. Especially since after watching this, I am realizing that my story is being heavily impacted by my own identity as a gay man and perceptions of normality. I want these stories to be fully realized despite my lack of perspective outside of my own. They aren't published, but the first two books are fully edited, and illustrations are on the way. Love your work, and I'll continue to love it even if my request flies under the radar or if you simply don't have the time. I just really need perspective from someone knowledgeable so I can become a better writer. Regardless, the books will be published in the future. I just don't have anyone immediately available to properly critique my work, and it will be quite frustrating if it isn't received well due to my inexperience. If you are interested in chatting or just asking questions, please do.
I feel people these days do not understand there are reasons why we use tropes. Tropes are neither good or bad. We simply use them differently. I know people keep clanoring for pure evil but I don't even care of a villain is like that. What I want is to have us appreciate different types of villans besides being I want pure evil. We already have irredeemable villains guys. We got Proximus Caesar, Kamoshida, Ego, Skar King, Dio Brando, Bill Cipher, Mahito, Emperor Belos, The High Revolutionary, Big Jack Horner or other pure evil villains. The point is that I feel so frustrated say "Oh we need pure evil villains" when we already have them in this day in age too. Another issue with the we need pure evil trend is how we see villains. Do we want villain as pure obstacles or do we want them as characters too? I've had my favorite villains and most of them aren't just pure evil. I loved Anxiety from Inside Out 2, The Studio Ghibli Villains such as Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke, Silco from Arcane, Mr Freeze from Batman. There are times where a pure evil villain can go wrong if the trope is used wrong. There's this manwha called Rooftop Swordmaster where a guy literally tries to become a dangerous man and destroy his bullies. The bullies are just bullies, obstacles who do not do anything but laugh and scream too much. They are not interesting, they are not entertaining and they are not enjoyable. They are just made for us to despise them and it does not work. The main character is a bigger evil because he becomes a literal hypocrite. As a result the villains in that story are just fodder for the our main character to defeat. They're so bad we never get to see why they're bullies. As a result we have to understand why other fans love villains differently. Rather than stating oh we need pure evil. Okay everyone I love pure evil villains too but picture this. If we had pure evil villains in every media non stop that would be boring wouldn't it? Tropes are tropes ladies and gentlemen. They are neither good nor bad. I don't want to see jsut pure evil villains or sympathetic ones, I just want to see why they are like this and learn their cautionary tales and their revelevance in the story. If they are evil then go ahead. If they are tragic go ahead. Tropes are tropes everyone and that's how we used it. I'm not saying I despise pure evil villains I adore Belos, Bill Cipher, Big Jack Horner, Donflamingo, Dio, etectera but when Lily Orchard states we should not have tragic villains like Magneto...yeah we need to understand tropes are tropes people.
By all accounts Malekith in Thor: Dark World is a pure evil villain, and he is boring. Which proves that there is no correct answer for what your villain should be. It not simply, we want more pure evil villains. We want villains to actually be relevant in the stories they are in.
One of my personal favorite antagonists that's hard to fit into a single box is Boru from Brand New Cherry Flavor. Like, their whole thing is basically "at what point do you stop being human, and if you're no longer human are the things you do really that bad?" Actually, that show has so many layers it's discussing. If you can handle gore I highly recommend it. It sent my brain into a tailspin analyzing it.
Johann is the most effective villain I’ve ever read and I STILL get chills years later while rereading Tenma and his reunion. You really saved the best for last.
I have never watched Evangelion, but Anthony's description of Gendo reminds me of how I felt about Danzo in Naruto Shippuden On paper he is one of the good guys, the things he does he justifies as for the sake of the village, but anybody that has seen the show could tell you he is as slimy as they come
A+ for Aaron the Moor recognition I figured he did what he did because in the opening scene he (and us) witness his adopted tribe get humiliated and slaughtered, then his girlfriend's son is gutted and burned alive, then the guy who ordered the torture murders his own son for disagreeing with him, so these Romans are clearly a corrupt poison on the world, right? From his perspective, yes. If I was in Aaron's situation, I'd spend my last year of life doing everything I could to make sure these Roman bastards suffered, too. I think he's seen so much horror that he doesn't give a shit anymore - take them down with you. (I did my dissertation on Titus lol)
Two villains really stand out to me and they’re somewhat different. Xayide in Neverending Story 2 and Dr. Cable in the Uglies (Clarissa Burt and Laverne Cox respectively). Both beautiful women, but it’s all in the eyes. They convey volumes of contempt and malice and evil in their eyes and little half sneer smiles, and I think that says a lot for a villain. Laverne Cox was just amazing. I was chilled by her looks sometimes like a serpent waiting to devour. You really don’t have to say a lot to be a good evil villain, just speak with your eyes.
Gosh it's been decades since I saw Monster, but the symbiosis immediately kicked into drive long-dormant memories and "Oh yes; that was Awful and I Loved It" vibes skittering up and down my back x'D Kudos for the awesome video, and for feeding my a good excuse to rewatch an old goodie right at the end!
The line about Leatherface having his worse day dealing with the teens breaking into his home makes me think of Tucker & Dale vs Evil. Reframing the story from a different perspective completely changes the context, and in T&DvE it makes it incredibly funny.
@@agramuglia Oh hidy-ho officer, we've had a doozy of a day. There we were minding our own business, just doing chores around the house, when kids started killing themselves all over my property!
The answer is verisimilitude. The best thing a villain can be is believable. Doesn't matter nearly as much _what_ they make you believe, but you have to _believe._
Hi Anthony! Great video discussing what makes a villain. Too often writers fail to make villains interesting for the specific story; often believing they must follow “rules” which as you said didn’t actually exist.. I look at villains like Kuviera from Legend Of Korra, Kylo ren from Star Wars, and Voldemort from Harry potter as villains who just don’t work because the writers can’t think more creatively in analyzing the villain’s motives, and what they mean for the story both in-universe and as commentary on society. What do you make of remake Sephiroth? I know you discussed the original story (I love it that even though Sephiroth is most immediate threat to the world, he is a by-product of Shinra’s evil actions-a child who was raised to be a narcissistic weapon. Afterall, let’s say Sephiroth did die by cloud’s hands at the lab. What would happen? Well, Shinra would have depleted the life force and still endanger the planet. Sephiroth was merely speeding the process up. The only way to stop these threats together because failure to do so means the end of the world, is an anarchistic solution-all traces of both villains have to be destroyed). Remake sephiroth however is different than the original. He seemingly has the memories of his defeats, he knows what his suppose to happen to him, and he is hanging his tactics slightly as of now to meet his new goal (which is different I suspect from his original objective).
Here is a topic I'd like to see covered on this channel dark/adult reimaginings of children's media when does it work and when does it not some people argue kids' media should not get a dark gritty reboot, and Sight Velma, Riverdale, and the Snyderverse as examples but then you have things like Shusuke Kaneko's Gamera Trilogy, The Dark Knight Returns, and Alan Moore's Lost Girls, all reimaginings of kids' media and are amazing I know the short answer is "depends on if the writing is good" but it is still an interesting topic.
In the original Jurassic Park book Hammond is shown less sympathetically and even gets eated by the end, but Spieldberg...I think what he did was he's like what if Hammond was Walt Disney but not Disney the real guy with all his rough edges and labor abuse and antisemitism but the public facing Walt Disney. You know a kinda lovable guy who wants to bring joy to everyone through a profit driven theme park venture. So what comes out the other end is a character that did a lot of wrong and bad stuff but you know he's a good guy, he doesn't deserve to get eaten by his own hubris. The ethical questions kinda splash on the whole project and not him, the guy who's idea was it to make a Dinosaur Park. And somehow it works. If you recut Jurassic Park with a few more scenes of Hammond being actively terrible to people, you might want to see Hammond get pecked by Pterodactyls but some honestly great writing and a great performance and even though everything is actually his fault you CAN'T be mad at John Hammond. Which is crazy the whole genre is lousy with characters who do this getting their commeaupance. You've never seen a zombie movie where the creator of the virus is a sympathetic figure because the whole point of that is "don't make a zombie virus, don't play God, bioweapons BAD, actually". (Edit: It turns out the video goes over it)
I generally don't place concious importance on the villains in the media I enjoy, but considering all the points discussed in this video it really does explain the diference of how engrossed I am in the stories of two isekai series I really really love both. The villain of Mushoku Tensei checkes pretty much all boxes, but the some of the villains of That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime don't really pose a credible threat to the protagonist. They are not awful, but you really feel like they have no chance to succeed, not because you know how a narrative works, but because they don't establish a credible threat. They are pretty great at the start and the end, but it really slumps a bit in the middle of the series.
As for villains I feel what makes a villain work for me is how they challenge/change the protagonist or impact the story. Death from Puss In Boots is a good example. He is a walking force of nature who eagerly wants to hunt Puss In Boots for pure amusement. He gleefully wishes to defeat the cat and yet he is reasonable. He is right that Puss is wasting his own life and in the process never appreciating what he had. He was too careless and that as the embodiment of the end, he wants Puss to understand the consequences of not living your life fulfilled. Another villain is Dio from JJBA. He is a spoiled brat that challenges the pure good of the Joestars. Johnathan Joestar. We despise him for making Johnathan's life horrible, and yet Johnathan tries his best to stay positive and do good. Without Dio, none of the events of Jojo would have happened and despite his demise his impact still lingers on. Dio is the reason on why JJBA works, a lireral family curse that will always try to challenege the Joestars. Or a personal favorite idea of mine. I like when a joke villain becomes a literal threat aka when they become evil and despicable. You know we all love our joke failure villains like Gru, Megamind, or Doctor Doofensmirtz but what if one of them actually became EVIL? Well take the Spot from Spiderverse. Spot when we first meet him is a joke. Nobody takes him seriously and not even Miles. But once we dig deeper he is kind of pathetic. He is simply a scientist that blames his fate against Miles, even though he came at the wrong place at the wrong time. He is deplorable because he blames his misgivings on a literal kid out of spite. While it is true becoming the Spot made him waste his job he still chosed a life of villainy. When he finally acheives his full power, he is taken seriously and it's horrifying. And it's not just because he became serious evil. The Spot is insecurity incarnate because he is a perfect foil against Miles. Despite losing Uncle Aaron and forced to accept he was a mistake, Miles still persevered and had people who genuinely cared for him. The Spot meanwhile despised himself and instead of improving he loathed Miles being special. He could not appreciate his ability of doing good, because he still had a unhealthy obsession with self validation against Miles. Miles improved while he did not. Which is why we have different types of evil everyone. It's not just pure evil guys. I love pure evil and we need more pure evil too, but it's not the only reason on what makes a villain work.
Hence why Claude Frollo is one of Disney's greatest villains, he's not a sorcerer, a sea witch, an alien, or a lion. He's just a man, a man who uses his faith as a shield and his own self-righteousness to commit the most unspeakable acts of evil. Everyone, either in real life, or on their screens has met a Claude Frollo.
@@Grf1556one thing about him as well is that he himself doesn’t think he’s evil and to him it’s not an excuse, but rather that he truly is doing the right thing. The best villains are often the heroes of their own stories.
@@youthoughtaboutit6946Exactly. Best villains are the ones that don't see themselves as villains. Especially because people like that exist in real life.
Personal I always separate Villians in three Groups: one Villian that you love to hate because he is cruel, mean, unpleasent and a pain for everybody (he even could be on the right side of the Law like a Sheriff 🤠) and a Villian you love 🥰to shine with Charisma and over the top supervillian Tropes. Like Dracula, Dr.Frankenstein and most of the Spider-Man Rogues. The last Group would be a Villian, that is too pitifully 😔 to really hate, like Gollum, Renfield or Norman Bates. You know they are bad news, but you only see the tragedy 🎭 and how little sanity they have left…
About Johan Liebert... I would argue that he is the protagonist of Monster, and everyone other acts as a villains to him. Johan's motivation is simply to not exist, so he makes everything to achieve it. He's erasing everyone who knows about him because until at least someone knows who's he truly is - he is alive in their memories... He is existing... Tenma actively tries to save him in the beginning and the end. It is Tenma who saved the boy. It is Tenma who set in motion all that happened next. Darth Vader killing uncle Owen is the call to action for Luke. Mafia killing a dog is the call to action for John Wick. Tenma saving a kid who wanted to never be born is the call to action for Johan.
I have a theory about villains, although I don't know if this is possible to prove one way or the other. I think that they tie back into our fight or flight response, back from humanity's early history when people were hunter-gatherers. I think society evolved faster than the human brain has, and we're still trying to catch our brains up. Societally, doing bad things is considered unacceptable, or maybe unforgiveable. That's an obvious point. There is, of course, room for some subjectivity and nuance, so please take my points with a pinch of salt, rather than definitive. Evolutionarily, I think there is a perverse incentive to doing a lot of things we generally consider bad. If you are: selfish, greedy, violent, deceptive, intimidating and so on, I think it is, in part, a function of the old fight or flight response. You are probably gathering the means to make your life, your comfort and therefore your survival, more likely. This ties into 'survival of the fittest' and the idea of the best survivors being the most likely to reproduce and pass their genes on. I would like to be clear here, that I think a lot of this is on a subconscious level, and also, I am obviously not suggesting people should actually do crime. I don't know if saying 'perverse incentive' was clear enough or not, but I am not advocating for, or justifying, people doing crime. The dichotomy, is that the greater comfort and survival chances of someone may come at the expense or someone else. That's why in modern society the logic of being, well, a horrible person in general, is flawed. It would be "I want this so you can't have it" when we, as a society, probably strive for a certain minimum level of comfort and living standards for everyone. Yet some people still have an avaricious and self-indulgent mindset, that humanity hasn't evolved out of yet. Here's where it comes around to villains. I personally don't believe people inherently think "it's good to be bad". For instance, I don't find the logic in the Purge movies of "Crime is legal for 24 hours- the whole country becomes a hunting ground" to be that realistic or plausible, but that's just me. But I do think that villains activate something in the most primitive parts of our brains, that it would be evolutionary advantageous in many ways to be callous and horrible and so on. I think on some level we are all cognicent of it, and the vast majority of us know what is right and what is wrong. It's that our brains haven't evolved yet to no longer need a fight or flight response. Apologies for a long post, and I'm not a sociologist or psychologist anything. I just thought I'd give my two cents about villains and what I think makes them work.
I'm wondering if you're familiar with the character of Auto from the Pixar film 'WALL E'. (he is similar in a sense to the character of hal 9,000) Which bracket of villain do you believe he falls under?
evil is just someone with opposing morals /something that goes against your morals by definition a villain is evil yes team rocket is evil most of the time.
The only true villains are the ones without back stories. Attaching a back story to a "villain" humanizes them, making a case for empathy and justification towards that character, no longer making them a villain, but simply another person. For example.. the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween was an attempt to make the audience relate to and therefore understand why Michael Myers was "evil," ultimately taking away any reason for the audience to see him as a monster. Instead, they see him as a mentally ill person, leaving room for a sense of redemption, which alters the perception of Michael Myers from "villain" to just some big mentally challenged fella. That movie turned Michael Myers into Lenny from Of Mice And Men. Also.. Joker by Todd Phillips is 100% the worst portrayal of any villain in the history of film. Arthur Fleck was just an attention starved victim in that joke a movie. Hollywood is scared to put actual villains with no remorse or reason in movies nowadays. They use every antagonist as a device to deliver a social message, and it's been a stale form of character writing for almost a decade now in mainstream cinema. The days of not caring about the villain and just wanting to see them get what's coming to them is long gone. Now, we are expected to empathize with these unredeemable monsters, and it doesn't work. That's why B-Horror movies are more popular now than they were at their previous peak back in the 90s. People don't want to see antagonists fighting activists... They want to see antagonists fighting protagonists.
Villains as a concept is problematic because they represent "the other" by the dominant group to propagandize their societal norms and reject anything else that upsets the status quo. If a villain has a sharp edge design with a slim body and/or a big/crooked nose, then they're a racist caricature. If a villain is flamboyant, then they're a queerphobic caricature. If a villain is disfigured and/or mentally disabled, then they're an ableist caricature. And if a villain is fat, then they're a fatphobic caricature. Kids are vulnerable to this propaganda by teaching them to hate these marginalized groups through one-dimensional, Saturday morning cartoon villains rather than teaching them about how misunderstood and victimized they are and how we should all learn and cooperate with one another to changing the status quo. It's why there's a push for more morally gray antagonists because good and evil/black and white doesn't exist, as everything is shades of gray.
A good villain is a bit of an oxymoron, dont you think? 🤔 But as a more measured response a good villain is a character or part that fulfiills their role in the narrative in a satisfying way. What does the narrative need to prop up the villain? Is the villain someone with a heart of gold whos been lead astray, or is the villain stricken with grief and is just lashing out at the world? Hell, they could even just be Chaos Incarnate- they all just need a proper story to call home Idk basically a story is a bunch of smaller processes coming together to present something, and a villain is just a part of that
I think this idea of conflict being the key is by default flawed because conflict suggests there is a main character the villain is in conflict with, BUT there has been great villains that ARE the main character and aren't really in conflict with anybody. Alex from Clockwork Orange for example is an iconic villain, but he is the main character and there is no real main counter part that he is ever really in conflict with. I suppose the conflict there is if he will be reformed or not, but it's clear from the start that he wont be so I don't think you can count that as conflict.
@agramuglia Speaking of Alex. What about characters like Walter White, Patrick Bateman, or Tony Montana. would you consider them villain protagonists or just protagonist. I just notice you haven't really talk about the idea of a villain protagonist that much In the video.
Thank you for replying. I don't know many content creators that reply in comments. Also there's a video by, We Are Not Alive that talks about the term villain protagonist, and how it's kind of silly to have that term. I recommend you check that video out. Thank you again.
THE DIAMONDS ARE LITERALY SPACE HITLER no you won't change hitler's mind let alone by saying no you after it failed killing you lily is stupid but come on
U look like a kid Jeff Goldblum had before he got famous. Don't prioritize being on camera, it distracts from ur insight. What's more important, being recognized at Starbucks?
The problem with the Steven Universe debates on the Diamonds is that people overlook that a conflict can be *both* between the system itself and those at the top of it. Just destroying the Diamonds without overthrowing a structure of hierarchical birthright only changes the face of the evil, but redeeming those who’ve been responsible for utter horror spits in the face of justice. The show fails on the latter in a very big way, and it makes any payoff from the conflict very muted and frankly tone deaf. It also comes across as grossly misunderstanding how these systems psychologically interact with those at the top: they are both not free, and mechanisms of something beyond them, but also personally benefit from power and privilege that compels them to promulgate and entrench the status quo. It means that it’s *incredibly* unlikely that those at the top of these systems, or even lower down but still of relative status, will be able to dislodge themselves, willing or otherwise. The Diamonds redemption came off as forced in this regard. Compare this to, in my view, one of the best best attempts at rendering a complex villain in a fascist system, Harpuia from Megaman Zero (MAJOR spoilers for Megaman Zero 1 through 3): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Harpuia is one of the 4 Guardians of X, the leader of the fascistic Neo Arcadia, and general of one of the four Neo Arcadian armies (the air force). Initially founded as a utopia following a series of devastating wars, an energy crisis has served as the excuse for the Neo Arcadian leadership to instigate genocide against the Reploid population, to maintain the luxury of their human co-inhabitants, without taking from the enormous military. The show of how X and the four Guardians are both part of a system beyond them, and hold significant personal stakes is stark: they are reploids themselves. Their actions against their own kind is part of what keeps them in power. Of the four Guardians, Harpuia is the one with the strongest stated link to the genocide, outside of the military role they each fulfil (one of his closest henchmen is the direct overseer of the “disposal plant” that kills Reploids). Harpuia is, like the Diamonds, eventually bought over to the side of the resistance and helps in overthrowing the system he was once central to, but there are key differences. For a start, his journey feels believable, as he is stripped of his rank and driven out of Neo Arcadia for opposing X when the latter attacks humans. He was confronted with a reality in which his position and privilege were no longer able to bind him to the system, so he was able to more effectively open his eyes to the threat Neo Arcadia poses. This is also after repeated defeats at the hands of the resistance, significantly weakening both his reputation and forcing him to acknowledge their strength. The Diamonds are won over, but it feels far too quick and without any significant break from their own privilege. Secondly, the story acknowledges that he is effectively beyond any sense of redemption, because of the utter horrors committed on his orders; at the end of the third game, he is killed saving Zero. He is not mentioned again, with the conflict quickly moving back to the main battle against Neo Arcadia. For years I thought this was a bad ending for him, but as I’ve come to understand more about the politics the series was exploring, I’ve realised you can’t redeem a fascist character like that. You can still make them a compelling villain, and even have them help bring down their own system at the end, but anything short of either killing them, or having them pay heavily for their crimes, winds up feeling like everything that came before isn’t taken as seriously. The story isn’t perfect, and fumbles the odd line (there’s one particularly bad case where a resistance character says something like “you’re not too different from us, fighting for what you believe”), but on the whole it’s a pretty excellent depiction of both a fascistic system, how someone holds power within, and how it holds power on them. This is the trap Steven’s Universe ultimately falls into, with the Diamonds surviving with very little change comparable to what they’ve done. It’s such a massive shame, because the show does a very good job in building them up as absolutely horrific, dangerous and threatening villains. It comes across and not entirely committed to its own conflict, toning down the outcome. Another example of the same, but inverse, issue that something like Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies and especially Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice. I won’t say much to avoid spoilers, but both do away with the big bad, but almost comically dance around actually changing the structural issues that produced and upheld them. Compare this to Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, which explores the underlying system, challenges it *and* has a very compelling villain to oppose along the way.
If you like Steven Universe, that’s okay. There are parts of Steven Universe I like too. It’s another thing to completely derail the video to say that the people who point out reasonable flaws in the show are stupid. It doesn’t matter that the intention of the show was to show the dangers of toxic power systems. It’s all about the execution. You say that the Diamonds should be forgiven because they are victims of the system they’re in charge of. This would be reasonable if it weren’t for the fact that their own suffering is immeasurably disproportionate to the suffering they’ve caused others. They’ve caused the systematic oppression of trillions and the extermination of even more. The idea that people can be forgiven no matter their terrible actions is an awful message to send. The fact that this is in a kids show makes it *worse* rather than better. Kids should not be told growing up that they should forgive anyone just because they were just following orders. It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t the intended message if it’s what’s there. The fact that killing a figurehead doesn’t fix the system they’re in charge of doesn’t mean the figurehead shouldn’t be punished. What kind of brain dead take is that? You say that the Diamonds are suffering because of their system. But we’re almost only told of their suffering without being shown it. Thanks to the Diamonds’ being almost never shown suffering, all you're left with is three genocidal xenophobic authoritarians. I understand that you have to simplify some concepts so that kids can understand them. But when you do that for certain concepts, you run the risk of misrepresenting the issue and sending the wrong message. Having Steven forgive genocidal xenophobic authoritarians is an example of this. If you like the show anyway, that’s great! But don’t look down on people who point out its flaws just because you seem to be mentally incapable of critically analyzing things you enjoy. I liked the rest of the video, though.
I mean she defamed him and not only misgendered Rebecca Sugar, but called them (a Jewish person whose family was affected by the Shoah) a fascist sympathizer for not finishing off the diamonds Why didn't aang do the same for ozai, or the exile for atris? (KOTOR 2)
@@ExtremeMadnessX but the moment Steven wants to rehabilitate the baddies she has a problem with it lol Kinda sus that she's okay with gentiles doing something but not a Jewish person
![Always Evil Races in Fantasy [Are Kind of Boring]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lD1mYDHZe9Q/mqdefault.jpg)
![Always Evil Races in Fantasy [Are Kind of Boring]](/img/tr.png)
I think a good villain should always fit the story one is trying to tell. There is 100% space for pure evil villians and force of nature villians for example. It all depends on the story one is trying to tell, and the themes they want to explore.
Also in terms of being remembered, basically just marketing, that isn't always the case, but when you think of villains they tend to be ones from big franchises
After all the videos I’ve come across saying how to make a great villain, all which ignore all the great villains that go against their rules and advice, this one is rather refreshing.
To be fair out of the big slashers, Leatherface would be the best to have a beer with
Just don't invite him to any barbecues
My personal favorite types of villains that you highlighted in this video are Character Vs Self, and The Villain as Darkness. The former helps the main character (or other characters) see what they could become if they let their personal flaws or struggles defeat them. You can consider that kind of villain to be the character's greatest test. The Villain as Darkness also works as this but can be applied more generally. These villains can have sympathetic motivations or they can just be there to cause havoc. Villainy comes in different shades, all of which are valid.
One thing I see a lot of in “How to write a good villain.” videos is that they tend to focus on one or a few types of the same villain archetype (usually it’s the intimidating, dark type like Darth Vader or Homelander) without really going into to depth as to what makes them interesting as villains outside of “The plot takes them seriously.” (Which is a part of making an interesting villain, but that should just be the end of it.) or “They look cool.” (Which is a subjective opinion.)
With this vid, I’m glad that you at least go in depth about the different types of villains and how they relate to the main conflict of a story which I feel like should be the most important thing when writing a villain/antagonist.
Also, Big thumbs up for mentioning Monster.
NGL, I'd love to see a "what makes a great hero" or an even broader "what makes a great protagonist" video essay for once.
One of the more baffling things I see in discussions about villains is that complexity and moral ambiguity are treated like synonyms. This really doesn't make sense. A villain can be an absolutely despicable person with no redeeming qualities and still be a very complex and three dimensional character. People are more than just their position on a moral alignment chart.
And I think a lot of my favorite villains are the ones that are fascinating and despicable at the same time. What goes on in the head of some like that? What do they want, and how do they go about getting it?
"The villain is actually kind of right" can be interesting, but so can "the villain is absolutely, completely, bafflingly wrong". And often seeing someone completely wrong and picking apart WHY they're wrong can lead us to reevaluating ourselves just as much as a villain who's making uncomfortable but valid points.
One of my favorite villains is Doflamingo from One Piece. There's a huge amount that can be and has been said about him, but one thing that's really stuck with me is something he said that a lot of people seem to think is true: "Pirates are Evil? Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history. Kid's who have never seen peace and kid's who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is a neutral ground! Justice will prevail you say, of course it will. Those who win the war, become the Justice. "
I think this is interesting because so much of One Piece as a story is about showing that this is NOT TRUE. This isn't how it works and it never has been. Because the past always comes back, and people's will ALWAYS carries on. The winner of a war may get to proclaim themselves as righteous and, for a time, keep anyone from saying otherwise. But that doesn't make them right, and people's desire for freedom will carry on. Doflamingo tried to rewrite Dressarosa's history to create a narrative that served him. But he failed to erase the past and it caught up to him. The world government has been trying and failing to erase joyboy's legacy for the past eight hundred years, but still it prevails.
Doflamingo thought that the winners got to decide right from wrong, that might makes right. But, there's another quote that's applicable:
"Behind this mask are ideas. And ideas, are bulletproof."
And sometimes people can't comprehend that villain can just lie or manipulate hero.
A example of this is Michael Myers, while I have my own views of him (More of a Jason guy) but the good Halloween movies (As in one) don't try to explain him, he's just a killer
@@ExtremeMadnessX It's been years and some people still haven't considered that maybe when the cackling, lightning-flinging nazi space wizard says "evil is a point of view" and his newly converted sidekick who just killed a bunch of kids says "from my point of view, the jedi are evil!", they might not be the most reliable sources on moral philosophy.
My favourite villain is Nui Harime from Kill la Kill. I think she might really fit multiple of the conflict types as character, society, nature, and a dark reflection of the heroine. Her introduction is coming as it looks like the conflict with the established villains is reaching its climax, and she breaks it as she breaks the very medium of the story.
All done with screen stealing charisma.
I don’t really have a bias towards a certain type of villain I have mood swings when it comes to it but in my writing I like to make the main antagonist be the evil one but surround him either more nuanced characters
I like villains, no I love villains. I love ruthless villain's, I love destructive Villains, I love sympathetic villain's. I love manipulative villains, reckless villains, I love cutthroat villains, and cautious villains. Villain's in love stories, societal stories, war stories, slice of life stories, survival stories, stories of hardship, stories of exploration and discovery, and stories of freedom. That's about as much of the speech as I am willing to reference, but you get the idea.
the dramatic paralel is what i think makes a great villian. if a cackling maniac is the theoretical opposite to your hero it plays well into anything. in disney epics with one note characters simply being the opposite of fair is what makes aurora's arch enemy so alluring. after all not only is she blanket evil but for most of the run shes in control while aurora rests.
I think this video represents the strongest arguments for what makes compelling villains. I think it highlights why the "charismatic villains" in the Far Cry series have begun to fall flat in a big way. Vaas was a lightning in a bottle moment, and many credit Michael Mando's incredible performance, but I think it's also that in the story he functions as a clear warning for Jason. He IS Jason, just much further along on the same arc. Far Cry 4 does pretty well by making its villain Pagan Min have a personal investment in the protagonis. But Joseph Seed and Giancarlo Esposito's character (Can't remember his name lol) felt incredibly weak because their presence doesn't really contribute thematically to those games, despite solid performances in both cases.
A good villain doesn't have to be sympathetic,pure evil,or have a deep back story or no motive. All they have to do is be a conflict of interest for the main character(s) and they move the story forward and aren't treated as an incompetent fool.
I am so glad you made this video. As someone who has seen so many kinds of villians and can actually differentiate them along with being able to break them down, you are quite admirable. Antagonists have always been the more interesting part of media for me, which is most likely why I gravitate towards fantasy and horror. Watching this essay really opened my eyes to the potential and complexity a good villain can have. Even for the villains that aren't very complex, they can be considered interesting because they impact the other characters in a story through the conflict they bring.
I am currently writing a series of three books for the first time, and I've fully written the first two. It would be a miracle for someone like you to read and analyze the character building because you have such an amazing grasp on what makes a good story, especially the villains.
My stories have minor antagonists, but it slowly becomes a story about a villain that is mysterious at first. The protagonists learn over time what truly motivates this villain, and I want it to be truly thought-provoking.
If any of that interests you, I would love if you gave it a shot. This is my first work, and I don't expect perfection. But I feel like I truly have a story I want to tell, one that I'm passionate about; but I want it to be impactful. Especially since after watching this, I am realizing that my story is being heavily impacted by my own identity as a gay man and perceptions of normality. I want these stories to be fully realized despite my lack of perspective outside of my own. They aren't published, but the first two books are fully edited, and illustrations are on the way.
Love your work, and I'll continue to love it even if my request flies under the radar or if you simply don't have the time. I just really need perspective from someone knowledgeable so I can become a better writer. Regardless, the books will be published in the future. I just don't have anyone immediately available to properly critique my work, and it will be quite frustrating if it isn't received well due to my inexperience. If you are interested in chatting or just asking questions, please do.
I feel people these days do not understand there are reasons why we use tropes. Tropes are neither good or bad. We simply use them differently. I know people keep clanoring for pure evil but I don't even care of a villain is like that. What I want is to have us appreciate different types of villans besides being I want pure evil.
We already have irredeemable villains guys. We got Proximus Caesar, Kamoshida, Ego, Skar King, Dio Brando, Bill Cipher, Mahito, Emperor Belos, The High Revolutionary, Big Jack Horner or other pure evil villains. The point is that I feel so frustrated say "Oh we need pure evil villains" when we already have them in this day in age too.
Another issue with the we need pure evil trend is how we see villains. Do we want villain as pure obstacles or do we want them as characters too? I've had my favorite villains and most of them aren't just pure evil. I loved Anxiety from Inside Out 2, The Studio Ghibli Villains such as Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke, Silco from Arcane, Mr Freeze from Batman.
There are times where a pure evil villain can go wrong if the trope is used wrong. There's this manwha called Rooftop Swordmaster where a guy literally tries to become a dangerous man and destroy his bullies. The bullies are just bullies, obstacles who do not do anything but laugh and scream too much. They are not interesting, they are not entertaining and they are not enjoyable. They are just made for us to despise them and it does not work.
The main character is a bigger evil because he becomes a literal hypocrite. As a result the villains in that story are just fodder for the our main character to defeat. They're so bad we never get to see why they're bullies. As a result we have to understand why other fans love villains differently. Rather than stating oh we need pure evil. Okay everyone I love pure evil villains too but picture this. If we had pure evil villains in every media non stop that would be boring wouldn't it?
Tropes are tropes ladies and gentlemen. They are neither good nor bad. I don't want to see jsut pure evil villains or sympathetic ones, I just want to see why they are like this and learn their cautionary tales and their revelevance in the story. If they are evil then go ahead. If they are tragic go ahead. Tropes are tropes everyone and that's how we used it. I'm not saying I despise pure evil villains I adore Belos, Bill Cipher, Big Jack Horner, Donflamingo, Dio, etectera but when Lily Orchard states we should not have tragic villains like Magneto...yeah we need to understand tropes are tropes people.
By all accounts Malekith in Thor: Dark World is a pure evil villain, and he is boring. Which proves that there is no correct answer for what your villain should be. It not simply, we want more pure evil villains. We want villains to actually be relevant in the stories they are in.
One of my personal favorite antagonists that's hard to fit into a single box is Boru from Brand New Cherry Flavor. Like, their whole thing is basically "at what point do you stop being human, and if you're no longer human are the things you do really that bad?" Actually, that show has so many layers it's discussing. If you can handle gore I highly recommend it. It sent my brain into a tailspin analyzing it.
Johann is the most effective villain I’ve ever read and I STILL get chills years later while rereading Tenma and his reunion. You really saved the best for last.
I have never watched Evangelion, but Anthony's description of Gendo reminds me of how I felt about Danzo in Naruto Shippuden
On paper he is one of the good guys, the things he does he justifies as for the sake of the village, but anybody that has seen the show could tell you he is as slimy as they come
I haven't ever watched Eva so listening to you describe Gendo made me go "OH MY GOD! Odin form Odin Sphere is just a Gendo expy!"
A+ for Aaron the Moor recognition
I figured he did what he did because in the opening scene he (and us) witness his adopted tribe get humiliated and slaughtered, then his girlfriend's son is gutted and burned alive, then the guy who ordered the torture murders his own son for disagreeing with him, so these Romans are clearly a corrupt poison on the world, right? From his perspective, yes.
If I was in Aaron's situation, I'd spend my last year of life doing everything I could to make sure these Roman bastards suffered, too. I think he's seen so much horror that he doesn't give a shit anymore - take them down with you.
(I did my dissertation on Titus lol)
Two villains really stand out to me and they’re somewhat different. Xayide in Neverending Story 2 and Dr. Cable in the Uglies (Clarissa Burt and Laverne Cox respectively). Both beautiful women, but it’s all in the eyes. They convey volumes of contempt and malice and evil in their eyes and little half sneer smiles, and I think that says a lot for a villain. Laverne Cox was just amazing. I was chilled by her looks sometimes like a serpent waiting to devour. You really don’t have to say a lot to be a good evil villain, just speak with your eyes.
Gosh it's been decades since I saw Monster, but the symbiosis immediately kicked into drive long-dormant memories and "Oh yes; that was Awful and I Loved It" vibes skittering up and down my back x'D Kudos for the awesome video, and for feeding my a good excuse to rewatch an old goodie right at the end!
The line about Leatherface having his worse day dealing with the teens breaking into his home makes me think of Tucker & Dale vs Evil. Reframing the story from a different perspective completely changes the context, and in T&DvE it makes it incredibly funny.
LOVE Tucker and Dale vs Evil
@@agramuglia Oh hidy-ho officer, we've had a doozy of a day. There we were minding our own business, just doing chores around the house, when kids started killing themselves all over my property!
Not even 5 minutes in and already hooked.
Supeman- he’ll paint over your switch plates with a heroism as yet unmatched.
The answer is verisimilitude. The best thing a villain can be is believable. Doesn't matter nearly as much _what_ they make you believe, but you have to _believe._
Honestly if Bubba saw you as part of his family he'd probably take good care of you. y'know as long as you could stomach eating human meat.
Hi Anthony! Great video discussing what makes a villain. Too often writers fail to make villains interesting for the specific story; often believing they must follow “rules” which as you said didn’t actually exist.. I look at villains like Kuviera from Legend Of Korra, Kylo ren from Star Wars, and Voldemort from Harry potter as villains who just don’t work because the writers can’t think more creatively in analyzing the villain’s motives, and what they mean for the story both in-universe and as commentary on society.
What do you make of remake Sephiroth? I know you discussed the original story (I love it that even though Sephiroth is most immediate threat to the world, he is a by-product of Shinra’s evil actions-a child who was raised to be a narcissistic weapon. Afterall, let’s say Sephiroth did die by cloud’s hands at the lab. What would happen? Well, Shinra would have depleted the life force and still endanger the planet. Sephiroth was merely speeding the process up. The only way to stop these threats together because failure to do so means the end of the world, is an anarchistic solution-all traces of both villains have to be destroyed). Remake sephiroth however is different than the original. He seemingly has the memories of his defeats, he knows what his suppose to happen to him, and he is hanging his tactics slightly as of now to meet his new goal (which is different I suspect from his original objective).
Here is a topic I'd like to see covered on this channel dark/adult reimaginings of children's media when does it work and when does it not some people argue kids' media should not get a dark gritty reboot, and Sight Velma, Riverdale, and the Snyderverse as examples but then you have things like Shusuke Kaneko's Gamera Trilogy, The Dark Knight Returns, and Alan Moore's Lost Girls, all reimaginings of kids' media and are amazing I know the short answer is "depends on if the writing is good" but it is still an interesting topic.
In the original Jurassic Park book Hammond is shown less sympathetically and even gets eated by the end, but Spieldberg...I think what he did was he's like what if Hammond was Walt Disney but not Disney the real guy with all his rough edges and labor abuse and antisemitism but the public facing Walt Disney. You know a kinda lovable guy who wants to bring joy to everyone through a profit driven theme park venture. So what comes out the other end is a character that did a lot of wrong and bad stuff but you know he's a good guy, he doesn't deserve to get eaten by his own hubris. The ethical questions kinda splash on the whole project and not him, the guy who's idea was it to make a Dinosaur Park.
And somehow it works. If you recut Jurassic Park with a few more scenes of Hammond being actively terrible to people, you might want to see Hammond get pecked by Pterodactyls but some honestly great writing and a great performance and even though everything is actually his fault you CAN'T be mad at John Hammond. Which is crazy the whole genre is lousy with characters who do this getting their commeaupance. You've never seen a zombie movie where the creator of the virus is a sympathetic figure because the whole point of that is "don't make a zombie virus, don't play God, bioweapons BAD, actually".
(Edit: It turns out the video goes over it)
I generally don't place concious importance on the villains in the media I enjoy, but considering all the points discussed in this video it really does explain the diference of how engrossed I am in the stories of two isekai series I really really love both. The villain of Mushoku Tensei checkes pretty much all boxes, but the some of the villains of That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime don't really pose a credible threat to the protagonist. They are not awful, but you really feel like they have no chance to succeed, not because you know how a narrative works, but because they don't establish a credible threat. They are pretty great at the start and the end, but it really slumps a bit in the middle of the series.
I KNEW HE WAS GONNA TALK ABOUR JOHAN
I think you make a great villain for defending grape on twitter :)
As for villains I feel what makes a villain work for me is how they challenge/change the protagonist or impact the story.
Death from Puss In Boots is a good example. He is a walking force of nature who eagerly wants to hunt Puss In Boots for pure amusement. He gleefully wishes to defeat the cat and yet he is reasonable. He is right that Puss is wasting his own life and in the process never appreciating what he had. He was too careless and that as the embodiment of the end, he wants Puss to understand the consequences of not living your life fulfilled.
Another villain is Dio from JJBA. He is a spoiled brat that challenges the pure good of the Joestars. Johnathan Joestar. We despise him for making Johnathan's life horrible, and yet Johnathan tries his best to stay positive and do good. Without Dio, none of the events of Jojo would have happened and despite his demise his impact still lingers on. Dio is the reason on why JJBA works, a lireral family curse that will always try to challenege the Joestars.
Or a personal favorite idea of mine. I like when a joke villain becomes a literal threat aka when they become evil and despicable. You know we all love our joke failure villains like Gru, Megamind, or Doctor Doofensmirtz but what if one of them actually became EVIL? Well take the Spot from Spiderverse.
Spot when we first meet him is a joke. Nobody takes him seriously and not even Miles. But once we dig deeper he is kind of pathetic. He is simply a scientist that blames his fate against Miles, even though he came at the wrong place at the wrong time. He is deplorable because he blames his misgivings on a literal kid out of spite. While it is true becoming the Spot made him waste his job he still chosed a life of villainy. When he finally acheives his full power, he is taken seriously and it's horrifying.
And it's not just because he became serious evil. The Spot is insecurity incarnate because he is a perfect foil against Miles. Despite losing Uncle Aaron and forced to accept he was a mistake, Miles still persevered and had people who genuinely cared for him. The Spot meanwhile despised himself and instead of improving he loathed Miles being special. He could not appreciate his ability of doing good, because he still had a unhealthy obsession with self validation against Miles. Miles improved while he did not.
Which is why we have different types of evil everyone. It's not just pure evil guys. I love pure evil and we need more pure evil too, but it's not the only reason on what makes a villain work.
I nearly started screaming at the "Monster" anime reference
I was looking out for this one. 🤞❤️
32 views in 3 minutes, smh. Channel falling off, needs more Lily Orchard (extreme sarcasm)
*waits with a mischievous smirk*
No one kind of villain is better than another. All types of villains have a place, just depends on the story you want to tell.
Evil is not part of the equation. Yes, that's why I prefer protagonist vs antagonist over hero vs villain.
Loved this video ❤️💜
I can say that the best villains are the ones that are relatable that people encounter in real life.
Hence why Claude Frollo is one of Disney's greatest villains, he's not a sorcerer, a sea witch, an alien, or a lion. He's just a man, a man who uses his faith as a shield and his own self-righteousness to commit the most unspeakable acts of evil. Everyone, either in real life, or on their screens has met a Claude Frollo.
@@Grf1556one thing about him as well is that he himself doesn’t think he’s evil and to him it’s not an excuse, but rather that he truly is doing the right thing. The best villains are often the heroes of their own stories.
@@youthoughtaboutit6946Exactly. Best villains are the ones that don't see themselves as villains. Especially because people like that exist in real life.
Isn’t that……all of them?
I’d say the best villains are the friends we make along the way ;)
Banger video
Personal I always separate Villians in three Groups: one Villian that you love to hate because he is cruel, mean, unpleasent and a pain for everybody (he even could be on the right side of the Law like a Sheriff 🤠) and a Villian you love 🥰to shine with Charisma and over the top supervillian Tropes. Like Dracula, Dr.Frankenstein and most of the Spider-Man Rogues. The last Group would be a Villian, that is too pitifully 😔 to really hate, like Gollum, Renfield or Norman Bates. You know they are bad news, but you only see the tragedy 🎭 and how little sanity they have left…
About Johan Liebert... I would argue that he is the protagonist of Monster, and everyone other acts as a villains to him. Johan's motivation is simply to not exist, so he makes everything to achieve it. He's erasing everyone who knows about him because until at least someone knows who's he truly is - he is alive in their memories... He is existing... Tenma actively tries to save him in the beginning and the end. It is Tenma who saved the boy. It is Tenma who set in motion all that happened next.
Darth Vader killing uncle Owen is the call to action for Luke.
Mafia killing a dog is the call to action for John Wick.
Tenma saving a kid who wanted to never be born is the call to action for Johan.
Another reminder that the Shark in Jaws is a trans icon.
Jaws did nothing wrong.
No TERFs in the surf!
23:00 I see Magic the Gathering artworks!
where would morgoth be cuz hes the ultimate evil, but he was created by the ultimate good
I have a theory about villains, although I don't know if this is possible to prove one way or the other.
I think that they tie back into our fight or flight response, back from humanity's early history when people were hunter-gatherers. I think society evolved faster than the human brain has, and we're still trying to catch our brains up.
Societally, doing bad things is considered unacceptable, or maybe unforgiveable. That's an obvious point. There is, of course, room for some subjectivity and nuance, so please take my points with a pinch of salt, rather than definitive.
Evolutionarily, I think there is a perverse incentive to doing a lot of things we generally consider bad. If you are: selfish, greedy, violent, deceptive, intimidating and so on, I think it is, in part, a function of the old fight or flight response. You are probably gathering the means to make your life, your comfort and therefore your survival, more likely. This ties into 'survival of the fittest' and the idea of the best survivors being the most likely to reproduce and pass their genes on.
I would like to be clear here, that I think a lot of this is on a subconscious level, and also, I am obviously not suggesting people should actually do crime. I don't know if saying 'perverse incentive' was clear enough or not, but I am not advocating for, or justifying, people doing crime.
The dichotomy, is that the greater comfort and survival chances of someone may come at the expense or someone else. That's why in modern society the logic of being, well, a horrible person in general, is flawed. It would be "I want this so you can't have it" when we, as a society, probably strive for a certain minimum level of comfort and living standards for everyone. Yet some people still have an avaricious and self-indulgent mindset, that humanity hasn't evolved out of yet.
Here's where it comes around to villains. I personally don't believe people inherently think "it's good to be bad". For instance, I don't find the logic in the Purge movies of "Crime is legal for 24 hours- the whole country becomes a hunting ground" to be that realistic or plausible, but that's just me.
But I do think that villains activate something in the most primitive parts of our brains, that it would be evolutionary advantageous in many ways to be callous and horrible and so on. I think on some level we are all cognicent of it, and the vast majority of us know what is right and what is wrong. It's that our brains haven't evolved yet to no longer need a fight or flight response.
Apologies for a long post, and I'm not a sociologist or psychologist anything. I just thought I'd give my two cents about villains and what I think makes them work.
Faustian deal
Yeah that’s what I thought at 19:05, too
I'm wondering if you're familiar with the character of Auto from the Pixar film 'WALL E'. (he is similar in a sense to the character of hal 9,000) Which bracket of villain do you believe he falls under?
Character vs Technology AND Character vs Society
50:55 YES
evil is just someone with opposing morals /something that goes against your morals by definition a villain is evil yes team rocket is evil most of the time.
Then... there is Doom... Dr. Doom
Interesting.
Simply good writing
The only true villains are the ones without back stories. Attaching a back story to a "villain" humanizes them, making a case for empathy and justification towards that character, no longer making them a villain, but simply another person. For example.. the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween was an attempt to make the audience relate to and therefore understand why Michael Myers was "evil," ultimately taking away any reason for the audience to see him as a monster. Instead, they see him as a mentally ill person, leaving room for a sense of redemption, which alters the perception of Michael Myers from "villain" to just some big mentally challenged fella. That movie turned Michael Myers into Lenny from Of Mice And Men. Also.. Joker by Todd Phillips is 100% the worst portrayal of any villain in the history of film. Arthur Fleck was just an attention starved victim in that joke a movie. Hollywood is scared to put actual villains with no remorse or reason in movies nowadays. They use every antagonist as a device to deliver a social message, and it's been a stale form of character writing for almost a decade now in mainstream cinema. The days of not caring about the villain and just wanting to see them get what's coming to them is long gone. Now, we are expected to empathize with these unredeemable monsters, and it doesn't work. That's why B-Horror movies are more popular now than they were at their previous peak back in the 90s. People don't want to see antagonists fighting activists... They want to see antagonists fighting protagonists.
Villains as a concept is problematic because they represent "the other" by the dominant group to propagandize their societal norms and reject anything else that upsets the status quo. If a villain has a sharp edge design with a slim body and/or a big/crooked nose, then they're a racist caricature. If a villain is flamboyant, then they're a queerphobic caricature. If a villain is disfigured and/or mentally disabled, then they're an ableist caricature. And if a villain is fat, then they're a fatphobic caricature. Kids are vulnerable to this propaganda by teaching them to hate these marginalized groups through one-dimensional, Saturday morning cartoon villains rather than teaching them about how misunderstood and victimized they are and how we should all learn and cooperate with one another to changing the status quo. It's why there's a push for more morally gray antagonists because good and evil/black and white doesn't exist, as everything is shades of gray.
I'm the Baaaad Guuuuuuy...
Duh.
smdh imagine making this whole video and not once mentioning Dio Brando
A good villain is a bit of an oxymoron, dont you think? 🤔
But as a more measured response a good villain is a character or part that fulfiills their role in the narrative in a satisfying way. What does the narrative need to prop up the villain?
Is the villain someone with a heart of gold whos been lead astray, or is the villain stricken with grief and is just lashing out at the world? Hell, they could even just be Chaos Incarnate- they all just need a proper story to call home
Idk basically a story is a bunch of smaller processes coming together to present something, and a villain is just a part of that
I think this idea of conflict being the key is by default flawed because conflict suggests there is a main character the villain is in conflict with, BUT there has been great villains that ARE the main character and aren't really in conflict with anybody. Alex from Clockwork Orange for example is an iconic villain, but he is the main character and there is no real main counter part that he is ever really in conflict with. I suppose the conflict there is if he will be reformed or not, but it's clear from the start that he wont be so I don't think you can count that as conflict.
A Clockwork Orange is a Character vs Society conflict
@agramuglia Speaking of Alex. What about characters like Walter White, Patrick Bateman, or Tony Montana. would you consider them villain protagonists or just protagonist. I just notice you haven't really talk about the idea of a villain protagonist that much In the video.
@@ORivers-qm5tq i would see them mainly as just protagonists.
Thank you for replying. I don't know many content creators that reply in comments. Also there's a video by, We Are Not Alive that talks about the term villain protagonist, and how it's kind of silly to have that term. I recommend you check that video out. Thank you again.
TIL my mom is a great written villain
This channel reminds me of a guy on discord 🤔
Can't imagine who.
💖
It wouldn’t be an Ant video without a Lily Orchard cameo.
THE DIAMONDS ARE LITERALY SPACE HITLER no you won't change hitler's mind let alone by saying no you after it failed killing you lily is stupid but come on
Wait. You dont endorse true villainy? Pfft. Im out poser.
U look like a kid Jeff Goldblum had before he got famous. Don't prioritize being on camera, it distracts from ur insight. What's more important, being recognized at Starbucks?
The problem with the Steven Universe debates on the Diamonds is that people overlook that a conflict can be *both* between the system itself and those at the top of it. Just destroying the Diamonds without overthrowing a structure of hierarchical birthright only changes the face of the evil, but redeeming those who’ve been responsible for utter horror spits in the face of justice. The show fails on the latter in a very big way, and it makes any payoff from the conflict very muted and frankly tone deaf. It also comes across as grossly misunderstanding how these systems psychologically interact with those at the top: they are both not free, and mechanisms of something beyond them, but also personally benefit from power and privilege that compels them to promulgate and entrench the status quo. It means that it’s *incredibly* unlikely that those at the top of these systems, or even lower down but still of relative status, will be able to dislodge themselves, willing or otherwise. The Diamonds redemption came off as forced in this regard.
Compare this to, in my view, one of the best best attempts at rendering a complex villain in a fascist system, Harpuia from Megaman Zero (MAJOR spoilers for Megaman Zero 1 through 3):
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Harpuia is one of the 4 Guardians of X, the leader of the fascistic Neo Arcadia, and general of one of the four Neo Arcadian armies (the air force). Initially founded as a utopia following a series of devastating wars, an energy crisis has served as the excuse for the Neo Arcadian leadership to instigate genocide against the Reploid population, to maintain the luxury of their human co-inhabitants, without taking from the enormous military. The show of how X and the four Guardians are both part of a system beyond them, and hold significant personal stakes is stark: they are reploids themselves. Their actions against their own kind is part of what keeps them in power. Of the four Guardians, Harpuia is the one with the strongest stated link to the genocide, outside of the military role they each fulfil (one of his closest henchmen is the direct overseer of the “disposal plant” that kills Reploids).
Harpuia is, like the Diamonds, eventually bought over to the side of the resistance and helps in overthrowing the system he was once central to, but there are key differences. For a start, his journey feels believable, as he is stripped of his rank and driven out of Neo Arcadia for opposing X when the latter attacks humans. He was confronted with a reality in which his position and privilege were no longer able to bind him to the system, so he was able to more effectively open his eyes to the threat Neo Arcadia poses. This is also after repeated defeats at the hands of the resistance, significantly weakening both his reputation and forcing him to acknowledge their strength. The Diamonds are won over, but it feels far too quick and without any significant break from their own privilege. Secondly, the story acknowledges that he is effectively beyond any sense of redemption, because of the utter horrors committed on his orders; at the end of the third game, he is killed saving Zero. He is not mentioned again, with the conflict quickly moving back to the main battle against Neo Arcadia. For years I thought this was a bad ending for him, but as I’ve come to understand more about the politics the series was exploring, I’ve realised you can’t redeem a fascist character like that. You can still make them a compelling villain, and even have them help bring down their own system at the end, but anything short of either killing them, or having them pay heavily for their crimes, winds up feeling like everything that came before isn’t taken as seriously. The story isn’t perfect, and fumbles the odd line (there’s one particularly bad case where a resistance character says something like “you’re not too different from us, fighting for what you believe”), but on the whole it’s a pretty excellent depiction of both a fascistic system, how someone holds power within, and how it holds power on them.
This is the trap Steven’s Universe ultimately falls into, with the Diamonds surviving with very little change comparable to what they’ve done. It’s such a massive shame, because the show does a very good job in building them up as absolutely horrific, dangerous and threatening villains. It comes across and not entirely committed to its own conflict, toning down the outcome.
Another example of the same, but inverse, issue that something like Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies and especially Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice. I won’t say much to avoid spoilers, but both do away with the big bad, but almost comically dance around actually changing the structural issues that produced and upheld them. Compare this to Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, which explores the underlying system, challenges it *and* has a very compelling villain to oppose along the way.
If you like Steven Universe, that’s okay. There are parts of Steven Universe I like too. It’s another thing to completely derail the video to say that the people who point out reasonable flaws in the show are stupid.
It doesn’t matter that the intention of the show was to show the dangers of toxic power systems. It’s all about the execution. You say that the Diamonds should be forgiven because they are victims of the system they’re in charge of. This would be reasonable if it weren’t for the fact that their own suffering is immeasurably disproportionate to the suffering they’ve caused others. They’ve caused the systematic oppression of trillions and the extermination of even more. The idea that people can be forgiven no matter their terrible actions is an awful message to send. The fact that this is in a kids show makes it *worse* rather than better. Kids should not be told growing up that they should forgive anyone just because they were just following orders.
It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t the intended message if it’s what’s there. The fact that killing a figurehead doesn’t fix the system they’re in charge of doesn’t mean the figurehead shouldn’t be punished. What kind of brain dead take is that? You say that the Diamonds are suffering because of their system. But we’re almost only told of their suffering without being shown it. Thanks to the Diamonds’ being almost never shown suffering, all you're left with is three genocidal xenophobic authoritarians.
I understand that you have to simplify some concepts so that kids can understand them. But when you do that for certain concepts, you run the risk of misrepresenting the issue and sending the wrong message. Having Steven forgive genocidal xenophobic authoritarians is an example of this. If you like the show anyway, that’s great! But don’t look down on people who point out its flaws just because you seem to be mentally incapable of critically analyzing things you enjoy.
I liked the rest of the video, though.
using lily is kinda a cheap way to blow away any criticism people might have with the diamonds lol
I mean she defamed him and not only misgendered Rebecca Sugar, but called them (a Jewish person whose family was affected by the Shoah) a fascist sympathizer for not finishing off the diamonds
Why didn't aang do the same for ozai, or the exile for atris? (KOTOR 2)
@@mogscugg2639Aang refuses because if he kill Ozai, that would also kill the last remains of his culture and people.
Lily Orchard is like the worst when you want to criticize any kind of media.
@@ExtremeMadnessX but the moment Steven wants to rehabilitate the baddies she has a problem with it lol
Kinda sus that she's okay with gentiles doing something but not a Jewish person