Why do writers nowadays think that Villains need some tragic backstory or some motivation to be bad?

Why do writers nowadays think that Villains need some tragic backstory or some motivation to be bad? This guy was a great villain and he was just a genuine butthole from beginning to end

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Now"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is worse now than it used to be where even purely villainous bad guys get retconned. Just look at The Joker who between a lame Alan Moore story and a terrible ripoff movie is now an edgy incel. In 10 years the classic Joker will be completely gone.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is no classic Joker, the character has been reinvented like five times now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He's had different iterations but they were all variations of the theme of a crazy sadist. Now we are being fed stuff about how the character is a misunderstood incel and it feels intentional.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            joker's not an incel, he has two crazy women throwing themselves at him constantly

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm talking about the Joaquin one where he us literally a depressed loser with a nervous tick being a purposeful ruining of the character.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sadist
            even that's a relatively recent addition

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              most adaptations frick joker up bad, i don't know why we are only just now panicking about it

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I mean sadist in the literal sense of the word, where he takes joy out of making people suffer. Even the 60's Joker was like that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Reminder that they changed joker so much for that shitty suicide squad game, that I would 't be surprised some lgbt trans in charge of representation will demand and succeed to force that joker to be the official one for next movie/game or whatever thing they pull out of their buttholes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Either way, he is being Harley Qunified certainly because they can't handle a character who's main trait is he just enjoys being evil and thinks it's funny.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't play past Arkham City so you'll need to enlighten me.

          Isn't joker dead in that canon? Why would he have any presence in Suicide Squad?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"Noooooooo I'm a chud but I don't want to say that, so I will complain constantly about the things of nowdays!"

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because different stories call for different types of villains. You, being a low-brow manchild American, like flashy stories that prioritize entertainment and thrills over substance. Nothing wrong with that. But many people want stories that entertain in more complex ways and make them ask themselves questions about the nature of morality.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But many people
      You mean you, cut the bullshit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we want to ask a question about the nature of morality
      >specifically, shouldn't we be lenient towards criminals and throw a book at those who defend themselves and their property from them?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we want to ask a question about the nature of morality
        >wherefore capeshit?
        Jesus, read a book.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/eeDk72F.png

      Why do writers nowadays think that Villains need some tragic backstory or some motivation to be bad? This guy was a great villain and he was just a genuine butthole from beginning to end

      Because observing how hard subversion with villain's tragic backstory hits people for the first time various writers instantly try to copy that original story with and without understanding. And unlike with "entertainment" moustache-twirling villain, guy with "tragic backstory" either rarely have any cool villain qualities or have them diminished by being a whimp in the past. Worked like that with Darth Vader retroactively through prequel movies.
      It is good to see mr. Freeze's story in BTAS once, it hits in contrast with other villains. It stops hitting when there is 10 mr Freezes of various persuasion. Because villain for the sake of a villain is either impressive enough to be great enough challenge for a good hero we would cheer for or is bad enough to cheer against him (and that second part have its own problem of "drama created purely for the sake of creating a hatesink" like Borderlands 2 did).
      Story with true villain almost always bring emotions - almost everybody save for some sociopats love naturally, when good guys defeats bad guy and brings good, peace and otherwise positive things while removing negative. "Tragic" villain supposes, that in removing him good side also removes something potentially good too, which stings good as a novelty, but stings bad as a common thing to happen. Good and important to experience it once, but once is enough. Jusr like any other subversion.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're looking at this from a somewhat shallow point of view, "how hard can the writing wow me with this". Writing isn't always meant to wow you. In fact, most mature writing doesn't explicitly aim to wow. It just tells the story it wants to tell, and if that just so happens to have a humane antagonist, then it's not because they want you to feel surprised. They may not even care about you as an audience depending on who their work is meant for.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You're looking at this from a somewhat shallow point of view
          On Cinemaphile? Surely not.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You seem to misunderstand. Stories that only exists for carrying a message, work exactly the same way subversion does in entertainment - you got the message, you thought it through and got your own thoughts derived from it - this message is useless now for you. Repeating the same message doesn't make it any different.
          Amd yet we are talking about entertainment, which MUST bring either novelty or positive feelings - which "subverted" stories fail to do after first time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >unlike with "entertainment" moustache-twirling villain, guy with "tragic backstory" either rarely have any cool villain qualities or have them diminished by being a whimp in the past.
            >"Tragic" villain supposes, that in removing him good side also removes something potentially good too, which stings good as a novelty, but stings bad as a common thing to happen. Good and important to experience it once, but once is enough. Jusr like any other subversion.
            Antagonists with complex or sympathetic backstories are not "subversions". Your literary thinking is on par with your grammar.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They are though. Classic villain is evil. Evil dragon. Evil knight in black armor. Evil conqueror from another country. Evil, that can be sympatized, is a subversion.

              Stories exist for their creators to express themselves. It can be more than just a simple message, it's the sum of the creators' lived experiences and how that connects to the audience. Subversion is just a tool they may or may not use. Most creators don't actually construct their whole story around a single subversion. If it feels to you like they do, again, that speaks of your shallow view.

              This entire experience is a single message, however complex it might be. Experiencing it once is enough. But that is not about entertainment stories.
              Entertainment have a very clear purpose - to entertain. Which stops happening in a story with a subversion after subversion had been experienced once.
              Subversion as a tool for entertainment works only once.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you people so obsessed with "le evil subversion"? You wouldn't even be able to name 5 examples of stories that are supposedly centered around this evil trend of subversion. It's just a fricking tool that can be used to different effect and therefore more than once, though most of the time it's used as an inconsequential joke.
                The problem you have is not subversion, the problem is that you're not entertained by the kind of story being told and would prefer a more simplistic story.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't really read a lot, are you? Of course there are different variations of a subversion. And each could only be used once. Tragic backstory of a villain. Hero is actually a murderer. Hero is not a bad guy, but his supposedly good boss is evil. Hero is a good guy, but nothing matters. Hero looks like a good guy, but it is actually a fantasy, so it doesn't affect more "real" tier of reality in the story. Once it is novel and entertaining. Twice - and you find yourself reading a riddle you already know answer for, which is quite boring.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like I said, it's not about subversion. It's about your personal bias. You're not bored by the "hero is actually a good guy and kicks the evil bad guy's ass with no strings attached" stories despite there existing more than one story like this, are you? Because of your personal bias, you consider these conventions more inherently entertaining and don't mind seeing their repetition, while seeing conventions you dislike being repeated makes you bored and you come up with this paper-thin rationalization about novelty when that never mattered to begin with.

                They are though. Classic villain is evil. Evil dragon. Evil knight in black armor. Evil conqueror from another country. Evil, that can be sympatized, is a subversion.
                [...]
                This entire experience is a single message, however complex it might be. Experiencing it once is enough. But that is not about entertainment stories.
                Entertainment have a very clear purpose - to entertain. Which stops happening in a story with a subversion after subversion had been experienced once.
                Subversion as a tool for entertainment works only once.

                These are centuries-old traditions that have been broken countless times since. Not utilizing them is a variation of the norm.

                >subversion is inherently less simplistic
                Dude there's been ten-million of these "subversive" stories lately. It doesn't make a writer more clever to have a sympathetic villain, or have the mysterious masked badass turn out to be a pretty woman, or to have the big scary buff guy turn out to be a wuss, or to have the pretty wholesome princess turn out to be evil. All that shit's been done to death.

                Again, shallow view. These tropes don't exist just to wow you, they exist to convey specific messages and experiences.

                Yes. Would you get anything positive or new if you would read a story with the same way of development?

                NTA but I would certainly get more food for thought from seeing several stories like this than from reading a bunch of mind-numbingly simplistic Bronze Age comics about Batman and Robin beating generic villains-of-the-week.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Frick, I meant Golden Age comics.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You're not bored by the "hero is actually a good guy and kicks the evil bad guy's ass with no strings attached" stories despite there existing more than one story like this, are you?
                Because this stories bring positive emotions, not novelty. I'm not bored not because it is new to me.
                >These are centuries-old traditions that have been broken countless times since. Not utilizing them is a variation of the norm.
                Nope, that is just a very old violation of the norm.
                >NTA but I would certainly get more food for thought from seeing several stories like this
                You would read several stories aboit villain thinking he is a hero till the end and will get something newfrom each of them except that humanity likes to repeat success even if actual repeats doesn't bring one? Not exactly an influence of the stories itself but, rather, an influence of a story of that stories creation. Which is another story completely.

                >Would you get anything positive or new if you would read a story with the same way of development?

                Do you mean would the story have mern more or less compelling if he understood he was the villain the whole time?

                No. I mean, that used twist being reused somewhere else the same way wouldn't bring anything new. And subversive twists tend ti be reused almost exactly the same way most of the time for the stories to make any sense at all.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Have you considered that many people get positive emotions from seeing stories that treat morality as even a little bit more complex than pure black-and-white? And, conversely, receive negative emotion from seeing idealized stories that are so distant from their real-life experiences with morality in a complex world they serve more to irritate than entertain.
                >Nope, that is just a very old violation of the norm.
                This is just petty semantics at this point. Women wearing pants is objectively the norm now, but you'd say it's a "very old violation of the norm". Norms are flexible.

                >You would read several stories aboit villain thinking he is a hero till the end and will get something newfrom each of them
                Sure. The circumstances of each of these villains might be different, as well as the ways in which they justify the villainy, as well as the extent to which I can sympathize with them, as well as the trials they go through in a story.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Have you considered that many people get positive emotions from seeing stories that treat morality as even a little bit more complex than pure black-and-white?
                No, as this people get a feel of novelty rather than actually positive emotions.
                >And, conversely, receive negative emotion from seeing idealized stories that are so distant from their real-life experiences with morality in a complex world they serve more to irritate than entertain.
                Yes, but that is an inability to get positive emotions from universally pandering to instincts of human. As in "disability of a specific reader".
                >Norms are flexible.
                Not in case of instincts. Anyway, clothes, pants and skirts is an aquired thing, which is not a norm by default.
                >The circumstances of each of these villains might be different, as well as the ways in which they justify the villainy, as well as the extent to which I can sympathize with them, as well as the trials they go through in a story.
                Two times. Three. Five. After that you'll start to see a constructor with a very clear single pattern and two-five variants at most to be placed in their respective slots. And further stories would be preconstructed in your mind before you'll reach a middle of them at most, in many cases at the first third.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                People still arguing with this guy at this point have only themselves to blame.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No. I mean, that used twist being reused somewhere else the same way wouldn't bring anything new. And subversive twists tend ti be reused almost exactly the same way most of the time for the stories to make any sense at all.

                Maybe I don't get where you're coming from in general. Partly I don't see how it's a twist, it's just a story and a tragedy. But are you saying it would be better if he did know he was the bad guy all along? Or that characters like that just shouldn't be written?

                What's your opinion on Macbeth?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they exist to convey specific messages and experiences.
                What they're conveying is stale, cliche, and unsatisfying.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >subversion is inherently less simplistic
                Dude there's been ten-million of these "subversive" stories lately. It doesn't make a writer more clever to have a sympathetic villain, or have the mysterious masked badass turn out to be a pretty woman, or to have the big scary buff guy turn out to be a wuss, or to have the pretty wholesome princess turn out to be evil. All that shit's been done to death.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They are though. Classic villain is evil. Evil dragon. Evil knight in black armor. Evil conqueror from another country. Evil, that can be sympatized, is a subversion.
                Stop reading TVTropes or whichever cesspool you're getting your opinions from, and engage with some stories other than Disney cartoons and superhero comics for once in your life, please and thank you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All right, show me at least a single story, that have villain, that is not subverted and is not classic. Pro-tip: you can't, because it is either one or another purely because nature of a villain is to be evil - so every deviation from evil is subversive.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, and I haven't read your whole exchange but what about Michael Douglas' character from Falling Down where he is the villain to everyone else in the movie but dies thinking he's the hero? Is that just the second category?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Would you get anything positive or new if you would read a story with the same way of development?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Would you get anything positive or new if you would read a story with the same way of development?

                Do you mean would the story have mern more or less compelling if he understood he was the villain the whole time?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did they ever do anything with Jaffar?

                Like seriously, talking about disney villains, I think he is one of the few they haven't turn into a "poor tragic sandBlack person who had a bad life and forced into being a villain" thing yet, right?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you didn't hear about 'twisted'?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I did, but I have no idea what backstory they give to the characters there, I did watch the whole "trait: tall" on woody and laughed at manlets like everyone else though.

                Can you give a link or something to find out?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you mean not from a classic story, or not your inane definition of a classic villain? I'll assume the latter and stick to ones you're likely to know: Shylock. Richard III. Javert. Claude Frollo. Frankenstein's Monster. Mordred. Long John Silver. Frankenstein's Monster. Gollum.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Mordred

                Yeah love how she stole the show from the homosexual

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stories exist for their creators to express themselves. It can be more than just a simple message, it's the sum of the creators' lived experiences and how that connects to the audience. Subversion is just a tool they may or may not use. Most creators don't actually construct their whole story around a single subversion. If it feels to you like they do, again, that speaks of your shallow view.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. pseud

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >American

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US
        >stickman
        should have made 'im fatter

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      would've been good if you weren't obssesed with americans

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Go stuff your face with hamburger dipped in a ten gallon hat filled with ranch dressing you overweight underweight evangelical... guntoting... gas guzzling, uh ultracapitalist bourgeoisie... nationalist two-legged pig.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If a work of fiction of any kind makes you "LE QUESTION LE MORALITY", you're a burden on this world and should honestly die.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what is the Bible

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A book of israeli fairytales to brainwash the cattle?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            which has altered and shaped the world more than anything else in human civilization with its only competition being its more militant spinoff

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Only because it’s not presented as fiction tho. People actually believe that horse shit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If a book ever makes you think, that means you're dumber than a book, a literal inanimate object. That's why smart people only read dumb books.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your homosexual sarcasm aside, if your morality is so brittle a book could make you question it (not even a real life case, fricking fiction by some israelite hack), you're a weak little b***h with no set moral compass and probably no actual real life experience to draw from.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Of course. The strongest and wisest moral code is the one that is never tested, questioned or examined, even in the privacy of your own mind. I think Socrates said that.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Want to actually question and test your morality? Go work in a hospital, retirement home or become a cop.
              Morality is shaped by experience, not fictional stories. Unless you're a child.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah you can't know or even think about what you should do in a situation before it actually occurs. As I told the judge, hindsight is 20/20.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again, if you need fiction for that, you're a weak little b***h.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thinking up hypotheticals that haven't happened yet is fiction, even if you don't write it down, I'm afraid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like Mike Tyson once said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If you don't get that out of your real life experiences you either really need to fricking go outside or have such an ironclad code a book wouldn't change it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And if you never bother to think beyond your own experiences, naturally you'll think that's quite sufficient.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >How can I know my moral code is right unless I think up scenarios that'll literally never happen to me!?
                Lol?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you don't get that out of your real life experiences you either really need to fricking go outside or have such an ironclad code a book wouldn't change it.

                Everything that becomes part of your "real life experiences" is something that at one point had never happened to you before. You can either imagine possibilities in advance, which aren't real, or you can never do that because introspection is for homosexuals or something, I'm not clear on what you're trying to argue and I don't think you are either.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But many people want stories that entertain in more complex ways and make them ask themselves questions about the nature of morality

      study philosophy then, if some underpaid writer working for a greedy executive to sell garbage for teenagers can make you question your morality then you really need to question your brain

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Saved me the trouble of typing this out. You forgot to call OP a FAAAAAAG though

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do people nowadays make such shit threads?

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jack worked because he was a one-off character in a single film who functioned as an entertaining foil to the characters that actually did have more fleshed out motivations and backstory. Everything comes down to context, as usual.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      only smart post itt
      jack was the irredeemable piece of shit villain that does it with gusto, but he has Death and Goldilocks to balance him, were the former is the main threat tied to the protagonist and the story's themes and the latter who is the sympathetic antagonist that gets a redemption.
      if it was jack alone he would've been fun but also a bit disconnected from everything going on amd would've probably gotten old. they fill for eachother's weaknesses

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jack worked because he was a one-off character in a single film who functioned as an entertaining foil to the characters that actually did have more fleshed out motivations and backstory. Everything comes down to context, as usual.

        These are good non-fricking-dumbass takes.

        There's no "one kind of good villain."

        At one point, because people didn't give a shit, you had a frickton of forgettable villains like in The Care Bear where the evil bad guys were evil "to be evil" and that was it. This is usually bullshit unless it's played for COMEDY.

        Jack was a COMEDY villain, and Death worked at the thematic/serious/stakes villain and Goldilocks as the villain with some depth and heart. These kinds of villains work best when they are funny, and he wasn't even the only villain in the fricking movie.

        Regardless, the whole goddamn thing always depends on execution. If you're trying to down a down to earth, serious novel and your villain in Evil McBadGuy who is evil just to be evil and keeps telling everyone, "I'm evil! Now I will eat this puppy, for evil!" and it's not supposed to be a fricking joke, your book is probably going to be so bad it's good, at best. On the other hand, if you're writing a horror movie that just needs a monster guy who runs around killing people and you waste half the goddamn movie with some big sob story, your movie with be shit.

        It's a fricking idiotic ass take to just adopt one "rule" like "a generically evil monster man who is evil just to be evil is always good" and act like that magically makes a good movie. Disney's Wish turned its villain into that as soon as it got going and had the bad guy be pure evil and irredeemable despite the set up, and just chucking a more "traditional" villain in there past that point did not magically make Wish a better film than Frozen or Zootopia or Toy Story.

        It's only morons who don't know how to write who think that will magically make their story good. They lacth onto the MEME of Jack Horner without even for a second thinking about the actual movie, its actual writing, context, etc.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Wish
          Completely unrelated to your understandable rant, but I've been mad since I learned that Magnifico and Amaya were gonna be an evil couple in earlier drafts and I will forever remain mad about that

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Was he supposed to be a Trump parody?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think Disney

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s more kino to have a villian start neutral and gradually develop into a villian like it’s a hero character arc

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is a school of thought popular with the types of people who write movies and television that states that a person's behavior is solely a product of the environment they were raised in.
    >Poor people only commit crimes because they are poor
    >Bad people are only bad because of childhood neglect or abuse.
    The theory is easily debunked by anybody raised alongside a sibling who grew up to have drastically different opinions, interests, and biases, despite being raised under the same roof by the same people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't know what you're talking about.
      Determinism is impossible to debunk because every behavior can be explained away as being outside of our control and being determined by something like genetics or life circumstances.
      For this reason, determinism is also impossible to prove and science doesn't engage with it. It's unfalsifiable. Therefore, it's not a theory, not even a hypothesis, just its own school of thought separate from scientific conventions.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Therefore, it's not a theory, not even a hypothesis, just its own school of thought separate from scientific conventions.
        Physical determinism is a thing, it's just not the thing you're talking about.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You don't have the capacity to choose neither he has the capacity not to beg. And if his begging will change your mind is predetermined as is the way it will change it if it will.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So wait, doesn't that mean you would prove him right if you kill him with a shovel when you don't change the path that was set?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll prove you right too if you like.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You say this, yet every Dreamworks release since this movie had an unredeemable villain, and everyone disliked those

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Chameleon from Kfp4 would have made a perfectly servicible TV episode villain and might even have worked, had she had any screen time rather than the totally unnecessary side plot with the not terribly ambiguously gay dads

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jack was boring as shit and I'm tired of pretending he wasn't

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    did you miss the part where the film had 2 other villains, one who had a tragic backstory and the toher of whom prompts the main character's arc? if the film only had this guy in it, he would suck ass.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The other two villains were trash especially the girl

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you dumb Black person, did you forget that there were 2 other villains who had shades of gray morality to contrast Jack's evil villainy?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does everyone forget that this same movie has a tragic backstory anti-villain with Goldie and a respectful foe in Wolf/Death?

    >or some motivation to be bad?
    He had a motivation and backstory, he wanted all of the magic to be his, as he resents magical beings due to Pinocchio showing him up as a kid.

    Pure Evil villains do need motives, they just don't have to be sympathetic ones. Most of the Classic Disney Villains are motivated by insecurity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Death is more antagonistic than evil, while Goldie & the Bears are more affably villainous until their heel-face turn, which got ample buildup. Audiences don't hate the affably-antagonistic side-villains, they like them and are happy to see them change their ways. Same reason no one's scared by Eggman, he's basically Sonic's disgruntled neighbour than he is a complex schemer or vile monster

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Right, which is weird that this movie keeps being cited to argue against those villain archetypes, especially since Goldie & the Bears, and Wolf are the main antagonists the heroes clash with over the movie. Jack is mostly on the side as a character foil, untill the climax to give them all, minus Wolf, something to band together against.

        If the only villain was Jack, it would have to be an entirely different movie to work.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Eggman
        >not a complex schemer or vile monster

        Anon... that's Eggman propaganda.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Frozen comes out with it's Twist villain and makes a bunch a money
    >The twist villain is not what made Frozen a lot of money BUT idiots latch on that that was part of the appeal when Frozen's big draws were one very catchy song and two attractive female leads
    >Writers and executives get convinced that audiences want nonstandard villains so we get swarmed with redeemable/twist/non villain stories which none of them execute very well

    The other issue is that Disney doesn't ACTUALLY like it's Villain brand. It's counter intuitive to the main brand, but they're not stupid enough to turn down free money but they ARE stupid enough to basically go out of their way to not nurture it or treat it as a major focus when making films.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what is Descendants

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A repackaged version of legacy villains as heroes that goes against the appeal of villains and just coats them with generic coat of paint the kids will eat up

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      disney tried to make a 'traditiona'l disney villain in Wish with the dream-stealing wizard guy. it failed because that movie was bad and its premise was nonsensical, but it's clear they had those old school intentions with him

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I am certain that if Wish came out 20 years ago people wouldn't go out of its way to be contrarian and make excuses for the villain. I haven't seen it but I always take these "villain did nothing wrong" takes with a load of salt because if you ask internet culture warriors, every other villain in animation in the last 10 years did nothing wrong because feminists are inherently evil or something.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you're probably right. i dislike the recent attitude of 'oh, i'm watching popular thing, but i like VILLAIN instead of HERO, i bet the creator is SEETHING!'. when in fact the creator actually likes their villainous characters and is probably just pleased you got their viewer numbers up.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wish is baffling because it's a case where a twist villain would have been better, simply because its hero was just so bad

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Twist Villain was a trend since Wreck it Ralph, though King Candy was initially presented as a slightly less evil antagonist before. It's been a trend in Pixar since Monsters Inc.

      The reason it trended in Disney films for a while is because they where already writing films that effectively didn't need a villain, but wheren't confident enough yet to go without one.

      >redeemable/twist/non villain stories
      These aren't interchangeable story structures, which is why the Disney twist trend villains didn't work.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        see, the Twist Villain is different than what you describe. it's specifically "the villain is this character you thought was good/neutral/irrelevant"
        king candy isn't a twist villain because he's the antagonist from the get go, the twist is who he is and how truly rotten he is, but it's not like hans where he acts like a normal disney prince until the reveal.
        the issue with modern disney villains is that they barely act like villains until the reveal. they are often noncharacters until the third act so they don't have the time to make an impression and cam't have interesting designs because it would spoil the twist

        i feel like people itt mistake shitty writing with a certain trope associated with it. the villain just needs to fit the story. not all stories need a villain, not all stories need a deep villain, not all stories need an irredeemable villain.
        doesn't help disney has the nasty habit of overplaying just one type of conflict/villain for several movies in a row

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They're all Twist Villains. King Candy is presented as a reasonable authority antagonist at first. Waternoose is straight up friendly. They're just well executed versions of the trope since they have some antagonistic presence for most of the film, even if we don't fully understand it till the reveal.

          Twist Villains aren't inherently bad, the recent ones just did it badly because they used it as an excuse not to have an antagonist untill the final act because they felt obligated to have one.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            twist villain implies the twist is that they're the villain when you were made to think they weren't. waternoose is a twist, but king candy is not. you need the preconceived idea they're good guys for the twist villain trope people talk about in relation to modern disney.
            and yes, waternoose was well done because he does have some emotional depth. he actually does care about sulley and expresses regret and anger at having to exile him and his evil plan seems to come from a place of love for his company

            [...]

            These are good non-fricking-dumbass takes.

            There's no "one kind of good villain."

            At one point, because people didn't give a shit, you had a frickton of forgettable villains like in The Care Bear where the evil bad guys were evil "to be evil" and that was it. This is usually bullshit unless it's played for COMEDY.

            Jack was a COMEDY villain, and Death worked at the thematic/serious/stakes villain and Goldilocks as the villain with some depth and heart. These kinds of villains work best when they are funny, and he wasn't even the only villain in the fricking movie.

            Regardless, the whole goddamn thing always depends on execution. If you're trying to down a down to earth, serious novel and your villain in Evil McBadGuy who is evil just to be evil and keeps telling everyone, "I'm evil! Now I will eat this puppy, for evil!" and it's not supposed to be a fricking joke, your book is probably going to be so bad it's good, at best. On the other hand, if you're writing a horror movie that just needs a monster guy who runs around killing people and you waste half the goddamn movie with some big sob story, your movie with be shit.

            It's a fricking idiotic ass take to just adopt one "rule" like "a generically evil monster man who is evil just to be evil is always good" and act like that magically makes a good movie. Disney's Wish turned its villain into that as soon as it got going and had the bad guy be pure evil and irredeemable despite the set up, and just chucking a more "traditional" villain in there past that point did not magically make Wish a better film than Frozen or Zootopia or Toy Story.

            It's only morons who don't know how to write who think that will magically make their story good. They lacth onto the MEME of Jack Horner without even for a second thinking about the actual movie, its actual writing, context, etc.

            i think a villain needs two things: be a threat and have charisma. everything else is just a plus.

            because modern Hollywood wants to keep everyone divided and arguing, so we all ape out for our "side" which means more engagement for them and their movie stays in the zeitgeist longer.

            That's why we have so many morally ambiguous or reliable villains

            don't you find it scary that people see a clearly mad moron wanting to kill half the universe and think he has a point?
            he is the mad titan, it's ok if his logic is moronic, he just needs to believe in it to work, but it annoys me when the characters in universe also don't realize it's moronic and the audience take whatever the villain says at face value.
            we have enough food to sate every human twice over, so clearly overpopulation isn't the cause for world hunger

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >don't you find it scary that people see a clearly mad moron wanting to kill half the universe and think he has a point?
              Why be scared of morons?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Their enormous and poorly contained strength of course.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                never underestimate the power of stupid people en masse

                >don't you find it scary that people see a clearly mad moron wanting to kill half the universe and think he has a point?

                This, MCU Thanos is ALREADY obviously totally pure evil an indefensible and crazy and pure evil in any reasonable sense but the UNreasonable side will NEVER EVER EVER EVER fricking stop and I think this is why all of the "i'Ll mAkE EeeeEEeeevviiiLLl villaiiinss so dumbasses online will neva eva agree wid dem!!!!" arguments online are FRICKING STUPID. There are dumbasses online who DO "agree" with DE JOKA and Jack Horner going "durrr hurr we liive in a society kill everybody burn it all down blergh sociopathy is da waaay!!!" the fact that dum dum the megadoom death dude will have some fricking idiots somewhere saying "huuur he's rite!!" because it's edgy and mom's gonna freak of because they're fangirls who think he's a hottie even if he's an ugly frick because some fricker somewhere has a fetish for everything is no reason for you to nuke your story to shit in some kind of imagery arms race with the dumbest pieces of shit online or just a bunch of fricking trolls who will never relent "wow he's sympathetic and he's got a point!" just to piss you off even if they know he fricking doesn't.

                Just write your fricking story. Don't make it a meta conversation with fricking idiots and 8 year olds. Make your villain fit your specific story, have fun doing it, or don't and do something you think is difficult but quality, but doing shit because you watched Mr. Enter and a ton of other shitty YouTube "critics" for 10 years straight and want to "improve" some Disney tropes or "dialogue" with some stupid fricking trend is a losing battle. People have done complex villains and simple as shit villains both, you're not breaking any new ground or doing anything clever or proving any points either way, so do what actually makes sense in your very specific case and then in a different story do the different thing that makes sense there.

                >don't you find it scary that people see a clearly mad moron wanting to kill half the universe and think he has a point?
                If this actually scares you to the point where you seriously consider writing around it: do the entire world a favor and don't bother writing at all.

                i don't plan to write around it

                jack wasn't the villain. Death was the real antagonist. Jack was just around to create an excuse for conflict and action scenes without the death wolf in the scenes to keep him mysterious.

                Jack's not a villain, he's not an antagonist, he's barely a comedic tool for puss to swing his sword around. If you dropped him, and replaced him with just his crew of bandits it's basically the same movie minus a couple funny jokes.

                dumbest post itt

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >don't you find it scary that people see a clearly mad moron wanting to kill half the universe and think he has a point?

              This, MCU Thanos is ALREADY obviously totally pure evil an indefensible and crazy and pure evil in any reasonable sense but the UNreasonable side will NEVER EVER EVER EVER fricking stop and I think this is why all of the "i'Ll mAkE EeeeEEeeevviiiLLl villaiiinss so dumbasses online will neva eva agree wid dem!!!!" arguments online are FRICKING STUPID. There are dumbasses online who DO "agree" with DE JOKA and Jack Horner going "durrr hurr we liive in a society kill everybody burn it all down blergh sociopathy is da waaay!!!" the fact that dum dum the megadoom death dude will have some fricking idiots somewhere saying "huuur he's rite!!" because it's edgy and mom's gonna freak of because they're fangirls who think he's a hottie even if he's an ugly frick because some fricker somewhere has a fetish for everything is no reason for you to nuke your story to shit in some kind of imagery arms race with the dumbest pieces of shit online or just a bunch of fricking trolls who will never relent "wow he's sympathetic and he's got a point!" just to piss you off even if they know he fricking doesn't.

              Just write your fricking story. Don't make it a meta conversation with fricking idiots and 8 year olds. Make your villain fit your specific story, have fun doing it, or don't and do something you think is difficult but quality, but doing shit because you watched Mr. Enter and a ton of other shitty YouTube "critics" for 10 years straight and want to "improve" some Disney tropes or "dialogue" with some stupid fricking trend is a losing battle. People have done complex villains and simple as shit villains both, you're not breaking any new ground or doing anything clever or proving any points either way, so do what actually makes sense in your very specific case and then in a different story do the different thing that makes sense there.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy frick sorry for the typos I am wasted as frick. Even inebriated I know that this is goddamn stupid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I am wasted as frick
                yea we could tell.

                it's funny that i don't just tell myself "there's always gonna be some moron who thinks like this so why get so worked up about it?" anytime this shit gets brought up.

                but still, you're kind of full of shit and need to seek AA immediately.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The issue is a majority of people who have ualms with this only have a relationship with stories at a metalevel, it's all about the cliches and how they're used not about telling a story, conveying a message, the content and context is negligible it's all about codifying the tropes they can skim within.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >don't you find it scary that people see a clearly mad moron wanting to kill half the universe and think he has a point?
              If this actually scares you to the point where you seriously consider writing around it: do the entire world a favor and don't bother writing at all.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there are more types of villains than "evil for the sake of it" and "tragic dindu". you've got well-intentioned extremists, ill-intentioned extremists, forces of nature, self-centered scumbags, etc.
    they all have their upsides and downsides, none of them are inherently better or worse than the others, but too many of any type gets old fast.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Murder Drones fandom is annoying

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >well-intentioned extremist
      Used many times, technically tragic dindu.
      >ill-intentioned extremist
      Either evil for the sake of evil or for the sake of power/greed. Both are classic subtypes.
      >forces of nature
      Not a villain without mind, good/ill intentioned extremist with mind.
      >self-centered scumbags
      Evil for the sake of greed/power. Same as ill-intentioned.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most writers don't understand what "tragedy" really means. They make a villain 99% pure evil and then throw in some sob story at the last minute for faux depth, even if said backstory isn't congruent with influencing their crimes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one does this anymore

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Venom 2 was pretty recent.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if there is an actual nowadays villain cliche, it is that there's a pure evil main bad guy, and his sympathetic henchman/child figure, who is good looking, young and ~troubled~. the old guy is written off as a lost cause, the hot henchman gets to be redeemed. it's been a trope since ATLA, and not one of them did it better than Zuko.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the old guy is written off as a lost cause, the hot henchman gets to be redeemed. it's been a trope since ATLA,
      Star Wars

      Ok so Vader isn't hot under the mask by then, but that's why he gets the redemptive death. If he looked like Hayden Christensen under there you know he'd be at that party in person.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Star Wars
        Flash Gordon

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >who is good looking, young and ~troubled~. the old guy is written off as a lost cause, the hot henchman gets to be redeemed.
      i've always had this itch that people would forgive any character's actions just because they're attractive.

      >"Noooooooo I'm a chud but I don't want to say that, so I will complain constantly about the things of nowdays!"

      >chud
      this page needs....

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only other one I can think of besides Zuko is Hunter. Who gets redeemed because he is an abused 16 year old teenager who learns to break free of his abuser's abuse. No shit he and Zuko aren't some uber evil henchmen, they are children beaten and abused by who is supposed to be their guardian.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hunter+lilith, catra, lotor

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but that's the point. why have this specific trope of poor abused hot bad-boy-but-not-too-guilty over and over again

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >why have poor abused hot bad-boy-but-not-too-guilty over and over again
          Why indeed
          What could possibly be appealing about this character archetype

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            op asked for overused, and i present you with this.

            why not ugly wrinkled old frick sidekick be the one to be redeemed for a change?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Because nobody wants to frick a wrinkled old frick. That said, an old servant to a villain turning out to be chill isn't unheard of.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Iroh

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only women defend the sad broken justified backstory cause they're pseuds. Same with the MC (usually male, mary sues are fine with them cuz girl power!) having to prove themselves or grow as a character. It's so cringe.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most of the writers in hollywood are Jon Locke types who believe in blank slate theory and inherant natural good in humanity.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do writers nowadays think that Villains need some tragic backstory or some motivation to be bad?
    It's not the writers, it's the fans. People in this very thread are foaming at the mouth at the idea of a guy whose just an butthole with no deeper meaning.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      chelsea from that dreamworks sea monster movie was a flat bad guy, and this board hated it. because it sucked.

      face it, none of you morons know what you actually want or need

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chelsea has the same problem as the Magnifico from Wish. It doesn't feel like they're wrong but the story makes them wrong.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The problem was that Chelsea was nice to Ruby for most of the movie and then became evil out of nowhere in the last 15 mins. No one likes twist villains.

        Also she did have a tragic backstory (Ruby's mom killed her mom) but that was cut to make Agatha innocent.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like villains that have a tragic backstory, justification for their actions, but they're still irredemable buttholes. You can understand a villain without wanting them to turn good. Dr. Doom is kinda like this depending on the writer. Magneto was this before they decided a israelite couldn't be evil.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The trolls 3 movie has straight up villains.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The secret sauce that makes Jack work is that he's funny. He's comically over the top evil. If he wasn't funny but still a bastard for no reason he'd be dull villain of the week tier.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's the secret sauce. Your villain can be as heinous as you want so long as he makes people laugh.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I want to see more villains who are genuinely frightening. Or the kinds who do the horror part well, at least. I think that part is more important to me rather than depth.
        But nobody seems to be able to make those kinds of villains, especially nowadays.
        Hell, off the top of my head I can only recall Killer BOB from Twin Peaks and Brian Cox' Hannibal in Manhunter.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Judge Holden from the Blood Meridian is another example.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that too. I think I recall finding Raymond Lemorne from The Vanishing a bit creepy.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pure evil villains can be fun, but even in real life, most people who are shitty are shitty for a reason. Maybe not a good or compelling reason, but generally a reason.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want a bigoted hero fighting a politically correct villain who respects others while being a villain.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you plan to have your politically correct villain do that's villainous while also being politically correct?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bullying israelites, except on the sabbath.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how Puss in Boots 2 did the three villains thing better than Spider-Man 3.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modern writers are redditors who had their minds fried by the "elder god villain" tier list memes. Different stories call for different villains, and the sole merit by which a villain is good is how well they fit with the themes of the story. But so many redditors saw that shit an convinced themselves a "tragic backstory" villain is the only good villain regardless of context.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Idiots spent most of last decade claiming that the only "good" villains were the overly complex ones whose motives were better than the heroes. At the end of the day, it was literally just a coping mechanism for when normies would ask why they're still watching cartoons/read comic books.

    "Uh; this isn't kids stuff! These villains are MORALLY COMPLEX".

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Finally a sensible post

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like we're coming around from that, like High Evolutionary in GotGv3

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dini and Timm ruined this guy so hard
    He was so much better as a flat bad guy with absolutely no depth

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd prefer that so he could have different plots besides just MUH NORA every fricking time he shows up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He appeared in two episodes. Prior to that he was a fricking Adam West villain who stole diamonds.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And in comics, games, etc after that show it's always about Nora now and gets progressively stupider

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He wouldn't have different plots, he just wouldn't be around. It's like complaining about Bane's characterisation in Knightfall.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in most of his comic appearances he's just another goon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think Mr. Freeze shows the issue with this whole thing. Before the tragic Nora backstory thing, his whole thing was just "ice guy" and nobody wante to even use him at all, because he was flat and had no depth, he had no hook. He was boring. "Ice" isn't enough. How awful he was even when Arnold played him when, although that story was there, they didn't use it and he was just a bunch of godawful ice puns shows how horrible the character was and his limits. Although I think you could lean into the ice puns and do something funny, but you'd be making a new character.

            The tragic take on the character made him iconic enough not to be thrown into the Batman villain dust bin basically. But of course, that alone isn't enough, either. But it's better than absolutely nothing, which is what the character had before that.

            It doesn't change that Heart of Ice is great, iconic, and still remembered for a reason, though. Hell, all of B:tAS is all about tragic villain stories, and it's remembered as one of the greatest animated shows of all time.

            Compare that to the reputation today of Captain Planet with its fantastic flat villains. By the Jack Horner "rule," Captain Planet was a way better show than Batman: the Animated Series, Avatar: the Last Airbender, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc. So was Rainbow Brite.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, the whole "wife frozen in ice, Fries runs off to be a villain to try to save her" thing is one of my favorite parts of the character, but it gets overused by newer writers, either by overdoing it or by spinning it so hard it almost feels like a middle finger to the idea, I wouldn't be that surprised if there's at least one comic somewhere where he climbs into her cryopod and fricks her while she's in her cryosleep/coma.

      Fun options, IMO:
      1. Fries starts out reasonable, having normal henchmen, keeping the collateral damage low and using the gains to pay his henchmen and fund research to try to save Nora. Throughout the series he grows more desperate and deranged as nothing works; Batman stops calling him Victor. Mr. Freeze stops funding henchmen and slowly switches to more monstrous methods, freezing innocents (and maybe having ice monster henchmen); he stops talking, stops eating and grows more ice on himself, obscuring his face, and the only "human" thing left is donating to try to cure Nora. This ends with Nora being cured, but Freeze dying; Batman lets her know he died saving her. (Batman's the only one that knows he became Mr. Freeze). Nora goes on to cure cancer or something.
      2. Fries remains a small-time villain, maybe for an episode or two. Batman doesn't initially know who Mr. Freeze is or what his motivation is, but after some Batman-ing, he learns about Nora. Bruce Wayne funds a cure, cures her and the Freeze victims, including Fries himself; Fries and Nora get recruited as recurring Wayne/Batman allies from then on.
      3. Fries becomes Mr. Freeze as a recurring villain for a season or two, Nora is fine, but assumes Fries is missing. Freeze steals money to try to cure himself, avoiding killing anyone. His first murder is Nora by accident. Heartbroken, he takes her somewhere far away and encases them both in an eternal, icy hug, in the ocean near some Arctic town they liked. Charities are hit with a massive donation in Nora's name.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >2. Fries remains a small-time villain, maybe for an episode or two. Batman doesn't initially know who Mr. Freeze is or what his motivation is, but after some Batman-ing, he learns about Nora. Bruce Wayne funds a cure, cures her and the Freeze victims, including Fries himself; Fries and Nora get recruited as recurring Wayne/Batman allies from then on.
        Villain-turned-ally needs to be done more.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I ruminated on a Waynetech Freeze concept where he ends up helping Batman as a way to atone for what he's done. Toyed with making him a member of the Justice League eventually and his immortality turns him into a mentor for the newbies.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real question is why do studios think John Mulaney is a good voice actor.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's getting a bit overused because they:
    A. Saw that people latch onto tragic villains like Nox from Wakfu or some others that I'm blanking on because I just got back from driving my old-ass grandpa around town for the last hour to buy one (1) blanket and one (1) cup of coffee. -and wanted to get in on a really old bandwagon
    B. Are trying to remove "toxicity" in all forms, including legitimate villains that want to stomp everything.
    C. Grew up with Steven Universe and/or Adventure Time and that became their muse(s). Moreso the former, of course.
    Of the three, my biggest guess would be B, followed by C.

    I mean, at least it's 5x better than "lol im actually a villain because i frowned once at the beginning of the movie when [character] touched my wrist lol also now im gonna blow up the world dx" or the fiftieth not-Trump / not-Hitler / not-Anonymous going out and trying to wipe an entire race/gender out before finally being defeated and going down like a toddler whose candy was just taken away.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    His backstory was that he was shown up by a magical being, so he wanted all of the. Magic for himself

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not sure Jack Horner could have carried this picaresque story if he were the only villain

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A villain can still be complex without a redemption arc.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because modern Hollywood wants to keep everyone divided and arguing, so we all ape out for our "side" which means more engagement for them and their movie stays in the zeitgeist longer.

    That's why we have so many morally ambiguous or reliable villains

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?t=6

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is why we need a Donkey Kong Country movie, so King K. Rool can just be awful and terrible and not have any redeeming qualities

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    jack wasn't the villain. Death was the real antagonist. Jack was just around to create an excuse for conflict and action scenes without the death wolf in the scenes to keep him mysterious.

    Jack's not a villain, he's not an antagonist, he's barely a comedic tool for puss to swing his sword around. If you dropped him, and replaced him with just his crew of bandits it's basically the same movie minus a couple funny jokes.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >redditors didn't start noticing simple villainsuntil Puss in Boots 2 The Last Realistic Panic Attack did it
    What's the deal with this? Do you only watch whatever the latest FOMO shit is?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *