@@Kyle_SpivisYes but she was also a sympathetic victim of abuse and ridiculous expectations. While you felt bad for Azula the only thing you thought of Ozai was “fuck that guy.”
@@Kyle_Spivis Not quite. Azula was evil, yes, but in the end is a tragic figure whom the audience is supposed to take pity on, the same cannot be said for Ozai, In fact Ozai is completely responsible for making Azula the way she is.
I'd like to add that an evil villain and a sympathetic villain don't even have to be mutually exclusive. My favorite example is Davy Jones from the Pirates franchise: He's got a sympathetic backstory, sure, but that backstory isn't there to give Jones some redeemable quality, instead it serves to show us *why* he became an unnecessarily cruel and malicious force of nature in the first place.
@@sarahb.7175 Such a shame most of that scene had to be cut... Wished they had cut some of the fluff from the cannibal island instead. Jones playing dice was a thousand times more interesting.
🔖Another danger of a sympathetic villain is making the protagonist look like a dick. If the protagonist is badly written, he may seem arrogant, selfish, lacking empathy, and I'm actually rooting for the villain to take him down. In Thor Love and Thunder, Thor seemed unbothered by the plight of the kidnapped children, and I wanted Gorr to take out all the gods, and Thor became the villain for trying to stop this mission.
Yes indeed, while its important to understand why some people became the way they are its also important to note that some are just cruel. They won’t change, they have no empathy in their hearts and depending on their crimes should be dealt with with no sympathy from us.
Pure evil villian makes the movie epic and intresting to watch, when it can have a lot of tension with how evil the villian can be, while clown villian makes the movie joke to watch. I personally dont like movies where is too childish or clown like villian.
One of the things I like about Nolan's Joker was that he sometimes painted himself as a sympathetic villain to his victims, often before he harms them or kills them (when he tells them how he got his scars) and you only realize he's lying when you hear hs story change.
Yes, that Joker mocks the trope. He could just as well have handed out free lampshades to drive the point home. I don't think we even hear his actual name once in the story, he only exists as the pseudonym and an agent of chaos (a big thread throughout the Nolan films... Chaos and how civilization can be protected against it)
@banshotenin1178 oh shit sorry I forgot Nolan created the Joker. My bad. I'm not taking away from Nolan's work; he and Ledger did a great job bringing the character to life and showing his traits on the big screen. They didn't create those traits.
@@MrAweeze No they didn't but those traits are so rarely articulated until Nolan exposed them. Even the original Joker made by DC was not as fleshed out in many aspects as what we saw Nolan do with Heath. Again, Nolan's track record speaks for itself. And that's not to say the original Joker wasn't multi-faceted, it's to say Nolan changed the entire trajectory of how he's properly displayed on the big screen.
*“Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.“* -Alfred Pennyworth
Thought goes to Dr. Mabuse, the great creation of author Norbert Jacques and brought thrillingly to life by actor Rudolph Klein-Rogge and director Fritz Lang in two nonpareil movies, one silent, one a talkie. Master of disguise, master of hypnosis, purveyor of drugs and mysticism, his criminal empire commits dastardly acts that seem purposeless and of benefit to no one. He aims for nothing less than to bring all of society down in chaos, anarchy and ruin and establish "Der Herrschaft Des Verbrechens" - the endless Empire of Crime. 🧐
In contrast to the Joker, Mr. Freeze is a very good sympathetic villain because he's one of the few Batman villains who does evil things for the sake of someone he loves. If every villain had Victor Fries' tragic backstory and relatable motivations, Mr. Freeze wouldn't be nearly as special in the lineup of Batman's Rogues Gallery.
True. And just because his motive is sympathetic it doesn't stop him from doing some terrible things. I also like two face because he is literally Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. His good side would never be doing the things he is doing. And Bruce was friends with him before his accident. So he keeps trying to catch him and cure him. As a villain he is a wild card because his code sometimes kicks in and he will flip on the fate of the person. This means he may try to kill someone or save someone. Who knows. Batman has the best rouge gallery in my opinion.
I would say Two Face is a good sympathetic villian from Batman too, as he is suffering more from severe mental health issues with a split personality then being evil.
@@kellharris2491 I feel that Man-Bat is a better example of Jekyll and Hyde than Two-Face. Also there is the often forgotten Humpty Dumpty who is a model inmate at Arkham Asylum because he is a rare case of a Batman villain that is legitimately insane (in the legal sense) and tries to get better.
And then there’s people like Zsasz, bonafide serial killer freaks who all the other villains would prefer were dead, but never think about doing it themselves when they’re around him, or just stay as far away as possible from him. Guys like that almost never get animated because of what they are. The Hatter is the closest to them, and I’m pretty sure he gets toned down a bit.
@@kellharris2491 I also like how Mr. Freeze understands that the things he does are wrong, cruel, and will hurt people in the same/similar ways to how he is hurting for his wife. A sad backstory doesn't necessarily denote motivational complexity, but being self-aware of your actions, their consequences, and choosing to continue anyway for the sake of your goals IS. God, Batman's Rogue gallery (the popular ones) are great.
I love your "Look Who's Back" example. Someone can be unsympathetic and irredeemable, but still be a product of their environment, acting as commentary on how society encourages some of these villainous traits.
The point of pure evil villains like the joker is that it doesn’t matter for us to try to understand them. The fact that they would do something so horrible automatically negates any sob story they have.
Not only do they not care what others think of them, they are convinced for whatever reason that their views and goals are worth pursuing, no matter what the cost.
The Joker is also a good way to contrast Batman’s no killing rule. A man who doesn’t kill vs a man who’s irredeemable and will end up committing multiple atrocities if left alive Pretty much every other famous Batman villain: sometimes helps him, has a mental illness, has a reason for their ways or has a hope of one day being cured. But with the joker, he commits atrocity after atrocity and never shows any sign of change. In some depictions, the joker doesn’t have a mental illness, and isn’t insane (which is why no psychologist is able to diagnose him). If Batman lets him live, he’ll just break out and kill a lot more people- you could argue it’s better for Batman to kill him, saving the lives of his future victims. But Batman refuses because if he does he’s no better than them/because if he crosses that line he won’t be able to stop himself/because 1 man shouldn’t get to decide who lives and dies.
@@BananaWasTaken And that hard line is what forces Batman to be creative and super-prepared, the kind of guy whose solution to the Trolley Dilemma is "Neither. I already installed a third track that goes underground, because from what I know of you, you're easily impressed with Philosophy 101 hypotheticals, and you'd think this was clever."
@@BananaWasTaken Joker isn't insane. He's considered SUPERSANE. He understands that he exists to challenge Batman and vice versa. If one of them dies, their concert ends forever, meaning that Justice stagnates. In any timeline where Batman falls to him, he effectively becomes a functional member of society as his purpose is fulfilled and their is no longer a challenge. I think Joker explicated this in, "A Death in The Family," where he sees Batman as improving every time they meet one another.
@@afrosamourai400Breaking Bad never once tries to justify Gustavo. He's an evil monster and that's what he'll always be, regardless of his sympethic backstory.
@@thetruthlies7 yes and that's all i want from a villain..fuck tuco i want a guy who does evil things but for an understandable reason, not just because he can, and if he acts evil just for the sake of it then at least give him a philosophy, a complexity or a solid point to make people like lalo salamanca, roy batty, magua, kurtz(apocalypse now), magua(last of mohicans), michael and vito corleone, tony montana, mustapha mond(brave new world) little bill(unforgiven) these are my type of villains...
@@afrosamourai400 The difference between a villain and hero is that the hero is portrayed as the " selfless; for others " nonsense in which the masses benefit from and what really makes the hero good is that the masses benefit, whereas the villain doesnt care about the masses. The masses themselves are also hypocrites which is never brought about. The villain is at least honest in his motives and is for self gain. Good and evil is really down to whether or not anyone benefits from it.
Sometimes pure evil is more relatable than a morally complex character. Evil is wanting to get what you want at any cost, and that's a feeling many people grapple with.
Absolutely. For example, there are many instances of royalty killing their family members for power. There are two princeling brothers, the elder one dies, and his son becomes heir. The Uncle-Nephew are made into co-rulers, but then the nephew mysteriously dies and his uncle becomes the sole ruler, obviously he put his nephew out of the picture for power. There's no tragic backstory, simply a means to an end to inherit the kingdom. And that is absolutely pure evil.
Motivations don't even need to be creative; they need to be relatable. Loss and pain and injustice are common experiences. It's the execution that needs to be creative while not beggaring belief--and the villainy carefully balanced so that, while you still are sorry that the villain's pain was inflicted on him, what he's doing is wrong and he must be stopped. Also, it helps if the hero isn't also a villain, and isn't less sympathetic than the designated villain.
Pure evil villains often can be compelling in either just how charismatically they own their nature or how you legitimately want to see them get what’s coming. (Ex: Sukuna, Mahito)
@@BananaWasTaken that’s a really good example, swing the movie does a great job of making you hate the high evolutionary and I found it really interesting seeing his full descent into madness played by a really good actor
Sympathetic villains are great, but Hollywood definitely has gone too far with them lately. It was one of the reasons why I loved Guardians of the Galaxy 3 so much. James Gunn gave us the most despicable, easy to hate villain in all the MCU. But that's the exact type of villain that works for that specific story.
The problem they usually fail at making them sympathetic (Killmonger wants to start a race war because king tchaka killed his dad, Karli blows up buildings full of people to get a house that was never hers, Gravik wants to eliminate people on Earth because Fury didn't find him a free planet, Wanda kills and enslaves people for her imaginary kids...the list goes on).
Everyone should read Harris' great novel Silence of the Lambs. When Clarice first encounters Hannibal the Cannibal, she tries to get him to fill out this long questionnaire about his background. Clarice encourages him with the goal of understanding what happened to him to become a cannibalistic killer. He scoffs at the notion. "Nothing happened to me, Clarice. I happened."
And then you read or watch "Hannibal Rising" and... oh Like, I see. I get it. Still horribly, irredeemably evil, but there was a cause in that evil rooted in him young and grew through him, fed by other evil.
@@danielled8665 Yeah but "cause" is the wrong term. He is was telling Clarice he deliberately chose to be the way he is. It's not like he doesn't know how or what gave him the idea. He says it doesn't matter anymore, he's not a tortured soul, he's what he decided to be. That's what pure evil is best described as. Someone willfully malicious in intentions.
Hannibal rising was written long after the fact because the studios wanted to make another film after "Red Dragon," so they pressured Harris to release another book for them to adapt. A book the majority of the fanbase dislikes and a film adaptation that they hate. RIP to Gaspar Uliel ( I hope I spelled his name right) because he was the best part of that awful film.
I think a big problem is when writers use a sympathetic backstory as an excuse for a villain rather than to show that they've failed to grow out of it and become a better person. I think a good example of a pure evil villain that's also sympathetic is Voldemort. I wont go into the details but he has a backstory that allows the reader to understand why he is the way he is, however, this is never used as an excuse for his actions and is rather there to show how a person that lacks love and is pure evil is made.
Writer: "This is why this character can justify these horrible things to themselves" Reader: "OH SO YOU'RE EXCUSING THEIR ACTIONS???" Writer: ???????????
wtf? Voldemort sympathetic? He is shown from his first appearance in the story to be cruel, a dead mommy and living in shitty orphanages is no excuse and no character building background for an irredeemable bully. If you want sympathetic villain, try Dudley. He's an ass throughout 6 books, but it's not really his fault, he got raised that way and encouraged to be that way by his psychopathic parents that believe being a torturing misanthrope (as hyperbole on "bicycling" as in bow low to your superiors, but kick out at those below you) is "good english behavior"... Okay, it may be that JKR's ambitions were orders of magnitude larger than her abilities to write, that she TRIED to humanize Baby-Voldemort, but failed, but he is not shown as a tragic character, but as a deplorable human from 11 years on. Hurting others to satisfy his ego.
Wait ... Sauron was evil? But we always found him to be a wise and benevolent leader! In Mordor he had an 83% approval rating. Sure, his foreign policy was a little, let us say, assertive, but that is entirely understandable considering the elves were plotting to use the One Ring against him. That was a critical threat to our national security!
I love Dark Knight’s Joker because they address the lack of “sympathetic backstory” in a way that actually *enhances* Joker’s character. He first tells one character that he got his scars from an abusive father, which might lead some people to feel at least a little bit sorry for him (and others to roll their eyes and go “oh, great, now he’s just a broken man with a stupid sympathetic back story”). Then to another character later in the movie, he tells a different story about his scars by saying he mutilated himself after his wife was disfigured by loan sharks. Suddenly, we, the audience, realize we were fooled by the Clown Prince! This tells the audience three things: 1) The Joker is absolutely unworthy of sympathy of any sort because he is manipulative and dangerous; 2) telling conflicting stories is right in line with a character whose very nature is disorder, manipulation, and chaos; and 3) his actual backstory is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as to why he is the way he is. It’s terrifying, and it’s brilliant. Comparing Joaquin Phoenix’s and Heath Ledger’s Jokers is a good way to analyze the cog analogy given in the video. Arthur Fleck is a fascinating villain/protag in his own story (his own cog of a character with the other cogs in that particular movie); but the Arthur Fleck cog does NOT fit nearly as well as Ledger’s Joker with the other narrative cogs of The Dark Knight. Blah blah I think this stuff is really cool
Jep, I think for Arthur Fleck there could be a Batman, but a vastly different from the Dark Knight one. Arthur could admire him for beating down the bad guys, maybe he sees this guy as the one "going werewolf" and fighting back the injustice system. Maybe Arthur wants to support him but realizes that he is considered an enemy once Arthur "fights back the system" in his way aka. murdering people or causing chaos and Batman stopps him. Arthur could get frustrated with him, that this guy doesn't see how its them against everyone else in this rotten society, how Batman needs to remind Gotham how it is to be the other guy, but Batman replies: "Did you ever consider how it is." Which challenges Arthurs views, making him angrier, screaming: "I DID. But no one cared! They will not care unless they're where I was... where I AM.... then they will see how f*ck*n funny all this here is. This sharade!". In the end Arthur could be convinced that Batman is the one he needs to convince to start building a place that is good for him. This could get very interesting if pulled of right!
I think that the idea Ledger's Joker represents is way bigger than the character, so him being like Phoenix's Joker would directly shift the narrative.
Before Hollywood started writing villains poorly with these "sympathetic backstories", they were writing every villain as pure evil no matter what. The writers in Hollywood just follow whatever the latest trends are.
funnily enough Maleficent aged poorly compare to her animated counterpart along with captain hook in fact the disney renaissance villains remains the best thing about them
One of my favorite aspects we got to see from Sauron in the film trilogy is in the first film where Saruman, arguably the most powerful individual next to Sauron in Middle-Earth, uses the Palantir to communicate with Sauron and IMMEDIATELY after this scene we see him slumped down on a stool, visibly distressed after having direct contact with Sauron. Sauron as a force is so terrible and powerful that the mere act of chatting with him makes even the most powerful Wizard in the world having to take a time out before carrying out his commands.
I honestly miss the days of pure evil villains. Sympathetic villains are fine but they’re so frequent it’s becoming a joke and, quite frankly, arbitrary.
I think part of it is confusing any reason as being good enough to justify the villain's horrendous actions. Like if a villain had a puppy he really liked, and then it died, it is not proportionate for said villain to grow up to burn down villages as his day job. It is pretty much completely unconnected to the sympathetic backstory and doesn't really counter the pain the villain got. Sure, it makes sense he'd be torn up by the trauma, but his response to it isn't morally good, but simply causing others more trauma. There seems to be the idea that sympathy absolves the villain of all moral responsibility, and I don't see that as true. Their adult actions need to be proportionate to the harm they suffered and not completely unconnected from the trauma they got. Being over protective of his pets/ friends would make sense for our puppy lover, but there is a limit to sympathy. After all, I'm sure everyone has bad things happen to them, but most don't become murderous over it.
The Joker is evil but it's what he does with it that's interesting. He's not seeking power or control, he just wants to show that under the right circumstances ordinary people have the same capacity for evil that he does.
For this reason i wouldn't call him pure evil. Of course he has no redeeming qualities and no sad backstory, but he also isn't evil just for the sake of being evil. He has a point that he's trying to get across (even if we don't agree with that point).
@@Lilith_Harbingerbeing pure evil isn't about having a lack of a motive. Pure evil characters still have motives about their evil actions. It's more of a sliding scale between people who do evil things because they want evil things, and people who do evil things for very, very good reasons.
I watched 101 Dalmatians recently with my children and just could not get over the fact that they decided to make a remake/movie about her as the justified heroic woman fighting the system….
Twisted made it an open and shut case. Cruella: "I only wish to have a coat made out of puppies!" Jafar (along with Ursula, Scar, Captain Hook, Maleficent, Gaston): "WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!"
@@justineberlein5916 By the end of Beauty and the Beast, I think Gaston’s villainy was reasonable. The woman he’s in love with has the hots for an animal (as far as he and Belle are aware of, in any case), so it would seem reasonable to put her away in a loony home and kill the animal that she’s in love with.
Big Jack Horner Loomed in the corner Glared with his nefarious eye. He twitched his thumb And pulled out a gun And said what a bad boy am I. God I LOVE when villains are pure evil just for the sake of it. And Jack's no stranger to that.
I love sympathetic villains, but it’s nice to just have the occasional purely evil one. Same with heroes, while I love having morally grey heroes or even antiheroes sometimes it’s nice to just have a straight up good hearted protagonist
The best part of Jack Horner was that his character was designed to make fun of sympathetic villains. Not only was he pure evil but he was a meta joke for the audience. And having a legendary comedian play a character that's one big brilliant joke is perfect.
@@shortbusbullyWait. They're not legendary, but they're on a list of comedy legends? That still means they're legendary, just not as legendary as other comedians.
Best part of Jack Horner is that he is current Disney. Collects magical trinkets just to put them in a display to collect dust or misuse them for his own benefit. Doesn't care about his employees lives and his main goal is to get all the magic so everyone else doesn't have any.
Just a bit of correction: in Peter Pan novel Captain Hook’s hand was fed to crocodile by Peter alongside with his wristwatch that kept ticking. So Captain Hook in a way had PTSD. Yes, it is metaphor for death and passing of time, but also makes sense in a story. I dont know why Disney change it originally too
you don't know why Disney changed it? You don't know why /Disney/ changed it so the male lead didn't mutilate someone and feed their limb to a crocodile?
And “The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.” Not sure how others define "thin" like in this except but many interpret that as killing. Some theorize that Hook was a Lost Boy who escaped and could be trying to stop Pan. At the very least Pan kidnaps kids. Why is Hook the bad guy? Even if you didnt know about the thinning, or his hand thing, he could be trying to rescue the lost kids.
Whenever I see people talk about wholly evil villains, I always think of that scene from “Guardians 3”. Where Star-Lord just looks at the High Evolutionary and says. “I don’t need a speech from some whack job who’s mother didn’t love him rationalizing why he needs to conquer the universe.” He speaks for us.
“Screw you, you stretched face, Robocop lookin', Skeletor wannabe, PURPLE NURPLE, PIECE OF SH-… He hung up.” Peter was also speaking for us in that moment.
Notes: Pure evil villians are supposed to be symbols of what the protagonist doesn’t want to or should not be! Also anyone wants to add on I would very much appreciate it 😁
Exactly, it's not about making them polar opposites, it's about making the hero struggle with the villain. That can mean making them extremely similar with a few key differences. Wolverine and his brother as an example.
One of the best elements of the recent Puss in Boots, a "generic" evil villain. One who's reinforced as being an "irredeemable monster" by a moral authority. And Jack Horner is one of the funnest villains I've seen in years. One of the best elements in No Country for Old Men, too. Chigur being a force of nature and soulless killer and yet maintaining a menace beyond description is pure cinematic engagement and I adore it.
Puss N Boots, with having three separate villains, was able to have fun with the three different archetypes of villains and that's one of the reasons why it is so good. Jack, being pure evil, was able to have the most humorous lines and shows, as one author puts it, that evil loves evil. Goldie and the bears, being the redeemable ones, was able to show the depths the writers can go. Death, on the other hand, was able to show a villain that actually affects the hero's life and causes fear in him.
@@firestriker3580 Then can you pls give a better explanation yourself? Also just to be clear. Its not just one factor making a story good, as this video said, it multiple factor, multiple parts, working together to make the story work. What Ironica82 described is a part of the story, not the sole factor making it work. Doesn't mean that there' can't be other reasons behind why the story works that can coexist
Like Frieza. “I just want to rule the universe. I will help you kick the asses of the most powerful guys from other universes so that our universe doesn’t get destroyed. But I’m still gonna kill you guys after, so I can rule the universe.” What a scamp.
There's a great quote related to Mr H. that I feel more people need to internalize, and it related to your point. 'Mr H. was a guy. Just a guy. He didn't pass through a membrane from another reality.' Evil exists and has always existed. Pure evil is everywhere, just usually at a scale those outside it can easily ignore. All that separates them from the Mr H. and Voldemorts of the world is power.
My pet peeve with pure evil villain is when they are too trigger-happy with their own people. If the evil leader can just casually kill their own lieutenant for a petty mistake, who the hell would follow them
Either someone who is crazy as they are, someone who is in too deep and realizes that you can't just leave you job, if the villain is part of a military type organization maybe they can't pick who their CO is, or maybe they just have a really good health care plan. For me the rule of three tends to go with these types of villains. The first time they kill an underling it is scary. The second time is less scary because you kinda expect, but by the third time they do it turns into a black comedy. Exhibit A is Darth Vader. When he chokes Motti in A New Hope, it is scary as it is our clear demonstration of what the force can do and he kinda was asking for it as he is still back talking a 7'2'' cyborg who outranks him. With Ozzel it is still scary as he legitimately screwed and they weren't even in the same room at the time and Piett had a "This is gonna suck" expression when he promoted on the spot Admiral. By the time they got to Needa, Vader was delivering one-liners and the fact that they had Imperial Navy Troopers carry off his body made it look routine. Of course with Vader that makes it more effective when in the final minutes of the film, he just tells Piett "Don't fail me again" and doesn't kill him subverting our expectations.
True, this pure evil cliche is so backward..how could you follow that type of leader? Fear maybe? Give us a evil guy who love his people like roy batty or chrollo lucifer..
My best answer is either strategy or liability, using Bionicle and Breaking Bad for example In Bionicle the villain Makuta seeks to take over the universe with his brothers, but to ensure full dominion he pits his brothers against the heros the Toa in a reactivation chamber, and once it ignites it kills all of Makuta's Brethren, leaving him with no competition and absolute victory. In Breaking Bad when Walter White saves his and Jesse's skin by killing their replacement, Gus kills one of his henchmen in front of them not only to make an example of what will happen should they defy him again, but simply because that henchmen was at the crime scene and was now a liability.
@@Rinesmyth It also worked for Gus in that Victor is the only person in the series who worked for him that he personally kills. Sure he is trying to kill Walt which I can’t blame him for as he already established himself as a liability, but he only succeeded in killing Victor. It kept him scary because if he kept killing other employees it would become a dark running gag. Instead it starts and ends with Victor keeping him scary as it sets a precedent without going overboard. Speaking of the point on liability, I think it could also work if it is establishing the villain is starting to lose it. For example in Tim Burton’s Batman, Bob the Goon, Joker’s right hand-man throughout the film, is shot by the Joker when Batman steals his balloons filled with Smilex. It wasn’t his fault, Joker just went crazier than usual for a moment and needed to let off some steam. The audience know is aware whatever grasp of sanity Joker has before this point is completely gone and we can’t predict what he will next. Another example albeit one with nobody dying is Grand Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars Rebels. Thrawn is a great villain, cunning, cultured, oddly charming in his own way, and with a unique interest in other alien cultures. One episode is about the characters attempting to retrieve a family heirloom of one of their members that Thrawn also wants to add to his collection. At one point a bigoted Imperial Officer starts questioning Thrawn’s interest in the heirloom seeing it as junk and Thrawn suddenly grasp the officer by the collar and is almost frothing at the mouth before collecting himself again and apologizing saying he forgets sometimes his interests aren’t shared by other Imperials. This marks the first time in the series where Thrawn is legitimately angry and sets the precedent that he has his limits and we don’t know when he react that way again. What makes it even scarier is how the only other time he gets angry in the series (after a devastating tactical blunder that caused a major setback for his pet project and it got spun as a victory despite the massive costs), he is still not as angry as the first time despite adopting a tone that implies he would have killed that subordinate for their mistake if he was there (he was offworld at the time).
Really enjoyed this. Made so much sense. I think this actually applies to heroes, too. You don’t have to have an anti hero or harsh violent hero to be this cool complex character. I think captain America is a good example of a pretty straight up good heroic man. But that doesn’t mean he’s boring. Chris Evans and the writers did a great job with Steve Rogers. His heroism and good character was put to the test in some situations that were complex and didn’t always have a clear simple solution or villain to overcome. The system or world in which he existed could be so cruel and complicated that part of his challenge was remaining good in such a corrupted world. And it was really fun to watch.
Overly Sarcastic Productions did a really interesting video about Paragons and how their motivation to do the "right thing" can be a complex topic when the "right thing" isn't always as clear as they think it is, or has unforeseen consequences.
This could also apply to obi wan, jon snow, aragorn, ned stark..always trying to do the right thing, there's nothing boring about the real good guy hero..
I like how... even this take is. Most of the stuff I've heard about pure evil villains versus sympathetic villains comes from two camps: the people who are reacting against the overuse, misuse and abuse of pure evil villains by saying all villains should be sympathetic, and the people who are reacting against those people by saying that sympathetic villains suck. This is one of the most refreshingly not-extreme opinions I've ever heard on how complicated villains should be.
Magnus Ridolph puts it thusly: "Banish Evil from the world? Nonsense! Encourage it, foster it, sponsor it. The world owes Evil a debt beyond imagination. Think! Without greed ambition falters. Without vanity art becomes idle musing. Without cruelty benevolence lapses to passivity. Superstition has shamed man into self-reliance and, without stupidity, where would be the savor of superior understanding?" - Jack Vance, _The Many Worlds of Magnus Ridolph_ (DAW Books, 1966, 1980)
High Evolutionary comes across as a particularly good example of this villain type. He has nothing redeeming about him but he does his job well and he's entertaining to watch.
I kinda hate the term “pure evil” and Ifeel like it should be called “true evil” instead, especially for him. He’s delusional enough to think he’s in the right but is still clearly very evil
I love the Irony that High Evolutionary's goal is to make the most peaceful creature and immediately kill all of them when showing a sigh of bad behaviour... in his mind he has right to kill his own creation.... while our heroes pretty much pulled a heist on a company where many people just there to work their asses off lmao
in the modern age of entertainment where every villain now has to be a tragic hero for some reason, i find it odd that villains who are pure evil are somehow unique. characters like Dio Brando, Palpatine etc, they are becoming more and more enjoyable bizarrely not because of their character, rather its because of how they are now one in a million. also seven, that film nails it perfectly
Freddy Krueger is a good example of a pure evil villain that has no justification nor reason for being evil, but yet he still works and doesn’t become generic. Him having personality and enjoying his deeds of murdering innocent teens and taking their souls just for the fun of it and laughs at humiliating them by killing them in horrible ways in the dream world. The writing is just right of making him work.
@@afrosamourai400 Freddy isn't you say. Well keep in mind his backstory is put simply he was a serial killer who died and got supernatural powers. Serial killers that target children are very real and that is what makes Freddy scary. He was a psycho before he became undead.
If he doesn't have a reason for being a villain then he's a poorly written villain, it's that simple, movies a supposed to be a Segway to reality and reality doesn't work that way
I think having a pure evil villain with a sympathetic backstory is not only possible, but it can create a very interesting kind of villain with a different message. One where the message is that you can not let tragic events break you, and you certainly can not commit evil actions in the present and use evil actions in the past as a justification. It can also say that evil is a struggle within everyone and that anyone could potentially go down this path. I think various depictions of Joker, particularly Joaquin Phoenix's, are a great example of this. In fact, the Joker movie sets up a near perfect example of this, in that both Joker and Batman have tragic stories, but one lets it turn him into a monster, while the other presumably does not.
that's how they're SUPPOSED to be. ALL characters need to be complex or fleshed out when you write them as a person either if they're good, evil, or grey ow WHATEVER kind of character you need to make if they're going to be a character you follow around!
@@afrosamourai400Francis Dolarhyde is not pure evil character. He's a tragic character who is trying to change into something greater because he was bullied in his childhood for his flaws. He can love and care and that's the only reason why he even let Riba survive. Before that he even tried to stop "The Red Dragon" for her and almost killed himself to do that. In my opinion, he's a better character than Lecter
13:16 there's also people completely whiffing on the meaning of "write what you know" and they end up writing about struggling writers in small NYC apartments, instead of writing about the other things they know: heartbreak, love, betrayal, enemy armies, the struggle of good vs evil, etc. Tolkien didn't live in middle earth, but he did know about brotherhood, good vs evil, industrialization, loss of innocence, etc. And he wrote about those.
Well put. Also the thing about static characters (like pure evil villains) is that they tend to change the world and people around them instead of being changed by them. Sometimes this is exactly what you need to make your story work.
Jack Horner even made fun of the sympathetic villain trope. His tragic backstory is that he grew up in an emotionally stable home with a thriving baked goods business to inherit.
Oh wow, that’s interesting. I knew villains were more interesting if they thought they were doing what was right in their eyes, but I guess I didn’t consider that the villain is more convincing if the writer doesn’t view him/her as a villain. I wonder if perhaps that’s why Gone With the Wind works so well; it can be argued that Scarlett is something of a villain, yet you’re invested in her story and even root for her, a selfish, self-centered, greedy diva. The author clearly painted Scarlett’s flaws, but she maintained her view that Scarlett is just doing what she thinks is right-even though most of the time it’s wrong. I’ll have to keep that in mind. Thanks for sharing!
I would disagree with that one. The writer CAN think of the villain as evil, but the key part is in the writer understanding they are dead - or missing - pertaining to their text. They cannot drop karmic anvils, as they have no real power in the story, merely existing as the one writing it. Any situation thus is up to the characters to solve, with the writer sitting in the backseat, regardless of personal feelings towards characters of any personality traits.
Amon Göth in Schindler's List is reportedly tamer than the real one b/c the latter was so monstrous that he came off as almost unbelievable. It's almost as if the script is trying to give him a character arc regarding power & attraction, as well as attempting to provide answers on why he is the way he is. But the brilliant thing is that the character himself routinely rejects those explorations and immediately goes back to the pleasure of violence time and time again. A reminder that monsters do exist no matter if they're human. On the other end of the spectrum is Oskar Schindler's complexity. We sense that he's changing throughout the story, but it's never made explicit just how much prior to him actually making the list. For he has to be subtle about how he does things in the world that he's operating in.
Some of my uncoventional favorites: The Boys - Homelander: He likes being praised more than feared so he is extremely unpredictable but, at his heart he is a truly narcissistic murder machine, who is disgusted by almost anyone. Training Day - Alonzo: Now onto something more human, charismatically manipulative but, he will throw anybody under any bus. What's frightening is how common this is. He made a mistake that would normally cost him his life but, he'll make anybody else pay that cost. Luca Blight - Suikoden 2: Just a big, mean, ball of ...mad. He likes hurting people. He can easily hurt people. His only real goal is to hurt people. He wasn't possessed by crystals or spirits or some such. He was just a man. Kefka - Final Fantasy 3/6: As a character, to me, he is a store-brand Joker (he does have a few good lines though)...except for the one critical point that he doesn't psychologically self-sabotage. He gets the job done, in this case unleashing flaming magical armageddon "...and on that day the world was changed forever..." Spider Man; Homecoming - "The Vulture": Michael Keaton is awesome. The scene where he is drving Peter and his daughter and, he is very discretely saying he knows who Peter really is. In a super-hero movie, the most terrfying scene was the very pedestrian and very real fear of being stuck in a car with someone who knows your secrets. I realize he didn't start evil but, desperation can make men more evil than any demon or monster.
But homelander isn't a pure villain he's a product of his environment, not saying what he does is justifiable but you can atleast see why he is what he is.
@@rickojay7536 Just because we know why he is the way he is, doesn't mean his actions are excusable or justifiable. Was raping Becca Butcher excusable?
@@WhyTho525 I didn't say justifiable I literally said the opposite, actions don't need to be justified, they just need, to make sanse. Not everything you do is justifiable but everything you do can be understood if we just look more into your past.
@@rickojay7536 But does it matter? Like in Homelander's case is what he went through enough to rid him of being a purely evil monster. He thrives off of hurting other people and beating down on everyone and anyone. Homelander is 100% a pure villain. I'd contest OP on his inclusion of the Vulture. Carnage would be much better Spider-Man villain or even perhaps Green Goblin or film-version Mysterio.
"It would be sinful to turn Magneto into a psychopathic madman, who laughs maniacally as he slaughters civilians" Ah, so you also read Grant Morrison's run on the X-Men.
what really hit me with "He´s back" is that its partly documentary They just put the main actor in full costume on the street and kept the camera rolling... and damn ... stuff happened
Fire Lord Ozai is pure evil partly out of necessity, because he's absent from the story for over two seasons. But it services the story in making him and what he represents more distant, unknown, and terrifying The first time we see him in person is through Zuko's familial eyes But the story doesn't suffer for having a one dimensional villain, because the main challenge has been the journey Aang has taken to get to their confrontation, both internally and externally. It makes sense that the final boss is the strongest example of all the smaller aggressions and tyranny we've seen from the Fire Nation up to this point
I’ve always said that Zod from man of steel is a perfect example of this, you know why he has done the unspeakable acts he did yet you don’t grow to sympathize with him at all he’s not overly complex but has enough depth to explain why he is doing the things he does
The Joker is the perfect example of how the movie dictates if the bad guy should be sympathetic. Both versions are quality, but it depends on the world around him that makes them work.
My favorite example of pure evil is Carnage from Spider-Man(The Comics). While he had a sad story, it wasnt what made him evil. He just is a force of nature, who just wants blood.
I always think of King Galbatorix in the Eragon series, since it's nearly all from just Eragon's perspective we NEVER see Galbatorix until the very last book when it's time to fight him. But the whole series we hear whispers from members of his army who are closer to him, and it gives him almost an ethereal presence like he sees everything but can't be seen himself. It's intimidating and you almost wonder if you won't see him at all in the story but by the time you get to the point he shows up in person you get this "oh shit this is really it" moment.
Nice that someone mentions Galbatorix. Don't forget to mention how he tried to defeat Eragon through, if I recall correctly, mental submission. I forget if magic was involved, but I still remember him saying, "submit," with increasing fervor as Eragon kept resisting the command.
THANK YOU!!! I'm so tired of people constantly saying unabashedly evil villains are boring and bland. It's quite the opposite, actually. Sometimes, a character who turns out to be the most foul, most vile, most unapologetically cruel person imaginable is just FUN! I'm so glad that pure evil is on the rise to come back, I missed this style of villain so much. Thank you for this video, guys ☺
I always loved Lord Voldemort as a villain, because he is the classic dark wizard from faerie tales and folklore, with Christian influences to the devil, but written in the style of a crime-mystery villain. He’s your classic manipulative, sociopath serial killer but with dark magic. Because of that, being pure evil is very fitting.
It's most egregious when before Half-Blood Prince came out, a lot of fan-fic writers liked fantasising sympathetic backstories for Voldemort, given the snippets of information that before Hogwarts Tom Riddle began at a poor orphanage and that his father abandoned his mother while the latter died in childbirth (to set up how similar he is to Harry Potter). Then Half-Blood Prince turns these fan-fics on their heads by revealing the orphanage isn't a nice place BECAUSE of Tom Riddle/Voldemort. Even before he knew he was a wizard, Tom Riddle first instincts was the instinctual need to hurt and torment others (like unknowingly tapping into his magical abillities to make a fellow orphan's pet rabbit hang itself or doing something that traumatized two orphans after luring them to a cave). And his belief that his father abandoned his mother because "he hated magic" turned out to be a falsehood when it's revealed Voldemort's mother drugged his father for years and more or less raped him. Tom Riddle Sr. had every right to book it once the love potion wore off. The Harry Potter series makes a point that sometimes, like Harry and Voldemort, you're dealt a bad hand. However, the series also makes a point that your choices matter and are what define you. Harry chose to be a hero, chose to protect and defend others, and chose to stop evildoers. Voldemort chose to be a villain, chose to use his power to hurt people, and chose to forgo relationships for power and immortality.
I liked those touches because it showed those classic signs of psychopathy. Tom Riddle in school already killed someone and you can see how handsome and charismatic and smart he is. Just like Ted Bundy. He seems like a cult leader. And Voldermort perfectly taps into the hatred and prejudice to gather power.
@@NobodyC13 Love potions are a seriously underrated horror in the _Harry Potter_ world. They're basically date rape drugs yet no one bats an eye at them. It's little wonder a victim of abuse and inbreeding like Merope Gaunt used them to snag the man she wanted and thus became a monster in her own right, let alone gave birth to an even more dangerous monster.
@@kellharris2491 That's what makes Voldemort an interesting character, even if he's technically one-dimensionally evil. As readers and audiences, we learn enough of Voldemort's backstory to see how his troubled upbringing may have developed some of his sociopathic tendencies, mainly the glimpse that we got into the Gaunt's toxic family dynamics in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and being brought up as an orphan for all of his youth. However, this is never used as a way for readers to feel sympathy for Voldemort. We also see that his "evilness" was something that he was born with, kinda like psychopathy, but since this is a story about magic, this is portrayed in a more fantastical element through the moment in which Merope Gaunt used a love potion to force Tom Riddle father to sire her a baby. J.K. Rowling stated in one interview that this was a symbolism for Tom Riddle Jr. to have been born in a loveless relationship. Thus, in a world of magic in which love is a magical power, this meant Voldemort was love-impaired from the moment of his conception, and it was inevitable that he would turn into the dark arts eventually.
After all the "Tragic backstory" Villains I've seen come and go, I've developed an appreciation for villains who are just unashamedly evil for the hell of it, no past trauma needed. Not to say I don't like the tragic backstory villains, just nice to have some variety. If anything the thing that annoys me about the tragic backstory villains isn't even the villain themselves but the people who claim their sad history excuses their actions.
I’d also add that having a tragic backstory doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive to being pure evil. You can contextualize and give motives for how a villain became the absolute force of nature they are without compromising them as pure evil. You COULD make Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker work in future installments as long as, by the time he faces down the Dark Knight, every shred of humanity is gone from him and he represents the same challenge to Batman’s morality as any other version of the character. Voldemort has a tragic backstory, but by the time he faces the protagonist, any humanity that once existed in him is gone, and he is irredeemably evil. Davy Jones from the Pirates franchise has a sympathetic backstory, but by the time we meet him, he has been consumed by his anger and rage to the point that there’s no coming back for him. Or even, the original villain: the Biblical Devil. Once an angel of light, banished from heaven. Yet still the ultimate force of evil in the universe. In other words, you can have your pure evil villain be someone who was ONCE good or sympathetic, as long as it is clear that there is no climbing out of the pit they’ve fallen into.
I was actually thinking of writing a Murder Drones fan fiction about a villain like this. In this alternate timeline, N, the main antagonist of the later part of the story, is the overarching antagonist of the earlier part of the story. He has a tragic backstory, once had a woman he loved, witnessed a murder, and was manipulated and deceived by someone very close to him. But by the time he’s finally over the pain he’s gone through, and the corrupting influences in his life are gone, it’s already too late for him. He’s been consumed by a power hungry ideology and is motivated only by money and power. The somewhat moronic and innocent N is gone. He has been replaced by the monstrous, intelligent N. And now it’s up to the main protagonist of the story to stop N before he completely bends their world to his despicable will.
I was actually thinking of writing a Murder Drones fan fiction about a villain like this. In this alternate timeline, N, the main antagonist of the later part of the story, is the overarching antagonist of the earlier part of the story. He has a tragic backstory, once had a woman he loved, witnessed a murder, and was manipulated and deceived by someone very close to him. But by the time he’s finally over the pain he’s gone through, and the corrupting influences in his life are gone, it’s already too late for him. He’s been consumed by a power hungry ideology and is motivated only by money and power. The somewhat moronic and innocent N is gone. He has been replaced by the monstrous, intelligent N. And now it’s up to the main protagonist of the story to stop N before he completely bends their world to his despicable will.
For me it depends on the setting. I like pure evil villains in Fantasy but when it comes to drama or IRL settings I like complex villains more. For me an evil villain is compeling if I want to see their downfall (Voldemort for example) or they carry their evil nature with pride (Jack Horner, DC Joker)
Palpatine is one of the best villains I’ve seen in movies as he is portrayed as this sympathetic character that a lot of people who haven’t watched it before fall for his tricks as he is shown as a kind grandfather figure that can’t possibly be malicious in any way only for it to be revealed in the third movie of what he actually is and it’s a great way of flipping the idea of a sympathetic villain on its head
@@peterrealar2.067 like I said he’s one of the few sympathetic villains that uses the concept and flips it and what most people don’t know is that we are much like anakin in a way not know he’s a monster until it’s too late also if it’s legends version of events he has to win in order for the galaxy to survive If you know who the vong is
Big Jack Horner from Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is one of the more recent pure evil villans I can think of. And he was extremely entertaining. What a breath of fresh air.
It's funny that pure evil character in fiction are often considered unrealistic when real life regularly gives us people who are so comically evil they'd be seen as badly written.
I agree that, while having characters with nuance and depth is important, you don't want to overdo it with villains. Gul Dukat from STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9 is an example of a character who started out as a strong villain, but then they fleshed him out so much that his role in the story fundamentally changed, but sadly the show didn't change with him.
The producers basically forced dukat out of the show because he was such a good character (because they didn’t like that DS9 got good reviews), which is why he pops in and out throughout. It does lead him to be more complex, but he still remains evil for his own sake
Jack Horner is still one of the most childish looking stupid villians I have ever seen. It seems, when millenials make villians nowdays. They make childish villians, like Jack Horner, while back in 2000s Gen X used to make more epic villians for childrens movies.
I believe the scale of evil that your villain should be allowed is determined on how grounded the story you're writing is. If you're writing a story about superheroes or sci-fi, then villains of the pure evil variety are more than feasible and appropriate. However, if your writing a low-stakes story about something like a romantic rivalry or an argument between family, a pure evil villain just comes across as goofy and uncompelling. The story that Henry consulted on is a good example of this.
Pure evil antagonists are my favorite type of villians. As i feel like generating a character with next to no redeeming qualities, corrupt, and and not caring about morality at all makes them copious amounts more interesting. And i am aware that this (in the majority of cases) does cost complexity, but that isn't required for a good character. And i couldn't care less about motivation: they are merely creatures who seek power and are sadistic to no end, and that's it, ironically making them more realistic in my opinion, at least in most cases. More of this trope, please.
I like the idea of mixing a sympathetic villain with a pure evil one. You can really get the best of both worlds with it. Harley Quinn is probably a good example. The abusive relationship and toxic idolization make you feel for her in the best written stories. The B:TAS episode "Mad Love" is all you need.
I think one of the real reasons audiences are getting sick of sympathetic villains is how often they are pathetically underutilized. Kingpin from ITSV is a great example, sympathetic motive and backstory but nothing at all is done with it and by the end of the movie he's more forgettable than one of the side villains. A sympathetic villain used to the fullest extent would be something like Silco from Arcane.
Silco is such a good sympathetic villain. We have first impression of him being this revengeful maniac to his brother, but as episodes passes by, we discover that he is just willing to do everything to protect what he believes and what he cares about - his city and Powder.
It’s also much harder to write well.I love a complex sympathetic villain, I dislike how they are often poorly written or portrayed as though some of the terrible acts are excusable because of the backstory
I wouldn't really say Kingpin is a sympathetic villain in the same sense. He has the backstory so that we understand his motivations for why he is dead set on the collider. His job is there just to act as a conductor for the real plot which is the development of Miles through the different Spider-Mans helping him out.
@@jankyyard5610 My whole point is that what you're saying isn't what makes a good sympathetic villain. You could say the same for ITSV Kingpin, for example, or ZSJL Steppenwolf: "Kingpin is such a good sympathetic villain. We have first impression of him being this ego-driven megalomaniac who doesn't care about anyone or anything and is likely doing all this just to prove a point, but as time passes by, we discover that he is just willing to do everything to get back what he cares about - his family." Subversions aren't what make the difference here. The difference is that if you remove Kingpin's backstory montage from the film, nothing else changes at all. On the other hand, if you give Silco the moral complexity of Sauron, we would feel very differently about at least 70% of the story. The same applies with a lot of memorable sympathetic villains, maybe all of them.
Not really a sympathetic villain, its more an explanation for the storys starting point. Kingpins “tragic backstory” was entirely his own doing and what makes him a villain is that he cannot think that and instead blames spiderman and the whole world for what happened that night, and therefore they must be punished and he deserves to get the things he wants. Thats not a sympathetic villain, its an entitled and blinded one Also the fact that his so called “tragic backstory” changes nothing in the plot further cements that hes not supposed to be sympathetic, hes killing people and potentially destroying reality lol it does not matter what has happened to him. All they did was give him a reason to want to access the multiverse, which isnt a thing people care to do usually
23:51 Because Batman's descent into darkness wasn't instant. He didn't just flip a switch and suddenly become a murderer. He viewed his killing as second hand murder. He made no conscious effort to take lives, but if his punch just so happened to send a criminal off a ledge, or if he accidentally took out a support beam, then tough titties. That's why superman was his wake up call, not only was he killing an innocent man, but he was actually commiting premeditated murder.
Lol you Synder fanboys are hilarious. Batamn WAS making a conscious efforts to kill people and bad guys in BvS and in the crap that snyder was doing, he literally put a mini-gun on his car to blow up bad guys and blow them up. Nothing about what was shown was “sEcOnD hAnD mUrDeR” AT ALL and it’s LAUGHABLE that you would make that excuse as Batman made NO effort to hesitate to badly kill everyone around him, as Batman WAS trying to consciously kill all those people in the movie. What you’re saying is 100% not true at all as Batman was STILL killing people after he sided with superman after that infamous Martha scene in the warehouse scene where he was STILL killing people with his mini gun in his car and plane. What you’re saying is 100% NOT true AT ALL here. Synder’s Batman never even seemed as if he even had a “no kill rule” he just seemed like he always had it from the start and snyder obviously didn’t think all the way through how that would efffort the Batman lore and mythos of the character’s world. The joker is alive because snyder didn’t think things through, nothing more. There is no “pRemEdiTAtEd mUrDer” AT ALL in ANY part of BvS nor in any part of snyder’s DCEU, snyder’s Batman was full on trying to kill everyone around him with no hesitation. That’s just plain as day and it’s obvious that you don’t want to admit that from your terrible fanboy excuses here. And there’s no proof that snyder’s Batman ever STOPPED killing at all in ANY part of the DCEU at all, he’s still apparently killing peopleand Snyder has not shown any effort for him to stop. Lol you fanboys will parrot literally ANYTHING snyder says without thinking it through as superman was NEVER a “wAkE uP cAlL” as superman himself never stopped killing either, he just killed Zod and killed that one warlord guy at the start of BvS without hesitation when he was holding Lois Lane hostage. Nothing you’re saying here makes any sense, stop just blindly parroting what snyder nonsensical says because almost everything snyder says about Batman and Superman is false. Snyder made Batman kill JUST because he thought it would be cool for him to do so, nothing more. Nothing you’ve said actually happens in the movie, it’s just nonsense that you’re saying to defend snyder’s nonsense. Nothing more.
Lol you Synder fans are hilarious. Batamn WAS making a conscious efforts to kill people and bad guys in BvS and in the nonsense that snyder was doing, he literally put a mini-gun on his car to blow up bad guys and blow them up. Nothing about what was shown was “sEcOnD hAnD mUrDeR” AT ALL and it’s COMICAL that you would make that excuse as Batman made NO effort to hesitate to badly kill everyone around him, as Batman WAS trying to consciously kill all those people in the movie. What you’re saying is 100% not true at all as Batman was STILL killing people after he sided with superman after that infamous Martha scene in the warehouse scene where he was STILL killing people with his mini gun in his car and plane. What you’re saying is 100% NOT true AT ALL here. Synder’s Batman never even seemed as if he even had a “no kill rule” he just seemed like he always had it from the start and snyder obviously didn’t think all the way through how that would efffort the Batman lore and mythos of the character’s world. The joker is alive because snyder didn’t think things through, nothing more. There is no “pRemEdiTAtEd mUrDer” AT ALL in ANY part of BvS nor in any part of snyder’s DCEU, snyder’s Batman was full on trying to kill everyone around him with no hesitation. That’s just plain as day and it’s obvious that you don’t want to admit that from your bad snyder excuses here. And there’s no proof that snyder’s Batman ever STOPPED killing at all in ANY part of the DCEU at all, he’s still apparently killing peopleand Snyder has not shown any effort for him to stop. Lol you fanboys will parrot literally ANYTHING snyder says without thinking it through as superman was NEVER a “wAkE uP cAlL” as superman himself never stopped killing either, he just killed Zod and killed that one warlord guy at the start of BvS without hesitation when he was holding Lois Lane hostage. Nothing you’re saying here makes any sense, stop just parroting what snyder nonsensical says because almost everything snyder says about Batman and Superman is false. Snyder made Batman kill JUST because he thought it would be cool for him to do so, nothing more. Nothing you’ve said actually happens in the movie, it’s just nonsense that you’re saying to defend snyder’s nonsense. Nothing more.
The thing i loved about the Lord of the Rings is that evil was like a virus, an atmosphere. When Sam said to Frodo "Because there is some good in this world Mr Frodo, and it's worth fighting for" it dragged me more into the chaos that evil as "nature" that you described it can be an illness caused by some mysterious entity.
The funny thing is that Sauron technically does have a somewhat sympathetic backstory. It just doesn't even remotely begin to make up for his misdeeds.
He doesn't have a sympathetic backstory. He just has a reason for doing what he does. Granted I didn't read the books, but im pretty sure he's just all about order and is willing to do anything to achieve order.
Not much of a sympathetic back story. He just felt like he deserved more so when Melkor went rogue Sauron believed he would get more power and recognition by joining him so he went ahead and started his villainous career from there.
"Hook" is such a treasure. I used to watch it everyday as a kid. But as a 30 year old, it still holds up. And no one could have filled the roles better than Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman.
Sometimes the best villains are ones you WANT to see have their plans foiled. High Evolutionary from Guardians 3 is a great example, he’s a sadistic megalomaniac who’s beatdown by the end is immensely satisfying cause its justice for what he did to Rocket, his friends and the countless people he slaughtered.
I just love pure evil villains not just because they’re cartoonishly evil but because they’re way more terrifying. because unlike a broken villain that you can sympathize with, pure evil villains just lack any empathy.
It's kinda strange how pure evil villains used to be so overused that deep and complex "Wait they have a point" villains started to be seen as refreshing and even in some ways better and more realistic, but then they started to be so overused that now pure evil villains are starting to be the thing that's refreshing and even a bit nostalgic, and people are starting to realize that the pure evil villains were never particularly unrealistic to begin with.
Problem is most villains do so bad things, that it doesn't matter what they lived through! A guy like me who was born in a ghetto and socially weak family and friends with abuse and drugs! But I understood that it isn't a excuse for being an a$$ hole!
That's a problem I feel writers have when writing sympathetic villains. They just assume that if the backstory is tragic enough the villain suddenly becomes sympathetic and that they're not so much evil as a product of their environment. Just because we can see how tragic a villain is doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for their actions. Homelander is a good example. It's tragic that, thanks to Vought treating him like a product instead of a person, he never had a real childhood or family. But he's still a monster. People don't want to see him redeemed after everything he's done.
THIS. Not to mention people irl dont all have these tragic backstories, some people are just not right morally. How are you gonna give a slave trader crocodile tears over his mama or a child murderer a tragic past? These people are living and breathing and walking around on the earth right now and there is no “reason” they just are that way, thats it
Excuse is the key word, I think. Some people look for excuses and when they find one they disguise it as a reason. But the difference between a reason and an excuse is huge and should never be overlooked. There are people out there who have suffered immensely only to come out of it all with their goodness either intact or even polished. Then there are people who have stepped on a lego once upon a time and then used it as an excuse to blame the "corrupt society" for everything bad in their lives.
@@cybertramon0012 I think Killmonger is another we are supposed to fell sorry that he dies, but he tried starting a global race war with genocidal aims.
@@katierasburn9571 I don't like the oversaturation of morally gray villains either, but in reality no person just "born evil" because the stars didn't align. That's not how human psychology works.
One of the most important lessons we can learn growing up and one that is not taught enough because of society's obsession with rehabilitation is that sometimes someone just needs to cease existing. There's no redemption, they're not capable of trying not do they care to. They simply like controlling and hurting others because they can. Most people are capable of being rehabilitated. But if you've experienced the front lines of society at all in your life, you know that sometimes you meet someone who the world would simply be better off without.
@JACCO20082012 I think most people are against rehab which is hypocritical when they want evil to constantly be “logical” or “explainable” like In Peacemaker, there is absolutely no reason the butterflies needed a morally complex motive, it was just thrown into the end, and it didn’t really change Peacemaker and he had no answer or counter to what the butterflies were saying
That example from the intro was basically just every Naruto villain in the back half of Shippuden. “Oh, I committed genocide for sympathetic reasons.” “Oh, I nuked a city for sympathetic reasons.” “Oh, I started World War 4 for sympathetic reasons.” “Oh, I caused the apocalypse for Sympathetic reasons.” The only time in the endgame the author let a villain be evil for evil’s sake was for a character who came out of nowhere and was beaten anti-climactically.
I always felt that the Joaquin Phoenix Joker didn't hold a candle to other Jokers like Heath Ledger, mainly due to the lack of pure evil like you mentioned. Sure, the Joaquin Phoenix Joker is a fine standalone, but the main reason why the Joker has always been captivating in years past is because of his dynamic with Batman truly being a chaotic force to be reckoned with.
The mom thing actually ties into the original story peter pan was in. A tale of two birds, I think. The author had a special hatred for mothers and he let it show in that story, having his mc talk poorly about mothers and giving peter pans character a tragic story involving a mother replacing him and a rigid hatred for all mothers. There was no Wendy in that original story
This really needs to be said, I see a lot of people who critique anything that doesn't have a sympathetic villain as if it's a necessity. It seems like some people are confused by the idea that villains are the "hero of their own story," but that doesn't mean they should have a sympathetic backstory or believe they're being altruistic, it just means they have their own values they believe in. For some people, that includes selfishness and improving one's own status by any means necessary. Genghis Khan, a corrupt Wall Street finance "bro", or a serial killer didn't/doesn't think they're bettering mankind necessarily, they're simply greedy and ambitious. They value power and glory, and they want even more of those things.
My favorite pure evil villain is easily Mother Gothel from the Tangled film. She is just so horrible and manipulative. She has nothing you can sympathize with, she has nothing that would make you feel bad for her, she is just so purely horrible that her death is satisfying. At the very start of the film they show you that she’s selfish through her hiding the golden flower to preserve her own youth. Even after the golden flower is found and the power is transferred to Repunzel, she kidnaps her and locks her away in a tower where no one can find her. The only argument I could see for her having a sympathetic trait would be a fear of death, however it wouldn’t make her any less evil and manipulative.
Id love to see more villains like thanos, but instead of being completely practical, they're actually holding back a layer of pure evil underneath their reasoning. This is the most realistic type of villain. Making unnecessary sacrifices for the "greater good", but secretly just enjoying the power and control they get. Like imagine if throughout infinity war, thanos went out of his way to kill people that weren't in his way for seemingly no reason, only to later reveal that he genuinely just loves ending lives and the power and control that comes with it. I think this does happen a little though, because he admits it was fun to defeat his enemies.
There's actually a story trope for that. The Not-so Well Intentioned Extremist. A character who pretends that they're doing terrible things for a reason, or thinks they're doing it for a reason, only to eventually reveal that they're selfish, bloodthirsty, or power hungry. Example: Red Cloak from the webcomic Order of the Stick. He says that he's committing evil deeds to obtain a powerful weapon to force the world to treat goblins better instead of as monsters, but it's shown that he's more or less got what he wants and he's willing to unleash the weapon and kill everyone to avoid admitting that he didn't need the plan and he got a lot of his people killed for nothing. Or Walter White, who starts off selling drugs to support his family but realises that he just liked the money and power.
@@cybertramon0012 Pensuke: I have the power to give you everything you want including multiple wishes! Wanna become a magical boy? You think that you are Diverse. We can make you more. (And yes, I got the last 2 sentences from an Army ad where the Army general asked "Do you think you are Woke? We can make you more." With context, it's cringier than what is stated there.)
I mean there are people just like Jack Horner who just do evil stuff because they want to and don’t care at all who suffers from it. Evil doesn’t have to make sense that is what makes it terrifying because a good person wouldn’t be making schemes like what we see a lot of sympathetic villains do. It would be at most a bad thought in the back of their head that scares them.
Everyone loves Zuko. Everyone also forgets that not every villain needs or is supposed to be Zuko.
I was really hoping he'd at least mention Ozai in this video. Classic pure evil villain who fits his role in the series PERFECTLY.
@@ariboehm115his daughter was also pure evil
@@Kyle_SpivisYes but she was also a sympathetic victim of abuse and ridiculous expectations. While you felt bad for Azula the only thing you thought of Ozai was “fuck that guy.”
@@goatlover6312 Let's not forget Sozin. He's the kingpin of genocides in that series.
@@Kyle_Spivis Not quite. Azula was evil, yes, but in the end is a tragic figure whom the audience is supposed to take pity on, the same cannot be said for Ozai, In fact Ozai is completely responsible for making Azula the way she is.
I'd like to add that an evil villain and a sympathetic villain don't even have to be mutually exclusive. My favorite example is Davy Jones from the Pirates franchise: He's got a sympathetic backstory, sure, but that backstory isn't there to give Jones some redeemable quality, instead it serves to show us *why* he became an unnecessarily cruel and malicious force of nature in the first place.
The liars' dice scene, especially the line, "I only bet on what's dearest to a man's heart..." still fills me with dread.
@@sarahb.7175 Such a shame most of that scene had to be cut... Wished they had cut some of the fluff from the cannibal island instead. Jones playing dice was a thousand times more interesting.
God I I loved Pirates of the Caribbean. Everyone seems to forget about Davy Jones nowadays. Man was he the perfect example of a sympathetic villain.
@@thegamesforreal1673 Lord Ravenscraft did an excellent video on it that made me appreciate the scene even more.
🔖Another danger of a sympathetic villain is making the protagonist look like a dick. If the protagonist is badly written, he may seem arrogant, selfish, lacking empathy, and I'm actually rooting for the villain to take him down. In Thor Love and Thunder, Thor seemed unbothered by the plight of the kidnapped children, and I wanted Gorr to take out all the gods, and Thor became the villain for trying to stop this mission.
Pure evil villains are one of my favorite. "Not everyone wants to be good, or is willing to change." is a great lesson.
Yes indeed, while its important to understand why some people became the way they are its also important to note that some are just cruel. They won’t change, they have no empathy in their hearts and depending on their crimes should be dealt with with no sympathy from us.
@@CyberSonic-V3.0lol I just commented something similar! It’s so true
@@mariecarie1 Great minds think alike 🤝
The Governor from The Walking Dead
Pure evil villian makes the movie epic and intresting to watch, when it can have a lot of tension with how evil the villian can be, while clown villian makes the movie joke to watch. I personally dont like movies where is too childish or clown like villian.
One of the things I like about Nolan's Joker was that he sometimes painted himself as a sympathetic villain to his victims, often before he harms them or kills them (when he tells them how he got his scars) and you only realize he's lying when you hear hs story change.
Yes, that Joker mocks the trope. He could just as well have handed out free lampshades to drive the point home.
I don't think we even hear his actual name once in the story, he only exists as the pseudonym and an agent of chaos (a big thread throughout the Nolan films... Chaos and how civilization can be protected against it)
It's not a "Nolan" thing; it's a "Joker" thing.
@@MrAweeze Oh trust me, it's a Nolan thing 🙂. His record suggests so
@banshotenin1178 oh shit sorry I forgot Nolan created the Joker. My bad. I'm not taking away from Nolan's work; he and Ledger did a great job bringing the character to life and showing his traits on the big screen. They didn't create those traits.
@@MrAweeze No they didn't but those traits are so rarely articulated until Nolan exposed them.
Even the original Joker made by DC was not as fleshed out in many aspects as what we saw Nolan do with Heath. Again, Nolan's track record speaks for itself.
And that's not to say the original Joker wasn't multi-faceted, it's to say Nolan changed the entire trajectory of how he's properly displayed on the big screen.
*“Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.“*
-Alfred Pennyworth
Thought goes to Dr. Mabuse, the great creation of author Norbert Jacques and brought thrillingly to life by actor Rudolph Klein-Rogge and director Fritz Lang in two nonpareil movies, one silent, one a talkie. Master of disguise, master of hypnosis, purveyor of drugs and mysticism, his criminal empire commits dastardly acts that seem purposeless and of benefit to no one. He aims for nothing less than to bring all of society down in chaos, anarchy and ruin and establish "Der Herrschaft Des Verbrechens" - the endless Empire of Crime. 🧐
Nolan Trilogy will always have a special place in my heart (excext batman begins idk I didnt really hook to it)
@@xtremlukas4971 go watch it again, it's better than you think most likely :)
Yet we learn that actually we broke that man, and he wants to burn the corruption so that others can rebuild better
@@sneezyfidothat’s a different joker
In contrast to the Joker, Mr. Freeze is a very good sympathetic villain because he's one of the few Batman villains who does evil things for the sake of someone he loves. If every villain had Victor Fries' tragic backstory and relatable motivations, Mr. Freeze wouldn't be nearly as special in the lineup of Batman's Rogues Gallery.
True. And just because his motive is sympathetic it doesn't stop him from doing some terrible things.
I also like two face because he is literally Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. His good side would never be doing the things he is doing.
And Bruce was friends with him before his accident. So he keeps trying to catch him and cure him. As a villain he is a wild card because his code sometimes kicks in and he will flip on the fate of the person. This means he may try to kill someone or save someone. Who knows. Batman has the best rouge gallery in my opinion.
I would say Two Face is a good sympathetic villian from Batman too, as he is suffering more from severe mental health issues with a split personality then being evil.
@@kellharris2491 I feel that Man-Bat is a better example of Jekyll and Hyde than Two-Face.
Also there is the often forgotten Humpty Dumpty who is a model inmate at Arkham Asylum because he is a rare case of a Batman villain that is legitimately insane (in the legal sense) and tries to get better.
And then there’s people like Zsasz, bonafide serial killer freaks who all the other villains would prefer were dead, but never think about doing it themselves when they’re around him, or just stay as far away as possible from him. Guys like that almost never get animated because of what they are. The Hatter is the closest to them, and I’m pretty sure he gets toned down a bit.
@@kellharris2491 I also like how Mr. Freeze understands that the things he does are wrong, cruel, and will hurt people in the same/similar ways to how he is hurting for his wife. A sad backstory doesn't necessarily denote motivational complexity, but being self-aware of your actions, their consequences, and choosing to continue anyway for the sake of your goals IS. God, Batman's Rogue gallery (the popular ones) are great.
I love your "Look Who's Back" example. Someone can be unsympathetic and irredeemable, but still be a product of their environment, acting as commentary on how society encourages some of these villainous traits.
That movie is hilarious
Brilliant movie
And also deeply disturbing
I think more people should watch it. We tend to forget it’s message too easily
The point of pure evil villains like the joker is that it doesn’t matter for us to try to understand them. The fact that they would do something so horrible automatically negates any sob story they have.
Not only do they not care what others think of them, they are convinced for whatever reason that their views and goals are worth pursuing, no matter what the cost.
The Joker is also a good way to contrast Batman’s no killing rule. A man who doesn’t kill vs a man who’s irredeemable and will end up committing multiple atrocities if left alive
Pretty much every other famous Batman villain: sometimes helps him, has a mental illness, has a reason for their ways or has a hope of one day being cured.
But with the joker, he commits atrocity after atrocity and never shows any sign of change. In some depictions, the joker doesn’t have a mental illness, and isn’t insane (which is why no psychologist is able to diagnose him). If Batman lets him live, he’ll just break out and kill a lot more people- you could argue it’s better for Batman to kill him, saving the lives of his future victims. But Batman refuses because if he does he’s no better than them/because if he crosses that line he won’t be able to stop himself/because 1 man shouldn’t get to decide who lives and dies.
@@BananaWasTaken And that hard line is what forces Batman to be creative and super-prepared, the kind of guy whose solution to the Trolley Dilemma is "Neither. I already installed a third track that goes underground, because from what I know of you, you're easily impressed with Philosophy 101 hypotheticals, and you'd think this was clever."
@@BananaWasTaken Victor Zsasz has a backstory similar to jack honer yet is as evil or even more evil than the joker
@@BananaWasTaken Joker isn't insane. He's considered SUPERSANE. He understands that he exists to challenge Batman and vice versa. If one of them dies, their concert ends forever, meaning that Justice stagnates. In any timeline where Batman falls to him, he effectively becomes a functional member of society as his purpose is fulfilled and their is no longer a challenge.
I think Joker explicated this in, "A Death in The Family," where he sees Batman as improving every time they meet one another.
“I did it because I liked it, I was good at it” Walter is a perfect example of pure evil with a backstory
While gus fring has a more sympathetic backstory despite being awful..
@@afrosamourai400Breaking Bad never once tries to justify Gustavo. He's an evil monster and that's what he'll always be, regardless of his sympethic backstory.
@@thetruthlies7 yes and that's all i want from a villain..fuck tuco i want a guy who does evil things but for an understandable reason, not just because he can, and if he acts evil just for the sake of it then at least give him a philosophy, a complexity or a solid point to make people like lalo salamanca, roy batty, magua, kurtz(apocalypse now), magua(last of mohicans), michael and vito corleone, tony montana, mustapha mond(brave new world) little bill(unforgiven) these are my type of villains...
@@afrosamourai400 The difference between a villain and hero is that the hero is portrayed as the " selfless; for others " nonsense in which the masses benefit from and what really makes the hero good is that the masses benefit, whereas the villain doesnt care about the masses.
The masses themselves are also hypocrites which is never brought about.
The villain is at least honest in his motives and is for self gain. Good and evil is really down to whether or not anyone benefits from it.
Walter is not pure evil at all, those would be jack, todd and the salamancas
Sometimes pure evil is more relatable than a morally complex character. Evil is wanting to get what you want at any cost, and that's a feeling many people grapple with.
That's not what pure evil is tho
Absolutely. For example, there are many instances of royalty killing their family members for power. There are two princeling brothers, the elder one dies, and his son becomes heir. The Uncle-Nephew are made into co-rulers, but then the nephew mysteriously dies and his uncle becomes the sole ruler, obviously he put his nephew out of the picture for power. There's no tragic backstory, simply a means to an end to inherit the kingdom. And that is absolutely pure evil.
@@rickojay7536 What IS pure evil then
@@historicflame972 being evil for the sake of being evil
@@rickojay7536 Would you not consider killing millions because they have really nice land pure evil?
i would agree that sympathytic villians are becoming a tired cliche but i feel like the real problem lies more or less in uncreative motivations.
Demon Slayer enters the chat
Motivations don't even need to be creative; they need to be relatable. Loss and pain and injustice are common experiences. It's the execution that needs to be creative while not beggaring belief--and the villainy carefully balanced so that, while you still are sorry that the villain's pain was inflicted on him, what he's doing is wrong and he must be stopped.
Also, it helps if the hero isn't also a villain, and isn't less sympathetic than the designated villain.
@@unimpartialobserverOr their motivation is just getting a really nice fur coat.
If there's one sympathetic villain I can think of who was pretty damn impressive, it's Davy Jones from the PotC films.
@@Vanta_Bluenot necessarily, right now its more like none of the creative ones are becoming greenlit in the industry
Pure evil villains often can be compelling in either just how charismatically they own their nature or how you legitimately want to see them get what’s coming. (Ex: Sukuna, Mahito)
Another good example is scar, he’s just evil in every way but he’s very charismatic and fun to watch
Guardians of the galaxy 3
Not necessarily extremely charismatic but you definitely want to see them get what’s coming.
@@BananaWasTaken that’s a really good example, swing the movie does a great job of making you hate the high evolutionary and I found it really interesting seeing his full descent into madness played by a really good actor
One name: DIO
@@lucifermagne7458Tbf Dio does have a sympathetic backstory. But he goes to 100 with his villainy and that’s why we love him.
Sympathetic villains are great, but Hollywood definitely has gone too far with them lately. It was one of the reasons why I loved Guardians of the Galaxy 3 so much. James Gunn gave us the most despicable, easy to hate villain in all the MCU. But that's the exact type of villain that works for that specific story.
Exactlyyy imagine if they've made him sympathetic if he did that rockets backstory would feel impactless
The problem they usually fail at making them sympathetic (Killmonger wants to start a race war because king tchaka killed his dad, Karli blows up buildings full of people to get a house that was never hers, Gravik wants to eliminate people on Earth because Fury didn't find him a free planet, Wanda kills and enslaves people for her imaginary kids...the list goes on).
My god, that "fight" with him at the end of Guardians 3 is one of the most satisfying one-sided beatdowns I've ever seen in cinema.
I think villains in all 3 of them are pure evil. 2cd craziest villain I saw though was ego. I was shocked at why he did what he did
@@thegamesforreal1673 We wanted to see him eat shit and he was given a full course, so good.
Everyone should read Harris' great novel Silence of the Lambs. When Clarice first encounters Hannibal the Cannibal, she tries to get him to fill out this long questionnaire about his background. Clarice encourages him with the goal of understanding what happened to him to become a cannibalistic killer. He scoffs at the notion. "Nothing happened to me, Clarice. I happened."
And then you read or watch "Hannibal Rising" and... oh
Like, I see. I get it.
Still horribly, irredeemably evil, but there was a cause in that evil rooted in him young and grew through him, fed by other evil.
@@danielled8665 Yeah but "cause" is the wrong term. He is was telling Clarice he deliberately chose to be the way he is.
It's not like he doesn't know how or what gave him the idea. He says it doesn't matter anymore, he's not a tortured soul, he's what he decided to be.
That's what pure evil is best described as. Someone willfully malicious in intentions.
Hannibal rising was written long after the fact because the studios wanted to make another film after "Red Dragon," so they pressured Harris to release another book for them to adapt. A book the majority of the fanbase dislikes and a film adaptation that they hate. RIP to Gaspar Uliel ( I hope I spelled his name right) because he was the best part of that awful film.
I think a big problem is when writers use a sympathetic backstory as an excuse for a villain rather than to show that they've failed to grow out of it and become a better person.
I think a good example of a pure evil villain that's also sympathetic is Voldemort. I wont go into the details but he has a backstory that allows the reader to understand why he is the way he is, however, this is never used as an excuse for his actions and is rather there to show how a person that lacks love and is pure evil is made.
Voldemort's story is not very credible in my opinion.
But sometimes, I feel it's the audience that sees their backstories as excuses and not reasons
Writer: "This is why this character can justify these horrible things to themselves"
Reader: "OH SO YOU'RE EXCUSING THEIR ACTIONS???"
Writer: ???????????
@@jyjaeskz Yes, exactly! lol
wtf? Voldemort sympathetic? He is shown from his first appearance in the story to be cruel, a dead mommy and living in shitty orphanages is no excuse and no character building background for an irredeemable bully. If you want sympathetic villain, try Dudley. He's an ass throughout 6 books, but it's not really his fault, he got raised that way and encouraged to be that way by his psychopathic parents that believe being a torturing misanthrope (as hyperbole on "bicycling" as in bow low to your superiors, but kick out at those below you) is "good english behavior"...
Okay, it may be that JKR's ambitions were orders of magnitude larger than her abilities to write, that she TRIED to humanize Baby-Voldemort, but failed, but he is not shown as a tragic character, but as a deplorable human from 11 years on. Hurting others to satisfy his ego.
Wait ... Sauron was evil? But we always found him to be a wise and benevolent leader! In Mordor he had an 83% approval rating. Sure, his foreign policy was a little, let us say, assertive, but that is entirely understandable considering the elves were plotting to use the One Ring against him. That was a critical threat to our national security!
Underrated comment
W username
😂😂
best comment
True, the unemployment rate went to practically non existant, but it’s not something those dirty elves will tell you about
I love Dark Knight’s Joker because they address the lack of “sympathetic backstory” in a way that actually *enhances* Joker’s character. He first tells one character that he got his scars from an abusive father, which might lead some people to feel at least a little bit sorry for him (and others to roll their eyes and go “oh, great, now he’s just a broken man with a stupid sympathetic back story”). Then to another character later in the movie, he tells a different story about his scars by saying he mutilated himself after his wife was disfigured by loan sharks. Suddenly, we, the audience, realize we were fooled by the Clown Prince!
This tells the audience three things: 1) The Joker is absolutely unworthy of sympathy of any sort because he is manipulative and dangerous; 2) telling conflicting stories is right in line with a character whose very nature is disorder, manipulation, and chaos; and 3) his actual backstory is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as to why he is the way he is. It’s terrifying, and it’s brilliant.
Comparing Joaquin Phoenix’s and Heath Ledger’s Jokers is a good way to analyze the cog analogy given in the video. Arthur Fleck is a fascinating villain/protag in his own story (his own cog of a character with the other cogs in that particular movie); but the Arthur Fleck cog does NOT fit nearly as well as Ledger’s Joker with the other narrative cogs of The Dark Knight.
Blah blah I think this stuff is really cool
Jep, I think for Arthur Fleck there could be a Batman, but a vastly different from the Dark Knight one. Arthur could admire him for beating down the bad guys, maybe he sees this guy as the one "going werewolf" and fighting back the injustice system. Maybe Arthur wants to support him but realizes that he is considered an enemy once Arthur "fights back the system" in his way aka. murdering people or causing chaos and Batman stopps him. Arthur could get frustrated with him, that this guy doesn't see how its them against everyone else in this rotten society, how Batman needs to remind Gotham how it is to be the other guy, but Batman replies: "Did you ever consider how it is." Which challenges Arthurs views, making him angrier, screaming: "I DID. But no one cared! They will not care unless they're where I was... where I AM.... then they will see how f*ck*n funny all this here is. This sharade!". In the end Arthur could be convinced that Batman is the one he needs to convince to start building a place that is good for him.
This could get very interesting if pulled of right!
Great insight! Thanks for sharing, definitely not blah blah!!
I think that the idea Ledger's Joker represents is way bigger than the character, so him being like Phoenix's Joker would directly shift the narrative.
@@DundG You just described Joker in the Telltale games.
"If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" Joker in the killing joke :)
Before Hollywood started writing villains poorly with these "sympathetic backstories", they were writing every villain as pure evil no matter what. The writers in Hollywood just follow whatever the latest trends are.
They're still writing some villains as pure evil--the ones that look like the Undesirables, that is.
funnily enough Maleficent aged poorly compare to her animated counterpart along with captain hook in fact the disney renaissance villains remains the best thing about them
Most things are inherently political and thus follow political trends.
I think it doesn't matter if a villain is pure evil or not as long as they're well written or entertaining.
@@mattiismouse1086that’s the point of this video!
One of my favorite aspects we got to see from Sauron in the film trilogy is in the first film where Saruman, arguably the most powerful individual next to Sauron in Middle-Earth, uses the Palantir to communicate with Sauron and IMMEDIATELY after this scene we see him slumped down on a stool, visibly distressed after having direct contact with Sauron.
Sauron as a force is so terrible and powerful that the mere act of chatting with him makes even the most powerful Wizard in the world having to take a time out before carrying out his commands.
The "Awful Royal Glory", I believe it was once called... 😵
I honestly miss the days of pure evil villains. Sympathetic villains are fine but they’re so frequent it’s becoming a joke and, quite frankly, arbitrary.
I think part of it is confusing any reason as being good enough to justify the villain's horrendous actions. Like if a villain had a puppy he really liked, and then it died, it is not proportionate for said villain to grow up to burn down villages as his day job. It is pretty much completely unconnected to the sympathetic backstory and doesn't really counter the pain the villain got. Sure, it makes sense he'd be torn up by the trauma, but his response to it isn't morally good, but simply causing others more trauma. There seems to be the idea that sympathy absolves the villain of all moral responsibility, and I don't see that as true. Their adult actions need to be proportionate to the harm they suffered and not completely unconnected from the trauma they got. Being over protective of his pets/ friends would make sense for our puppy lover, but there is a limit to sympathy. After all, I'm sure everyone has bad things happen to them, but most don't become murderous over it.
Blame Steven universe
The Joker is evil but it's what he does with it that's interesting. He's not seeking power or control, he just wants to show that under the right circumstances ordinary people have the same capacity for evil that he does.
"It's not about money. It's about sending a message."
- Me when I'm playing GTA😂
For this reason i wouldn't call him pure evil. Of course he has no redeeming qualities and no sad backstory, but he also isn't evil just for the sake of being evil. He has a point that he's trying to get across (even if we don't agree with that point).
@@Lilith_Harbingerof course he is, the message he tried to send is bad , he is pure evil with the motive of proofing a point
And also get Batman to break his rule
@@Lilith_Harbingerbeing pure evil isn't about having a lack of a motive. Pure evil characters still have motives about their evil actions. It's more of a sliding scale between people who do evil things because they want evil things, and people who do evil things for very, very good reasons.
I watched 101 Dalmatians recently with my children and just could not get over the fact that they decided to make a remake/movie about her as the justified heroic woman fighting the system….
Twisted made it an open and shut case.
Cruella: "I only wish to have a coat made out of puppies!"
Jafar (along with Ursula, Scar, Captain Hook, Maleficent, Gaston): "WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!"
@@NobodyC13 Other Villains: "Good Lord, we're evil, but professionals have standards!"
Because activists relate to her, so they had to make her NOT evil because they don't think they are.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul Especially Gaston. The others at least had reasonably sympathetic stories, but Gaston's *was* still refusing to take no for an answer
@@justineberlein5916 By the end of Beauty and the Beast, I think Gaston’s villainy was reasonable. The woman he’s in love with has the hots for an animal (as far as he and Belle are aware of, in any case), so it would seem reasonable to put her away in a loony home and kill the animal that she’s in love with.
Big Jack Horner
Loomed in the corner
Glared with his nefarious eye.
He twitched his thumb
And pulled out a gun
And said what a bad boy am I.
God I LOVE when villains are pure evil just for the sake of it. And Jack's no stranger to that.
I love sympathetic villains, but it’s nice to just have the occasional purely evil one. Same with heroes, while I love having morally grey heroes or even antiheroes sometimes it’s nice to just have a straight up good hearted protagonist
The best part of Jack Horner was that his character was designed to make fun of sympathetic villains. Not only was he pure evil but he was a meta joke for the audience. And having a legendary comedian play a character that's one big brilliant joke is perfect.
Legendary? Really? John Mullaney is like one step above Dane Cook on the comedy legend list.
@@shortbusbully People are stupid; 'legendary.....' LMAO
@@shortbusbullyWait. They're not legendary, but they're on a list of comedy legends? That still means they're legendary, just not as legendary as other comedians.
Best part of Jack Horner is that he is current Disney. Collects magical trinkets just to put them in a display to collect dust or misuse them for his own benefit. Doesn't care about his employees lives and his main goal is to get all the magic so everyone else doesn't have any.
Just a bit of correction: in Peter Pan novel Captain Hook’s hand was fed to crocodile by Peter alongside with his wristwatch that kept ticking. So Captain Hook in a way had PTSD. Yes, it is metaphor for death and passing of time, but also makes sense in a story. I dont know why Disney change it originally too
You kinda explained why Disney changed that lol
you don't know why Disney changed it? You don't know why /Disney/ changed it so the male lead didn't mutilate someone and feed their limb to a crocodile?
@@broadwaybutterfly310 In Disney's pater pen, pyotr did actually mutilate someone and feed his limb to a croco, he even brags bout it
Beats me, but they sure did change a lot in the remake. And that's including the Lost "Boys." Uggh.😬
And “The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.”
Not sure how others define "thin" like in this except but many interpret that as killing. Some theorize that Hook was a Lost Boy who escaped and could be trying to stop Pan. At the very least Pan kidnaps kids.
Why is Hook the bad guy? Even if you didnt know about the thinning, or his hand thing, he could be trying to rescue the lost kids.
Whenever I see people talk about wholly evil villains, I always think of that scene from “Guardians 3”. Where Star-Lord just looks at the High Evolutionary and says.
“I don’t need a speech from some whack job who’s mother didn’t love him rationalizing why he needs to conquer the universe.”
He speaks for us.
*whose
But yeah, that sums it up pretty beautifully.
“Screw you, you stretched face, Robocop lookin', Skeletor wannabe, PURPLE NURPLE, PIECE OF SH-… He hung up.”
Peter was also speaking for us in that moment.
@@picachugirl2036it's not even a spoiler alert.
Notes: Pure evil villians are supposed to be symbols of what the protagonist doesn’t want to or should not be!
Also anyone wants to add on I would very much appreciate it 😁
It's often a reflection of the fear or worry the protagonist has. For example the joker is what the Batman could become.ultron and ironman, etc etc
Exactly, it's not about making them polar opposites, it's about making the hero struggle with the villain. That can mean making them extremely similar with a few key differences. Wolverine and his brother as an example.
@@leestrz4153Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.
Eh, in all honesty. In final fantasy 7, the villians in shinra like rufus and (ugh) hojo, are not an mirror image to cloud
One of the best elements of the recent Puss in Boots, a "generic" evil villain. One who's reinforced as being an "irredeemable monster" by a moral authority.
And Jack Horner is one of the funnest villains I've seen in years.
One of the best elements in No Country for Old Men, too. Chigur being a force of nature and soulless killer and yet maintaining a menace beyond description is pure cinematic engagement and I adore it.
Puss N Boots, with having three separate villains, was able to have fun with the three different archetypes of villains and that's one of the reasons why it is so good. Jack, being pure evil, was able to have the most humorous lines and shows, as one author puts it, that evil loves evil. Goldie and the bears, being the redeemable ones, was able to show the depths the writers can go. Death, on the other hand, was able to show a villain that actually affects the hero's life and causes fear in him.
@@Ironica82that’s not why it was so good
@@Ironica82No
@@firestriker3580 Then can you pls give a better explanation yourself?
Also just to be clear. Its not just one factor making a story good, as this video said, it multiple factor, multiple parts, working together to make the story work. What Ironica82 described is a part of the story, not the sole factor making it work. Doesn't mean that there' can't be other reasons behind why the story works that can coexist
The funny thing about your LOTR reference is that, simultaneous to Sauron, Tolkien crafted one of the best sympathetic villains of all time in Gollum.
It's crazy that many out there hate pure evil villains. Some of the best villains in fiction are those types.
Like Scar
I have no enemies
Like Frieza. “I just want to rule the universe. I will help you kick the asses of the most powerful guys from other universes so that our universe doesn’t get destroyed. But I’m still gonna kill you guys after, so I can rule the universe.” What a scamp.
I think a big part of what makes many hate pure evil villains is due to the idea that it's not realistic to have a 'pure good vs pure bad' story.
@@LuisSierra42 Yessir
There's a great quote related to Mr H. that I feel more people need to internalize, and it related to your point. 'Mr H. was a guy. Just a guy. He didn't pass through a membrane from another reality.'
Evil exists and has always existed. Pure evil is everywhere, just usually at a scale those outside it can easily ignore. All that separates them from the Mr H. and Voldemorts of the world is power.
A well written pure evil villain can be really entertaining to watch.
One of the best villains ever written is Anton Chigurh and the movie doesn't show any sort of explanation for why he acts the way he does
Johan Liebert... he manipulates children into killing themselves. Pure evil.
Ok ok we get it😂
My pet peeve with pure evil villain is when they are too trigger-happy with their own people. If the evil leader can just casually kill their own lieutenant for a petty mistake, who the hell would follow them
Either someone who is crazy as they are, someone who is in too deep and realizes that you can't just leave you job, if the villain is part of a military type organization maybe they can't pick who their CO is, or maybe they just have a really good health care plan. For me the rule of three tends to go with these types of villains.
The first time they kill an underling it is scary. The second time is less scary because you kinda expect, but by the third time they do it turns into a black comedy.
Exhibit A is Darth Vader. When he chokes Motti in A New Hope, it is scary as it is our clear demonstration of what the force can do and he kinda was asking for it as he is still back talking a 7'2'' cyborg who outranks him. With Ozzel it is still scary as he legitimately screwed and they weren't even in the same room at the time and Piett had a "This is gonna suck" expression when he promoted on the spot Admiral. By the time they got to Needa, Vader was delivering one-liners and the fact that they had Imperial Navy Troopers carry off his body made it look routine. Of course with Vader that makes it more effective when in the final minutes of the film, he just tells Piett "Don't fail me again" and doesn't kill him subverting our expectations.
@@emberfist8347
_Very_ solid response to a legitimate question! 🤓
True, this pure evil cliche is so backward..how could you follow that type of leader? Fear maybe? Give us a evil guy who love his people like roy batty or chrollo lucifer..
My best answer is either strategy or liability, using Bionicle and Breaking Bad for example
In Bionicle the villain Makuta seeks to take over the universe with his brothers, but to ensure full dominion he pits his brothers against the heros the Toa in a reactivation chamber, and once it ignites it kills all of Makuta's Brethren, leaving him with no competition and absolute victory.
In Breaking Bad when Walter White saves his and Jesse's skin by killing their replacement, Gus kills one of his henchmen in front of them not only to make an example of what will happen should they defy him again, but simply because that henchmen was at the crime scene and was now a liability.
@@Rinesmyth It also worked for Gus in that Victor is the only person in the series who worked for him that he personally kills. Sure he is trying to kill Walt which I can’t blame him for as he already established himself as a liability, but he only succeeded in killing Victor. It kept him scary because if he kept killing other employees it would become a dark running gag. Instead it starts and ends with Victor keeping him scary as it sets a precedent without going overboard.
Speaking of the point on liability, I think it could also work if it is establishing the villain is starting to lose it. For example in Tim Burton’s Batman, Bob the Goon, Joker’s right hand-man throughout the film, is shot by the Joker when Batman steals his balloons filled with Smilex. It wasn’t his fault, Joker just went crazier than usual for a moment and needed to let off some steam. The audience know is aware whatever grasp of sanity Joker has before this point is completely gone and we can’t predict what he will next.
Another example albeit one with nobody dying is Grand Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars Rebels. Thrawn is a great villain, cunning, cultured, oddly charming in his own way, and with a unique interest in other alien cultures. One episode is about the characters attempting to retrieve a family heirloom of one of their members that Thrawn also wants to add to his collection. At one point a bigoted Imperial Officer starts questioning Thrawn’s interest in the heirloom seeing it as junk and Thrawn suddenly grasp the officer by the collar and is almost frothing at the mouth before collecting himself again and apologizing saying he forgets sometimes his interests aren’t shared by other Imperials. This marks the first time in the series where Thrawn is legitimately angry and sets the precedent that he has his limits and we don’t know when he react that way again. What makes it even scarier is how the only other time he gets angry in the series (after a devastating tactical blunder that caused a major setback for his pet project and it got spun as a victory despite the massive costs), he is still not as angry as the first time despite adopting a tone that implies he would have killed that subordinate for their mistake if he was there (he was offworld at the time).
Really enjoyed this. Made so much sense. I think this actually applies to heroes, too. You don’t have to have an anti hero or harsh violent hero to be this cool complex character. I think captain America is a good example of a pretty straight up good heroic man. But that doesn’t mean he’s boring. Chris Evans and the writers did a great job with Steve Rogers. His heroism and good character was put to the test in some situations that were complex and didn’t always have a clear simple solution or villain to overcome. The system or world in which he existed could be so cruel and complicated that part of his challenge was remaining good in such a corrupted world. And it was really fun to watch.
Overly Sarcastic Productions did a really interesting video about Paragons and how their motivation to do the "right thing" can be a complex topic when the "right thing" isn't always as clear as they think it is, or has unforeseen consequences.
@@cailin5301 that sounds like a good video!
This could also apply to obi wan, jon snow, aragorn, ned stark..always trying to do the right thing, there's nothing boring about the real good guy hero..
I like how... even this take is. Most of the stuff I've heard about pure evil villains versus sympathetic villains comes from two camps: the people who are reacting against the overuse, misuse and abuse of pure evil villains by saying all villains should be sympathetic, and the people who are reacting against those people by saying that sympathetic villains suck. This is one of the most refreshingly not-extreme opinions I've ever heard on how complicated villains should be.
Magnus Ridolph puts it thusly:
"Banish Evil from the world? Nonsense! Encourage it, foster it, sponsor it. The world owes Evil a debt beyond imagination.
Think! Without greed ambition falters. Without vanity art becomes idle musing. Without cruelty benevolence lapses to passivity. Superstition has shamed man into self-reliance and, without stupidity, where would be the savor of superior understanding?"
- Jack Vance,
_The Many Worlds of Magnus Ridolph_
(DAW Books, 1966, 1980)
High Evolutionary comes across as a particularly good example of this villain type. He has nothing redeeming about him but he does his job well and he's entertaining to watch.
@claytonrios same with Green Goblin in No Way Home
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 You kidding? Green Goblin was completely sympathetic in NWH
I kinda hate the term “pure evil” and Ifeel like it should be called “true evil” instead, especially for him. He’s delusional enough to think he’s in the right but is still clearly very evil
I love the Irony that High Evolutionary's goal is to make the most peaceful creature and immediately kill all of them when showing a sigh of bad behaviour... in his mind he has right to kill his own creation.... while our heroes pretty much pulled a heist on a company where many people just there to work their asses off lmao
@@cosmicspacething3474 he doesn’t think he’s evil does he?
in the modern age of entertainment where every villain now has to be a tragic hero for some reason, i find it odd that villains who are pure evil are somehow unique. characters like Dio Brando, Palpatine etc, they are becoming more and more enjoyable bizarrely not because of their character, rather its because of how they are now one in a million. also seven, that film nails it perfectly
Dio has a tragic backstory. It's just that Dio himself is not sympathetic because of the actions he takes as well as the lack of sympathy for others.
This@@leithaziz2716
@@leithaziz2716 What tragic he has in his backstory? He was given everything you could dream about
@sychuan3729 No, he wasn't, he was born a street rat with a shitty dad
@@sychuan3729 Not to mention his backstory can be summed as "petty bully becomes a vampire and is still petty".
Freddy Krueger is a good example of a pure evil villain that has no justification nor reason for being evil, but yet he still works and doesn’t become generic. Him having personality and enjoying his deeds of murdering innocent teens and taking their souls just for the fun of it and laughs at humiliating them by killing them in horrible ways in the dream world. The writing is just right of making him work.
He's not real..think about alex delarge from clockwork orange that's what pure evil looks like, it's scary because it's real and nobody wants that..
@@afrosamourai400 Freddy isn't you say. Well keep in mind his backstory is put simply he was a serial killer who died and got supernatural powers. Serial killers that target children are very real and that is what makes Freddy scary. He was a psycho before he became undead.
If he doesn't have a reason for being a villain then he's a poorly written villain, it's that simple, movies a supposed to be a Segway to reality and reality doesn't work that way
@@rickojay7536 No reality does work that way. The letters the Zodiac Killer sent revealed said he killed because it was fun.
I think its because he’s meant to represent fear and the deadly toxins of being too consumed by it and they need to overcome it
I think having a pure evil villain with a sympathetic backstory is not only possible, but it can create a very interesting kind of villain with a different message. One where the message is that you can not let tragic events break you, and you certainly can not commit evil actions in the present and use evil actions in the past as a justification. It can also say that evil is a struggle within everyone and that anyone could potentially go down this path. I think various depictions of Joker, particularly Joaquin Phoenix's, are a great example of this. In fact, the Joker movie sets up a near perfect example of this, in that both Joker and Batman have tragic stories, but one lets it turn him into a monster, while the other presumably does not.
Henry has hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Now… It’s time to show his first screenplay!
🎉🎉
WOW!
I love it when irredeemable villains aren’t always simple but they can be complex
Yes tyler durden, john doe, the red dragon, harvey dent, vito corleone, nagato, shogo makishima, johan liebert etc are irredeemably evil but complex
that's how they're SUPPOSED to be. ALL characters need to be complex or fleshed out when you write them as a person either if they're good, evil, or grey ow WHATEVER kind of character you need to make if they're going to be a character you follow around!
@@afrosamourai400 eh only john doe and shogo makishima are really purely evil out of those though and maybe johan
@@afrosamourai400Francis Dolarhyde is not pure evil character. He's a tragic character who is trying to change into something greater because he was bullied in his childhood for his flaws. He can love and care and that's the only reason why he even let Riba survive. Before that he even tried to stop "The Red Dragon" for her and almost killed himself to do that. In my opinion, he's a better character than Lecter
@@Herr_Schindler he's pure evil because none of his killings were justified, he killed people who did nothing to him just like lecter.
13:16 there's also people completely whiffing on the meaning of "write what you know" and they end up writing about struggling writers in small NYC apartments, instead of writing about the other things they know: heartbreak, love, betrayal, enemy armies, the struggle of good vs evil, etc. Tolkien didn't live in middle earth, but he did know about brotherhood, good vs evil, industrialization, loss of innocence, etc. And he wrote about those.
Pure Evil Villains don't need to be defended, they need to come back.
Well put. Also the thing about static characters (like pure evil villains) is that they tend to change the world and people around them instead of being changed by them. Sometimes this is exactly what you need to make your story work.
Alfred: "Some men just wanna watch the world burn"
Jack Horner even made fun of the sympathetic villain trope.
His tragic backstory is that he grew up in an emotionally stable home with a thriving baked goods business to inherit.
yeah that's mentioned in the video loser
The clip that he played in this video?
"You know, useless crap like that."
Guess it’s too hard to watch half the vid before commenting
@@Benn1to I dunno a few hundred other people think it’s a good comment
As sorkin says “if you have an evil character, you as the writer cannot think of them as evil”
Oh wow, that’s interesting. I knew villains were more interesting if they thought they were doing what was right in their eyes, but I guess I didn’t consider that the villain is more convincing if the writer doesn’t view him/her as a villain.
I wonder if perhaps that’s why Gone With the Wind works so well; it can be argued that Scarlett is something of a villain, yet you’re invested in her story and even root for her, a selfish, self-centered, greedy diva. The author clearly painted Scarlett’s flaws, but she maintained her view that Scarlett is just doing what she thinks is right-even though most of the time it’s wrong.
I’ll have to keep that in mind. Thanks for sharing!
I would disagree with that one. The writer CAN think of the villain as evil, but the key part is in the writer understanding they are dead - or missing - pertaining to their text. They cannot drop karmic anvils, as they have no real power in the story, merely existing as the one writing it. Any situation thus is up to the characters to solve, with the writer sitting in the backseat, regardless of personal feelings towards characters of any personality traits.
Explain?
Actually i've always thought watch needed for a character to be well written is that the writer understands what kind of person they are.
jack horner be like:
Amon Göth in Schindler's List is reportedly tamer than the real one b/c the latter was so monstrous that he came off as almost unbelievable. It's almost as if the script is trying to give him a character arc regarding power & attraction, as well as attempting to provide answers on why he is the way he is. But the brilliant thing is that the character himself routinely rejects those explorations and immediately goes back to the pleasure of violence time and time again. A reminder that monsters do exist no matter if they're human.
On the other end of the spectrum is Oskar Schindler's complexity. We sense that he's changing throughout the story, but it's never made explicit just how much prior to him actually making the list. For he has to be subtle about how he does things in the world that he's operating in.
Some of my uncoventional favorites:
The Boys - Homelander: He likes being praised more than feared so he is extremely unpredictable but, at his heart he is a truly narcissistic murder machine, who is disgusted by almost anyone.
Training Day - Alonzo: Now onto something more human, charismatically manipulative but, he will throw anybody under any bus. What's frightening is how common this is. He made a mistake that would normally cost him his life but, he'll make anybody else pay that cost.
Luca Blight - Suikoden 2: Just a big, mean, ball of ...mad. He likes hurting people. He can easily hurt people. His only real goal is to hurt people. He wasn't possessed by crystals or spirits or some such. He was just a man.
Kefka - Final Fantasy 3/6: As a character, to me, he is a store-brand Joker (he does have a few good lines though)...except for the one critical point that he doesn't psychologically self-sabotage. He gets the job done, in this case unleashing flaming magical armageddon "...and on that day the world was changed forever..."
Spider Man; Homecoming - "The Vulture": Michael Keaton is awesome. The scene where he is drving Peter and his daughter and, he is very discretely saying he knows who Peter really is. In a super-hero movie, the most terrfying scene was the very pedestrian and very real fear of being stuck in a car with someone who knows your secrets. I realize he didn't start evil but, desperation can make men more evil than any demon or monster.
But homelander isn't a pure villain he's a product of his environment, not saying what he does is justifiable but you can atleast see why he is what he is.
@@rickojay7536
Just because we know why he is the way he is, doesn't mean his actions are excusable or justifiable. Was raping Becca Butcher excusable?
@@WhyTho525 I didn't say justifiable I literally said the opposite, actions don't need to be justified, they just need, to make sanse. Not everything you do is justifiable but everything you do can be understood if we just look more into your past.
@@rickojay7536 But does it matter? Like in Homelander's case is what he went through enough to rid him of being a purely evil monster. He thrives off of hurting other people and beating down on everyone and anyone. Homelander is 100% a pure villain. I'd contest OP on his inclusion of the Vulture. Carnage would be much better Spider-Man villain or even perhaps Green Goblin or film-version Mysterio.
vulture and homelander are tragic not pure evil
"It would be sinful to turn Magneto into a psychopathic madman, who laughs maniacally as he slaughters civilians"
Ah, so you also read Grant Morrison's run on the X-Men.
Oh my god, a film youtuber actually being nice to the Hook adaptation. I never thought I'd see the day! Fantastic video btw
what really hit me with "He´s back" is that its partly documentary
They just put the main actor in full costume on the street and kept the camera rolling... and damn ... stuff happened
Fire Lord Ozai is pure evil partly out of necessity, because he's absent from the story for over two seasons. But it services the story in making him and what he represents more distant, unknown, and terrifying
The first time we see him in person is through Zuko's familial eyes
But the story doesn't suffer for having a one dimensional villain, because the main challenge has been the journey Aang has taken to get to their confrontation, both internally and externally. It makes sense that the final boss is the strongest example of all the smaller aggressions and tyranny we've seen from the Fire Nation up to this point
And this is why Palpatine is one of my favorite villains: he brings out the worst in people for his own purposes
I’ve always said that Zod from man of steel is a perfect example of this, you know why he has done the unspeakable acts he did yet you don’t grow to sympathize with him at all he’s not overly complex but has enough depth to explain why he is doing the things he does
That's exactly what we need..understanding without sympathizing...
The title of this video is absolutely insane
People need to remember sometimes someone just wants power and has no real reason for it other than having power is a freaking thrill ride.
Its also completely realistic lmao and anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about people in power now or at any single point in history
The Joker is the perfect example of how the movie dictates if the bad guy should be sympathetic. Both versions are quality, but it depends on the world around him that makes them work.
My favorite example of pure evil is Carnage from Spider-Man(The Comics). While he had a sad story, it wasnt what made him evil. He just is a force of nature, who just wants blood.
*Spider-man
@@Gadget-Walkmen oh thanks
@@enderpsr1 No problem! 👍
I always think of King Galbatorix in the Eragon series, since it's nearly all from just Eragon's perspective we NEVER see Galbatorix until the very last book when it's time to fight him. But the whole series we hear whispers from members of his army who are closer to him, and it gives him almost an ethereal presence like he sees everything but can't be seen himself. It's intimidating and you almost wonder if you won't see him at all in the story but by the time you get to the point he shows up in person you get this "oh shit this is really it" moment.
Nice that someone mentions Galbatorix. Don't forget to mention how he tried to defeat Eragon through, if I recall correctly, mental submission. I forget if magic was involved, but I still remember him saying, "submit," with increasing fervor as Eragon kept resisting the command.
THANK YOU!!!
I'm so tired of people constantly saying unabashedly evil villains are boring and bland. It's quite the opposite, actually. Sometimes, a character who turns out to be the most foul, most vile, most unapologetically cruel person imaginable is just FUN!
I'm so glad that pure evil is on the rise to come back, I missed this style of villain so much. Thank you for this video, guys ☺
Lo Pan style!
I always loved Lord Voldemort as a villain, because he is the classic dark wizard from faerie tales and folklore, with Christian influences to the devil, but written in the style of a crime-mystery villain. He’s your classic manipulative, sociopath serial killer but with dark magic. Because of that, being pure evil is very fitting.
It's most egregious when before Half-Blood Prince came out, a lot of fan-fic writers liked fantasising sympathetic backstories for Voldemort, given the snippets of information that before Hogwarts Tom Riddle began at a poor orphanage and that his father abandoned his mother while the latter died in childbirth (to set up how similar he is to Harry Potter).
Then Half-Blood Prince turns these fan-fics on their heads by revealing the orphanage isn't a nice place BECAUSE of Tom Riddle/Voldemort. Even before he knew he was a wizard, Tom Riddle first instincts was the instinctual need to hurt and torment others (like unknowingly tapping into his magical abillities to make a fellow orphan's pet rabbit hang itself or doing something that traumatized two orphans after luring them to a cave). And his belief that his father abandoned his mother because "he hated magic" turned out to be a falsehood when it's revealed Voldemort's mother drugged his father for years and more or less raped him. Tom Riddle Sr. had every right to book it once the love potion wore off.
The Harry Potter series makes a point that sometimes, like Harry and Voldemort, you're dealt a bad hand. However, the series also makes a point that your choices matter and are what define you. Harry chose to be a hero, chose to protect and defend others, and chose to stop evildoers. Voldemort chose to be a villain, chose to use his power to hurt people, and chose to forgo relationships for power and immortality.
I liked those touches because it showed those classic signs of psychopathy. Tom Riddle in school already killed someone and you can see how handsome and charismatic and smart he is. Just like Ted Bundy. He seems like a cult leader. And Voldermort perfectly taps into the hatred and prejudice to gather power.
@@NobodyC13 Love potions are a seriously underrated horror in the _Harry Potter_ world. They're basically date rape drugs yet no one bats an eye at them. It's little wonder a victim of abuse and inbreeding like Merope Gaunt used them to snag the man she wanted and thus became a monster in her own right, let alone gave birth to an even more dangerous monster.
@@kellharris2491 That's what makes Voldemort an interesting character, even if he's technically one-dimensionally evil. As readers and audiences, we learn enough of Voldemort's backstory to see how his troubled upbringing may have developed some of his sociopathic tendencies, mainly the glimpse that we got into the Gaunt's toxic family dynamics in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and being brought up as an orphan for all of his youth. However, this is never used as a way for readers to feel sympathy for Voldemort. We also see that his "evilness" was something that he was born with, kinda like psychopathy, but since this is a story about magic, this is portrayed in a more fantastical element through the moment in which Merope Gaunt used a love potion to force Tom Riddle father to sire her a baby. J.K. Rowling stated in one interview that this was a symbolism for Tom Riddle Jr. to have been born in a loveless relationship. Thus, in a world of magic in which love is a magical power, this meant Voldemort was love-impaired from the moment of his conception, and it was inevitable that he would turn into the dark arts eventually.
I'm more of an Umbridge enjoyer ( hater ). To me she's more realistic.
After all the "Tragic backstory" Villains I've seen come and go, I've developed an appreciation for villains who are just unashamedly evil for the hell of it, no past trauma needed. Not to say I don't like the tragic backstory villains, just nice to have some variety. If anything the thing that annoys me about the tragic backstory villains isn't even the villain themselves but the people who claim their sad history excuses their actions.
I’d also add that having a tragic backstory doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive to being pure evil. You can contextualize and give motives for how a villain became the absolute force of nature they are without compromising them as pure evil.
You COULD make Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker work in future installments as long as, by the time he faces down the Dark Knight, every shred of humanity is gone from him and he represents the same challenge to Batman’s morality as any other version of the character. Voldemort has a tragic backstory, but by the time he faces the protagonist, any humanity that once existed in him is gone, and he is irredeemably evil. Davy Jones from the Pirates franchise has a sympathetic backstory, but by the time we meet him, he has been consumed by his anger and rage to the point that there’s no coming back for him.
Or even, the original villain: the Biblical Devil. Once an angel of light, banished from heaven. Yet still the ultimate force of evil in the universe.
In other words, you can have your pure evil villain be someone who was ONCE good or sympathetic, as long as it is clear that there is no climbing out of the pit they’ve fallen into.
I was actually thinking of writing a Murder Drones fan fiction about a villain like this. In this alternate timeline, N, the main antagonist of the later part of the story, is the overarching antagonist of the earlier part of the story. He has a tragic backstory, once had a woman he loved, witnessed a murder, and was manipulated and deceived by someone very close to him. But by the time he’s finally over the pain he’s gone through, and the corrupting influences in his life are gone, it’s already too late for him. He’s been consumed by a power hungry ideology and is motivated only by money and power. The somewhat moronic and innocent N is gone. He has been replaced by the monstrous, intelligent N. And now it’s up to the main protagonist of the story to stop N before he completely bends their world to his despicable will.
I was actually thinking of writing a Murder Drones fan fiction about a villain like this. In this alternate timeline, N, the main antagonist of the later part of the story, is the overarching antagonist of the earlier part of the story. He has a tragic backstory, once had a woman he loved, witnessed a murder, and was manipulated and deceived by someone very close to him. But by the time he’s finally over the pain he’s gone through, and the corrupting influences in his life are gone, it’s already too late for him. He’s been consumed by a power hungry ideology and is motivated only by money and power. The somewhat moronic and innocent N is gone. He has been replaced by the monstrous, intelligent N. And now it’s up to the main protagonist of the story to stop N before he completely bends their world to his despicable will.
For me it depends on the setting. I like pure evil villains in Fantasy but when it comes to drama or IRL settings I like complex villains more. For me an evil villain is compeling if I want to see their downfall (Voldemort for example) or they carry their evil nature with pride (Jack Horner, DC Joker)
Palpatine is one of the best villains I’ve seen in movies as he is portrayed as this sympathetic character that a lot of people who haven’t watched it before fall for his tricks as he is shown as a kind grandfather figure that can’t possibly be malicious in any way only for it to be revealed in the third movie of what he actually is and it’s a great way of flipping the idea of a sympathetic villain on its head
It's one example where a prequel series just made him STUPID good. Like DAMN. 3D Chess level of planning.
@@peterrealar2.067 like I said he’s one of the few sympathetic villains that uses the concept and flips it and what most people don’t know is that we are much like anakin in a way not know he’s a monster until it’s too late also if it’s legends version of events he has to win in order for the galaxy to survive
If you know who the vong is
@@peterrealar2.067
Curious, isn't it, that the language can support such a concept as "good at being evil" - but not "evil at being good". 🤔 🤨
@@goldenager59 Indeed. English is weird like that.
@@peterrealar2.067
Agreed emphatically! 😏 🧐
Big Jack Horner from Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is one of the more recent pure evil villans I can think of. And he was extremely entertaining. What a breath of fresh air.
It's funny that pure evil character in fiction are often considered unrealistic when real life regularly gives us people who are so comically evil they'd be seen as badly written.
@breadandcircuses8127 You serious? That's basic history.
@breadandcircuses8127Epstein
There's a beautiful simplicity to a villain's motives being "because no one can stop me"
I agree that, while having characters with nuance and depth is important, you don't want to overdo it with villains. Gul Dukat from STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9 is an example of a character who started out as a strong villain, but then they fleshed him out so much that his role in the story fundamentally changed, but sadly the show didn't change with him.
The producers basically forced dukat out of the show because he was such a good character (because they didn’t like that DS9 got good reviews), which is why he pops in and out throughout. It does lead him to be more complex, but he still remains evil for his own sake
I really did love Puss and Boots: The Last Wish's take on a truely evil villain in Jack Horner
Edit: Jack, not Jake
He was amazing :D
Jack Horner is still one of the most childish looking stupid villians I have ever seen. It seems, when millenials make villians nowdays. They make childish villians, like Jack Horner, while back in 2000s Gen X used to make more epic villians for childrens movies.
@@jout738 Why are you such a Farquaad?
I believe the scale of evil that your villain should be allowed is determined on how grounded the story you're writing is. If you're writing a story about superheroes or sci-fi, then villains of the pure evil variety are more than feasible and appropriate. However, if your writing a low-stakes story about something like a romantic rivalry or an argument between family, a pure evil villain just comes across as goofy and uncompelling. The story that Henry consulted on is a good example of this.
That's an element - the tone of the story -, certainly, but far from the whole picture.
Pure evil antagonists are my favorite type of villians. As i feel like generating a character with next to no redeeming qualities, corrupt, and and not caring about morality at all makes them copious amounts more interesting. And i am aware that this (in the majority of cases) does cost complexity, but that isn't required for a good character. And i couldn't care less about motivation: they are merely creatures who seek power and are sadistic to no end, and that's it, ironically making them more realistic in my opinion, at least in most cases. More of this trope, please.
I like the idea of mixing a sympathetic villain with a pure evil one. You can really get the best of both worlds with it. Harley Quinn is probably a good example. The abusive relationship and toxic idolization make you feel for her in the best written stories. The B:TAS episode "Mad Love" is all you need.
I think one of the real reasons audiences are getting sick of sympathetic villains is how often they are pathetically underutilized. Kingpin from ITSV is a great example, sympathetic motive and backstory but nothing at all is done with it and by the end of the movie he's more forgettable than one of the side villains. A sympathetic villain used to the fullest extent would be something like Silco from Arcane.
Silco is such a good sympathetic villain. We have first impression of him being this revengeful maniac to his brother, but as episodes passes by, we discover that he is just willing to do everything to protect what he believes and what he cares about - his city and Powder.
It’s also much harder to write well.I love a complex sympathetic villain, I dislike how they are often poorly written or portrayed as though some of the terrible acts are excusable because of the backstory
I wouldn't really say Kingpin is a sympathetic villain in the same sense. He has the backstory so that we understand his motivations for why he is dead set on the collider. His job is there just to act as a conductor for the real plot which is the development of Miles through the different Spider-Mans helping him out.
@@jankyyard5610 My whole point is that what you're saying isn't what makes a good sympathetic villain. You could say the same for ITSV Kingpin, for example, or ZSJL Steppenwolf:
"Kingpin is such a good sympathetic villain. We have first impression of him being this ego-driven megalomaniac who doesn't care about anyone or anything and is likely doing all this just to prove a point, but as time passes by, we discover that he is just willing to do everything to get back what he cares about - his family."
Subversions aren't what make the difference here. The difference is that if you remove Kingpin's backstory montage from the film, nothing else changes at all. On the other hand, if you give Silco the moral complexity of Sauron, we would feel very differently about at least 70% of the story. The same applies with a lot of memorable sympathetic villains, maybe all of them.
Not really a sympathetic villain, its more an explanation for the storys starting point. Kingpins “tragic backstory” was entirely his own doing and what makes him a villain is that he cannot think that and instead blames spiderman and the whole world for what happened that night, and therefore they must be punished and he deserves to get the things he wants. Thats not a sympathetic villain, its an entitled and blinded one
Also the fact that his so called “tragic backstory” changes nothing in the plot further cements that hes not supposed to be sympathetic, hes killing people and potentially destroying reality lol it does not matter what has happened to him. All they did was give him a reason to want to access the multiverse, which isnt a thing people care to do usually
23:51 Because Batman's descent into darkness wasn't instant. He didn't just flip a switch and suddenly become a murderer. He viewed his killing as second hand murder. He made no conscious effort to take lives, but if his punch just so happened to send a criminal off a ledge, or if he accidentally took out a support beam, then tough titties. That's why superman was his wake up call, not only was he killing an innocent man, but he was actually commiting premeditated murder.
Lol you Synder fanboys are hilarious. Batamn WAS making a conscious efforts to kill people and bad guys in BvS and in the crap that snyder was doing, he literally put a mini-gun on his car to blow up bad guys and blow them up. Nothing about what was shown was “sEcOnD hAnD mUrDeR” AT ALL and it’s LAUGHABLE that you would make that excuse as Batman made NO effort to hesitate to badly kill everyone around him, as Batman WAS trying to consciously kill all those people in the movie. What you’re saying is 100% not true at all as Batman was STILL killing people after he sided with superman after that infamous Martha scene in the warehouse scene where he was STILL killing people with his mini gun in his car and plane. What you’re saying is 100% NOT true AT ALL here.
Synder’s Batman never even seemed as if he even had a “no kill rule” he just seemed like he always had it from the start and snyder obviously didn’t think all the way through how that would efffort the Batman lore and mythos of the character’s world.
The joker is alive because snyder didn’t think things through, nothing more. There is no “pRemEdiTAtEd mUrDer” AT ALL in ANY part of BvS nor in any part of snyder’s DCEU, snyder’s Batman was full on trying to kill everyone around him with no hesitation. That’s just plain as day and it’s obvious that you don’t want to admit that from your terrible fanboy excuses here.
And there’s no proof that snyder’s Batman ever STOPPED killing at all in ANY part of the DCEU at all, he’s still apparently killing peopleand Snyder has not shown any effort for him to stop. Lol you fanboys will parrot literally ANYTHING snyder says without thinking it through as superman was NEVER a “wAkE uP cAlL” as superman himself never stopped killing either, he just killed Zod and killed that one warlord guy at the start of BvS without hesitation when he was holding Lois Lane hostage. Nothing you’re saying here makes any sense, stop just blindly parroting what snyder nonsensical says because almost everything snyder says about Batman and Superman is false. Snyder made Batman kill JUST because he thought it would be cool for him to do so, nothing more. Nothing you’ve said actually happens in the movie, it’s just nonsense that you’re saying to defend snyder’s nonsense. Nothing more.
Lol you Synder fans are hilarious. Batamn WAS making a conscious efforts to kill people and bad guys in BvS and in the nonsense that snyder was doing, he literally put a mini-gun on his car to blow up bad guys and blow them up. Nothing about what was shown was “sEcOnD hAnD mUrDeR” AT ALL and it’s COMICAL that you would make that excuse as Batman made NO effort to hesitate to badly kill everyone around him, as Batman WAS trying to consciously kill all those people in the movie. What you’re saying is 100% not true at all as Batman was STILL killing people after he sided with superman after that infamous Martha scene in the warehouse scene where he was STILL killing people with his mini gun in his car and plane. What you’re saying is 100% NOT true AT ALL here.
Synder’s Batman never even seemed as if he even had a “no kill rule” he just seemed like he always had it from the start and snyder obviously didn’t think all the way through how that would efffort the Batman lore and mythos of the character’s world.
The joker is alive because snyder didn’t think things through, nothing more. There is no “pRemEdiTAtEd mUrDer” AT ALL in ANY part of BvS nor in any part of snyder’s DCEU, snyder’s Batman was full on trying to kill everyone around him with no hesitation. That’s just plain as day and it’s obvious that you don’t want to admit that from your bad snyder excuses here.
And there’s no proof that snyder’s Batman ever STOPPED killing at all in ANY part of the DCEU at all, he’s still apparently killing peopleand Snyder has not shown any effort for him to stop. Lol you fanboys will parrot literally ANYTHING snyder says without thinking it through as superman was NEVER a “wAkE uP cAlL” as superman himself never stopped killing either, he just killed Zod and killed that one warlord guy at the start of BvS without hesitation when he was holding Lois Lane hostage. Nothing you’re saying here makes any sense, stop just parroting what snyder nonsensical says because almost everything snyder says about Batman and Superman is false. Snyder made Batman kill JUST because he thought it would be cool for him to do so, nothing more. Nothing you’ve said actually happens in the movie, it’s just nonsense that you’re saying to defend snyder’s nonsense. Nothing more.
The thing i loved about the Lord of the Rings is that evil was like a virus, an atmosphere. When Sam said to Frodo "Because there is some good in this world Mr Frodo, and it's worth fighting for" it dragged me more into the chaos that evil as "nature" that you described it can be an illness caused by some mysterious entity.
The funny thing is that Sauron technically does have a somewhat sympathetic backstory. It just doesn't even remotely begin to make up for his misdeeds.
He doesn't have a sympathetic backstory. He just has a reason for doing what he does. Granted I didn't read the books, but im pretty sure he's just all about order and is willing to do anything to achieve order.
Not much of a sympathetic back story. He just felt like he deserved more so when Melkor went rogue Sauron believed he would get more power and recognition by joining him so he went ahead and started his villainous career from there.
"Hook" is such a treasure. I used to watch it everyday as a kid. But as a 30 year old, it still holds up. And no one could have filled the roles better than Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman.
"The Judge" from blood meridian is the perfect example of an evil villain that is so captivating to the reader.
Sometimes the best villains are ones you WANT to see have their plans foiled. High Evolutionary from Guardians 3 is a great example, he’s a sadistic megalomaniac who’s beatdown by the end is immensely satisfying cause its justice for what he did to Rocket, his friends and the countless people he slaughtered.
I just hated how High Evolutionary tried justifying/rationalizing his own actions, I wish he did it just to cause misery as a villain motivation
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 I think that makes him more despicable. Despite his blatant flaws he refuses to acknowledge them and causes misery with glee.
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 Evil always tries to rationalize away its own actions, but it's always a lie.
@@CyberSonic-V3.0 why can’t we have more sadists tho?
Villains are one of the greatest things about TV and movies and books
Magneto and Professor Xavier’s dynamic is one of my favorite duos in comics cause we see the other side of their pyschologies
I just love pure evil villains
not just because they’re cartoonishly evil but because they’re way more terrifying. because unlike a broken villain that you can sympathize with, pure evil villains just lack any empathy.
It's kinda strange how pure evil villains used to be so overused that deep and complex "Wait they have a point" villains started to be seen as refreshing and even in some ways better and more realistic, but then they started to be so overused that now pure evil villains are starting to be the thing that's refreshing and even a bit nostalgic, and people are starting to realize that the pure evil villains were never particularly unrealistic to begin with.
Time is flat circle
@breadandcircuses8127it’s an expression
Another perfect example of a pure evil villain is Freddy Kruger the main antagonist of the nightmare on elm street franchise
Problem is most villains do so bad things, that it doesn't matter what they lived through!
A guy like me who was born in a ghetto and socially weak family and friends with abuse and drugs! But I understood that it isn't a excuse for being an a$$ hole!
That's a problem I feel writers have when writing sympathetic villains. They just assume that if the backstory is tragic enough the villain suddenly becomes sympathetic and that they're not so much evil as a product of their environment.
Just because we can see how tragic a villain is doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for their actions. Homelander is a good example. It's tragic that, thanks to Vought treating him like a product instead of a person, he never had a real childhood or family. But he's still a monster. People don't want to see him redeemed after everything he's done.
THIS. Not to mention people irl dont all have these tragic backstories, some people are just not right morally. How are you gonna give a slave trader crocodile tears over his mama or a child murderer a tragic past? These people are living and breathing and walking around on the earth right now and there is no “reason” they just are that way, thats it
Excuse is the key word, I think. Some people look for excuses and when they find one they disguise it as a reason. But the difference between a reason and an excuse is huge and should never be overlooked. There are people out there who have suffered immensely only to come out of it all with their goodness either intact or even polished. Then there are people who have stepped on a lego once upon a time and then used it as an excuse to blame the "corrupt society" for everything bad in their lives.
@@cybertramon0012 I think Killmonger is another we are supposed to fell sorry that he dies, but he tried starting a global race war with genocidal aims.
@@katierasburn9571 I don't like the oversaturation of morally gray villains either, but in reality no person just "born evil" because the stars didn't align. That's not how human psychology works.
One of my favourite villains of all time has always been Darksied. He's such an amazing character when written well.
One of the most important lessons we can learn growing up and one that is not taught enough because of society's obsession with rehabilitation is that sometimes someone just needs to cease existing.
There's no redemption, they're not capable of trying not do they care to. They simply like controlling and hurting others because they can.
Most people are capable of being rehabilitated. But if you've experienced the front lines of society at all in your life, you know that sometimes you meet someone who the world would simply be better off without.
@JACCO20082012 I think most people are against rehab which is hypocritical when they want evil to constantly be “logical” or “explainable” like In Peacemaker, there is absolutely no reason the butterflies needed a morally complex motive, it was just thrown into the end, and it didn’t really change Peacemaker and he had no answer or counter to what the butterflies were saying
That example from the intro was basically just every Naruto villain in the back half of Shippuden. “Oh, I committed genocide for sympathetic reasons.” “Oh, I nuked a city for sympathetic reasons.” “Oh, I started World War 4 for sympathetic reasons.” “Oh, I caused the apocalypse for Sympathetic reasons.” The only time in the endgame the author let a villain be evil for evil’s sake was for a character who came out of nowhere and was beaten anti-climactically.
I always felt that the Joaquin Phoenix Joker didn't hold a candle to other Jokers like Heath Ledger, mainly due to the lack of pure evil like you mentioned. Sure, the Joaquin Phoenix Joker is a fine standalone, but the main reason why the Joker has always been captivating in years past is because of his dynamic with Batman truly being a chaotic force to be reckoned with.
The mom thing actually ties into the original story peter pan was in. A tale of two birds, I think. The author had a special hatred for mothers and he let it show in that story, having his mc talk poorly about mothers and giving peter pans character a tragic story involving a mother replacing him and a rigid hatred for all mothers. There was no Wendy in that original story
the protagonist doesn't care WHY you want to destory the world. All that matters is that you want to destory the world.
This really needs to be said, I see a lot of people who critique anything that doesn't have a sympathetic villain as if it's a necessity. It seems like some people are confused by the idea that villains are the "hero of their own story," but that doesn't mean they should have a sympathetic backstory or believe they're being altruistic, it just means they have their own values they believe in. For some people, that includes selfishness and improving one's own status by any means necessary. Genghis Khan, a corrupt Wall Street finance "bro", or a serial killer didn't/doesn't think they're bettering mankind necessarily, they're simply greedy and ambitious. They value power and glory, and they want even more of those things.
My favorite pure evil villain is easily Mother Gothel from the Tangled film. She is just so horrible and manipulative. She has nothing you can sympathize with, she has nothing that would make you feel bad for her, she is just so purely horrible that her death is satisfying. At the very start of the film they show you that she’s selfish through her hiding the golden flower to preserve her own youth. Even after the golden flower is found and the power is transferred to Repunzel, she kidnaps her and locks her away in a tower where no one can find her. The only argument I could see for her having a sympathetic trait would be a fear of death, however it wouldn’t make her any less evil and manipulative.
Why is it the older you get, the more time you spend in this world, the more relatable evil villains become?
Wait till you reach the plateu beyond your current level, scholar of the infinite.
Id love to see more villains like thanos, but instead of being completely practical, they're actually holding back a layer of pure evil underneath their reasoning. This is the most realistic type of villain. Making unnecessary sacrifices for the "greater good", but secretly just enjoying the power and control they get.
Like imagine if throughout infinity war, thanos went out of his way to kill people that weren't in his way for seemingly no reason, only to later reveal that he genuinely just loves ending lives and the power and control that comes with it. I think this does happen a little though, because he admits it was fun to defeat his enemies.
Could have even kept a bit of the backstory that he was trying to impress Death with that
There's actually a story trope for that. The Not-so Well Intentioned Extremist. A character who pretends that they're doing terrible things for a reason, or thinks they're doing it for a reason, only to eventually reveal that they're selfish, bloodthirsty, or power hungry. Example: Red Cloak from the webcomic Order of the Stick. He says that he's committing evil deeds to obtain a powerful weapon to force the world to treat goblins better instead of as monsters, but it's shown that he's more or less got what he wants and he's willing to unleash the weapon and kill everyone to avoid admitting that he didn't need the plan and he got a lot of his people killed for nothing. Or Walter White, who starts off selling drugs to support his family but realises that he just liked the money and power.
@@bobbirdsong6825 Pensuke: Contract?
@@cybertramon0012 Pensuke: I have the power to give you everything you want including multiple wishes! Wanna become a magical boy? You think that you are Diverse. We can make you more. (And yes, I got the last 2 sentences from an Army ad where the Army general asked "Do you think you are Woke? We can make you more." With context, it's cringier than what is stated there.)
Honestly, I like Thanos as he is. I like a villain who is just on a mission, even if everyone else thinks it's insanely immoral.
they don't have to be "misunderstood" or "broken" to be good villains they just had to make sense
I mean there are people just like Jack Horner who just do evil stuff because they want to and don’t care at all who suffers from it. Evil doesn’t have to make sense that is what makes it terrifying because a good person wouldn’t be making schemes like what we see a lot of sympathetic villains do. It would be at most a bad thought in the back of their head that scares them.
To decide whether or not a villain should be sympathetic or pure evil you should think about what fits thematically