Why Villains Lose - Joston Ramon Theney
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ค. 2024
- Screenwriter, Author, Producer, Director Joston Ramon Theney grew up in Atlanta, Georgia. He is known for films such as Wanton Want (2021), Axeman at Cutters Creek (2020) and Jurassic Hunt (2021).
WATCH 'WANTON WANT' TRAILER
• Video
MORE VIDEOS WITH JOSTON RAMON THENEY
bit.ly/3IQRNIh
CONNECT WITH JOSTON RAMON THENEY
jostonramontheney.com
www.imdb.com/name/nm2133820
/ jostonramontheney
/ jostonramontheney
/ joston-ramon-theney-50...
RELATED VIDEOS
A Guide To Writing Evil Characters - • A Guide To Writing Evi...
Creating Great Villains, Dangerous Situations, & Dramatic Conflict - • Creating Great Villain...
How To Write Evil - • How To Write Evil - To...
Why Stories Need Evil - • Why Stories Need Evil ...
BOOKS WE RECOMMEND
buff.ly/3o0oE5o
(Affiliates)
►WE USE THIS CAMERA (B&H) - buff.ly/3rWqrra
►WE USE THIS EDITING PROGRAM (ADOBE) - goo.gl/56LnpM
►WE USE THIS SOUND RECORDER (AMAZON) - amzn.to/2tbFlM9
►WRITERS, TRY FINAL DRAFT FREE FOR 30-DAYS! (FINAL DRAFT) -
SUPPORT FILM COURAGE BY BECOMING A MEMBER
/ @filmcourage
CONNECT WITH FILM COURAGE
www.FilmCourage.com
#!/FilmCourage
/ filmcourage
/ filmcourage
/ filmcourage
/ filmcourage
SUBSCRIBE TO THE FILM COURAGE TH-cam CHANNEL
bit.ly/18DPN37
LISTEN TO THE FILM COURAGE PODCAST
/ filmcourage-com
Stuff we use:
LENS - Most people ask us what camera we use, no one ever asks about the lens which filmmakers always tell us is more important. This lens was a big investment for us and one we wish we could have made sooner. Started using this lens at the end of 2013 - amzn.to/2tbtmOq
AUDIO
Rode VideoMic Pro - The Rode mic helps us capture our backup audio. It also helps us sync up our audio in post amzn.to/2t1n2hx
Audio Recorder - If we had to do it all over again, this is probably the first item we would have bought - amzn.to/2tbFlM9
LIGHTS - Although we like to use as much natural light as we can, we often enhance the lighting with this small portable light. We have two of them and they have saved us a number of times - amzn.to/2u5UnHv
COMPUTER - Our favorite computer, we each have one and have used various models since 2010 - amzn.to/2t1M67Z
EDITING - We upgraded our editing suite this year and we’re glad we did! This has improved our workflow and the quality of our work. Having new software also helps when we have a problem, it’s easy to search and find a solution - goo.gl/56LnpM
*These are affiliate links, by using them you can help support this channel.
#writing #screenwriting #villains
![[TH] 2024 PMWC x EWC Main Tournament Day 1 | PUBG MOBILE WORLD CUP x ESPORTS WORLD CUP](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f5Coja1zCzo/mqdefault.jpg)
Here is our full interview with Joston - th-cam.com/video/hpSSRjSb8-k/w-d-xo.html
Love it when you ask about writing villains. It seems hollywood has forgotten how to make strong villains.
We just talked with someone today about villains so we at least have one more in the pipeline.
Or...people forget all the bad movies and only remember the good ones, or people suffer from nostalgia syndrome where nothing new is good. The same percent of movies...and art in general...are good as in previous times.
@@emhu2594 nope it’s not that at all, maybe to some degree but it’s for sure not just that, movies are for sure not as good as they once were & not even that long ago, movies now for the most part are cash grab by the books as possible & try to appeal to as broad a range of audience as possible & by doing that it alienates more in the process, movies aren’t pushing the boundaries or limits of what can and can’t be done, it’s all so reliant on CGI & a lot of the writing nowadays is awful, look at the new Star Wars movies for example, the most basic formula of the hero’s journey isn’t followed at all, there’s so many movies now that don’t follow the hero’s journey and ends up feeling empty and incomplete, I’m only 25 so it’s for sure not a nostalgia thing for me, movies have dipped in substance over the last 30 years, it’s all about form over substance now, I don’t care how flashy a movie looks or how good the CGI or effects are if it’s poorly written and poorly paced, everything feels like a carbon copy of the last thing & for me personally it’s why Joker & IT: chapter 1 was such a breath of fresh air to me, it pushed boundaries and both had great pacing, character development & writing. You’re just not gonna be getting that from Disney/marvel.
@@bruhdon4748 Dude, no, sorry. He was right. You have recency bias. Believe me, the same complaints people have about modern movies are the same complaints they were making in the 80s. The influence of commercial and video directors and "MTV style editing" were hailed as the downfall of cinema. But in reality, things just change. People lament the loss of the heyday of sci-fi serials, or when westerns ruled the cinemas, or the glory days of the musical, or the era of Film Noir. It's always the same thing. "It's not like it used to be." No, it never was. The only constant is change. In fifteen years your gonna hear about the good old days of an MCU ever six months and how everyone is sick of the (Insert Future Trend Here). You only think there are more good movies than bad movies because you are living through them. But if you go back and watched every movie from 1986, you would think most of them suck.
I think TWD villains are the best. Most heroes are the real villains as the system of production is corrupted films like the joker point this out and Hollywood go nuts.
A very well said perspective about the villian. A great villain helps create a great protagonist.
And sometimes the protagonist unintentionally creates a great villain.
The most interesting thing about villains losing to me is how self destructive they are. They could potentially acheive their goal but they just find a way to mess up everything. I find that aspect to be relatable.
I do feel bad for villains at times, they spend god knows how long scheming, plotting and planning and then they get foiled by the hero who just so happen to be there.
Like the before mentioned Hans Gruber's plans were almost perfect and he probably would've gotten away with it but John McClane just so happened to be there and was never expecting that.
All though I am not a fan of the invincible villain, they are as bad as Mary Sues and Gary Stus. Movies tend to avoid this trope.
It's like physics; you could have all the equations analyzed down the core with every constant in it, however you could be prepared for a very long time, you should always be ready (although you're not ready for it) for the variables, because they come from the most unknown places.
@@RazKob33
Yeah, hiccups can happen at the most inopportune of times.
Think about Khan from the orginal star trek. He was winning in everything, but Kirk knew his one weakness. He was obsessed with killing Kirk to the point that it led to his demise.
@@TheChuckfuc
Dukat from Deep Space 9 is the most interesting from what I have seen
I really like his explanation of true evil and why it's so rarely seen/presented well in movies.
I find the villains who believe that what they are doing is for the greater good the most terrifying. These people believe in some utopia and they are willing to trample all over the present world, to cover it in blood to get it.
I've always thought the best villains are the ones who think they're the heroes
Probably because especially in recent history (last 100 years) those have been the people responsible for the most death, destruction and misery. "For the greater good" is the most terrifying words in the English language to me.
I really like this guy, has a great way of explaining himself & is really engaging and passionate, gonna try and watch as many videos of his on here as I can
I'm not even a writer and I love these videos. Your life is one story, probably the most important, and there are so many lessons you can take from these talks and apply them to your life.
3:44 A perfect example is Joker from Dark Knight, he is considered one of the best villains of all time, despite being weaker than Batman. He's intimidating, because he constantly has an advantage, such as a hostage, bomb, or phycological advantage.
Also, in that film, Joker is unbeatable in the sense that Batman can beat the crap out of him and Joker will just laugh in his face the whole time. Joker can't get the anger beat out of him, because he has no anger. That's part of what makes Joker appear insane and uncommon; he doesn't respond to Batman's methods the way any other villain would.
@@G360LIVE And technically Joker won at the end of that film, he got what he wanted, from what I remember Batman was wanted at the end of that film.
@@crimsoncreepermc1920
In a way, yes, Joker did win. The boats didn't blow up, and Batman claimed victory over people not becoming what Joker said they were, but in order to cover up Joker's victory over Harvey Dent, showing that Dent was corruptible, Batman became that corrupted figure, so the public would still see Harvey as a good guy. Batman took on that face of corruption, for the public good, because he saw Harvey as the person who inspired people. So, Joker got a victory over Batman; however, earlier in the movie, Batman was looking for someone else to be the inspiration he at first sought to be. In his mind, that person was Harvey, so his ultimate goal was to protect that public image.
Because joker has no problem to kill.
What happens when a villain learns? Can't they learn, but learn a "wrong" lesson, or adopt a different, yet incorrect approach after being defeated?
What happens then?
Well this is a tricky one because there are so many variables but in short the villian or bad charcter can defiantly learn the question is what are they going to learn and when...that provides the scope of how much impact it can have.
Some examples i cna think of to help this.
In this video die hard was referenced...Alans charcter hans learns about the final third of the movie who john maclaine actually is and that he has his love interest as a hostage...he stops sending out henchman and that point and sets a trap.
I have also seen the death bed lesson where the villian/bad person admits they did things wrong/learns lesson often done when the hero and them have a long history and/or direct conenction...this is most often done at the end of the movie but could be worked in early if it leads to the person/organisitation that the hero then decides to stop.
You have probally the strongest version of the learning something important before hand of the long con/game where the villian/bad guy has always known this thing but it is not revelead that is the case untill the last possiable moment.
I wont add more examples because this would become to long but hopefully this will help you see some examples of the villian/bad guy learning i am not an expert for sure but these are defiantly things i have seen done, worked and had an impact on the story.
So of you want them to learn just make sure they learn what they need to with time for it to make an impact on the story and try to avoid creating plot holes and logic gaps in your charcters while doing it.
That's why when a movie have the villain succeed is more compelling than the generic good guy win. I mostly watching a movie rooting for the antagonist. But, that's not what the majority of average movie watches wanna see.
Sometime a villain might learn before the end that they underestimated an opponent. The villain can then change their strategy. This would be the opportunity to give your protagonist a new conflict and thus he/she learns another lesson.
He becomes an ally. Example: David Xanathos, Zuko, Draco Malfoy or Jamie Lanister.
Reading through all the comments and very much enjoying the conversation.
I like the idea of the villain Having some understanding of the hero's journey. So that at some point, they come to grips with the fact that What the hero has overcome and learned is greater than the oppositional force of the villain.
When you said your favorite villain was Alan Rickman from Die Hard you became my favorite writer that teaches writers.
The general difference between the hero and the villain is that the hero is about holding to a certain moral standard while seeking to accomplish his goal while to the villain the ends justify the means. A story can become more interesting when the villain tests the hero to the point of the hero having to decide whether going outside his moral structure is acceptable this one time. And if it's acceptable this one time, will it be acceptable again, and will that eventually lead to the hero's fall? So, the hero's struggle is to remain strong in his moral sense.
Also, I think an interesting way to push a hero vs villain story is to ask if the hero is correct. The villain attempts to change the status quo while the hero attempts to keep the current status quo, so the question becomes whether the hero is correct that the current status quo should be maintained or whether the villain is correct that the status quo should be changed but the villain is simply going about it the wrong way. This can cause the hero to reflect on himself and everything around him and ask himself whether what he's doing is ultimately right. Would the hero come to a point in which he actually agrees with the villain? And if that happened, would the hero team up with the villain, to a certain extent?
There's a lot of interesting stuff you can do with heroes and villains, and the villain doesn't always have to lose.
Great post Gabriel! Thank you for sharing!
@@filmcourage
Thank you! And thank you for posting these interviews. I don't always agree with everything that's said, but I do enjoy hearing different perspectives, and there are times, such as with this interview, in which I'm just constantly saying, "Preach it, brother! (or sister)" :)
Our aim to share different perspectives and ideas. Our hope is that won't agree with everything said. Try stuff out and work it against your process. Throw it out if it doesn't work or isn't useful. Our best to you!
@@G360LIVE , I sometimes like a hero that will bend the rules or a villain that has a code but if not written correctly you end up with a hero and/or villain that does something which doesn't fit the character the writer has established. That mistake will weaken a character overall.
@@rugr82day
Agreed.
I also like a good anti-hero. The movie Pitch Black features a really good anti-hero in Richard B. Riddick. He's guilty as sin of his crimes, but his end goal just happens to match up with the end goal of the innocent people around him, though there's always doubt of whether he can be trusted.
Joston is my favorite contributor. I always learn so much from his interviews.
I think some of the best films are where villains actually win. It doesn't happen often and subverts the expected outcome. Swordfish is one of my favorite movies because of this
I like Swordfish
"No Country For Old Man" comes to mind. Chigurh essentially wins. The conclusion is that he can be slowed down, but never stopped, like a force of nature.
Personally I don't like the worn trope of villains guaranteed to get their comeuppance - this takes a lot of surprise out of the equation, we know what's going to happen, only don't know how (and even that often isn't really the case).
Another classic example is "Primal Fear", where the villain had been ahead of the curve all along.
One of the great things about "Game of Thrones" - up until a point where they largely ruined it - was villains getting it their way. That's how viewers get to feel that the stakes are actually high, that the universe of the story is not a fairy tale.
5:12 he mentions the movie 'moon and the stars' but the one I found has a totally different storyline. Can anyone paste the link?
wise words.. yet Hollywood refuse to listen to this man.
No villains can learn, and not just how to be a more effective villain. There are so many different angles you can take on this and they all have the potential to make the story more compelling.
Joston's last point about the banality of evil is spot on.
Instead of just shooting the hero when they have the chance, they always put him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death whilst revealing all of their plan for world domination "Next time you have a chance to kill someone, don't hesitate" Thanks for the advice!
I guess that's why Anton Chigurh and Hannibal Lecter are such icons.
They are villains who were never defeated.
I made that comment above, and why these movies work, in spite of the good guy losing to the villain.
Actually Chigurh "failed" at the end. Even the "road he chose" caught up with him quite quickly.
And Lecter was more of an Anti-Hero (although a monstrous one). He assisted the heroine in her efforts to defeat Buffalo Bill, who was the true antagonist.
bro this channel is just great
Im a story-driven musician and this channel is helping 100% thank you
Where the hell has Film Courage been? What an amazing place! This man and Chris Gore have me HOOKED.
Hollywood needs an enima.
A hero/protagonist only evolves and invokes the viewers emotions and investment to the extent that the villain is an obstacle worth overcoming.
“Extraordinary” is necessary in all aspects.
Just a thought but on the subject of the true evil being someone that does those acts without rhyme or reason, I think the reason it's hard to capture in film is because we're expecting a reason as to why they do what they do to better understand the character and the payoff at the end of the movie.
Great advice for writers, and Game Masters for us Table Top nerds.
The marvel of horror movies is that you are supposed to love or hate or cheer for or root against different individuals. Here I'll pick a recent horror movie I saw as an example: funhouse (2019)
without spoiling anything, the movie involves a narcissist, several variations of hot headed people, your silent types, and some average people for good measure. If you dislike hot headed guys, you'll want them to die, but the movie briefly subverts your expectations at certain points. If you want certain people to survive your horror movie, you'll root for them even though the movie clearly means for them to die. But they might survive after all (not everybody dies even though there's a 'last girl' trope) because there are sequels to produce!
These sorts of things, among others, are reasons why horror movies are better than just popcorn slasher gorefests. They're obviously not on the same level as your arthouse oscar bait, but they have their merits and themes and tropes and so forth.
Thanks!
Thank you Kalin! Not sure what we've done to get on your good side but certainly appreciate your support!
This idea can be very useful in our personal lives. Think about the people you know will never change their ways.
My favorite villains are ones that believe they're not villains. Steel Ball Run has one of my favorite protagonist vs antagonist relationships. Valentine's goals are more selfless, but becomes more and more selfish ( being it unwittingly or not) and is willing to do bad things to reach his goal.
I'm subscribe from Malaysia 🇲🇾. Wow this is a good channel. Ps I love die hard that have a good strong villain and a good strong protagonist.
Even the later Nightmare on Elm Street movies were about the characters around Freddy. They brought Nancy back and gave you Freddy's mother
At 5:12 he talks about a movie (story? book?) called The Moon and the Stars … I tried IMDbing that and couldn’t find squat. Am I missing something? Can someone help me out with that? Help me find that?
Hi Nicholas, it is one you won't be able to find right now. It is a screenplay that Joston is working on right now. We hope he gets a chance to bring it to life.
@@filmcourage What he conveys here sounds stellar - and important! This movie HAS to be made, tell him that :)
If there is one villain I can think of who was always one step ahead of the heroes & (almost) never lost against them was Grand Admiral Thrawn from the TV show Star Wars Rebels.
*from the Timothy Zahn novels.
Fixed it for you. 😉😁
Tbh not sure if "true evil" as defined here is a good device to use in writing because someone that says they committed atrocities just because probably doesn't have the self awareness or education in humanities/social science to understand why they did something. The fun part is, as writers we would be lazy NOT TO delve into why a character does what they do even if that process doesn't result in material that makes it to the screen it can give depth to the words and actions of a character
Right on.
Just having a motive doesn't transform an action from "Pure Evil" to "Low Grade, Unrefined Evil."
Quite the opposite. That's why our legal system punishes premeditation more harshly than crimes of passion.
Evil intent can be for it's own sake, sure - but that's the cartoon villain. That's the Captain Planet villain polluting the world because that's what the plot and theme call for.
Evil intent wrapped in layers of logical fallacy like armor is how you get refined evil.
Examples of "true" evil in movies:
The antagonist in "I Saw the Devil." The protagonist was complicated as well.
"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer"
Aaron in "Titus Andronicus"
Of course villains also tend not to learn because they often die to make the payoff more satisfying, there's that.
Stephen Lang [Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar] once described that what makes a great villain is that they have all the attributes of a hero... but one. Which heroic feature you take away defines the villain.
I get what he is saying. If anything is simply taking space without reason. It should go. Used to do a lot of theatre on tight budgets and anything fancy and unnecessary cost money. It had to go.
I like the presented definition of evil. It reminds me of one of the most important christian philosophers of the middle ages: Thomas Aquinas. His thoughts on evil, bad and sinning was also very focused around reasons and intentions.
For him, true evil is to do the bad deeds because they are bad. Knowing that something is bad and doing it for any other reason than the beeing-bad itself is just unethical, maybe a sin. But it´s not evil. In the context of christianity it basically means that everything you do, even if it is bad and even if the reasons for it are selfish or unethical, it can be forgiven and you can be redeemed in the eyes of God. Not so if you´re doing the bad stuff because it´s bad. That would not be a sin against your fellow humans, that would be a sin against God himself and against your own relationship with him.
A core element of this thought can be found in most philosophical concepts of ethics. Doing good stuff for the wrong reasons, bad stuff for the right reasons, or even bad stuff for questionable reasons. You can be redeemed in some way. But doing bad things (anti-human) for anti-human reasons is a crime against your very own nature. You´re purposefully and willingly leave the frame of human nature. You can´t be redeemed when you´ve gone that far.
Wow, this guy is really interesting.
Jojo part golden wind.
Our main protagonist (Giorno)and antagonist (Divaolo) had a similar idea of overcoming their past. Where they different Giorno help other to over come their past to improve were Divaolo work on destorying his past so no one can use information against him but leave him stagnate. Where Giorno can adapt to situations, Divaolo often relates on his sneak attack, if that doesn't work either run or get lucky chance to get the win.
'the good guy is playing catch up"
In rare exceptions, (in spite of the audience's sensibilities) if the villain is either likable, or is genius in the way he pulls off his mission (or both)---much to the admiration of the audience, it is permissible for the villain to win. For instance, if by the end of the film, the villain by is revealed to be a "magician" and has managed to fool the audience with misdirection and sleight of hand---suspending their disbelief, only to have their heads spun by genius revelation...the prestige, the audience will respect the villain for fooling them. People do not like being deceived, but admire the deceiver and the deception...if clever enough.
"Verbal Kint (The Usual Suspects) killed an innocent female lawyer, had his work colleagues murdered, stole $91 million in drug money, and outsmarted the police by spinning a mesmerizing story. Blurring lies with reality, while using the bulletin board for ideas, he outsmarted the one detective who declared that he was the smarter one. The board was right behind the detective the whole time.
John Kramer (Saw) trapped and orchestrated the brutal murders of several people in the most horrific ways, including a detective. The forethought, and ingenuity of his killing devices, coupled with his rationale and philosophies from the viewpoint of a dying man. At the crescendo of the Third Act, upon the reveal, audiences were shocked, then applauded. His tenacity and the meticulous detail put into each and every 'game' was equally admired as it was reviled. He succeeded.
[excluding supernatural] A few other villains who won in acclaimed films worth a mention are: John Doe (Se7en), Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs), Noah Cross (China Town), Amy Dunn (Gone Girl), Lou Bloom (Nightcrawler)
Does the villain have to fail though? Some of the most compelling villains don’t fail and do learn while believing in their motives
Psychopaths never learn. It's a learning disability combined woth absolute narcissism.
Thanos did not act out of anger.
He acted out of love.
Endgame kind of tarnished that perception. Instead you get the feeling it was all for vanity. He seemed to only wanted to be perceived as the universe's savior and have no opposition to his way of saving it. I mean he was willing to wipe out every living thing and start over in the belief that if nobody remembers the past they would be "grateful". Any empathy the audience had for Thanos was destroyed at that moment
48 The remark from the commenter is also a little ridiculous because it seems to imply that all horror films are zombie or slasher flicks where there's a cast of characters there to just get murdered. But that ignores a lot of other great horror films. What about the original haunting, David Cronenburg's The Fly? John Carpenter's The Thing? The Shining, which only has one direct on screen murder? There are many more examples.
If anything, i'd say that outside of slasher flicks, the big problem with horror has been adopting the idea that we just need bodies to fill out a body count quota. One of my favorite horror films is David Cronenberg's The Fly, because it is about one guy and the tragedy of human frailty. That whole movie is about failures of communication, and being in different states of emotion during a relationship. The entire pivot point of the story, where Seth becomes The Fly, hinges on a misunderstanding and a drunken mistake. If Veronica and Stathis weren't stuck in Limbo, and Veronica wasn't feeling conflicted, and hadn't stormed out suddenly, Seth would never have gone through with the experiment without supervision.
That's just my takeaway from that. Horror only works if the characters you're following are in some manner believable as human beings. UNLESS the film is specifically aiming to be schlock and is only there to give you the T&A and G.
Personally, I believe that Tom Cruise's Vincent character is the definitive villain.
Why?
Because the hero (Max) does need to learn something in order to defeat the villain. And it is the villain who teaches him! Max needs to grow a pair and Vincent's early life, livelihood and survival depends on his Goliath-sized pair he was born with.
In the beginning of the movie, Max doesn't have the stones to even call Anne. In the end, he has his arm wrapped around her. He would not have done this without Vincent. And it is Tom Cruise who deserved the Oscar nom. Don't agree? Well, I have a jazz question for you.
It doesn't always work when the villain and hero are mirrors. Sometimes when the hero is far weaker but has one skill that the villain doesn't and wins can be more intense. I.e. Halloween or war of the worlds
I can’t seem to find the book he’s talking about at 5:11 “Moon and the Stars” I think he said..does anyone know what he’s talking about? It sounds super cool
He mentions in another interview on this channel that this is the title of a screenplay he is currently writing.
Does anyone know the name from his story where the villian takes away hope? Rly want to read more on it.
It's from a story he is still working on. We hope he gets a chance to have the movie made.
Can irredeemable villains make good villains? Like Vicious of the original Cowboy Bebop. Dolores of Harry Potter,Arkham of Devil May Cry, and Medusa of Soul Eater.
Regarding true evil...
In movies - One of my all-time favorite pants-browningly horrifying moments in a movie is in 2008's The Strangers, when she asks "Why are you doing this to us?" and the response is "Because you were home." HOLY #$&@!
In reference to Hitler - Fully agree actually. If you want to find the closest example of true, actual evil... I'd offer up Reinhard Heydrich.
YES! That’s what made me love The Strangers, flaws and all. I was 13 when I watched it but it left an impact on me, that I went from a kid that was deathly afraid of horror/thriller films, to being a fanatic.
Hollywood writers brave to show their faces.
It's funny how he said that true evil is done without reason. And I thought oh like Michael Myers and then he said it too lol
A villain who just does evil for evil's sake is bad writing. The villain should be motivated by a particular belief or goal which should be made clear to the audience.
9/10 times yes. Sometimes no. Execution is everything though.
Not always, and many fail so I don't fully disagree.
What a genius !
That definition of evil doesn't work: no one does anything for *no* reason.
That's chaos which is worse than evil
@@thatoneguyfromtheinternet6174
Chaos is merely evil.
@@Idazmi7 Evil has order , organized and has some form of order . Even though it's for malicious purposes . Chaos has none of that it just do it just do it for the fun of it . I think that's the worst evil of all .
@@thatoneguyfromtheinternet6174
There's no difference. Malicious people see the truth - the fact that their issues aren't actually important. _They hate it._ Their self-importance leads them to _redefine_ order so that they are more important than order. *But to redefine order, you must destroy order.* Which creates chaos.
Evil creates chaos and thrives in it. Evil doesn't care about restoring order: order was the enemy in the first place. _'Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.'_ - that is the creed of the Malicious man. If they can't rule heaven, they will _create_ hell on Earth. You and me don't even get a say.
why your channel always post video with exactly same topic that I'm struggling with it?
3 days ago : Is not good idea to write story which hero help the villain instead of fighting him.
Film Courage : Write what you love.
2 days ago : I, depressly looking to my stupid story, and remembering the promise I made to my mother before she died, promise to publish my book...
Film Courage : Do it now! There is no tomorrow!
1 days ago : Messy second act
Film Courage : Because idea doesn't make story!
Now, 05:00 AM, I'm looking into my villain story and
BOOOM Film Courage : They don't learn!
You are channel of angels or something, I swear. 💚
Your villain doesn't have to lose.
Keep working on it Yashar! The day is coming where you will fulfill your promise. Cheers!
Isn't that the diffrent between villains and heroes?
Palpatine, Joker, Netflix Kingpin. 💕 😈
I think the new suave villains of wallstreet would be boring to watch ... there's no blood n gore, no heads blown off ... they're squeamish, no Django there. But they win and get to keep their millions.
Is Frank Castle evil?
I'm talking about Bernthal's Frank Castle.
Ok go!
This one especially needs more views. The entire video transcript can be taken down as notes.
The Joker did not lose in The Dark Knight.
He did. His goal was to prove to Batman that under most circumstances "all people" are corruptable and will compromise on their principles. He wanted to make Batman see that his crusade for justice is pointless.
But the Joler failed in his plan with the 2 boats. All it proved was that the Joker was just a sad soul who may had a harsh life. So the only way he could cope was being a vessel for chaos.
Some Truby advice:
Plot is about deception. Use your opponent/antagonist's deception to shape the plot [the protagonist also uses deception]. Then write in such a way that it appears the protagonist is the one driving the plot forward, with back & forth strikes as each try to gain the upper hand. Speaking of the best Christmas movie ever made, Die Hard, there's a great analysis of John McTiernan using Beethoven for structure. Die Hard was a mess during the shoot, which is why there's no ambulance in the truck when the crew arrive - not that the audience ever cared.
Love Die Hard! Great Chistmas movie!
His description of evil is outstanding.
Villains lose because of plot armoured protagonists.
Watch no country for old men if you want to know how a villain should be written.
Because they were written to lose. Quite simple.
They lose because of the plot.
One learns lessons and the other doesn’t. This is so basic but so missed
Heath Ledger's Joker? True evil.
This is the second time in two days I've seen a writer you've interviewed make the case to humanize Hitler.
I understand that this isn't an attitude or position held by your channel, but I can't watch this kind of thing in good conscience, and seeing as this is a pattern that seems to be recurring, I can't continue to support your channel with my subscription and views.
There is a point at which empathizing with monsters costs you the respect of your listener. And what you give platform to matters.
Yes, there is nuance in a discussion like this. There is room to examine figures like Hitler as legitimate yardsticks for film and literary villains, complete with the complexities of human experience. Hitler loved dogs. He was also responsible for an act of genocide that scarred the world for generations.
The former doesn't come close to tempering the latter, and the suggestion that it does is revolting to me.
Suggesting that the arguable hair's breadth between "Genocidal Evil" and "Pure Evil" matters as a point of character development is beyond tasteless to me. And the notion that "evil for evil's sake" is somehow more "pure" than "evil with and ulterior motive" smacks of apologetics. As if rationalizing one's evil acts somehow makes them more palatable.
I don't even want to get into all of the ways I agree and disagree with Theney's assessment: which is a damned shame as I really enjoyed some of the other discussions you've had with him. The ugliness of his opinion here has sanitized me of my intellectual curiosity about the subject of this video.
🤔His comment doesn't even make sense: no one ever does anything for *_no_* reason, and everyone, evil people included, is the "'hero of their own story'... so his version of 'pure evil' doesn't _exist._ Evil is evil, nuff said.
Oh shut up..and unsubscribe already...
@@Idazmi7 His contrast was very clear. Maybe, your not smart enough to understand.
@@chrissimao14 There's a difference between not understanding and not agreeing. I'd be careful jabbing at other people's intelligence, if I were you.
@@chrissimao14 I did before I made the comment. And ironically, I wouldn't have come back to say anything else if you hadn't made this comment... so... good job there?