Thoughts from my mind

"zeontestpilot" (zeontestpilot) 01/15/2015 at 08:53 • Filed to: Thoughts from my mind

0

7

So I was reading a manga the other day and it occurred to me, most villains are idiots. They want to destroyed humanity...so they can be its ruler? How does that work out?

I understand the appeal of ruling a country/world; you're the boss. But if everyone is dead, can you really be the ruler? As opposed to the last person in existence? To me, that seems to be a flaw in the plan.

Why not just destroyed the government/monarchy/current ruler and just take over their subjects? And keep in mind, you won't live forever. So make changes that will benefit the subjects. They will be less likely to revolt against you, thus letting you reign longer. And that's what you want, right? To reign?

It seems the villains are written to be the pure anti-thesis of the good guy. A empty husk of a shell that employs the complete opposite of the protagonist. If the hero likes to pet puppies, the villain enjoys kicking them; plain and simple. It forces you to root for the hero.

I think villains should be written in a way that makes the viewer think, "hey, they have a valid point", and challenges the viewer to decide which side they should root for.

Why not a villain who enjoys petting puppies, compassionate about humanity, but believes the government is abusing it's power and has lost it's touch with the common man? Thus why he decides to overthrown the government?

Just thoughts from my mind.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > zeontestpilot 01/15/2015 at 09:19

3

The easy dodge for the lazy writer is to have the villain simply *completely disbelieve* that humanity is going to be destroyed. They don't think they're going to rule over the ashes, they think they're going to rule over *some ashes* and most of society. Around the time this begins to break down, they're usually too invested to care that it won't come out that way.

What you're describing is a trope called the anti-villain. Someone who must be opposed because they will bring some great negative, but whose ethos and aims are to be preferred (at least in theory) to those of a "pure" villain because they want something almost reasonable *on paper*.

It's actually become a very common storytelling element these days, but its biggest problem is that if the writer doesn't know *why* the anti-villain is wrong, the story becomes aimless and muddled. Make no mistake, for a story to have any kind of point or to hold interest, there needs to be a reason to follow the protagonist, even if they're not really a hero themselves.

The Dark Knight rises was a deconstruction of the anti-villain trope, because Bane *posed as* an anti-villain with reasonable aims, and this made opposition to him in the story more difficult. For a more straightforward anti-villain, you could look at Once Upon A Time in the West, in which a ruthless railroad tycoon is portrayed as sympathetic in a sense - he wants to complete the railroad before he dies, and struggles with a crippled body in misery. It is his *dream*. He dies, betrayed by his more traditionally evil henchman, within grasp of a body of the water he valued so much.

DrScientist > zeontestpilot 01/15/2015 at 09:33

1

but we all know that villains drive jaguars not skylines.

ramblin rover does make some good points down there. and i would say that the pure villain is no longer the only game in town anymore.

zeontestpilot > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/15/2015 at 09:43

0

Ha, excellent points!

zeontestpilot > DrScientist 01/15/2015 at 09:45

0

Very true with the jaguar point. They always have such a lavish taste in cars.

BeaterGT > zeontestpilot 01/15/2015 at 09:58

1

Villains are just like us...they want nice cars.

Nonster > BeaterGT 01/15/2015 at 10:39

0

wait does that mean we're villains!? (0_0)

BeaterGT > Nonster 01/15/2015 at 10:42

0

That's exactly what it means.