6 ms·

I once read an interesting article from a comic book writer arguing that villains are inherently more interesting than heroes - because villains plan, build, an

I once read an interesting article from a comic book writer arguing that villains are inherently more interesting than heroes - because villains plan, build, and create, and can do so for any of infinite motivations, whereas a hero typically just reacts to things a villain has done, and does so for basically the same reasons as any other hero. I can't find the source or remember the author unfortunately..

Waterluvian 4y ago
I’ve heard many actors say this too. And if you play D&D or various RPGs you might also discover that the “evil” characters have so much more potential for interesting storytelling.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Sturm Brightblade had a very interesting character arc in the extended Dragonlance Chronicles. It can be done if you really try.
Keyframe 4y ago
In general, there's a device to sketch out a compelling villain; Take your hero with all its motivations and remove the moral compass.
- bitwize 4y ago
  I've always defended the much-disliked fake Mandarin character from Iron Man 3, Trevor Slattery, on the basis that he is basically the man Tony Stark would've been were it not for the latter's genius and indomitable will. Both characters share the same vices: women, booze, and a vastly overinflated ego, but Slattery is weak and allows himself to be pushed around by greater, sinister forces. Whereas Stark not only refuses to be pushed around, but he does have that inner moral compass, even if ruthlessly following his own ethics leads to trouble (that whole Ultron initiative, for instance).
- hoseja 4y ago
  The "moral compass" usually being "is portrayed favourably" vs "is not portrayed favourably", while doing basically the same actions.
  - Keyframe 4y ago
    as in no hesitation towards their goals.
makeitdouble 4y ago
I saw the same take in other contexts, and it made a lot of sense. Basically, heroes having superpowers is the core of the issue: they are by definition above everyone else, and are in a position to topple the world order to push their objectives. Assuming they want to make the world a better place, they’d probably succeed in being a kind of messia, and if they can reach their goal the story ends and the franchise is done (alternatively new heroes are born within the same franchise, but it’s another line) Assuming they want to fix the world in a way that is problematic, or are straight evil from the start, they’ll fit in the villains slot. In the end, the only path for overpowered heroes keep a series going on is for them to keep the status quo eternally. It can be explicited or the series might just never progress towards its end goal, but that’s a basic necessity for a superhero series to have any longevity. The interesting side effect of that is, these heroes will often live in deeply flawed societies with rampant crime and/or inegalities, villains will usually have a back story justifying their anger but extreme means to solve it, and the heroes will still be there to stop that villain but neatly keep that rotten status quo.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
I kind of see the group that Doctor Strange is a part of as planning, building, and creating an organization dedicated to protecting Earth from invasion. A lot of heroes are basically shown as superpowered police officers. Which is obviously a reactive job (outside of PSAs, community watch, and other such things). Militaries are more creative and active, and less reactive, so the heroes in military-like (or war-like) settings are more like the villians, only for good or order.
hoseja 4y ago
Modern superheroes overwhelmingly protect the status quo, villains challenge it and the only way the writers can make them obligatorily evil is have them kill people for no reason. Try noticing it, a lot of villains are really quite admirable apart from random, illogical, shoehorned-in violence.
WalterBright 4y ago
Lex Luther had my interest when he claimed to be able to turn a sand pile into an atomic pile while in prison. LL was always my favorite villain.
hackeraccount 4y ago
I've been listening to the companion podcast to The Last Of Us and the theme of the show was basically described as asking the question "What's the most terrible thing you would do for love?" The show gets around the thing your describing by having almost everyone technically be the villain and justifying their villainy in any number of ways.

Waterluvian 4y ago

I’ve heard many actors say this too. And if you play D&D or various RPGs you might also discover that the “evil” characters have so much more potential for interesting storytelling.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Sturm Brightblade had a very interesting character arc in the extended Dragonlance Chronicles. It can be done if you really try.

Keyframe 4y ago

In general, there's a device to sketch out a compelling villain; Take your hero with all its motivations and remove the moral compass.

bitwize 4y ago
I've always defended the much-disliked fake Mandarin character from Iron Man 3, Trevor Slattery, on the basis that he is basically the man Tony Stark would've been were it not for the latter's genius and indomitable will. Both characters share the same vices: women, booze, and a vastly overinflated ego, but Slattery is weak and allows himself to be pushed around by greater, sinister forces. Whereas Stark not only refuses to be pushed around, but he does have that inner moral compass, even if ruthlessly following his own ethics leads to trouble (that whole Ultron initiative, for instance).
hoseja 4y ago
The "moral compass" usually being "is portrayed favourably" vs "is not portrayed favourably", while doing basically the same actions.
- Keyframe 4y ago
  as in no hesitation towards their goals.

makeitdouble 4y ago

I saw the same take in other contexts, and it made a lot of sense. Basically, heroes having superpowers is the core of the issue: they are by definition above everyone else, and are in a position to topple the world order to push their objectives. Assuming they want to make the world a better place, they’d probably succeed in being a kind of messia, and if they can reach their goal the story ends and the franchise is done (alternatively new heroes are born within the same franchise, but it’s another line) Assuming they want to fix the world in a way that is problematic, or are straight evil from the start, they’ll fit in the villains slot. In the end, the only path for overpowered heroes keep a series going on is for them to keep the status quo eternally. It can be explicited or the series might just never progress towards its end goal, but that’s a basic necessity for a superhero series to have any longevity. The interesting side effect of that is, these heroes will often live in deeply flawed societies with rampant crime and/or inegalities, villains will usually have a back story justifying their anger but extreme means to solve it, and the heroes will still be there to stop that villain but neatly keep that rotten status quo.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

I kind of see the group that Doctor Strange is a part of as planning, building, and creating an organization dedicated to protecting Earth from invasion. A lot of heroes are basically shown as superpowered police officers. Which is obviously a reactive job (outside of PSAs, community watch, and other such things). Militaries are more creative and active, and less reactive, so the heroes in military-like (or war-like) settings are more like the villians, only for good or order.

hoseja 4y ago

Modern superheroes overwhelmingly protect the status quo, villains challenge it and the only way the writers can make them obligatorily evil is have them kill people for no reason. Try noticing it, a lot of villains are really quite admirable apart from random, illogical, shoehorned-in violence.

WalterBright 4y ago

Lex Luther had my interest when he claimed to be able to turn a sand pile into an atomic pile while in prison. LL was always my favorite villain.

hackeraccount 4y ago

I've been listening to the companion podcast to The Last Of Us and the theme of the show was basically described as asking the question "What's the most terrible thing you would do for love?" The show gets around the thing your describing by having almost everyone technically be the villain and justifying their villainy in any number of ways.