Why can't we just have evil villains?

[Agenda]

I don't like it when sci-fi/fantasy films try to push complex villains on us. Sometimes, it works better when a guy or gal is just nasty. Star Trek films are always guilty of this, imo.

For instance, Nero. Yes, it's too bad his planet was blown up. Maybe it gives him a good excuse to exact revenge in a similar manner. But wouldn't it be cool if he just decided to start blowing up planets just for the hell of it?

One example of pure evil is the Emperor. That's a guy who liked to blow planets up to cause terror. I liked that sumbitch.

 

[miraclefan]

One example of pure evil is the Emperor. That's a guy who liked to blow planets up to cause terror. I liked that sumbitch.

THANK YOU! now that was a VILLIAN! I really am getting sick of these ''There not all that bad'' villans that are more ''grey'' then black.

 

[sojourner]

A dyed in the wool villain would have asked about the red button.

 

[Lindley]

I find it more satisfying when the villains have layers. In fact, I most like it when the antagonists of a story are perfectly reasonable people who merely find themselves at odds with the protagonists through circumstances.

That sort of storytelling allows for shifting alliances in a believable manner, so you really never know who you can trust at any given time, or for how long.

 

[Trent Roman]

If Nero is a complex villain, I weep for complexity. He's an excellant example of how not to do a villain: an ahistorical, one-dimensional embodiment of stereotypical rage and pointless violence.

To me, it's a question of verisimilitude. Real people have motives for what they want, goals they wish to achieve--however twisted their objectives or methods--and nobody thinks of themselves as evil unless they have serious disorders. I think a villain with purpose is better than an empty cipher merely there to define the hero by opposition, or a cheap way by which to impel to plot.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't like it when sci-fi/fantasy films try to push complex villains on us. Sometimes, it works better when a guy or gal is just nasty.

Agreed.

There's too much complexity, too much ambiguity. We could use a bit of old fashioned white-hats and black-hats. I like to know exactly who is good and who is evil (and yes, there is still such a thing as good and evil).

Sure, probably nobody *does* think they're evil. But that doesn't mean they AREN'T evil.

 

[Goji]

Characters that can best be defined simply as either "good" or "evil" are just boring. Of course, an interesting story can be written using such characters, and there are plenty of examples of exactly that in film and literature. But I would personally rather see the characters be as interesting as the story that utilizes them.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Boring? I don't think so. Ambiguity bores me more, at any rate. The fact that it could possibly be relevant as to "why" an evil person is that way? I don't want that explanation. All that matters is how you take them down.

 

[Lindley]

But if you don't know what motivates a bad guy, then the only way to take them down is brute force. Which has a certain appeal, of course, but it gets old after a time.

By giving the enemy a personality and motivation, you allow the hero to work against him through more subtle means.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But if you don't know what motivates a bad guy, then the only way to take them down is brute force.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

By giving the enemy a personality and motivation, you allow the hero to work against him through more subtle means.

Careful. Too much explanation and you risk justification.

 

[Lindley]

Except the bad guy *is* perfectly justified in his own mind. That's why he does what he does. Justifications are nothing to be afraid of in storytelling.

The only question is whether or not the hero believes the justification to be valid, or whether they believe the actions of the villain are justifiable at all. If the hero doesn't buy it, then the audience doesn't buy it, no matter how eloquently the villain has laid out the whole thing in his own head.

There's a length interview with author David Weber linked to from the Honor Harrington thread. In the Honor series, Weber always lays out the plans and thought processes of both sides of a conflict in detail (some might say too much detail). It's all very reasonable given the basic assumptions of both sides. However, you never have any trouble pinning down who they bad guys are.

In the interview, Weber puts his finger on why that is in a way I hadn't quite picked up on: The good guys always take responsibility for their actions, while the bad guys are always trying to blame others for their troubles.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Except the bad guy *is* perfectly justified in their own mind.

So? Just because they think they're justified doesn't mean they're RIGHT.

Justifications are nothing to be afraid of in storytelling.

Oh really? So for example, would you consider Nero to be justified in destroying Vulcan just because Romulus was destroyed? I have another example, but that would Godwin the thread.

Endless attempts to explain why a villain does what they do... that comes dangerously close to looking like it's justifying that to the audience. Spend too much time talking about why Nero did what he did, you risk making it look like he's right. And the Emperor from SW? If we buy his explanation that he formed the Empire to protect from the inevitable invasion by the Yuuzhan Vong, that runs the risk of appearing as if the Empire isn't really evil - and I think we all know it is.

In the end, all we should see is the villain clearly identified - and then stopped. For good. That's the ultimate goal.

 

[Lindley]

Justifications are nothing to be afraid of in storytelling.

Oh really? So for example, would you consider Nero to be justified in destroying Vulcan just because Romulus was destroyed

Well, someone up-thread just said that Nero really wasn't a very complex villain, and I agree. In order to start laying out a logical argument in support of an atrocity----and I said logical, note, not right, they're very different things----you need to have more to work from than Nero provides as a character.

 

[The Evil Dead]

There are plenty of films/tv show that feature just what you're looking for. Personally, I'm rarely interested in that. Sometimes though, when it works, it's great. The Joker is obviously a clear cut villain that you want to see Batman bring down hard. I didn't shed any tears when Hans Gruber fell to his death in Die Hard. But more often than not I find it intriguing to slowly begin to understand The Operative in Serenity, to wonder if only for a scene or two that Magneto might be right in X2, to begrudgingly sympathize with Benjamin Linus on Lost, to want to see Londo Mollari do the right thing on Babylon 5.

 

[RoJoHen]

Especially in a movie where time is an issue, sometimes trying to justify a bad guy's evilness can seem forced. If you have a TV show and time to explain and delve into a villain's backstory, it works a lot better (Scorpius from "Farscape" immediately comes to mind), but sometimes a movie villain just works better if they're evil for the sake of evil.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I said logical, note, not right, they're very different things

Explain.

And answer my question about Nero.

 

[Lindley]

Then there's Scorpius on Farscape. A highly logical character most of the time, he finds himself at odds with Moya's crew for a significant portion of the story.

His basic assumption that the Scarrans must be contained, and that the Peacekeepers are the only ones who might have a prayer of doing that, and yet they're still overmatched. His logic progresses that in order to overcome a significant numerical disadvantage, the Peacekeepers need a significant technological superiority. For reasons unknown, he fixated on wormhole technology as that key requirement.

Once Scorpius realized that Crichton possessed the wormhole equations locked away in his head, Scorpius abandoned his own direct research (with a little help from a blown-up base) and pursued Crichton to obtain his knowledge. His methods included cruelty and torture, but from his point of view it was all in service of a greater good.

And when it became more practical to protect Crichton and try to keep him out of Scarran hands rather than to hunt him, Scorpius made that transition from foe to sort-of-ally seemlessly because it flowed naturally from his underlying motivation.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

His methods included cruelty and torture, but from his point of view it was all in service of a greater good.

Again I ask, WHO CARES? Some things are indisputably, objectively evil. Some points of view are simply, obviously wrong.

 

[Lindley]

I said logical, note, not right, they're very different things

Explain.

Have you studied formal logic at all? Formal logic is defined by assuming a small set of axioms, and then building up a set of ever-more-complex theorems and truths based on those.

Any argument (except, I suppose, those eliminated by Godel's incompleteness theorem) can be logically constructed and proven given the proper choice of axioms.

That set of basic underlying axioms assumed by a character is what defines a character as a "good guy" or a "bad guy". Everything built upon the axioms can be entirely 100% provably logical, and the conclusion can still be entirely immoral if one of the axioms admits the wrong assumption.

 

[sidious618]

There can't be too many truly evil villains because there aren't too many truly evil people. The Emperor from Star Wars was awesome but I wouldn't want all my villains like him. That'd be boring. I like to know what makes people tick and what makes them do what they do. That's not justifying them and if you think it is then either you don't know what justification is or you are just way too easily persuaded.