Power out for days forcing people into refuge with relatives,
multiple illnesses in the family and the chaos of last minute shopping and wrapping.
Merry Christmas!
Decompressing by means of mindless internet obsessing is easier on the joints than chopping a cord of wood, so here goes.
Logically, this is the same question as "Why can't we just have good heroes?" Briefly, the answer is that being nice isn't sexy or cool.
Being sexy or cool is much better than being interesting, and even makes a plot device acceptable.
Notice that most people prefer Han to Luke. Han, the guy who shoots first, is
not going to be the guy who somehow dives into the fray to save the day. His remarkable success in succeeding in saving Luke from Vader by the way makes no sense and is an arbitrary plot contrivance that would be denounced as a deus ex machina if people didn't like the character. (You can't even pretend Han is using the Force to ruin his enemies' aim!)
By Return of the Jedi, Han is still the same guy. He doesn't even seem to have quite noticed that the Force actually works. But Han is sexy and cool, therefore the lack of character development, the triviality of all his decisions (essentially everythig he does is to get the hot princess,) and the wish fulfilment aspect (namely, would any supposedly mature woman, as opposed to a hormone crazed girl with cretinously naive ideas, really commit to someone like Solo?) are all overlooked. Han is cool but not interesting.
Luke, on the other hand, despite the obvious wish fulfilment aspect in possession of the Force, is not cool, nor sexy. Using the Force requires far too much receptivity, is too passive to make him look like a winner. The change in character (obvious as the color change in wardrobe, granted, but still there,) which is commonly exalted as the defining mark of good writing is overlooked. Luke's choice to try to reclaim Vader is one of the few actions in the original trilogy that doesn't reduce to male chasing female. Hands down, Luke is the more interesting character, which just proves that coolness is the only thing that matters.
Darth Vader in the original trilogy is the epitome of sexy and cool. The viewer delights on one level in the anarchic fun of just letting it all come out (the same appeal of simple minded "characters" like Hannibal Lecter, the Ledger Joker or the Bale Batman.) The defeat of the villain serves as reaffirmation of the ego over the id, and all is well. Simplistic eeevil villains serve this function well.
In the prequel trilogy, the desire to see cool was thwarted by showig evil as small minded and petty. Doing evil was shown as a failure of intellect and will, instead of noble tragedy. The slightest mature reflection convinces you that this is the honest thing to do. The feeble attempt to tack on a save Amidala motive merely provoked. The universal hatred and contempt for Anakin Skywalker again proves coolness is the only thing that matters.
If a villain is sufficiently cool, the writers will start ennobling him (rarely, her.) Reportedly Joss Whedon loved to do this, and I suspect that if Dr. Horrible gets a sequel, he will actually win, instead of lucking out, and might even be "redeemed." Certainly, "Jubal Early"'s second appearance, in the guise of The Operative, showed terminal signs of the "he's so cool he's gotta have noble motives syndrome." By the end of Farscape, Scorpius was by far the most heroic character, as measured by the standards of self sacrifice, personal disinterest, persistence, cunning and insight. Thomas L. Harris ended up writing young Hannibal as scion of nobility bravely fighting Nazis and tragically damaged by his heroic struggle, as I understand it.
Making the villain more complex in this way is just a way of making him more attractive.
The point is that the ennobling of the sexy villain doesn't keep them from winning. Thus, the vicarious joy in lack of impulse control is safely contained when the villain is defeated. Klingons are the coolest, but they don't and won't ever win.
