Why do so many people love the Villain?

Recommended Videos

ChaoticLegion

New member
Mar 19, 2009
427
0
0
Of course people love the Villain... because in most hollywood productions the villain is played by a British guy and we just have so much charm and charisma :p

Also, in 50% of his films the villain is Alan Rickman... and who doesn't love Alan Rickman?
 

BlindMessiah94

The 94th Blind Messiah
Nov 12, 2009
2,654
0
0
Depends on the villain. I think when the villain has a clear argument for why he is doing the evils things he is doing, it is hard not to like him, because you can relate to him having understood him (ie- Agent Smith, The Joker). Also, when the villain has a past that is traumatic you can imagine not reacting much differently (Magus from CT, or Bushroot from Darkwing Duck why not).
 

rtbailey

New member
Aug 24, 2009
15
0
0
For me, its simple. Most people get a kick out of someone being a psychotic dick filled with testicles of sarcasm -To someone else-. Take GLaDoS for example. Cruel, evil, intelligent...but understandable. Her purpose is shown and we, as the hero, must take her down. Or must we? I'm fairly certain my object was always to get the hell away from that scary ball of white processors.
 

Azure-Supernova

La-li-lu-le-lo!
Aug 5, 2009
3,024
0
0
To be honest, it just gets so boring being the good guy all the time. Either that, or the protagonist is such an annoying prick (Nathan Drake for example) that I actually want the antagonist to succeed. Sometimes the villain gets to be the only creative and original character, not many people mess with the few formulae there are for good guys.
 

klakkat

New member
May 24, 2008
825
0
0
BlindMessiah94 said:
Depends on the villain. I think when the villain has a clear argument for why he is doing the evils things he is doing, it is hard not to like him, because you can relate to him having understood him (ie- The Joker). Also, when the villain has a past that is traumatic you can imagine not reacting much differently (Magus from CT, or Bushroot from Darkwing Duck why not).
Wait, WHAT?? The Joker's only motivation is being a psychotic douchebag. He just wants to blow stuff up because the explosions are pretty, and kill people, because, hell, if the explosions are gonna go off, they may as well take SOMEONE with them, right? Neither the comic Joker nor the movie Joker has any compelling motivations for why he does what he does; the Joker from the first movie (wayyyy back...) and some comic books had the whole "batman disfigured me so let's get revenge" thing going, but the Dark Knight Joker and the one from many comics had absolutely no reason to even BE a villain except that he was bored, and that shit wasn't going to explode itself.
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
Because the whole point of a villain is to be an obstacle in the good guys way to be overcome.

In a story, a villain is meant to be nothing more, and since villains are always expected to lose they become an underdog in most people's eyes.
 

tharglet

New member
Jul 21, 2010
998
0
0
I'd admit which villain I identify with, but I think I'd be dragged off to the asylum.

I agree with the point that villains tend to be more interesting and varied. Good guys are usually pretty simple and pretty obvious in what they want, but the villain is free to change their mind for what they're going to go for.
 

Sixties Spidey

Elite Member
Jan 24, 2008
3,299
0
41
Well, let me give you an example. When you are watching an episode of Road Runner, how many times were you, more often than not, rooting for Wile E. Coyote? Exactly the same principle applies as well. In comparison with the hero, the villain seems more interesting, and done right, the villain also happens to be the one with more backstory and more inherent motives, and as a result, you can sympathize with him more.

I mean... look come on. Look at Saren or Dr. Breen for reference.
 

BlindMessiah94

The 94th Blind Messiah
Nov 12, 2009
2,654
0
0
klakkat said:
BlindMessiah94 said:
Depends on the villain. I think when the villain has a clear argument for why he is doing the evils things he is doing, it is hard not to like him, because you can relate to him having understood him (ie- The Joker). Also, when the villain has a past that is traumatic you can imagine not reacting much differently (Magus from CT, or Bushroot from Darkwing Duck why not).
Wait, WHAT?? The Joker's only motivation is being a psychotic douchebag. He just wants to blow stuff up because the explosions are pretty, and kill people, because, hell, if the explosions are gonna go off, they may as well take SOMEONE with them, right? Neither the comic Joker nor the movie Joker has any compelling motivations for why he does what he does; the Joker from the first movie (wayyyy back...) and some comic books had the whole "batman disfigured me so let's get revenge" thing going, but the Dark Knight Joker and the one from many comics had absolutely no reason to even BE a villain except that he was bored, and that shit wasn't going to explode itself.
That of course is your opinion, but I always inferred that the joker did what he did because he was an anarchist. That it was senseless in this world to try to maintain order when we are all just one bad day away from becoming like him, and that those people who are on the side of law and justice will never win until they compromise and start crossing lines, thus proving his point. Sure, his battle may be "everything is chaos, so let's blow shit up" but at the heart of it I feel that he just understands that the systems society has in place to govern itself and it's peoples are a load of crock.

But as long as you agree with me on Bushroot I'm okay.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
In my opinion I think one of the reasons people like the villain so much is because they usually never win and people sometimes want the villain to win. If a villain won it would be a surprise ending.

I like well written villains that have a purpose and have an actual reason to be in the story besides the every hero needs a villain thing. One of my favorite villains is Adrian Veidt AKA Ozymandias from Watchmen. It is explained why he did what he did and what his purpose was for doing it.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Then it's because the hero in the movie is too dull, while the villain can still crack some wise.

You don't root for the villains if the hero is played by Bruce Willis.
 

AVATAR_RAGE

New member
May 28, 2009
1,120
0
0
Villian are more flawed making them more relatable and human to the noble hero who will dive into a dragon lair just to save a kitten from a tree.

This makes them far more interesting characters, take the Joker for example, he is evil but has allot of personality as well as brains to back him up. He is not physicly fit nor does he stalk round with a frown. Instead he uses his brain to out smart Batman, for the soul purpose of out smarting Batman and always with a smile on his face.
 

klakkat

New member
May 24, 2008
825
0
0
BlindMessiah94 said:
klakkat said:
BlindMessiah94 said:
Depends on the villain. I think when the villain has a clear argument for why he is doing the evils things he is doing, it is hard not to like him, because you can relate to him having understood him (ie- The Joker). Also, when the villain has a past that is traumatic you can imagine not reacting much differently (Magus from CT, or Bushroot from Darkwing Duck why not).
Wait, WHAT?? The Joker's only motivation is being a psychotic douchebag. He just wants to blow stuff up because the explosions are pretty, and kill people, because, hell, if the explosions are gonna go off, they may as well take SOMEONE with them, right? Neither the comic Joker nor the movie Joker has any compelling motivations for why he does what he does; the Joker from the first movie (wayyyy back...) and some comic books had the whole "batman disfigured me so let's get revenge" thing going, but the Dark Knight Joker and the one from many comics had absolutely no reason to even BE a villain except that he was bored, and that shit wasn't going to explode itself.
That of course is your opinion, but I always inferred that the joker did what he did because he was an anarchist. That it was senseless in this world to try to maintain order when we are all just one bad day away from becoming like him, and that those people who are on the side of law and justice will never win until they compromise and start crossing lines, thus proving his point. Sure, his battle may be "everything is chaos, so let's blow shit up" but at the heart of it I feel that he just understands that the systems society has in place to govern itself and it's peoples are a load of crock.

But as long as you agree with me on Bushroot I'm okay.
I don't remember who Bushroot is (I did watch Darkwing duck... like 15 years ago, or whatever) so sure, whatever.

Still, dedication to being an anarchist does not give one motivation to blow shit up. If you want to see a proper anarchist, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. (edit: That one does cause shit to blow up too, but he's doing it as a last resort, and honestly trying not to kill anyone).

Being psychotic (as no shortage of evidence proves the Joker was, both in comic and movie) does not make a good character on its own; psychoses generally makes it harder for the audience to relate to the villain. While the Joker in Dark Knight got an oddly large amount of sympathy, it was entirely misplaced; he was not suffering from any mental illnesses, and had no traits that would actually be useful in society except for a planning ability that was impossibly good for his supposed chaotic nature. So, either he was faking his chaotic nature and just being an asshole, or he is the luckiest ************ alive as his half-baked plans went off flawlessly with no effort of his own; either way, not someone to be emulated by anyone hoping to accomplish anything other than getting shot up by the SWAT team.

As for the socio/political commentary... I'll happily admit that our current society is far from perfect; so far we don't even have a vague concept for what perfect is. However, wanton destruction is probably the most useless way to enact change; destruction causes chaos, which naturally has unpredictable outcomes (except temporarily heightened security. That's pretty much guaranteed). Chaos also breeds law; whenever something does not fall under any law, people quickly try to remedy that by lobbying for new laws to cover it. Of course, new laws require new government officials to monitor and regulate them. Thus, destruction breeds larger government; the exact opposite of what we need. So, any anarchistic action the Joker takes would only empower those he is fighting against in the long run. Sure, he annoys the bat, and may have some fun doing it, but does that even accomplish anything? I think I'm being more productive than that just by writing this post, and the net impact this will have on society is somewhere in the neighborhood of a single gnat's impact on the global economy.
 

CrashBang

New member
Jun 15, 2009
2,603
0
0
Fairly often villains can have more interesting back-stories than the hero, reasons for their bad behaviour; nothing to which anyone could usually sympathise but it's still more interesting to see what turned a normal person into an evil villain than to see what turned a normal person into a normal person who fights the bad guy. Villains can be crazy, irrational, fucked up, and that makes them interesting
 

BlindMessiah94

The 94th Blind Messiah
Nov 12, 2009
2,654
0
0
klakkat said:
BlindMessiah94 said:
klakkat said:
BlindMessiah94 said:
Depends on the villain. I think when the villain has a clear argument for why he is doing the evils things he is doing, it is hard not to like him, because you can relate to him having understood him (ie- The Joker). Also, when the villain has a past that is traumatic you can imagine not reacting much differently (Magus from CT, or Bushroot from Darkwing Duck why not).
Wait, WHAT?? The Joker's only motivation is being a psychotic douchebag. He just wants to blow stuff up because the explosions are pretty, and kill people, because, hell, if the explosions are gonna go off, they may as well take SOMEONE with them, right? Neither the comic Joker nor the movie Joker has any compelling motivations for why he does what he does; the Joker from the first movie (wayyyy back...) and some comic books had the whole "batman disfigured me so let's get revenge" thing going, but the Dark Knight Joker and the one from many comics had absolutely no reason to even BE a villain except that he was bored, and that shit wasn't going to explode itself.
That of course is your opinion, but I always inferred that the joker did what he did because he was an anarchist. That it was senseless in this world to try to maintain order when we are all just one bad day away from becoming like him, and that those people who are on the side of law and justice will never win until they compromise and start crossing lines, thus proving his point. Sure, his battle may be "everything is chaos, so let's blow shit up" but at the heart of it I feel that he just understands that the systems society has in place to govern itself and it's peoples are a load of crock.

But as long as you agree with me on Bushroot I'm okay.
I don't remember who Bushroot is (I did watch Darkwing duck... like 15 years ago, or whatever) so sure, whatever.

Still, dedication to being an anarchist does not give one motivation to blow shit up. If you want to see a proper anarchist, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.

Being psychotic (as no shortage of evidence proves the Joker was, both in comic and movie) does not make a good character on its own; psychoses generally makes it harder for the audience to relate to the villain. While the Joker in Dark Knight got an oddly large amount of sympathy, it was entirely misplaced; he was not suffering from any mental illnesses, and had no traits that would actually be useful in society except for a planning ability that was impossibly good for his supposed chaotic nature. So, either he was faking his chaotic nature and just being an asshole, or he is the luckiest ************ alive as his half-baked plans went off flawlessly with no effort of his own; either way, not someone to be emulated by anyone hoping to accomplish anything other than getting shot up by the SWAT team.
Like I said, your opinion, but anyway I will read your book if you promise to go watch Darkwing Duck again :)

Agent Smith was a better example anyway.
 

Samurai Goomba

New member
Oct 7, 2008
3,679
0
0
Well-crafted villains have motivations, emotions, character. They have positive and negative qualities. They feel more real.

In contrast, many heroes are reacting to what the villain is doing. If the hero DOES have a personality beyond simply being "good" because somebody has to, then his own personality probably is going to be muffled (or, at least, not be so obvious) since he's playing against a generally more colorful and eccentric character.

I'm also just really, really sick of heroes being good for the sake of being good. You look at a movie like Watchmen, Goodfellas, Hero and Collateral and you'll won't find heroes and villains so much as characters. Sometimes one person is doing something "good," but it's usually for a personal reason, or because the hero is motivated by something he/she wants or feels.

Villains always shine in a morally black-and-white film because they have complex motivations and subtle (often malicious or duplicitous) personality traits. In Spider-Man, Peter just wants to live his life, get the girl and go to college. The Goblin is motivated by a growing insanity/dual personality as a result of an accident, and a desire to retain control on the enterprise he's given his life and sacrificed his relationship with his family to build up. See, Parker's a nice kid, but he's really just a reactionary force.
 

klakkat

New member
May 24, 2008
825
0
0
BlindMessiah94 said:
Like I said, your opinion, but anyway I will read your book if you promise to go watch Darkwing Duck again :)

Agent Smith was a better example anyway.
Deal. And yeah, Agent Smith is a better villain since he is more sympathetic (in the sequel movies which Shall Not Be Named). He starts off a bit part, but then has to sink to virulent destruction in a desperate gamble just to survive, a much more believable motivation.