Why do they always ruin perfectly good villains with bs motivations and muh morals
Because it makes a more interest villian than someone who's just evil for the sake of being evil.
>>67176996
This is what liberals actually believe.
>>67177073
This is what Conservatives actually believe liberals believe
Because realistically a person can only stay evil for so long and be defeated both physically and morally by heroes so many times before he starts trying to do good deeds and help those around him.
Most people aren't naturally led to hurt other people, and even those who are still have some inherent desire to please others. Everyone has that desire, even if they choose to ignore it due to seeing a lack of personal benefit in it.
>>67176788
>uses Venom
>one of the few villains who always had morals
Venom hated Spider-Man and would kill others to achieve his goals of killing Spider-Man but Eddy was still pretty moral, and was obsessed with justice.
He was more egotistical than he was evil. Not to mention the symbiote plays with its host's moralities, it even almost corrupted Parker.
Venom was way better as a hero than as a villain.
>>67176996
Or good and has no flaws.
>>67177110
What bullshit.
>>67177110
Why would I want to cheer for a character that's most likely already killed and ruined lives of others. damn comic revisionism, fuck them you can't wash away a characters past and be like WE WUZ GOOD BOIS AnD SHIT
>>67177110
That's not true at all. Once someone becomes a criminal they rarely change their ways and become a law abiding citizen. That's why most people in jail wind up going back to jail after getting out.
>>67177110
Not to mention most people don't consider themselves as evil or bad. Regardless of what they do.
Very few people do bad shit for the sake of being bad. If they got caught, it wouldn't be that hard for someone to try to do good.
This is true, both Venom and Deadpool were ruined by le anti villain meme.
Especially Venom, he was great when he truly hated and loved Spiderman.
>>67176788
>>67177274
because its more relatable than someone who has no flaws.
>>67177229
What's wrong with his crotch?
>>67177398
he was in a comma and wasn't able to use the restroom
>>67176996
This is what faggot ass hippiesactually believe
>>67177295
That's only because the criminals you're describing end up getting killed before they finally decide to start fixing the mistakes they've made.
It takes some people longer than others, but it's absolutely true that evil people don't usually consider themselves evil and will eventually give in to their desire to fix their past mistakes assuming that they live long enough.
>>67177110
Is that why BTK gave the police the disc?
>>67177312
True, but the way they've been giving villians MO's makes them seem more like misguided or tragic heroes than actual villians. It's lazy writing.
>>67176788
>ruin
>>67177484
lazier than just making them bad guys because they are evil?
>>67177478
>but it's absolutely true that evil people don't usually consider themselves evil and will eventually give in to their desire to fix their past mistakes assuming that they live long enough.
This is what liberals actually believe.
>>67176788
Anti-villains are much more interesting.
>>67177398
He's a big guy.
>>67177229
Lethal protector was such a shitty story.
>>67177506
Depends a lot on writing and execution and how that character is played. Darth Vader from a New Hope, for example, is much more interesting than the Sandman from Spiderman 3, despite the latter having a fully fleshed out MO and a more relatable story. Or how about Chigurh from NCFOM? One of the most talked about characters in the past decade.
Both can be lazy, in other words.
>>67177713
That's just because you knew very little about him and he looked cool. Really sometimes developing a character, and removing the mystery makes them worse.
>>67177810
>That's just because you knew very little about him and he looked cool.
There's more to it than that though. Vader is well written, perfectly conceived on all levels, has subtleties, and is performed exceptionally well by both actors playing him. He doesn't need to be Iago.
Complex characters really aren't a neccessity. And giving a villian a stock MO, and a humanistic story isn't complex anyway.
>>67177073
>>67177460
do we really have such illiterates on this board? man, I think I should go back to /lit/ at least they understand how characters are written at the most basic level
like jesus man, you guys are stuck in modernism like typical highschoolers
What annoys me is that many villians nowadays are written as mere victims of bad circumstance, rather than having a will of their own. It makes them a lot less interesting. They might as well be evil for the sake of it.
>>67177229
i agree
>>67176788
I don't know if anti-heroes suck or not, but Venom certainly does.
>>67178081
>stuck in modernism
Evil for the sake of being evil is modernism?
>>67178081
go back to /co/umblr faggot
>>67178193
wanting to go back to right vs wrong and clear motivations and sides is modernism
>>67178241
can you spit out a coherent sentence without meming?
>>67178113
well most criminals in real life are victims of bad circumstances. there are no a lot of people from good backgrounds that become criminals
>>67178273
Strange. Doesn't sound very modern.
>>67178300
oh my god shut the fuck up and never reply to me EVER again
>>67178121
agent venom a shit
>>67178341
Wanting to go back to an older model of writing is modern is what you're saying.
>>67177099
This is what liberals actually believe conservatives believe that liberals believe
>>67178400
no it's not you fucking
idiot Modernism is a cultural movement that started in the early 20th century. It faded out in the 30s
how are you this uneducated?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism
>>67178500
Not him but
Modernism doesn't necessarily mean modern, and you knew what he was saying, stop being a faggot.
>>67177713
Darth Vader is pretty unambiguously evil in the original movie. He attacks a diplomatic vessel, murders its entire crew, orders the murder of an entire band of Jawas, murders the Skywalkers, tortures Leia, chokes someone nearly to death simply for doubting his faith, is described as hunting down and murdering all the Jedi, kills Obi-Wan in a fight he started (note his saber is already drawn when Obi-Wan sees him), it's his idea to track the Falcon to Yavin so they can blow it up, and he shoots down the rebel ships himself in the final battle.
Jedi is the first time that anyone has an inkling he can be saved, but he's far from an antihero in ANH.
>>67178283
True in a sense, but these characters are written so that they're basically good guys who are forced to compromise or tricked into doing bad things, or they have a sob story to sell the idea that they're just good guys who were led astray.
Criminals are not like that at all. Their bad circumstances go back to the genetic lottery. That doesn't make them redeemable human beings. There's isn't a case of being down on their luck. Most of them are broken through and through.
>>67178575
I clearly said modernism here >>67178273
and I know modernism doesn't mean modern, I was just surprised he didn't know what modernism is.
>>67178599
True. That's why I said Darth Vader in a New Hope. You realize I'm arguing that a character doesn't necessarily need complexity in a literate sense to work well in a film? Or that a "more complex" character, with a cookie cutter MO and backstory, is more interesting by default.
>>67178113
I don't mind villains starting as victims of circumstance, but somewhere along the line, I believe they have to make a choice where they have the opportunity to stop their evil or whatever, but they don't take it.
In Thor, Loki has a crisis of identity when he discovers he is adopted and is a Frost Giant. He demands that Odin tell him what he is, and Odin just replies "You are my son."
Odin is offering Loki the opportunity to re-affirm his identity as part of a family who loves him regardless of his heritage, but Loki rejects it.
Thor even repeats this in The Avengers; in his first meeting with Loki he outright offers to allow him to come home peacefully, where they will resolve the issue as a family. Loki again rejects it.
>>67178738
Isn't*
>>67178650
I guess I don't. Modernism in literature is wanting to return to the archetypes of good and evil? That just doesn't sound right.
>>67178738
My mistake; I thought you were describing him as a "better" antihero. I see now you were saying he's a better character despite being unambiguously villainous.
That said, he IS complex. That's what makes him interesting despite being outright villainous. He wasn't always evil, and he has a previous relationship with Obi-Wan, who remembers their friendship fondly instead of bitterly.
Sandman, despite being more "relateable", is actually far less complex. His whole character can be summed up as "I use superpowers to steal money to pay for my sick child".
>>67178765
>I don't mind villains starting as victims of circumstance
I don't either. What I'm saying is that an approach depends a lot on execution. What I don't like is that giving a bad guy a thin MO and backstory has become shorthand for complexity, and that many people will dismiss one approach in favor of another with no regard to context.
>>67177341
>Shit tier.
>Implying there's anything wrong with being unapologetically evil.
>>67177073
You couldn't be more wrong bub. Hitler is a villain that liberals believe is literally Satan reincarnated. Evil just to be evil.
The more educated, conservative, Republican patrician will observe that Hitler, while the villain, and also evil, had his own goals, moral code and vision for the future.
>>67179740
No, patriarchal, heteronormative white males in power is the only true evil for liberals. Your everyday criminal however is just a decent guy trying to make ends meat, getting screwed by a merciless power structure which stacks the cards against them. Recent capeshit follows this model pretty closely.
