I don't consider "villain" and "antagonist" as synonymous. An antagonist is a character whose primary job is to be an obstacle in the way of a protagonist in achieving their goal. Exactly what this episode describes. While all villains are antagonists, if you asked me how to create a good villain, being a sufficient obstacle isn't necessarily the first thing I would think of. Villains are personalities. Making that personality entertaining and frightening are really more at issue than how good of an antagonist they may or may not be. Just my two cents. Thanks for your videos, I enjoy watching!
I agree. Let's say we have a story that centers around sports. An antogonist would be a member of a rival sports team who is a challenge to beat for the protagonist but still plays fair and sticks to the rules. The villian of the story however could be a corrupt referee who rigs games or something like that.
My favorite example for this is Hunter X Hunter, in the Chimera Ant arc, the main enemies are completely villainous, but they do exactly nothing to get in the way of the main characters until they come after them. By the end of it, the "Heros" of the battle fit closer into the Villain classification than the BBEG does.
Yeah. They only gave Umbridge screen time in the 5th book and briefly in the 7th. She was a 'better' villain than Voldemort in the sense that she felt eviler. However, she didn't have enough time to develop compared to all the other characters. Mrs. Trunchbull however was straight up nasty and prevalent in the entire book.
The Slytherin house in Harry Potter has never made sense for me. If you took the most ambitious, selfish people and put them in a house together, there's no reason they'd be lining up to kneel for Voldemort. Or for anyone. They'd be the first ones trying to stick knives in his back, to protect their own plans.
A Villain is a kind of character Antagonist/Protagonist are roles that a kind of character can play It is possible for a Villain to be the protagonist of a story, with a hero or heroes as their antagonist(s) You don't see this very often, but it is possible
I've got four things to say straight from my literary science classes: 1) A villain is necessarily a character. If it is not a character (or at least an entity capable of characterisation, such as a personified concept or a group), then it might be an obstacle, it might be an antagonist, but it can't be a villain because a villain's purpose is one of morality and only people can do that. 2) A villain is not synonymous with antagonist. The most well known version of a non-antagonist villain is the villain protagonist (in fact Shakespeare's Richard III, the first written as such villain in literary history, is the protagonist of his play). Another way this could be played is if the villain is removed from the conflict, such as in a crime story, where the killer is dead and the intrigue comes from detective having to figure out their crime from the scene after the fact. 3) A villain's purpose is to be a moral foil. Taking the classic Man vs Nature example, Nature can only be the villain if it is presented as directly opposed to the hero in a moral capacity, usually by associating it with immoral characters. A lot of really racist old fiction about various indigenous peoples, particularly if it's set in Africa and South America, uses this, contrasting the heroic European against the savage, naturalistic inhabitant of wherever the heroes are currently colonising. Taking the inner conflict example of Man vs Self: the addiction example you used would only be a villain if it is personified and also depicted as morally opposed to the hero overall. Which, while I'm sure that some Baptist preacher has written this book, doesn't make much sense, since that is usually an emotional conflict at play there. Villains don't need a hero to be a foil though, especially villain protagonists. They can be foils to the audience as well. 4) Since villains are a foil, that usually makes them an obstacle, but they don't need to be. This is what is referred to as an ineffective villain, which may be overcome by the hero with ease or even by exploited for the hero's gain. This is very common as an introduction, where a hero defeats a lesser villain antagonist easily to establish their competence. It should be noted that villains are not always clearly defined. Many authors leave questions of morality open-ended, so that the term villain is relative or only applicable for specific avenues of interpretation. The perfect example is Moby Dick. Is the villain the whale who kills his hunters or is it the whaler who risks his crew's lives to satisfy an insane grudge against a mere animal?
I've always thought so too, but apparently, only Jimmy James understands how villains work, so I guess we should swallow our pride and admit how wrongheaded we've been.
Phileas I absolutely loved the way you presented your argument, you are obviously very intelligent. I would love to have discussions with someone like you on the topics of story structure and characterisation.
This pretty much sums up the gripes I have with this particular video Especially since I started watching it expecting it to be about people not being able to grasp the difference between villain and antagonist, instead I got an example of someone displaying that same tendency
A really good example of entertaining villains are your classic Disney villains. Like, they are not terribly complex, but that's not what we love about them. Disney villains are *so* charismatic and fun to watch (and not to mention always getting the most banger songs).
A good villain should force the hero to grow as a character in order to overcome them. The Avengers can't beat Loki until they learn to work as a team. Spiderman can't beat Mysterio until he learns to trust himself. Strange can't defeat Dormommu until he learns to swallow his pride. The MCU's villains may be bland and forgettable a lot of the time, but they usually get this one thing right.
Don't forget that Spider Man also couldn't defeat Vulture because he relied too much on his super powerful costume too much and not on his own abilities. Or how Batman in "The Lego Batman movie" couldn't defeat Joker and the Phantom Zone villains until he started to actually work with others, instead of relying on only himself.
James please buy a back brace or some sort of back support, seeing you adjust your posture throughout the video makes MY back hurt! Also, great video as always :)
All my favorite villains are dangerous villains. The Horned King from the Black Cauldron for example, a undead looking guy that lives in a crumbling castle and has a group of bandits under his thrall. His goal is to raise an undead army with the titular Black Cauldron to snuff out all life. At every level he’s threatening, even when dying that 25 second scene was borderline traumatic when I watched it as a 4 year old.
What I dislike is the "cut to villain" thing, where we're enjoying a perfectly good story, but then have to turn our eyes towards the MyStErIoUs Villain saying "all according to plan", "that hero is quite meddlesome", and "I am really evil". Like wtf, why do we need to see this out-of-the-blue like this?
@@dstinnettmusic I think this is referring to a situation where there is no villainous character until this moment, with it being some other kind of conflict, turning into man v man
It's funny. When I think of what I prefer a villain to be, I think "A person! And nothing less!". But when I think of an example of a villain, I immediately think of basic, completely evil character's like The Joker or Sauron.
Actually, those are pretty interesting. If I understand correctly, the Joker KNOWS he's in a comic book and supposed to be the villain, so he does his best and tries to have as much fun as he can with it. The book 'The Fellowship of the Ring' literally says Sauron wasn't always evil. The few direct looks at him we get show him as surprisingly fun, even relatable, having a laugh at Saruman and freaking out near the end. The lore tells us he used to want Middle-Earth to prosper, just focusing too much on economics rather than well-being and with the idea he knows best. He joined evil because he thought that was how to get things done. Over many centuries, the 'greater good' part took a back seat, leaving him with 'I should rule Middle-Earth'.
Tbh, a villain sometimes just needs to serve the story and thereby fulfil his purpose in a satisfying way. It's why sometimes really basic antagonist characters end up getting so much love. They did their purpose well and they did just enough as to where you're satisfied with their inclusion in the story and also satisfied with their overall narrative and thematic purpose being fulfilled. Not saying that villains can't be fleshed out or have appealing motivations, of course, but I'm just saying that, sometimes, it's okay to just have a cool, edgy, and strong villain that fills his purpose well enough to make him memorable as an obstacle and an icon in the franchise. And people also seem to forget that sometimes it is "realistic" to just have some wacko lunatic who is just evil for evils sake. Not everyone has a profound philosophical reason for being a horrible prick.
@@MayumiSaegusaShiba you know, I've always felt that Ozai wasn't much of a present force for Aang to fight against mentally and emotionally, especially after Book 1, after both the whole Airbender genocide thing has been cemented into our heads as well as after the Northern Water Tribe gets a lot more secure. Good thing Zuko was there as an ever present reminder of someone with a personal stake against him.
@@jerichtandoc7789 i respectfully disagree-ozai didnt need to be present in the way zuko and azula (as in physically chasing the gaang) were. the idea of ozai being the physical representation of 100 years of war and oppression was enough to cement him as a good villain. the show did a really good job showing how almost every single conflict could be traced back to either the fire nation's royal family or ozai himself. with every episode, we see just how expansive the guy's reach is. aang knew it too, given that he literally had pretty troubling mental manifestations of his fear in book 3
@@jerichtandoc7789 his presence was his effect on the world and other characters. I think it gives a sense of how far ang is from ozais power that he's not present much in the flesh. It shows just how penetrating the fire nation's power is that u don't even need to see their leader to be constantly effected by him. It's also more realistic from a war story pov. After all hes a dictator in another country, not some local tyrant the gang will run into on the street. As ang and the group become more powerful within their own world we see more of ozai. Showing Angs becoming formidable Enough to even be compared visually to the audience to Ozai. I think it's better that way. Also earlier on the story allows the gang to go on more detours and constantly seeing the big bad of the story would've been a narrative and tonal distraction at times, as Angs EVENTUAL goal is to get to the firelord but his current goals/conflict where other things: such as accepting his place as avatar, finding teachers to help master the elements, connect to his past lives, master avatar state, save appa, etc. Bringing balance to the world was always meant to be more than just defeat the firelord and it's captured by not seeing him till later on and focusing on balancing the world in other ways first. We see Ozai when he becomes that sole focus after ang has come to terms with most of these other problems
No. I would suggest you dont understand how villains work. At least by my book. Villain and antagonist are not synonymous. Hero and protagonist are not synonymous. Villains do not have to be a obstacle to a "hero". The protagonist does not need to be a hero. A villain can be the main character. Antagonists cause/are connected to conflict with the protagonist. It it often their main purpose in the story. Villains are very often the main antagonist. But not always. A villain is connected to something evil. Therefore, "nature", and similar examples, are not villains.
Everytime I watch an anime and one of the villains starts panicking 10 seconds into the fight because "oh no! The hero is actually stronger than I thought and my plan is ruined!" it COMPLETELY ruins all the tension and excitement I might have had for the story as a whole. Starts to feel like a Saturday morning cartoon. I want a powerful villain who is sly in even the most unfavorable scenarios. He doesn't have to be a fearless genius, but some degree of tact and bravery is so much more appealing. LET THE BLOOD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN
Amusingly enough, I think most Saturday morning cartoon villains take their defeats with more dignity. Like, look at Hawk Moth. Monster of the week gets defeated, and his response is "That was annoying and unexpected, anyways, get em next time. I've got all the time in the world."
@@emeraldmann1329 Nice profile picture. I was actually going to mention MGSR as an example of good villains, but then realized most game villains technically put up a fight. Though, still, the MGSR cast is "FUCKING INVINCIBLE" when it comes to likability
@@ippo4502 I mean, the MGR villains are still a good example of having your villains challenge your hero mentally. Look at the scene where Sam made Raiden hear the thoughts of the other cyborgs
I still say Thanos' motivation was better in the comics when he was just in love with Death and was trying to get her to like him by killing half the universe. But yeah, he was a massive obstacle.
Agreed. Him doing it because of overpopulation was problematic and idiotic considering he had god levels of power. He could've created anything and any amount of resources with the stones.
"anime and manga are the same thing, fight me on that" i know this was mostly a joke but that's like saying movies and radio are basically the same medium because they both feature people speaking in them and can have music playing
I honestly think this depends. If you are talking about fundamental plots and characters. Yeah, pretty alike. Which is why Anime is almost entirely adapted Manga (as far as I am aware) for the most part. A lot of what works in one works in the other. Where as radio has a HUGE cut off in the sense of visuals to compensate for. I feel like you have to write and sound design far different for radio then you would a film/TV where as the gap is far less between anime and Manga. That being said. Writing for panels and writing for moving pictures is different and does take different skills. And I agree there are differences in the skills needed to present the different art form. But in the base plotline and character side of things there's a reason that, for the most part, they flow into each other pretty effortlessly.
Another thing that I dont think people get into enough about the villain is that the level of threat the villain causes to the protagonist can be highly variably and should be different for each stories needs. Like I would say that Jessy and James from the pokemon cartoon are incredibly good episodic villains for a show with its tone but they would not work well in Infinity war.
Has anybody ever actually made this mistake while writing? I feel like "the villian is an opstical to the heros goals" is such an intuitive idea that a writer forgoing it would either have to be doing it deliberately (perhaps to make them a joke villian or some kind of zany relatable bironic hero) or because the author has an almost p*rn*gr*ph*c understanding of tension and payoff. (In which case they probably aren't thinking about the villian's character either past being a reified representation of vague evil)
No. James Tullos is just up his own ass. Hes never written anything but somehow feels like he has the right to give out writing and worldbuilding advice lol.
A villian should be a character and/or a force that has a critical effect on the story, not just the protagonist. A good example is the flood from halo. When they are introduced it flips the whole situation on its head and the story has bigger stakes because of it.
Ok, just typing this in case I forget it, but so far, as of writing (3 minutes in) it seems like you confuse villains and antagonists as well as heroes and protagonists. Protagonists are who we follow in a story. They are usually heroes, yes, but they can also be villains or antihero. The Grinch is perhaps the most popular villain protagonist there is, for example. Artemis Fowl, a character from a series you love, is also a villain protagonist.
you can make an entertaining story without tension. slice of life is intresting, and can have weak, pathetic villains that fail at being obstacles, but still fulfill a purpose in the story. your system doesn't seem to account for narratives where characters just hang out, with no drama, even with some pathetic villian, that is pathetic in universe, but still enjoyable
Unfortunately, I'm burdened with the curse of being correct about everything, and you foolishly chose to lump me in with this attack, automatically making you wrong. This is your fault and I'm not sorry.
Eh, personally I disagree with motivation being as equally important to the character’s personality and threat level. The motivation is the least important. Depending on what type of story you’re going for, the motivation can be deep and complex, or it can just be “me want power.” All that matters is how the character reaches that goal, how threatening they are, and how interesting of a character they are. If you’re writing a simple “good vs evil” story, “me want power” is probably all you need for your antagonist’s motivation. Like Freeza isn’t iconic because he has a deep motivation. He’s iconic because of his personality and threatening aura. Thanos in particular has a good motivation but it’s deeply flawed. What makes him great in my eyes is his conviction, personality and threat level. His good motivation is just bonus points. It’s a bonus to have an antagonist with a deep motivation, but it’s not a necessity. Personally, I like antagonists that are smart. Weird example, but Blister from Wings of Fire is a really great villain. She’s calculating, manipulative, and very threatening. She’s not very tough but she doesn’t need to be. And her whole goal is to be queen, and nothing more, but that doesn’t stop her from being fun to read. That’s my two cents at least. Also, villain and antagonist are two different things. They’re not synonymous. A villain is a personality. They’re usually malevolent, evil, and cruel. Antagonists are obstacles (usually). Hell, the villain can be the protagonist since “villain” is a personality and not a role.
Infinity War was really kind of incredible. The teases we'd had of Thanos previously were not really that interesting, then...boom! Infinity War hit the ground running with Thanos all but victorious already and didn't let up. It was shocking. We're not going to be surprised like that again...we already had the presumed next Thanos spend 15 minutes explaining his backstory to us.
Which made the other twenty movies the Averagers spent dicking around trying to stop him completely pointless. If the idiot was so powerful that he could have easily acquired the stones by getting off of the butt divot in his fancy throne why didn't he just do it off rip instead of wasting time and resources playing his pointless waiting game? Just paints him as a lazy dumb ass when he spends so much time screwing around with his stupid cat and mouse game and then turn around and complete his macguffin in less than a damn year
@@jeremyallen492 Umm, what? Most of our heroes didn't know what the Infinity Stones were until Infinity War. And that was his plan, collect them quietly, through proxies. That's just being smart, not lazy, I don't know the lifespan of Titans but he can probably afford to play the long game. When did he even know where to find them all? It's not really nonsensical. When he did move, he struck with the speed necessary to complete his mission within DAYS, so that none of the absurdly powerful forces we'll be learning are out there could respond. And it wasn't THAT easy for him, it was very costly, the whole point of the movie was that he won because he was willing to sacrifice anything for his goal, not just that he was really strong.
Story structure DOESN'T necessarily need to have conflict nor hinge on conflict to propel the narrative!! Kishotenketsu structure and Slice of Life genres are examples of that
Sometimes villains and antagonists are one in the same depending on the story. Like a previous villain character working with the heroes for a bit or changing sides. Vegeta was a villain for a long time, but he wasn’t the main antagonist of the Namek Saga in the end or even in the rest of the series until they fought Babidi and Dabura.
It's not just that the antagonist needs to be powerful, he also needs to be active. As a counter example, Sauron is passive. That's why Sauron is not (by himself) the antagonist. The one ring is what makes him an active antagonist. Frodo is constantly being challenged by the ring in various different ways. This is why LotR is an interesting story. Without the ring it would be boring. Introduce the ring and all hell breaks loose.
Well, i'm gonna be honest, i see most bad guys as antagonistic forces unless he is actively wanting to be in the way. For example, in The Departed, I always tho that the Irish Mafia boss was just, doing his thing. The protagonists got involved with him for their own will, kinda, so I never saw him as more than an antagonist. For the same reason, my wip is filled with antagonists. They are all doing their own thing, and rarely want to get engaged on being a direct threat to the protagonists.
…”because a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness!” Gul dukat Star Trek deep space nine
What makes a work of fiction great is the antagonist. At the end of the day, the being, or group, or ideal, etc. that functions as the antagonist is what generates the entire plot, and you'd have no real plot without it. Just sucks that so many people halfass villains
>the being, or group, or ideal, etc. that functions as the antagonist is what generates the entire plot Isn't is usually the protagonist's desire to overcome this antagonist that generates the plot? Most good stories have active protagonists who pursue their goals out of personal intent, not by the hand of the narrative.
@@nitrocharge2404 Nothing; I agree with your point here. That being said, I'm still of the opinion that the antagonist is not what makes a work of fiction great (which you stated in your original post).
Obstacle are indeed important, but I don't think every obstacles is a villain, nor do I think the role of the antagonist is just to be an obstacle. Sure, a villain is somewhat of an obstacle, but not just as something to be overcome, the conflict a villain presents is that they make the protagonist have to grow, to change. Their role is to serve as catalyst for the protagonist's character arc. That is why they are not just an obstacle, but they are a force on their own that crashes into the protagonist and makes the hero to reconsider their goals and plans. Like taking Thanos, in Infinity War the heroes operated on the bases of no one is left behind, and in the end they failed, in Endgame they had to change, their new goal become to being willing to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of the whole universe and that character arc was the key to beat Thanos.
I think no one brings it up because it's obvious? I'm pretty sure the only people who don't know that they should try to make their antagonists difficult to overcome are, like, genuine ten year olds and Xianxia writers.
I mean yeah you are right. However, I suspect people skip the discussion because it's part of the definition. It's like pointing out people argue over the best coffee and then wonder why people don't discuss which beans are coffee.
A good villian has goals on his/her own, that they try to archive even if the cost of it would kill many inocent people or even destroy the world. A good Villian can also be just someone powerfull who is on the path of vengence for good reason. Yet they again destroy inocent people in their persuit of said vengence. In "The Wandering Inn" for example the Necromancer persuded his vengence against the people who betrayed him. He Archived his goal and then went on a crusade against the living in general. Becourse living people suck as they constantly betray each other. The undead on the other hand not so much. So he wants to create a world of undeath. By killing every other living person. He is not the main antagonist in this story. Just someone really powerfull who does Evil. And sometimes does good as well. When he fells like it. Like a person really. A good villian acts like a person. No one is 2 dimensional. Most storys fail in this. Or maybe im just thinking that becrouse Pirateaba from the Wandering Inn is so good at story telling. Also sometimes a villian does evil for the sake of the good. Like puting and entire city to the torch that has a strange illness brewing. killing infected and non infected alike to protect the rest of the kingdom. "Doing the wrong things for the right reasons." For these interested, here is the link to the page. The entire story can be read for free. wanderinginn.com/ Its super long and super slow to start.
And I again recommend writer James Carlos Blake. You want to see truly horrifying characters, you want a villain protagonist who has done really evil things -James Carlos Blake is the man for you. Yes, he is violent. Yes, he wrote a book about Bloody Bill Anderson (and there is a character in that book who is worse than Anderson) and many other books with really evil guys and gals.
Homelander is the best example of a good villain: He is the most powerful superhero produced by Vought International, the leader of the famous superhero team known as The Seven, and secretly the son of Soldier Boy and the illegitimate father of Ryan Butcher. While putting on the front of a flawless and pure superhero team, Homelander and the Seven are in fact responsible for causing much more destruction and death than they prevent. Additionally, their crimes are covered up by Vought through their vast media connections and resources.
His point is stupid "odd to me how no one ever mentioms this" when like the idea of the villain and / or antagonist being a foil to the protagonists goals is like some real basic shit everyonr knows amd will talk about. This guy is really ip his own ass.
Nox. Nox from Wakfu is a top tier villain (not the best series tho). At the start of the story, all we and the protagonists know about him is he's geocoding all these groups and people to harness their energy to do... something. He starts out as a Saturday morning cartoon villain but as the series goes on, we learn more and more about his motivations. About ho he constructed this fake cliché villain persona to make himself eel better about his actions, how he's doing it for completely selfish but still noble reasons. How he only opposes our heroes as stepping stones to his goal and our heroes oppose him because he's the villain. At the end of it all, when the story is over, we the audience know all these things of Nox. His grand scheme, how he suffered with every decision he took, how he was his own greatest adversary. But our heroes never found out. He never disclosed any of it to them. As far as they know, in their final confrontation, Nox showed up to do something still unspecified to them, and form their perspective, failed and disappeared, never to be seen again. I'm leaving a lot out because *I don't wanna spoil anything unless anyone wants me to* but it's this convoluted personality he has and the hoops he jumps through to convince himself that he's right, only for it all to crumble in the end. It didn't matter to him, nor to the audience, that the heroes never found out anything about him beyond that he's their "villain" to defeat because his story didn't call for it. To him, the protagonists were obstacles to overcome.
You should review the Sun Eater Series. It's a book that both has mediocre and lazy world building as well as a not very bright plot, yet the writing is magnificent and makes the whole thing seem great. Seriously I want to see your reaction on it.
this is another great reminder of why Zuko's redemption arc works so well. From like, what, the second episode he's in, he's a character trying to achieve something rather than to stop someone from achieving something.
Dude, your videos are usually cool but you're totally wrong with this one. All you described are the characteristics of an antagonist, not the villain. The villain is not always the antagonist, they can be the protagonist, too. Take Lupin III for example. That's why none of the videos you talked about mention "the obstacle". Because antagonists can be heroes, too.
Not a bad video but I fail to see the point. All video discussing I saw discuss this in some way. When a bad guy is not an obstacle, it is mentions by the writer/reviewer?
Gonna jump on the bandwagon and point out that you say "none of you understand villains" and then speak for 12 minutes about antagonists, calling them villains. These are not the same.
Oh, wow, thanks. I never realized it doesn't need to be Man Vs. Man. I have a story about a man who is poor and have depts because he can't manage money, so he travels far away to find some treasure that might not exist, but I struggle to make an antogonist, but I allready have it!
Yeah they're an obstacle but in a character sense they need to serve as a foil to the hero. A good villian will do things that a Hero can't or refuses to do and it helps if those things are both the root of their power and the cause of their ultimate downfall. Like your hero could be an honest shopkeeper, then the villain wants to be an industrialists who ruthlessly expoloits his workers but is ultimately stopped by like a union or something whilst simultaniously the Hero leans the value of collective action rather than trying to fight all of his own battles himself by working to rally the factory workers or something along those lines.
Villain depnds of the story, b that the characters flaws that coe to bite him. And antagonist, that doe not have to be a villain. They donrt even haveto be powerful, they ust have to be in the way in some important way to th protagonist, the can e as good if they are not strong, but psychologically really hurt them that it is felt. Like one of my favourie now ar the ones that ar in a psychological trong aspect story that really are awful in a very human way, with basically an abusive relationship that one way or another really leaves them traumatized if not broken. Like that villains from bton kubera and tower of god, are the best villains. Because they even hurt with betrayal.Or at l.east have villains be awful human eings in a reasinable believable way. Of coure fun force of nature villains can be great, or fun team rocket villains,
Ppl in the comments talking about how antagonists and villains aren’t always interchangeable but I have never read or seen a series where the protagonist is an actual “villain.” I guess Death Note but L and Near aren’t exactly your typical heroes like how Light isn’t your typical villain. The only “good hearted” ppl would probably be the police/task force in that story since they are literally fighting for justice while L just wants to win a complex game of “cat and mouse” and isn’t so much worried about morals or justice. If anyone has any recommendations on stories or series where the “protag” is a “villain” please let me know! I wanna read more like that.
Patrick Bateman from American Psycho and Alex from A Clockwork Orange are two fairly well known examples I can think of off the top of my head. Also Paradise Lost; the protagonist is literally Satan.
Pert of why I liked Thanos as a villain is because 1) The movies did a good job of making me hate the guy (bear with me I promise this makes sense), and 2) He's,,,technically right? the way he explains his motivation (in the films, not talking about the comics, I didn't read them and never will) is essentially just that he wants to fix a scarcity issue - kill half the population so the resources are effectively doubled. ignoring the fact he's literally doing genocide, reducing scarcity, in a vacuum, is a noble cause, and the thing that makes him so evil is that he chooses to do it by killing half the universe rather than doubling the natural resources, which would have been just as effortless. As someone who lives in poverty, the idea of fixing a scarcity issue with a snap of your fingers is actually quite sympathetic, but again the thing that makes him the bad guy is his inverted logic on _how_ to go about it - he's basically just an omnipotent Nazbol
his motivation in the comics is much more simplistic, a bit more comedic and does a better job still at characterizing him as very evil. He literally just wants to impress death cause he has a crush on her.
Now, I like your channel and most of your content, but this video strikes me as one of the worst you've ever made. Not only did you start off by mixing the definitions of a villain and an antagonist (about whom the video is really about), but also you're kinda wrong. Tyler Mowery and Savage Books are just two of the top of my head that make what you said a really major aspect of creating villains, especially Tyler. So it's not like there's no content like that, because there is plenty. Furthermore, you actually simplified what an antagonist (not a villain; your video has basically nothing to do with villains) is supposed to be. An antagonist is not just an obstacle for the protagonist to overcome. An antagonist should be the very best tool/person to hurt your protagonist. The antagonist should be the best equipped to deal with the protagonist. You can see it very well, for example, in A Quiet Place. The main antagonist is the race of sound-sensitive monsters. What else than sound-sensitive monsters would be worse to face against for a family that is expecting a baby? Overall, it's a very shallow and basic video that actually fails to express what an antagonist is supposed to be. To the point that it is slightly ironic, I'm afraid. There is great content even here on RUclips, like earlier mentioned Tyler Mowery, to learn writing antagonists from (also, Savage Books has the greatest dialogue writing tips I've ever heard). But, no offense to you, mate. I will still await your next video eagerly. Cheers.
I don't consider "villain" and "antagonist" as synonymous. An antagonist is a character whose primary job is to be an obstacle in the way of a protagonist in achieving their goal. Exactly what this episode describes. While all villains are antagonists, if you asked me how to create a good villain, being a sufficient obstacle isn't necessarily the first thing I would think of. Villains are personalities. Making that personality entertaining and frightening are really more at issue than how good of an antagonist they may or may not be.
Just my two cents. Thanks for your videos, I enjoy watching!
Mostly agree but not all villains are antagonists. I've seen stories with villain protagonists and hero antagonists.
@@archlectoryarvi2873 Good point, I agree and concede. Should have said "most" or "a majority."
I agree.
Let's say we have a story that centers around sports.
An antogonist would be a member of a rival sports team who is a challenge to beat for the protagonist but still plays fair and sticks to the rules.
The villian of the story however could be a corrupt referee who rigs games or something like that.
Exactly. It is even possible to have a villain as protagonists.
My favorite example for this is Hunter X Hunter, in the Chimera Ant arc, the main enemies are completely villainous, but they do exactly nothing to get in the way of the main characters until they come after them. By the end of it, the "Heros" of the battle fit closer into the Villain classification than the BBEG does.
Miss Trunchbull is the best villain in fiction. She hates kids so much she gets triggered if you tell her she was a kid once
Umbridge is better.
@@dragongamer4753 nah, Trunchbull is next level. Umbridge could never
Yeah. They only gave Umbridge screen time in the 5th book and briefly in the 7th. She was a 'better' villain than Voldemort in the sense that she felt eviler. However, she didn't have enough time to develop compared to all the other characters. Mrs. Trunchbull however was straight up nasty and prevalent in the entire book.
@@arc.gouda08 "screen time in the 5th book"
That's not how books work
The Slytherin house in Harry Potter has never made sense for me. If you took the most ambitious, selfish people and put them in a house together, there's no reason they'd be lining up to kneel for Voldemort. Or for anyone. They'd be the first ones trying to stick knives in his back, to protect their own plans.
Honestly it would of made me like Harry Potter much better
that's life. a bunch of jerks together to do evil things
@@UmBelenense Sounds more like a children's novel.
A Villain is a kind of character
Antagonist/Protagonist are roles that a kind of character can play
It is possible for a Villain to be the protagonist of a story, with a hero or heroes as their antagonist(s)
You don't see this very often, but it is possible
Walter and Hank in Breaking Bad
Death Note
Megamind?
Overlord?
I've got four things to say straight from my literary science classes:
1) A villain is necessarily a character. If it is not a character (or at least an entity capable of characterisation, such as a personified concept or a group), then it might be an obstacle, it might be an antagonist, but it can't be a villain because a villain's purpose is one of morality and only people can do that.
2) A villain is not synonymous with antagonist.
The most well known version of a non-antagonist villain is the villain protagonist (in fact Shakespeare's Richard III, the first written as such villain in literary history, is the protagonist of his play).
Another way this could be played is if the villain is removed from the conflict, such as in a crime story, where the killer is dead and the intrigue comes from detective having to figure out their crime from the scene after the fact.
3) A villain's purpose is to be a moral foil.
Taking the classic Man vs Nature example, Nature can only be the villain if it is presented as directly opposed to the hero in a moral capacity, usually by associating it with immoral characters. A lot of really racist old fiction about various indigenous peoples, particularly if it's set in Africa and South America, uses this, contrasting the heroic European against the savage, naturalistic inhabitant of wherever the heroes are currently colonising.
Taking the inner conflict example of Man vs Self: the addiction example you used would only be a villain if it is personified and also depicted as morally opposed to the hero overall. Which, while I'm sure that some Baptist preacher has written this book, doesn't make much sense, since that is usually an emotional conflict at play there.
Villains don't need a hero to be a foil though, especially villain protagonists. They can be foils to the audience as well.
4) Since villains are a foil, that usually makes them an obstacle, but they don't need to be.
This is what is referred to as an ineffective villain, which may be overcome by the hero with ease or even by exploited for the hero's gain.
This is very common as an introduction, where a hero defeats a lesser villain antagonist easily to establish their competence.
It should be noted that villains are not always clearly defined. Many authors leave questions of morality open-ended, so that the term villain is relative or only applicable for specific avenues of interpretation.
The perfect example is Moby Dick. Is the villain the whale who kills his hunters or is it the whaler who risks his crew's lives to satisfy an insane grudge against a mere animal?
i think your take is better than the vid XD
I've always thought so too, but apparently, only Jimmy James understands how villains work, so I guess we should swallow our pride and admit how wrongheaded we've been.
Phileas I absolutely loved the way you presented your argument, you are obviously very intelligent. I would love to have discussions with someone like you on the topics of story structure and characterisation.
This pretty much sums up the gripes I have with this particular video
Especially since I started watching it expecting it to be about people not being able to grasp the difference between villain and antagonist, instead I got an example of someone displaying that same tendency
I love your definition! I bet you're a great writer if you ever will write something.
A really good example of entertaining villains are your classic Disney villains. Like, they are not terribly complex, but that's not what we love about them. Disney villains are *so* charismatic and fun to watch (and not to mention always getting the most banger songs).
A good villain should force the hero to grow as a character in order to overcome them. The Avengers can't beat Loki until they learn to work as a team. Spiderman can't beat Mysterio until he learns to trust himself. Strange can't defeat Dormommu until he learns to swallow his pride. The MCU's villains may be bland and forgettable a lot of the time, but they usually get this one thing right.
Yep that's the basic principle.
Dr strange film is great
Gravity falls is also a good example of this
The MCU may have a lot of poor villains but you just happened to use 2 out of 3 really good ones as examples
Don't forget that Spider Man also couldn't defeat Vulture because he relied too much on his super powerful costume too much and not on his own abilities. Or how Batman in "The Lego Batman movie" couldn't defeat Joker and the Phantom Zone villains until he started to actually work with others, instead of relying on only himself.
James please buy a back brace or some sort of back support, seeing you adjust your posture throughout the video makes MY back hurt! Also, great video as always :)
Husband pillow
@Immortal Science of Hauntology I would hope so and it’s quite clear my comment was just harmless humor ;)
Wait you don’t just listen in the background? :o
@@BlueBeetle1939 the anime ones ? Sounds like a plan.
damn, I wouldn't even notice that until you mention it
Whoever this ,,man’‘ is he sure has a lot of enemys
All my favorite villains are dangerous villains. The Horned King from the Black Cauldron for example, a undead looking guy that lives in a crumbling castle and has a group of bandits under his thrall. His goal is to raise an undead army with the titular Black Cauldron to snuff out all life. At every level he’s threatening, even when dying that 25 second scene was borderline traumatic when I watched it as a 4 year old.
How to make a villain with a ton of flaws that most people will look over, make them as sexy as possible.
What I dislike is the "cut to villain" thing,
where we're enjoying a perfectly good story, but then have to turn our eyes towards the MyStErIoUs Villain saying "all according to plan", "that hero is quite meddlesome", and "I am really evil".
Like wtf, why do we need to see this out-of-the-blue like this?
It is to tell you that the villain is there and that this triumph is momentary and the villain is still there and a threat.
@@dstinnettmusic I think this is referring to a situation where there is no villainous character until this moment, with it being some other kind of conflict, turning into man v man
It's funny. When I think of what I prefer a villain to be, I think "A person! And nothing less!". But when I think of an example of a villain, I immediately think of basic, completely evil character's like The Joker or Sauron.
Actually, those are pretty interesting.
If I understand correctly, the Joker KNOWS he's in a comic book and supposed to be the villain, so he does his best and tries to have as much fun as he can with it.
The book 'The Fellowship of the Ring' literally says Sauron wasn't always evil. The few direct looks at him we get show him as surprisingly fun, even relatable, having a laugh at Saruman and freaking out near the end. The lore tells us he used to want Middle-Earth to prosper, just focusing too much on economics rather than well-being and with the idea he knows best. He joined evil because he thought that was how to get things done. Over many centuries, the 'greater good' part took a back seat, leaving him with 'I should rule Middle-Earth'.
Tbh, a villain sometimes just needs to serve the story and thereby fulfil his purpose in a satisfying way. It's why sometimes really basic antagonist characters end up getting so much love. They did their purpose well and they did just enough as to where you're satisfied with their inclusion in the story and also satisfied with their overall narrative and thematic purpose being fulfilled. Not saying that villains can't be fleshed out or have appealing motivations, of course, but I'm just saying that, sometimes, it's okay to just have a cool, edgy, and strong villain that fills his purpose well enough to make him memorable as an obstacle and an icon in the franchise. And people also seem to forget that sometimes it is "realistic" to just have some wacko lunatic who is just evil for evils sake. Not everyone has a profound philosophical reason for being a horrible prick.
the firelord from atla yup
@@MayumiSaegusaShiba you know, I've always felt that Ozai wasn't much of a present force for Aang to fight against mentally and emotionally, especially after Book 1, after both the whole Airbender genocide thing has been cemented into our heads as well as after the Northern Water Tribe gets a lot more secure. Good thing Zuko was there as an ever present reminder of someone with a personal stake against him.
@@jerichtandoc7789 i respectfully disagree-ozai didnt need to be present in the way zuko and azula (as in physically chasing the gaang) were. the idea of ozai being the physical representation of 100 years of war and oppression was enough to cement him as a good villain. the show did a really good job showing how almost every single conflict could be traced back to either the fire nation's royal family or ozai himself. with every episode, we see just how expansive the guy's reach is. aang knew it too, given that he literally had pretty troubling mental manifestations of his fear in book 3
@@MayumiSaegusaShiba you know what, reading this, I agree. Might watch Airbender again for like the 4th or 5th time.
@@jerichtandoc7789 his presence was his effect on the world and other characters. I think it gives a sense of how far ang is from ozais power that he's not present much in the flesh. It shows just how penetrating the fire nation's power is that u don't even need to see their leader to be constantly effected by him. It's also more realistic from a war story pov. After all hes a dictator in another country, not some local tyrant the gang will run into on the street. As ang and the group become more powerful within their own world we see more of ozai. Showing Angs becoming formidable Enough to even be compared visually to the audience to Ozai. I think it's better that way. Also earlier on the story allows the gang to go on more detours and constantly seeing the big bad of the story would've been a narrative and tonal distraction at times, as Angs EVENTUAL goal is to get to the firelord but his current goals/conflict where other things: such as accepting his place as avatar, finding teachers to help master the elements, connect to his past lives, master avatar state, save appa, etc. Bringing balance to the world was always meant to be more than just defeat the firelord and it's captured by not seeing him till later on and focusing on balancing the world in other ways first. We see Ozai when he becomes that sole focus after ang has come to terms with most of these other problems
Lmao I forgot about protheon
“Let the bllllood, rrrrraiin frrrom the skyyyyyyyy” * waggles arms villainously *
No. I would suggest you dont understand how villains work. At least by my book.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
Hero and protagonist are not synonymous.
Villains do not have to be a obstacle to a "hero".
The protagonist does not need to be a hero.
A villain can be the main character.
Antagonists cause/are connected to conflict with the protagonist. It it often their main purpose in the story.
Villains are very often the main antagonist. But not always.
A villain is connected to something evil. Therefore, "nature", and similar examples, are not villains.
Everytime I watch an anime and one of the villains starts panicking 10 seconds into the fight because "oh no! The hero is actually stronger than I thought and my plan is ruined!" it COMPLETELY ruins all the tension and excitement I might have had for the story as a whole. Starts to feel like a Saturday morning cartoon. I want a powerful villain who is sly in even the most unfavorable scenarios. He doesn't have to be a fearless genius, but some degree of tact and bravery is so much more appealing.
LET THE BLOOD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN
Amusingly enough, I think most Saturday morning cartoon villains take their defeats with more dignity. Like, look at Hawk Moth. Monster of the week gets defeated, and his response is "That was annoying and unexpected, anyways, get em next time. I've got all the time in the world."
@@emeraldmann1329 Nice profile picture. I was actually going to mention MGSR as an example of good villains, but then realized most game villains technically put up a fight. Though, still, the MGSR cast is "FUCKING INVINCIBLE" when it comes to likability
@@ippo4502 I mean, the MGR villains are still a good example of having your villains challenge your hero mentally. Look at the scene where Sam made Raiden hear the thoughts of the other cyborgs
I still say Thanos' motivation was better in the comics when he was just in love with Death and was trying to get her to like him by killing half the universe. But yeah, he was a massive obstacle.
Agreed. Him doing it because of overpopulation was problematic and idiotic considering he had god levels of power. He could've created anything and any amount of resources with the stones.
Both are kinda flawed. Simp Thanos is meh imo.
@@MsMvsc yea but at least it's more interesting than him just being an ecofascist
Villains are laborers that work at a villa.
The name of the video made me think of the start of a vilan speech
2:50 I just think about One Punch Man (I know technically the villain is "depression" and the fight struggle is for the side kicks)
"There's basically no one who could fight super man"
Batman and Goku have entered the chat.
No! I understand villains!
Step one: make sexy
Step two:????
Step three: profit
"anime and manga are the same thing, fight me on that"
i know this was mostly a joke but that's like saying movies and radio are basically the same medium because they both feature people speaking in them and can have music playing
I honestly think this depends. If you are talking about fundamental plots and characters. Yeah, pretty alike. Which is why Anime is almost entirely adapted Manga (as far as I am aware) for the most part. A lot of what works in one works in the other. Where as radio has a HUGE cut off in the sense of visuals to compensate for. I feel like you have to write and sound design far different for radio then you would a film/TV where as the gap is far less between anime and Manga.
That being said. Writing for panels and writing for moving pictures is different and does take different skills. And I agree there are differences in the skills needed to present the different art form. But in the base plotline and character side of things there's a reason that, for the most part, they flow into each other pretty effortlessly.
Another thing that I dont think people get into enough about the villain is that the level of threat the villain causes to the protagonist can be highly variably and should be different for each stories needs. Like I would say that Jessy and James from the pokemon cartoon are incredibly good episodic villains for a show with its tone but they would not work well in Infinity war.
I know what a villain is, it is a luxurious country home that has been converted into a restaurant.
Has anybody ever actually made this mistake while writing? I feel like "the villian is an opstical to the heros goals" is such an intuitive idea that a writer forgoing it would either have to be doing it deliberately (perhaps to make them a joke villian or some kind of zany relatable bironic hero) or because the author has an almost p*rn*gr*ph*c understanding of tension and payoff. (In which case they probably aren't thinking about the villian's character either past being a reified representation of vague evil)
No. James Tullos is just up his own ass.
Hes never written anything but somehow feels like he has the right to give out writing and worldbuilding advice lol.
A villian should be a character and/or a force that has a critical effect on the story, not just the protagonist.
A good example is the flood from halo. When they are introduced it flips the whole situation on its head and the story has bigger stakes because of it.
Ok, just typing this in case I forget it, but so far, as of writing (3 minutes in) it seems like you confuse villains and antagonists as well as heroes and protagonists. Protagonists are who we follow in a story. They are usually heroes, yes, but they can also be villains or antihero. The Grinch is perhaps the most popular villain protagonist there is, for example. Artemis Fowl, a character from a series you love, is also a villain protagonist.
you can make an entertaining story without tension. slice of life is intresting, and can have weak, pathetic villains that fail at being obstacles, but still fulfill a purpose in the story.
your system doesn't seem to account for narratives where characters just hang out, with no drama, even with some pathetic villian, that is pathetic in universe, but still enjoyable
The video description reads like a stroke.
I’m obsessed with James doing the k pop heart in the thumbnail
Unfortunately, I'm burdened with the curse of being correct about everything, and you foolishly chose to lump me in with this attack, automatically making you wrong. This is your fault and I'm not sorry.
The moment I see James put “none you understand (blank)” I know it’s going to be good
The title/thumbnail makes this look entierly like an amusing rant.
Eh, personally I disagree with motivation being as equally important to the character’s personality and threat level. The motivation is the least important. Depending on what type of story you’re going for, the motivation can be deep and complex, or it can just be “me want power.” All that matters is how the character reaches that goal, how threatening they are, and how interesting of a character they are. If you’re writing a simple “good vs evil” story, “me want power” is probably all you need for your antagonist’s motivation. Like Freeza isn’t iconic because he has a deep motivation. He’s iconic because of his personality and threatening aura. Thanos in particular has a good motivation but it’s deeply flawed. What makes him great in my eyes is his conviction, personality and threat level. His good motivation is just bonus points.
It’s a bonus to have an antagonist with a deep motivation, but it’s not a necessity. Personally, I like antagonists that are smart. Weird example, but Blister from Wings of Fire is a really great villain. She’s calculating, manipulative, and very threatening. She’s not very tough but she doesn’t need to be. And her whole goal is to be queen, and nothing more, but that doesn’t stop her from being fun to read.
That’s my two cents at least.
Also, villain and antagonist are two different things. They’re not synonymous. A villain is a personality. They’re usually malevolent, evil, and cruel. Antagonists are obstacles (usually). Hell, the villain can be the protagonist since “villain” is a personality and not a role.
Read The Beginning After The End, its pretty good even tho its a webnovel, characters are cool too. Its anime styled
Gotta say I knew I was gonna enjoy this video before I clicked on it you never disappoint homie
This one is a future classic of this channel
LET THE BLOOD RAIN FROM THE SKY!!!!!!
Infinity War was really kind of incredible. The teases we'd had of Thanos previously were not really that interesting, then...boom! Infinity War hit the ground running with Thanos all but victorious already and didn't let up. It was shocking. We're not going to be surprised like that again...we already had the presumed next Thanos spend 15 minutes explaining his backstory to us.
Which made the other twenty movies the Averagers spent dicking around trying to stop him completely pointless. If the idiot was so powerful that he could have easily acquired the stones by getting off of the butt divot in his fancy throne why didn't he just do it off rip instead of wasting time and resources playing his pointless waiting game?
Just paints him as a lazy dumb ass when he spends so much time screwing around with his stupid cat and mouse game and then turn around and complete his macguffin in less than a damn year
@@jeremyallen492 Umm, what? Most of our heroes didn't know what the Infinity Stones were until Infinity War. And that was his plan, collect them quietly, through proxies. That's just being smart, not lazy, I don't know the lifespan of Titans but he can probably afford to play the long game. When did he even know where to find them all? It's not really nonsensical.
When he did move, he struck with the speed necessary to complete his mission within DAYS, so that none of the absurdly powerful forces we'll be learning are out there could respond. And it wasn't THAT easy for him, it was very costly, the whole point of the movie was that he won because he was willing to sacrifice anything for his goal, not just that he was really strong.
Story structure DOESN'T necessarily need to have conflict nor hinge on conflict to propel the narrative!! Kishotenketsu structure and Slice of Life genres are examples of that
Have you ever actually written anything James?
Sometimes villains and antagonists are one in the same depending on the story. Like a previous villain character working with the heroes for a bit or changing sides. Vegeta was a villain for a long time, but he wasn’t the main antagonist of the Namek Saga in the end or even in the rest of the series until they fought Babidi and Dabura.
i love these kind of videos lol
It's not just that the antagonist needs to be powerful, he also needs to be active. As a counter example, Sauron is passive. That's why Sauron is not (by himself) the antagonist. The one ring is what makes him an active antagonist. Frodo is constantly being challenged by the ring in various different ways.
This is why LotR is an interesting story. Without the ring it would be boring. Introduce the ring and all hell breaks loose.
Well, i'm gonna be honest, i see most bad guys as antagonistic forces unless he is actively wanting to be in the way. For example, in The Departed, I always tho that the Irish Mafia boss was just, doing his thing. The protagonists got involved with him for their own will, kinda, so I never saw him as more than an antagonist.
For the same reason, my wip is filled with antagonists. They are all doing their own thing, and rarely want to get engaged on being a direct threat to the protagonists.
i do, in fact, understand villains
We're going with bold titles, I see
…”because a true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness!”
Gul dukat Star Trek deep space nine
What makes a work of fiction great is the antagonist. At the end of the day, the being, or group, or ideal, etc. that functions as the antagonist is what generates the entire plot, and you'd have no real plot without it. Just sucks that so many people halfass villains
>the being, or group, or ideal, etc. that functions as the antagonist is what generates the entire plot
Isn't is usually the protagonist's desire to overcome this antagonist that generates the plot? Most good stories have active protagonists who pursue their goals out of personal intent, not by the hand of the narrative.
@@forsenfan69 Without a good antagonist, what's there for the protagonist to overcome?
@@nitrocharge2404 Nothing; I agree with your point here. That being said, I'm still of the opinion that the antagonist is not what makes a work of fiction great (which you stated in your original post).
What a great thing to wake up to
Obstacle are indeed important, but I don't think every obstacles is a villain, nor do I think the role of the antagonist is just to be an obstacle. Sure, a villain is somewhat of an obstacle, but not just as something to be overcome, the conflict a villain presents is that they make the protagonist have to grow, to change. Their role is to serve as catalyst for the protagonist's character arc. That is why they are not just an obstacle, but they are a force on their own that crashes into the protagonist and makes the hero to reconsider their goals and plans. Like taking Thanos, in Infinity War the heroes operated on the bases of no one is left behind, and in the end they failed, in Endgame they had to change, their new goal become to being willing to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of the whole universe and that character arc was the key to beat Thanos.
I think no one brings it up because it's obvious? I'm pretty sure the only people who don't know that they should try to make their antagonists difficult to overcome are, like, genuine ten year olds and Xianxia writers.
They may be villains, but Protheon is a super-villain
I mean yeah you are right. However, I suspect people skip the discussion because it's part of the definition. It's like pointing out people argue over the best coffee and then wonder why people don't discuss which beans are coffee.
Humans are simple, conflict is interesting, and people who create conflict spark that interest
A good villian has goals on his/her own, that they try to archive even if the cost of it would kill many inocent people or even destroy the world.
A good Villian can also be just someone powerfull who is on the path of vengence for good reason. Yet they again destroy inocent people in their persuit of said vengence.
In "The Wandering Inn" for example the Necromancer persuded his vengence against the people who betrayed him. He Archived his goal and then went on a crusade against the living in general.
Becourse living people suck as they constantly betray each other.
The undead on the other hand not so much.
So he wants to create a world of undeath.
By killing every other living person.
He is not the main antagonist in this story.
Just someone really powerfull who does Evil.
And sometimes does good as well. When he fells like it.
Like a person really.
A good villian acts like a person.
No one is 2 dimensional.
Most storys fail in this.
Or maybe im just thinking that becrouse Pirateaba from the Wandering Inn is so good at story telling.
Also sometimes a villian does evil for the sake of the good.
Like puting and entire city to the torch that has a strange illness brewing.
killing infected and non infected alike to protect the rest of the kingdom.
"Doing the wrong things for the right reasons."
For these interested, here is the link to the page.
The entire story can be read for free.
wanderinginn.com/
Its super long and super slow to start.
Aggressive? No James. I do know villains.
And I again recommend writer James Carlos Blake. You want to see truly horrifying characters, you want a villain protagonist who has done really evil things -James Carlos Blake is the man for you. Yes, he is violent. Yes, he wrote a book about Bloody Bill Anderson (and there is a character in that book who is worse than Anderson) and many other books with really evil guys and gals.
The thumbnail looks like James is supposed to be a model villian
Homelander is the best example of a good villain: He is the most powerful superhero produced by Vought International, the leader of the famous superhero team known as The Seven, and secretly the son of Soldier Boy and the illegitimate father of Ryan Butcher. While putting on the front of a flawless and pure superhero team, Homelander and the Seven are in fact responsible for causing much more destruction and death than they prevent. Additionally, their crimes are covered up by Vought through their vast media connections and resources.
I predicted what you were going to say
Your hair looks great my man
Little fish? I thought that was obvious
The conflation of the words villain and antagonist really muddy your point here. Also what the heck is that description?
His point is stupid "odd to me how no one ever mentioms this" when like the idea of the villain and / or antagonist being a foil to the protagonists goals is like some real basic shit everyonr knows amd will talk about. This guy is really ip his own ass.
Nox. Nox from Wakfu is a top tier villain (not the best series tho). At the start of the story, all we and the protagonists know about him is he's geocoding all these groups and people to harness their energy to do... something. He starts out as a Saturday morning cartoon villain but as the series goes on, we learn more and more about his motivations. About ho he constructed this fake cliché villain persona to make himself eel better about his actions, how he's doing it for completely selfish but still noble reasons. How he only opposes our heroes as stepping stones to his goal and our heroes oppose him because he's the villain.
At the end of it all, when the story is over, we the audience know all these things of Nox. His grand scheme, how he suffered with every decision he took, how he was his own greatest adversary. But our heroes never found out. He never disclosed any of it to them. As far as they know, in their final confrontation, Nox showed up to do something still unspecified to them, and form their perspective, failed and disappeared, never to be seen again.
I'm leaving a lot out because *I don't wanna spoil anything unless anyone wants me to* but it's this convoluted personality he has and the hoops he jumps through to convince himself that he's right, only for it all to crumble in the end. It didn't matter to him, nor to the audience, that the heroes never found out anything about him beyond that he's their "villain" to defeat because his story didn't call for it. To him, the protagonists were obstacles to overcome.
You should review the Sun Eater Series. It's a book that both has mediocre and lazy world building as well as a not very bright plot, yet the writing is magnificent and makes the whole thing seem great. Seriously I want to see your reaction on it.
this is another great reminder of why Zuko's redemption arc works so well. From like, what, the second episode he's in, he's a character trying to achieve something rather than to stop someone from achieving something.
Dude, your videos are usually cool but you're totally wrong with this one. All you described are the characteristics of an antagonist, not the villain. The villain is not always the antagonist, they can be the protagonist, too. Take Lupin III for example. That's why none of the videos you talked about mention "the obstacle". Because antagonists can be heroes, too.
I thought you are going to talk about VE Schwab’s villain
i just wanna hear your thought on griffith from berserk
Not a bad video but I fail to see the point. All video discussing I saw discuss this in some way. When a bad guy is not an obstacle, it is mentions by the writer/reviewer?
Gonna jump on the bandwagon and point out that you say "none of you understand villains" and then speak for 12 minutes about antagonists, calling them villains. These are not the same.
James degrading us in the title
Oh, wow, thanks. I never realized it doesn't need to be Man Vs. Man. I have a story about a man who is poor and have depts because he can't manage money, so he travels far away to find some treasure that might not exist, but I struggle to make an antogonist, but I allready have it!
What is the antagonist?
Mok from Rock 'N Rule is an example of an entertaining villain that elevates an otherwise terrible film
Yeah they're an obstacle but in a character sense they need to serve as a foil to the hero. A good villian will do things that a Hero can't or refuses to do and it helps if those things are both the root of their power and the cause of their ultimate downfall.
Like your hero could be an honest shopkeeper, then the villain wants to be an industrialists who ruthlessly expoloits his workers but is ultimately stopped by like a union or something whilst simultaniously the Hero leans the value of collective action rather than trying to fight all of his own battles himself by working to rally the factory workers or something along those lines.
i must agree
Villain depnds of the story, b that the characters flaws that coe to bite him. And antagonist, that doe not have to be a villain.
They donrt even haveto be powerful, they ust have to be in the way in some important way to th protagonist, the can e as good if they are not strong, but psychologically really hurt them that it is felt.
Like one of my favourie now ar the ones that ar in a psychological trong aspect story that really are awful in a very human way, with basically an abusive relationship that one way or another really leaves them traumatized if not broken. Like that villains from bton kubera and tower of god, are the best villains. Because they even hurt with betrayal.Or at l.east have villains be awful human eings in a reasinable believable way.
Of coure fun force of nature villains can be great, or fun team rocket villains,
YOU are a villain.
Ppl in the comments talking about how antagonists and villains aren’t always interchangeable but I have never read or seen a series where the protagonist is an actual “villain.” I guess Death Note but L and Near aren’t exactly your typical heroes like how Light isn’t your typical villain. The only “good hearted” ppl would probably be the police/task force in that story since they are literally fighting for justice while L just wants to win a complex game of “cat and mouse” and isn’t so much worried about morals or justice. If anyone has any recommendations on stories or series where the “protag” is a “villain” please let me know! I wanna read more like that.
I can think of two. Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov, and The Tell-Tale Heart, by Edgar Allan Poe
Patrick Bateman from American Psycho and Alex from A Clockwork Orange are two fairly well known examples I can think of off the top of my head. Also Paradise Lost; the protagonist is literally Satan.
yeah lots of stories would benefit from villains whose motivations are better considered and who aren't just complete pushovers
This guy reminds me of drew monson
Are you a real villain?
Tallk yo shit king UwU
nahh manga and anime share a lot definitely but they're not The Same
Yeah they stem from different traditions, just like animation and comics in the West
Every shonen villain is the same. You just want to punch them in the face, but you have to wait ten episodes to see their downfall. 🤣
You don't know anything about Superman?
Pert of why I liked Thanos as a villain is because
1) The movies did a good job of making me hate the guy (bear with me I promise this makes sense), and
2) He's,,,technically right? the way he explains his motivation (in the films, not talking about the comics, I didn't read them and never will) is essentially just that he wants to fix a scarcity issue - kill half the population so the resources are effectively doubled. ignoring the fact he's literally doing genocide, reducing scarcity, in a vacuum, is a noble cause, and the thing that makes him so evil is that he chooses to do it by killing half the universe rather than doubling the natural resources, which would have been just as effortless.
As someone who lives in poverty, the idea of fixing a scarcity issue with a snap of your fingers is actually quite sympathetic, but again the thing that makes him the bad guy is his inverted logic on _how_ to go about it - he's basically just an omnipotent Nazbol
his motivation in the comics is much more simplistic, a bit more comedic and does a better job still at characterizing him as very evil. He literally just wants to impress death cause he has a crush on her.
You’re damned right! 😂 j/k great bait title
Now, I like your channel and most of your content, but this video strikes me as one of the worst you've ever made.
Not only did you start off by mixing the definitions of a villain and an antagonist (about whom the video is really about), but also you're kinda wrong.
Tyler Mowery and Savage Books are just two of the top of my head that make what you said a really major aspect of creating villains, especially Tyler. So it's not like there's no content like that, because there is plenty.
Furthermore, you actually simplified what an antagonist (not a villain; your video has basically nothing to do with villains) is supposed to be.
An antagonist is not just an obstacle for the protagonist to overcome. An antagonist should be the very best tool/person to hurt your protagonist. The antagonist should be the best equipped to deal with the protagonist.
You can see it very well, for example, in A Quiet Place. The main antagonist is the race of sound-sensitive monsters. What else than sound-sensitive monsters would be worse to face against for a family that is expecting a baby?
Overall, it's a very shallow and basic video that actually fails to express what an antagonist is supposed to be. To the point that it is slightly ironic, I'm afraid.
There is great content even here on RUclips, like earlier mentioned Tyler Mowery, to learn writing antagonists from (also, Savage Books has the greatest dialogue writing tips I've ever heard).
But, no offense to you, mate. I will still await your next video eagerly. Cheers.
thanos's motivations are so stupid and dumb it ruins the whole movie for me lol