I think Jack Horner is such a good villain because he works on multiple levels On a metatexual level his interactions with Jimney satirize modern film’s apparent need to have “good” in every villain On a messaging level he teaches kids that there are some genuinely horrible people in the world On a cultural level he appears at a time when there are few similar villains that are pure evil On a execution level he is fun to watch and has a lot of memorable lines
Better lesson than what Disney tried to do in Raya: The Last Dragon! The movie shows that everywhere, there are good people, people doing the wrong things for good intentions, and just plain MONSTERS! ^^
@@kaytlinjustis5643 raya the last dragon just gaslighed the audience by shipping a relationship that didn't make sense from the beginning. It's either rushed and scenes cut off but they were supposed to be an antagonist it was disappointing considering the potential
"You're not gonna shoot a PUPPY are ya Jack?" "Yeah. In the face. Watch." No redeeming this guy. Disney may have once been able to do this but now Dreamworks does it SO MUCH BETTER.
@@rafezap some are boring because... Idk, maybe bad actors or... Some of them are not entertaining (like Ronan the Destroyer in Guardians of the Galaxy) unlike Jack. Jack had fun with it cause it's like his nature. He's naturally having fun even when he's pissed.
The main reason why Jack Horner is such a loveable villain is something that goes much deeper than what most see at face value. Nowadays, movie watchers actually have a nitpick against villains who are evil for the sake of being evil, or antagonists who exist purely to bully or cause problems for the protagonists. This is usually because a lot of movies with that character archetype have said character[s] do what they do and not have them be actually connected to the plot. Completely understandable. In fact, I've seen a few people who watched Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and come out claiming that Jack Horner is the weakest character or a weak point of the film because he falls into that archetype. However, the difference between Jack and most characters of his kind tends to go right over the heads of those who give him a negative critique. Mr. Horner is a cleverly written character disguised as a poorly written character. You see, in this video, you said that Jack Horner's simplistic nature is a great counterbalance with Death's more serious and intimidating demeanor. It's a bit more complex than that. You see, villains who are pure evil typically don't have a real motivation. But we are given context for Jack in a brief backstory that wastes no more time than it should to let us know completely why he is after the Wishing Star. He grew up spoiled and wanted to take something that he didn't have, utterly uncaring for anyone or anything around him as long as he gets what he wants. _Instead of appreciating life and making meaningful use of everything that he had since he was a child, he neglects it to chase personal satisfaction._ Does that sound familiar? It should, because that was Puss in Boots' character at the beginning of the film, the reason why Death aggressively pursued him. _In this way, an irredeemably evil character works because, in the case of this film, said character is being used as a symbol that emphasizes the themes and morals of the story by representing the principle[s] that go against said morals._ Even after the Wishing Star's map was torn at the climax of the film, and the Star began to collapse under his feet, Jack still frantically tries to piece the fabric back together so he could make his wish. It's not until the map is burned from existence that he realizes his life was in danger, but by then, it was too late for him to save himself. Jack chased after something he could no longer have even after it was gone, and the price paid was his life. _Jack Horner, and many, many before him, died prematurely via the same principle that made Death want to take Puss' ninth life._ In conclusion, Jack Horner is a good villain not only because his character archetype is a return to form for the film industry, but because he is a reverse-engineering and innovation of that archetype whose motives, actions, and ultimately, his demise fall right in place with the themes presented in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. He shows us that purely evil villains can, in fact, be connected to the story without needing to be convoluted or deep characters and without sacrificing the fun in watching them be evil. Heck, Jack Horner shows us that such characters can still fulfill the role they do while having little to no interaction with the protagonists! Puss, Kitty, and Perrito _barely_ interacted with him throughout the course of the film and his presence was not needed for Puss to learn the lesson he needed to overcome his existential crisis! I personally don't really know nor care what this recent bandwagon of everyone hating or making fun of Disney for their villains is about, and I feel like this will just be an insignificant blip in the history of internet culture; but if there's one thing I can say, it's that while villains, antagonists in general, and how they're executed in regard to their role in any story are subjective and up to one's personal taste, I can agree that there has been quite a lack of antagonists whose sole purpose is to cause problems, let alone villains that are uncaringly evil. Jack Horner is not only the kind of character cinema needs to create more of in the modern era, but a refreshing and cleverly executed twist on what would otherwise be a quote-unquote "weak character".
A little piece of me was wanting Jack to get the wish, get all the magic all the power for powers sake and proclaim it and say he is all powerful and all you can do I can do better all you have I have more, nine lives well I have ten. Then he becomes all puss was and death just swings at him and each swing cuts to another numbered card like the start of the movie. That is one thing I thought in the movie if puss got the wish what's to stop death from just attacking until he has no lives left. Become the one to get the wish only to have it taken away.
Jack Horner is a reminder that what makes a villain super is presentation. Josstice League Steppenwolf is just as much an irredeemable monster as Jack but nobody likes him. Jack has the flair, the style and the self-awareness that we don't care if he's not realistic since he's so fun
@@veronikamajerova4564 but it also is VARY true in the phrase, a good villian WILL have flair and even if they are a cold ruthless monster its the quarks of being off a few marbals but determined i kind of see in jack the moment when he shot a baker with a unicorn horn and just goes "OH, so thats what thies things do" he then continues to fire away. hes got moments of indeed following megaminds book of flair, but then hes got the moments of "this is real GET OUT OF BED HERO" and ya he grips the thing hes after even to the end.
Jack Horner , like Claude Frollo ,sees no need to be redeemed since he's the one in the right. There's plenty of people in the real world that are like that too .
Jack knows he's an unrepentant scum that deserves no redemption. But that's 9/10s of the fun for him. The other 1/10 is how others react. And that's why we love him.
@@angrytheclown801"That's horrible! Your wish is horrible! *YOU'RE horrible.* You're an irredeemable MONSTER!" _"Oooh~! OOOH~! What took you so long~?_ Idiot." 👌
"What did I do to deserve this?" "I mean, what specifically~" He's 100% aware and he's done so much bad stuff that he can't even be bothered to keep track of them all.
I like to think Jack is a phenomenon where we have gone full circle, in a previous time all we have was mostly mustache villains who just wanted to be evil for the sake of it, without much motive, and that got old for us, so then started the rise of the relatable villains with complex thought and motives. And now we are starting to feel a little tired of always the same with that type of villain too, and so we are back to the 'just evil' type, we have waited long enough for one that we find it refreshing once again
I think part of it is because most studios have been incompetent with it. A few huge successes doing the complex villain made all these companiess see $$$. So they replicate it, make their own stuff, without ever studying what made more successful complex villains so popular.
It is a problem of variety, when every villain is an irredeemable monster, people will want more complex villains, but when all villains are complex, people will want more irredeemable monsters.
I think it's also about performance and characterization. Both complex villains and irredeemable monsters need to be memorable and well-acted. I don't think people will get bored of one type or the other, as long as they are interesting and memorable. Many of Disney's recent "villains" are not very well-written, and are consequently boring.
which was great about the last wish, we got three types of villain and they all worked. The irredeemable monster in jack, the redeemable Goldie, and the unstoppable force of death
I know they want to make their villains more relaitisc and complex by haveing them being redeemed by the hero but what's even more realistic is when the hero just cant redeem them at least not right away
Some people never change. And it shouldn't always be redeemed either. Zuko in avatar at least was done in a great way snd redeemed in a way that is well earned. I haven't seen many redemption done well
I think the thing people love about him is that he's very upfront with being evil... he revels in being the villain. "I've been called a lot of things, but never death. I like it." Or his "Oh oh oh, what took you so long? Idiot!" to Jiminy.
I think modern movies became so saturated with "deep" and tragic villains that it's no longer interesting, we have gone full circle, now the best villains are the most basic version of what a villain can be, a bad person that does bad things because they like doing bad things
@@marxvargas7697 Characters like Zuko from Avatar and Ramesses from Prince of Egypt are prove that Synthetic villains can be great, but Diseny's attempts of Synthetic villains are not on the same level. That's because you need to decide what story are telling then decide if a Synthetic makes sense in context, because you don't always need a Synthetic villain to tell a good story. Sometimes you need good motivations or in the case of Jack just one villain in contrast to more serious villain.
Both can be great of done well in context of story and plot of said film. But doesn't mean like with Disney that they should minimize or change the villain into some form of "hero" like with maleficent who was supposed to be a bad bitch villainess. Sadly they did a reverse and misleading title it was disappointing. I would love a film from the perspective of a villain without trying to justify their actions but make us root for them either way
@@Andalaeknir86 Ironically Frollo from Hunch Back is a character who is defined by justifying his actions because he's very religious. However Frollo is not very likable at all, he is somehow more sinister than most of the people he's punishing.
I feel like we're going to go through a cycle of going back from villains with depth to villains who are just villains, but that's just a very big hunch to feel.
It happens every decade or so. Things that were once hated are loved. And things that were once loved are hated. Like the star wars prequels or the The Dark Knight movies.
Of all the villains that have come out in recent entertainment, Jack Horner (from what I’ve seen of him) is a fantastic return to form for showcasing an “Evil for the Sake of Being Evil” characters.
I thought Jack Horner was hilarious, but I don’t think that means Disney should just start making story after story with a big bad guy again. They can do that every now and again, and that works fine. If you think of some of Pixar’s movies, they excel at making stories without harsh villains like that. Disney’s movie “Encanto” also didn’t have a villain in it, and it was really good. I think both studios can and should make all sorts of stories, with and without villains, with irredeemable villains and redeemable ones, and that works fine. There isn’t any one particular thing that makes a good movie after all, so I hope they continue making all kinds of stories and don’t fall into the mindset of “having fun over the top villains: good, relatable villains: bad” kind of mindset. They can all be good movies at the end of the day.
Couldn't get enough of Jack Horner. With almost every scene they gave him a chance to redeem himself but he became nothing but more spiteful and ungrateful. It's true. When was the last time Disney enjoy making such a badnik?
The situation with Jack is a beautiful one. When you have a simple character you have room to do more with them, whereas if you have a complex character you end up only having a few paths for that character to go on. There's different situations where either is better but the media is filled with complex characters that are done wrong and put in the wrong situation and as a result they flop. This is why I've always loved DreamWorks because they know how to do character types and where they belong, and the movies thrive because of that.
I loved Jack because there's no ambiguity about him. Internet writing guides would tell you that a villain "NEEDS" to be a misunderstood antihero with a motivation so believable, they make the hero look bad by comparison. I love that Jack doesn't play around. He's not a misunderstood outcast who might've gotten better if given a chance, he's not a philosopher that's gonna debate the moral relativism of his actions, he's not a twist villain who just has a big reveal at the end effectively making his screentime a few minutes. He's just gonna shoot a puppy. Yeah, in the face, why?
another take would be :jack horner is entertaining not because he is just pure evil.... he is the comic relief, and it works because he is purposely a "one note" character just to counterbalance the other character that had deep emotional archs.
This. Jack Horner would be awfully boring in most movies. It works here because it's played for comedy. If it was played seriously, it wouldnt be as entertaining.
I think it's kinda great to see a villain who's just an irredeemable asshole. No sympathetic traits. No backstory that makes it okay that he is like this. No goals that justify his actions. No attempts to say that he's just misunderstood. No claims that he means well. No hints of him being good on the inside. He's just evil, through and through. And, on top of what a great villain he is, he's hilarious!
actually i like what u said about trying to redeem the villain just so the protagonist just wont kill them off or smth like in raya or steven universe,
What shocked me is how many people just brutally die because of this guy. I went to the cinema to watch Avatar 2 with my father, but there was only one place left, so I let my father take it because he's the one who wanted to see it in the first place. I went to watch Puss In Boots instead because there was nothing that interested me. And I was just expecting a boring kids movie. Needless to say, I was blown away by this entire movie, and the brutal deaths caught me so off guard. I was shocked to see this because I didn't expect it at all.
Honestly, I think the problem started with the smash hit of the musical "Wicked", which gave the wicked witch of the west a sympathetic backstory. Then disney tried to capture that same success for themselves. First with books giving their villans more backstory, then with the movie "Maleficent".
Steven did have villains who wouldn't be saved.. White Diamond was a special case, she was so out of Steven's power class that getting her to see reason was Steven's only real option!
One of my favourite villian tropes is the villian that understands and maybe even respects the hero, but cant abandon his own fate and has to rely on the hero to be the "better person" while still being pitted against him by his cicumstance and convictions. Not entirely evil, but no chance of switching to the heros side either
So Punisher working with Batman, which still puts him at odds with Batman due to their conflicting ideologies. The way you laid it out feels like an Anti-hero working alongside a hero, like Deadpool teaming up with Spiderman (who was forced to restrain him to prevent murder)
@@manicoasis4200 yeah. But mostly i had the older versions of red hood in mind. Or azrael. He became pretty brutal while he covered for batman. I know those dont fit the trope completely, but i still enjoy them
Okay so i could write a essay on why Jack works but the short of it is He is fun, he isnt evil because of some half assed reason, or some systematic problem or truma. He is just evil because he is evil, that and hes voice actor did such a good job.
Jack's scenes are all so funny. Especially the ones with the grasshopper. The idea of a grasshopper who is supposed to be someone's guiding voice, and is supposed to help people be better. And partner him with a purely evil guy with no redeeming qualitiesm
A rule when writing a villain...focus first on the character in the story itself, do what speaks to you as a villain, the interesting part will follow as character is developed. Your focus shouldn't be on "what abstract thing do we want to show today" cause you need something solid a hero can point the blade at and proclaim is wrong, you can't do that with say... "generational trauma" as the villain jack horner is satisfying as a villain partly due to the fact that he is just an unredeemable a hole, mostly in his over the top nature,but the other "villains" in puss and boots the last wish also give him meaning as a villain. The undertone for the whole movie is being able to accept what you have and be happy with it, and from puss to goldie to jack they are all on a spectrum of this one lesson Villains have to be likable in a way that the audience loves when they are on screen as without them there is no story, but you have to be able to reoot against them, redeemable villains aren't bad but they need to be very specifc to make that ending satisfying, they need an added element of making sure their crimes are forgivable, it's not just "do you like them" in raya lets be honest the crimes were not forgivable. And that whole movie suffered this toxic "you need to trust" message it was bs
The movie had all 3 villain tropes in one. The good/neutral villain in Death. Sure he was after PoB's life, but he wasn't evil. Just very annoyed with PoB throwing his lives away and wanting to get rid of an arrogant prick. When the arrogance and lack of appreciation for life disappeared, Death left him alone again. Then there's the redeemable villain in Goldi Locks and the three bears. They were certainly not good, but didn't have truly bad intentions either. And then just straight up the evil moustache twirling villain in Jack Horner. And him just being played as straight up, obviously, unapologetically, proudly, a villain was exactly what the movie needed. (Was also a nice choice to make the good villain the scariest one) I guess the only villain missing was the twist villain. But it's imo the least interesting of the bunch.
In the current year, I've completed a short fantasy novel. 12 pages, 6 or less pages a chapter. Meant to be part of an anthology. Anyway, the main plot of the short novel is a duel between a knight commander and an ogre warlord. The warlord is the current main character of the story, but will be the villain of the next. His overall motivations are just what you'd expect from an ogre warlord; power, resources, and glory. And he relies on brute force and intimidation to achieve them. However, I've spent the prologue talking about who ogres are, why they do the things they do, and explained their cultural philosophy which is a more extreme form of Darwinism. The intent was to provide some complexity to such a simple character.
A redemtion or complex villan is good but the occonal chaotic evil villan that gives no fucks and just uses others and kill others for.his own amusment or benifit imo is my faviorte type of villan because you can do plenty with that sort of villan make them a menace or a bit of a joke character or something that can make your skin crawl
It just must be a shift in culture again. One decade people hate Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains and want them to be more complex. The next decade, people get exhausted of all the complex villains and just wish they were as simple as a Saturday morning Cartoon villain.
He is so fun to watch because he is evil, he knows it and he does not care, he is just enjoying himself and we get to be along for the ride until we see him crash and burn
I would like to say something that i heard somewhete else that i agree with. Steven from future, would not try to redeem jack. Steven doesn't have to have a villain that he has to try to or try not to redeem in order to see that. But yeah, main show steven would be trying to do that.
1:34 - 2:50 You should see the mess of a show called "once upon a time" Villains who have done unspeakable things getting off Scott free with an express pass to redemption where as more actually sympathetic ones are unceremoniously killed off with not an attempt at redemption, is also a very long show so before you give it a try cancel a few months to binge the 7 seasons ;p
Jack Horner is anything but pretentious. He also isnt stupid and the way he lost was actually a tight call. He used so many resources and proved to be witty. While being so super confident and competent. The little lore about him just wanting all the magic cuz he was just a "normal" boy rounds his motivation.
the villains of the movie are done so well. Jack Horner is evil for the sake of evil. a privileged boy who has power and a thirst for more, paired with his comical design, John Mullaney, and some fun evil dialogue and you got yourself one entertaining villain. and I love that goldilocks wasn't really redeemed, she and her family are still evil and villains, but they are just working with puss in that end moment cause if they didn't need the wish, jack doesn't either and I love how they go right back to evil shit afterwards. and Death, he's just a man who's upset with a cat wasting their lives away when everyone else gets one, he's a threat untill puss values his last life and at that point, the thing Death was so upset about is gone, he has no need to kill puss. it's an amazing movie all around
I suppose I can understand the perspective of wanting to see a simple one-dimensional villain after so many films failed to produce interesting and complex villains. But god damn did I fucking *hate* Jack Horner. He was always either obnoxious or infuriating. He alone bumped the film down from a 7/10 to a 6/10 in my book, and might even reduce it to a 5/10, because I can't think about this movie anymore without being reminded of the fact that everyone except me loves this guy.
What I like with these blatantly evil characters is that rather than rambling about "how everyone has a little good in them", they leave the message that some people are just that, irredeemable and not worth your time
Why is no one giving john mulaney credit? don’t get me wrong the character is very well written, but I think we can all agree johns delivery and natural comedic talent (standup comedian/ voice actor) definitely made Jack memorable. If it was a shit voice actor things would definitely be different.
If Disney buys DreamWorks they'll make a live action Jack Horner movie where we learn he's actually a good guy and it's Puss and Kitty who are evil and especially Perrito who is the worst person ever
Jack Horner is just the stereotypical over-the-top big bad villains. But it’s the best possible way. There’s 3 villains in puss in boots the last wish. Goldilocks: the sympathetic villain/crime family. ‘Big’ Jack Horner: over-the-top evil villain. Death: malignant force hunting down the antagonist.
Jack Horner is the villain that's evil, for the SAKE of being evil! Narcissistic, Sociopathic, and just plain DOESN'T GIVE DARN! He's not the same redeemable villain, which is now a Done-To-Death movie troupe! He balances out Puss, Kitty and Perrito, though not completely good (like Perrito), or have a reason, (like Goldie). He just IS!
Sympathetic villains are getting tiresome. I want a villain who's so evil, they would straight up invent a new form of cancer just because they're bored. Jack Horner fills that role perfectly.
I feel the reason that Disney villains are less interesting is that they are "bad" so xhildren should not find then interesting, after all, children might decide they like ... Gasp... The wrong character. Also, villains must vye simple and not sympathetic if possible, because again, you are not supposed to like the bad guy or let them take the attention from the good guys.
I write stories Nothing has been published but i hope to change that once i improve some more But ive written a lot of villains in this world ive built Around 15 or 20, id have to count A wopping total of 4 are redeemable and only one got a semi redemption Evil exists Evil people exist Last i checked Stalin, Ceasar, Hitler, and other real world evil people never got their redemption Can you imagine Hitler dying a respected leatherworker or some shit Ja i uzed to hate da judez but i have turned a new leaf It aint gonna happen lol Evil man is evil
Not saying villains cant be redeemed but for gods sake stop pretending everyone has good in them Theres nothing wrong with a bad guy thats bad for the sake of being bad
Trump at least gives a damn about people, unlike Horner who only cares about power. Trump had the option to invade other countries, but passed up the opportunity due to projected losses. Love or hate the orange man he isn't an irredeemable monster.
What I love about jack is his brutal honesty, he doesn't even tried to justify his wrongdoings he fully aware of it but admits to it.
"Like what specifically?" ;)
@@yukimarusword like when jimmy ask jack you wouldn’t shoot a puppy would you jack? And said yeah in the face why?
I think Jack Horner is such a good villain because he works on multiple levels
On a metatexual level his interactions with Jimney satirize modern film’s apparent need to have “good” in every villain
On a messaging level he teaches kids that there are some genuinely horrible people in the world
On a cultural level he appears at a time when there are few similar villains that are pure evil
On a execution level he is fun to watch and has a lot of memorable lines
Better lesson than what Disney tried to do in Raya: The Last Dragon! The movie shows that everywhere, there are good people, people doing the wrong things for good intentions, and just plain MONSTERS! ^^
Exactly. He came at the right place at the right time.
@@kaytlinjustis5643 raya the last dragon just gaslighed the audience by shipping a relationship that didn't make sense from the beginning. It's either rushed and scenes cut off but they were supposed to be an antagonist it was disappointing considering the potential
If you're going to make a villain that's pure evil they need to at least have a lot of personality, and he does.
"You're not gonna shoot a PUPPY are ya Jack?"
"Yeah. In the face. Watch."
No redeeming this guy. Disney may have once been able to do this but now Dreamworks does it SO MUCH BETTER.
Jack Horner is exactly what every animated movie villain should be! Especially because he's evil just for the sake of it!
It amazes me that modern writers think people get bored by this.
@@rafezap some are boring because... Idk, maybe bad actors or... Some of them are not entertaining (like Ronan the Destroyer in Guardians of the Galaxy) unlike Jack. Jack had fun with it cause it's like his nature. He's naturally having fun even when he's pissed.
True
not every, but yeah if we could have more villains like Jack or Death it would be amazing
Not all, it's dependent on the atmosphere but I honestly agree with you
The main reason why Jack Horner is such a loveable villain is something that goes much deeper than what most see at face value. Nowadays, movie watchers actually have a nitpick against villains who are evil for the sake of being evil, or antagonists who exist purely to bully or cause problems for the protagonists. This is usually because a lot of movies with that character archetype have said character[s] do what they do and not have them be actually connected to the plot. Completely understandable. In fact, I've seen a few people who watched Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and come out claiming that Jack Horner is the weakest character or a weak point of the film because he falls into that archetype. However, the difference between Jack and most characters of his kind tends to go right over the heads of those who give him a negative critique. Mr. Horner is a cleverly written character disguised as a poorly written character.
You see, in this video, you said that Jack Horner's simplistic nature is a great counterbalance with Death's more serious and intimidating demeanor. It's a bit more complex than that. You see, villains who are pure evil typically don't have a real motivation. But we are given context for Jack in a brief backstory that wastes no more time than it should to let us know completely why he is after the Wishing Star. He grew up spoiled and wanted to take something that he didn't have, utterly uncaring for anyone or anything around him as long as he gets what he wants. _Instead of appreciating life and making meaningful use of everything that he had since he was a child, he neglects it to chase personal satisfaction._ Does that sound familiar? It should, because that was Puss in Boots' character at the beginning of the film, the reason why Death aggressively pursued him. _In this way, an irredeemably evil character works because, in the case of this film, said character is being used as a symbol that emphasizes the themes and morals of the story by representing the principle[s] that go against said morals._ Even after the Wishing Star's map was torn at the climax of the film, and the Star began to collapse under his feet, Jack still frantically tries to piece the fabric back together so he could make his wish. It's not until the map is burned from existence that he realizes his life was in danger, but by then, it was too late for him to save himself. Jack chased after something he could no longer have even after it was gone, and the price paid was his life. _Jack Horner, and many, many before him, died prematurely via the same principle that made Death want to take Puss' ninth life._
In conclusion, Jack Horner is a good villain not only because his character archetype is a return to form for the film industry, but because he is a reverse-engineering and innovation of that archetype whose motives, actions, and ultimately, his demise fall right in place with the themes presented in Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. He shows us that purely evil villains can, in fact, be connected to the story without needing to be convoluted or deep characters and without sacrificing the fun in watching them be evil. Heck, Jack Horner shows us that such characters can still fulfill the role they do while having little to no interaction with the protagonists! Puss, Kitty, and Perrito _barely_ interacted with him throughout the course of the film and his presence was not needed for Puss to learn the lesson he needed to overcome his existential crisis! I personally don't really know nor care what this recent bandwagon of everyone hating or making fun of Disney for their villains is about, and I feel like this will just be an insignificant blip in the history of internet culture; but if there's one thing I can say, it's that while villains, antagonists in general, and how they're executed in regard to their role in any story are subjective and up to one's personal taste, I can agree that there has been quite a lack of antagonists whose sole purpose is to cause problems, let alone villains that are uncaringly evil. Jack Horner is not only the kind of character cinema needs to create more of in the modern era, but a refreshing and cleverly executed twist on what would otherwise be a quote-unquote "weak character".
Bro spent more effort on this comment than I did on this video
@@rafezap XD My apologies.
@@gamecrashersinkorporated4134 LOL don't be, that explanation was amazing! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it!
Great comment, only critique would be spacing it out a bit more. Other than that fantastic analysis of Jack Horner.
A little piece of me was wanting Jack to get the wish, get all the magic all the power for powers sake and proclaim it and say he is all powerful and all you can do I can do better all you have I have more, nine lives well I have ten.
Then he becomes all puss was and death just swings at him and each swing cuts to another numbered card like the start of the movie.
That is one thing I thought in the movie if puss got the wish what's to stop death from just attacking until he has no lives left. Become the one to get the wish only to have it taken away.
Jack Horner is a reminder that what makes a villain super is presentation. Josstice League Steppenwolf is just as much an irredeemable monster as Jack but nobody likes him. Jack has the flair, the style and the self-awareness that we don't care if he's not realistic since he's so fun
Quoting Megamind? Man of a culture, I see.
@@veronikamajerova4564 but it also is VARY true in the phrase, a good villian WILL have flair and even if they are a cold ruthless monster its the quarks of being off a few marbals but determined i kind of see in jack the moment when he shot a baker with a unicorn horn and just goes "OH, so thats what thies things do" he then continues to fire away. hes got moments of indeed following megaminds book of flair, but then hes got the moments of "this is real GET OUT OF BED HERO" and ya he grips the thing hes after even to the end.
Well, there are people that are bad and as bad as Jack Horner so he is realistic
People love Jack because he loves what he does. He's like a classic Saturday Morning cartoon villain, but twice as evil.
Jack Horner , like Claude Frollo ,sees no need to be redeemed since he's the one in the right. There's plenty of people in the real world that are like that too .
I don't think he believes he's the one in the right. He knows he's the one in the wrong, he just can't be bothered to give a crap.
Jack knows he's an unrepentant scum that deserves no redemption. But that's 9/10s of the fun for him. The other 1/10 is how others react. And that's why we love him.
@@angrytheclown801"That's horrible! Your wish is horrible! *YOU'RE horrible.* You're an irredeemable MONSTER!"
_"Oooh~! OOOH~! What took you so long~?_ Idiot." 👌
@@MrDibara one of the best lines in the movie
"What did I do to deserve this?"
"I mean, what specifically~"
He's 100% aware and he's done so much bad stuff that he can't even be bothered to keep track of them all.
I like to think Jack is a phenomenon where we have gone full circle, in a previous time all we have was mostly mustache villains who just wanted to be evil for the sake of it, without much motive, and that got old for us, so then started the rise of the relatable villains with complex thought and motives.
And now we are starting to feel a little tired of always the same with that type of villain too, and so we are back to the 'just evil' type, we have waited long enough for one that we find it refreshing once again
I think part of it is because most studios have been incompetent with it. A few huge successes doing the complex villain made all these companiess see $$$. So they replicate it, make their own stuff, without ever studying what made more successful complex villains so popular.
Memes aside, 16 yr old Steven would give up on Horner.
This is true, anyone would
One can only handle so much BS before they give up hope of helping a person like Jack Horner
It is a problem of variety, when every villain is an irredeemable monster, people will want more complex villains, but when all villains are complex, people will want more irredeemable monsters.
I think it's also about performance and characterization. Both complex villains and irredeemable monsters need to be memorable and well-acted. I don't think people will get bored of one type or the other, as long as they are interesting and memorable. Many of Disney's recent "villains" are not very well-written, and are consequently boring.
which was great about the last wish, we got three types of villain and they all worked. The irredeemable monster in jack, the redeemable Goldie, and the unstoppable force of death
CYNDER: Why can't a villain be BOTH complex AND irredeemable?
Villains don't need a sad backstory to be interesting. Some people just don't have your best interests and some are shy about it.
This movie is understood that a villain can just be fun and likeable without giving them a redemption arc or whatever.
I know they want to make their villains more relaitisc and complex by haveing them being redeemed by the hero but what's even more realistic is when the hero just cant redeem them at least not right away
Some people never change. And it shouldn't always be redeemed either. Zuko in avatar at least was done in a great way snd redeemed in a way that is well earned. I haven't seen many redemption done well
I think the thing people love about him is that he's very upfront with being evil... he revels in being the villain.
"I've been called a lot of things, but never death. I like it."
Or his "Oh oh oh, what took you so long? Idiot!" to Jiminy.
Last one was hilarious 😂
I think modern movies became so saturated with "deep" and tragic villains that it's no longer interesting, we have gone full circle, now the best villains are the most basic version of what a villain can be, a bad person that does bad things because they like doing bad things
True, they become cliche.
@@marxvargas7697 Characters like Zuko from Avatar and Ramesses from Prince of Egypt are prove that Synthetic villains can be great, but Diseny's attempts of Synthetic villains are not on the same level.
That's because you need to decide what story are telling then decide if a Synthetic makes sense in context, because you don't always need a Synthetic villain to tell a good story. Sometimes you need good motivations or in the case of Jack just one villain in contrast to more serious villain.
@@orangeslash1667 sorry, um...*Sympathetic
just incase u dident know or mispelt and dident notice
Both can be great of done well in context of story and plot of said film. But doesn't mean like with Disney that they should minimize or change the villain into some form of "hero" like with maleficent who was supposed to be a bad bitch villainess. Sadly they did a reverse and misleading title it was disappointing. I would love a film from the perspective of a villain without trying to justify their actions but make us root for them either way
@@Andalaeknir86 Ironically Frollo from Hunch Back is a character who is defined by justifying his actions because he's very religious. However Frollo is not very likable at all, he is somehow more sinister than most of the people he's punishing.
I feel like we're going to go through a cycle of going back from villains with depth to villains who are just villains, but that's just a very big hunch to feel.
It happens every decade or so. Things that were once hated are loved. And things that were once loved are hated.
Like the star wars prequels or the The Dark Knight movies.
Some villains need to be let go to learn their karma. Jack Horner was done so well and was an excellent addition to an excellent movie.
When bad characters knows they are bad and owns it it's very entertaining to watch
He's got a great design, he's written well, refreshing, and isn't sponsored by Raid: Shadow Legends.
Of all the villains that have come out in recent entertainment, Jack Horner (from what I’ve seen of him) is a fantastic return to form for showcasing an “Evil for the Sake of Being Evil” characters.
What I love about Jack is that most of his scenes weren't needed for the story, and thus they used him as comic relief. Boy, he is a perfect one.
I thought Jack Horner was hilarious, but I don’t think that means Disney should just start making story after story with a big bad guy again. They can do that every now and again, and that works fine. If you think of some of Pixar’s movies, they excel at making stories without harsh villains like that. Disney’s movie “Encanto” also didn’t have a villain in it, and it was really good.
I think both studios can and should make all sorts of stories, with and without villains, with irredeemable villains and redeemable ones, and that works fine. There isn’t any one particular thing that makes a good movie after all, so I hope they continue making all kinds of stories and don’t fall into the mindset of “having fun over the top villains: good, relatable villains: bad” kind of mindset. They can all be good movies at the end of the day.
Couldn't get enough of Jack Horner. With almost every scene they gave him a chance to redeem himself but he became nothing but more spiteful and ungrateful. It's true. When was the last time Disney enjoy making such a badnik?
the more annoying he is, the more i love to watch more of him.
The situation with Jack is a beautiful one. When you have a simple character you have room to do more with them, whereas if you have a complex character you end up only having a few paths for that character to go on. There's different situations where either is better but the media is filled with complex characters that are done wrong and put in the wrong situation and as a result they flop. This is why I've always loved DreamWorks because they know how to do character types and where they belong, and the movies thrive because of that.
The whole movie is great
Funny funny villain
A huge issue is we were oversaturated with the sympathic villain, so having an actually bad guy now is refreshing
Underated RUclipsr fs new sub rn
Awesome video man! Very concise and well structured. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 👍🏾
underated youtuber
Agreed
@@rafezap well of course you agree, lol
I loved Jack because there's no ambiguity about him. Internet writing guides would tell you that a villain "NEEDS" to be a misunderstood antihero with a motivation so believable, they make the hero look bad by comparison. I love that Jack doesn't play around. He's not a misunderstood outcast who might've gotten better if given a chance, he's not a philosopher that's gonna debate the moral relativism of his actions, he's not a twist villain who just has a big reveal at the end effectively making his screentime a few minutes. He's just gonna shoot a puppy. Yeah, in the face, why?
another take would be :jack horner is entertaining not because he is just pure evil.... he is the comic relief, and it works because he is purposely a "one note" character just to counterbalance the other character that had deep emotional archs.
This. Jack Horner would be awfully boring in most movies. It works here because it's played for comedy. If it was played seriously, it wouldnt be as entertaining.
“Don’t you know I’m already dead inside?” -Jack Horner 2022
I think it's kinda great to see a villain who's just an irredeemable asshole. No sympathetic traits. No backstory that makes it okay that he is like this. No goals that justify his actions. No attempts to say that he's just misunderstood. No claims that he means well. No hints of him being good on the inside. He's just evil, through and through.
And, on top of what a great villain he is, he's hilarious!
I just love his face and design the way he emotes is hilarious
You either want him dead for being evil or want him alive to see more of him.
I wanna see a movie where the villain's death IS their redemption
actually i like what u said about trying to redeem the villain just so the protagonist just wont kill them off or smth like in raya or steven universe,
Jack Horner is FUN. All his jokes land, he improves the movie and his interactions with the other characters offer a lot of great moments
What shocked me is how many people just brutally die because of this guy.
I went to the cinema to watch Avatar 2 with my father, but there was only one place left, so I let my father take it because he's the one who wanted to see it in the first place.
I went to watch Puss In Boots instead because there was nothing that interested me. And I was just expecting a boring kids movie.
Needless to say, I was blown away by this entire movie, and the brutal deaths caught me so off guard. I was shocked to see this because I didn't expect it at all.
Honestly, I think the problem started with the smash hit of the musical "Wicked", which gave the wicked witch of the west a sympathetic backstory. Then disney tried to capture that same success for themselves. First with books giving their villans more backstory, then with the movie "Maleficent".
I don’t really know why this is my most popular video but I hope people realize that most of my content has improved from this.
his theme, is wonderful, sounds like a crash bandicoot theme fr
Steven did have villains who wouldn't be saved.. White Diamond was a special case, she was so out of Steven's power class that getting her to see reason was Steven's only real option!
One of my favourite villian tropes is the villian that understands and maybe even respects the hero, but cant abandon his own fate and has to rely on the hero to be the "better person" while still being pitted against him by his cicumstance and convictions. Not entirely evil, but no chance of switching to the heros side either
So Punisher working with Batman, which still puts him at odds with Batman due to their conflicting ideologies. The way you laid it out feels like an Anti-hero working alongside a hero, like Deadpool teaming up with Spiderman (who was forced to restrain him to prevent murder)
@@manicoasis4200 yeah. But mostly i had the older versions of red hood in mind. Or azrael. He became pretty brutal while he covered for batman. I know those dont fit the trope completely, but i still enjoy them
Okay so i could write a essay on why Jack works but the short of it is
He is fun, he isnt evil because of some half assed reason, or some systematic problem or truma. He is just evil because he is evil, that and hes voice actor did such a good job.
Just subbed hehe
Is no one gonna mention about his design? Abnormally big dude with funny face expressions
Jack's scenes are all so funny. Especially the ones with the grasshopper. The idea of a grasshopper who is supposed to be someone's guiding voice, and is supposed to help people be better. And partner him with a purely evil guy with no redeeming qualitiesm
I feel like anime played a part in the redeemable villain too
😂The most Hilarious when Steven ask jack honer Steven: y you know what jack
Jack honer: Again with this kid
5:12 Megamind crying in the corner RN
A rule when writing a villain...focus first on the character in the story itself, do what speaks to you as a villain, the interesting part will follow as character is developed. Your focus shouldn't be on "what abstract thing do we want to show today" cause you need something solid a hero can point the blade at and proclaim is wrong, you can't do that with say... "generational trauma" as the villain jack horner is satisfying as a villain partly due to the fact that he is just an unredeemable a hole, mostly in his over the top nature,but the other "villains" in puss and boots the last wish also give him meaning as a villain. The undertone for the whole movie is being able to accept what you have and be happy with it, and from puss to goldie to jack they are all on a spectrum of this one lesson
Villains have to be likable in a way that the audience loves when they are on screen as without them there is no story, but you have to be able to reoot against them, redeemable villains aren't bad but they need to be very specifc to make that ending satisfying, they need an added element of making sure their crimes are forgivable, it's not just "do you like them" in raya lets be honest the crimes were not forgivable. And that whole movie suffered this toxic "you need to trust" message it was bs
Jack horner also is the edp of the paleo community.
Wait your talking about the fairy tale jack horner.
The movie had all 3 villain tropes in one. The good/neutral villain in Death. Sure he was after PoB's life, but he wasn't evil. Just very annoyed with PoB throwing his lives away and wanting to get rid of an arrogant prick. When the arrogance and lack of appreciation for life disappeared, Death left him alone again. Then there's the redeemable villain in Goldi Locks and the three bears. They were certainly not good, but didn't have truly bad intentions either. And then just straight up the evil moustache twirling villain in Jack Horner.
And him just being played as straight up, obviously, unapologetically, proudly, a villain was exactly what the movie needed. (Was also a nice choice to make the good villain the scariest one)
I guess the only villain missing was the twist villain. But it's imo the least interesting of the bunch.
In the current year, I've completed a short fantasy novel. 12 pages, 6 or less pages a chapter. Meant to be part of an anthology. Anyway, the main plot of the short novel is a duel between a knight commander and an ogre warlord. The warlord is the current main character of the story, but will be the villain of the next. His overall motivations are just what you'd expect from an ogre warlord; power, resources, and glory. And he relies on brute force and intimidation to achieve them.
However, I've spent the prologue talking about who ogres are, why they do the things they do, and explained their cultural philosophy which is a more extreme form of Darwinism. The intent was to provide some complexity to such a simple character.
A redemtion or complex villan is good but the occonal chaotic evil villan that gives no fucks and just uses others and kill others for.his own amusment or benifit imo is my faviorte type of villan because you can do plenty with that sort of villan make them a menace or a bit of a joke character or something that can make your skin crawl
The guy just likes being evil, I can respect that.
I just love pure evil!!!
❤😈❤😈
It just must be a shift in culture again. One decade people hate Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains and want them to be more complex. The next decade, people get exhausted of all the complex villains and just wish they were as simple as a Saturday morning Cartoon villain.
A movie only about Jack Horner would be like Despicable Me, but he kills Vector in the end
He is so fun to watch because he is evil, he knows it and he does not care, he is just enjoying himself and we get to be along for the ride until we see him crash and burn
I would like to say something that i heard somewhete else that i agree with.
Steven from future, would not try to redeem jack.
Steven doesn't have to have a villain that he has to try to or try not to redeem in order to see that.
But yeah, main show steven would be trying to do that.
1:34 - 2:50 You should see the mess of a show called "once upon a time" Villains who have done unspeakable things getting off Scott free with an express pass to redemption where as more actually sympathetic ones are unceremoniously killed off with not an attempt at redemption, is also a very long show so before you give it a try cancel a few months to binge the 7 seasons ;p
Now, that's a name I haven't heard in a long long time. I watched all 7 seasons. It was hilarious.
Jack Horner is anything but pretentious. He also isnt stupid and the way he lost was actually a tight call. He used so many resources and proved to be witty. While being so super confident and competent.
The little lore about him just wanting all the magic cuz he was just a "normal" boy rounds his motivation.
1:33 - 1:59 - " " just saving this for later
To be fair, everything gets old if you keep doing it enough
Also, there are a few villains that Steven never really gotten them to be friends with him
the villains of the movie are done so well. Jack Horner is evil for the sake of evil. a privileged boy who has power and a thirst for more, paired with his comical design, John Mullaney, and some fun evil dialogue and you got yourself one entertaining villain. and I love that goldilocks wasn't really redeemed, she and her family are still evil and villains, but they are just working with puss in that end moment cause if they didn't need the wish, jack doesn't either and I love how they go right back to evil shit afterwards. and Death, he's just a man who's upset with a cat wasting their lives away when everyone else gets one, he's a threat untill puss values his last life and at that point, the thing Death was so upset about is gone, he has no need to kill puss. it's an amazing movie all around
real
Have you examined Goro yet?
I suppose I can understand the perspective of wanting to see a simple one-dimensional villain after so many films failed to produce interesting and complex villains. But god damn did I fucking *hate* Jack Horner. He was always either obnoxious or infuriating. He alone bumped the film down from a 7/10 to a 6/10 in my book, and might even reduce it to a 5/10, because I can't think about this movie anymore without being reminded of the fact that everyone except me loves this guy.
What I like with these blatantly evil characters is that rather than rambling about "how everyone has a little good in them", they leave the message that some people are just that, irredeemable and not worth your time
Isn't he a composer of movie music?
john mulaney did everything right as a voice actor here.
Why is no one giving john mulaney credit? don’t get me wrong the character is very well written, but I think we can all agree johns delivery and natural comedic talent (standup comedian/ voice actor) definitely made Jack memorable. If it was a shit voice actor things would definitely be different.
5:13
Megamind
Villainous
Villainous is a good example
If Disney buys DreamWorks they'll make a live action Jack Horner movie where we learn he's actually a good guy and it's Puss and Kitty who are evil and especially Perrito who is the worst person ever
thats boris johnson to the rest of the world
Jack Horner is just the stereotypical over-the-top big bad villains. But it’s the best possible way.
There’s 3 villains in puss in boots the last wish.
Goldilocks: the sympathetic villain/crime family.
‘Big’ Jack Horner: over-the-top evil villain.
Death: malignant force hunting down the antagonist.
Jack Horner is the villain that's evil, for the SAKE of being evil! Narcissistic, Sociopathic, and just plain DOESN'T GIVE DARN! He's not the same redeemable villain, which is now a Done-To-Death movie troupe! He balances out Puss, Kitty and Perrito, though not completely good (like Perrito), or have a reason, (like Goldie). He just IS!
Because people are evil too, but I don't, I enjoy the movies for the entertainment.
Sympathetic villains are getting tiresome. I want a villain who's so evil, they would straight up invent a new form of cancer just because they're bored. Jack Horner fills that role perfectly.
I actually liked the villian in zootopia
At 1:35 I blame Steven Universe for starting this shitty trend
but why did they make him look like Oliver Tree😭
I feel the reason that Disney villains are less interesting is that they are "bad" so xhildren should not find then interesting, after all, children might decide they like ... Gasp... The wrong character. Also, villains must vye simple and not sympathetic if possible, because again, you are not supposed to like the bad guy or let them take the attention from the good guys.
I write stories
Nothing has been published but i hope to change that once i improve some more
But ive written a lot of villains in this world ive built
Around 15 or 20, id have to count
A wopping total of 4 are redeemable and only one got a semi redemption
Evil exists
Evil people exist
Last i checked Stalin, Ceasar, Hitler, and other real world evil people never got their redemption
Can you imagine Hitler dying a respected leatherworker or some shit
Ja i uzed to hate da judez but i have turned a new leaf
It aint gonna happen lol
Evil man is evil
Not saying villains cant be redeemed but for gods sake stop pretending everyone has good in them
Theres nothing wrong with a bad guy thats bad for the sake of being bad
Steven Universe has no sense of proportion.
Ironically jack did kinda get the wish by being consumed by the star he has all the magic in the world
Jack Horner reminds me of Donald J Trump. Maybe the people on the right are the ones who love the, Jack Horner character.
Trump at least gives a damn about people, unlike Horner who only cares about power.
Trump had the option to invade other countries, but passed up the opportunity due to projected losses.
Love or hate the orange man he isn't an irredeemable monster.