Thanos and Loki are probably the perfect examples of the 2 sides of the coin that represent this exactly in its ideal form. Thanos is a masterclass in how to write an unredeemable pure evil villain that is understandable, while Loki is pretty much the masterclass in a concept called an anti-villain, who are by nature meant to be potentially redeemable. But the thing about them is you have to understand there is, as thanos would say, a balance you have to strike, primarily, they have to be fundamentally wrong in some facet as to how they work, this could either be their approach or their goals. Doom will be an interesting case when it comes out cause in the Comics, he's literally a case of the former of these flaws, as put by the god of Wakanda, what he does is absolutely vile and often unforgivable, but his heart and motivations are in the right place.
I think loki was handled well in the mcu. He was very petty and was straight up evil in the first few movies up intill Ragnarok, only then when his father died, his pride shredded and home destroyed he was willing to be more kind and stay good, then he died. And in loki it took seeing his future, the full death of his pride and individually and the whole f@#$ing show to turn him in to a hero. Loki was a chaotic evil character that went through the ringer to become a good person.
While not a super hero movie, puss in boots the last wish does this well with having more than one villain. One who is redeemable and one who isn’t and one who is more of a force of nature. That’s Goldilocks and the three bears, jack horner, and death respectively.
Like most things, variety is a good thing. Give me villain more than 1 way. Ill take sympathetic and redeemable, unredeemable monsters and sympathetic but unredeemable.
I feel like they sort of tried to make Thanos sympathetic but unredeemable in the movies but the fact that they tried to redeem him in the comics was kind of stupid cause in the comics Thanos should have been unsympathetic and unredeemable
I'd argue unsympathetic and redeemable villains could also be good. A Villain who their entire life were evil, and only after they start the path of redemption do they gain the traits that would make them redeemed in the first place. Their unwarranted Narcissm spreads to make them care about others, as it effects their own image and the like. They can even still not be great people just working for the greater good in the end.
That's why Frieza is a good villian, he's evil for the sake of it being fun. He finds chaos amusing, suffering entertaining and hearing the screams of people a symphony to his ears
Not really these characters are simple and pretty two dimensional i would say he was a bad villain adding moral ambiguity to the characters make them interesting and provides better moral arguments. Just because your character isn't completely evil he doesn't necessarily deserve redemption there are things you can't redeem things you simply must pay for that's what makes a good villain
Completely true, but then take Buu into account and you have another amazing villian who is just a victim of circumstance. Both can be good ways to write, just need a balance
I like a villain redemption arc as much as the next guy but not every villain needs it, they also don't need some tragic sad backstory that will make me feel sad when they lose. Sometimes a bad guy can just be a bad guy, there are people out there who do terrible things just because they want to or they like it
Some villains should be irredeemable and some shouldn’t In my opinion, all villains should have a reason they turned out the way they are, but not all their reasons should be completely valid. Like Loki for example. He’s misunderstood, and him being a redeemable villain makes sense. Agatha, on the other hand, is kept irredeemable. Even though she has a reason for being a villain, it doesn’t justify her actions
I like when my villains have relatable qualities, it allows them to show how good intentions can very VERY easily go wrong, and how even good people can do the most evil things.
Fair, but also I dont think anyone is saying to have no relatable villains just that variety is nice im stories and characters. Doing the same thing gets stale no matter how good it is.
@@KingFateThe1stThat would be bad too if all villains were evil. It’s best to have a mix of both Joker like suffering and Mr.Freeze is a villain to save his wife.
@luutio9000 I didn't say it was good but having every villain turn good or have a sad backstory to humanise them and having them all think their good is sometimes boring and some are good at just being evil
@Bingchilling203 then make them psychos, loyal to no one, dont give them this weird moral compass where they still love some people, look at comic thanos, he's a horrible person that hates everyone but loves death, makes no sense in my opinion, if they are going to be evil for pretty mutch nothing i feel that would work, look at makarov from cod or micah from rdr2 they work and they just want to see the world burn because they love no one
There are lots of ways to make good villains. Sometimes you can have a villain who is absolutely evil just for the sake of being evil, but people aren't typically like that. You have to make them seem like a genuinely twisted individual, or else it just gets cartoonish. Sometimes you can have circumstantial villains, who do things they know is wrong because they don't have a choice, or they at least believe they don't. These villains really rely on the writing to not seem like idiots, unless they are meant to. It sucks having some villains going out of their way to solve a problem in the worst way possible. My personal favorite are the spiraling villains. The kind of people who undergo some trauma, and are pushed to do bad things because of their own weaknesses. You know WHY they turn out the way they did, but you don't have to forgive them for it. Though, you really have to lean into the villains flaws in order for it to work.
I like the idea of a villain that has never EVER lost a fight, and wins all the time. This allows his ego to go through the roof, and exponentially increase. This villain would be the embodiment of the fantasy of never losing. I think that this representation of this fantasy would make a completely evil character relatable in some way, as everyone wants to never lose, and seeing him lose would make us realize that no one can always win.
I think a mix is the way to go. If you are following a series for a long a time or since childhood it gets boring just seeing villains getting punched. But give some of them a redemption arc or a relatable backstory makes you empathize and grow with the characters.
It’s nice to have characters that are redeemable and characters like thanod where they are wrong but you also understand how they came to that conclusion and why they are doing what they are doing. But I also like watch the absolute worst person ever just get absolutely destroyed at the end
There needs to be a mix. If every villain is redeemed it gets boring, but if every villain is pure evil, then there’s nothing for people to latch onto.
You need to have your Jokers and your Mr. Freezes. Your Red Skulls and your Winter Soldiers. Your Green Goblins and your Lizards. And even then, a lot of those can be written in ways where they can be either irredeemable or relatable. But a mix is needed.
i think it truly is character dependent because sometimes they just completely change the character to make them a good guy. if it doesn’t fit the character, don’t do it. and a character should be written with the thought of redemption from the start, shouldn’t change afterwards(with some flexibility on that)
Its because EVERY Villain now needs some “relatable” backstory. Its tired and “lazy”. Sometimes i just wanna see a bad guy get his shit clapped and for him to just be that. Its just as real as a “relatable” baddie.
The thing that is important with this is balance, villains are often written the best when their sympathetic but constantly only having sympathetic villains makes it predictable and makes the viewer less sympathetic towards the villain, it's like syndrome in the Incredibles says, with everyone super no one is you can't have too much of either
It depends on the villain. Like Hela, Dormamu, Knull and some others should be irredeemable but it is also refreshing to have people like Loki who go from a villain to a protagonist
The thing is, first they were all flat out evil, then all flat out "oh, they're just misunderstood" and we didn't get enough variety and get tired of the same thing over and over
Evil for the sake of evil is not bad. For every ray of hope in the world, there needs to be an equal if not greater darkness to balance the world and remind, not just the hero, but the reader why the hero chose to be a hero
The villain should fit the story line or vise versa if a villain wants to destroy the world they should be unredeemable, but if they're trying to do something maybe unethical, but not ultimately damaging they can be empathetic and relatable
For comics it makes sense, villains have to keep coming back. So to do that, they're written as a sort of lucifer character, they can be redeemed but many of them simply choose not to be. In movies, however, it doesnt work. Mostly because almost every villain is a one off, meaning they dont need to be redeemed simply because theyre going to die/go to prison anyways.
That’s because nowadays villains aren’t ever just evil. They always have to be misunderstood or some morally great character. Sometimes we just want an evil guy to be evil for the sake of being evil.
The best villains are the ones who are in their current state irredeemable due to an unforgivable act, but ended up that way because of tragic backstories in which they lost everything.
The thing that a for a villain to be good, they need a good reason, and if they have a good reason than you somewhat agree with them. Thanoses planet was destroyed by over population, which led to chaos. So you understand why he wants to kill half of all people. If you don’t give someone a good reason, like “I hate the world, I wanna see it burn” no one’s gonna like that. If they have a reason, then they’ll be seen as too redeemed. So it creates a paradox for the writers.
I like silly villains but I also like when my silly villains are real mean sometimes but then there are some scenes where their feelings get shown that's cool I love Zemo and Ultron, of course Ultron doesn't have actual feelings, but he has good reasoning like Zemo!
In the ways of Thanos, Balance is key. You need to make sure the villain is irredeemable so that we are happy when they fail but also give them depth so that they aren't one-note characters.
The problem is that they only focus on making them relatable and sympathetic and not occasionally doing it and then other times just having them be pure evil it probably also doesn't help that they usually kill the villain in the same movie
The problem is that we need variety. We don’t need every villain to be completely evil and we don’t need every villain to be completely relatable. Some like Thanos, Darkseid, and Frieza just need to be evil
The only characters i like the redemption for is Venom, Loki, Magneto, and in some cases doc ock. They make the most sense In real mythology loki is actually the most tolerable of the gods, his mistreatment lead him down the path. Symbiotes arent evil. They just want a perfect bond. The venom symbiote just so happened to be a match with someone who hated its previous host as much as it dud. The toxic relationship feeds off each other. Magneto is whole heartedly just trying to save his people. His way might not be the right way but thats not his probem, its the problem of those who harmed him.
Personally, as someone who has to make villains for say DnD campaigns I run. I like to mix this slightly, I make villains who are genuinely evil and not redeemable, but give them a purpose that makes the party pause about the morality. Like a villain who wants to blot out the sun to create an eternal winter that will kill most, but their reasoning for it is they wanted to marry a woman of a different class and was arrested for it while she was taken away so he wants to force the world into a state of survival where the difference of class is eliminated in the face of necessary survival.
I think I speak for most ppl when I say being a redeemable villain isn’t the problem the problem is that shows and movies nowadays think it’s a requirement for us to be thinking is there a good guy in this fight as the hero and villain have causes I believe in
I like the stories where it's like hey the heros and villains are going towards the same goal like trying to make the world a better place they are just going about it the way they think is best and since the villains don't mind harming or killing people in their way to get their goal complete it's wrong like Naruto villains most wanted world peace but they just went about it wrong
When are writers gonna learn that too much of a good thing turns it into a bad thing? Like for the Thor films, people liked some of the humor so they made Love and Thunder 80% gag and everyone hated it. Everything in moderation, seriously.
Puss In Boots the last wish is the best example of having almost every kind of villain. You have an irredeemable villain (Jack), a misguided villain/anti-hero (Goldie and the bears), and a pure antagonist who is against the hero just to guide them through the story (Death). The issue with some shows and movies are when they write a blatantly horrible villain, but give them a sad and traumatic backstory to explain their behavior and that somehow makes it okay
Magneto is the perfect example of a redeemable character. You still want the x-men to win but you can’t blame magneto for wanting to eliminate the people that caused him so much pain.
I think there should be a mix, and it should make sense character wise. Say, someone like Loki shouldn’t be absolutely evil, because after all Loki is just a god of mischief and trickery. Meanwhile, others like say Ultron can be absolutely evil because they have no human soul and mind and have defied the purpose they were created for.
But that's like saying that if a bad guy can't help out good guys. It's more like saying all demons are, but some of them are misunderstood. It would be saying all angles are good, and none of them have a different plan.
This isn’t Stan Lee’s plan backfiring, it’s people just getting tired of an overuse trope. That doesn’t mean his plan “backfired” because it created some really good movies. It’s just people craving something new, like they always do.
There’s always a mix needed
The redeemability has to match the crimes, like, you can't have someone wipe out half the universe and expect sympathy for them... Oh wait-
"Perfectly Balanced,as all things should be
Agreed. I want a redemption arc but also an actual evil villain. Inuyasha does this well
@@obamaijdo exactly what I'm looking for
Thanos and Loki are probably the perfect examples of the 2 sides of the coin that represent this exactly in its ideal form. Thanos is a masterclass in how to write an unredeemable pure evil villain that is understandable, while Loki is pretty much the masterclass in a concept called an anti-villain, who are by nature meant to be potentially redeemable. But the thing about them is you have to understand there is, as thanos would say, a balance you have to strike, primarily, they have to be fundamentally wrong in some facet as to how they work, this could either be their approach or their goals. Doom will be an interesting case when it comes out cause in the Comics, he's literally a case of the former of these flaws, as put by the god of Wakanda, what he does is absolutely vile and often unforgivable, but his heart and motivations are in the right place.
Loki makes sense because he’s not really evil just a god of trickery
Literally in myth he isn’t even just a bit of a jackass
@@BlackShadow01-05Yeah, he legit gets someone killed for shits and giggles lmao.
I think loki was handled well in the mcu. He was very petty and was straight up evil in the first few movies up intill Ragnarok, only then when his father died, his pride shredded and home destroyed he was willing to be more kind and stay good, then he died. And in loki it took seeing his future, the full death of his pride and individually and the whole f@#$ing show to turn him in to a hero. Loki was a chaotic evil character that went through the ringer to become a good person.
It’s also somewhat implied he was being mind controlled
@ atleast in 2012
There should be a mix between irredeemable monsters, and flawed individuals capable of changing
I like to think of it as understandable if not forgivable
Yeah, I want another completely unredeemable villain as the next big bad.
I love Loki but I also love the high evolutionary, we need both kinds of villains
Don’t forget the flawed individual that’s still irredeemable
While not a super hero movie, puss in boots the last wish does this well with having more than one villain. One who is redeemable and one who isn’t and one who is more of a force of nature. That’s Goldilocks and the three bears, jack horner, and death respectively.
Like most things, variety is a good thing. Give me villain more than 1 way. Ill take sympathetic and redeemable, unredeemable monsters and sympathetic but unredeemable.
I feel like they sort of tried to make Thanos sympathetic but unredeemable in the movies but the fact that they tried to redeem him in the comics was kind of stupid cause in the comics Thanos should have been unsympathetic and unredeemable
I'd argue unsympathetic and redeemable villains could also be good. A Villain who their entire life were evil, and only after they start the path of redemption do they gain the traits that would make them redeemed in the first place. Their unwarranted Narcissm spreads to make them care about others, as it effects their own image and the like. They can even still not be great people just working for the greater good in the end.
That's why Frieza is a good villian, he's evil for the sake of it being fun. He finds chaos amusing, suffering entertaining and hearing the screams of people a symphony to his ears
"imma deck you in the schnoz" -best Goku
Not really these characters are simple and pretty two dimensional i would say he was a bad villain adding moral ambiguity to the characters make them interesting and provides better moral arguments. Just because your character isn't completely evil he doesn't necessarily deserve redemption there are things you can't redeem things you simply must pay for that's what makes a good villain
That honestly sounds really boring and no different from the joker.
Completely true, but then take Buu into account and you have another amazing villian who is just a victim of circumstance. Both can be good ways to write, just need a balance
@@TheBoyFromAngelsEggyou say that as if joker is a bad villian
I like a villain redemption arc as much as the next guy but not every villain needs it, they also don't need some tragic sad backstory that will make me feel sad when they lose. Sometimes a bad guy can just be a bad guy, there are people out there who do terrible things just because they want to or they like it
Thats why The High Evolutionary was such a nice breath of fresh air, and was just an absolutely incredible villain
Some villains should be irredeemable and some shouldn’t
In my opinion, all villains should have a reason they turned out the way they are, but not all their reasons should be completely valid. Like Loki for example. He’s misunderstood, and him being a redeemable villain makes sense. Agatha, on the other hand, is kept irredeemable. Even though she has a reason for being a villain, it doesn’t justify her actions
I think it’s because we are too much of it, but I still do love the idea to have a villain that’s complex.
There's a difference between relatable and redeemable and that's where people get confused
I like when my villains have relatable qualities, it allows them to show how good intentions can very VERY easily go wrong, and how even good people can do the most evil things.
Fair, but also I dont think anyone is saying to have no relatable villains just that variety is nice im stories and characters. Doing the same thing gets stale no matter how good it is.
What about Heath ledger joker? Should he have been more relatable?
Villans dont need to be good there needs to be a reason for the villan to think they are good
No there doesn't they could just like being evil
@@KingFateThe1stThat would be bad too if all villains were evil. It’s best to have a mix of both Joker like suffering and Mr.Freeze is a villain to save his wife.
@S4v4gedragon1 I didn't mean all I just meant some because it sounded like u wanted all villains think there good
@@KingFateThe1st Being evil just for the sake of being evil isnt good.
@luutio9000 I didn't say it was good but having every villain turn good or have a sad backstory to humanise them and having them all think their good is sometimes boring and some are good at just being evil
RIP Stan Lee
"SO WTF DO YOU WANT!!!"
Stan Lee said calmly
The general consensus I gathered from this is you can’t please anyone so just do what you want.
Villains need to be relatable. Very few can just be pure evil for no reason. The exploration of the “why” of villains is necessary for good writing
I didn’t even know this voice was ai until right now
It wasn’t some scum are talking it
it's not ai
Another channel is using it . And based off your reaction they prolly stole it@@SpecularStudio
Its ai bro@SpecularStudio
Probably voice changer + text to speech + written script.
I like the villains being evil for a reason not just for the sake of it, thanos and loki are 10/10 villains
but “some people just want to watch the world burn”
@Bingchilling203 then make them psychos, loyal to no one, dont give them this weird moral compass where they still love some people, look at comic thanos, he's a horrible person that hates everyone but loves death, makes no sense in my opinion, if they are going to be evil for pretty mutch nothing i feel that would work, look at makarov from cod or micah from rdr2 they work and they just want to see the world burn because they love no one
There’s always a happy medium. Having all one or all the other gets old after a while
There are lots of ways to make good villains.
Sometimes you can have a villain who is absolutely evil just for the sake of being evil, but people aren't typically like that. You have to make them seem like a genuinely twisted individual, or else it just gets cartoonish.
Sometimes you can have circumstantial villains, who do things they know is wrong because they don't have a choice, or they at least believe they don't. These villains really rely on the writing to not seem like idiots, unless they are meant to. It sucks having some villains going out of their way to solve a problem in the worst way possible.
My personal favorite are the spiraling villains. The kind of people who undergo some trauma, and are pushed to do bad things because of their own weaknesses. You know WHY they turn out the way they did, but you don't have to forgive them for it. Though, you really have to lean into the villains flaws in order for it to work.
I like when villains believe they are doing good but their deeds aren’t.
I like the idea of a villain that has never EVER lost a fight, and wins all the time. This allows his ego to go through the roof, and exponentially increase. This villain would be the embodiment of the fantasy of never losing. I think that this representation of this fantasy would make a completely evil character relatable in some way, as everyone wants to never lose, and seeing him lose would make us realize that no one can always win.
Dr. Doom being a better person than Reed: what am I? Chopped liver?
I think there should be a mix where some are completely evil and some you can relate and could be redeemed
I think a mix is the way to go. If you are following a series for a long a time or since childhood it gets boring just seeing villains getting punched. But give some of them a redemption arc or a relatable backstory makes you empathize and grow with the characters.
There is a difference between a villian being relatable and redeemable
It’s nice to have characters that are redeemable and characters like thanod where they are wrong but you also understand how they came to that conclusion and why they are doing what they are doing. But I also like watch the absolute worst person ever just get absolutely destroyed at the end
There needs to be a mix. If every villain is redeemed it gets boring, but if every villain is pure evil, then there’s nothing for people to latch onto.
You need to have your Jokers and your Mr. Freezes. Your Red Skulls and your Winter Soldiers. Your Green Goblins and your Lizards. And even then, a lot of those can be written in ways where they can be either irredeemable or relatable. But a mix is needed.
I usually prefer villains who are evil not just for the sake of being evil but ones you can understand why they are.
I hope they does absolute cinema cooking with both avengers
i think it truly is character dependent because sometimes they just completely change the character to make them a good guy. if it doesn’t fit the character, don’t do it. and a character should be written with the thought of redemption from the start, shouldn’t change afterwards(with some flexibility on that)
Its because EVERY Villain now needs some “relatable” backstory. Its tired and “lazy”. Sometimes i just wanna see a bad guy get his shit clapped and for him to just be that. Its just as real as a “relatable” baddie.
" Perfectly balanced, as all things should be "
Reader's opinions differ from television viewer's opinions
I think the rule should be that there needs to be a balance. Not all villains need to be the same
No matter what you do, people will always complain. Humans kind of suck
I think it should be perfectly balance, as all the things should be
You can't please everyone. People will always complain about anything.
There's gotta be a mix, every villian has to be significantly different from the rest in a lot of things to be memorable and very enjoyable
no matter what you do, there'll always be some nerd that complains.
Yup. When was the last time we actually had a purely villainous villain.
Personally I love both villain archetypes I just think there needs to be a balance between
The thing that is important with this is balance, villains are often written the best when their sympathetic but constantly only having sympathetic villains makes it predictable and makes the viewer less sympathetic towards the villain, it's like syndrome in the Incredibles says, with everyone super no one is you can't have too much of either
It depends on the villain. Like Hela, Dormamu, Knull and some others should be irredeemable but it is also refreshing to have people like Loki who go from a villain to a protagonist
The thing is, first they were all flat out evil, then all flat out "oh, they're just misunderstood" and we didn't get enough variety and get tired of the same thing over and over
Gotta have a balance of both not one extreem or the other
it needs to strike a balance, they need to have understandable motivations but be flawed with their outlook
I miss when villains were just villains. Every single villain now is just misunderstood
Evil for the sake of evil is not bad. For every ray of hope in the world, there needs to be an equal if not greater darkness to balance the world and remind, not just the hero, but the reader why the hero chose to be a hero
we have to have some of both people just want the right balance
I js want a bad guy to be like “Lol I’m evil”
The villain should fit the story line or vise versa if a villain wants to destroy the world they should be unredeemable, but if they're trying to do something maybe unethical, but not ultimately damaging they can be empathetic and relatable
"Watching the villains losing is fun to watch" Sent me😭 so Relatible🥲
We need both for a good balance
Part of green goblins quote easily explains what the viewers want for the villains, fail, fall, die trying
It's a pendulum. Once they do either or too many times than the audience will want the other.
Its called having a balance. Something studios have a hard time understanding
"As all things should be"
They should have a balance, someone sympathetic villains like Spider-Man 2 Doc Ock and some really evil ones like Red Skull
For comics it makes sense, villains have to keep coming back. So to do that, they're written as a sort of lucifer character, they can be redeemed but many of them simply choose not to be.
In movies, however, it doesnt work. Mostly because almost every villain is a one off, meaning they dont need to be redeemed simply because theyre going to die/go to prison anyways.
Damned If you do damned if you don't
That’s because nowadays villains aren’t ever just evil. They always have to be misunderstood or some morally great character. Sometimes we just want an evil guy to be evil for the sake of being evil.
Loki made sense to be redeemable. Thanos should've stayed irredeemable same with gorr
I agree to a point some villains need to be totally evil no emotion just evil
Definitely just needs both
Breaking bad this were you actually cried when a cerial killer/meth cook dies
"Stan Lee used to have a golden rule for villains in the MCU but 55 years later, it backfired."
That sentence makes no sense.
The best villains are the ones who are in their current state irredeemable due to an unforgivable act, but ended up that way because of tragic backstories in which they lost everything.
Too much of both is a lot there should be a perfect mix of both
The thing that a for a villain to be good, they need a good reason, and if they have a good reason than you somewhat agree with them. Thanoses planet was destroyed by over population, which led to chaos. So you understand why he wants to kill half of all people. If you don’t give someone a good reason, like “I hate the world, I wanna see it burn” no one’s gonna like that. If they have a reason, then they’ll be seen as too redeemed. So it creates a paradox for the writers.
i dont mind irredeemable villains and i enjoy (good) empathetic and redeemable villains, we need to strike a balance
I like silly villains but I also like when my silly villains are real mean sometimes but then there are some scenes where their feelings get shown that's cool
I love Zemo and Ultron, of course Ultron doesn't have actual feelings, but he has good reasoning like Zemo!
In the ways of Thanos, Balance is key. You need to make sure the villain is irredeemable so that we are happy when they fail but also give them depth so that they aren't one-note characters.
That's true. People like Thanos and Gorr the god butcher shouldn't be redeemable
The problem is that they only focus on making them relatable and sympathetic and not occasionally doing it and then other times just having them be pure evil it probably also doesn't help that they usually kill the villain in the same movie
The problem is that we need variety. We don’t need every villain to be completely evil and we don’t need every villain to be completely relatable. Some like Thanos, Darkseid, and Frieza just need to be evil
compelling motivations are how to solve this, yeah give them an understandable motive but make they go too far with it, that's what evil is
The only characters i like the redemption for is Venom, Loki, Magneto, and in some cases doc ock. They make the most sense
In real mythology loki is actually the most tolerable of the gods, his mistreatment lead him down the path.
Symbiotes arent evil. They just want a perfect bond. The venom symbiote just so happened to be a match with someone who hated its previous host as much as it dud. The toxic relationship feeds off each other.
Magneto is whole heartedly just trying to save his people. His way might not be the right way but thats not his probem, its the problem of those who harmed him.
Nah because Magento legit tried to harm humans that did nothing to him. He uses his status as a victim to justify every misdeed he commits.
Can we PLEASE get just one more villain who is an absolute bastard
That’s why you should have both types. Have some redeemable villains and some pure evil villains.
My personal stance is it depends on the story but that there is a lack of pure evil villains
Personally, as someone who has to make villains for say DnD campaigns I run. I like to mix this slightly, I make villains who are genuinely evil and not redeemable, but give them a purpose that makes the party pause about the morality. Like a villain who wants to blot out the sun to create an eternal winter that will kill most, but their reasoning for it is they wanted to marry a woman of a different class and was arrested for it while she was taken away so he wants to force the world into a state of survival where the difference of class is eliminated in the face of necessary survival.
I think I speak for most ppl when I say being a redeemable villain isn’t the problem the problem is that shows and movies nowadays think it’s a requirement for us to be thinking is there a good guy in this fight as the hero and villain have causes I believe in
I like the stories where it's like hey the heros and villains are going towards the same goal like trying to make the world a better place they are just going about it the way they think is best and since the villains don't mind harming or killing people in their way to get their goal complete it's wrong like Naruto villains most wanted world peace but they just went about it wrong
There needs to be a healthy balance, and yes, there are faaaaar too many "misunderstood" villains nowadays.
When are writers gonna learn that too much of a good thing turns it into a bad thing? Like for the Thor films, people liked some of the humor so they made Love and Thunder 80% gag and everyone hated it. Everything in moderation, seriously.
People will complain about anything man
If no one is absolutely evil there is no real good guys, there is a need of absolute evil and redeemable vilain in story
Puss In Boots the last wish is the best example of having almost every kind of villain. You have an irredeemable villain (Jack), a misguided villain/anti-hero (Goldie and the bears), and a pure antagonist who is against the hero just to guide them through the story (Death). The issue with some shows and movies are when they write a blatantly horrible villain, but give them a sad and traumatic backstory to explain their behavior and that somehow makes it okay
Magneto is the perfect example of a redeemable character. You still want the x-men to win but you can’t blame magneto for wanting to eliminate the people that caused him so much pain.
Its fine if they have a backstory and a consistent persona. Just don't try and flip them later.
Well I mean it does make sense because sympathetic villains sometimes feel like a cop out
They should be redeemable, but still terrible so we can hate them without feeling guilty
I actually prefer a villain to not be redeemable
I think there should be a mix, and it should make sense character wise.
Say, someone like Loki shouldn’t be absolutely evil, because after all Loki is just a god of mischief and trickery. Meanwhile, others like say Ultron can be absolutely evil because they have no human soul and mind and have defied the purpose they were created for.
But that's like saying that if a bad guy can't help out good guys. It's more like saying all demons are, but some of them are misunderstood. It would be saying all angles are good, and none of them have a different plan.
I agree but some people GOTTA just be monsters. I thought we were gonna get that with kang but Jonathan Majors had to go be a monster irl.
You need a mix, not every villain being completely evil and then being redeemed,
This isn’t Stan Lee’s plan backfiring, it’s people just getting tired of an overuse trope. That doesn’t mean his plan “backfired” because it created some really good movies. It’s just people craving something new, like they always do.
Its balance, too much of one will ruin it all