I need an example of a badly written antagonist...
- Thread starter triggrhappy94
- Start date
I know people will hate me for this, but Original Star Wars Trilogy Darth Vader. In the first film he's just a generic bad guy. Why is he evil? Because he just is. Empire Strikes Back got even more ridiculous when it turns out, in a dumb soap opera twist, Vader is lukes' father! And then we get return of the jedi, where he turns back to the light side and then dies. The only reason he's regarded as a good villain is that he's so intimidating. That is enough to carry the character though.
blizzard is good at bad antagonists; take arthas and kerrigan. blizzard has used unexplained mind control to excuse any and every word they say and action they commit. its never explained what exactly is "controlled" about them, how much they control themselves, and as both of them have apparently broken the mind control, why they are still comically evil.
arthas supposedly had a 5-year mind battle with the his evil half and won out on top, but is still trying to take over the world; speaking of which, is it ever explained WHY nerzhul, the other half of the lich king, wants to murder everyone with zombies? thats 2 poorly explained characters in one!
kerrigan is more or less the starcraft version of arthas; but kerrigan never even had a 'start of darkness' plot; they just went straight to the mind control. im dont remember clearly, but im pretty sure she said she planned to overthrow the overmind who possessed her...so she had her own desires that could only be expressed after the overmind died and she and the other zerg were free...but she is still a rampaging lunatic who constantly taunts and tries to kill her only friend (or lover according to the sequel). does she ENJOY leading the zerg? she resists the xel'naga macguffin that 'cures' her, so it certainly seems so, so why isnt that ever mentioned? betrayed by her allies, given a new role as leader of a dangerous and powerful alien race, she embraced that role; perfectly fine character motivation that is never used. and of course in the yet-to-be-released expansion, she is still leading the zerg despite being human again; a character development im sure will still go completely unexplained.
well there; mind control as a cheap plot device to explain any character development the writer deems necessary. hope that helps.
arthas supposedly had a 5-year mind battle with the his evil half and won out on top, but is still trying to take over the world; speaking of which, is it ever explained WHY nerzhul, the other half of the lich king, wants to murder everyone with zombies? thats 2 poorly explained characters in one!
kerrigan is more or less the starcraft version of arthas; but kerrigan never even had a 'start of darkness' plot; they just went straight to the mind control. im dont remember clearly, but im pretty sure she said she planned to overthrow the overmind who possessed her...so she had her own desires that could only be expressed after the overmind died and she and the other zerg were free...but she is still a rampaging lunatic who constantly taunts and tries to kill her only friend (or lover according to the sequel). does she ENJOY leading the zerg? she resists the xel'naga macguffin that 'cures' her, so it certainly seems so, so why isnt that ever mentioned? betrayed by her allies, given a new role as leader of a dangerous and powerful alien race, she embraced that role; perfectly fine character motivation that is never used. and of course in the yet-to-be-released expansion, she is still leading the zerg despite being human again; a character development im sure will still go completely unexplained.
well there; mind control as a cheap plot device to explain any character development the writer deems necessary. hope that helps.
Ummm that General guy from MW2
He betrays you and goes kill crazy with some private army he pulled out of his ass for no reason whatsoever. Maybe i need to replay it but i don't think it was ever properly explained. He just went into some semantics over the nature of war to cover up the fact that the writers couldn't think of an actual reason for his actions
Was still pretty entertaining, a "so bad it's good" type thing.
He betrays you and goes kill crazy with some private army he pulled out of his ass for no reason whatsoever. Maybe i need to replay it but i don't think it was ever properly explained. He just went into some semantics over the nature of war to cover up the fact that the writers couldn't think of an actual reason for his actions
Was still pretty entertaining, a "so bad it's good" type thing.
Lord Shen from Kung Fu Panda 2. (In the movie, at least.)
The movie never bothers to explain that his parents shunned him because of his albino coloring and poor health, so they left him to be raised by the Soothsayer.
THAT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING HIS MOTIVES, DREAMWORKS!
The movie never bothers to explain that his parents shunned him because of his albino coloring and poor health, so they left him to be raised by the Soothsayer.
THAT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING HIS MOTIVES, DREAMWORKS!
Doofenshmirtz has a motive for everything that he does. He even explains it in great detail (with charts!) every time he captures Perry.ScoopMeister said:This guy.
But that's what makes him so awesome.
Hans Gruber from Die Hard.
Don't get me wrong, he's very well acted, it's just that he has the worst robbery plan of all time. There is no reason for him to disguise this robbery as a terrorist attack. Literally, the only reason I can think for any sensible person to do this is to send a message to the world, and Hans Gruber has no message. He's just the evil German terrorist.
Don't get me wrong, he's very well acted, it's just that he has the worst robbery plan of all time. There is no reason for him to disguise this robbery as a terrorist attack. Literally, the only reason I can think for any sensible person to do this is to send a message to the world, and Hans Gruber has no message. He's just the evil German terrorist.
The villain from Jonah Hex is one.
Oh, and I will also put down Obediah Staine (I think that was his name), the villain from the first Iron Man.
And Whiplash from Iron Man 2.
Now, to qualify these, they are not one-dimensional, but if you are writing a report for school, Staine and Whiplash both lack something that is crucial to the sucess of any villain as a character.
Menace.
A villain that just does nothing is comedic or barely worth mentioning. In fact, his actions may add to the story. A villain that acts out for no reason is not really menacing because there is no tension or suspense. There is no drive. They become forgettable because they never fully existed.
But as for Staine and Whiplash, they did exist. They had relations, personalities, motives, and a driving goal. But they never seemed very menacing or threating. They were taken down kinda like chumps in the movies.
Yes, the arguement is that it was Tony's bad behaviour and alocholism that was the real villain, but it was more like a mid-life crisis thing than anything else. Now, if Whiplash was a real, true threat, but made Tony's serious problems lose none of their intensity, I would say it would add an element of unparalleled (correct spelling?) suspense because you can see the dilema and know that Stark has no chance in his state, and only a decent one if he gets better.
Iron Man 2 made the mistake of not putting enough menace in its villains, which lowered the stakes of the story, and while it was great, it only brushed what that little more work could have achieved.
So, I would say that the movie versions of Whiplash and Staine belong up here.
Oh, and I will also put down Obediah Staine (I think that was his name), the villain from the first Iron Man.
And Whiplash from Iron Man 2.
Now, to qualify these, they are not one-dimensional, but if you are writing a report for school, Staine and Whiplash both lack something that is crucial to the sucess of any villain as a character.
Menace.
A villain that just does nothing is comedic or barely worth mentioning. In fact, his actions may add to the story. A villain that acts out for no reason is not really menacing because there is no tension or suspense. There is no drive. They become forgettable because they never fully existed.
But as for Staine and Whiplash, they did exist. They had relations, personalities, motives, and a driving goal. But they never seemed very menacing or threating. They were taken down kinda like chumps in the movies.
Yes, the arguement is that it was Tony's bad behaviour and alocholism that was the real villain, but it was more like a mid-life crisis thing than anything else. Now, if Whiplash was a real, true threat, but made Tony's serious problems lose none of their intensity, I would say it would add an element of unparalleled (correct spelling?) suspense because you can see the dilema and know that Stark has no chance in his state, and only a decent one if he gets better.
Iron Man 2 made the mistake of not putting enough menace in its villains, which lowered the stakes of the story, and while it was great, it only brushed what that little more work could have achieved.
So, I would say that the movie versions of Whiplash and Staine belong up here.
Look up old Fantasy Movies, like the Wayan's Brothers DnD. Those have TERRIBLE villains. Evil due to... black hair and a mustache? Desires... to have strength and kills all his trusted lieutenants?
