I need an example of a badly written antagonist...
- Thread starter triggrhappy94
- Start date
Skipping it all, maybe this was mentioned, but look at the main villain from The Crow. He is evil for lulz, I never really understood why he was being such a dick in the first place.
Oh by the Hypotoad's glorious eyes, and you all call yourself nerds? Every last one of you, turn in your slide-rules.[footnote]Heh, I bet not half of you even know what a slide-rule is, let alone how to use one.[/footnote]
Regarding the original poster, I suggest you find an incidence in which the same character is written by different authors (or the same author at different times of his life) and contrast the two depictions, e.g. a well written Joker and a poorly written Joker. Interestingly, I wouldn't recommend prequel Darth Vader to the original, since they really seem like completely different characters.
Now, on to the rest of you (at least those characters I can address):
The Joker's best writers would get into his fractured mental mechanations, whether he was trying to reconcile with Batman in The Killing Joke or actually was attempting suicide by superhero as in The Dark Knight, or as in the other Dark Knight [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDarkKnightReturns] was in love with Batman.
Good joker stories often show the Joker trying to do something that a normal person would, not merely twisted by the Joker's insanity, but in such a way that the audience can see how it would make sense to the Joker. Another awesome variant is, someone interacts with the Joker (being nice to him, provoking him, it doesn't matter), and he responds. Usually it gets messy very quickly.
Hans Gruber's message (whether or not it was actually valid in 1988[footnote]It was proven to be quite valid in 2001.[/footnote]) is that our law-enforcement has fallen into a rut, where they go through specific predictable motions when confronted with a chaotic situation, and this can be exploited by a chessmaster [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster].
The whole killing the Jedi and getting revenge thing, that was just sauce. It also had to happen, given being a Sith is evidently against Jedi law. (In RotS, it wasn't made clear what actual high crimes or misdemeanors he had committed, except possession of the Sith membership card and commemorative red lightsaber lens.)
This is why Sauron spited the elves and humans with a consuming jealousy, and could not see above his ambition to wipe them out entirely, even if all of Middle Earth was to be scorched to see it done. His Orcs were perfectly fine creatures, who deserved the whole of the land.
Incidentally, though, many agree with you that Dan Brown is not the best at building characters[footnote]And many wonder why he gets so much praise.[/footnote], which is why Ron Howard was much more inclined to reinterpret the story in Angels and Demons.
Regarding Bond villains such as the notorious Blofeld, they're actually fairly consistent with the dictatorial types of the latter 20th century (and plenty in the 21st) in being ambitious, addicted to power, abusive of their subsidiaries (especially their own wives, concubines and courtiers) and tyrannical when angered. They are not poorly motivated, but simply have a nasty habit of underestimating James Bond. While the movie Bond is generally built like an action hero, the Flemming Bond was really nothing to speak of, lookswise, and actually was the nondescript gray man that was an ideal for field agents[footnote]Not to be confused with the greys [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys].[/footnote] So bland that he cannot get service in an empty cafeteria. It would require some serious personal insight on a mastermind's behalf to consider this Bond fellow as any kind of threat. Or that any of his women would prefer Bond to him.
But yes, it makes much less sense if we're talking Connery, Lazenby, Moore, et. al.
238U.
Regarding the original poster, I suggest you find an incidence in which the same character is written by different authors (or the same author at different times of his life) and contrast the two depictions, e.g. a well written Joker and a poorly written Joker. Interestingly, I wouldn't recommend prequel Darth Vader to the original, since they really seem like completely different characters.
Now, on to the rest of you (at least those characters I can address):
The Joker's basic motive according the the DC Writer's guidelines is that he's a wizard did it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy] for motivations.[footnote]Incidentally, Gary Gygax's nifty alignment chart for AD&D has done far more damage than good for geek-age writers working to develop character motivations. Lawful Good is not a motivation. Terrified of eternity in Hell after a horrific misstep in her youth and trying in all desperation to get on God's good side is. Chaotic Evil doesn't explain anything about a character. Has realized life is absurd, and is at best a dream, and is trying to create as much damage and devastation as possible make this reality is untenable and self-contradictory, in order to wake up does.[/footnote]triggrhappy94 said:
The Joker's best writers would get into his fractured mental mechanations, whether he was trying to reconcile with Batman in The Killing Joke or actually was attempting suicide by superhero as in The Dark Knight, or as in the other Dark Knight [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDarkKnightReturns] was in love with Batman.
Good joker stories often show the Joker trying to do something that a normal person would, not merely twisted by the Joker's insanity, but in such a way that the audience can see how it would make sense to the Joker. Another awesome variant is, someone interacts with the Joker (being nice to him, provoking him, it doesn't matter), and he responds. Usually it gets messy very quickly.
Actually the reason was explained within the movie (though it's debatably a lame reason). The electromagnetic lock on the vault was so secure (one assumes by redundant power access) that it would have created a significant outage. Why they didn't just blast the necessary array of transformers, or shut down reactors is not explained, but his plan was to depend on the FBI sticking to their step-by-step playbook regarding hostage situations that involved international terrorists: step 5 (or whatever): they kill the utilities to the barricaded compound.Kryzantine said:
Hans Gruber's message (whether or not it was actually valid in 1988[footnote]It was proven to be quite valid in 2001.[/footnote]) is that our law-enforcement has fallen into a rut, where they go through specific predictable motions when confronted with a chaotic situation, and this can be exploited by a chessmaster [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster].
I don't know how much stuff was retconned [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retcon] in SC2, but the Zerg Kerrigan was a separate entity entirely from Kerrigan the Ghost unit. The Overmind mulched Kerrigan, extracting her DNA, for the creation of new units, and the ZK was to be a support/leader unit for the Overmind's new army with which to defeat the Protoss. The ZK just happened to be overly ambitions, and, thanks to K's psychic prowess, retained the prior character's memories. And no, I don't exactly know how that works either.Frotality said:
Sheer ambition. He wanted to be Emperor exactly the way some people want to be king or president. He was also fairly good at it, if a bit tyrannical.captainwalrus said:
The whole killing the Jedi and getting revenge thing, that was just sauce. It also had to happen, given being a Sith is evidently against Jedi law. (In RotS, it wasn't made clear what actual high crimes or misdemeanors he had committed, except possession of the Sith membership card and commemorative red lightsaber lens.)
God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauron]), also everyone elses critters were blessed by the almighty. Not Sauron's.Pompey71 said:
This is why Sauron spited the elves and humans with a consuming jealousy, and could not see above his ambition to wipe them out entirely, even if all of Middle Earth was to be scorched to see it done. His Orcs were perfectly fine creatures, who deserved the whole of the land.
Heh. You, my friend, need to catch up on your return as allegedly promised in Revelations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov], it would be no surprise if the Vatican sent a thousand assassins after him, since an actual living Christ would be a credible threat to the power of the Church. You cannot expect that they would willingly hand over the Orb without a thought or question.Witty Name Here said:
Incidentally, though, many agree with you that Dan Brown is not the best at building characters[footnote]And many wonder why he gets so much praise.[/footnote], which is why Ron Howard was much more inclined to reinterpret the story in Angels and Demons.
Regarding Bond villains such as the notorious Blofeld, they're actually fairly consistent with the dictatorial types of the latter 20th century (and plenty in the 21st) in being ambitious, addicted to power, abusive of their subsidiaries (especially their own wives, concubines and courtiers) and tyrannical when angered. They are not poorly motivated, but simply have a nasty habit of underestimating James Bond. While the movie Bond is generally built like an action hero, the Flemming Bond was really nothing to speak of, lookswise, and actually was the nondescript gray man that was an ideal for field agents[footnote]Not to be confused with the greys [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys].[/footnote] So bland that he cannot get service in an empty cafeteria. It would require some serious personal insight on a mastermind's behalf to consider this Bond fellow as any kind of threat. Or that any of his women would prefer Bond to him.
But yes, it makes much less sense if we're talking Connery, Lazenby, Moore, et. al.
238U.
How so? I've been a rather fan of the series since Cartoon Network aired the series before I had to leave for school when I was in high school. All of them more at least had decent motivation, even though it ultimatly boiled down to either money and/or power... weather that power was political or physical.jumb said:
in fact the only Captain Planet villian I know that acted just cause was his anti-thesis Captain Pollution, he pretty much was just evil for the Lulz before Lulz was cool.
IMO most villains connected to Nazism,the occult, or a shadowy/greedy corporation in some way are usually poorly written. The main villain from "XMEN: First Class" comes to mind here. On the same note, Magneto is actually a rather interesting antagonist in that his motivation were influenced by the pain he's felt in his life and his rather grand vision of mutant domination over humanity (which he views as evil, ignorant, destructive, and weak).
Most video game antagonists are poorly written in that they act against the protagonists and or any innocent/side characters just purely for the sake of being evil/heartless. The Umbrella corporation people from the Resident Evil series come to mind, as does any other
To me the best villains are usually ones that we can't distance ourselves from psychologically and force us to face our own "inner demons" just as a good protagonist forces us to wonder what we would do in his shoes when there aren't any clear cut or safe options.
Most video game antagonists are poorly written in that they act against the protagonists and or any innocent/side characters just purely for the sake of being evil/heartless. The Umbrella corporation people from the Resident Evil series come to mind, as does any other
To me the best villains are usually ones that we can't distance ourselves from psychologically and force us to face our own "inner demons" just as a good protagonist forces us to wonder what we would do in his shoes when there aren't any clear cut or safe options.
Well rule of thumb is that deep down a great villain at the end of the day has to believe they're right. That they are the protagonist.
So Team Rocket in Pokemon is a poorly written villain team
So Team Rocket in Pokemon is a poorly written villain team
How about instead of doing a soapbox speech about villains having poor motivations, you do one about how people generally have a poor understanding of things they take up on a whim?triggrhappy94 said:
Zakhaev was dead, but his organization had seized power in Russia. Shepard was out for blood in retaliation to the thousands of dead soldiers. Killing Makarov would have been detrimental to Shepard's agenda. He was the one who tipped Makarov off. He knew the US would have no explanation for having a CIA operative take part in a terrorist attack. He knew if the Russians attacked he would get his army and a lot of Russians to kill. WW3 was exactly what he wanted.Jabberwock King said:
Rather obscure, but the cardboard cutout bullies from Let Me In.
They appear around three times in the film, antagonize the main character and die horribly, no explanation given. Their antagonism isn't even needed, the story isn't about the conflict between them and the main character, they're completely incidental to the actual story.
They appear around three times in the film, antagonize the main character and die horribly, no explanation given. Their antagonism isn't even needed, the story isn't about the conflict between them and the main character, they're completely incidental to the actual story.
A villain who poses no true threat to anyone is badly written, unless you have the intention of making a really goofy villain, as I am in my story that I am currently writing. Also, stereotypical villains with stereotypical motives are also pretty lame.
Victor Delacroix from Chaos Legion.
As badass as he is...
"Oh no, you killed my wife! I'mma destroy the world with an ancient being that was sealed away so I can become one with her spirit cos I'd be dead and stuff!"
Fucking retard. Just stab yourself and be done with it.
As badass as he is...
"Oh no, you killed my wife! I'mma destroy the world with an ancient being that was sealed away so I can become one with her spirit cos I'd be dead and stuff!"
Fucking retard. Just stab yourself and be done with it.
This isn't a movie or a book but Iago from Shakespeare's Othello gets 3 people killed for the evilz. He fits the definition of badly written in lacking a motive or reasoning, he just wings it for the lulz, although he is far from badly written in the conventional sense.
A lot of villains in anime, manga, and Japanese video games are rather ridiculous. Even romance manga I've read have the antagonist usually try to snatch the protagonist's love interest just to be douchebags and have control over said love interest.omegawyrm said:
I think EVERY bad guy team from the series the only reason they do anything is for teh lulz.SaneAmongInsane said: