Villains are the necessary ingredient in any conflict. Some are all-powerful and nearly unstoppable others are intelligent and conniving. You have competent ones, bumbling ones, ones you laugh at, and ones that give you nightmares. They are normally the counterpart of the hero and for one reason or another oppose the hero or protagonist in their goals.
These days I noticed the most popular way to write the main antagonist is to leave them in the background until the final battle. The second option is to make them complex, sympathetic, and very human. They took a dark path and only need to be redeemed or have someone care about them in order to return to the right path. Only then to reveal the true big bad everyone hates at the end. Though if there is no true big bad then everyone is just redeemed and happily ever after. For example, look at Steven Universe and how they handled the Diamond authority.
So what happened to the other class of villains? The supervillain, the rogue, the blackguard, the one you love you hate, the smug snake. These are not seen unless they come out at the very end, so they can take the heat for the more relatable and loveable antagonists the audience and writer don't want to see dead. But in the past, they used to be very common and expected to lead from the front and start whatever the plot of the week was. Now they usually just sit at their base and do nothing but yell at their subordinates, if they don't ultimately get redeemed as well.
Today such villains are considered one-dimensional and an example of bad writing similar to their aspirational counterparts. This is a misconception as while pure evil or classic villains are simple to write they can be fleshed out without needing to be made overly complex. They can be given histories, hobbies, be seen doing something else besides planning an attack against the heroes, show how they interact with their subordinates or fellow bad guys. These villains are compelling because like aspirational heroes they have no self-doubt. They are also extremely fun to write in my opinion.
Similar to how aspirational heroes represent a standard of objective good, these villains are the standard of objective evil. Darth Vader wouldn't have worked as a character without an objective evil to work against so he could be redeemed. Pure evil villains set the bar for villainy in a story which allows fallen and sympathetic villains to exist due to contrast. If you don't have a standard of what is truly evil then it blurs the line between good and evil and that doesn't always equal an interesting story. I've seen the whole gray morality used as an excuse to have "heroic" characters not live up to the standard that the word implies.
If aspirational heroes are the heaven to aspire to then classic villains are the hell to avoid. They are also just fun to watch and read since they normally have bombastic personalities or are cold-blooded to the max. So we should have more pure evil villains that enjoy their work not sad sacks who just wished they had friends. Considering how many people remember Cobra Commander, Dr.Eggman, and Skeletor even in the modern-day. That goes to show that being a relatable villain does not mean good or memorable.
Since I like having solutions more than complaining. You can be assured the main villain in Star Warden is 100% real deal Holyfield evil, no substitutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment