Describe how a 'good' TV or movie character was actually a villian. Show your work

Cafe Society
141

There’s an entire subreddit about how Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory sucks. It’s memes but still: he spent years pretending to be an invalid sponging off his poor hardworking single mother daughter (in-law?) for 2 decades. His grandson comes in with a metaphor so explicit it’s literally a Golden Ticket and all of a sudden he is as spry as a much younger man.

I suppose some things in his defense: it may be a conversion disorder mixed with folie à quatre, and he really thought he was doomed to being bedridden. Also Roald Dahl was not really the person to write role models.

142

The BBC did a series a few years back, Neverland, that was an origin story for Peter Pan, setting up how he came to Never-Never Land, how he became the leader of the Lost Boys, the genesis of his feud with Hook, etc. It’s been awhile, so I don’t remember the details, but basically every problem in Neverland was the result of Peter being either an idiot, or an asshole, or both. Kind of a perfect example for this thread: the narrative wanted you to think Peter was a hero, but literally everyone in the show would have been better off if Peter had fallen off a roof in the first episode and died.

143

I thought Charlie’s father was still in the picture. Didn’t he have a job screwing caps on tubes of toothpaste?

144

He was, and he did.

I’m going to say Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin (whatever their names were) in Beetlejuice. Too selfish to come to terms with their own deaths, they nearly destroy an emotionally-fragile family by involving their obviously-disturbed daughter in their plans to escape their fate, at one time nearly driving the child to suicide.

Just horrible, wretched, people. And, of course, if it weren’t for them, Beetlejuice wouldn’t have done all he did.

Marko Ramius is a war criminal and a madman who could have easily tipped the world into nuclear winter. He didn’t just steal a sub, he stole nuclear weapons. WTF, Marko!

Do I even need to mention the series of international incidents which is the person of John Rambo? No? Good.

Everyone in Pretty in Pink is a villain. Even Andi. Especially Andi.

145

I absolutely agree with you. There was a time I avoided some classic movies, because they were presented as “good for me.” Like movie medicine. But Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf? was riveting and powerful. I loved it.

146

Not to mention how Grandpa talked Charlie into flouting the rules and trying the fizzy lifting drinks (not that Charlie needed any arm-twisting). Almost got them both gruesomely killed via ceiling fan…

147

The protagonist in Heathers is probably too clearly evil to qualify for this thread, but (if I remember correctly, it’s been a long time since I saw it) she is setup as being very sympathetic, so the audience is completely on her side. Then she does some murders.

I suspect that is more of audience manipulation, “I can make you love a murderer”, than the type the OP was looking for. Or, it’s the 80s teen movie ethics problem. “Here is a quirky and fun character that you can love! Some people die, but it’s all in good fun!”

148

She only does one actual murder. She shoots one of the rapist football jocks after being heavily gaslit by Christian Slater’s character. All the other murders are committed by Slater, and as soon as she realizes that he is deliberately killing people, she turns on him, saving hundreds of lives in the process. I’d still classify her as a “good” character, even if she made one morally questionable choice under exceptionally bizarre circumstances.

149

Depends on which version of the movie you watch ;). The version labeled “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” (starring Gene Wilder) had Mr. Bucket absent (don’t recall any mention of circumstances), while the newer “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” (starring Johnny Depp) had Mr. Bucket still present and getting laid off from the toothpaste factory near the start of the movie. I can’t vouch for the book, not having read it.

150

I’d compare Bugs to Zomo the Rabbit. Anansi is more like Woody Woodpecker, who usually starts the trouble. Like Woody, Anansi doesn’t always come out on top.

151

In the book, Peter Pan is practically an elder god. He’s completely amoral and soulless, and feels like he’s playing at being a boy because it’s diverting to do so. It’s really a Victorian idea of what children are like–selfish and self-centered to an extreme–that doesn’t at all match my experience of kids; but if you take that extreme and turn it into a deity, you get Peter Pan.

Now, Tinkerbell, she’s a hot fuckin mess. Straight up tries to murder Wendy because she thinks her boyfriend is getting too chummy with the new girl.

152

Oh, I’m fully aware of the massive inhumanity inherent in the original books, but was absolutely trying to avoid another meander down the source vs movie vs adaptation that we had with the Oz books / Movie / Wicked.

Especially since after all the OP and title specify Movie or TV characters. But yeah, while it’s been a few decades since I read the original, I felt that without the Disneyfication it wouldn’t be anything I’d want to show most readers, young or old. And even with DSF, it’s a substantially disturbingly self-centered, violent, and dangerous character acting as a protagonist.

It sounds like several movies and tv series since have leaned into this heavily though. Sadly, haven’t seen any since . . . Hook? Which was something of a hot mess, and only touched on the darkness of the story gently if at all.

153

Have you HAD kids?!? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If so, and yours were giving and selfless growing up, lucky you!

I appreciate your effort to avoid hijacking, but I actually have found the discussions of differences in characters between the written and TV/movie versions interesting. For example, the mention upthread that the whole “Glinda manipulates Dorothy the entire time” idea was really more an artifact of having conflated two witches from the book into movie Glinda.

154

I not only have kids, but I’ve been teaching elementary kids for sixteen years, so yeah, I think I have an idea what I’m talking about here. Kids can certainly be selfish, but they also regularly engage in astonishing acts of kindness and generosity toward their friends, family, classmates, and teachers. I see it every day, from the fourth-grader who walks a frightened kindergartener to class, to the kindergartener who comes running up to a beloved teacher to give a hug, to the teenager who checks in on her sister to make sure she’s feeling all right.

Kids are way more complicated than Peter Pan. He’s an avatar of some of their worst traits, but far from the complete picture.

155

I think that Nanno, the main character in the two season Netflix series, “Girl from Nowhere”, is a classic example of this.

The series is set in Thailand where a high school girl is murdered and dumped into an unknown grave. In the spirit world, her spirit is seething with anger and a thirst for revenge. A very powerful entity merges with her and uses her anger and desire for revenge as a portal back to our reality. The result is the appearance of a very attractive Thai teenage girl named Nanno.

The Good: “Nanno” is a Thai word for karma, and that is what she is dedicated to bringing to any and all people who are evil. Nanno never even raises her voice, much less a finger, to harm any of them. What she does is “see” the evil or potential evil in them and maneuver them in such a way as to give them a choice of doing what’s right or what is very wrong. As one psychologically crumbling individual asked through her hysterical tears, “Who ARE you?!!” Nanno replied as always, “I told you already. I’m Nanno.” Meaning of course, “I’m karma.”

The Bad: Nanno crosses the line that separates giving people an opportunity to do wrong from maneuvering people to the point where they almost have to do wrong in what can only be described as clever entrapment.

In the season one, episode two episode entitled, “Apologies”, she intentionally angers her two new girl friends into becoming resentful and jealous. They arrange a drinking party with 3 boys who are openly lusting after this new and lovely student, Nanno. Not being human, Nanno isn’t getting drunk, so they add several prescription pills to her next drink. Nanno then pretends to pass out. The first boy begins to rape her and, suddenly, she opens her eyes, raises her head, and asks, “You’re not going to ask me first?” (Giving him a choice.)

He chooses wrong, of course and, as he was raping her, she belittled him and then began to laugh hysterically. He got angry and grabbed her throat, strangling her as he finished. They decide to dispose of the body and, as they were starting to cover her, she “woke up”, giving them a chance at redemption. They decide things have gone to far and “kill” her again. Then they all apologize over her grave.

Imagine their surprise when she shows up for class the next day! To end this, let me say that she gets them to “kill” her FIVE times before it is all over, and she plays their apologies to them. She left five broken and psychologically shattered teens in her wake.

156

Just joshing ya :wink:

Thank you for your service! I think that should apply to teachers every bit as much as to members of the military.

157

I’m sorry, where’s the entrapment? The boys had no choice but to slip her pills bevaude she wasn’t getting drunk? Then once she pretended to pass out, they had no choice but to do what they did next?

158

Well, unless you have have watched several episodes, it’s hard to discuss this with you. Have you?

159

Well, since our good OP @solost gave his blessings, I’ll digress a bit more on Peter Pan.

First, since it’ll open another can of worms, I think it’s worthwhile to consider the intent of the author of a work. Not that it’s controlling in terms of how a characters intent turn out, especially in adaptations, but because it informs the opinion.

I would say that Barrie didn’t consider Peter Pan to be a villain - but he is likely more of an avatar than an individual. I think it’s very clear that the ‘Pan’ portion of his name was not chosen for random alliteration like a DC comic character. As such, he’s more of an elemental, and it’s strongly implied that he is directly linked to Neverland itself.

Whether he qualifies as an Elder God or Demiurge as indicated by @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness is up to you, but it seems at least somewhat supported by the original text. A quick review of various sources (since I don’t have time to go back and buy and re-read a copy) seem to support a reading (similar to my own) that he takes the sociopathic tendencies of children, and lack of comprehension of consequences, to the nth degree, with predictable results. Combined with the textual confirmation that he refuses to grow up, and instead protects himself by constantly forgetting the details of his own adventures to never truly learn, and he’s either some form of semi-tragic demigod that’s trapped himself in the idealized form of a child, or a manipulator who’s set himself up to endlessly enjoy the selfishness of youth regardless of consequences for anyone other than himself.

If I had to guess at intent though, I think the author’s intent is more the first as the sub-title indicates Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up (empahsis mine). Wouldn’t is of course, not the same as can’t. Someone (who possibly like Barrie) idealized some of the elements of being a child, but realizes that in our world, it’s impossible to stay that way, and that choice is most often for the best.

Back to the OP though, a willful desire to force everyone to play along with you, at risk to their well-being and happiness is the realm of a villain. And in the case of the Darlings, the negligence when it comes to any possibility of informed consent is especially troubling in modern views. So I find Peter Pan a villain, perhaps a sympathetic one, but a villain nonetheless.

160

Nope, I’m going based on your description of events and your interpretation of them. Since you posted in a thread that isn’t dedicated to this show with a description of some events and a claim about what they mean, I’d expect that your description is where one can find the backing for your claims.