Right, during his speech to a restrained Obi-Wan I was confused why he was portrayed as ‘evil’ at all.
Same here. I was thinking “The Republic is like the Chinese government. Corruption is rampant, dissent is suppressed, separatism is treason. How am I supposed to be on their side?”
(if we’re intending to talk about villains of the types fought by superheroes or James Bond, rather than just antagonists, please disregard.)
Ed Rooney’s reasons for trying to punish Ferris Bueller were entirely justified.
Naturally that logic extends to half the movies about a young person flaunting the rules and disobeying authority. That is, of course, the whole point of those movies.
But the villainous authority figures are still more right than wrong.
The speech by the dictator/villain Mustapha Mond in Brave New World, justifying the system he presides over, makes a pretty darn convincing case. (I think it may well be meant to. Although Brave New World is commonly understood to be a straightforward dystopia, like 1984, I think, in fact, Huxley was a good deal more ambivalent about the sort of world he portrays.)
Right- villains who do that kind of thing lack credibility. But it’s true that the Star Wars prequels are sort of an extended demonstration of the Spaceballs line “Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.”
I can also get behind basically anything Magneto said in X-Men: First Class.
In fact, there’s a theory I’ve heard that the entire movie is actually about modern Judaism, with Professor X representing the American Jewish community, and Magneto representing Israel.
Don’t agree. There are regular humans who are potential threats, but we don’t round up all humans. There have been, for example, Jewish terrorist groups. Does that make a hypothetical villain who would round up all Jews “basically right?”
The fundamental mistake of prejudice is to extrapolate negative experience with one individual into one’s feelings about the entire group to which one has (correctly or incorrectly) assigned that person. In that sense, “mutants=other victims of prejudice” works very well, IMHO.
Which incidentally gives rise to one of the (if not the) best lines in all of television
MCCOY: What if you decide he is Kodos? What then? Do you play God, carry his head through the corridors in triumph? That won’t bring back the dead, Jim.
KIRK: No, but they may rest easier.
So I’m thinking this question makes sense only for plots in which the antagonist has some political or social-change goal.*
By contrast, plots in which the antagonist is motivated by greed are automatically ones in which the villain has a “valid point”—Hans Gruber really DOES want that money. As do Mr. Potter and Harry Lime. Gordon Gekko might be considered to be in the Political/Social Change camp because of his famous speech—but in reality he was simply justifying his actions. He wasn’t setting out to change the world.
Likewise, revenge plots have villains who have valid points. Dorothy’s house really DID kill the sister of the Witch of the West.
The revenge-driven villains overlap a bit with the nutcase villains in some cases, but that’s a (rough) third category of non-Social-Change-Seekers. These folks don’t fit the category of point-makers. I mean, Norman Bates doesn’t really traffic in valid points; nor do Jack Torrance or Frank Booth or Annie Wilkes. Some nutcases do pontificate a bit (the Joker; Hannibal Lecter; Alex Forrest), but that’s just part of torturing their victims—they’re not really working toward change.
*It would be interesting to know what proportion of plots still popular today can be thus classified…
I disagree that that’s a valid point in the first place. If you’re fully capable of looking normal, it’s not society’s fault that you get treated like a weirdo when you don’t look normal. If you want to look like a freak, fine, but then you’re implicitly agreeing to being looked at as such.
And no, this doesn’t apply to Nightcrawler or whoever that has no choice how they look. Think of Kurt as a burn victim. Yes, he looks different, but that’s not his fault, so maybe show him some respect. On the other hand Mystique, think of her as someone walking around with a T-Shirt that says “I’M DIFFERENT, FUCK OFF” on it in giant letters and a picture of a hand flipping the bird on the back. She doesn’t have to look like that, so if she chooses to, well, then she can just deal with it when I tell her to get out of my store/restaurant/whatever.
Jews can’t blow you up just by looking at you though. You don’t treat mutants as a threat because some are terrorists, you treat mutants as threat because some of them are literally one man WMD’s.
I think her point though is that being blue is her normal and natural appearance not the other way around. Sure she can change it to fit in, but why should she have to?
no, her true form is not a t-shirt. a better analogy would be insisting boobs are more scary than violence and gore and insisting that you cover it up in public.
I felt like the Lizard (Lizardman?) in Spiderman had a few valid points. At least his original mission was noble
Who may or may not be able to control the WMD abilities.
Me too.
This one’s almost too easy: the CEO of the genetics company in Jurassic Park 2. The dinosaurs were his property and he could legally do whatever he wanted to with them.
28 Weeks Later:
The story goes like this (spoilers!) - The eeeeevil U.S. army general issues orders that anyone seen breaking out of the re-settlement camp should be shot on sight. Robert Carlisle’s kids get homesick and sneak out of the camps to visit their old flat. A patrol guard sees them and says (paraphrasing) “Awww…they’re just a couple of widdle kids! I couldn’t shoot them.”
The kids discover their mother who was presumably killed and eaten by rage-virus ‘not-zombies.’ Army troops then arrive to take the kids back to the camp. Somebody suggests shooting the mother, but…not in front of the kids, man. And look at her - she’s totally not a raging not-zombie.
Back at the re-settlement camp, the heroice brave, noble scientist / doctor woman detects the rage virus in the mother, and the eeeeevil U.S. army general wants her killed immediately. The heroic scientist / doctor woman argues that she has a natural immunity to the effects of the virus. Studying her may present an opportunity to create an antidote for the rage syndrome. No dice says the eeeeevil U.S. army general, kill her at once! Even if she is immune to the virus, she could possibly INFECT OTHER PEOPLE. (What an asshole! Right??)
Anyway, while they are arguing, Robert Carlisle drops in on his wife (in her quarantine isolation cell) and gets himself infected with rage. He promptly kills his wife and then proceeds to run around the camp attacking people and spreading the virus. Hundreds of people are dying; the camp is in chaos. The eeeeevil U.S. army general then orders all the civilians in the camp eliminated. (Man! How much of an asshole can he possibly be??)
Anyway, a pair of good guy soldiers (man and woman) get the kids out of the camp and an extended chase scene takes place in which they try to outrun both rage virus not-zombies AND clouds of poison gas dispersed by the eeeeeevil U.S. army. (What assholes!!!)
The kids get separated from the soldiers and stumble around for a while, and the boy gets bitten by a rage virus not-zombie. “Am I infected?” asks the little boy in a quivering voice, “Do I have to be killed now?” His sister assures him that “No, you’re fine.” (Even though she can see the tell-tale sign of the eyes clouding over.)
The woman soldier finds the kids and gets them to a helicopter landing point. The helicopter pilot is wary of taking two kids along with them, out of the county to France. He’d rather abandon the two kids to a wasteland full of not-zombies and poison gas rather than possibly spread contagion to the continent. (What a jerk!) But the woman soldier assures her that the kids are fine, and taking them away from there is the humane thing to do to save these kids.
The very last scene of the film shows the wreckage of the helicopter - in France. The helicopter pilot and soldier who took the kids with them (despite quarantine regulations) have been infected with the rage virus by the little boy, and now the rage virus has spread to mainland Europe and quite possibly to all of Euro-Asia.
All of which could have been avoided if the one officer on patrol obeyed the orders of the eeeeevil U.S. army general and shot the kids on sight when they snuck out of the camp!
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:
Tuco: When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.
In all fairness, Dantooine really wouldn’t have been nearly as good a demonstration as Alderaan.