Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.
No, I think he was just a villain. As I recall, he had no reason for plotting against the Deltas; he just had a personal dislike to them (which was admittedly mutual).
The Deltas were disruptive to the school environment. They were troublemakers (most college students do not kill horses, even accidentally, in administration offices). Dean Wormer sought an orderly campus, which is not exactly unreasonable (though the point may be somewhat debatable). His goals were not villainous.
Not really. They partied and took road trips. Lots of college students do that. But we also saw that they went to classes and took their exams. The Deltas weren’t doing anything that much worse than the Omegas. But as far as Wormer was concerned the Omegas were the right type of people and the Deltas were the wrong type.
The neighbors probably had pretty legitimate claims around noise complaints and failure to maintain property and that’s on the University which presumably owned Delta House
. Not to mention the serving of alcoholic beverages to minors.
The Omega fraternity was their neighbor.
Major Tenet spoiler, click at your own risk:
Andrei Sator, Branagh’s evil Russian oligarch and terrorist, is basically trying to prevent the environmental destruction of the world by travelling back in time and rebooting the system. He’s basically Thanos without the problem of it being a half-measure and with it being based on a perfect understanding of what WILL happen, not what might happen.
And they ARE different. Fundamentally. Racism requires this notion, but it’s racist because it’s false. Someone births a baby that starts fires wherever they fart? That kid needs to be watched.
Someone births a baby that starts fires wherever they fart? That kid needs to be watched.
I feel attacked.
The Soviets in Red Dawn were simply trying to show the Americans the error of their capitalist imperialist ways.
I’m going the other way. Mutants have always been held up as an allegory for civil rights early on and gay rights in the early 2000 movies, but the whole comparison falls apart due to the fact that mutants ARE seriously dangerous. In the first X-Men movie one concerned parent even throws out the classic homophobic standard “would would want one of them teaching your children?” which is ridiculous when applied to gay people, but on mutants? fucking no, keep them away from my kids.
I thought of that after watching X-Men: Apocalypse. Given that a handful of mutants in the 1980s almost ended civilized life as we know it, suddenly Senator Kelly’s bill makes a lot more sense.
He’s basically Jack Bauer.
In other words, an absolute villain.
And I don’t think that Killmonger meant “ancestors” absolutely literally. His literal ancestors (at least, on one side), and the ancestors of most of the people he associated with, were slaves who were brought over on ships, so he’s counting all of the slaves who were brought over on ships as “his ancestors”, even the ones who didn’t directly contribute to his lineage.
And, of course, Roy Batty, he just wanted a little more life.
One could argue Max Cady from Cape Fear was done wrong by his attorney, who didn’t do his job, and I can’t remember suppressed evidence or something like that. That said Max Cady is a brutal rapist and killer.
The Native Americans in just about every “cowboys and Indians” movies were resisting foreign invaders.
Of course, he was trying to stop the Scarrans from destroying the Peacekeepers, who were upholding a bit of a dystopian interstellar empire.
We didn’t see much of the Scarrans, other than from the perspective of the Peacekeepers. So they may have been trying to overthrow a despotic government in order to foster a new enlightened era.
Sure, they tortured Crichton a bit, making the viewer less inclined to side with the scaly green monsters, but who hasn’t? That was his role. Seek out new life and new civilizations, and be tortured by them.
It’s been a while, so I don’t remember if they ever did say exactly what their motivations were, but I’d say that the Scarrans were as at least as much “Villains with a point” as Scorpy.
Elmer J. Fudd was just trying to put food on the table. Rabbits and ducks were in season.
Elmer was a vegetarian. He only hunted for sport.
Cite: Rabbit Fire (1951)
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
~Shylock, Merchant of Venice
That manipulative witch bitch Glinda was the real villain of The Wizard of Oz- she sends Dorothy on a wild goose chase that could have easily led to her death, and at the end said, “psych! you already had the power to go home the whole time”.
That was the biggest change between the MGM movie and the book. ITB, after her witch-squishing, Dorothy was met by the (unnamed) Good Witch of the North who sent her on her journey. She didn’t tell Dorothy about the shoes because she didn’t know.
After being left behind by the Wizard’s sudden departure via balloon, Dorothy is told that perhaps Glinda, the Good Witch of the South might know another way for her to get back to Kansas. After another round of adventures, she meets up with Glinda who, being wiser than TGWotN, knows the shoe trick.
Of course, one of the points about Watchmen is moral ambiguity. Are Ozymandias and Rorschach villains? They do horrible things, but they have good reasons for them.