Do you dislike some modern story telling on "Misunderstood villains"?

[herlig9]

I mean i am fine if it adds up. Like being forced to do something they did not have any say in, fair enough that makes sense. But the whole "I am gonna do evil but i am so innocent"... like that i have never been fan of. Its why LOTR never did that because they are aware of their choices. I think story of Scorpion and the turtle is the best anology of why evil exists, if you have read that short story.

But basically in the story, a scorpion wants to go over the sea, then asks the turtle to carry him over. Though the turtle hessitates due to the fact that the scorpion might sting him. But then the scorpion says well if the scorpion stings him they both will drown. So the turtle being reassured by this allows him to hop on. Then half way over, the scorpion stings the turtle. Then the turtle turns around and asks, why did you do this, now we are both going to die. Then the scorpion says, sorry its just in my nature.

So the thing is, in life there is always choice, you always have a choice. Same with crime, there is always choice with exception of desperate reasons like food. But i mean organized crime for example. Since crime tends to create poverty for businesses which makes people in general suffer.

But i guess one example is Maleficent movie from 2014, which made no sense compared to the 1959 Disney movie of Sleeping Beauty where she was the reincarnated devil in a sense.

But i am curious to what you think?

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

The maleficent movie was a rewrited version of the old Disney animation,so since the whole plot was changed,I think she really was one of the misunderstood ones.
I often see this balance between being evil and also desperate in animes.
For example in Moriarty the patriot, Albert Moriarty sets his parents house on fire (killing everyone there) and before that kills his little brother,to try and make James Moriarty's dreams of clearing the world of all the cruel/bad people.
Personally I like how it makes people question their morality... what is right and what is wrong? Who are we to say so?
Pretty similar to the Kinslayings in silm and how the kinslayers who crossed the ice were forgiven and the rest were not.
And just like you said,there was always a choice for them to simply not do it,like some of the Noldor who went back to Tirion later with Arafinwë.
We all blame Fëanor, which is true of course.but shouldn't he only be blamed for his own sins and the rest for their own?

Overall it's really complicated to decide who is really evil based on our moralities,as it may differ from one person to another.
But I also don't agree that being a villain with a tragic back story makes them any less wrong than they are.
Do we see them now in a new perspective? Yes.
Are they still the villain? Also yes.

I hope I was successful in saying what I meant!🙂

 

[Radaghast]

Not really a fan of "sympathetic villains" myself. The original Maleficent and Cruella de Vil are preferable to me to their reimagined iterations (though I haven't seen the movie with Emma Stone and have no desire to) which is meant to explain their malice or even whitewash it altogether. The idea that a villain might be justified in their misdeeds does not sit well with me. That is not to say that a villain can't be multidimensional but I don't like the idea of the "admirable villain" (of which Marvel Comics' Doctor Doom is another example).

 

[Ent]

The idea that a villain might be justified for their misdeeds does not sit well with me.

Thank you...!! This reworking of evil stems from the intent to entrench the 'victim mentality' into the people. And there's a very good reason to do so. It's been in progress for some decades now, but the people are asleep. The entertainment industry has always been among the leaders making it happen.

It's one reason Tolkien's work works. There is plenty of opportunity to recognize one's own evil for what it is, and repent. (Gandalf's engagement with Saruman at Orthanc being one of the most clear examples, but there are many more.) Absent one's own decision to do so, there is final judgment.

In other words, in spite of the desire to remove any 'measuring stick' for one's own choice of behavior since they're 'just a victim of circumstances,' there is a measuring stick nonetheless.

Gandalf speaks directly of it to Frodo. "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." WE decide. Not someone else or some other circumstance. So it has always been. So it will always be.

 

[Vorondil]

A villain is a villain, they got that way through their own choices. I say give a villain one chance to change, if they do, then good for them. If they don't, then that's that. They can choke their apologies out through a noose. There's enough evil in the world (real or fictional) as it is, there's no need to take the side of Death because you feel sorry for it. Death doesn't need any help.

 

[Ent]

I say give a villain one chance to change, if they do, then good for them. If they don't, then that's that.

Whoooooweeee. How radical of you sir Aethelwulf. (Though the sentiment is understandable.)

Even Eru gives multiple chances. It's called 'grace'. Yet he too, consistent with Tolkien's Christian theology, comes to a point beyond which he will no longer tolerate rejection of the opportunities he gives. It will be the 'last time' such an offer comes. (Saruman again.)

Just imagine if Gollum was only given one chance by Frodo, after which he would have let Sam, who desperately wanted to, murder him. (Sam too, needed to come to the point of repentance.) Frodo also represents grace in action. Sam represents the struggle against self-will in that set of circumstances.

In any event, this is what law and an effective 'justice system' (if one can be found) is supposedly all about. Some manner of restraining the evil while providing opportunities (grace and mercy) to make an ongoing, enduring change of mind and heart.

Thankfully, through the restraint of Frodo, (which is how Eru often works... i.e. through others) Samwise was prevented from slaying Gollum at the 'second chance' or Frodo would have totally failed, claimed the ring, and it would have returned to Sauron.

Gollum of course received his own just reward. He got what he wanted. But often what we want means our death in more ways than one. (Another facet of the gem called 'evil'.)

 

[Vorondil]

Whoooooweeee. How radical of you sir Aethelwulf. (Though the sentiment is understandable.)

Even Eru gives multiple chances. It's called 'grace'. Yet he too, consistent with Tolkien's Christian theology, comes to a point beyond which he will no longer tolerate rejection of the opportunities he gives. It will be the 'last time' such an offer comes. (Saruman again.)

Just imagine if Gollum was only given one chance by Frodo, after which he would have let Sam, who desperately wanted to, murder him. (Sam too, needed to come to the point of repentance.) Frodo also represents grace in action. Sam represents the struggle against self-will in that set of circumstances.

In any event, this is what law and an effective 'justice system' (if one can be found) is supposedly all about. Some manner of restraining the evil while providing opportunities (grace and mercy) to make an ongoing, enduring change of mind and heart.

Thankfully, through the restraint of Frodo, (which is how Eru often works... i.e. through others) Samwise was prevented from slaying Gollum at the 'second chance' or Frodo would have totally failed, claimed the ring, and it would have returned to Sauron.

Gollum of course received his own just reward. He got what he wanted. But often what we want means our death in more ways than one. (Another facet of the gem called 'evil'.)

Yes I know, and being a Christian I believe that everyone gets multiple chances (which I'm glad about). By ''villain'' I'm referring to the most evil people and creatures in history and stories (Morgoth, Hitler, Sauron, etc...). Obviously when talking about common criminals, I think they certainly deserve more then one chance. I think even Gollum deserved a chance (hang on, he ate babies! Nah, forget that second chance).

 

[Radaghast]

Darth Vader is another example of this trope. He is shown to have become evil for noble purposes, which I think is a copout. He is also too easily redeemed. Yes, he kills the Emperor but does that absolve child slaughter?

 

[Olorgando]

Book-wise I could add absolutely nothing, as I hugely prefer non-fiction books, with the exception of perhaps a handful of authors including JRRT.

Film-wise, though I do own several DVDs, I'm also basically at a loss were I to be asked to name any misunderstood villains.
One reason could be that the villains were not portrayed as "misunderstood" - or if the filmmakers had intended to portray the villains in such a way, their "message" did not get through to me.

I'm also struggling to remember which film DVD I last watched. The "Battle of Five Armies" 5-disk Extended Edition came out in 2015. I checked a few "suspects", but they all predate BoFA EE, though I might have bought the odd one later.

"Star Wars" has been mentioned. I own boxed sets of the original trilogy (now episodes 4-6) and the prequel trilogy - definitely bought before the first film of the concluding trilogy hit the cinemas. Hm. They didn't leave a lasting impression. Nor did that ten-disk box of the first ten films of that other "Star" franchise, "Trek", nor its prequel film. Actually, very few films have left a lasting impression.

So taking that as a yardstick, I suppose I definitely wasn't thrilled by any possible "misunderstood villains" that may lurk in some of those films.
And more generally, as has been stated above, becoming a villain definitely is the result of conscious decisions. Yes, people have gone down the road to villainy due to unhappy, even horrific experiences, probably especially in childhood. Bu I'd bet that far more people with similar experiences did not go down the road to villainy - they just don't show up in the news, especially the tabloid trash.

 

[herlig9]

The maleficent movie was a rewrited version of the old Disney animation,so since the whole plot was changed,I think she really was one of the misunderstood ones.
I often see this balance between being evil and also desperate in animes.
For example in Moriarty the patriot, Albert Moriarty sets his parents house on fire (killing everyone there) and before that kills his little brother,to try and make James Moriarty's dreams of clearing the world of all the cruel/bad people.
Personally I like how it makes people question their morality... what is right and what is wrong? Who are we to say so?
Pretty similar to the Kinslayings in silm and how the kinslayers who crossed the ice were forgiven and the rest were not.
And just like you said,there was always a choice for them to simply not do it,like some of the Noldor who went back to Tirion later with Arafinwë.
We all blame Fëanor, which is true of course.but shouldn't he only be blamed for his own sins and the rest for their own?

Overall it's really complicated to decide who is really evil based on our moralities,as it may differ from one person to another.
But I also don't agree that being a villain with a tragic back story makes them any less wrong than they are.
Do we see them now in a new perspective? Yes.
Are they still the villain? Also yes.

I hope I was successful in saying what I meant!🙂

Now background information is fine.

Take "Green Book 2018" movie or "Boy meets world" 90s Tv series by disney where they address issues which i think is good to understand people and their background. But i also feel when people use it as an excuse for bad behavior and not what is causing it, then its missing the big elephant often which i have issues with.

Like lets say crooked cops or assaulting a crooked officer. That doesnt mean i am supposed to think what he did is any less wrong if he had a messed up childhood. Or at best, doesnt mean its related. I mean sure trying to avoid triggering certain bad behavior or ideas is a good thing, but in the end. Its just something that happens because humans are what one can call not always predictable. Its in the end about choice

Take Anders Behring Breivik for one example.
I think MacGyver explains it the best here

But yeah its sort of a thing in anime where good guy fights bad guy and they tend to talk it out. For example i remember the fight Kenshin had with Sojiro in the 90s anime Rurouni Kenshin that i saw in High School

 

[Deimos]

Darth Vader is another example of this trope. He is shown to have become evil for noble purposes, which I think is a copout. He is also too easily redeemed. Yes, he kills the Emperor but does that absolve child slaughter?

Yep, ... basically the end (good) never justifies the means (evil).

...
Overall it's really complicated to decide who is really evil based on our moralities,as it may differ from one person to another.
But I also don't agree that being a villain with a tragic back story makes them any less wrong than they are.
...
I hope I was successful in saying what I meant!🙂

Ya gots to be careful right there where you are treading....it's tending toward (for lack of a better phrase) moral anarchy.
You know for certain when you have been wronged, let's say, by someone having duped/cheated you, or stole something from you, or broken into your home, and trashed it. You feel violated, probably enraged (I know I was when someone burgled my home).
And most people know that same thing, i.e., they know when they've been wronged.

But the burglar (and we ain't talking no Bilbo here) may think he's completely justified in his actions.
He may actually be current day Jean Valjean who is stealing in order to pawn the stuff to get money to feed his family,... but then again, he may only be a meth head who needs to feed his habit.

Back to the victim (you, me, others who have been stolen from) we are all appealing to some higher standard that defines what is a good action, or in this case its opposite. We say, "you are wrong! You stole from me and that is wrong." We know it in the deepest places of our heart/mind/soul.

So you can see that if no one agrees on that belief (stealing is wrong), if evil [is] based on our moralities, as it may differ from one person to another,
then what right have we to protest the burglar's action? What right to cry "I want justice!"
How can there be any justice? In fact, how an any laws be made at all, because everyone may have a different, even if only a slightly different, belief on what is right (good) and what is wrong (evil).

That almost automatic appeal (no deep analysis needed... "we wuz robbed!") tells you something... that maybe good and evil ("moralities") aren't just what an individual decides them to be for himself (or herself); that there might really be, for some actions, "hard and fast rules" that have pretty much been around since civilization first began, and have stood the test of time, that people always and everywhere have believed and abided by (or tried to).

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Yep, ... basically the end (good) never justifies the means (evil).

Ya gots to be careful right there where you are treading....it's tending toward (for lack of a better phrase) moral anarchy.
You know for certain when you have been wronged, let's say, by someone having duped/cheated you, or stole something from you, or broken into your home, and trashed it. You feel violated, probably enraged (I know I was when someone burgled my home).
And most people know that same thing, i.e., they know when they've been wronged.

But the burglar (and we ain't talking no Bilbo here) may think he's completely justified in his actions.
He may actually be current day Jean Valjean who is stealing in order to pawn the stuff to get money to feed his family,... but then again, he may only be a meth head who needs to feed his habit.

Back to the victim (you, me, others who have been stolen from) we are all appealing to some higher standard that defines what is a good action, or in this case its opposite. We say, "you are wrong! You stole from me and that is wrong." We know it in the deepest places of our heart/mind/soul.

So you can see that if no one agrees on that belief (stealing is wrong), if evil [is] based on our moralities, as it may differ from one person to another,
then what right have we to protest the burglar's action? What right to cry "I want justice!"
How can there be any justice? In fact, how an any laws be made at all, because everyone may have a different, even if only a slightly different, belief on what is right (good) and what is wrong (evil).

That almost automatic appeal (no deep analysis needed... "we wuz robbed!") tells you something... that maybe good and evil ("moralities") aren't just what and individual decides them to be for himself (or herself); that there might really be, for some actions, "hard and fast rules" that have pretty much been around since civilization first began, and have stood the test of time, that people always and everywhere have believed and abided by (or tried to).

I understand your point completely
I meant for example someone did steal from you,or hurt and murdered your loved ones. You go to authorities but find no justice there because well,let's be real, the Justice system all around the world is handled by the wealthy and powerful people and if by your luck the one who wronged you has some connections to them,you have no luck in get back what was yours or revenge.
Some people may decide to deliver the punishment themselves and there is were the moralities differ.(what I meant in my post)
And you may think these stuff only happen in movies but I have seen far too many of them irl for them to feel real to me.
I'll stop now before I get any more political

 

[Olorgando]

I meant for example someone did steal from you,or hurt and murdered your loved ones. You go to authorities but find no justice there because well,let's be real, the Justice system all around the world is handled by the wealthy and powerful people and if by your luck the one who wronged you has some connections to them,you have no luck in get back what was yours or revenge.

In this case, the villains would be those in power - usually having gotten there by at least corrupt means, all too often by coups. Which generally means replacing one set of gangsters by another set. And power need also not mean being in the "official" government.

 

[Deimos]

I understand your point completely
I meant for example someone did steal from you,or hurt and murdered your loved ones. You go to authorities but find no justice there because well,let's be real, the Justice system all around the world is handled by the wealthy and powerful people and if by your luck the one who wronged you has some connections to them,you have no luck in get back what was yours or revenge.
Some people may decide to deliver the punishment themselves and there is were the moralities differ.(what I meant in my post)
And you may think these stuff only happen in movies but I have seen far too many of them irl for them to feel real to me.
I'll stop now before I get any more political

I read about an incident in Central America (can't recall the country) whre "the Law" was pretty ineffectual.
Either the police/judges were cowed or bought, the end result was the same; criminals quite literally got away with murder.
Anyway, in a remote village a man was caught by villagers raping a little girl (pre-teen).
I can't recall if he was caught in the act or the parents found out.
In any case the villagers knew the local judge (in a larger town) wouldn't prosecute the pervert, so the villagers "took care of the matter"...they castrated the guy. Pretty sure he died later, but no one in the village knew anything about that. * wink-wink *.

So yes, sometimes vigilante justice might be the only justice available.
But you should desire that to be the exception and not the rule; else the situation could easily devolve to "might makes right."

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

In this case, the villains would be those in power - usually having gotten there by at least corrupt means, all too often by coups. Which generally means replacing one set of gangsters by another set. And power need also not mean being in the "official" government.

Some view the previous victims as the new villains
For example a grieving parent of a youth that was murdered and demands death penalty for the guilty.
Especially when the deceased person is a woman (at least in my country) some people expect the parents of the victim to just forgive the murderer and if they don't then they're the new bad guys

 

[Olorgando]

But you should desire that to be the exception and not the rule; else the situation could easily devolve to "might makes right."

Deimos, if you take a cold look at every, and I mean every country in the world, that is what the judicial systems, even the best, amount to. Being able to afford battalions of high-paid lawyers is just a more subtle version, while in all too many countries it boils down to brute-force state terrorism - or the lingering threat of it after having "set a precedent".

 

[Deimos]

Deimos, if you take a cold look at every, and I mean every country in the world, that is what the judicial systems, even the best, amount to. Being able to afford battalions of high-paid lawyers is just a more subtle version, while in all too many countries it boils down to brute-force state terrorism - or the lingering threat of it after having "set a precedent".

I totally agree with you.
But what is the alternative? Vigilante justice? Really, please tell me an alternative.
Because I think living under a vigilante system would be no better and probably worse.

However as bad/corrupt as the system can be, not all lawyers or judges (or police officers) are bad/corrupt.
Sorry to start sounding "Christian" here , but "it's a fallen world"... there are people who try to be good and do the right thing (even lawyers and judges 😉)
and people who are solely out for themselves, or their little cohort, and would order a hit on their own grandmother(s) if it suited them.

But you do the best you can.
It's no good saying there are corrupt judges/lawyers/police so lets "kill all the lawyers".
You try, as every community/society as tried since our hairy (tho' upright) ancestors banded together (well aware that one had a better chance of survival in a group than going it alone) to mitigate the bad tendencies in our nature.
It's an uphill battle for sure... always was, always will be.

 

[Olorgando]

You try ... to mitigate the bad tendencies in our nature.
It's an uphill battle for sure... always was, always will be.

Agreed. But I do have the impression that the hill has gotten steeper in about the last two decades.

 

[Deimos]

Agreed. But I do have the impression that the hill has gotten steeper in about the last two decades.

No argument there. And I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
(And I also think I will have long departed this plane of existence before "better" comes about.)

 

[Muskrat]

I am a public defender; I represent the villains. Those given drugs by their parents at age 8 do not have much of a choice. Almost all child molesters were molested as children. Gollum was a multiple murderer, as was Saruman. Yet they are given multiple chances when orcs are not. It is not all that clear, guys.