From Count Dracula to Voldemort, some of the best stories in books and on screens have made a name for themselves, in large part, due to their unforgettable villains, whose malevolent presence can captivate us just as much as the heroes.
But do all of them deserve a bad reputation? No, say the audience. In fact, some feel so strongly about it, that they even went on to Reddit to list the ones whom they believe should be acquitted.
This post may include affiliate links.
Unions. They are the only tool left against corporate and governmental employee abuse. They are almost the sole reason that we don't still work to Industrial Revolution standards. Big Corporate is terrified about workers uniting and collective bargaining so they shame, slander and execute huge PR campaigns against unions.
Unions are bad??? I get it that companies like to portray unions as bad, but that employees buy into that astonishes me. A union is often the only thing that keeps employees from being exploited to within an inch of their lives. What is it about unions that get, especially Americans, so riled up? Good, strong unions help create a labour market that's stable and benefits most of us, not just the few, but perhaps that's not in the interest of the USA?
Americans have been brainwashed for decades about this topic.Anything godd for workers has to be the worst kingd of communism in their eyes.
Load More Replies...The perception of Unions seems to be very different in Europe and US-America.
I agree but who polices the police? They can also get to powerful and make work impossible. I have been involved in the past and got out. I got in to improve conditions, other used it to climb the cooperate ladder. Last time I tried to report a shop steward at a hotel where my ex worked and she was let go. Why? because they cut hours and laid off staff to take on trainees Trainees have to be supervised all the time and cannot be left to work alone. The union was corrupt and in the end the hotel went under. Who got the severance packages, take a guess!! the rest of the 150 staff were hung out to dry
Mr. Wilson. Dennis was a rotten little kid, and it's not Mr.Wilson's fault that he lived next door.
Walter Matthau brought so much to that part. I was beyond impressed.
Dennis did knock out the front teeth of his dentures replace them with Chiclets and shot paint into the bbq grill. (in the movie)
TBF to Dennis he did capture the burglar, save the town AND make it up to Mr Wilson by returning his stolen coins. Honestly watching this as an adult Dennis was just a kid neglected by his parents seeking attention he wasn't getting at home. Adult understanding is sad really.
I didn't down vote your comment. But boyyyy did I want to!! Smh
Load More Replies...
Stuart in Mrs. Doubtfire. He was just dating a divorced woman and being kind to her children.
I've long thought that a remake of Mrs. Doubtfire from the wife's perspective would be a great movie. Except it isn't a comedy; it's a psychological horror movie about a woman who is becoming increasingly concerned that her elderly nanny is actually her non-custodial ex, and how crazy that makes her sound.
I rewatched Mrs Doubtfire with my kids for the first time in 20 years and i thought the same. Poor dude is just so cool !
I noticed at the end in the courtroom, he tells the judge, "I need those children.' Does he even know what his children need?
Did you know that movie was based on a book? It was! Title is "Madame Doubtfire" and it's set in the UK. At the end, both parents realise they've been caring more about fighting each other than they have about taking proper care of their kids, and Daniel realises his ex was right about him being an irresponsible slob and changes his ways.
Matpat did a film theory on this movie. He could have waited 2 months and all his problems would have been solved.
Stuart tried his best - got on with the kids, treated the mum properly, looked after and cared for the family, all the while the ex is being manipulative towards his OWN family, and then almost KILLED poor Stuart ( with the peppers ) regardless whether or not it was done on purpose - that should have meant prison time, plus no access to his children....
Squidward. The more I paid attention, the more I realised that Spongebob was the a*****e.
I have no idea why you're getting downvoted. I have to agree. Squidward represents the tired adult who just wants to relax but is constantly pestered by those pesky kids.
Load More Replies...I think the same, but in SpongeBob's defense, he doesn't mean harm, he's just a little dumb :')
Pee-Wee Herman. He had a highly acclaimed kids show. He gets caught masturbating in a public porno theater. And then hes painted as a danger to children. How did people mush those together?
My wife recoiled when i started showing my son Pee Wee's playhouse on DVD. "Hes a child molester!!" She said. I was like where did you even get that?!? But shes not alone The i go around defending Pee Wee everywhere I say we let him go.
Isn't masturbating in a public porno theatre part of the cover charge? He was unfairly vilified. Almost every man on the planet masturbates, he just got caught.
In public, I haven't done that yet, and I'm not planning it right now ... but, in general, it's not that bad an offense, it's more a matter of taste and smartness than a matter of being a predatory pervert who, of all accusations, is issued the worst one may be issued. It's ... not really what a childrens' actor should want to be on page one about him, but then again, these people are people like we all ... flawed like we all ... can't we forgive stuff? No, we rather make up worse accusations, after the ones that are somewhat true don't carry that far... Oh my ... we suck. We, humans.
Load More Replies...What do people think goes on in porno theaters!!??!! People sitting there drinking tea?! Even as a kid I thought the way he was vilified was preposterous
For people who don't understand it's actually very clear. Pee-wee Herman (Paul Reubens) was gay. The straight men in that theater that day were also masturbating but they didn't get charged. The cop saw him looking around at the other men and decided to target him. From there gossip and uniformed parents did the rest.
A homophobic cop in America? I'm not having that. You'll be telling us they're racist next.
Load More Replies...Ever watch his stand up as Pee Wee. It's raunchy adult humor. I remember him wearing mirrors on his shoes and chasing around a girl in a skirt on the stage. Pee Wee as a character didn't start off as children's entertainment.
Very true. It was a dark satire of children's entertainment.
Load More Replies...I love Pee-Wee. I grew up watching that show in the 80s. But... It wasn't just the theater thing that derailed him, he was actually charged with possession of child p***. He was a huge collector of erotica and would buy huge lots at a time. It was argued, with the size lots he was buying, he had no way of knowing 100% what was there. He bought anything and everything. And having such a huge obsession with erotica does not jive well with a children's TV personality. Would I let my kids and grandkids watch Pee-Wee now? Absolutely. Can I also understand where the parents at the time were coming from? Also yes.
This is also how the trixters hide their trix. Camuflage them togheter with innocent objects. Not saying anything, but that is how it is.
Load More Replies...I think he was a fabulous actor. Loved Pee-Wee as a youngster and loved a lot of his work in non-kiddie movies. I mean, come on, The Spleen was fricking hilarious in Mystery Men (one my favorite ensemble movies).
Frankenstein's monster.
All of the monster's flaws can be traced to Victor Frankenstein's abandonment of his creation. Nobody taught the monster how to live and it was immediately reviled by everyone, but nevertheless the monster forgives Victor in the end. Victor is definitely the "bad guy."
Yet at Halloween all over America we mock that poor monster.
Yeah, if you read the book it's clear that Dr. Frankenstein is actually the real monster, the Monster is the victim.
Yeah I agree he should never be called a monster, and have a/ his own name.
Load More Replies...In the book, the monster is clearly the victim of his creator, Frankenstein's pride. The book urges the reader to view Dr. Frankenstein as the true villain for "playing God."
What Arthur Machen refers to in The Great God Pan as the only true sin: storming the vaults of Heaven.
Load More Replies...Victor Frankenstein spends the entire book having a pity party for himself. Like, the Monster explicitly tells him, "If you get married, I'll kill your wife on your wedding night." And then Victor proceeds to get married (she's also his adopted cousin), and then is shocked and betrayed when his wife is killed. I mean, murder is wrong, but he had plenty of warning. Also, Robert Walton is the best character in Frankenstein.
But that's the entire point of the book though. Victor who isn't even a doctor, just studying to get his doctorate is clearly painted as being in the wrong, he just happens to be the POV character for most of the book
Watch the little girl scene in the Boris Karloff movie. It is often cut when the monster drowns her.
Lucifer. He k***s 2-3 people in the bible and gives humans knowledge and self awareness, while God k***s millions and demands sacrifice.
Lucifer isnt in the bible. In the Torah/"Old testament", Satan is, but not as a Devil character, but as the heavenly prosecutor. It is St. Jerome that reinterpreted several different names and spiritual beings in the Bible as "Lucifer" in his Vulgate Translation. In the "New Testiment"a Devil character is introduced, that very much mirrors pagan demon deities, a new concept, and even so the NT in different books have radical different understandings and details. But the name Lucifer is a creation of St. Jerome.
a couple of job's kids just for giggles (see book of job)
Load More Replies...Except Lucifer doesn't compare in the Bible. There is the serpent, there is Satan, there are multiple demons but Lucifer come from the mythology associated with the Bible. And he is at best a secondary character. Not certainly the Villain.
In the original greek version, he was named Prometheus, and was hailed as a hero for giving mankind fire, thus allowing them to stand up to the tyrannical gods who treated humanity as their play thing.
Lucifer isn't even Satan/The Debbil. Lucifer was supposed to be an ironic insult name used against the selfish, narcissistic King of Babylon who undid a bunch of progress. But, as always, the passage was taken out of context and people used it to mean another name for Satan. (Edit: Also, Prometheus was based the Sumerian god Enki so isn't even the original version.)
Load More Replies...... always wondered how they could already have Stockholm Syndrome, but not individually, but entire peoples, even before Stockholm was named so... But, yes, it doesn't make much sense, if the decision is to be between either Jahwe/Jesus/Holyspirit, or Satan, if compassion and curiosity are considered virtues rather than disturbances, as almost everybody almost always almost claims. But, here we are, and the usual interpretation goes oppositional to that. Weird, but that's just gods and their omnipotently executed desire for being loved regardless. The most abusive relationship that ever exploited a power imbalance is the one between humans and their gods, and the best part of it is that the entire concept of a god most unlikely bears any truth - I wouldn't want such an unqualified genocidal sexist, racist, ragingly jealous piece of work as a distant neighbour, let alone have command over me or my life. Ethics and Knowledge have come some way since 2000 years ago.
That's exactly it. It was used as an ironic insult against someone who was the complete opposite... who destroyed knowledge & regressed people. And not a name for Satan.
Load More Replies...Also: Judas. Jesus was sent to earth to die for our sins. Judas was the only disciple that helped make that happen. Judas is the hero of the Bible.
And yet the medieval and sadly modern reasoning was that because Judas was a Jew (like Jesus), therefore, Jews thousands of years later ought to be entirely at fault for Jesus's death, ignoring that (a) if a Christian does something all Christians aren't held responsible millennia later, (b) Jesus was a Jew, (c) Judas didn't kill Jesus, Romans did, but who was mad at Rome?, and (d) Judas could easily be painted as a hero. More, too. Of all the antisemitic myths, deicide is so blatantly idiotic, self-contradictory and contradicted by the thing they claims support it that it's a wonder it's persisted. (Though the fact that it has says something about the quality of antisemites' arguments.) If you're going to be antisemitic, at least have the courtesy to have harder-to-refute myths!
Load More Replies...Tom. He just want some peace and this a*****e mouse came in and ruined them all.
I read a comment on those reverse theory ideas. Someone said that Tom needed Jerry to hang around to prove the need to have a cat around. Jerry knew this and so he played along to make sure Tom had a place to live. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. Interesting theory I thought.
Well there is this episode, Toms owner got another cat to do his job, getting rid of jerry. But this cat is a real toxic @sshole, eating food and br3aking stuff, and blames tom for it. Tom & Jerry made a 9lan to get rid of this jerk. At the end Tom shared his food with Jerry. So yes this theory is absolute legit
Load More Replies...Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Kevorkian) While not a radical thought in 2016, he was portrayed as a monster by the media. "He was often portrayed in the media as "Dr. Death"; however, many consider him a hero as he helped set the platform for reform. He famously said, ["Dying is not a crime."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian)".
We always knew when someone was getting help. He came into our restaurant and ate while wearing that light blue cardigan right before... pretty sure he had a pattern and we were part of it. We were very supportive of him. He just wanted people to be able to pass with dignity.
He brought into our consciousness something that is direly needed. We do this kindness for animals, why not people.
It makes so little sense to me that the people who are for the death penalty, even though it is widely known that the court system and evidence gathering system is faulty in many ways, says that helping someone who is dying painfully slowly and with no hope of wellness die quickly and painlessly is evil. As is an abortion to help a woman having a miscarriage that can't be stopped and may maim or kill the woman if she receives no aid.
In the Netherlands it is possible to arrange a planned death. It requires counselling, involving the family doctor and the procedures are fairly strict, but it is possible. Switzerland, too. In Germany the highest court confirmed the universal right of self-determination at the end of one's life. In most European countries an individual declaration of medical treatment is binding for everyone involved treating a patient.
... prepare way before your end is within sight. You gotta do a little research, but you'll eventually find that the means to peacefully fall asleep aren't that hard to gather. Whatever you have set up, prepared, stored before is something you won't have to ask anyone's help for, and that, here, is crucial enough to have it sorted, prepared and at home long, long before.
I am definitely in favor of assisted suicide as I currently have cancer and am looking at a fairly nasty ending. That being said, I can remember interviews with Dr. Kevorkian and he was just creepy. I always got the impression that he enjoyed his work a little too much if you know what I mean. It felt like he was just a serial killer that had found a way to be recognized for his murders.
Lord Hades of Greek Mythology. He may be the God of The Dead and King of the Underworld, but nothing points him as a bad man. He was given a rotten roll of luck and got the underworld. He had to renovate the entire place and keep it from falling into shambles. He NEVER cheated on his Persephone. He was a great king to his subjects. There is no reason to keep blatantly making him the big bad in every modern iteration of Greek myth.
And no, he never wanted to be the King of Olympus. He is the God of Riches. Everything below the earth and precious belongs to him: diamonds, gold, rubies, emeralds, you name it. He even had three kids. He has no need to be evil. He's just the owner of real estate for the deceased, trying his best to keep his property from falling apart due to overcrowding.
His Persephone? He kidnapped Demeter's child, who was out playing in a field with her friends.
Wasn’t that because Eros shot him with an arrow of love at the orders of his mother, Aphrodite?
Load More Replies...Nothing points [to] him as a bad man...except he kidnapped his niece so he could rape her and murdered a river nymph who tried to stop him.
I honestly feel like Zues was more of a jerk in classical Greek mythology than his brother, Hades. Zues caused so much damage by banging every poor woman in existence.
Zeus was completely the AH in pretty much every myth he was part of. Plus, he tricked Hades into becoming God of the underworld in order to become the god of the sky because he was afraid Hades was stronger than him and didn't want him to be hanging around up on Mt Olympus making Zeus look weak.
Load More Replies...But he did cheat on Persephone. Once. With a nymph from the river Cocytus. She was the mistress of Hades but was transformed into a mint plant by either his wife, Persephone, or Demeter. But he did feel bad/guilty about it. But i love this post. The ancient Greeks didn't believe death to be a bad thing, just something that happened. When there was life, there was death.
Wile E. Coyote. Poor fella just wants to eat.
Plus, he keeps getting ripped off by the only mail-order company that serves the desert.
I always get to the top of a canyon and fall off into a plume of dust
He did finally succeed guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj78yCaumpc
The indigenous people in most movies made before 2000.
Except dances with wolves, which I think was the first movie I saw that depicted native people in a sympathetic light.
But even then, there had to be a white main character to be the hero and savior.
Load More Replies...Plenty of others. "Little Big Man" (1970), "Broken Arrow" (1950), any number of John Ford's later movies.
Except Zulu, in which the natives are courageous, smart, effective and honourable.
Drums Along the Mohawk from 1939 portrays a nuanced version of Native Americans, the ones fighting with the British against the Colonists, and those fighting alongside the colonists. But the ones fighting on the British side are portrayed no differently that the White Loyalist militias, and the ones on the American side are portrayed are virtuous and righteous. In fact one of the colonial allied Native characters Blue Back, was portrayed by a Native American Actor Isaac Johnny John AKA Chief John Big Tree (of the Seneca tribe, one of the correct Tribe for that region in fact, and lived on the Onondaga Tribal reservation, also in that region) , he also served as a consultant on ensuring proper portrayal of Native Americans. The 1964 film Zulu about the Zulus in South Africa is considered to be a positive portrayal as well, in 2018 Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi of the Zulu's praised the movie's portrayal of the Zulu's.
The dialogue between Josey and Ten Bears about their word of life and death is one of the most epic things ever.
Load More Replies...The "Winnetou" movies from the 60's were pretty balanced to be fair, every side in the Wild West had good and bad groups of people in them.
We got even book's about Winnetou. Every kid wanna be like him (80 in eastern Europe)
Load More Replies...Been watching old westerns such as wagon train and rawhide. A lot of what you would expect. Few profound statements as well. Watch if you wish. The one that stood out to me was somebody calling the indians savages. Someone replied that they probably look at us as the savages. Forget what show but it was late 50s early 60s. Just because you think you discovered empathy doesnt mean it was not around long ago.
T-Rex in Jurassic Park. The m**********r was just hungry.
I always thought the T-Rex was the hero of the film. He didn’t eat any of the “main characters” and saved them at the end by attacking the raptors.
Plus *she* literally ate a lawyer (all the dinos are female, remember?)
Load More Replies...I don't think anyone thought the dinosaur was a villain. For a villain to be a villain they need intent and make deliberate choices. Dinos in the film were terrifying but still just acting on instinct. The villain was always the one programmer dude "Uh-uh, you didn't say the magic word".
Nedry was *not* the villain, John Hammond was. He "spared no expense" except when it came to paying/respecting Nedry - a man who was obviously good at his job or he wouldn't have been hired in the first place. He cares more about the *idea* of the park than he does for the animals: includes toxic plants (it's not stated in the movie, but in the book it's made clear that it *was* the Indian lilac that poisoned the triceratops), has inadequate safety measures and no back-up plan for keeping the animals contained, brings CHILDREN into the park before it's completely up and running, and all for what? Stroking his own ego, because he's so certain that nothing can go wrong with HIS park.
Load More Replies...I wish the next movie in that universe would just be the adventures of Rexie and Blue.
Also the T-Rex' face off with the Indominus Rex in Jurassic World was propably the best scene in the entire movie
So, a rich old man brings one of deadliest NATURAL species back, and all of the sudden, they're the bad guys, urrrmmmm, no.... HE'S the villain - don't mess with mother nature....
Judas. Never really understood the whole betrayal thing. Jesus "Died to save us from himself" etc and Judas was instrumental in that process. He was an enabler. He let Jesus reach his full potential and should be hailed for the part he played. Still, glad I'm an atheist.
I don't really get the whole " he died for us" think. Sure, he was technically executed on Friday but he was up and walking around again on Sunday. So really he just gave up his weekend for us.
And if I don't sin, Jesus will have done all of that for nothing.
Load More Replies...And even then the whole drama was ordained to happen. Judas was just the instrument used to do it. If Jesus wasn't betrayed, sentenced and hung then what's the whole point of the story, right? Peter was worse, in my opinion. He rejected Jesus three times in his hour of need.
Judas was self-righteous, two-faced, and money hungry. In short, today he'd be a prominent Christian televangelist.
I never viewed Judas as a villain. At the very least he's an antihero. He's one of those characters that we can all relate to. Like really did everyone think that this Jewish preacher guy was REALLY the son of God???? He was a troublemaker and a division in the Jew's life and culture. I am saying this as a Christian.
oh this! most loyal and trusted and did what he was asked to do - then killed himself in regret know that would prevent his soul going to heaven - he sacrificed his eternity for the friend he loved and served. but I'm an atheist so what do i know....
If he asked for forgiveness just before he died, he gets to go to heaven. Catholic canon.
Load More Replies...Oh, don't get into the bible... The description of villains, or rather, even assigning them that tag at all, is bad enough, but if you read about the people who are credited the statues of heroity, it's just getting worse and worse and worse! An insane man, who heard voices in his head - due to dehydration, maybe? - threatened to sacrifice his son, obeying his insanity, an already had set up a sacrification pile, tied him up ... then, his insanity, whose antics are assumed to be god's very own thoughts, changes into violently killing a goat, who was dropped there as a replacement by ... god, again. The complete lack of compassion towards that poor goat, alone, in my book discredits the bible, recognizes how atrocious and stupid it is, and how not a single hero in there is even anywhere close to a decent human being, while many of the villains just fight back, don't do any at all, or simply defend themselves against the genocidal fanclub of the demon that is called "Jahwe".
He is seen as one of the most trusted disciples. It makes sense that if you need someone to do something so important but also unpleasant as betraying you to the authorities you'd entrust that task to one of your most trusted. Who else are you going to ask? Peter? You know he's not even going to admit to knowing you in order to save his own skin, you can't trust him to do the difficultjob!
Emily from Friends.
The man she was about to marry suddenly says his ex's name at the altar. She had a right to be angry. They both made the mistake of not waiting longer to actually get married, but Emily should not have been seen as the villain.
I don't think anyone saw her as a villain until she began to make unreasonable demands. He's not allowed to keep his apartment, then be can't keep his furniture because Rachel touched it. Then he has to cut out his friend group because Rachel is there. Then she says she needs to know where he is at all times. She's controlling and unreasonable. We can understand why she's that way. But she takes it too far. If she'd just left him after the wedding and went on with her life, no one would think she was a villain.
I've always thought this, and not just because I'm British and somewhat biased. I don't get why she was made out to be the villain among the friends when she had every right to be angry that her husband humiliated her by saying his ex girlfriends name at the altar, and then attempted to take said ex on their honeymoon. The real villain was Ross because he rushed into marriage when he clearly wasn't over his ex.
Hot take: Emily was settling for Ross. She was beautiful and charming and had a good job. He was a self-centered jackass who looked like David Schwimmer.
This is actively and repeatedly discussed / argued on the Friends-related subreddits, along with whether or not Carol was a villain.
Ross is definitely the villain of the show. He makes literally everything about him, and is a total pos. However I do see why people disliked Emily so much. She had every right to be angry, but she was dumb enough to marry someone she essentially just met, and the demands she made were not only unreasonable, but negatively effected the entire group. She was brand new, and tried to ruin a group of friends, on the show "Friends" so the hate was a bit foreseeable
Down vote me. She was a terrible character and a c**p actress. Annoying and superficial
The psychologist in What About Bob? The poor guy is trying to go on vacation with his family and a f*****g clinically insane person tries to tag along. If my wife tried to convince me to let him come, I would pull her aside and be like, "Girl, who is the psychologist here? THIS IS NOT HEALTHY OR PROFESSIONAL.".
What I love about that movie is that Dr. Marvin's therapy, even the fake therapy, works. He does a brilliant job of bringing Bob out of his prison of fear and turns him into a functional adult.
I borrowed rage instead of embarrassment while watching this movie. It's a great film, but I still feel a spark of rage when I think of that poor psychologist. Same with the dad from Captain Ron.
I've always thought Magneto has been wrongly accused of being completely a villian. Sure he has done terrible things, but he is jewish and witnessed the holocaust as a young boy. Later he discovers his mutant powers and sees how fearful humans are of mutants. Can you really blame him? Even though his methods are extreme i think his overall goal is not letting two of his "people" wiped from the earth.
The problem is you have to ask do the ends justify the means? It's fine to have some sympathy for tragic villains, but maybe we shouldn't pretend everything they do is fine.
That's honestly why Charles Xavier is usually portrayed as a solid foil for Magneto, in most portrayals of the X-Men. Both want better lives for Mutants, with Xavier wanting Mutants and Humans to be viewed as equals, whereas Magneto wants to prevent their extinction, though usually through more extremist methods.
Load More Replies...I have to point this out - it is canon in the X-Men universe that: 1) Magneto was separated from his mother during the Holocaust and she was one of the people that died thanks to the Nazis; 2) Magneto was legit experimented on by a Nazi scientist, who he personally later took his vengeance on via using his powers; and 3) Professor X and Magneto do have a common goal, which is ensuring the survival of Mutant-kind. Sure, Professor X wants Mutants and Humans to be closer to equal. I think Magneto sees a bit more of messed-up reality of the situation here. Magneto saw that the Nazis saw him as a weapon, and he assumes that's the same with most "non-mutant based governments". I'm not saying it completely justifies his actions, but it does explain why his actions are so extreme in multiple points.
Magneto is one of my all time favorite villains because he is so nuanced. He would be the first to say that yes, he is a villain as far as nonmutants are concerned. He is unapologetic about it and feels that his reasoning is correct and that the present and the future prove his correctness.
I don't blame him for wanting to protect his people (mutants) from being wiped from the earth. I do, however, fault him for wanting to commit genocide of all humans as the means to creating a safe world for mutants.
The "villains" who are acting on the side of justice but in a means we frown upon are always the BEST villains. You want them to win sorta
The best villains are ones who have a cause that you can sympathize with. It's just their methods that make them villains instead of heroes.
He survived the persecution of jews and to prefvent the same thing to happen to murants he believed in killing all humans and asrablishing mutants as the ones in charge.
The boyfriend in Bee Movie. The only sane person in the movie.
No, actually, I think Barry wanted fụck Vanessa. Not the other way around.
Load More Replies...That movie turned so disturbing. Why did they have to make it weird? They could have just left it at, bees are cool, save the bees.
I have never seen this movie, and the posts I've seen here about it, make me not want to.
You really don't need to. It starts fairly normal and then gets really weird.
Load More Replies...
The step-dad in Ant-Man, played by Bobby Cannavale, was also a great character. Yeah, he was a cop, but he wasn't a d**k. He cared for Cassie and wanted her to have a relationship with her real dad, but the real dad was a convict who was getting into some dangerous stuff. He was rightfully protective of her and was still willing to hear Scott's side of things instead of just assuming Scott is bad. There is a healthy respect between them.
I don't think this guy was ever the villain. I think the relationships were complicated but I don't think they ever meant him to be "bad."
When I watched the first movie, I understood his perspective, and never really found him to be a "villain". The only times he and Scott were in conflict was when it seemed Scott was doing something illegal, and the step-dad had to do his job as a cop. Protective step-dad, yes, but still wanting Scott and Cassie to have a relationship with her real dad.
Try reading the comics. He hated superheros wit apassion. Constantly talked s**t about scott after he died as a hero and even yelled at cassie when she became a hero.
People who work in orphanages. I mean these people do highly important work for vulnerable children yet any movie set in a orphanage usually portrays the workers there as abusive sociopaths. I mean i get it, its a thing that happens but its really s******g on what i assume to be the majority of good people who work in these important facilities.
She was the worst kind of monster. And hypocritical to the core.
Load More Replies...Except for the lies Brothers. Okay, the Penguin was definitely unnerving, but the orphanage is pretty decent for all that.
Teddy (the director of NASA) from The Martian. Everyone hates him because he makes hard decisions that seem to go against saving Mark. But the entire time, he's being practical and worrying about the rest of the crew and future missions. Literally, everyone else is laser-focused on Mark. Teddy is just making sure the organization survives the mission. That's why he's the director; he makes the hard, objective decisions.
Same here. I'm pretty sure he was just there to show that side of the organization and generate conflict on the Earth side of the story. He never acted unreasonably. After the main decision becomes moot, he fully supports its success (and doesn't personally consider that it will fail). He's only guilty of not quite understanding how astronauts think, having never been one himself.
Load More Replies...He was never the villain. That's why they cast Jeff Daniels. He was just trying to keep NASA flying and listening to the experts, and was himself an expert. And when he had a chance to make the plan work and only risk an unmanned probe, he took it trying to save a life. It was absolutely his job to shoot down a plan that risked the lives of the entire crew.
He was wrong for the right reasons. I don't think he was unfairly villianized. Nor was he really the villian. He was just the adult in the room making difficult decisions. Someone has to be. And the risks they took to save Mark were, frankly, absurd. As most of these rescue stories are. Risking losing multiple lives to save one is seldom a good idea. It happens. And there's always a balanced cost & risk analysis involved but someone needs to set that line.
I'm sooo glad I've never watched the film, having read the book when it was first published.
The film does it enough justice to not p**s off people who enjoyed the book.
Load More Replies...The Trix Rabbit and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun. They just want some f*****g cereal!
I hated the Trix commercials when I was a kid. Those kids were always so mean to the rabbit.
Same with the "Cookie Crisp" wolf - Just a canine wanting to eat them, though the children were very responible by not letting him in the ads - the chocolate would be poisonous for the wolf
Donkey Kong in the original game. According to the manual, he was abused at the circus and escaped.
Yes, absolutely! He's looting around places he doesn't know, gathers all precious material, rips the inhabitants off of all their money, kicks turtles, stomps dead various other animals, and lets that spiked turtle dude fall into lava during the destruction of a historic monument. Mario is a major Human Exhaust Rear Orifice, or short, a HERO.
Load More Replies...You mean except for the abuse, the circus, and the escape parts of it?
Load More Replies...
Skyler White from Breaking Bad. As a teenager, I rooted for Walt and found Skyler annoying. How dare she not support her lying d**g lord husband?!
I think that's the all point of Skyler White to make us feel annoyed. We want a d**g lord story and she is the reason, the reality check. Great writing and great acting.
My first viewing I absolutely could not stand that woman. I hated her with a passion. Second viewing was different. This time, from the beginning, I understood the kind of person Walt really was. This made me have a lot more understanding of Skyler and I saw her much differently.
I never understood the hate she got. She brought a human dimension to Walt and expose all his weakenesses and shortcomings without being in a moral pedestal herself. I think it was brilliant as an antagonist, but not a villian per se.
Nah, she's a twofaced b***h because she acts frightened before she sees the amount of money Walt made. When she saw the money, she changed her atitude and took charge, involving herself in the process.
I just didn't like Skyler. Hence, the actress (idk her name) did a good job.
General Hummel in the Rock. He wanted fallen soldiers under his command to be recognized for their sacrifices even though they were classified ops and for their families to be compensated like they would in normal circumstances. As he said, 'These men died for their country and they weren’t even given a go**amn military burial.'
Upvote because he was still fighting for his men and had no intention of using the VX.
Professor Severus Snape.
No he was a freaking villain. Ask Neville. He treated everyone outside of Slytherin house poorly and preyed on weaker students. He would still be a death-eater if Lily was alive, he DID NOT CARE that James was killed or that Harry was going to be killed, he only cared about Lily and turned on Voldemort because Lily died. He chose to take his childhood trauma out on children during daily life. Anyone that chooses to dump cruelty on people, particularly the vulnerable, are NOT heros. I will die on this hill, Snape is a villain, he only cared about himself and his own feelings.
Can you really blame him for not caring that James was killed when he was bullied by him throughout his school years? Not saying he wasn't a villain, but not giving a f about James was kinda fair and I don't think it counts against him.
Load More Replies...Severus Snape was a creep who was obsessed with a girl, and decided to join the wizard equivalent of Nazis when she turns him down. And he would have kept on being a wizard nazi happily, had the wizard hitler not killed the girl he was obsessed with. "Oh but he was bullied!" So was I. I never joined the Nazis, nor any other group bent on genocide. I certainly didn't use my position of authority to bully others. Snape is Not a hero, not a good guy. He may have done some good things, but only to spite the ones who hurt the woman he was pretty much stalking.
he was abusive a*****e and bully, the more i re-read the books (again and again and again, sorry i am little ossesed with hp, rereading those before bed to make me sleep) i can say he take a pleasure in torturing kids
1. Being a victim of bullying does not entitle you to become one. 2. He was a lovesick stalker incel.
I agree with all that you said except one word: lovesick. He didn't love her; he was obsessed with her, and felt entitled to her attention/affection.
Load More Replies...He's an a*s working for the good superwizard. He did stuff that served the good guys because he couldn't handle that the girl he stalked after she got married died. Self serving prick.
Another way to look at it, Snape was a villain on behalf of the good superwizard. He was the "Bad Cop" to Dumbledore's "Good Cop" and Dumbledore milked it for all that it was worth even after death.
Load More Replies...Nope. He was a teacher who bullied students. Nothing else he did makes up for that. Even if we decide that because Harry's father bullied him, it was okay to bully Harry, there is still Neville, Hermione, and plenty of others.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings about Snape. He was a Death Eater and picked on students outside of Slytherin, but then again, he was bullied as a child and didn’t want to be a death eater. There are scenes in the movie where he does protect harry, (end of Prisoner of Azcaban and in Deathly Hollows 2), but there are also scenes of him picking against Harry. Of course, that could always be a grudge against Harry father who (apparently) bullied him. Snape is one of those characters that is kinda the villain with a sad backstory (ish) like Draco Malfoy in the movies. But again, Alan Rickman who played Snape was an amazing actor and man with lots of talent. Rip Mr. Rickman.
The landlord in "Rent." First of all, it was SUPER f*****g cool of him to let you live there for free for an entire YEAR - did you actually think that was going to last forever? Second just pay your f*****g rent you little brats.
He supports/funds Mimi's heroin addiction, acting as her sugar daddy while his rich wife is at home... That seems at least a little villainous. The real villains in Rent are the AIDS epidemic, d***s, and capitalism
Not only that he knew that Angel killed his wife's dog for money and was okay with it because he didn't like the dog either
Load More Replies...You didn't really pay attention to it did you? Benny made a deal with Muffy's father (aka a deal with the devil) and that's why he's now making them pay rent. It's not because he necessarily wants to but he has to make his wife happy and to do that he has to make his father in law happy
If they all ran hotels, having a home would be a hell of a lot more expensive and less comfortable.
Load More Replies...This is like the 5th thread ive done this on but Captain Hook is actually the goodguy in the original Peter Pan story. Captain Hook was just trying to save kids from Peter Pan who would k**l his kidnapped kids when they grew too old.
In the stage version, Hook is always played by the same actor who plays Mr Darling (Jason Isaacs does this very well in one of the film versions).
Hook was never written as the hero, the author, Barrie, always portrayed him as a villain.
I think the OP was giving his own take on Hook, not Barry's.
Load More Replies...He's an upper-class pirate who has a rivalry with Pan over feeding his hand to a crocodile, and nothing more. The official sequel does state that the Lost Boys are banished to Nowhereland, from where Hook rescued them, but that is the only reference that I know. It's definitely not in the play.
It's a fact that many old fairytales (eg: Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen) are extremely dark. It is worth reading the old ones - albeit hard to take, to see how successive rewritten/made into movies are almost the opposite of them. The original Little Mermaid is a good (!) one to start with. TLM-667542...b501ab.jpg
But this killing the Lost Boys while Hook tries to rescue them isn't in Peter Pan and Wendy.
Load More Replies...A modern dark fantasy retelling of Pan has no relevance to the original Pan.
Load More Replies...You must have read a different version from the one I'm familiar with.
Load More Replies...
Mojo Jojo. I mean c'mon man, half the time the Powerpuff Girls just busted into his tower, knocked his s**t out, then left and pretended that they did the city a huge service. Uh, no???? Y'all c***s just beat up a monkey for no reason, man. I mean he even tried to babysit y'all at one point.
I'm one episode it's shown that Mojo had always been kind of nasty and evil after he tries to gaslight everybody to see him as the victim.
And in other episode it was shown, that his brain was caused by explosion while creating Powerpuff girls and how doctor kicked him out once he had his precious daughters
Load More Replies...
Better Call Saul did a good bait and switch on Howard, first presenting him like he was a bad guy and the problem, but almost every time the plot turns around to Jimmy, Kim, and even Chuck, being these high-functioning but unstable personalities with Howard caught in the very unenviable position of trying to manage them while being forced to choose sides. Even the perspective that Howard was a jerk feels like a matter of perspective bias. He really only acted douchy when someone else escalated against him over very petty grievances and while Howard at first shot back in kind, by the end of the series he was the only one of the main characters who seemed to want to become a better person rather than continue downward spiraling. For which his reward was being sabotaged by Kim and Jimmy who wouldn't let things go, and then inadvertently k***ed through no real fault of his own.
This is why I skipped reading it and didn't even vote on it
Load More Replies...He was never painted as a villain. The audience knows pretty much the whole time he was a stand-up guy with a conscience, just trying to do what's best.
Javert from Les Mis He is doing his job.
And yet, as we’ve learned, “Following orders” isn’t always the right thing to do…
Javert isn't following orders. He truly believes that the law and justice are the same thing, and he devotes his life to providing justice for everybody. That's why he kills himself when Valjean spares his life - it shatters the illusion that everyone found guilty by the legal system must necessarily be a bad person. His entire life has been built on a lie and he himself has been an instrument of injustice. Doesn't anybody pay attention to anything?
Load More Replies...Ivan Drago, TL/DR In Rocky IV Ivan Drago drew worldwide hatred because an unhealthy boxer who insulted his wife died under the rules provided. His country men proceed to turn on him for no reason. This guy was raised in Communist Russia admiring the best boxers in the world and finally his country opens its gates and allows him to prove himself to the public but they keep him on a tight leash. He wants to fight the current champ but instead they make him fight a guy who is long since retired. This retired guy puts his hand in his face during a press conference, insults him in a language he isn't familiar with and then talks s**t about his wife. After constantly humiliating the guy they have their boxing match and the guy dies. In communist Russia people die all the time? Ivan Drago was just spitting truth. You can die in boxing. They had a legal match and Apollo Creed died because he ignored everyones advice. Apollo's corner failed him. His friend failed him. The athletic commission failed him. Even his wife failed him. Ivan Drago is the LEAST responsible for Apollo dying. He didn't hit him after the bell or while he was on the ground. It was clean. Now America is all mad and him and his wife are getting death threats and the champion wants to beat him up just for winning an exhibition match. Okay. whatever. Fight me in Russia so I wont be embarrassed again. Not happening. We fight in Russia where people love me right? Right? Wrong!!!!! They begin to love this short American dude who's lifestyle represents everything the USSR opposes, only because he's good at getting his a*s kicked. When the American loses all of Ivan's Russian comrades flock the ring to celeberate his victory. Ivan Drago is left in his corner alone. Only his wife remains by his side.
Defense attorneys. Always the bad guys on TV, Movies, and real life."
OP, ever see "Anatomy of A Murder", "Inherit the Wind", "Witness for the Prosecution", ...?
Hmm no it depends on who they are defending. If the person is guilty and they get off because of a good defence attorney, that's bs. Lawyers must have ethics codes that compel them to drop a case when the client is clearly guilty.
The right to a lawyer is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. And until that person has been proven guilty in a court of law, then they are presumed innocent. There is no "clearly guilty;" even if you believe they did what they were accused of; that's the whole point of having a trial.
Load More Replies...
I always thought Loki from the first Thor movie was way less villainous than portrayed. He was making choices that made sense from the perspective of the governance of a medieval kingdom. His a*****e brother starts a war and the king kicks him out, then becomes incapacitated. Loki steps up, trying to keep Thor from running back to Asgard to start a dangerous power struggle in the middle of an ongoing conflict with a foreign enemy. Loki even k***s the enemy head of state himself. Then Thor's friends try to get him back into Asgard to start that civil war (which is treason), and Loki acts to stop them. When that fails, he decides to finish off the enemies (which were Thor's fault to begin with). None of that is wrong if your goal is to prevent the unnecessary deaths of your citizens. Why should Loki expect to find himself in a superhero movie where Thor will have a complete change of character in a few days rather than a political drama?
This is all pretty much true. Also everyone treats him like he's a big whiny baby about being "adopted" but his parents didn't tell him for like a few hundred years??!! And always favored Thor but expect Loki to just be like "Oh cool, I'm adopted. Of course Thor gets the honors." At the very least they needed family therapy, lol.
Loki has one of the most sweeping character arcs in the MCU - he's neither black nor white and that's what makes him so much fun. He does indeed start as a villain who is so blinded by jealousy of his brother that he ends up working for Thanos and killing innocent people who he sees as nothing more than bugs. Most of his life was a lie and can you truly blame him for snapping when he finds out that he's really Laufey's son and was a war trophy whose only goal was to ignite Jotunheim and Asgard? I think we see a turn in Loki after his actions get his mother killed. He fights along Thor in Ragnorak and sacrifices himself to save his brother's life in Infinity War. Hell, I'd even argue that he become a true hero by saving humanity in the Loki series by becoming the "God of Stories." In mythology, Loki can be malevolent but he is also a trickster character in nature like Anasi, Coyote, and occasionally Kokopelli.
If you follow the Marcel universe and not only the movie but also the series you will see that he is not a villain at all.
No, he is a villain. He is arrogant and selfish and wants to rule the world and killed innocent people. But he's also frequently right.
Load More Replies...The casino owner from oceans 11. He's a businessman who made all his money legally. He might be an a*****e but stealing millions of dollars from him, an innocent rich people who had money in the casino is still a crime.
I’ve haven’t seen it for ages but I assume it was insured as well so he didn’t lose millions.
See oceans 12, where he finds them. He doesen't care about the insurance money, he want's them back from oceans team.
Load More Replies...Jury out on this one. Casinos are insured against theft and as someone already pointed out, "the house always wins".
Casinos are rigged in favour of the casino, so is it really fair to say that the money was made legally?
Any business is rigged in favor of the business. I've never seen one that was set up to lose money.
Load More Replies...Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke.
I don't think she's portayed as villain though, more like an antagonist
Most Ghibli movies don't have villains. They have people on opposing sites with different circumstances and priorities. It is a very nuanced work, and all the better for it.
Load More Replies...
Darth Vader. After watching the first 3 movies, I would have gone to the dark side as well.
Sorry, the moment they made him slaughter children he lost all right to sympathy.
He dont deserve any consideration,its always his choice. He could leave the jedi and live openly with the love of his life but he doesn't because he like his power and position. He's upset the Jedi dont see his worth but the truth is yes hes talented and brave but also reckless ,lacks self control and wisdom to be a master. In the end he follows Palpatine just because he alwas tell him what he want to hear : that he is talented and deserve more ,that being a Jedi just restrain his potential. He wasted his gifts, in the end he became just a lackey of a tyrant.
I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2005/04/17
Mr Freeze. Just wants to save his wife. PS the new 52 dosent exist.
I loved his arc in the animated series. So tragic. He was a good man put in impossible circumstances by a greedy boss.
Pre-transformation Ebenezer Scrooge. He earned his damn money, and people who owed him knew they would have to repay their loans when they signed. Sure, he could have been more generous with his wealth, but when generosity becomes an expectation, it ceases to be generosity.
He didn't need to be an absolute dìck to literally everyone around him tho. Imo it was more his personality than his wanting to keep his money. For example GENUINELY saying poor people should die. Scrooge was a terrible man and only saw the poor as people due to seeing tiny tim sick
If Dickens had never written this book, we would have had to wait until Elon Musk came around.
Load More Replies...Maybe you should try learning literally anything about A Christmas Carol before coming out with this plutocratic arseshite.
The empire in Skyrim. Splitting the nords strength and having a civil war only weakens skyrim as a whole against the stinkin' Thalmor.
As an Imperial trying to Fus-Ro-Dah Alduin into Oblivion permanently, I'd agree. Although they need a better spokesperson than Ulfric who literally wants to drive all non-Nords out of Skyrim... -_-"
Bruce Ismay. He survived the Titanic sinking but paid a heavy price.
Yea, Ismay was pretty much a d*ck. But, be honest with yourself. You would have used every means possible to get you a** safely into a lifeboat if you were in the same situation.
Zooey Deschanel in "500 Days of Summer," first time I saw it, I was about 18, I thought she was just an entitled a*****e stringing some guy along. Later on, I realized that she is put into a situation where the guy tries to make her into something she isn't; some fantasy filled with expectations that she doesn't want to fulfill, nor is she obliged to. Not to say what's-his-face is wrong or a bad person, or that Zooey was completely free of guilt, just that it was a bit preemptive for him to expect everything he did from what started as a fling where she clearly stated her intentions.
Davey Jones from he Pirates Of the Caribbean series. Dude was in love. Lover scarred him after agreeing to meet in 10 years and not f*****g showing up. So he got pissed. Scorned the b***h. CUT HIS HEART OUT AND PUT IT IN A CHEST AND BURIED IT. Took his punishment (growing all tentacle-y) like a f*****g man and owned it. And at the end of it all, AT THE END OF IT ALL, he still tells her that's he's in love and he'll always belong to her. Davey Jones was a romantic. A committed individual who got pissed off after being dicked around, just like any of us would be, but stayed true to his word and was in still in love. Davey Jones was simply the manliest biggest badass out of all them pirates. Not the villain.
Jim Lahey. Sure he's a drunken lunatic, but on a deeper level he really does care about the trailer park and the people who live in it, and everything Ricky and Julian and (to a lesser degree) Bubbles do is actively harmful to the quality of life there. He's not wrong for wanting to get them the f**k out of there.
Sif from dark souls RIP.
One tough doggo with a sword. So much so that I had to drag multiple summons in to assist my hollow behind...
Tom Nook. He gave you a loan with no background check. Didn't charge interest. Gave you unlimited time to pay it back.
Sid from Toy Story. I have nothing against the movie but I realized as an adult how weird it is for a child to be demonized for altering his toys, the s**t he did was pretty damn creative. Stealing from his sister and messing with fireworks is bad but I don't think kids modifying toys should be treated as such. (Oops replied this to a copycat thread before I saw this one copypasteee ).
Every single adult insists that a child shall take care of their toys and never ruin them. This is one reason why Sid is the bad kid. On the other hand, the movie does not sanction vandalism (that is a good thing), meaning ruining someone else's possession.
Napoleon. He tried to get rid birth privileges; establish freedom of religion, and have merit based government. The rest of the European countries being religious Monarchs took exception to him and villified him.
He made himself emperor for life and set multiple members of his family up as monarchs in other countries. A lot of his reforms were admirable but he was fine with birth privileges for anyone called Bonaparte. Merit based government is pushing it.
Getting rid of birth right privilege was what the Revolution did. Merit based government as well. The human right declaration. The separation of State and Church. The abolition of slavery. All works of the Revolution. Napoleon re-established slavery to please his wife. He was not a good person by any measure.
While yes, he was vilified in many unfair ways, he did still try to take over the world. He also wasn't super short.
These are all true, but can we all agree that in Hunger Games the Capitol sucks and President Snow is a Psychopath?
RIP Donald Sutherland... he was cool. Love how he played Merrick on BTVS.
Load More Replies...Man, most of the authors from these entries should go into PR or become a defense lawyer cause they can totally spin some of these. Ultimately, a villain is a villain because of intent and deliberate choices that are self-serving and cause more harm than good. Can a villain grow out of being a villain? Yes they can. Can one selfless act abolish all transgressions of being a villain? Only if the villain doesn't go back to their villainous ways.
The wicked with of the west. They kill her sister and steal her shoes. She just wants then back, they're a family heirloom.
Isn't the whole point of Wicked that she's not really a villain?
Load More Replies...These are all true, but can we all agree that in Hunger Games the Capitol sucks and President Snow is a Psychopath?
RIP Donald Sutherland... he was cool. Love how he played Merrick on BTVS.
Load More Replies...Man, most of the authors from these entries should go into PR or become a defense lawyer cause they can totally spin some of these. Ultimately, a villain is a villain because of intent and deliberate choices that are self-serving and cause more harm than good. Can a villain grow out of being a villain? Yes they can. Can one selfless act abolish all transgressions of being a villain? Only if the villain doesn't go back to their villainous ways.
The wicked with of the west. They kill her sister and steal her shoes. She just wants then back, they're a family heirloom.
Isn't the whole point of Wicked that she's not really a villain?
Load More Replies...
