The funny thing is, most of these villains still had a degree of sympathetic nature to them, but Dreamworks still didn’t shy away from showing why they’re wrong. Something I’ve noticed, both in real people and entertainment, is there’s this idea that if you’ve had a hard life, you’re entitled some degree of levity for your bad actions. I love that Dreamworks still shows sympathetic traits for their villains while still showing that it doesn’t excuse what atrocities they’ve committed
That's one thing I loved about Venom: Let There Be Carnage Cletus Cassidy started bleating on about how he lived a hard life in that orphanage and I rolled my eyes. You were in that orphanage because you killed your family you psycho, and boo fricken hoo, you had this tough time in the orphanage so that means I should care about you after you become a mass murdering cannibal. I actually cheered when the Venom symbiote took over and shut him up with a bite to the head
Yep, this is what people need to understand, having a tragic backstory does not immediately excuse shitty behavior, the moment you start harming innocent people regardless of what ideals you have, you're a horrible person regardless of your backstory, but it's still okay to understand yet disagree with them.
One of my big problems with Vader after the prequels. What he did (cutting a bunch of kids who trusted him to pieces with a light saber) wasnt forgivable. There is no way Obie wan and Yoda would be smiling happily at Vader/Anakin after he was "redeemed." I get that he could be redeemed and turned away from evil. But he's still a mass child murderer.
Big Jack Horner was such a refreshing character in an animated movie after years and years of plot twist villains, I missed over the top bad guys in films
I felt that he was a bit too shallow for my taste personally, like he had no real reason to want all that power. To just fight for the reason alone that he 'wants' it for no reason feels a bit lazy.
@@lum3758bro the guy is a collector of magic items his whole theme is about being greedy and ungrateful he wants to have magic because his jealous of other "far far away" characters that has a magical background for instance he hates Pinocchio because his made of magic
@@craiglaurenceleonidas7501he’s greedy for magic because he sees that no matter what he does people will always like more magical things that just some kid and pies
Ironically almost all DreamWorks villains are somehow sympathetic and yet also irredeemable. Tai Lung was crushed by expectations but lashed out and almost destroyed the valley. Grimmel was the hiccup of his own tribe who wanted notoriety, but got it through the genocide of the night furies
It’s not bad to show some sort of justification as to how they ended up that way. It’s bad for them not to be held accountable and not pay for what they did. It’s not wrong to feel betrayed, or to have ambitions, it becomes wrong when you make others unjustifiably suffer for it.
Tbh i do think any villain can be redeemed (However it should never undo what they previously did so some people within the story should still hate them) as long as they are really trying to achieve it. Worser villains just happen to be the ones harder to redeem
@@jammygamer8961 There's a reason a lot of villains die immediately after being redeemed, cause otherwise it doesn't feel earned. Can you imagine if Darth Vader, after all the people he's killed and all the atrocities he committed, went home with Luke and lived happily ever after? It would feel cheap and unfair!
Hmpf, a funny metaphore here. If an utterly selfish person makes a truly selfless act, they will inevitably disappear... Because it always will be left _less than self_
I really love Last Wish's villains, because they're all good examples of my three favorite kinds of villains: the sympathetic anti-hero, Goldilocks; the pure evil, Jack Horner; and the force of nature, Death
I think one of the best bits of subtle storytelling in a Dreamworks movie was Po's reaction to the Dragon Scroll as opposed to Tai Lung's reaction to it. The movie tells us time and again that one can only be special if they believe themselves to be special. That's why the scroll is shiny and reflective. It reflects yourself. You have to be believe in yourself to be special. When Po sees the scroll for the first time, he says, "It's blank!" That's his reaction to his reflection in the scroll. Blank, because that's what he is: a blank slate. He only just became the dragon warrior, he only just started his journey in the world of Kung Fu. He still has a long way to go. In contrast, when Tai Lung sees the scroll and his reflection in it, he says, "It's nothing." That's his reaction to his own reflection. Nothing. Because he sees himself as nothing without the power he thought the scroll would give him. It's an amazing bit of subtle writing that you just don't see in Disney's works these days.
I've never thought of that. I've always liked ambiguous messages that reflect the mental state of the person receiving it, but I've never noticed that. It's genius.
Tai Lung was quite a tragic character. He came from the same origins as Po, but the difference is he was raised in a completely different way. Pushed to always be 'the best', told the scroll was his destiny. And when he was denied it, he was devastated. I hope he finds himself in the 4th movie.
I think my favorite thing about Death is that he isn't really evil, he's literally just doing his job and only dislikes Puss because of his nine lives. If I were the grim reaper and this one guy kept commiting the mortality version of tax evasion I'd be pretty pissed too.
@@isaiaholaru5013its even worse. He’s not only committing tax evasion, he’s wasting the money and then repeating the process. Literally: Cheats death, wastes cheated life with no improvement, cheats death again. Repeat till 9th life, Death himself now hella pissed.
Well, he does admit that he's operating outside of his normal methods. Death: "So what's the difference if I cut this last one a little early?" Past Puss: "But that's cheating!" Death: Breaks the crystal Death: "Shh, don't tell anyone."
He isn't mad about even that. Sure, he's a little annoyed, but what really upsets him is that Puss doesn't really value his lives at all. Being death, he considers life sacred, and wants to teach puss it's value, and if puss fails to do so, punish him. He is a Harsh but FAIR entity. And I LOVE it.
you forgot to mention that Shen wasn't just motivated in conquering all of China, he was greatly obsessed in escaping the fate the goat lady predicted, that one day he would die by the hands of a warrior of Ying and Yang (which he predicted to be a panda). And it goes in line with something Oogway said in the first movie: trying to prevent your fate only results in fulfilling it. In his fear and obsession to ensure his survival in the future, he accidentally led Po to become the warrior that would end him, as well as severing other possible paths that would make him happy
If you rewatch the movie, the Soothsayer worded out that Shen would be defeated by "a warrior of black and white" She didn't voiced out that Shen would be killed by a panda. Shen CHOSE to exterminate the pandas. And when Shen thought he had escaped his fate, it didn't change no matter what. The beat thing about Shen's final moments is Po had given him a chance to redeem himself but Shen chose to fight, which causes his death as Po wasn't trying to kill him but he was actively defending himself. Shen had accepted dying rather than trying to redeem himseld. So in a way, Shen himself is the cause of his downfall as he can also be described as "a warrior of black and white" (Po is a panda while Shen is an albino peacock with black dots)
@@jellypenguin1826 dude I had somewhat forgotten the plot of kfp 1 and when he started revisiting the story the forgotten memories came rushing back i literally shed a tear it was such a good movie there will literally never be a movie like that again
Fact of the matter, being born a pshycopath is rare, becoming a supervillain out of it is even rarer. If people become evil without having a mental illness to make the apathic to suffering, then it's 100% someone else's fault, so yeah, bad people exist, but 90% of them are redeemable with enough care and help.
@@yasininn76 we like to think that, but it’s just not true. We like to think Hitler was a monster, but at the end of the day he was human. That’s the scariest part. He was just like you and me and he didn’t blink at tragedy. Just because the world pushed you hard doesn’t mean you get to push someone else harder.
It's like Antony Starr describing Homelander. " If you know about his origin, you'd probably feel bad for that guy, but for all the things that he did, you should not."
It’s not bad but it almost never makes a well rounded and interesting character, simply because it always ends with the villain finding out he’s wrong or being defeated while being in denial of their actions
I love how unlike Disney, the villains are sympathetic and human to some degree but Dreamworks doesn't try to excuse their actions. They're still wrong and irredeemable, which is the whole point of being a villain
There is nothing wrong with making a villain being sympathetic, or even good to an extent. It’s just that Disney is just really shitty at writing villains.
Did Disney ever ever tried excuse the actions from Frollo Cruella and so on? They all died or got punished because of theyre actions. These villains did things that were just heartless
You can also say that for the main villains of Sony's Spider-verse trilogy, Kingpin and the Spot; you can totally understand their motivations, with Kingpin being desperate to get his wife and son back, and Spot wanting revenge on Miles for inadvertently ruining his life. The audience can sympathize with them, but won't root for them.
I agree i mean Take joker as example he does have a sympathetic backstory but he is extremely evil to the point where he always destroys his possibility of being redeemed.
@Simbala-bq5vy -- Cruella now has a sad backstory-justification sorta-retcon thing in her own movie, so, now she's also a card carrying member of the "misunderstood & evil-b/c-someone-else's-fault" villain club.
I actually wrote an essay on the genius of Death as a villain and how he combines attributes of Tai Lung, Lord Shen, and Kai into one genius work of art.
Gonna parrot this but: Death isn't even a "villain", he's just a dude doing his job. He's not actively trying to be evil, he's a neutral force of Nature.
@@Not_interestEd-No he's not there is literally nothing in the movie pointing to him doing his job. He is not neutral, he's shown to be sadistic, playful, angry, etc.
Right! He was like a 'love to hate' villain, which contrasted with Death, who was also a villain, but who had completely different motivations, personality and attitude about death and suffering. Having both in the movie strengthened each of their characters.
@@S0n0fG0D being evil for the sake of evil is always a refresher when you're always seeing "sympathetic" or more complex villain characters But for my money the villains that hold themselves to a code of some kind are always ones that I enjoy, like khorne
"You're not gonna shoot a puppy, are you Jack?" "Yeah, in the face! Why?" "So that's what they do. Cool!" "No, not cool!" "Agh, the sight's off!" "My bad!"
What strikes me about Disney movies is that generally speaking, they usually write the movie around the hero and insert the villain where Dreamworks at their best write around both. It also helps that Dreamworks is much more willing to take risks with their villains as opposed to playing it safe.
I think it’s because dreamworks doesn’t write ideal hero’s but also doesn’t write irredeemable villains. For the most part everybody in the story is responsible for there choices. In dreamworks the hero’s and villains choose good or evil where in Disney there just “like that”
Disney makes the kind of villains that you want to see get defeated. There's nothing likeable about them. Besides the fact that most of Disney's biggest hits were already heavily based on pre-existing fairy tales and stories(Hamlet, Greek myth, etc). But with DW, they make you want to see more of the villain and they are usually a very apt and fitting parallel to the protagonist. Tai Lung had as much interest in Kung Fu as Po, but his greed for success denied him the Scroll. Plus the fact that snow leopards and pandas are natural enemies. Death hated Puss abusing his 9 lives, plus canines and felines are natural enemies too. Megamind simply wanted to be loved while Tighten was a fake nice guy.
I like how in Last Wish, each villain also represents one of the 3 major villain archetypes: An unstoppable force of nature (Death), the anti-villain (Goldi) and the true villain (Jack Horner). All great examples.
I feel bad for death. Puss was abues his nine lives and was basically taunting death without knowing. The only death exist is so we can live life to the fullest, but Puss never got the memo.
@@richardbaron1098 Which is another sub-type of anti-villain iirc. "Villain in Name Only" I think? They're not really a villain, they just antagonize the protagonist even though they *really* aren't doing anything wrong.
The concept is nothing new The book no more Mr nice guy was written in 2000. Mega mind was 10years later and again 10+ years later we have it everywhere.
Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean 2 has always been one of my favorite villains... He is humanized, he is (sort of?) portrayed as a misunderstood individual, but at the same time he himself acknowledges that he's too far gone for any hopes of redemption, which makes him both more believable and more tragic. "My freedom was forfeit long ago."
He’s not exactly misunderstood, he’s just accepted the role of the monster. Since the world is a cruel and merciless place, he developed into a cruel and merciless creature. Even Calypso says he wasn’t always that way, and her betrayal caused him to be like this, ripping out his own heart to cope with it. But he’s not misunderstood, he’s crystal clear with who he is, and unapologetically so.
For me Tai Lung also works so great because of his upbringing He was frustrated not being chosen the dragon warrior, yes. He didn’t get that external validation. But it was Shi Fu who solely trained him for that purpose (at least that’s how he thinks), give him that dream and made him work hard on that one thing, never realizing that Tai Lung just wanted to be made the dragon warrior because it’s all he knew would make Shi Fu proud of him Shi Fu even recognizes his own failure in the end, that Tai Lung should have been raised as his son and not as a future dragon warrior. That he never told him he was proud of Tai Lung. The amazing thing why Tai Lung works as a sympathetic villain imo because him turning evil wasn’t entirely his fault, but his upbringing and Shi Fu admits it as much. But it’s too late and both mistakes were already done. Po works great as a foil and protagonist, because his father figure IS proud of him. Peng trusts Po with the secret recipe and that he will take over the restaurant. Po grew up without great expectations and a father figure who can show his love and he was just living his life without any grandiose expectations
@Derek Handson , I heard the 'finger flex' is meant to send them to the spirit realm, which is where Master Oogway resides now as dead. Maybe Tai Lung is in there too, but we never see him. I mean, if Kai can reside there in the same place as Oogway and capable of stealing the master Kung Fu warriors', why not Tai Lung?
@@argoniek6801so he’s there somewhere maybe he decided to try to better himself since welp he ain’t going anywhere sure he would be mad but then again who knows what happened to him before kai got to him
It’s cool that the last wish doesn’t have one great antagonist but three each of a different flavor. You have the sympathetic/redeemed antagonist, the force of nature, and the unapologetic Machiavellian villain. And despite them all being very different types of antagonists they all tie into the main theme.
Disney now tries to make their villains sympathetic, "misunderstood", and pushed down the wrong path by men, when there's no realistic reason to do so.
It's realistic but the issue is that these villains aren't compelling. I don't watch movies to be lectured on good and evil. I want to be entertained, and I feel the majority of people also hate being lectured esp by a hypocritical company like Disney.
Something important about the dragon scroll in the first Kung Fu Panda is that it isn't just shiny, it shows your reflection. When Tai Lung first looks on the scroll and sees his reflection he says "it's nothing!?" , accidently calling himself nothing. Not realizing what the scroll is trying to tell him.
"I'd be terrified at the upcoming fourth film, but their track record has given me confidence they're going to be just fine." Well... This didn't age well.
Dragon Knight had better villains even they were half sympathic they were still evil and still trying work together to get the four items and at the end Veruca released her mistake and redeemed herself that is how you make a character
Emotional distress is a very mature 'antagonist' from a storytelling standpoint. This is a big reason why Disney is flopping like a fish. They keep telling stories with an emotional or trauma related antagonist. Dreamworks is succeeding because their villians portray those emotions as well as having power to effect the story in a significant way. Disney's faceless villians are just kinda there. They add very little.
I thought it was an interesting concept, the villain-less movie. Like Encanto for example. The trouble is, as you said, they either leaned too hard into it, or just executed poorly. Whatever the cause, it doesn't seem to be working very well
@@eavyeavy2864I interpret what they said as Disney is using internal conflict via emotions or trauma response as an antagonist rather than a specific person. For example, Encanto's villain is generational family trauma through Abuela's trauma and how she reflects it onto her wants for the family (IMO, Encanto does this really well though). It's faceless because the conflict isn't represented by a person/people. I'm not as caught up on modern Disney movies past Encanto TBH, so I can't give a good example of one of the poorly executed ones. I hope this helps!
@@eavyeavy2864 because Disney's antagonists are mostly portrayed as: "hey we had a sad story and did a lot of bad s**t in our life, please feel sorry for us" or: "hey we do stuff opposite to main protaginist's believes for actually logical reason, please hate us even though we could be right" Protagonists have similar treatment, no actual build-up or character persona. Just having a word said: "This person is " *good* " , please love them" Dreamworks makes the opposite; writing in his movies them all not only work, but make it feel accurate and realistic without forcing it.
Personally I think Shen from KFP2 was the perfect villain. Both him and Po have found who they are, but neither have come to peace with it. While Po is seeking it in discovering what happened to his people, Shen is seeking more and more power. Both have been hurt. Both seek peace. But in the end only one took the path that leads to it. Thus Shen is consumed by his own conquest, killed by the machine that was supposed to grant him unmatched power.
I agree with that, even tho I believe that theory that says that she was cutting the ropes on purpose in the last fight. He wanted piece and knew he had nothing left, so all he wanted was to die, but if he could take something away from po, one last time, it would've made him more happy than taking over China.
@@yasininn76 I don't know that I buy that theory, considering his glance when it started falling. What I won't forget though was his simple acceptance of it happening, when he just closed his eyes before it landed rather than trying to run. I guess, for him, that was the closest to closure, or a form of peace, he could find. Such a stupidly good movie.
I miss The Hunchback of Notre Dame especially because of this. Frollo was freakin scary. In my books best Disney Villain because once you get older, you find him even scarier. You finally get it ... what he represents and why we should fear him! There are some good villains in Disney old era. But Frollo IS human!
Indeed, he is terrifying. Something I've seen elsewhere is that Gaston gets scarier as you get older. Not so much him, but the town that worships him and even allows him to be that way. THAT is the terrifying part of that movie
@@gregowen2022 OH TRUE It's also twice as horrifying when you see takes of Beauty and thr Beast and people DEFEND him. Like it's as if his charisma really was enough to stray people away from the problems he as a person really has
Frollo, Gaston and Lady Tramaine are terrifying precisely because they feel too real - and the worst parte is there are loads of people just like them.
Jinx from Arcane is my favorite. Anyone who knows the IP knows from the very start she's gonna become an irredeemable maniac, but the show starts her out sympathetically. And the writers manage to balance the audience on the knife's edge of believing she's redeemable even though we know how the character turns out. All her surviving friends go to pains to try to reach her, but in the end she makes her final fateful decision that marks her as Public Enemy #1. But her story is so tragic I still tear up when I watch videos analyzing her arc.
Silco from Arcane! Wonderfully written. He has no redemption arc, but we can sympathize with him and there's even a point in the story where he learns something powerful
Joel Crawford, the same guy who directed Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, is directing Kung Fu Panda 4. You'll be happy to know that the sequel is in good hands Greg!
We had a villain with superior body. We had a villain with superior mind. We had a villain who basically was one with the force. Who tf can match up with these 1st 3 villains? R we gonna get a dark "avatar"- esque villain?
Funnily enough one of my favourite DreamWorks villains is Hal from Megamind. He works so well because actually, even before the powers, he was the "everday kind of villan" that almost all of us know (or someone like it). He so mirrors megaminds arc, at least at first, in that megamind wants control and Hal wants acceptance, but the difference is Hal keeps trying to force acceptance and never learns from the multiple opportunities he is given to find it. While megamind realises he actually wants acceptance, when habing gained control he loses what he already had (his frenimie metroman who already accepted him sort of) What makes Hal iredeemable is that when given what he wanted (most of it anyway) by being praised by the mayor when he stops megamind "youve saved us" he almost immediately realises he doesnt want acceptance, he wants control "more like new management" Its one of my favourite films to go to, and explained the whole "nice giy syndrome" thing years before the term went mainstream
I mean, Hal was of a very one track mind, and by the time Megamind had convinced him to actually fight him he'd already been denied the very specific acceptance he wanted.
I'd argue one of the best parts about Megamind is that characters don't really change. Megamind is never a villain from the start. He never intends to do real harm. He's putting on an act because he was pushed into it. He doesn't really want to take over or win. That isn't the point. Metroman also is putting on an act. He doesn't want to be a hero. He likes the attention, maybe, but he doesn't really care about people. Like Megamind, it was a role he was pushed into, and he fills... until his selfishness makes him stop. Hal also doesn't change. He's the exact same person from beginning to end... he just gets the power to act on who he is. The roles people play changes in Megamind, but WHO THEY ARE doesn't... and that's a far more realistic kind of story.
Tai Lung is probably the villain that best showcases the flaws of greed in any media: It destroys everything around you and it poisons your very soul, and it consumes until there's simply nothing left.
Also something I like about the Kung Fu Panda Villains is each embodies one of the three core elements of Martial Arts. Tai Lung - Body, Tai Lung is Built like a tank, insanely fast and strong, relying on extreme brute force martial arts to get the point across and mentions time and again how he endure insane amounts of pain to reach that level of strength. Shen - Mind, Shen is a clever tactician, intelligent enough to create gundpowder and relies more on precision and weapons to make up for his lacking physical strength. Kai - Spirit, relies primarily on Chi and mainpulation of spirits in badly as opposed to strictly strength or intellect.
@@gregowen2022 Even more so each movie centers around a different part of Chinese culture that in turn ties into the Villains role Tai Lung - Embodies the Body aspect of Martial Arts and the Chinese Cultural Element is Martial Arts itself with the focus of the movie being about physique. Po is railed on because he doesn't have a strong build but through the movie learns to use that to create his own fighting style. Shen - Embodies the Mind and the Chinese Element he centers around is Fireworks/Gunpowder which was a major boom to China as a whole and centers around Po's own lesson, namely to achieve Inner Peace or a calm mind, accepting his past trauma and moving past it so it doesn't distract him. Kai - Embodies Spirit and his Chinese Element is Jade, which is the most valued Mineral in Chinese culture and embodies kindess, wisdom and is a symbol of deep spirituality. The Jade itself is what the spirits turn into and the movie focuses on Po fully accepting himself beyond simply his trauma of the mind but a sense of identity, ie his Spirit.
I think the fact that Po has trained with these villains in each of those fields will make the 4th movie's concept even more interesting. Now that he's picked up all 3 of these skills and become such an awesome warrior it's time for him to put his skills to test, and face someone who can challenge all of them
I also like how they do point out the obvious things in Jack (namely through Ethical Bug) but its incredibly entertaining and depending on how you look at it reveals more about Jack's unabashed evil. He kept the bug around until he finally came to the conclusion that Jack was the worst of the worst, and then he finally flicked the Bug away. Like Jack probably wanted to wait till he break the bug's optimism.
This! I loved how he kept Ethical Bug around. When I saw The Last Wish in theaters, it almost felt like Ethical Bug reflected how the audience was reacting to Jack the whole time and it not only showcases Jack's evil intentions to any "insignificant" lifeform he can impact, but it also gave the audience a great look further into his sick and twisted mind. The Last Wish is absolutely brilliant and one of the best animated movies, hands-down.
The last great Disney Villain was Dr. Faciler from "The Princess and the Frog". Voiced by freaking Keith David and actually killed a member of Tianna's party. Just all around awesome evil Voodoo Badass.
@@scipion3679 Mother Gothel was great at portraying a very different kind of villain. Sure she's not as fancy as Facilier, but a gaslighting ruthless family member you want to trust but can't as the stories she fed you growing start showing cracks the moment you break out of her control? Thats terrifying in its own way!
My problem with Facilier is he seemed to be a bad guy simply to be a bad guy, there was no real reason or motivation behind his schemes, which seemed overly complicated and convoluted for a guy with so much power.
See with someone like Kylo Ren, they acted as if the mere fact he was conflicted about repeatedly murdering people were a guarantee of redemption and as a result he got one which wasn’t really earned. While with Prince Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender Nickelodeon actually did a good job building his redemption. What I appreciate about DreamWorks is they’re really good at having a villainous character be conflicted about their actions but still go through with their evils. Rameses, Tai Lung, Lord Shen, Dave (though with the last of those it was to a much lesser extent). And I do think there is a certain merit to that.
I agree, their villains are mostly so human, even in their evil. Jack Horner hilariously excluded. My kids have been begging me to watch avatar. I hear all the characters are excellent. Just a masterpiece, they say
@@Sakura_Matou Kylo: "My uncle pulled a weapon on me. Instead of telling mom, I'll just become a genocidal maniac and kill my family and friends, lol."
Another great "recent" villain is Belos from Disney's animated series The Owl House: he has his reasons you can kinda understand, but he's still irredeemable. Other than that he's really strong, REEEALLY clever and manipulative and, mostly through the entirety of the first season, he really feels like a nearly unstoppable force of nature
I definitely agree! Belos works really well as a villain, especially when you look at the process that created him. He was caught up in witch-hunting mania, and it locked him into black and white thinking. He lost the ability to see good in the accused, even when their actions proved them false. Over time, he reached the point where he is the only good person, and everyone else is either a tool or an enemy. Even his brother, who he claimed to be avenging, became a tool to destroy and rebuild whenever he gave in to compassion. The result is a genocidal maniac who can’t conceive of the possibility he might be (and completely and utterly is) wrong about the people he wants gone. Honestly, his manipulative nature brings to mind Iago from Shakespeare’s Othello. “How then am I the villain?”
SPOILERS: I really love that the main characters straight up kill him at the end. Yes, killing is generally bad, but a truth these shows rarely consider is that it's not always the wrong thing to do. Bellows had every opportunity to choose to reflect on himself and learn, but he refused, and did so many horrible things in the process. He deserved his fate.
I hate that they went with the witch hunter bad guy without really showing us why humans hate witches in the first place because when I'm assuming Dana was going, for is the humans feared their power but they're so powerful. Why aren't they ruling earth now? Seriously just think about that. They don't really give you an actual look at what was happening at the time to make belos a witch hunter which I think is intentional, because if they did it accurately he wouldn't be one in the first place and if anything, he'd want to understand them as Puritans were probably one of the most educated people in the world at the time and he himself really sounds like someone who was very interested in science and would not fall for such superstition, And his accent sounds like he was one of the first arrivals from England so he didn't live in a time where witch hunts weren't really a thing that came in much later down the line.
And before anybody complains that they didn't have time to show that side they did they just forgot to really ask that question or intentionally did it because that might actually make the villain sympathetic history is not as cut and dry in the Edwardian era to me, felt too clean to be actually realistic to how magical society would be
And before people talk about the inside his mind episode I don't think a bunch of pictures constitutes telling us his story because they lack one very important thing CONTEXT as I think there is a lot more to the story and his actions if we were able to see them in scenes to get a better picture of the man and his brother
Not animated, but probably my favorite movie villain ever is Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds. He is just so magnetic to watch and Christoph Waltz elevated the writing of the character with his legendary performance. The worst trait (but also the best part about his character) is the fun he has when he hunts his victims. He enjoys it and doesn't care about anyone but himself. He's not this generic bad guy either. He has no grand plan or ulterior motives that justify his actions and honestly he doesn't need them. He doesn't even like the Nazis all that much. Even betrays them just to be in the winning side of the war. He's just a sociopath that really enjoys the hunt his job provides and has fun while doing it because it's all a game to him. A game he is very good at. He gets to displays his sociopathy with charismatic charm and impressive intelligence which makes him so entertaining to watch. Tarantino did a marvelous job writing his character. Also to bring it back to the topic: Jack Horner and Hans Landa know exactly who they are. They don't explain themselves to anyone. They're just vile people with selfish intentions and we love them for it.
Something to note one of the big factors to tai lung down fall is shifu Tai lung stated shifu always pushed him and always wanted better and better and it would appear shifu never said he was proud of him until there final battle
It's both of them, actually. Shifu failed because he forgot to distinguish being a master and being a father to Tai Lung (Shifu raised Tai Lung since he was a cub), so he let his ego and fatherly affection for Tai Lung blind him from Tai Lung's selfishness and power hungry heart. Master Oogway saw this, which is why he didn't pick Tai Lung to be the Dragon Warrior. Now the mistake of Tai Lung was being too prideful to the point that he thinks he deserves to be the Dragon Warrior, when in fact being one was in the hands of fate and virtue. Solely blaming Shifu would be adapting to Tai Lung's mentality of being unable to see his own mistake of assuming he DESERVES to be a Dragon Warrior. I know this is a long spiel and all, but it's just interesting to see all of this in a new light when watching KFP as an adult 😆
What really seals the deal for Tai Lung is what happened directly after Oogway rejected him. Instead of consoling Tai Ling or appealing the choice, Shifu shook his head before TURNING HIS BACK on him. THAT is what broke him, the fact that Shifu so easily abandoned him when he failed to be the Dragon Warrior convinced him that the title will finally validate him and fill the void inside.
DreamWorks doesn't just let the heroes win and everything ends in peace and love. They make the villains actually dangerous,which the heroes at first have a chance to lose against,which makes the movies more realistic
Dagur, a reoccurring villain (and then some) in the HtTYD shows, is probably one of my favorite villains in all of media. A villain that directly mirrors our hero, but still has unique aspects. Race to the edge adds an amazing close to his story while never quite losing what makes him special. I mean, they don't call him Dagur the Deranged for fun.
Honestly, the best parts of the HTTYD shows were the antagonists. Viggo Grimborn absolutely kicked butt as a cunning character who actually proved himself as an scary adversary by doing cunning things, and Dagur is still the most fun I've ever had watching a character arc.
I agree! Before RTTE, Dagur was in many ways the most dangerous villain the Riders have come across - potentially moreso even than the Red Death. What I loved most about the RoB/DoB and RTTE villains was that they weren't just in it for the power or the prestige, like the films villains. While power and control is by no means a weak or 'bad' (pun intended) motivation to have as a villain, I just found the series villains to be a nice balance: - Mildew wanted the 'old ways' back because he doesn't fit into the 'new world order' - Alvin was to Stoic what Snotlout is to Hiccup (although Alvin took that one step further) - Dagur took Berk's changed attitudes personally (as you do) - the Brothers Grimborn claim something the Berkians possess as their birthright (which would be justified if they didn't use it to hurt dragons😉) - and Krogan's just following orders from higher up the food chain [Major spoilers] I think the only series villain whose ultimate motivation is purely greed and power is Johann, but even that gets put on the backburner in favour of just hating Hiccup. [Spoilers over] I believe these villains worked particularly well because their varying motivations made it necessary for the Riders (and the writers) to get creative in how they would overcome them, which kept the plot going organically.
@@teacup5921YES! Viggo was my all time favorite villain in any movie or film. I was genuinely sad when he died, despite all the bad things he’s done. His intelligence matched with Hiccup’s was something that was so entertaining and interesting to watch and experience. Having a villain whose danger doesn’t come from power is something we need more of.
The major thing is Charisma. When your character whether they're a hero, villain, protag, or antag, if charisma is missing we're not gonna care about your actions or question them heavily. This is why the misunderstood trope flat lines because everyone else does it off of imitation for a cheap pop from the audience. Even the twist villain has gotten stale due to the fact that the character in question lacks charisma. Last Wish did a great job with both Death and Jack, but even as early as Shrek, Dreamworks has been pumping out quality villains, like Lord Farquad, Fairy Godmother, and the underrated Rumplestiltskin.
The chameleon on her way to execute the most ATROCIOUS, most MACHIAVELLIAN plan in the history of Dreamworks (she’s gonna push someone off the fking stairs):
The best villains have four key elements: -They have understandable motives, and you may be inclined to agree with them on some level. -They have a clear objective/goal that stems from their motives. -Their methods of obtaining said objective are extreme, and not only they are not afraid to use them, they even relish in them. -They are Irredeemable since they refuse to change their ways no matter what comes their way, view them as the absolute truth, and mock others for not realizing they are in the right (in their own warped view). If your villain does not meet these four criteria, then they are merely an antagonist, or an opponent/enemy to be overcome. Death is an opponent, Goldie is an antagonist.
"They are Irredeemable since they refuse to change their ways no matter what comes their way, view them as the absolute truth, and mock others for not realizing they are in the right (in their own warped view)." Tbf when Soothsayer was criticising Shen on his goal he didn't say anything back to her. A little later he ends up saying in response to Soothsayer asking about his parents "The dead exist in the past, and i must continue with my future". Him stopping would make all he did be for nothing.
@@SpiritoftheWolf28232 That is kinda it. However considering the Shen was seemingly exiled from society it probably made living both unpleasant and hard. So there was a lot in it for him to succeed
I'm glad other people enjoyed Puss In Boots: The Last Wish as much as I did; because, for me, this movie deserves its popularity. I had a good time watching it due to the fact that the storyline further explored the concept of cats' nine lives (or more specifically Puss in Boots') and why it is important to live your life to the fullest and enjoy every moment. Which is an important lesson for everyone, regardless of their age. I also love how every character, except Jack Horner, decided at the end that they wouldn't use the Wish since they already had what they wanted. Therefore, they didn't need the Wish anymore.
I just realized when I saw the scene where Po serves the five his dad's secret ingredient soup, the five like it so much because it _is_ the secret ingredient soup, every bit as amazing as his dad makes. But Po doesn't know that and just says, "it would be better if I actually...you know...knew what the secret ingredient was." It's the little touches like that which make a story great.
Personally, i like the new dreamworks movie. Just because puss in boots was a masterpiece doesnt mean that dreamworks must always give outstanding movies as long as they still use creativity and uniqness in their work. Afterall, dreamworks has earned our trust so even if kraken wont be the best, i still believe dreamworks can do amazing things
And yes although Trolls and Boos Baby will be milked to death, damn milking by Dreamworks is literally contained in them. Every other IP is more or less still outstanding.
I was surprised to learn you’ve only been on RU-vid for a year. Your videos are top notch, equally educational and entertaining (eyy alliteration) keep it up!
The Colonel from Spirit Stallion of the Cymarron deserves more love He does not view his enemies as any lesser than he, but he respects them and learns as much as he can about them. His methods from the start were pretty heavy-handed, and he is a little bit too confident in his own abilities. He wanted to make an example of spirit to show that the west could be settled, the natives could be dealt with, the railroad could be built. As soon as he got some resistance after he thought he won, he completely gave up and decided to kill spirit instead of continuing his training If you best him, though, he will let you go with your life, he knows when he has been beaten, and his pride is both a detriment and an advantage. Also, the beginning of the movie implies that the kernel does win in the end, I think it’s kind of ball Z to have your villain have implied victory
The Last Wish also gave a very real depiction of someone experiencing a panic attack. As someone who experienced panic attacks too often as a kid due to having issues with anxiety, the depiction is pretty accurate with him running away during the fight to hide by a tree, breathing heavily, and clenching his chest. Purrito finding and just sitting next to him is very wholesome, and the best way to comfort someone having a panic attack: letting them know they are not alone.
I loved Silco from Arcane. Redemption arcs are annoying, but in Silco is massively humanized, and you understand his point-of-view and why had made the horrible decisions he did. In a simplistic fairy tale, Disney always drops the ball, but at least some people know how to make redemptions work. That's why Arcane works. It wasn't made my a committee.
I don’t think Silco is supposed to be redeemable. He’s definitely humanised, he has good qualities about him, he’s definitely not pure evil, but he’s in the wrong. He’s got a justification for it, but you can’t exactly say he’s a good man, or he tried to fix things in the end. I have to say though, his final lines to Jinx were pretty damn great.
Tai lung's story is actually really genuinely sad because Master shifu was PROMISING Tai lung the scroll his entire childhood. Filling Tai lung's head with dreams of him being the chosen one and shaping it to be a FACT that he WILL be the chosen one, instead of shifu being realistic and you know not essentially promising something as huge as that to a child and on up to adulthood. He gave tai lung high expectations and promised those high expectations. The whole situation is just tragic, a father figure promising something like that to his adopted son and being unable to give it to him despite promising it to him his entire life.
@charliehorse8401 -- Full agree. Shifu is a somewhat better teacher (kinda sucky 'tude in the beginning) to Po than he was Tai Lung much in the way that lousy parents can become better at being grandparents (or just a better parent to a second born child because they made their mistakes on the firstborn). Which is great for the grandkids, but still sucks for the first child.
I think Lady Eboshi is one of the best examples of how to write a sympathetic villain. One big reason is that we are shown why we should feel sympathy and then be told why we should feel bad but, also, a very entertaining character in her own right. Granted in film there was going to see her backstory but it was cut.
Eboshi is great because at her core, she symbolises an unyielding spirit full of good intentions, but unable to respect other set of values, to the point of bringing destruction and death. Eboshi, for the lepers and most of the mining town she created, isn't even a villain : she's a selfless hero and a brave leader. And she keeps that position in the movie for most of it, as it's less any 'evil' in her and more an inability to understand/respect the supernatural and nature that dooms her. Even her early 'evil' actions, deforesting and killing the supernatural beasts (the primates and shooting at the wolves), is justified, because in her view and most humans view, they are just overgrown, savage beasts. She doesn't see how to interact with them other than fighting them when they object to her presence and actions in the forest. On her side, she obviously has to defend her people, so ofc she tries to get rid of the animals. She fights for survival, as she has to protect her men and the lepers she leaves behind in the mining town, the lepers she has to keep as healthy as it's possible for her, using the ressources of her community. She can't exactly afford to limit herself and take only a little bit of ressources : she has a community and vulnerable people to feed, and she NEEDS the money.
i actually hadn't heard of teenage kraken until i saw some other reviewer talk about its trailer. so far, i think the antagonist looks pretty, so i might give it a watch based on that alone. ...i'm very easy to please. edit: oh, happy youtube anniversary!
Having never heard of it till now and just watched the trailer it looks a “Home/Monsters vs Aliens” level movie If it’s not been the world to make (say $75 to $100 all in) then it will probably make money but this is just a filler movie for them they don’t even seem to be adverting
I think it looks like a fun time and I'm interested in seeing it. While it doesn't seem to be too out there nor nowhere near as ambitious as the Last Wish and retreading ground Dreamworks has walked before (i.e. Shrek), the aesthetic and animation is nice while promising some epic Kaiju action in another well-told tale of self-acceptance. Honestly, it feels like someone at Dreamworks saw at Disney's latest and upcoming films and decided to style on them.
I'm kind of afraid it'll just be okay, but I'm still willing to see it to give it a chance. Also, feel like it will still be better than Indiana Jones 5 (I have a friend who is clearly going to see it, but also makes it known he's anticipating hating it, and these two will never make sense to me).
Not sure anyone else caught your “plum crazy” descriptor of Jack Horner, but as a fan of swift and subtle humor, I found it simply stunning. Thank you.
I feel the problem of the misunderstood villain is that who misunderstood them are some writers. People might relate to villains and people at Di$ney might see a way to make a quick buck, but they don't understand that even if they can relate (because relatability isn't something we have full control of, we can relate to unexpected characters and situations), they still can understand they're villains and want them to pay for their bad deed. Even if they see ways that the villains could be spared and even redeemed, the point is that they are villains because they refuse these opportunities. People can separate reality from fiction, with some exceptions, but if these exceptions get the writing helm, the result is likely to be underwhelming.
@rga1605 -- Very good point. Sometimes writers (or studio execs calling the shots) get a serious case of Creator's Pet or projecting-onto-character or just that they think they're being avant garde and plot twist'y in a good (rather than a 'clearly doesn't know what is doing' kind of) way. Or worse, they find out a character has become popular and throw out their previously planned plot or ideas to pander to fans. Despite that doing this destroys the story flow, character building, and any sense-making in or out of the universe of their story... which kills the interest of many people for any further expansion of said story.
It’s because Dreamworks understands that being human doesn’t stop someone from being evil in fact it’s precisely because of our own humanity that we can aspire to become good or evil
i was never a kung fu panda kid... but now i really wish i was.. i am SUCH a fan of actual good writing and symbolisms and people overcoming genuine problems, and of course GOOD VILLIANS
Most of Dreamworks's villains come super close, but number 1 will always be Darth Vader for me. My father was in the theatre for the original trilogy and there were plenty of reasons for the audience he was in to be frozen with fear on his entrance and why his redemption still tugs heartstrings a whole generation later. His fall to the dark side will always be one of my absolute favorite stories as it tells a story of taking the quick and easy path, leading the main character who thought he was doing good to hurt the people he loved, let himself be consumed with greed and power, before unknowingly losing everything he ever had, including his very identity. Even after all of the pain and lasting damage Vader thrust on the world, his son still tried to help him, after being terrified of the man in black armor and suffering losing an arm to him. That swell of music as Vader finally picks up the emperor will always fill me with emotion, no matter how old I get.
Darth Vader is definitely one of the best villains. Personally my favorite villain in fiction is Judge Holden from the novel Blood Meridian, but there's a lot of contenders for second place and Vader is one of them.
10:20 I must apologize, you made the movie sound so good, that I have to snip off the last 2 minutes of watch time so that I can watch the film before finishing. ;*
Absolutely fantastic video. I 100% agree that a lot of modern villians are based on more aesthetic qualities than actual characterwork. And you did a great job analyzing why Dreamworks' Villians work. Braeden Alberti also made a great video on MCU villains that echoes a lot of your points.
i think its the other way around, in the older format, a protagoinist is the defined with them defeating the villains. in a way it means that their stories becomes irrelevant if they hadn't beat the villain (e.g. starwars, kung fu panda, mulan, how to train your dragon and so on) don't get me wrong, my point is that "modern villains are based more on aesthetic" is actually not a modern thing, it has been around since the beginning of time and that format has nothing to do with the movie being good or not, like mulan, po, luke, hiccups, all of their stories are awesome in their own respective ways... its just that had they died, fighting their villlain, then they are not special (like im sure there are plenty of people in the army that has an awesome story to tell but was killed by shan yu, if mullan had died then she will be just one of them, but she didn't, she was the one that defeated shan yu and thats why the rest of her story was the one that gets to be told)
This, entirely, unrelated to animation, but my favorite villain in a piece of media is probably a man by the name of Emet-Selch from Final Fantasy XIV. Man has done horrible, irredeemable acts, is mostly unrepentant, as he sees no other recourse to his problem. He's hella charismatic as he tries to convince you of his views, when he tells you why he's doing what he's done, you can understand it, even as you condemn it. And in the end, once he's defeated, he acknowledges you, that your ideals were stronger, but still "My ideals are inviolate. Invincible." And I still cry for the bastard.
I honestly love thier Tales of Arcadia quadrilogy. It had such a wide spectrum of writing styles i fell madly in love with how each character felt real in thier own way, from strickler to even the Arcane order, each villain held strong in thier own right.
One of my favorite shows ever! Disliked the movies ending though and how they killed off a few characters, the way it ended has never been liked by people
if only he knew that kung fu panda 4 let him down the chameleons reason for being evil is because she was told that she was too small to practise kung fu but then you sit and realise wtf mantis exist
you can see the modern Disney influence. "they tell me i cant do thing x because of reason y (despite another character being able to do the same thing even with the same circumstance)"
A good movie I find underrated is Rango. Grabs alot of elements of a western but also dives into Rango and finding what really matters in life and trying to find who he really is. Some what mirroring Puss in boots. Rattle snake Jake mirroring Death.The mayor being the true monster. The animation is griddy but crisp. A really great movie
i think the last wish has a good representation on the different kinds of villains usually present in most movies and stories. there's goldilocks, who is the redeemable/sympathetic villain whose villainy is the result of her own complex ideas/thoughts/trauma/etc; then the legendary jack, who is a absolute, irredeemable villain who gets no arc of redemption or change; and finally, death himself. he's less of a villain and more of an antagonist. he's only the "bad guy" because he's going after puss, but his reason is not entirely malicious, as he's only after puss and serving as both a mental/emotional and physical obstacle to puss because puss never valued the life he was given.
Klaus Kinski portrayed iconic and memorable villains because of his genius, but also because he was in fact evil. His monsters and men alike still posses a haunting presence that sends chills up spines.
While I do enjoy more nuanced villains, I've always hated the mentality that a villain NEEDS to be sympathetic/morally gray/misunderstood/etc. to be good, and pure evil villains or anything that falls outside of that annoyingly rigid structure is boring/bad/unrealistic (as if it isn't fiction)/whatever. Sure, when done well, they're incredible, but when done poorly, they're arguably an even bigger mess than the pure evil villain. Characters like Palpatine, Frieza, and classic Disney villains are iconic and the idea that all of these and more have less value because they don't have some tragic backstory or think they're actually the good guy or whatever is asinine to me. I'm so glad this mentality has been dying out over these last few years, and ironically, it seems like Disney are the ones who killed it with all their crappy remakes.
Same. Yes, sympathetic villains can be amazing, but they aren't automatically better or more realistic. Judge Holden in Blood Meridian is one of the most vile, irredeemably evil characters ever written, without a single sympathetic or redeeming quality to him. He's also one of the best characters ever created.
@@alexman378 I myself cannot provide proper justification for OP here, but I will say this. Lord Shen was one of the few villains that genuinely traumatized me whenever I saw him in the film. The presentation always gave off a sinister, unhinged feeling to me.
@@valutaatoaofunknownelement197 Very true. All 3 KFP villains try to be intimidating, but Shen does it best. And we can see it easily in how they are introduced. Tai Lung's prison break had no words, he was an unstoppable beast of power and cunning. Kai defeated Oogway in a flashy fight. We don't understand what's going on, but Oogway looses. Shen's introduction hits different. His calm yet unhinged demeanor sets the tone. He beats the guards and breaks into the palace with ease, then holds his own against two Kung Fu masters. But unlike Kai and Tai Lung, he doesn't beat them because he's stronger. He's smarter. He ADMITS he can't beat them. His weapon then KILLS Rhino. That remains the only real murder in the films. Then there's Po. He treats everyone as a threat, bit jokes around a lot with them. Yet with Shen, Po's trauma takes away his levity and quips. The audience MUST take Shen seriously at those moments because not even a jokester like Po can. Shen is the best villain, no competition.
@@docmaly2178 Can't remember Kai myself, since I have yet to watch Kung Fu Panda 3, but definitely agree with Tai Lung's intro focusing on showing his raw power and resolve. Same with Shen, except it reached peak disturbance for me when ever he stared at the audience or Po malevolently. The red lighting and darkening atmosphere made it much creepier.
@@docmaly2178 Shen does it the best while being at the biggest disadvantage because of him being a peacock lol Also you forget that Shen threw a knife blade into Boss Wolfs neck
Even though I enjoyed the most recent films from Walt Disney Animation Studios, I notice since _Wreck-It Ralph_ and *ESPECIALLY* _Frozen_ onwards that Disney Animation hasn’t been utilizing Traditional Villains in their most recent films for 13 years with Dr. Facilier and Mother Gothel being their most recent traditional villains they utilized and for the past 10 years, Walt Disney Animation Studios has literally been just using either Twist Villains and/or a Generational Trauma as the antagonist for movies and when I rewatched _Aladdin_ 4-5 months ago on Disney+ I begin to miss the actual Disney villains that Walt Disney Animation Studios previously utilized. In fact, it’s worth noting that Walt Disney Animation Studios seems to follow the Pixar model ever since Disney acquired the studio back in 2006, by having most of their recent animated movies just put more focus and emphasis on having the protagonists/heroes being more "relatable" due to their interpersonal problems similar to how Pixar does it with their own protagonists in most of their movies. And because of this it results in Disney Animation moving away from the traditional villains that were previously utilized from the Golden/Silver Ages and Renaissance era for "Twist Villains” or a generational trauma from a “force of nature" or the protagonists own insecurities as the antagonist instead. If anything, the reason Walt Disney Animation Studios and to a degree Pixar’s are hesitant and unwilling on having actual villains in their current animated movies is because from their especially Walt Disney Animation Studios’ POV they think villains are "obsolete and aren’t important to audiences" and lack black and white morality compared to their protagonists who they want to put more development on. But then you have the likes of other rival animation studios such as DreamWorks Animation, Illumination, Sony Pictures Animation, Warner Animation Group and even Guillermo Del Toro’s _Pinocchio_ on Netflix that still utilized traditional villains that are complex and serve as a conflict/reflection of the protagonist in their movies and audiences still care and resonated with these villains, but to Disney Animation they just don’t want to "move forward” and continue being Inflexible on utilizing villains in their latest movies. Speaking of Pixar, I think when Pixar handles their Twist villains such as Stinky Pete, Mr. Waternoose, Charles Muntz, Lotso, and Ernesto de La Cruz compared to Disney Animation’s own Twist Villains released after King Candy (Hans, Callaghan, Bellwether) who are kind but soon revealed their kindness is just a facade, the Pixar Twist villains act warm, friendly and hospitable to the protagonists but then they start showing their true colors and a different side to them when something they want or their reputation feels threatened and take matters on their own hands such as Stinky Pete on wanting to have himself be preserved in a Museum in Japan instead of joining Woody, Jessie and Bullseye to become Andy’s toys and when Ernesto de La Cruz prevents Miguel from returning to the living world with Héctor’s photo. I'm hopeful and optimistic, that with _Wish_ which is set to have a traditional villain in King Magnifico I hope that for future Disney animated films from Walt Disney Animation Studios they will start bringing back the classic Disney villain trope that was utilized from the Renaissance era and in their earlier Disney animated films since Snow White, instead of making Magnifico just a one-time villain and just resume with Twist villains or "generational traumas" as the antagonists moving forward which I remain skeptical.
Honestly, one of the best villains I’ve seen is Belos from The Owl House. There’s just something about him that makes him an absolute amazing villain in the sense that he just sucks
I was sad.. but it felt right thatTai Lung (the white tiger) had a chance at redemption but he was just too angry. Forgiveness is for *you* , not for the person you are forgiving.
