Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Wiendish Fitch

Because I'm Eeeee-viiilllllll: The Villains Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Gaston? Fuck that guy.

Thank you!!!!

There are, oh, about a million and five reasons why I abhor the 2017 remake, but one of the biggest is what they did to Gaston. 

First and biggest offender? Making him a veteran who might have some PTSD issues. Shame on the writers for offending real veterans, I hope they eat glass and die. I think they were trying to make Gaston more sympathetic, which...

1. Writers, please stop doing that.

2. They don't even come close to succeeding, because there's a scene where LeFou (don't even get me started on what they did to him) tries to calm Gaston down by saying "Go back to the war... think of the fighting, and all the widows!" Gaston then, in a way too turned-on voice, says, "Widows!"

WTF, Disney???????

Are we to infer that Gaston raped war widows?!?!? Or at the very least took disgusting emotional advantage of them?! Because neither scenario helps make Gaston sympathetic! What were you trying to do? Were you trying to make him sympathetic or not?! What the hell was your endgame?! And thanks for implying that all veterans are assholes who will just screw anything that moves! Real nice!

Then there's the fact that Gaston doesn't seem that popular in the town (to the point where LeFou has to pay them to sing "Gaston"), which makes no sense, because what made the original Gaston so powerful was how completely beloved he was, and how he was able to play everyone like a fiddle. I don't believe 2017 Gaston could sell candy bars for his football team, much less stir up an angry mob. It doesn't help that Luke Evans is not that good-looking, not that charismatic, not that good a singer (Christ, Donny Osmond was a better Gaston) and he seems like someone a weakling like me could, with one bad case of PMS, crush like a foam cup.

What made 1991 Gaston so effective was how entitlement was the root of his evil: his popular jock persona, his appeal to the ladies (save for Belle, clever girl), his belief that Belle should marry him, and his disbelief that she didn't even like him... all come to a head and reveal the monster he really was. 

And the frightening, tragic thing?

There are countless Gastons in the real world.

We see them all the time: harassing women, beating up nerds, reveling in popularity they don't deserve, and committing horrific crimes because they know they'll get away with it, and why? Because there is a subset of people who love and stand behind their Gastons, blind to how awful they are, and will blame their victims, because they don't know any better. 

So, yeah, 1991 Gaston is one of the all-time great villains, while 2017's Gaston is a mewling twerp who could get knocked over with a stiff breeze.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, just my opinion, but I didn't think there was any apologia for Gaston in the live action Beauty and the Beast. He was still the same self centered asshole that wanted Belle and would do whatever it took to get his way. Yeah, they add the backstory of him being a war hero, but contrary to what some viewers thought, it wasn't like they were trying to excuse his actions on PTSD or some crap like that. If anything, it just showed how awful he really was, since he loved the fame and glory he got for killing. 

Some people had qualms about the addition of Gaston leaving Maurice out for the wolves (before his asylum plot) saying that it was "too dark". Um, hello?! Have you met the original Gaston? He spends most of the movie trying to force Belle to marry him, even blackmails her by locking her father up, then tries to kill the Beast to get rid of the competition. So somehow, trying to kill her father wasn't THAT much of a stretch. JMO.

So I hope that alleviates some of your worries @Dandesun

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

What made 1991 Gaston so effective was how entitlement was the root of his evil: his popular jock persona, his appeal to the ladies (save for Belle, clever girl), his belief that Belle should marry him, and his disbelief that she didn't even like him... all come to a head and reveal the monster he really was. 

And the frightening, tragic thing?

There are countless Gastons in the real world.

We see them all the time: harassing women, beating up nerds, reveling in popularity they don't deserve, and committing horrific crimes because they know they'll get away with it, and why? Because there is a subset of people who love and stand behind their Gastons, blind to how awful they are, and will blame their victims, because they don't know any better. 

On that, we can agree!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Bringing this one up after watching the movie earlier-Oogie Boogie from The Nightmare Before Christmas can definitely qualify for the "non-sympathetic villain" category. We don't know anything about his past, there's no sob story with him, none of that. We just know that Jack Skellington despises him and Halloween Town in general doesn't seem to care for him, he loves to gamble with his victims' lives, he has kids doing his bidding, and he held freaking Santa Claus captive, and gleefully taunted him as he did so. Santa Claus! 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Okay, I haven't seen the live action version of Beauty and the Beast but are they serious about this Gaston apologia? Did they alter the movie so much that Gaston got a mob together for altruistic reasons (protecting Belle) and not, as it was in the animated, a purely jealous reaction from Belle defending the Beast and saying he was actually kind and obviously caring about him.

It sounds like the same sort of romanticising of villains that most of that list seems to be made up of. "They're misunderstood, they just wanted love... also, aren't they really quite handsome?"

We've seen it with Kylo Ren, who is also on that list, and plenty of others. We even see it with real life villains - handsome serial killers or rapists or violent men who get female fans because of their looks. It's utterly gross, and essentially just an exercise in making excuses for someone because, 'how could they possibly be that bad when they look that good?'

People seem increasingly unable to discern between a moody bad boy who actually has a heart of gold, and a sociopath. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

It mirrored mine too. That's one of the things I love about the movie. It was so much like my high school experience.

It was so accurate. High school (at least mine) had an overall Queen Bee, but every single clique had their own Queen Bee and resulting drama from that. It was not like Benny in Pretty In Pink.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

People seem increasingly unable to discern between a moody bad boy who actually has a heart of gold, and a sociopath. 

JD from Heathers fits the sociopath bill.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe it took me four pages to think of this one, but Grindelwald from the Fantastic Beasts movies.  Yes, I know not everyone likes those movies, but other than the Depp casting, I love how they did him as this manipulative despot who gets followers by preying on the vulnerable and telling them exactly what they want to hear, playing on his followers' sense of entitlement and prejudices against non-magic folk. 

The rally scene in the last movie is a masterwork in how people get sucked into that mindset: he claims that he doesn't want to kill all Muggles, just "protect" the world from the ones that want to destroy magic.  And then he calls to attention all the Ministry people there to arrest him and pushes the right amount of buttons knowing that one of his followers will lash out.  He gets that girl to attack the Aurors, she winds up getting killed, so he can turn around and say, "See?  They're the ones that hate usWe aren't the ones that kill people."

Starting to sound familiar?  It should.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Bringing this one up after watching the movie earlier-Oogie Boogie from The Nightmare Before Christmas can definitely qualify for the "non-sympathetic villain" category. We don't know anything about his past, there's no sob story with him, none of that. We just know that Jack Skellington despises him and Halloween Town in general doesn't seem to care for him, he loves to gamble with his victims' lives, he has kids doing his bidding, and he held freaking Santa Claus captive, and gleefully taunted him as he did so. Santa Claus! 

Great example. Oogie Boogie was just bad to the... bugs (what? he doesn't have bones!), reveled in his own evilness, gets defeated, and nothing of value is lost! No "Wah, I'm a hideous monster!" or "wah, no one loves me!". Oogie is a bastard and enjoys every second of it, as do I (though, again, I'm glad he's defeated).

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Great example. Oogie Boogie was just bad to the... bugs (what? he doesn't have bones!), reveled in his own evilness, gets defeated, and nothing of value is lost! No "Wah, I'm a hideous monster!" or "wah, no one loves me!". Oogie is a bastard and enjoys every second of it, as do I (though, again, I'm glad he's defeated).

Exactly! And yes, that's another interesting thing about his downfall. Jack takes him out with no hesitation, and there's no guilt afterwards, either. Nowadays it seems a lot of heroes tend to wrestle with the idea of taking out the villain. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Exactly! And yes, that's another interesting thing about his downfall. Jack takes him out with no hesitation, and there's no guilt afterwards, either. Nowadays it seems a lot of heroes tend to wrestle with the idea of taking out the villain. 

Not to mention that Oogie-Boogie's a total bully and the only one he's scared of IS Jack. He's a cheater, too!

Great song though.

What I particularly like about Jack dealing with Oogie is that he did it with new fervor because he had that whole 'I AM the Pumpking King!' reawakening after his attempted hijacking of Christmas ended in a flaming wreck.

Oogie's end does beg the question though... can anything die for good in Halloween Town? Oogie's basically a sentient burlap bag of bugs. If you got another sack together would the bugs swarm together and be Oogie again?

Is that too gross a thought?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Not to mention that Oogie-Boogie's a total bully and the only one he's scared of IS Jack. He's a cheater, too!

Great song though.

What I particularly like about Jack dealing with Oogie is that he did it with new fervor because he had that whole 'I AM the Pumpking King!' reawakening after his attempted hijacking of Christmas ended in a flaming wreck.

Oogie's end does beg the question though... can anything die for good in Halloween Town? Oogie's basically a sentient burlap bag of bugs. If you got another sack together would the bugs swarm together and be Oogie again?

Is that too gross a thought?

WIZARD!

Oh, wait, that reply doesn't work here. Maybe it's best not to think about this too much.

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

On 10/21/2019 at 10:58 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

What made 1991 Gaston so effective was how entitlement was the root of his evil: his popular jock persona, his appeal to the ladies (save for Belle, clever girl), his belief that Belle should marry him, and his disbelief that she didn't even like him... all come to a head and reveal the monster he really was. 

And the frightening, tragic thing?

There are countless Gastons in the real world.

We see them all the time: harassing women, beating up nerds, reveling in popularity they don't deserve, and committing horrific crimes because they know they'll get away with it, and why? Because there is a subset of people who love and stand behind their Gastons, blind to how awful they are, and will blame their victims, because they don't know any better. 

So, yeah, 1991 Gaston is one of the all-time great villains, while 2017's Gaston is a mewling twerp who could get knocked over with a stiff breeze.

I love your whole post (which I only quoted part of here). I do love in the 1991 version how Gaston is a text book catch, because that's exactly the kind of person who feels entitled to anything and anyone. I'm sorry to hear that he's different in the 2017 version, because I remember thinking way back then how great it was that the villain was not your typical moustache twirling one but instead the super popular dude who can appear attractive at first, but who turns out to be looking less for love than for a confirmation of his status as he sees it. It was quite refreshing to see back then, especially in a cartoon movie. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Do animals count on this thread? Because if there's one monster/villain that does merit sympathy, it's the poor unfortunate Cujo. What can you expect when a dog gets bit by rabies because the owners let him run around and don't take him to get his shots?! Yes, they were poor, but common sense, people!

And it always makes me angry that his owner, Brett, clearly saw that something was really wrong with Cujo, but when he told his mother, she wouldn't do anything about it because it was mess up her plans to take Brett to "visit her sister" (i.e. leave). He told her that Cujo was foaming at the mouth and covered with blood. That is a red flag to end all red flags.

You own a dog, you take care of that dog. If you don't and he gets rabies and kills people, IT IS ON YOU.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Do animals count on this thread? Because if there's one monster/villain that does merit sympathy, it's the poor unfortunate Cujo. What can you expect when a dog gets bit by rabies because the owners let him run around and don't take him to get his shots?! Yes, they were poor, but common sense, people!

And it always makes me angry that his owner, Brett, clearly saw that something was really wrong with Cujo, but when he told his mother, she wouldn't do anything about it because it was mess up her plans to take Brett to "visit her sister" (i.e. leave). He told her that Cujo was foaming at the mouth and covered with blood. That is a red flag to end all red flags.

You own a dog, you take care of that dog. If you don't and he gets rabies and kills people, IT IS ON YOU.

Jaws has been mentioned, so, yeah, I think animals definitely count. Poor Cujo, just a dog with dipshit owners. Old Yeller got rabies and had to be put down, too, but that was because he lived with a frontier family in the 1800s who didn't have the resources we have today. Cujo was released in the early 1980s, so, yeah, zero excuse.

I definitely share your indignation. Can't afford the shots? Don't. Get. A. Dog. 

I'm reminded of an amusing moment from VH-1's I Love the 80s, and they were discussing Cujo and Christine (they were both released in 1983), and Hal Sparks quipped,

"I think Christine was scarier. I mean, if your dog gets rabies... you just shoot it. I don't know what you do with a possessed car!"

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
  • Like 10
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Jaws has been mentioned, so, yeah, I think animals definitely count. Poor Cujo, just a dog with dipshit owners. Old Yeller got rabies and had to be put down, too, but that was because he lived with a frontier family in the 1800s who didn't have the resources we have today. Cujo was released in the early 1980s, so, yeah, zero excuse. 

Not to mention that it broke the family's heart to have to put down Old Yeller (and the elder boy delayed it as long as he could until even HE see there was no hope of his best friend surviving rabies' ravages)! If a pioneer family who had DEPENDED on their dog could somehow despite their agony do the right thing and put him down, why couldn't a more contemporary family who had considered their dog to be nothing more than a toy be picked up when they were bored have done the same thing - failing having given him the vaccine that hadn't even been imagined in Old Yeller's time! 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Jaws has been mentioned, so, yeah, I think animals definitely count. Poor Cujo, just a dog with dipshit owners. Old Yeller got rabies and had to be put down, too, but that was because he lived with a frontier family in the 1800s who didn't have the resources we have today. Cujo was released in the early 1980s, so, yeah, zero excuse.

I definitely share your indignation. Can't afford the shots? Don't. Get. A. Dog. 

I'm reminded of an amusing moment from VH-1's I Love the 80s, and they were discussing Cujo and Christine (they were both released in 1983), and Hal Sparks quipped,

"I think Christine was scarier. I mean, if your dog gets rabies... you just shoot it. I don't know what you do with a possessed car!"

Christine definitely had the edge over Cujo, being evil and supernaturally indestructible while Cujo was neither. 

It's even worse in the novel, because you get Cujo's POV and you can see how rabies is eating him alive. It's a hell of a disease. Worse still is how in the book, the little boy trapped in the car dies (while he survives in the movie). Fuck Brett's stupid parents, seriously. I guess it was big of the dead boy's parents not to sue Brett's mother seeing as how Cujo killed Brett's father too, but considering the fact that she did know Cujo was sick and did nothing to intervene, they probably should have.

Sorry, I'm a huge animal lover and I tend to take this stuff personally, even in fiction.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I'm reminded of an amusing moment from VH-1's I Love the 80s, and they were discussing Cujo and Christine (they were both released in 1983), and Hal Sparks quipped,

"I think Christine was scarier. I mean, if your dog gets rabies... you just shoot it. I don't know what you do with a possessed car!"

My favorite comment on horror movies in that series was when they were talking about Child's Play. Dee Snider goes, "It's a doll! Step on it, it's over!" 

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 17

Share this post


Link to post

Proving once again that Stephen King knows his stuff when it comes to villains, Greg Stilsson from The Dead Zone, a crooked businessman who goes into politics pretending to be all about "the working class" masquerading as one of them by donning a construction hat during his stupid rallies, all so that he can gain power and bolster his endless ego.*  Not to mention he tries to use a baby as a human shield.

*Gawrsh, who does he remind me of?

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Proving once again that Stephen King knows his stuff when it comes to villains, Greg Stilsson from The Dead Zone, a crooked businessman who goes into politics pretending to be all about "the working class" masquerading as one of them by donning a construction hat during his stupid rallies, all so that he can gain power and bolster his endless ego.*  Not to mention he tries to use a baby as a human shield.

*Gawrsh, who does he remind me of?

At least Stillson was legit blue collar.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

The titular body snatchers from Invasion of the Body Snatchers* . Creepy, moral-free aliens who murder unsuspecting people and take over their bodies and lives. Worst of all?

Spoiler

They aren't above killing children, as we see in the 1956 version. We don't see it happen, but we see the evidence, and just that chilling knowledge of what happened offscreen is enough to make anyone's flesh crawl.

*The versions from 1956, 1978, and 1994 are all excellent. I haven't seen the 2007 version, but I hear it's trash).

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/28/2019 at 4:52 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

The titular body snatchers from Invasion of the Body Snatchers* .

The reveal in the seventies version of 

Spoiler

Donald Sutherland's character as one of the "snatched" 

is a great movie moment.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, xaxat said:

The reveal in the seventies version of 

  Hide contents

Donald Sutherland's character as one of the "snatched" 

is a great movie moment.

I watched that version (the first one I saw) when I was rather too young for it, and that moment stuck with me for a long time. Such a creepy movie... I suppose helped by the fact that, even when Donald Sutherland is playing a hero, he's creepy.

Edited by Danny Franks
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the '70s one was scarier because while the original movie just made it sound like the pod people were latching onto living bodies (unless I'm mistake), the 70s pod people just straight up destroyed them while making the clones. *shudder*

  • Like 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

I thought the '70s one was scarier because while the original movie just made it sound like the pod people were latching onto living bodies (unless I'm mistake), the 70s pod people just straight up destroyed them while making the clones. *shudder*

The 1956 one, as good as it is, gets kinda muddled on how the aliens work: do they straight up murder you after they've formed, or do they somehow telepathically take over your body after you fall asleep? Yeah, I consider that a wee bit of a screenwriting boo-boo. 

Still a great flick, as is 1993 (I mistakenly thought it was 1994)'s Body Snatchers. Meg Tilly is great in that one. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I recently watched the new Halloween, and it was definitely better than most or all of the sequels, but I loved the moment where the podcasters find Laurie at her cabin and want to interview to look into Michael's motives, blah blah blah.  And Laurie just glares at them and shuts them down with this awesome quote: "Michael Myers killed five people. And he's a human being, we need to understand?!"

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Koba from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was a good villain that had a good balance of sympathy for his backstory without absolving him from his actions. After all the torture the scientists put him through, his hatred of the humans was justified...and he was also kind of right not to trust them when Caesar allowed that group to work on the dam under the condition that that they turn over their guns, since they were hiding a whole fucking armory. But then Koba turned on his own kind, tried to kill Caesar, and started the human's war on apes. 

I don't think Caesar should have felt that guilt over breaking "ape no kill other ape" code with Koba, since he not only tried to kill him, but he also killed Ash. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Terrence Fletcher from Whiplash is a fun one.  He's an egotistical dick and I don't believe for one second that he cares about Andrew or any of his students.  You don't routinely abuse people you care about like that even in the name of tough love.  He does it cause he's sadistic and it's a power trip for him.  The "good job" speech, which I'm kind of in agreement with, is just something he says to excuse his behavior.  I think he just really likes fucking with people's minds. 

Having said that, there's a moment in the climax when Andrew is going off on his drum solo when Fletcher walks over and readjusts Andrew's cymbal for him.  I'm wondering if that was Fletcher saying "you took everything I (literally) threw at you and still came out standing" and a nod of respect, or if Fletcher is still going to continue to go after him.  Not that Andrew should care because what does the respect of a sadist even mean?  God, I love this movie.

Edited by kiddo82
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

Terrence Fletcher from Whiplash is a fun one.  He's an egotistical dick and I don't believe for one second that he cares about Andrew or any of his students.  You don't routinely abuse people you care about like that even in the name of tough love.  He does it cause he's sadistic and it's a power trip for him.  The "good job" speech, which I'm kind of in agreement with, is just something he says to excuse his behavior.  I think he just really likes fucking with people's minds. 

A shocking number of critics sided with Fletcher from Whiplash, and to them I say,

What the living hell, critics?!?!

There's a discernible, not even all that thin line between being a "tough teacher" (the kind that doesn't suffer slackers, fools, or jerks), and being a sadistic, abusive (and Fletcher was emotionally, physically, verbally, and mentally abusive) sociopath who cares more about power trips and squelching creativity than teaching his students anything meaningful about music. TVTropes said it best: great jazz comes from experimentation and imperfection... y'know, as in, making mistakes once in a while?

JK Simmons was fantastic in that role, though. Glad the Academy recognized that. 🙂

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Robert Mitchum's character from Night of the Hunter.

Mitchum is scary AF as a murdering sociopath who spends the bulk of the  movie trying to get something he wants from two children.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, xaxat said:

Robert Mitchum's character from Night of the Hunter.

Mitchum is scary AF as a murdering sociopath who spends the bulk of the  movie trying to get something he wants from two children.

Robert Mitchum was usually scary AF... and that's why we love him!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

A shocking number of critics sided with Fletcher from Whiplash

I think personal feeling came into play there. It was pretty funny when at his Oscar acceptance speech JK thanked Miles Teller for, "Giving me the motivation to beat the shit out of him every day."

  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

A shocking number of critics sided with Fletcher from Whiplash, and to them I say,

What the living hell, critics?!?!

There's a discernible, not even all that thin line between being a "tough teacher" (the kind that doesn't suffer slackers, fools, or jerks), and being a sadistic, abusive (and Fletcher was emotionally, physically, verbally, and mentally abusive) sociopath who cares more about power trips and squelching creativity than teaching his students anything meaningful about music. TVTropes said it best: great jazz comes from experimentation and imperfection... y'know, as in, making mistakes once in a while?

JK Simmons was fantastic in that role, though. Glad the Academy recognized that. 🙂

I'm of the mind that I agree with what he says but don't condone what he does.  What makes him so interesting to me is that he's both right and full of shit.  Yes, you don't have to be the "rah rah good job" teacher, and it's apparent that Andrew does respond to being pushed, but it has to seem to any rational person that Fletcher's methods are totally abusive and counterproductive.  Does he realize this and not care?  Does he really think he is nurturing his students?  Is his point "if you can't handle me then you can't handle the life of a musician"?  During the all nighter when he was rotating the three drummers until they were bloodied and exhausted, did he really think they were really going to be able to play "his tempo" at that point?  No!  I'm sure he did it because he could.  (Although the line "Alternates, you wanna clean the blood off my drum set?” is awesome.)  I love how the movie doesn't really answer these questions and it's left to us to decide for ourselves.  I also love how we know nothing about Fletcher other than what is filtered through Andrew's perspective.  No sob story prequels about Fletcher, please!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

I think personal feeling came into play there. It was pretty funny when at his Oscar acceptance speech JK thanked Miles Teller for, "Giving me the motivation to beat the shit out of him every day."

I think there's definitely a tendency for people to side with villains who are played by actors they like. JK Simmons is probably universally loved, whereas Miles Teller is... not.

Look at Alan Rickman, who has created some wonderfully evil and unrepentant villains, yet you still get people saying they take his side because the heroes are smug, or whatever. Mostly it's just in fun, but you always get some weirdoes who take things too far, and start to hold up movie and TV villains as aspirational figures (which leads right back, sadly, to the Joker).

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

On 11/10/2019 at 4:30 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Robert Mitchum was usually scary AF... and that's why we love him!!

Yeah. I actually debated about who was more evil. His character in Night of the Hunter, or his character in the original Cape Fear.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

So Sean Penn plays himself, basically?  😈 

Somewhat, lol.

But seriously, Meserve was a scumbag in that movie.  And I really loathed how, in his trial scene at the end, he tries to justify his actions by bringing up all the lives he saved during Vietnam.  As if we hadn't seen him an hour previously into the film degrading the Vietnamese and acting like he was entitled to kidnap, rape and murder a farm girl because she was Vietacong.  And none of his accomplices were that much better: they went along with what he did because they were either sadistic, stupid, or cowardly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Venom as he's depicted in Spider-Man 3 is one of the lamest villains ever (yes, yes, I know, everything in Spider-Man 3 is lame, humor me). Topher Grace is horrendously, hilariously miscast, coming off as whiny and petulant rather than intimidating. 

One of my favorite YouTube film critics, Sean "the Smeghead" Moore of Cinematic Excrement, delightfully rips apart a scene in Spider-Man 3 (go to 23:26) that could also apply to every crappy villain apologia movie ever. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 4:30 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Robert Mitchum was usually scary AF... and that's why we love him!!

While simultaneously being sexy AF.  It was a fine balancing act.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 9:03 AM, Danny Franks said:

Look at Alan Rickman, who has created some wonderfully evil and unrepentant villains, yet you still get people saying they take his side because the heroes are smug, or whatever.

I mean, I totally wanted to have sex with both Hans Gruber and the Sheriff of Nottingham, but I didn't for one moment think they were right in any way.  They were psychos.  Fun, sexy psychos, but psychos nonetheless.

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

FUCKING ANASTASIA AND DRUZILLA In Cinderella-the Original animated version. It’s horrifying how they both rip Cinderella’s dress off her body to shreds.

And I’m supposed to buy that crock of BULLSHIT that Anastasia just wanted someone to wuv her? That she was worth loving? Cinderella was just too good. Ugh.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

FUCKING ANASTASIA AND DRUZILLA In Cinderella-the Original animated version. It’s horrifying how they both rip Cinderella’s dress off her body to shreds.

And I’m supposed to buy that crock of BULLSHIT that Anastasia just wanted someone to wuv her? That she was worth loving? Cinderella was just too good. Ugh.

Yes, they did. The ripped the dress off her body. They got pissed off at their necklace and other stuff being used to make that dress despite the fact they both clearly said they didn't want or like them. I don't buy Anastasia sudden changed either. Nope she didn't love. She didn't have to participate in treating Cinderella like crap. She chose to. I know a lot of people have disliked them being called ugly stepsisters. Sure they weren't beautiful but that's not the reason they were called ugly. They were ugly on the inside. Horrible spoiled brats who took pleasure in abusing their stepsister, or making sure she got in trouble with their mother. and threw tantrums when they didn't get their way. There was nothing good about them. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

Yes, they did. The ripped the dress off her body. They got pissed off at their necklace and other stuff being used to make that dress despite the fact they both clearly said they didn't want or like them. I don't buy Anastasia sudden changed either. Nope she didn't love. She didn't have to participate in treating Cinderella like crap. She chose to. I know a lot of people have disliked them being called ugly stepsisters. Sure they weren't beautiful but that's not the reason they were called ugly. They were ugly on the inside. Horrible spoiled brats who took pleasure in abusing their stepsister, or making sure she got in trouble with their mother. and threw tantrums when they didn't get their way. There was nothing good about them. 

Damn skippy. Anastasia's "redemption arc" is utter bullshit and I'm glad others are recognizing it as such. 

Now, could it have been done well? Possibly. Maybe if we'd seen Anastasia reflect on her behavior, realize how awful she'd been to poor Cinderella, sincerely apologize to Cinderella and offer to make amends, try to encourage her mom and sister to do the same, or decide "the hell with them!" and move her lot elsewhere, then maybe, just maybe, I'd buy it.

But nope, the writers just yank the "Poor Anastasia is as sympathetic and mistreated as Cinderella, all she needs is love" plot line out of their asses and expect us to just accept it at face value.

Um, no.

If you want the "Redemption of the Wicked Stepsister" story done right, look no further than Ever After. Stepsister Jacqueline is actually a nice person, but terribly shy, meek, awkward, and incapable of standing up for herself and others. She is cruelly dismissed as plain, fat, and useless by both her sister and mother, so, yes, she is to some extent as much a victim of abuse as Danielle (she's just a butt monkey as opposed to being treated as a servant). Danielle's strength of character and kindness towards others eventually inspire Jacqueline to be more proactive in her life, realize the unjust ways her mother and sister treat her and everyone else, and dares to defy them, even if it means being turned out from her own family (but thankfully, things work out just fine for Jacqueline).

That's how it's done: a gradual arc that feels organic and rewarding.

Edited by Wiendish Fitch
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, Wiendish, just because someone isn't AS mean as the others doesn't automatically mean they're NOT mean- much less not being responsible for their own choices to be mean! I can't say I ever thought EITHER of the Stepsisters were the least bit nice but  the only thing close to a 'redeeming' feature for either of them was that they were dumber than boxes of rocks while their mother  the Wicked Stepmother was quite calculatingly evil! 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Damn skippy. Anastasia's "redemption arc" is utter bullshit and I'm glad others are recognizing it as such. 

Now, could it have been done well? Possibly. Maybe if we'd seen Anastasia reflect on her behavior, realize how awful she'd been to poor Cinderella, sincerely apologize to Cinderella and offer to make amends, try to encourage her mom and sister to do the same, or decide "the hell with them!" and move her lot elsewhere, then maybe, just maybe, I'd buy it.

But nope, the writers just yank the "Poor Anastasia is as sympathetic and mistreated as Cinderella, all she needs is love" plot line out of their asses and expect us to just accept it at face value.

Um, no.

If you want the "Redemption of the Wicked Stepsister" story done right, look no further than Ever After. Stepsister Jacqueline is actually a nice person, but terribly shy, meek, awkward, and incapable of standing up for herself and others. She is cruelly dismissed as plain, fat, and useless by both her sister and mother, so, yes, she is to some extent as much a victim of abuse as Danielle (she's just a butt monkey as opposed to being treated as a servant). Danielle's strength of character and kindness towards others eventually inspire Jacqueline to be more proactive in her life, realize the unjust ways her mother and sister treat her and everyone else, and dares to defy them, even if it means being turned out from her own family (but thankfully, things work out just fine for Jacqueline).

That's how it's done: a gradual arc that feels organic and rewarding.

Exactly, they could have redeemed her by doing just that. Rethinking how she treated her stepsister and apologize. That could have worked. But instead they skip right over it by trying to insist Anastasia had a good heart. Ah, when did she have a good heart? When she helped rip Cinderella's dress a part? Eight years of treating her like crap, a servant and abusing her? In the beginning of the cartoon it makes it clear that her stepfamily took abusing her not just her stepmother. I don't remember if she was the one who went to tattle to her mother about the mouse on her plate or if it was the other one but both girls were so excited to Cinderella was about to get in trouble with the Stepmother for it. Sure that sounds like a good heart.

I agree Ever After did it so much better. Jacqueline was nicer and got treated like crap too. She looked like she disagreed with her mother went off when Danielle asked about the servant, she suggested Danielle wearing the dress to go to the ball, and pointed out the invitation was for all ladies of the house. She's not perfect but her personality being shy, awkward and meek makes sense for having to put up with how her mother and sister treated her all her life. Despite her position, there's not really much she can do either. She doesn't have anywhere else to go either or really any other options.  She does realize that if Danielle wasn't around she'd be the one servant to her family. Her switching sides wasn't automatic. But you can easily see how she gets there. While the Anastasia's suddenly nice comes out of nowhere and Disney basically ignores and wants us to ignore everything we saw in the animation. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The Ewells in To Kill A Mockingbird. I'm sorry, but I don't give a fuck that Bob abused Mayella, she still falsely accused Tom Robinson of rape to cover up her own sexual assault of him and he wound up killed because of it.

And the fact that assholes use Mayella (and the story in general) to smear the MeToo movement and other rape victims makes me have a rage stroke.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size