|
Post by mistica0christina on May 21, 2010 0:08:05 GMT -5
Today before I had to go to work, I was watching special features off of the killer cut version of Friday the 13th (2009) and during one of the features, they had talked to Derek Mears, the guy who portrays Jason Voorhees in the remake. He said some interesting stuff about his experience of being a Jason fan but after all the filming, he said something that was truly interesting. He felt that what made a character a true villain was someone who didn't see themselves as the villain. Then he also explained how he didn't see Jason as a villain and even points out that he believes that the character wouldn't as well since through the character's eyes, he is righting the wrongs that were committed against him and his mother. I will admit that while I don't find too many horror characters to be interesting due to how they are like or by what motivates them to kill since mostly, it's a sick thrill for them more than anything. As for the character of Jason Voorhees, I can't help but feel sympathy for him especially when he was truly manipulated in Freddy vs Jason and once again went through all that hell in the comic book sequel "Freddy vs Jason vs Ash". The Killer cut version is an extended version which even includes one scene of Jason remembering the scene of his mother's death and out of anger and frustration, started trashing his underground hide out due to remembering that pain. (kind of sad that this was cut out of the original or at least according to another site it was, I need to watch the original theatrical version to make sure)....okay, I'm forgetting why I made this thread again XD....anyway, so what is your opinion about that, in your eyes, what makes a true villain?
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on May 21, 2010 0:27:20 GMT -5
I actually don't think there's such a thing as a true villain or hero. There are people on the "good" side and people on the "bad" side. I've actually not considered classic slasher films into this, but it's a very interesting idea. When I think about it, they only one that would come close to a 100% evil would be Freddy. Actually, I don't think he's even evil either. He's sadistic more than anything and he's out for revenge. But I can say that all antagonist like that are sadist.
Pinhead is my personal favorite. Now, is he evil? That's debatable. Technically, he's just doing his job. He is trying to punish people for their wrong doings and enlightening them to the "pleasures in pain" as well. But he's far from evil, even helping the protagonist at points in second movie.
Most villains start off as victims, even in slasher films. The whole revenge thing is thrown around, but does that make them evil? Hell, most of them are dead to boot. One of the most popular "evil" characters today is Tom Riddle/Voldemort. Riddle is supposed to be an almost symbolic form of Satan in the series, but his character is more misguided than evil. His past is riddled (pun somewhat intended) with judgments and lacking any kind of friendship. This was his ultimate flaw in the series and the thing that made him so, well, bad: He never had love in his life. His father never loved his mother. His mother never loved him. He never loved anyone himself. Looking at the character, he is a very lonely and misguided person. By the end of the series, you mostly feel sorry for him, more than anything.
So, yes, I think villain and hero are very loose terms. I'll even go beyond Mears in saying that there's no such thing as a true villain, even if the individual considers himself to be one. Acts can be villainous or heroic. Does this mean the individual who comments them is a pure villain or hero? There are those more heartless than others, but they still are not 100%, full-out evil.
Except for Freddy. Dude is cold.
I've been reading too much Watchmen and watching too much Dr. Horrible XD I'm not even sure if any of this post even makes sense. There should be some kind of program to stop me from posting after midnight, lol.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 21, 2010 2:39:22 GMT -5
I personally found Voldemort to be pretty disappointing myself.
I think it's because throughout the series,Rowling emphasised that it was CHOICES which defined you. In the end Voldemort was made out to be born evil in the text (there was something wrong with him even as a baby- he didn't cry).
Clearly Voldemort had a very strong neurological disorder. This underminds his own choice.
The horcruxes he made probably made him higly unstable in some regards too, but having a villain born evil pretty much ruins the idea of this theme. Because Voldemort never had much of a choice. He was BORN twisted.
It kind of underminds that theme which she seemed to state was important for me.
I do prefer stories which have someone you can either sympathsise with. I kind of want to make my own on some level. In my own story the main antagonist is a manipulative selfish person, but his motives are still hopefully understanable given the situation. As an added thing, the protaganists and one of the people whose allegience is in the dark technically want the same thing as him, however the COST to other people to get what they want is great. And that's not something the protaganists are very willing to do when they discover it. But they could be tempted.
I personally like it best when parallels can be drawn between characters like that.
What makes this guy not like the protaganists isn't what he WANTS, he wants the same thing, and in fact it can argued even more so. It's a purely selfish desire, but understandable. What makes him horrible is the means he's prepared to go there, the people and innocents he's willing to sacrifice along the way. And it's not even like he was a sadist. If there was a way to get what he wanted WITHOUT all this destruction he'd probably even take it. Because the actions aren't exactly something he may enjoy with an evil 'muhahaha' he has grown unforgiving, and rather dulled to the whole process over time.
I kind of prefer antagonists whch are those you can relate to and/or seem like people you know or could see in every day life if placed in the same situation.
That's kind of why slasher movies can be difficult to get into sometimes for me. They're kind of just a gore fest. There are some good ones though.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on May 21, 2010 8:49:31 GMT -5
Ooo yay, people responded. ;D
I do agree that I'm not a big Freddy fan myself, don't get me wrong he is a horror icon in his own right but not really a favorite for me, I don't like him due to his target of kills which in his case is children and even within the remake, they have him returning to the original idea that Craven wanted to go with which is that he was a child molester in life. Either way, I have a hard time liking someone like that who seems to target children and enjoys it.
Huh, Voldemort didn't cry as a baby? I'm not sure if that would be considered evil since my four year old brother practically never cried when he was first born either, can't say the same for now though but still.
Hmm, you do make a good point actually Bampot. Still, I've noticed that within the fandom of horrors, those who love these horror icons prefer seeing them all as evil hack and slash your guts because they are evil like that and such but not all of them seem that way. I've never watched the Texas Massacre films but have read up on them through the net, Leatherface is also another good example. The character is mentally challenged who lives with his family who are cannibalistic, even from watching clips through Youtube, seems more like he kills due to them ordering him too. He is treated pretty badly by them but since it is his family, he doesn't see how controlling they are since you know, they are family, his mind probably tells him that they would never lead him to do something that would hurt him in the end or anything like that. In the remake of Friday the 13th (this particular part of the plot has caused alot of debate on line practically) Jason actually takes a hostage but not for any way to fufill his "needs", he captures and keeps alive one girl because she resembles his mother so much, she looks a little like Pamela in her younger years. Now in my opinion, I think that he knows she is not his mother but keeps her there as a comfort to him more than anything but like I said, I'm pretty sure he knows that she isn't mother. In the Killer cut, the girl starts screaming during his little tantrum which causes him to go to her and nearly strangle her but stops when he sees his mother's neckalace but when she tells him that it will be okay, he glares at her and storms off.
I guess to me that sometimes having a lack of a conscience can make you like a villian, that is kind of what I'm basing one of my MI OC's on within my fic. Scourge is a character I created to be a killer because he gets a thrill out of it, a kick, pure satisfaction from it and probably wouldn't just target children either, I've created him to be willing to kill another monster if he felt that it was necessary. But I guess even I didn't make him entirely heartless, the dog pack he controls he seems to show a little affection for although most of that probably goes to Butch, his lead dog but if one of the dogs were to fail him, he isn't one to blink twice and take them out if he felt they were of no use to him anymore due to the failure.
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on May 21, 2010 9:27:16 GMT -5
I'm not talking about hardly ever though Mistica, I'm meaning never. Never crying at all. Not once, and not just a birth but for a very long time. Thats usually indicates that something is very wrong- if they NEVER cry.
Also Voldemort needed psycological help even at eleven when Dumbledore first met him. Plus he had done a variety of horrible things with his magic, was so sure he was 'special' and ready to believe it immediately. At 11. Making people do things they didn't want to do. He had a thirst for control. And all Dumbledore did was WATCH. He never really acted. When it would have been clear there was something very wrong with this kid.
It just kind of didn't make for a good story for me. I much preferred fan theories where he was more or less normal until he hit school and then the environment there was what caused him to change, which resulted in Voldemort.
I think the problem is while kids like that do exist, it doesn't fit the theme of 'choice' very well.
Plus there are rampant double standards in HP unfortunatly.
Sorry, this is an old rant of mine. I was just very disappointed in how they ended the series.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on May 21, 2010 9:31:12 GMT -5
*shrugs* That's fine, I read up to only halfway through book five but stopped reading mainly cause the HP are reeeeeaaaalllllly long! That's why I can only stick to the movies, a much easier way for me to understand anything in them. That's what I had to do with Stephen King's It, I bought an old tape of the movie and watched that since the book doesn't seem to be getting to a point but after watching that, I'm thinking I was better off with the book, gonna try to finish it...sooner or later.
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on May 21, 2010 10:26:58 GMT -5
I agree, Voldemort was just a few screws loose, even as a kid. But I don't believe he was pure evil incarnate. Perhaps by the end of the series, when he's just a soulless douche that's more overly arrogant than anything. But as a kid, he was horribly disturbed.
I think JKR's "choices" translated into "opportunities" most of the time. Harry had a lot more going for him than Voldemort. But I still felt sorry for ol' Volde by the end. Even if he did kill my favorite character.
I was disappointed with the ending too, especially the last two books. Still love the series, but it ended on such a lame point.
Mistica, the IT movie and book are radically different and I don't think you'll be disappointed after reading it. It's the King book that actually scared me most. It's just so crazy and surreal, along with scary. Although, I think there were too many unneeded sex parts, well, just the one at the end. You'll know what I'm talking about it you read it. It just really didn't need to be in there and didn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on May 21, 2010 18:15:31 GMT -5
I don't really think that there is such a thing as a true villain or a true hero, either. For ME, the best "villains" are those who are either totally "in it" for themselves, and their own glory, with absolutely no thoughts or cares as to how their actions can impact others, or who actually do bad things because they get great pleasure from seeing and causing the suffereing of others, or who are totally indifferent to suffering, or those who belong to an IDEOLOGY which believes that its ends justify its means, such as the Nazis or the Animal Rights extremists. But yes, most "villains", at least individuals, start out as victims, even in slasher films. In the original Nightmare On Elm Street(I have not seen the 2010 version and really don't plan to, as I cannot see anyone other than Robert Englund as Freddie), Freddie Krueger was lynched and murdered by a bunch of parents who'd accused him of molesting their children. In the original Friday the 13th, Jason Voorhees was a mentally handicapped boy who was bullied and tormented and eventually drowned by a bunch of other kids at Camp Crystal Lake, and his MOTHER was the killer throughout most of the movie, seeking revenge for her son's death. The only one of the "Classic Slasher Trinity"-Freddy, Jason and Michael Myars(Halloween)-who was apparently born psychotic was Myars, who became a killer as a young child, for no apparent reason.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 21, 2010 18:27:51 GMT -5
I've actually been watching the recent films (Phoneix (ugh, not as good as the others personally, which is rather understandable because it's the only film directed by somebody else), and Half-Blood Prince). I think Voldemort is an example of someone who's made all the wrong choices and someone who constantly rejected love and trust. Essentially he's an example of the kind of person someone could become... Though I think the arthur noted that Voldemort was actually a sicopath.
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on May 21, 2010 18:34:49 GMT -5
I thought Kruegar was accused of murdering kids in the original? But I don't remember it that well :/
I was trying to think of good evil evil villains today and I remembered the Crimson King from Stephen King's Dark Tower series. They guy was essentially supposed to be a devil-like character and was wanting to destroy the Tower, which would destroy all universes, for pretty much no reason that I could gather. His second hand man was Walter/Randall Flagg/tons of other names. He was just kinda a prick more than anything and is actually the main antagonist in other King books. He was killed due to his own arrogance by another villain, Mordred. Mordred was born to kill his half-father, who is the lead protagonist. You actually felt sorry for him, unlike the other antagonist in the series.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 21, 2010 18:36:04 GMT -5
Ohh I might know that one...I'm pretty sure he did. They cornered him in the factory and the parents of the kids burned him alive. And pretty sure he never said "I didn't do anything" or a line like that I've seen in this new one's trailer.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on May 21, 2010 18:38:59 GMT -5
Oh, add on for the Voldemort thing... I think Voldemort's stature was actually used in a positive way by Dumbledore. Draco anyone? Well watching Half-Blood, I recall Dumbledore announcing to the students near the beginning about Tom Riddle, and we see Draco allot, seeming to be in deep thought. Essentially I think it's because of Dumbledore trying to show Draco doesn't need to be like Riddle, that the end results show that he is able to break down (and even cry) himself, showing he is vastly different than Riddle.
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on May 21, 2010 18:47:09 GMT -5
The vast difference between Draco and Voldemort is that Draco had actual friends, a possible girlfriend, and a family who did care a lot about him. Draco's mother shows how much she loves her son in the beginning of HBP. Voldemort never had that. In the end, Voldemort's downfall is due to his underestimation of the power of love, as was his first downfall. I still don't think he had as many opportunities as Harry, since he lacked that love.
Has anyone read the book based off the screenplay of Men In Black? Random, I know. It's just, there are a few chapters from the richardroaches PoV. He needs a war to start or else his family will starve. That's not really made clear in the movie, but I think it's when I actually first started questioning motives behind antagonist and if they were really all that evil.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jun 20, 2010 23:43:24 GMT -5
Figured that I could use this topic for something besides how it originally started out. Surfing Youtube is always interesting...unless it pulls up stuff like this... This is a presentation that some guy put together (he probably did it for a class I would think) that shows the possible dangers of sexism within Disney films and the negative effects on, not girls, but boys. Now, I'm not saying that Disney movies and the types of portrayals that they have can't be negative...after all, a very common thing I of course notice is the typical model type woman who looks for her handsome prince...clearly the two are made for each other...and this kind of true love junk that Disney does in their films in my opinion is as realistic as the films themselves in where they are nothing more but pure fantasy....but back on topic. He uses different kinds of films that in my opinion are bad examples to use as far as the portrayal of men and how they view women. First bad example, Beauty and the Beast's Gaston- He uses Gaston quite often in showing that due to Gaston's personality, musculiler body, and how he views all the ladies where he lives is shown as a negative image towards boys. Gaston, as I'm sure we could probably tell, was purposefully portrayed as a basic pretty boy. He sees himself as every girl's dream guy and only seems bothered when a woman (in this case Belle) doesn't view him in that way. His character was purposefully done as he was in order to not only help in making him unlikeable aka the jerk of the film but also to add to the villianous role that he plays. Along with that, Gaston is a perfect way to show people of who is the true monster and who is the true man in our story for as we see by the end of the film, it doesn't matter how strong you are physically, what matters is how you are as a person that can make you strong. The men of Mulan- Once again, another bad example. The film Mulan is about a woman doing what she felt she had to do in order to save her father at the risk of her own life for as we know from the film, if it was revealed that she was a woman in disguise then by law, death would be her punishment. During the film, Mulan learns the interesting and sometimes strange ways of the men. The two songs shown in the vid aren't the best examples either. "Be a Man" (the training song) is a song that talks of what their general expects of them in their training in order to get ready for war! Clearly for war, you have got to do your best because if not then you won't survive out there! They don't want to send out soldiers who are gonna die without a fighting chance! The second song "A Girl Worth Fighting For" is more upbeat because it goes through the view point of our bachelor soldiers because let's face it. Some of these guys went to war for many reasons but one secretly is hoping to meet themselves a lady to impress and protect along the way, in fact it doesn't dawn on them how dangerous war is until they make it to the scene of the battle that took place, until they see the carnage that can be produced by war...by that point they had one hell of a wake up call and soon realized that they could not come back alive! Even after Mulan is revealed to be a woman, she was able to prove to everyone that despite being a woman, she was considered equal and could be just as strong. In fact, the three soldiers she befriends still help her after it was shown that she was a woman, they helped her not because they were trying to be manly but because she was their fellow soldier in arms...they did what she would easily do for them. Hercules: Ah yes, the one of few films that my mother really doesn't like for it's innuendos, lol, but back to serious. Hercules is used as an example as the stereotypical body type...but here's the problem, didn't Hercules learn that it wasn't the strength of your body but the strength of your heart that mattered? I was pretty sure he did. The Lion King- In part of this film, he talks about how in Disney films, it is portrayed that a man who refuses to fight for dominance is shown as pitiful...and interestingly enough he uses The Lion King as an example...a film about animals in where to them, being the dominant one is EVERYTHING! For many animals, being the alpha male is important for many reasons...seriously, watch any wildlife show on Animal Planet, this is nothing new! Why he thought that The Lion King would make a good example is anyone's guess. Aladin- Used as an example to how most Disney film's final fight scene is between two men fighting for dominance or a girl...um, yeah, weird example...and that final fight scene between two men, I was pretty sure that Disney's majority of villians were WOMEN in which there would be few man fighting man scenes to begin with. Kuzco- He was only used for a tiny bit and as much as I love his character, I will admit one thing, Kuzco throughout the majority of the film was a basic @ss! I mean, come on, he was a spoiled rich kid who believed that the whole world revolved around him but he, like others, learned something in which that he needed to grow up and actually try giving instead of expecting to be given things all the time. Syndrome- Not sure if he could be considered an example because his monologue was used as an intro to the film but I'm not sure how he would fit into all of this really. I mean, yeah sure he does put Mr. Incredible into all sorts of situations where he is either outmatched or outwitted but Syndrome did these things more because he was trying to prove that you didn't need to be super to be seen as important, not because he was really trying to prove his manhood! While I will admit that I don't like Syndrome, he is a character that I do feel some sympathy for because bottom line, if he wouldn't have been shot down like he did, he may have become a better person...or even so, he could have just brushed off what happened, but he didn't, he took all of that anger and fury at what had happened and used it as his strength in order to prove years later to Mr. Incredible how wrong he was, to prove to him that rejecting him was a big mistake and he would make sure that Mr. Incredible wouldn't forget that! He kind of reminds me of those sad stories of school shootings because over half of the time, those events could have been prevented if all someone did was take the time and listen... So that's my opinion about it...what do you guys think?
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on Jun 21, 2010 11:20:01 GMT -5
I think he really missed the point with Disney objectifying women. He complains that Disney portrays women as objects, and then goes to show examples that come from either antagonist or jokes. Gaston, like you pointed out, was the pretty boy. He expected everyone, women and men, to kneel down and worship him. There are many, many, many guys that are actually like that. Because Gaston is portrayed as a villain and not a hero, I doubt many young boys will think twice about following in his footsteps. In fact, Disney has Gaston as an example to young men as what not to act like. I'd say the biggest problem with B&B is that there's a slight case of stockholm syndrome, but the overall message is about not judging people by how they seem. Gaston was the perfect image of the classic hero, but he had a horrible personality. Beast was like a remolded version of Gaston and I'm not talking about how he looked. Beast looked like a classic monster-like villain, but was instead the hero.
The maker of that video also took Mulan in the wrong way. Mulan was trying to portray how women were seen in treated in that culture and time, but also showing that a girl can rise above her stereotype of being a house maid. "Make a man out of you" was simply an ironic play on words, considering that our protagonist is a woman. "A girl worth fighting for" is actually a hilarious song that the maker of the video took the wrong way. Look back to what I said about Gaston, they don't want the watchers to take it seriously. At one point in the song Mulan mentions that she would like an intelligent girl who spoke her mind and they all laughed. At the end, she gets the last laugh by doing what a whole army couldn't accomplish. Of course, the song is more a play on how a lot of guys really think, which is why it is kind of funny: A bunch of rather less than stunning guys that just want a girl to unquestionably pine over them. Very obvious bachelors XD Mulan a pretty big girl power movie and I can't believe he completely missed the point.
Ugh, Herc was supposed to be big! He was Hercules for goodness sake! And, as you mentioned, he did learn that being a true mad isn't about the strength of his body, but about the strength of his character. Gaston was supposed to be a pretty boy and an antagonist to boot. I can't believe he keeps using him as an example. His whole presentation is supposed to be on how Disney influences young minds. I don't know if he remembers being a kid, but the young usually always take the protagonist side. Gaston's masculinity is a joke. So much of a joke that they make a funny song about it in the movie. It's something to laugh about, a jerk guy trying his hardest to show off. Gaston is a jerk and Disney obviously portrayed him as such. What this guy is saying is the equivalent of saying Schindler's List portrayed that the Holocaust was a good things because it had Nazi's killing Jews. Totally daft and missing the point.
Oh, god, this guy just reminded me of how much I loved The Lion King. Such an epic scene. I didn't get that the overall message was of masculinity in either The Lion King or Aladdin. In both, they're trying to save a whole kingdom. It's particularly powerful in Lion King because Simba is trying to regain his birthright and avenge his father. I'm sure if either of these scenes were two females fighting, he would of found a way to call it sexist too. I also like that he used a picture of Beast over Belle when he said dominance. I don't know if watched the movies, but he wasn't dominating her. She was almost killed by wolves and he was protecting her. He would of been so much better off if he made a video on how Disney has very scewed ideas of romance and romance development. Instead, he cameo off sounding very insecure. I don't know of one man who has every felt threatened by the imagine of Gaston or the other Disney men who are on the masculine side. Also, note that he could only come up with two characters for that argument out of a big ol' pile of Disney films. Consider the fact that one of the characters is a Greek God and the other is a pretty boy villain and you have an argument that has very little support.
|
|