Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Catlady in training]

I agree about the dislike for trying to make all villains sympathetic. Sometimes it works (I loved Wicked for example), but if it is done too often, it looses its appeal. Some people are just evil, not everyone has a sob story.

Though it was hilarious when after the Cruella movie, people were immediately snarking When are we going to see a Gaston movie with Timothée Chalamet, that will give him a reason to dislike literacy and women.

[williamtheday]

How about Frollo? Turns out it was just a silly misunderstanding between him and the Gypsies. Esmeraleda marries him in the end.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

I don't mind straight evil villains, or morally complex antagonists. There's room for both. My issue is them taking purely evil characters and toning them down. Kinda like what happened to Freddy Krueger, or how Red Skull wasn't really a Nazi anymore.

[godisawesome]

I agree about the dislike for trying to make all villains sympathetic. Sometimes it works (I loved Wicked for example), but if it is done too often, it looses its appeal. Some people are just evil, not everyone has a sob story.

Though it was hilarious when after the Cruella movie, people were immediately snarking When are we going to see a Gaston movie with Timothée Chalamet, that will give him a reason to dislike literacy and women.

I think it comes down to how well the story manages to place and execute the sympathy for the villain in relation to other characters - a villainous antagonist should still serve the story of a protagonist hero, after all.

Like, Norman Osborne and Otto Octavius’s sympathetic aspects worked because Peter’s POV was still paramount to the films, and their villainous personas were still designed to most serve his story and make sure he and the audience had a agreement about how they viewed him. In contrast, while Sandman has some sympathetic aspects, it didn’t help the story or serve Peter’s story, so it was largely useless. Similarly, Mysterio is a great example of embracing a loathsome POV for a villain when their whole Schlick is deceiving people, including the hero.

For a one-character version to show how badly it can go, look at Kylo Ren in the Star Wars ST. In TFA, he was functional because Rey and Finn were allowed to react to him in terror, disgust, and hatred, even as Han and Leia were allowed to care for him while still trying to save the Galaxy. He stopped being functional in TLJ because Rian Johnson couldn’t see why either of the major character she interacted with (Rey and Luke) wouldn’t always value Kylo’s POV over their own, or why the audience e might already find him a loathsome villain and not see anything to change their mind - which is partly because he lost track of Kylo as an antagonist and started trying to treat him as *the* protagonist, and why no one in LFL actually had the stomachs to keep him as the final villain of the ST.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

I think it comes down to how well the story manages to place and execute the sympathy for the villain in relation to other characters - a villainous antagonist should still serve the story of a protagonist hero, after all.

Like, Norman Osborne and Otto Octavius’s sympathetic aspects worked because Peter’s POV was still paramount to the films, and their villainous personas were still designed to most serve his story and make sure he and the audience had a agreement about how they viewed him. In contrast, while Sandman has some sympathetic aspects, it didn’t help the story or serve Peter’s story, so it was largely useless. Similarly, Mysterio is a great example of embracing a loathsome POV for a villain when their whole Schlick is deceiving people, including the hero.

For a one-character version to show how badly it can go, look at Kylo Ren in the Star Wars ST. In TFA, he was functional because Rey and Finn were allowed to react to him in terror, disgust, and hatred, even as Han and Leia were allowed to care for him while still trying to save the Galaxy. He stopped being functional in TLJ because Rian Johnson couldn’t see why either of the major character she interacted with (Rey and Luke) wouldn’t always value Kylo’s POV over their own, or why the audience e might already find him a loathsome villain and not see anything to change their mind - which is partly because he lost track of Kylo as an antagonist and started trying to treat him as *the* protagonist, and why no one in LFL actually had the stomachs to keep him as the final villain of the ST.

Tbh though I'm perfectly fine with stories blurring the lines between antagonist and protagonists. I definitely fine Grey vs Grey morality more intriguing then the standard salt of the earth good vs the unambiguously evil demon. Mix the conflicts up a bit. Have protagonists go against other protagonists, or antagonists up against other antagonists. There's a lot of stuff you can pull from there.

[Catlady in training]

Tbh though I'm perfectly fine with stories blurring the lines between antagonist and protagonists. I definitely fine Grey vs Grey morality more intriguing then the standard salt of the earth good vs the unambiguously evil demon. Mix the conflicts up a bit. Have protagonists go against other protagonists, or antagonists up against other antagonists. There's a lot of stuff you can pull from there.

It's good to have variety. There's enough room for both The Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire. We can enjoy either one, or both of them.

[CSTowle]

I think it comes down to how well the story manages to place and execute the sympathy for the villain in relation to other characters - a villainous antagonist should still serve the story of a protagonist hero, after all.

Like, Norman Osborne and Otto Octavius’s sympathetic aspects worked because Peter’s POV was still paramount to the films, and their villainous personas were still designed to most serve his story and make sure he and the audience had a agreement about how they viewed him. In contrast, while Sandman has some sympathetic aspects, it didn’t help the story or serve Peter’s story, so it was largely useless. Similarly, Mysterio is a great example of embracing a loathsome POV for a villain when their whole Schlick is deceiving people, including the hero.

For a one-character version to show how badly it can go, look at Kylo Ren in the Star Wars ST. In TFA, he was functional because Rey and Finn were allowed to react to him in terror, disgust, and hatred, even as Han and Leia were allowed to care for him while still trying to save the Galaxy. He stopped being functional in TLJ because Rian Johnson couldn’t see why either of the major character she interacted with (Rey and Luke) wouldn’t always value Kylo’s POV over their own, or why the audience e might already find him a loathsome villain and not see anything to change their mind - which is partly because he lost track of Kylo as an antagonist and started trying to treat him as *the* protagonist, and why no one in LFL actually had the stomachs to keep him as the final villain of the ST.

I don't know, I think Ben was the hero we needed and that I wanted. Good on Rian for seeing it and allowing him to evolve beyond black/white.

[godisawesome]

I don't know, I think Ben was the hero we needed and that I wanted. Good on Rian for seeing it and allowing him to evolve beyond black/white.

Ben Solo is the Neo-Nazi School Shooter Patricide Patron Saint of Entitled Douchebags. He was a pitch black, and shallow little narcissistic turd for 2.5 films that the film pimped Rey out to in an abusive, shallow-ass “relationship” after dragging Luke through the mud, and was a one man example of how many people will gladly ignore acting, storytelling, and plot if a character is a sad handsome white boy.

He didn’t evolve in a single damn way under Rian Johnson. He should have; the formula of “Han and Leia’s son goes to the dark side” plus Adam Driver should be one that has dynamic characterization. And JJ Abrams had given him a dynamic characterization - that of decaying into a mad monster in TFA, which Adam Driver delivered on. Johnson gave him a static, stagnant, non-changing story, but screwed up every character and conflict around him because he wanted a sad white boy lead.

John Boyega delivered a far-superior-in-every-way protagonist in Finn during TFA… and got punished for it by TLJ retconning away his character and shoving him into a token story about screwing up by not listening to his white bosses and being too obsessed with the white girl. Dailey Ridley delivered a superior-in-every-way protagonist in Rey during TFA… and was exploited to do all the damn work to make Ben seem sympathetic in a sexist bit of bullshit that removed all her previous characterization.

Then JJ Abrams delivered on the rote, pathetic, obligatory redemption that Ben Solo fans delusionally demanded in TROS - meaning he still did more than Rian Johnson’s lazy, biased ass in TLJ, but was still stuck with the bullshit Rian Johnson did.

Ben Solo fans didn’t watch the damn movies.

Ben Solo fans demanded they be catered to with a white boy Skywalker even if he was a monster, and embraced a bunch of racist and sexist tropes and cliches to protect their soft, pathetic POV of what characters should be at the center of Star Wars.

Tbh though I'm perfectly fine with stories blurring the lines between antagonist and protagonists. I definitely fine Grey vs Grey morality more intriguing then the standard salt of the earth good vs the unambiguously evil demon. Mix the conflicts up a bit. Have protagonists go against other protagonists, or antagonists up against other antagonists. There's a lot of stuff you can pull from there.

This can be great if done well… but the writer needs to maintain clarity in focus, equality in empathy, and be aware of any biases they have themselves.

Good writers do that well. Bad writers just show they have biases and prejudices.

[Agent Z]

I feel like I watched a different version of TLJ from other people.

[CSTowle]

Ben Solo is the Neo-Nazi School Shooter Patricide Patron Saint of Entitled Douchebags. He was a pitch black, and shallow little narcissistic turd for 2.5 films that the film pimped Rey out to in an abusive, shallow-ass “relationship” after dragging Luke through the mud, and was a one man example of how many people will gladly ignore acting, storytelling, and plot if a character is a sad handsome white boy.

He didn’t evolve in a single damn way under Rian Johnson. He should have; the formula of “Han and Leia’s son goes to the dark side” plus Adam Driver should be one that has dynamic characterization. And JJ Abrams had given him a dynamic characterization - that of decaying into a mad monster in TFA, which Adam Driver delivered on. Johnson gave him a static, stagnant, non-changing story, but screwed up every character and conflict around him because he wanted a sad white boy lead.

John Boyega delivered a far-superior-in-every-way protagonist in Finn during TFA… and got punished for it by TLJ retconning away his character and shoving him into a token story about screwing up by not listening to his white bosses and being too obsessed with the white girl. Dailey Ridley delivered a superior-in-every-way protagonist in Rey during TFA… and was exploited to do all the damn work to make Ben seem sympathetic in a sexist bit of bullshit that removed all her previous characterization.

Then JJ Abrams delivered on the rote, pathetic, obligatory redemption that Ben Solo fans delusionally demanded in TROS - meaning he still did more than Rian Johnson’s lazy, biased ass in TLJ, but was still stuck with the bullshit Rian Johnson did.

Ben Solo fans didn’t watch the damn movies.

Ben Solo fans demanded they be catered to with a white boy Skywalker even if he was a monster, and embraced a bunch of racist and sexist tropes and cliches to protect their soft, pathetic POV of what characters should be at the center of Star Wars.



This can be great if done well… but the writer needs to maintain clarity in focus, equality in empathy, and be aware of any biases they have themselves.

Good writers do that well. Bad writers just show they have biases and prejudices.

Oh I know, I'm just having fun.

[MajorHoy]

I don't mind straight evil villains, or morally complex antagonists. There's room for both. My issue is them taking purely evil characters and toning them down. Kinda like what happened to Freddy Krueger, or how Red Skull wasn't really a Nazi anymore.

It seems like in general Marvel has been shying away from the Nazis as bad guys for WWII superhero-related stuff and focusing more on HYDRA being the big bad during WWII.
I guess they're trying not to offend Germans or something?

[godisawesome]

It seems like in general Marvel has been shying away from the Nazis as bad guys for WWII superhero-related stuff and focusing more on HYDRA being the big bad during WWII.
I guess they're trying not to offend Germans or something?

If I remember correctly, it might have something to do with how Germany and some other countries censor most outright Nazi symbols to avoid even accidental portrayal of them as even just competent, since some idiots would try to take that as inspiration.

Plus, it just gives you the freedom to go crazy with the ahistorical goofy stuff the conflicts require.

I feel like I watched a different version of TLJ from other people.

To point this out… I think TLJ most highlighted how wildly different people’s perspectives of Star Wars as a franchise and as individual films was, and not just in the usual sense of taste or opinions, but in terms of prioritization of themes, characters, narrative depth, and interpretations…

…which is actually something all major mythos have in common: they’re much broader and multi-dimensional than anyone fan can truly grasp, and that’s why you get fans at loggerheads with each other. Some people like the King Arthur mythos for the adventure, actions, and heroism, others like it for the soap opera, intrigue, and cynical failure aspects… and those are opposing areas of interests in a lot of ways.

Generally, the best creators manage to at least understand what intrigues other people, so even if they take one side over the other, they incorporate enough respect and understanding of other people’s enjoyment to keep it good for all (like the MCU, or The Dark Knight.)

TLJ is simply one of the most myopic films from any major franchise or mythos in the last ten years - it’s utterly convinced that no one takes the new characters from TFA seriously, that no one saw Luke as a matured and already multi-faceted character instead of a blank archetype, that no one pays attention to details, that tokenism alone is progress for Star Wars, and that no one cares about the conflicts’ stakes beyond the metaphorical.

Now, some Star Wars fans have that POV… but I’d argue far more don’t.

Most people who enjoy TLJ tend to fall into two categories: those watching it like a Michael Bay Transformers movie (“Ooh, pretty! This is a good way to spend an afternoon and stop caring afterwards!”) or share the films myopic focus, either from more innocent bias (“Of course Kylo’s feelings matter more than anything he’s done to anyone else, he’s a Skywalker/sad-and-therefore-more-dramatic! And no one cares about the conflict! This is all childish and should remain so!”) or… less so (“I want the black guy away from the girl, the girl to sacrifice everything for my stand-in as she should because she’s a girl, and for old people to accept responsibility for his/my actions!”)

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

NickleBack is 1 of my favorite bands and I've never heard any justified reason to justify the hatred they get as a band.
Their songs have great messages, the idiocy of formulaic is dumb because that same criticism could said about the Rolling Stones, Kiss, and other bands so a very hypocritical criticism, etc.

The nonsensical hatred of Nickleback should end.

[MajorHoy]

NickleBack is 1 of my favorite bands and I've never heard any justified reason to justify the hatred they get as a band.
Their songs have great messages, the idiocy of formulaic is dumb because that same criticism could said about the Rolling Stones, Kiss, and other bands so a very hypocritical criticism, etc.

The nonsensical hatred of Nickleback should end.

I didn't realize their was "nonsensical hatred" of them.

[TheRay]

There’s a difference between having an argument and making an argument.