Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pop psychology has killed the villain

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#31

Post by okonomiyaki3000 »

The article frames the issue in way that's too black-and-white. Providing a backstory isn't necessarily bad storytelling it's just very difficult to get right so that most prequels, backstories, and flashbacks do not turn out well. It is absolutely a fair criticism to say that Hollywood uses prequels to milk existing IP and there are endless examples of cases where a vague or mysterious backstory was preferable to the one some studio decided to canonize. That's not always the case though.

Rogue One worked because it provided plausible explanations for points about the original film that didn't seem to make any sense. It seemed impossible that the Death Star could be destroyed so easily or that the rebels could find that flaw so quickly. Now we see why. Solo fell flat because nothing about Solo's past, as depicted in the film, significantly changed how we see his character.

I suppose Joker worked for some people because every version of the Joker is different so you could look at Joaquin Phoenix's Joker as a stand-alone character driven to insanity through various things in his life. It surely didn't work for anyone who expected an origin story for a version of the character that would eventually turn out anything like Heath Ledger's Joker. It's just not possible to draw a line from one to the other.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#32

Post by afavour »

wpietri wrote: post #6

I hadn't heard about the site, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd It's paid for out of the pockets of a hedge fund billionaire who used to support the Liberal Democrat party in the UK, but who has since become a major Conservative donor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) He's also a major funder of the recently launched UK News, whose biggest draw appears to be far-right poli…

Not that it matters but I was amazed to find out via your Wikipedia link that his son was a founding member of Mumford and Sons. What a strange world.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#33

Post by 1MachineElf »

woodruffw wrote: post #23
1MachineElf wrote: post #19

The majority of comments here seem to be critical of the author's thesis, with one even questioning the cultural-political motives behind this media outlet. FWIW, I agree with the author. I found myself thinking about this last night as I finished the first 10-episode season of Netflix's Cowboy Bebop live-adaptation[0]. There were many changes to the original story in the live adaptation, and I feel that part of thes…

> I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity. I haven't watched the live adaptation, but I find this complaint strange given that the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity: it's a neo-noir-cum-cowboy space opera about bounty hunters! They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of…

>Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend!

Thanks for the spelling correction, but I have to disagree with the moral ambiguity here. The guy's name is literally Vicious. He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia.

>They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals!

Most of the people with bounties are actually doing bad things, and bounty hunting itself isn't illegal in the setting.

>the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity

Spike was a bad person, but then he turned his back on that old way of life, then started a new one where he uses his skills in a legitimate way. This is a common trope told in shonen-oriented manga and anime. Ruroni Kenshin is very similar - the Battosai was an expert killer like Fearless, but then he switched from evil to good and became Kenshin like Fearless became Spike. They then go on to fight the good fight, and things get dicey when their past catches up with them. Similarly, there's Inuyasha, who was destined to become a terrible demon until his commitment to Kikyo/Kagome made him change. They fight the good fight, and sometimes you wonder if they are going to revert to their old ways, but they keep making the right choice. Even if Spike wants to seem careless, he still knows what's right and wrong. This trope appears repeatedly in these kinds of shows. The original Cowboy Bebop has it, but it's less pronounced in the Netflix live-action.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#34

Post by woodruffw »

1MachineElf wrote: post #33
woodruffw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity. I haven't watched the live adaptation, but I find this complaint strange given that the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity: it's a neo-noir-cum-cowboy space opera about bounty hunters! They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of…

>Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend! Thanks for the spelling correction, but I have to disagree with the moral ambiguity here. The guy's name is literally Vicious . He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia. >They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! Most of the…

> The guy's name is literally Vicious. He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia.

I'm not saying he isn't unambiguously bad, at least in terms of events contemporaneous. I'm saying that the main characters in Bebop exhibit moral ambiguity, even (and especially!) if they eventually do the morally right thing from the viewer's perspective. Their journey towards the right thing is, after all, what makes them interesting to us; Bebop would be a lot less interesting if the characters didn't struggle with their histories, impulses, &c.

(Another example of moral ambiguity I just remembered: Spike's personality and design are an explicit reference to Lupin III, the platonic anime anti-hero.)

> Most of the people with bounties are actually doing bad things, and bounty hunting itself isn't illegal in the setting.

Illegal is one thing, and morally ambiguous is another: being a bounty hunter is perfectly legal in the US, but I think most people would consider it a morally ambiguous job.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#35

Post by anm89 »

wpietri wrote: post #6

I hadn't heard about the site, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd It's paid for out of the pockets of a hedge fund billionaire who used to support the Liberal Democrat party in the UK, but who has since become a major Conservative donor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marshall_(investor) He's also a major funder of the recently launched UK News, whose biggest draw appears to be far-right poli…

It's an article about someone's opinions about storytelling. Who cares what political team some person connected to the project was on. Are you claiming this invalidates their opinion about screenwriting?

Not every occurrence in the world needs to be leveraged to air political grievances.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#36

Post by 1MachineElf »

woodruffw wrote: post #34
1MachineElf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend! Thanks for the spelling correction, but I have to disagree with the moral ambiguity here. The guy's name is literally Vicious . He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia. >They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! Most of the…

> The guy's name is literally Vicious. He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia. I'm not saying he isn't unambiguously bad, at least in terms of events contemporaneous. I'm saying that the main characters in Bebop exhibit moral ambiguity, even (and especially!) if they eventually do the morally right thing from the viewer's perspective. Their journey towards the right thing is, after all, what makes them…

As with bounty hunters, the samurai protagonists of Japan, and cowboy protagonists of the US, are all technically morally ambiguous, but it's widely understood their stories are about a hero.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#37

Post by [deleted] »

wpietri wrote: post #26
Nathanba wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the way you connected Unherd with Nigel Farage is a pinpointed, ill-intentioned way of disparaging a site and I think if you want to be honest, you know that's why you did it. It is pretty normal not to broadcast your source of funding for a business.

It is quite normal for journalists to disclose conflicts of interest, which especially includes ownership/funding. For example, The Economist: https://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/owners... Or Pro Publica: https://www.propublica.org/supporters The Washington Post gives their whole ownership history, including Jeff Bezos's purchase of it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/company-history/ That these folk…

[deleted]

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#38

Post by ZeroGravitas »

dbreunig wrote: post #13
woodruffw wrote: post #2

The author's hypothesis is undermined at two points: by their insistence on making it as oblique as possible (thanks, I suppose, to UnHerd's editorial predilection towards dressing up conservative culture war talking points) and by the fact that none of their "villains" are actually villains. At best, they're morally flawed or challenging characters, producing narrative complexities that Disney (or whoever) lazily ex…

The tell is the author had to resort to using the Buzz Lightyear movie as an example of rehabbing a villain. I think they dramatically misread Toy Story, which is disqualifying given the subject of their thesis. Biased and lazy, a twofer.

They also cite Gru from Despicable Me, Willy Wonka and the BFG (i.e. the Big Friendly Giant!).

This is one of the worst argued pieces I've ever seen submitted here.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#39

Post by setr »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #12
dsizzle wrote: post #8

The “rubber ducky” explanation isn’t bad because it tries to explain a character, but because it’s a bad explanation .

I did find the article’s point - that having a comically evil villain can sometimes work out really well as a narrative device - to be relevant. The example that the author points out - that some people are just plain evil and their malice is beyond comprehension - is exhibited really well by the Joker. A few other memorable examples that come to mind where such villainy plays off its absurdity to make a larger point…

I think the differentiator is the quality of “evil” — the joker has a type of evil, with a certain texture and patterns associated with it. Whereas a truly 1D villain will simply take on any kind of evil necessary to fit the moral goal. You don’t need to provide a reason behind it, but you still need an internal consistency, which boring characters generally lack. It should feel like there is a driver, even if you don’t know what it is.

Re: Pop psychology has killed the villain

#40

Post by zozbot234 »

woodruffw wrote: post #25
sp332 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but it also makes her not a dog-killer. I guess the writers didn't feel up to the task of making that seem banal. It crafted a different character.

I'm not much of a Disney person, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "no dog killing" change was more of a change in child media guidelines than the vague (and culture-war-y) psychological aspersions that the essay's author claims. Violence against animals (and children) is one of those "hard no" rules that I understand to be common practice when developing media for children. Which isn't to say that I necessarily agr…

Yeah, one should keep in mind that the prequel is a comedy film. It's supposed to be funny. I think it was quite good once you properly account for that.
Post reply on HN