Um… they are literally more often than not complex villains designed to be sympathetic to the audience, doing things “the wrong way” for reasons that the audience can relate to.
I agree they do a good job of making the villains sympathetic, but their goals aren’t. We can appreciate the complexity of Loki’s relationships with Thor and Odin, but that doesn’t qualify for your criticism of wanting the heroes to “address the underlying issue”.
Same goes for Thanos. His righteousness is what motivates him, but that doesn’t make him any less insane. There’s no reasoning with the Mad Titan (except in that one What If…? episode).
it isn’t until End Game when he sacrifices himself that he completes the arc and acts with selfless motivation.
He literally does the same thing at the end of Avengers. And in the meantime he redirects all the wealth of his giant corporation away from making weapons and towards things that benefit the world, like clean energy.
And then… like… after his big speech… did he do it?
Did he… personally supercede the governments of the world and force them to change their policy on refugees? Dude. He is a man in a wingsuit. He doesn’t have that ability.
That’s why this whole argument is bunk. The complaint boils down to: “Why didn’t these characters drop everything they’re doing and start a violent revolution instead of dealing with the problems that are right in front of them?”
That complaint has no merit, because it can be applied to almost every film ever. Why didn’t Andy Dufresne start a riot and force prison reform? Why didn’t Simba implement a social welfare program for the hyenas who helped murder his father? Why are all these high school students going to high school instead of starting a revolution?
These are silly questions when you apply them to other movies. They’re even sillier when you apply them to MCU movies, which overall do a pretty decent job of addressing societal ills alongside the escapism.
😂 my man, I literally pointed out a trope of superhero films… this is like if I pointed out how cartooN physics is different than real life, “ACHTUALLY CARTOONS DO A PRETTY DECENT JOB BECAUSE THINGS STILL FALL DOWN”… 🤦
You are fooling yourself about Marvel movies doing a decent job of addressing societies ills, though. They’re literally marketed to the widest audience and lowest common denominator possible, but I guess what one considers a “decent job” is pretty subjective. That’s fine though, they’re cashgrab mass market movies, no one expects anything more.
And it just doesn’t seem like you know or understand what a sympathetic villain is… it doesn’t mean they are “right” or not actually a villain… 🤦
That complaint has no merit, because it can be applied to almost every film ever. Why didn’t Andy Dufresne start a riot and force prison reform? Why didn’t Simba implement a social welfare program for the hyenas who helped murder his father? Why are all these high school students going to high school instead of starting a revolution?
Um… what?? Andy Dufresne didn’t have super special awesome magic powers…? Lmao. And the Simba question is honestly a good one. Why didn’t he? He’s literally their ruler with that authority.
How would Sam Wilson change international law? That’s what they’d need to do to address the root cause that created the Flag Smashers. For that particular challenge, he’s not much more powerful than Andy Dufresne. The one thing he does have is a platform, which he uses, which is something you said never happens.
And it just doesn’t seem like you know or understand what a sympathetic villain is… it doesn’t mean they are “right” or not actually a villain…
And you seem to be missing the part where I’m differentiating between the villain being sympathetic and their cause being sympathetic. The former (which you brought up) isn’t relevant to your original point, where the underlying issue needs to be addressed. It doesn’t matter how sympathetic Thanos is. The underlying issue is that he’s a mass-murdering madman, so how is it a valid complaint to say that the heroes never address the underlying issues?
Suppose you took Thanos at face value and say the underlying cause is the concept of limited resources. What would that story look like, anyway? The Avengers alter reality to address the very concept of limited resources, creating a utopia across the entire universe? That sounds a little inaccessible.
I think what you’re missing about the super hero genre is that their powers are generally limited in scope. They can’t just reshape the world (except in that one What If…? episode called “What If Kahouri Reshaped the World?”). They struggle just like everyone else, and then sometimes through great effort they can save the day. That’s what makes the stories good.
Anyway, I realized as I was writing the Simba thing that it actually was a good point, so I prepared an answer.
The actual reason is that in the Lion King universe, “the Circle of Life” isn’t a complex series of interconnected, self-regulating systems like it is in real life. In-universe, it’s the dogma of an environmentalist death cult that holds together a fragile ecosystem. Any animal that doesn’t adhere to the death cult’s strictures is exiled from their society, like the hyenas.
And like, the environmentalism is fine, but forcing the zebras, antelopes, and wildebeests to actively participate in a system where their role is to be eaten makes it a death cult.
The system is explored in the sequel series Lion Guard, where Simba’s son goes around the Pride Lands using his super powerful Roar to maintain the status quo. Like if an alligator tries to eat too many of the wrong animal, the Lion Guard shows up and exiles them. Conversely, when a hyena agrees to adhere to the Circle of Life, she’s welcome in the Pride Lands. So it’s really a religious/cultural disagreement. Hyenas can’t be allowed in unless they’re willing to assimilate.
There’s a disturbing conservative metaphor there, although the rest of it smells like a planned economy. Very authoritarian either way, but then again it’s not called Lion President.
I agree they do a good job of making the villains sympathetic, but their goals aren’t. We can appreciate the complexity of Loki’s relationships with Thor and Odin, but that doesn’t qualify for your criticism of wanting the heroes to “address the underlying issue”.
Same goes for Thanos. His righteousness is what motivates him, but that doesn’t make him any less insane. There’s no reasoning with the Mad Titan (except in that one What If…? episode).
He literally does the same thing at the end of Avengers. And in the meantime he redirects all the wealth of his giant corporation away from making weapons and towards things that benefit the world, like clean energy.
Did he… personally supercede the governments of the world and force them to change their policy on refugees? Dude. He is a man in a wingsuit. He doesn’t have that ability.
That’s why this whole argument is bunk. The complaint boils down to: “Why didn’t these characters drop everything they’re doing and start a violent revolution instead of dealing with the problems that are right in front of them?”
That complaint has no merit, because it can be applied to almost every film ever. Why didn’t Andy Dufresne start a riot and force prison reform? Why didn’t Simba implement a social welfare program for the hyenas who helped murder his father? Why are all these high school students going to high school instead of starting a revolution?
These are silly questions when you apply them to other movies. They’re even sillier when you apply them to MCU movies, which overall do a pretty decent job of addressing societal ills alongside the escapism.
😂 my man, I literally pointed out a trope of superhero films… this is like if I pointed out how cartooN physics is different than real life, “ACHTUALLY CARTOONS DO A PRETTY DECENT JOB BECAUSE THINGS STILL FALL DOWN”… 🤦
You are fooling yourself about Marvel movies doing a decent job of addressing societies ills, though. They’re literally marketed to the widest audience and lowest common denominator possible, but I guess what one considers a “decent job” is pretty subjective. That’s fine though, they’re cashgrab mass market movies, no one expects anything more.
And it just doesn’t seem like you know or understand what a sympathetic villain is… it doesn’t mean they are “right” or not actually a villain… 🤦
Um… what?? Andy Dufresne didn’t have super special awesome magic powers…? Lmao. And the Simba question is honestly a good one. Why didn’t he? He’s literally their ruler with that authority.
How would Sam Wilson change international law? That’s what they’d need to do to address the root cause that created the Flag Smashers. For that particular challenge, he’s not much more powerful than Andy Dufresne. The one thing he does have is a platform, which he uses, which is something you said never happens.
And you seem to be missing the part where I’m differentiating between the villain being sympathetic and their cause being sympathetic. The former (which you brought up) isn’t relevant to your original point, where the underlying issue needs to be addressed. It doesn’t matter how sympathetic Thanos is. The underlying issue is that he’s a mass-murdering madman, so how is it a valid complaint to say that the heroes never address the underlying issues?
Suppose you took Thanos at face value and say the underlying cause is the concept of limited resources. What would that story look like, anyway? The Avengers alter reality to address the very concept of limited resources, creating a utopia across the entire universe? That sounds a little inaccessible.
I think what you’re missing about the super hero genre is that their powers are generally limited in scope. They can’t just reshape the world (except in that one What If…? episode called “What If Kahouri Reshaped the World?”). They struggle just like everyone else, and then sometimes through great effort they can save the day. That’s what makes the stories good.
Anyway, I realized as I was writing the Simba thing that it actually was a good point, so I prepared an answer.
The actual reason is that in the Lion King universe, “the Circle of Life” isn’t a complex series of interconnected, self-regulating systems like it is in real life. In-universe, it’s the dogma of an environmentalist death cult that holds together a fragile ecosystem. Any animal that doesn’t adhere to the death cult’s strictures is exiled from their society, like the hyenas.
And like, the environmentalism is fine, but forcing the zebras, antelopes, and wildebeests to actively participate in a system where their role is to be eaten makes it a death cult.
The system is explored in the sequel series Lion Guard, where Simba’s son goes around the Pride Lands using his super powerful Roar to maintain the status quo. Like if an alligator tries to eat too many of the wrong animal, the Lion Guard shows up and exiles them. Conversely, when a hyena agrees to adhere to the Circle of Life, she’s welcome in the Pride Lands. So it’s really a religious/cultural disagreement. Hyenas can’t be allowed in unless they’re willing to assimilate.
There’s a disturbing conservative metaphor there, although the rest of it smells like a planned economy. Very authoritarian either way, but then again it’s not called Lion President.
lmao
You are not paying attention to this discussion in the slightest
If you say so