ITT: Villains who were the best/only good part of their show

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ftPdqLpslNY
youtube.com/watch?v=thbICk05yPk
youtube.com/watch?v=osZ52A-_kpQ
youtube.com/watch?v=2hAZGL-Zrks
youtube.com/watch?v=FyyTzkktjsI
youtube.com/watch?v=_3OXU9eqqis
youtube.com/watch?v=15IDAPGKNEM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

Even though I haven't watched Dreamstone since the nineties, my memory of the likes of sergeant Blob, Urpgor and Zordrak remained failry vivid.

youtu.be/ftPdqLpslNY

The good guys slipped my mind to the point where I only could recall there being an old wizard and his furry apprentice.

...

Without Arctos it would german borefest of a cartoon, Tabaluga is such fucking gary stu, chosen one,talks to his dead daddy, never wrong.

>A literal dune coon from Tabaluga meets his end by dissolwing in the waterfall
>Arctos merely ends up encased in a block of ice

What did Germans mean by this?

Well it's not like he can really be thawed out of it, since anything that would melt the ice would met him as well

Rather; it's not like there is anyone willing to breach his everlasting prison either, what with his closest servant almost immediately walking off to start a penguin-centric state of his own.

...

>these armbands

it's not even subtle

The Ice Prison stands there as a constant reminder that even when you stop a dictator, you still cannot completly eradicate him from existence as his thoughts and ideologies remain existing.

What is this? I've never heard of these characters before, and you have my interest

Those loyal dumbasses deserved everything they got.

...

The crocs and boar dad from legends of awesomeness

>German cartoon
>Vilains wear arm bands

of course
of fucking course

>that time when Urpgor betrayed Zordak(destroyed nightmare stone) just so he could serve for him again

No Glooms yet?

Tabaluga was a pretty shitty show regardless.

youtube.com/watch?v=thbICk05yPk

youtube.com/watch?v=osZ52A-_kpQ

youtube.com/watch?v=2hAZGL-Zrks

youtube.com/watch?v=FyyTzkktjsI

The dwarves really were the least interesting part of their own show

Except for Grumpy. He was alright

what else did you expect from germany

...

Kelly Osborne really needs to do more VA work.

I hate when this happens. To me, the antagonists being more entertaining than the protagonists represents a fundamental failure in storytelling.

If the main character isn't the most compelling part of the story, why is the story about them in the first place?

To be fair, most episodes (as far as I remember) were centered around the urpneys' plots and how they failed.

>antagonists being more entertaining than the protagonists represents a fundamental failure in storytelling.

Was this started by Disney?
It's really weird because in Disney films protagonists are not even characters, everyone else even background creatures are more characters than them

Damn you beat me to it.

Older Disney movies did this, yes, as well as some Renaissance era flicks. Not so much these days, where the story is all about the protagonists, to the point where the villains are being marginalized. Which is fine by me, since, again, stories should focus on the person we're following.

And don't you lit nerds even start with that Ishmael shit. We do not need another Vaan and Penelo, so fuck off.

Because Disney's image is about nice and bland

Best part of the show with Drew's ass being a bit further down the list.

This is fucking retarded logic.
Why should I give a fuck about protagonist and their adversity if his villain is shit?

Even in remake

youtube.com/watch?v=_3OXU9eqqis

MYP He-Man really was just new episodes of the Filmation cartoon

...

Because the protagonist as the main focus of the narrative, is the one we the audience are spending the most time with. Antagonists are ultimately just an obstacle to be overcome.

You're a fucking idiot.
A good villain is THE foundation of any hero/villain story worth its salt. Without it there's no fucking reason to get invested in the protagonist's journey in the first place.
Your logic is precisely why this kind of stories sucks so much these days.

Are there any examples where both protagonists and antagonists are strongly interesting characters?

Yes.

storm king from the movie

...

His role was as big as needed, he served his purpose.

Not Sup Forums, but Breaking Bad season 4.

you mean Tempest right?

>literally the tickle belt episode
youtube.com/watch?v=15IDAPGKNEM

To be fair to him, being unemployed in Viltheed equals certain doom as toiling under Zordrak is the sole mean of being allowed access to food and shelter - if that episode with solid Agorrible is anything to go by, that is.

>antagonists being more entertaining than the protagonists represents a fundamental failure in storytelling.

Spotted the no-taste brainlet.

Fuck the villain, it's not their story. Villains only exist to give the hero a problem to resolve.

...

Even without the weeb shit, he's retarded.
I wouldn't be able to be as invested in Jonathan Harker's or Clarice Starling's stories if the threats they encountered were just "obstacles to overcome". And those were pretty good characters in their own right, so it's not like you have to sacrifice characterizations of heroes for villains' characterizations and vice versa.
Yes, stories focused mostly on the protagonist could work, but dismissing what you don't like as "fundamental flaw in storytelling" is beyond idiotic.
No one cares about your shit taste, fuck off.

>stories focused mostly on the protagonist could work
What do you mean "could work"? The hell is the point in following a specific character if the story isn't focused on them? If you just what to beat off to bad people doing bad things, then be honest about it instead of pretending like villains are the end-be-all of storytelling.

Does that make the storytelling in the original Bladerunner shitty? Because, you know, it's the only mainstream movie I can think of where the antagonist just hijacks the spotlight halfway through the movie and gets his own character arc instead of protagonist who's just kinda there.

Was Littlefoot's struggle in The Land Before Time engaging because of how deep and complex of a character Sharptooth was?

Okay, which part of the Bible belt you have been shat out of?

>Does that make the storytelling in the original Bladerunner shitty?
Yeah, kinda. Following Decker was ultimately pointless since it's not really his story in the end. It's not a bad movie, but it did fuck up in that regard.

She was boring.

I remember in the pilot episode there was this running gag where they'd beat the shit out of this little girl whenever they saw her for no apparent reason.

Pretty good stuff

No one could really be that retarded.
Just admit that you're trolling.
Conflict is one of the things that keeps stories interesting and conflict than between two fleshed-out sides is one of the better scenarios to keep things interesting.
There are plenty of villains who are some of the most studied characters in literary circles to the same degree as heroes and considered to be what makes or breaks certain stories (not all). Of course it wouldn't some chucklefuck on the internet from thinking he had it all figured out and that it's inherently better that all heroes should be developed at the expense of villains. (inb4 muh irony meme, I'm not the one making nonsensical claims)
Nothing Don Bluth made was ever interesting in the slightest sans the visuals. See, I can make my opinions sound as facts too!

You're autistic, aren't you?

This user is right. It's like Rango said: "a hero cannot exist in a vacuum." He needs foes to fight against, odds to overcome.

Without a struggle, there is no spectacle.

What if the antagonist the hero is facing, is himself?

That's fine, as long as there is conflict, there is story.

What do you disagree with in my post?

>Conflict is one of the things that keeps stories interesting and conflict than between two fleshed-out sides is one of the better scenarios to keep things interesting.
>There are plenty of villains who are some of the most studied characters in literary circles to the same degree as heroes and considered to be what makes or breaks certain stories (not all). Of course it wouldn't some chucklefuck on the internet from thinking he had it all figured out and that it's inherently better that all heroes should be developed at the expense of villains. (inb4 muh irony meme, I'm not the one making nonsensical claims)
Just answer a fucking question, jeez.

No shit there needs to be conflict. My point, dumbass, is that if the antagonist is more interesting than the protagonist(y'know, the fucker the audience has to spend the most time with), then the writer has fucked up. The person we are following should be the most developed and compelling character, otherwise there is no point in following them.

OR it just makes the story all the more interesting and actually helps to be invested in the hero's struggle much more, you complete moron.
>The person we are following should be the most developed and compelling character, otherwise there is no point in following them.
Said you and only you.
Congratu-fucking-lations, you treated your opinions as a fact. Now go off yourself and stop getting on my nerves with your stupidity.

What do you think about protagonists that mostly exist to serve as a relatable everyman in the midst of a setting or plot that is far more interesting than them?

>the hero being boring helps the audience become more invested in the conflict
In what diseased, backwards ass reality does that gigantic sack of bullshit apply?

Seriously, what in the actual fuck are you on about?

And again, if the villain is just so fucking interesting, why aren't they the protagonist?

It's bad cause it's wrong cause he knows the only way to write a story.

Dorohedoro

Holy shit, just fuck off. Jump off the cliff headfirst, not like you would suffer brain damage since you have no brain whatsoever.
It's fucking amazing. No matter how many examples that are contrary to his asinine obsessive idea I use, he keeps pissing and moaning himself and pissing me off.

Applying it anywhere other than in video games is very risky

You didn't answer him though
>And again, if the villain is just so fucking interesting, why aren't they the protagonist?

Hate them. A boring protagonist instantly kills a work for me.

Oh I see, you don't actually have an argument. Gotcha.

It's shit in video games too. Self insert crap is obnoxious.

Because it's a moronic question in the first place. Because the writer thought it would be better that way. Because it is better in certain cases and keeps things interesting unless you're a cunt who gets triggered every time writing doesn't cater to his oddly specific idea of what everything should be like.
No shit. Every writing decision is risky. It all depends on the writer's skill in the area and skill in general.
>argument
"WAHH I'M RIGHT AND ONLY I KNOW HOW EVERYTHING SHOULD BE WRITTEN BECAUSE I'M RIGHT" is not an argument, douchebag.

Getting weirdly defensive about this isn't going to win you the argument. Especially when you outright refuse to answer simple questions.

Is there an 80s cartoon where this doesn't apply?

>Villains who were the best/only good part of their show

Both of them.

Called it.
>IT'S ALL BAD IT'S ALL SELF-INSERT CRAP WAHH
Right. What is "execution"
There is absolutely no way you're older than 17.
There is no argument since I proved you wrong in the very first few of my posts. There's just me trying to tell a stubborn ass to shut up and stop getting on my nerves.

This thread sucks and it's your fault.

Why and Who?

Frizz didn't really seem loyal at all, though. He seemed to follow orders only because he didn't have a choice not to

...

>I already proved you wrong
Did you? So you have provided a sound argument as to why having a boring protagonist who is less interesting than their opponent is a good thing? If you could point to the post where you did that, I'd appreciate it.

Why am I even trying to reason with a completely moronic child?
>why having a boring protagonist
I never said that you dumb piece of shit, This is your retarded assumption because you never grew out of teenage maximalism, you subhuman piece of garbage. Of course, not that I expect you to read and understand anything at all.
I hope you choke on your own vomit and feces and die like a rat in the sewers.
>inb4 hurr durr u sound autistic
Anger is the emotion any normal human being would feel after trying to explain the simplest possible thing a brain-damaged manatee would understand for hours.
Now go cut off your balls. You not procreating would do wonders for humanity.

Why after all those failures Zordak didn't kill them?

Edgy.

You done? Are we actually going to have a real conversation, or are you just going to keep screeching meaningless insults for no reason?

Don't act like you don't deserve them, shithead. I reiterate, just admit that you're baiting and fuck off. It's obvious that you're not capable of any semblance of debate.
Fuck off.

Oh, and I love how you keep ignoring my arguments while pretending to have a highground.

Getting this openly angry in a debate about cartoons makes you automatically pathetic, you know

And being a complete dumbass who can only think in extremes and screech "IM RIGHT UR WRONG CUZ IM RIGHT" makes you even more pathetic, so it's all evens out. Not that you need any help to be pathetic.

I'm not the person you were arguing with, I was just pointing it out

You know, we've got a storytime going that would be right up your alley. It's called Ladycastle. Go check it out. See how a story without any conflict between protagonists and antagonists works.

>A good villain is THE foundation of any hero/villain story worth its salt.
This right here. Heroes are measured by the quality of their villains. A bad, one-dimensional or cliched villain means your hero looks like a chump.

>Fuck the villain, it's not their story. Villains only exist to give the hero a problem to resolve.
And you're just on the cusp of realization. If the problem the hero has to resolve isn't interesting, clever or difficult, than your hero hasn't accomplished anything, have they? Which is more exciting: "Man climbs mountain, plants flag, goes home.", "Man climbs mountain, weather is kinda bad." or "Man climbs mountain, nearly loses all supplies during a freak storm and must struggle to reach a ranger station in a desperate race against time as the weather gets worse"

Now apply that villains. Which is more interesting? "Hero various cardboard cutout who cackles about how evil he is, defeats villain easily." or "Hero confronts former ally, is tempted by the enemy's reasoning but remains true to his principles and faces the villain, knowing that he may not survive."

The villain is just as much - some creators consider them even more - important to the story as the hero. Your villain - the problem the hero has to solve - has to be something that tests them. Physically, morally, ethically, spiritually - whatever. Even a combination of those. You make them engaging and dangerous and important and your audience becomes MORE invested in what your hero is doing. If you have some flat caricature because 'it's not their story', well the audience will pick up on that and be much less invested in the story.

Him and his weird filth-slug minions

>some creators consider them even more - important to the story as the hero
And that's the problem. It's all well and good to give the hero a proper challenge, but if the hero is not interesting to begin with, there's no reason to care if they succeed.

And we're back to square one. Bravo.

Well what exactly do you want? I for one am not going to be entertained by a story that follows a boring protagonist. I frankly don't give that much of a fuck about villains if it's not their story.

Honestly, it feels like everyone puts way too much focus on villains, and that's why we end up with so many bland heroes. Villains can be entertaining, but they can't exist in a vacuum either.

Again, if the hero is boring, why should I care if they win?

Definitely the best aspect of the show, but I can't say P&F is bad by any means