Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2175012-20171129183922/@comment-15895329-20171130003913

NerdWithAKeyboard wrote: Overseer80 wrote: AustinDR wrote: It makes sense.. If the work they are from is exploiative garbage, they are not accepted. I disagree, it makes no sense at all. A Pure Evil villain is likely to inspire disgust and revulsion, and the quality of the thing they come from is immaterial; all that matters is whether or not they are sufficiently wicked and bereft of redeeming qualities. It shouldn't matter if the movie or work they come from is Oscar worthy or Razzie worthy.

Your standards for who is and who is not Pure Evil are already way too strict in my estimations. Adding in one more frankly arbitrary rule or guideline that makes no logical sense to me whatsoever just makes it worse. If the villain is bad enough and has no sympathetic qualities, they are Pure Evil. It should be as simple as that. Having an excessive number of different arbitrary rules is pointless and needlessly overcomplicates the matter. This has nothing to do with the quality of the film, it matters the content of the film. If there's a world of serial killers, but one kills more than the rest, do his actions really make much of a difference? No. In films like The Human Centipede and Where the Dead Go to Die, etc.,  the entire world is built to shock, exploit, and disgust. Almost everyone's a villain. With stuff like A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, etc., only one or two characters (the villains) are designed to shock, exploit, and disgust. They stand out in their respective worlds for being horrifically extreme and evil.

Well in that case, it's simply a matter of a villain meeting the heinous standard or not meeting it. That's a bit different than the argument of "we shouldn't have villains like this in this category because the film is shlocky garbage".