All posts by Obluda511
You seem a tad eager to propose a removal for Bateman.
Lunar Park—a 2005 metafictional novel by Bret Easton Ellis and the actual closest thing we have to an American Psycho sequel—to my knowledge portrays Bateman as the same vile villain in the original book (albeit primarily presented as hallucinations that haunt a fictionalized Ellis) who is still rumored to have recently committed a string of murders and with no mention of Jean or his “son” whatsoever, despite the fact that these would probably be quite pivotal to his character if those emails were canon to Ellis’s universe; he is ultimately written off by said fictionalized Ellis to have died in a fire on a boat dock, alone, as a means of overcoming the character. Sounds like a rather abrupt, brutal end to someone who could apparently atone for his actions and love his family (and hell, has family who loves him to begin with), and I don’t believe he is explicitly given any redeeming qualities or sympathy in Lunar Park; I’ll have to read it to find out, but from research alone, there is no mention of any character development or even family.
Even with that aside, Bateman learning to love anyone just like that sounds not only horribly cliché but also at odds with the point of his character as a shallow and hyperbolized caricature of yuppie culture dehumanized by his environment (and himself, really) yet desperately trying to be human; I don’t think that’s how Ellis, who personally hates the character and doesn’t seem to have done anything with these emails beyond greenlighting them once (and it is apparently unclear as to which version of the character they’re written for, nor is there context as to why he greenlit them), would go about writing at all. Even if he did approve of them and explicitly declare them canon to his literature, Lunar Park appears to retcon or at least totally disregard them, which (while speculative) would at the very least suggest that Ellis didn’t find “family man Bateman” satisfactory—an unsurprising scenario seeing as the core of his character is a sort of shadow archetype to Ellis himself encapsulating his own worst aspects back when he was similarly slipping into a sort of consumerist void (albeit with less serial killing and sexual deviance, obviously).
This is too much of a gray area and so I doubt that Bateman’s PE status is going anywhere for the time being—and given his role and ultimate fate in Lunar Park (which, again, is subsequent to those emails), probably ever.
Ooh, how edgy.
Anton Chigurh and James Bond, seeing as Anton (after becoming a billionaire with the cartel money he stole) tried to rape him in Skyfall but Bond said it wouldn’t be his first time.
That would be hilarious.
I don’t know about that. Personality and motives matter just as much as actions—not to say that Johan’s actions aren’t pretty egregious too, given his mass murder and psychological torture of children. Being an edgy sadomasochist with a ridiculous body count doesn’t really make you worse than someone who is emotionlessly cruel with nothing to gain from it. At least Westcott’s motivation for his crimes (to some extent) is that he enjoys it, in addition to having some sort of vision; what’s Johan’s excuse? Westcott sees human beings as evil rather than himself and is fueled by a sort of supremacism, whereas Johan has indiscriminate, limitless malice and knows he’s the worst human alive, is indifferent to it, and needs no justification. I don’t see many fictional characters that are truly (and deliberately) evil just for its own sake; it just serves to make him more inhuman.
All Johan wants, initially, is to recreate Kinderheim 511 on a global scale—i.e. for civilization to crumble and to reduce all humans into savages killing one another until nobody, nothing, but him remains. Furthermore, something made Westcott the way he is and we know of what it is, whereas Johan appears to be evil for no real reason. They’re also not very much alike aside from being considered nihilists (although I don’t see how Westcott qualifies as one if he is a supremacist who believes in evil himself).
Imagine voting for generic shōnen villains like Frieza or… All for One, or “muh big‐tiddy anime waifu!!” fan service characters like Esdeath, when they’re on the same poll as Johan.
Frieza, the superpowered, cackling, androgynous alien lizardman who blows up planets and whose personality is that he’s a sadist, versus Johan, evil and nihilism incarnate (while still only a human being, albeit nearly as inhuman as possible) whose character explores the real‐world plausibility of a concept like “pure evil” via red herrings that constantly provoke the viewer into questioning what made him into what he is (if anything) and what could’ve made him different. His complexity stems not from moral ambiguity since he’s obviously depraved and horrible, but from the ambiguity of his circumstances and nature along with the subtle hints at a philosophy beyond simple nihilism (e.g. fatalism); what makes any of these other characters complex?
Frieza is the kind of character that everyone can agree is just an asshole, but Johan’s success as an Antichrist‐like figure—the Antichrist being a sort of false messiah, being very agreeable and likable to the general populace in order to sway them to his side—is so great that there are viewers who sympathize with him, who think he isn’t as bad as he is or could be redeemed, or go as far as to romanticize him. It’s like he’s emotionally manipulated the viewers themselves.
I haven’t watched most of these, but from what I’ve seen and gathered: Light seems like a plot‐armored protagonist (even more so than Johan’s plot armor as an antagonist, which is more justifiable) whom people think is a genius because he’s literally omniscient and the plot is written to suit him, Isaac is an edge‐lord who’s the embodiment of quantity over quality in terms of crimes and all‐around seems like the writers tried way, way too hard to make him the ebilest character ever without giving him much substance, and My Hero Academia is absolute weebshit garbage that requires no further consideration. Johan is simultaneously more vile and more compelling than any of these.
Johan wins.
I forgot comic book villains (as a generalization). The Joker, any of his versions, is grossly overrated/over‐saturated and very basic as a character in my opinion. “Me crazy, society bad.”
I wouldn’t say he’s among the shittiest or most terribly written (who knows what that would even be?), but he’s just as silly and cartoonish as any other comic book villain—especially when he, the over‐the‐top literal clown who acts “cRaYzAy” and whose enemy is a guy in a fursuit, is supposed to be taken seriously as some horrific monster in the edgier settings.
Any villain that lacks a real point or any depth to their character, is too illogical, is too unoriginal/clichéd, is too predictable, relies on nothing but being “cool” or “hammy”, is edgy for edginess’s sake, is hardly a threat, or is annoyingly cartoonish; in essence, villains from which there is no intellectual gain or which possess no interesting qualities whatsoever. For obvious examples, this probably includes most anime villains and any creepypasta, FNaF, or Undertale villain, along with Monika from DDLC. Yes, I am singling out those two franchises and that character especially. God, they suck.
Aside from that though, Voldemort for instance is one villain I never saw much appeal in since the main thing I remember about Harry Potter is just “Wizard Hitler bad”. Yeah, we get it… and?
That and Palpatine. What could one tell me about Palpatine? “He represents the evils of imperialism”? Wow, real original. Unless it’s “He helps drive the plot” or “He’s cool because he shoots lightning”?
I guess you could say there aren’t many fictional characters I like (or take seriously) in general.
Oh, and I believe Nyarlathotep from the Cthulhu Mythos and maybe AM from “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream” (the short story, not the game), but in a way the latter is sort of perpetually suffering himself—so I’m less sure about that one.
I don’t understand why people think Anton Chigurh qualifies. You do realize that the car crash scene had a purpose, right? He was already visibly shaken up by Carla Jean’s refusal to call his coin toss and assertion that he bears responsibility for his actions, but then his fatalist code was further disproven by the random chance of the occurrence of the crash—and he, this former inhuman force of nature, walked away unexpectedly incapacitated, proven no less vulnerable than any man, somewhat humiliated by needing help from children, and probably incapable of killing ever again. He lost control over his life, the whole “agent of fate” thing got shot down, and he might not have lived for long thereafter since it’s not like he could fix a protruding bone himself or go to the hospital for it as a wanted criminal—and even if he could somehow persist in his job as a hitman, would there be any point to it anymore? His life as he knew it was over. That is how you defeat a villain. Anton technically received a (more subtle) fate worse than death.
Judge Holden on the other hand, yes, he qualifies 100% since he will exist for as long as human depravity does. He’s probably the darkest example I could think of. Johan Liebert to a lesser extent since he did fail in his goal and Tenma had indeed proven the equality of all life by saving that of even Johan again, but it’s not like Johan would give a rat’s ass for the latter point. He’s an ambiguous case I would say.
No.
Yeah, and I was referring to people who claimed to be villains. I suppose mental age counts too though.
You must be very easily entertained then, “genius”.
That and anyone here who claims to be a villain probably has an age in the single digits.
I don’t get what the point of these polls are.
My strong dislike for the game (if you could call it one) and its characters aside… she’s pretty weak in terms of villainy. She knew somehow that her clubmates weren’t real, yet still not only felt immense guilt in the end over the things she did, but couldn’t even bring herself to actually delete them since she made backups of their files or whatever?—and she still loved them in the end, i.e. loved fake lines of code? What a little bitch, lol. Furthermore, she’s pretty much tortured in a digital void whenever the game isn’t running, which leaves me to wonder how she still ultimately turned out benevolent in the least bit.
I don’t sympathize with nor condemn her. Instead of being either a complex, morally gray antagonist or a vile villain, she’s ultimately just a typical edgy “yandere”‐type weeb character who wants the dimwitted male protagonist but doesn’t really do anything that holds any weight, given the context of her character—and she’s also a doormat who can’t get what she wants without tampering with the game’s code, knowing fully well that it’s nothing more than a game, then crying over… tampering with a game and “killing” lines of code that she knows aren’t real. Comes off as silly to me, destroying what little chance of any immersion/impact the VN could’ve had and detracting from her “villainy”.
Also, she’s a Twitter thot and a vegan.
No, that’s just pragmatic villainy; the villain in question could easily betray the hero afterwards. Whatever “mercy” a PE villain shows is temporary or superficial.
What is there not to understand? “Love” (which is highly debated as to what it actually is, and realistically, I see it as either simply desire for social interaction + sexual drives, infatuation, benevolence out of a sense of moral obligation, or some other form of conditional attraction) is generally seen as a positive quality. Love is not malicious, at least not intent‐wise. A purely evil villain by definition cannot have positive qualities or benevolent thoughts, because then their evil would not be pure. Their malice is limitless, indiscriminate. If they’re as evil as can be, then why would they care if, say, something happened to their mother or even their spouse? Can you imagine Morgoth loving someone? Furthermore, would it make sense for a purely good hero to feel hatred for someone?
Not everyone can feel love, or wants to. Those with antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy) lack empathy and may not even value the lives around themselves. Nihilists, for instance, also may not value life (I am aware that this is not an inherent trait in nihilists—but as far as I know, the philosophy of nihilism, in a broad sense, rejects the notion of any intrinsic or objective value in life). A purely evil villain could have their own twisted form of “love”, but it would likely disregard the comfort and/or safety of its recipient, and it certainly wouldn’t be unconditional, nor love in a traditional sense; said villain would only value that person or thing for selfish, malicious, or simply pragmatic purposes. It would be obsession at best.
You can’t have a “former PE villain”; PE villains stay PE. If they turn out to not be PE, they were never truly PE to begin with, because PE villains are utterly irredeemable. That’s the whole idea. You can’t use love to humanize a character that is meant to be inhumanly evil, even if they are still technically human.
What good and evil objectively constitute is far too much of a gray area since morality is an ever‐evolving social construct, but by most people’s standards, I’d say these criteria make sense.