FANDOM

694244

aka Philip A Thomas

Content Moderator
  • I live in Houston
  • I was born on February 28
  • My occupation is Sports Videographer
  • I am Male
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Hello 694244, I made self-aware and self-aware villains wiki. do you want to help me with the two wikis?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Belloq has bigger plans than Dietrich? How? Dietrich hired Belloq and had Toht to assist him, which means Dietrich is behind the plot, Belloq wanted to get paid and take Marion away, so Dietrich had bigger plans than everyone else, not Belloq, Belloq is working under Dietrich

      Loading editor
    • View all 8 replies
    • 694244 I want to inform you in case you didn't already know but Spice has purposefully deleted your evidence because he saw your reply.

        Loading editor
    • Dang it.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I noticed you thought Dr Facilier wasn't prue evil. I agree. He didn't actually attempt to give up the souls and stated only the wayward souls. He was not going to betray Lawrence for all the money and did seem to respect Tiana. He also has a tragic past as he lived his life poor but was left to suffer and a sympathiec death even Tiana felt sorry for him and he suffered far worse than anyone else in the end.

      Loading editor
    • That was a long time ago. Unfortunately, there's no indication that he was going to fulfill his side of the bargain with Lawrence, plus he only tried to trick Tiana into giving him the amulet. Not to mention, his actions are beyond his tragic past.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I started a discussion on the talk page to aviod a edit-war. Also since he had a tramuatic expirence with men would you at least say he's an extremist or tragic as he doesn't kill animals or humans for fun only going after Mowgli.

      Loading editor
    • Well, to be honest, there's nothing of a certain backstory that shaped him into the villain he is in the film, so he can't be tragic or extremist in nature. If the film was to portray some clear backstory of why he hated humans in general, he could count as both.

        Loading editor
    • Okay then. Thanks for the good explanation.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • So you seem to be wanting to keep a lot of Marvel Villains (Thanos, Ultron, Whiplash,...) in the Evil vs Evil category, yet you have as for now failed to bring any kind of argument for that action that aligns to the actual description of the category. All reasons you give is naming instances were they were betrayed or engaged in a short battle with other characters that can potentially be considered villainous, but if you read the actualy category description, that is far from enough to qualify. Let me quote it for you:

    "Not every villain who has ever fought another villain should go here.

    Villains only belong if this applies to most or all of their activities and is a significant aspect of their character and if they are seen as "Heroes" in their setting due to the extreme levels of wickedness committed by their enemies."

    About Ultron you said "He killed von Strucker, and Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch turned against him."

    About Thanos you once said "He got angry when Ronan decided to betray him and killed Loki."

    These brief anatgonisms against former henchmen are traits of a failure-intolerant villain, they do not in any way fit the decription of the category Evil vs Evil which clearly refers to "characters whose main enemies are themselves villains". Ultrons main and only purpose is to destroy humanity and the Avengers, Whiplashs main purpose is to get revenge on Iron Man, Baron von Struckers main purpose is to serve Hydra and Thanos' main purpose is to erase half of the population of the universe. Neither of these characters have a great significane about batteling villains to them, by the definition of this Wiki they simply do not fit.

      Loading editor
    • You do realize that there were some things that were left out when you deleted the category from these pages:

      • Whiplash double-crossed Justin Hammer during his final fight against Iron Man.
      • Raza and Ahmed were betrayed by Stane, who poisoned Raza to death and had Ahmed executed.

      Usually, it doesn't matter if the villain has to fight another villain to qualify for the category; it's the thought of their conflicting ideals that has to qualify. Similar to the film Captain America: Civil War, where the heroes were conflicted against each other because of their conflicting ideals (keeping themselves under government control, and maintaining their freedom to choose). Usually, those villains have differing ideals that got them against each other, which is the reason why I put the category back in their pages in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • In "Captain America: Civil War", the character conflict of the movie actually is about conflicting ideals of the heroes. Iron Mans main purpose in that movie is indeed how his worldview conflicts with the one of Capatin America and vice versa. They are actually characters that can be called Good vs Good. However, your examples are incredibly minor conflicts or aspects of these villains that you will find pretty much everywhere where multiple villains meet each other. They are mainly just betrayls, there is an own category for that called "Betrayed". The Evil vs Evil category is very much overused already and by the standards you propose, far, far more villains would have to be added just because they were betrayed once or punished their henchmen once.

      Again, the category is by its own definition mainly soppused for villains whose main (!) enemies are themselves villains. Its for villains that fight other bad guys as a main part of their character traits and it is even clearly stated that it should apply mainly for those who fight villains that are worse than them. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch turning against Ultron was their redemption, they are heroes from that point on, so Ultron fighting them doesn't count. The same goes for Thanos fighting Loki in "Infinity War". Loki is already fully redeemed at that point. Stanes actions against Raza and Ahmed were one-sided, he just betrayed them, that doesn't change the fact that their main purpose is commiting terror in the name of the Ten Rings. All your exmaples fit the categories "Betrayed" or "Traitor", not the category Evil vs Evil.

        Loading editor
    • I personally feel it should be strictly for those who either regularly fight other villains or minimum fight while being the lesser of two evils. If just betrayed or do the betraying we have separate categories for those. Categories are meant for defining traits not simply a one time thing unless they only appear once or twice. Whiplash betrayed Hammer but that's more just being a traitor, Raza was simply betrayed not fighting another evil or anything.

      If two corrupt people are fighting it can be blurry but generally add it to the lesser evil though I can see maybe some argument towards potentially both, that said it needs to be a defining trait and more that just being betrayed or betraying, being betrayed can eventually lead to Evil vs Evil but not automatically the case.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • What’s wrong with considering Wilson the central antagonist and Bennett the secondary antagonist? Wilson was kind of the central antagonist as he was Brainard’s personal rival, while Bennett was kind of the secondary antagonist as he was Chester’s son.

      Loading editor
    • Just because Bennett is Hoenicker's son doesn't make him the secondary antagonist. If that were to be true, he would've been bigger plans than Croft. Plus, Croft had more screentime than Bennett and acted out as Hoenicker's new right-hand.

        Loading editor
    • Okay I understand, so I guess Croft was Hoenicker’s only right-hand while Hoenicker’s son Bennett was only supporting his plans and didn’t act as evil as Croft. I really don’t want to start an edit warr anyway. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Happy late Easter to you. :-)

      Loading editor
  • You know the user Super Poison Ivy, she is doing such a great job and respecting the Villains Wiki rules

      Loading editor
    • View all 22 replies
    • Hmm?

        Loading editor
    • Spice, if you keep dragging this topic through the mud by continuously spamming users about it, I'm banning you again. Cease it.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Can you explain why he’s the secondary antagonist because I don’t want to start edit-warring, is it because Supreme Intelligence drove the plot not him?

      Loading editor
    • View all 8 replies
    • Did Randall drive the plot since he came up with a plan while Zündapp is just following Axlerod’s plan?

        Loading editor
    • Look, I'm not sure if we bring that issue into action, because I'm not the right person you should talk to about this. Why not get in contact with the admins about this? Maybe one of them could discuss this.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.