Since when could true animals be considered Pure Evil? Last time I checked, Cujo was "evil" because he was bitten by a rabid bat, and the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park/World are only "hostile" because they are predatorial animals that kill each other to survive, otherwise they would starve to death. I thought only anthropomorphic animals had moral agency! Animals who kill to survive can't be Pure Evil! Trent Morrison (talk) 20:30, September 14, 2018 (UTC)
He's an animal yes, but one who eats purely to survive he's not. He's a heartless, revenge-driven sadist; his descriptions in the original novel makes that very clear. That, and he really has nothing to do with those other animal villains you're comparing him to. DarkClaw3 (talk) 22:57, September 14, 2018 (UTC)
I still don't get how non-anthropmorphic animals can somehow have a moral agency. Trent Morrison (talk) 13:09, September 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently a novel gives insight on its mind similar to how Cujo (who only counted as a villain due to the novel albeit in a tragic light) and the book version of Sharptooth according to users portrayed him as an egotistical serial killer vs just a hungry predator. The book version of Sharptooth is the only reason he's listed as PE with it giving him clear Moral Agency. Jester of chaos (talk) 13:50, September 15, 2018 (UTC)
Should He Also be Under Amoral?[]
He may be Purely Evil in the book version, but he demonstrates no moral agency in the film and and is merely acting on instinct.
- Additionally, Don Bluth himself considered the Sharptooth to be neither good nor evil. There are a few Sharpteeth in the series that could be considered evil but he wasn't one of them, Bluth simply described him as a very hungry animal, hence his agressiveness.