Real life doesn't have a heinous standard. It also would be kind of hard to call a real person PE since human beings are alot more compkex than fictional characters. The closest person I can think of being PE is Joseph Stalin and I think even he had a loved one.
I am.not but what I.am saying is he may have had redeeming qualities even if we don't know he did. Real life isn't fiction where humans are playing character roles, there is alot about a person that the public may not know.
Catalysm is someone attempting to destroy the world. Which while very, very unlikely of alot of people it is possible if the person intends to cause a world war and has the right amount of machinery, tanks, weaponry and generally things of mass destruction and manages to manipulate every country into fighting such a war.
As for the moral event horizon? I would say yeah since crossing the MEH doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible for you to be redeemed, it just means they are irredeemable at the time.
As far as I know. I am not exactly an expert on my history so their may have been worse. If Joseph Stalin was in fiction and he had no redeeming qualities than he would definitely count. His actions are sufficiently heinous.
Never mind anyways can game changer get taken out of Jeffery Fecalmans category and after that lock the page too? Because I’m not sure if he really qualifies like you said before plenty of domestic abuse isplayed for laughs in the show
Grimmel has some merit of counting. It is just that Drago was more "hands on", so to speak with his attrocites. There were points where Grimmel could have been worse but he didn't take them, unlike Drago who was about as bad as he could have been.
He is the darkest Pixar villain indeed, however The Incredibles as a whole was aimed at a slightly older audience to begin with. Even disregarding Syndrome, the film conntains alot of dark and mature material such as attempted suicide, loads of onscreen death played for both comedy and drama, Helen's suspisions of Bob having an affair, etc.
From what I heard, the producer was supposedly under fire from a parent who took their five year old to see the film, only for the producer to ask why he would he have a kid that young watch it in the first place....so yeah, the film was never meant for really young kids.
Sort of. There are some examples of comedic PEs such as Bill Cipher, Archibald Snatcher. and of course, the Joker but the thing is their humor doesn't downplay their heinous actions, if anything it makes them even more disturbing.
Bertram didn't intend to destroy the universe at first, just kill Stewie's ancestor to ensure Stewie would be erased from existence but when told that killing Stewie would destroy the universe he thought it was worth it.
Glad I took Jeff out of game changer category because he doesn’t truly fit in there as domestic abuse is played for laughs and was comedic in his first appearance I'm not even sure which family guy villains are game changers nowadays.
I didn't watch the film, but from what I heard they tortured and murdered two people and tried to blow up a pit stop with dizens of people in it which is well beyond the heinous standard of a franchise like Cars.
Idk because I didn't see it. Though the fact that they are anthropomorphic cars rather than humans likely lessens the impact in a child's eyes which is probably the reason why they were able to get away with showing that kind of stuff.
I voted no but the majority disagreed. From what I can tell he's used more as a plot device to set up the actual conflict of the film. He seems vile enough on paper but the film doesn't go into too much detail beyond showing that he is a tyrant due to his limited screen time.