Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 4:39:29 GMT
I've seen this topic discussed many times. Some believe the villain should be as fleshed out as a the hero character while others are more interested in having the story centered squarely on the hero while the villain takes second place. I'm very much part of that second camp. I have my reasons, one of them being Tim Burton's Batman.
In the 1989 film, the film's screen time was pretty evenly split evenly between Keaton's Batman and Nicholson's Joker. However, the film still feels more like Nicholson's to me. He's billed first and his character's journey is one we're shown. We see him becoming his classic super villain identity. We see him get scarred, go (more) insane, and we see him build his criminal empire while Bruce Wayne's history is only given the briefest of flashbacks and mentions. As a consequence, I never felt like I got to know him as well as I should.
Enter Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which is ALL about Bruce. Nolan's 2005 reboot of the series was very dedicated to exploring the tortured psyche of its main character and this time, we're taken on the personal journey of the title character while the villains are there only when they need to be. Now, this is not about which actor played Batman better, this is strictly about which I felt was better written. I enjoy HOW Bale's Batman is written much more than I do Keaton's. The films are focused squarely on Batman and his allies while the villains take second place.
This can be a good thing, because I honestly felt like "less was more" than Ledger's Joker. We know absolutely nothing about his personal life or how he's attained the skills necessary to gather the people and supplies he has at his command, and he is all the more terrifying for it.
So my conclusion is that the villain doesn't HAVE to be as deep and nuanced as the hero. They need to serve as whatever kind of villain they need to be for the story to work. If being a flesh-out villain is necessary for the story, then so be it, but I won't ask for it in every villain simply because the hero might have to give up screen time for it. I recall several old films where the heroes were invariably boring ciphers next to more colorful villains and I am no hurry to return to those days.
This is why I don't have a problem with Marvel's villains or the company's approach to them. The MCU series is far more interested in exploring what makes their heroes tick than giving their villains tragic backstories (though Loki, Bucky, Zemo, and Kaecilius have that covered). I look at characters like Obadiah Stane, General Ross, Ivan Vanko, The Red Skull, and the rest the same way I look at Action Movie villains like Hans Gruber (Die Hard) or any of the Lethal Weapon villains. Sure, you couldn't name ten things about their personal lives, hopes, and dreams, but they're still a lot of fun and serve their purpose just fine. Like Marvel, I'm far more interested in seeing how Steve Rogers evolves as a character from film to film.
In the 1989 film, the film's screen time was pretty evenly split evenly between Keaton's Batman and Nicholson's Joker. However, the film still feels more like Nicholson's to me. He's billed first and his character's journey is one we're shown. We see him becoming his classic super villain identity. We see him get scarred, go (more) insane, and we see him build his criminal empire while Bruce Wayne's history is only given the briefest of flashbacks and mentions. As a consequence, I never felt like I got to know him as well as I should.
Enter Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which is ALL about Bruce. Nolan's 2005 reboot of the series was very dedicated to exploring the tortured psyche of its main character and this time, we're taken on the personal journey of the title character while the villains are there only when they need to be. Now, this is not about which actor played Batman better, this is strictly about which I felt was better written. I enjoy HOW Bale's Batman is written much more than I do Keaton's. The films are focused squarely on Batman and his allies while the villains take second place.
This can be a good thing, because I honestly felt like "less was more" than Ledger's Joker. We know absolutely nothing about his personal life or how he's attained the skills necessary to gather the people and supplies he has at his command, and he is all the more terrifying for it.
So my conclusion is that the villain doesn't HAVE to be as deep and nuanced as the hero. They need to serve as whatever kind of villain they need to be for the story to work. If being a flesh-out villain is necessary for the story, then so be it, but I won't ask for it in every villain simply because the hero might have to give up screen time for it. I recall several old films where the heroes were invariably boring ciphers next to more colorful villains and I am no hurry to return to those days.
This is why I don't have a problem with Marvel's villains or the company's approach to them. The MCU series is far more interested in exploring what makes their heroes tick than giving their villains tragic backstories (though Loki, Bucky, Zemo, and Kaecilius have that covered). I look at characters like Obadiah Stane, General Ross, Ivan Vanko, The Red Skull, and the rest the same way I look at Action Movie villains like Hans Gruber (Die Hard) or any of the Lethal Weapon villains. Sure, you couldn't name ten things about their personal lives, hopes, and dreams, but they're still a lot of fun and serve their purpose just fine. Like Marvel, I'm far more interested in seeing how Steve Rogers evolves as a character from film to film.