They make villains who’s goals make total sense and are something to root for, so to balance that they make the villains kill innocents just to make sure the audience doesn’t accidentally side with them.
Poison Ivy’s explicitly stated goals are mass genocide, how is that something to root for. She’s not advocating for moving to solar or nuclear and reducing emissions.
That’s the point. You have a Villain who wants something good (stop the destruction of nature) and then pair it with something very evil (genocide). It’s a very common trope in media. It leads to the “Hero” of the story being able to defend the status quo again and again without ever challenging it.
I understand, but the villain doesn’t lead with “Let’s stop the destruction of nature”, they lead with “Everyone should die”.
I don’t think Poison Ivy ever actually makes a compelling argument for conservationism and anti-capitalism. They just really REALLY hate people.
Harry Potter is the champion of doing this as Harry manages to support a status quo that literally does nothing but work against him.
It’s like JK insists a corrupt system is the only possible system and is perfect because some bad apple will eventually trip over some rule or clause that saves the day at the 11th hour so… “It’s all good!”
I may have used the wrong wording. I think some villains have good motives but bad execution. I also used this post as a jumping off point of the whole trope rather than commentary on Poison Ivy specifically.
I know next to nothing about this version of Batman, Ivy and Freeze so I can’t speak to them, hell I can’t speak about a lot of Batman villains, this post just reminded me of this weird trend.
The villain that came to mind for me was the air bender guy from Legend of Korra, from what little I can recall from that show. Something about anarchy, I think. The antagonists from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier have been said to fit this trope as well but I can’t say for sure as I’ve never watched that show.
That’s the easiest way to make complex villains, give them a relatable goal with terrible means. Activates the good old “do the ends justify the means” question and tempts the audience. The best superhero movies give the hero a strong moral backbone to “save” the audience and find the truth between the two. Look at how Black Panther learns from Killmonger’s criticism but does it without war and hatred
Edit: Also The Batman is pretty solid with this aspect. He sees how his quest for revenge encourages violent vigilantism and inspires the incel-like Riddler. Because of this he decides to turn toward hope and helping others instead
I don’t disagree with the sentiment. The problem is that it gives the impression that people irl are willing to go to these extreme and illogical means to achieve their otherwise good ends. That’s not the case. Indeed it’s often the opposite. The people trying to do good things are almost always unwilling to do anything ‘bad’ to achieve their aims. They usually refuse even to defend themselves against reaction.
This kind of writing is poor because it’s easy and removes any subtlety from the equation. No reasonable person on earth is going to think a villain is right to commit genocide to fix the world’s major problems. Nevermind lesser problems. Irl it’s the billionaires who are willing to cause untold suffering in the search for profit. There are ways to make that dramatic and exciting but Hollywood is not set to to write it.
This kind of writing is propaganda. It wraps human action in individualism and builds a model of ‘villain’ that can be invoked every time imperialists want to start another war. Later, the subjects of this propaganda rarely if ever seriously question the motives of the people destroyed by imperialist war in part because they’ve been conditioned to think in a certain way about the ‘enemy’.
I absolutely agree that putting that dilemma into a story can be great for drama. I just reject the Hollywood rendition of it because it’s always the same. When I watch most action movies, I time how long it takes to reveal that the volunteer at the soup kitchen suddenly tells the audience that the best way to feed the homeless is to the lions.
I’m not talking about Poison Ivy and Batman, yet. I can’t talk to Poison Ivy or to Batman in the specific. In the abstract, philanthropy and an individual approach to solving crime can never be successful. These are palatable methods because the writers want people to limit what they think is possible. If they were serious about creating a model for helping people they’d show someone organising the workers e.g. in Gotham or elsewhere rather than thinking anyone can solve everything alone. (That said, I’m not against Batman in the way that I’m against Marvel.)
Show me the dilemma faced by all the people who, to pay their bills, are sat in an office in New York committing slow violence against child labourers being poisoned by chemicals in a garment factory in India. Then show me the workers organising themselves to improve working conditions.
In the sequel, they can overthrow the directors of the company. In the third movie, they can start a revolution. If this were written by Hollywood, those workers would be the villains, pointlessly terrorising random targets. But irl the only violence they’d be involved in is as victim of the state and the employer.
Heath Ledger’s Joker is basically the textbook example. He is… pretty much right, but the body count means you can’t agree with him.
Joaquin Phoenix Joker however did nothing wrong… until he killed his therapist, but that happens after he’s too far gone… He’s the real victim there and the movie is aware of that. Which is why the movie is so good.
eh, there’s probably a scene in the show where they like blow up a hospital for no reason at all just to make them horseshoe theory
Act 1 : villiain is volunteering at a childrens hospital.
…
Act 3 : villain is blowing up the hospital.
“Would give his life to save a random child”, yet doesn’t use any of his money to finance affordable housing projects in Gotham.
https://glitterpancake.tumblr.com/post/110382878890/bruce-wayne-outside-of-batman
Here’s someone else’s research, but either way the Wayne family is known to have been extremely philanthropic throughout the comics. Sorry bud, Batman is indeed the good guy
People like OP remind me that there are, indeed, those who think Batman is worse than people with genocidal tendencies just because his daddy was rich.
I mean, didn’t they also try to commit literal genocide while Batman whlie still being a billionaire goes out of his way and risks his life every night to protect the innocents doing a much better job than Gotham police? And still, Bruce Wayne was always philantropic and keeps city in check as much as he can, even his parents used their wealth to help the people.
He is a billionaire but he ain’t Iron Man.
Honestly my biggest gripe with so many Hollywood movies. Villains bring up great points and then just so we have to keep rooting for the status quo commit senseless murder
It’s a trend I’m noticing, people are unhappy with the status quo, but the higher ups love it.
The compromise? Villains used as a mouthpiece for the audience and then given a moment in the third act where they sit down to eat a basket of puppies and some “We need a solution but men like you will never give it!” for our hero to support the status quo but have a false pretense of a copout… it made me really appreciate Jack Horner for being an actual goddamn villain in a sea of “The Bad Guy is right, but…”
Now I’m randonly remembering Disney trying to actually sell Cruella DeVille of all people as a feminist girlboss antihero…
As if anyone could root for a woman who wants to skin literal puppies alive in order to make a dress…
Basically every good vs evil narrative from hollywood for the past 30 years has been this.
I didn’t watch Black Panther but wasn’t that a similar thing where the “bad guy” is right but like he kills innocents to cement himself as the bad guy of the film?
In the world of Black Panther, Killmonger’s plan to arm African descendants across the globe represents the beginning stages of the Pan-African ideal, where Blacks all over the world fight for liberation by any means necessary.
He’s a villain, he murdered at least one unarmed person in cold blood and his plan was to use advanced technology to wage a bloody and violent uprising. It was to take control through power and death.
Also I think T’Challa (the protaganist) was a fed or had a deal with the US
Also I think T’Challa (the protaganist) was a fed or had a deal with the US
He was literally the diamond warlord living in glass tower full of hi tech while his subjects waded around mud streets, he also supported tribalism and superstition which divided his people so he could rule them, and let’s not forget the endangered species animal abuse and weaponisation. Somehow exactly like some of the US comics villains from 60’s, but spinned at sympthetic.
I never watch MCU stuff for this reason, like if they ever plan to make an Algerian super hero they’ll make him a Harki (our version of gusanos) or someshit.
I just watched a great video breaking down Black Panther today from F.D. Signifier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQEWa5R3m4U
