Ozai: "If you want to convince me to burn you before the rest of the world, you're doing a good job".
Facilier: Crushing him.
Jack Napier: "A gun, please".
I know Count Francesco Cenci isn't on this list, but he should be. I need to think long and hard before thinking about a fictional father who's worse than him.
Unpopular opinion: The other characters' breakdown mostly shows how evil they are, or how angry they are that their plan was either foiled or delayed. Lotso's breakdown shows his true self and reminds us that self-pitty is dangerous. It's strong stuff.
I vote for Commodus. Even though Macrinus is more well-rounded, the sheer depravity and repulsiveness of Commodus makes him scarier. Also, he's the more evil one.
Just saw this video today, and it was very insightful. I mean, insightful even in this series' high standards.
While i can see why Macrinus reminds you of Littlefinger, he seems to me more similar to a composite character of Jill Roberts, Faciler and Frank Underwood.
Here are some other moments where a PE kills a deserving victim:
*Roman Bridger slashes John Milton's throat as a revenge for creating the situation that his own mother can't love him.
*Jill Roberts stabs Charlie Walker in his heart and stomach while revealing that he was her fall guy this whole time.
*Kieran Wilcox stabs Haley Meyers to death at her upper body and hangs her dead body.
*Every time when Joker (Nolanverse) kills another criminal. Two-Face was literally the only villain in the movie that Joker hurt and didn't deserve it.
*In general, most times when a PE kills a Scrappy.
It depends on the specific villain and the symbolism of the story. For example, Scar deserved his death, while Ozai deserved the fate worse than death he got.
Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe) counts too. He was pure evil in the final cut only because his sympathetic traits from the director's cut were cut off.
Randall Boggs for Waternoose in "Monsters Inc.", Middle Eye for Zero Wolf in "Apocalypto", Zolkoff for Chris McLean in "Despair Island" and Roger for Jack Merridew in "Lord of the Flies".
Randall vs Mike would've been the easy choice, but after some thinking, i chose Drago vs Stoick. While the other conflicts have their own merits, the conflict between Drago and Stoick holds a deep symbolism of Hickupp growing up from a simple smart guy to a leader, and also shows that some people (like Drago) can't be negotiate with. I also believe to this very day that Hickupp lost the wrong parent, which makes the aforementioned conflict hit close to home. The other conflicts may be fun to a degree. This conflict was something that feels like a common conflict among the audience too, because many of us lose people during our lives and we can't control it.
Lotso's motive was a little more complicated than that. He has a severe abandonment anxiety, and he wants to force people to stay with him and do whatever he says because he doesn't want to be left alone ever again. It's an abandonment anxiety that was twisted into nihilism and being a control freak.
Isaac Ray Peram Westcott enjoys hurting himself so much that he enjoys hurting his loved ones. Does he count for this thread?
I don't think he should be coming back. "Toy Story 5" has so many thins that can go wrong, and bringing back Lotso isn't going to help. They need to do something new, preferably with new characters. Woody's story has outstayed its welcome.
Isaac Ray Peram Westcott has the most unusual/absurd motive to be PE i've ever seen. He basically hurts people he loves because he loves hurting himself.
It could be shown that him and Prince Adam were cousins (meaning he was planning to murder his own cousin and take all the castle's riches this whole time), or alternatively that Gaston manipulated the enchantress to curse Adam all those years ago.
In a paraphrase to the words of King Einon: Some characters are smart. Some characters are strongs. Both have value in writing.
That's an easy one. Ozai is the better villain (the character itself may not be very complex, but he's not flat either. HIs complexity is his children. Plus, it would've been harder for Zuko being geniunely tragic and Azula being semi-tragic without Ozai. He's the villain that the show needed, and he's actually more complex than any domestic abuser has any right to be), which means Black Noir is more boring.
Nicholas wasn't approved yet, but he should be. As evil as Vitalis was, Nicholas wasn't much better, if at all.
Example for a headcanon: Vitalis Bénévent's second-in-command is a vicious man named Nicholas (A Plague Tale). Those are the facts. Well, my headcanon is that Nicholas wasn't always the ruthless commander who's willing to waste people like nothing that we know in the game. Vitalis probably tortured many people in his quest for power, and his people are confirmed to do terrible things to children and livestock, so it makes sense if he was cruel to Nicholas too. In my headcanon, Vitalis saw a special potential in Nicholas, so he decided to corrupt him instead of killing him. Hugo wasn't the first child that the inquisition wanted dead, and Nicholas isn't likely to be the only corrupted one, and therefore i believe that Vitalis tried to corrupt other kids like Hugo before, but they were either too weak or too moral to become evil enough for Vitalis' taste. The thing that makes Nicholas worse than most of the others is that even if someone corrupted him, he chose corruption instead of looking for the way out, and if i didn't know any better, i could think he had plans to do bad things to Hugo and other children even behind Vitalis' back. I also don't think he was truly loyal to Vitalis. He just enjoyed doing what he did, and perhaps even deluding himself into believing he's in charge and Vitalis is his figure head just because he was old and sickly, even though anyone who played the first game can tell you Vitalis was indeed in charge. At least that's how i remember it.
Does this kind of headcanon count for this thread?
Do headcanons count, or do only confirmed canon corruption arcs apply to this thread?