Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[Mecha82]

Being charming and charismatic does help to even worst kind of villain likeble while villians like Micheal Myer that are forces of nature also have appeal because of it. They do what they do because that's what they do and we don't need to learn reasons why they do it. And in case of Frieza wasn't he fighting on side of Goku and others during Tournament of Power arc? I could be wrong since I haven't been watching Dragon Ball Super but at least that's what I heard.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

And in case of Frieza wasn't he fighting on side of Goku and others during Tournament of Power arc? I could be wrong since I haven't been watching Dragon Ball Super but at least that's what I heard.

yes but it was just an "Enemy of my Enemy" situation and Frieza when right back to being a villain the moment it was over.

[Thebestoftherest]

Isn't that what I said?

[clearspira]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

TvTropes is written by people like you and me, it isn't gospel. Case in point, Kevis Fajo is an asshole, not an unrepentant monster. He clearly recognises that he went too far by gunning down that woman at the end of the ep. Frieza wouldn't stare at his weapon in shock after such an act.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

TvTropes is written by people like you and me, it isn't gospel. Case in point, Kevis Fajo is an asshole, not an unrepentant monster. He clearly recognises that he went too far by gunning down that woman at the end of the ep. Frieza wouldn't stare at his weapon in shock after such an act.

it seemed more Fajo just found how it kills people distasteful enough to have that reaction but the fact he so casually threatens to keep doing it should tell you, he had no real remorse over the act.

but we're getting off topic again, my point still stands because I also brought up how Chuck praised the portrayal of Davros, the guy who admitted he'd destroy the universe just because he could and actually tried to do so later on and then some.

[Mecha82]

There are more than one way villain can be great and deserve praise from audience members. Just because some one else's view about that doesn't match your's doesn't mean that there isn't anything praise worthy to that person.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

There are more than one way villain can be great and deserve praise from audience members. Just because some one else's view about that doesn't match your's doesn't mean that there isn't anything praise worthy to that person.

I'm not arguing that nor that a villain has to be a complete monster necessarily to be good, just the seeming unspoken implication of Chuck that pure evil and unrepentantly monstrous villains are objectively bad.

[clearspira]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

TvTropes is written by people like you and me, it isn't gospel. Case in point, Kevis Fajo is an asshole, not an unrepentant monster. He clearly recognises that he went too far by gunning down that woman at the end of the ep. Frieza wouldn't stare at his weapon in shock after such an act.

it seemed more Fajo just found how it kills people distasteful enough to have that reaction but the fact he so casually threatens to keep doing it should tell you, he had no real remorse over the act.

but we're getting off topic again, my point still stands because I also brought up how Chuck praised the portrayal of Davros, the guy who admitted he'd destroy the universe just because he could and actually tried to do so later on and then some.

Your point only stands because you keep saying ''we are getting off topic'' every time someone comes up with a counter to what you are saying.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

TvTropes is written by people like you and me, it isn't gospel. Case in point, Kevis Fajo is an asshole, not an unrepentant monster. He clearly recognises that he went too far by gunning down that woman at the end of the ep. Frieza wouldn't stare at his weapon in shock after such an act.

it seemed more Fajo just found how it kills people distasteful enough to have that reaction but the fact he so casually threatens to keep doing it should tell you, he had no real remorse over the act.

but we're getting off topic again, my point still stands because I also brought up how Chuck praised the portrayal of Davros, the guy who admitted he'd destroy the universe just because he could and actually tried to do so later on and then some.

Your point only stands because you keep saying ''we are getting off topic'' every time someone comes up with a counter to what you are saying.

I was mostly saying that discussing who is and isn't a complete monster is not the point of this thread but the main point of this discussion was supposed to be countering Chuck's view on one dimensional villains in general.

[Riedquat]

but we're getting off topic again, my point still stands because I also brought up how Chuck praised the portrayal of Davros, the guy who admitted he'd destroy the universe just because he could and actually tried to do so later on and then some.

Davros might be an unrepentent monster but he's not completely one dimensional, moustache-twirling evil for evil's sake villain (AFAIK from Chuck's reviews anyway, my Dr Who knowledge is mostly down to them and the occasional childhood memory).