• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Antagonist Motivations

M

mus

Doing some pre-writing research here...

what do you think make up the elements of an interesting antagonist?

Who are your favorite movie villains and why?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
maz said:
He's basically written not as a human villain, but as some sort of robotic supercomputer of villainy. There is no antagonist motivation there at all, nothing to make you think "oh, that's why he's doing it". Sure, it means the writers can have a bit of fun, and the actor can ham it up to an extraordinary level of badness, but it doesn't make him a good character in any sense of the word. When writers write without setting themselves sensible limits (within the context of the universe they've created), the writing and characters become self-indulgent and flabby, which is precisely what 'Jim' Moriarty is: hammy circle jerk of a character. He's not badass, just bad.

I haven't seen a Batman film since the one where Batman wasn't taking Arnie to the cooler, but if the Joker character has a) no motivation for his actions and b) no limits to what he can achieve at any time, then yeah, he would be a badly written character too. I can't speak for the acting in this case, obviously.
Click to expand...

There is antagonistic motivation. Moriarty is a criminal consultant and makes a living from that.
Sherlock got in the way ergo revenge was called for.

Moriarty is no robotic supercomputer, he is just very experienced in his trade. Whats wrong with that?

Out of interest, who would you suggest as a brilliant Antagonist?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasyFilmProductions said:
There is antagonistic motivation. Moriarty is a criminal consultant and makes a living from that.
Sherlock got in the way ergo revenge was called for.

Moriarty is no robotic supercomputer, he is just very experienced in his trade. Whats wrong with that?

Out of interest, who would you suggest as a brilliant Antagonist?
Click to expand...

Any individual who has the power/wealth to do whatever he wants whenever he wants with no consequences is a robotic supercomputer as far as I'm concerned. There is no need for the writers to rely on plausibility (and the response "he's just really good at what he does!" doesn't cut it for me), and there is no hint that he is experienced or particularly talented, just extraordinarily smug. He's basically a pantomime villain. One big yawn, as far as I'm concerned, but I've had this argument with hundreds of Sherlock fanboys/girls and I know people don't agree, so let's leave it there :)

For brilliant antagonists, I'm not sure. I watch more TV than movies, so I prefer TV antagonists, where the perspectives keep switching and you can almost understand why a 'bad' character does what he/she does and antagonists have their own antagonists. So, for example, Boyd Crowder in FX's Justified, or just about every character in HBO's Game of Thrones, as everyone in that story seems to be an antagonist in some other character's story. They are smart, often powerful and resourceful, but not all-powerful or in possession of unlimited resources. The writers know where to place limits, which is what makes for good writing in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, Maz,

I'm going to take FFP's question to the next level. You say "Boyd Crowder in FX's Justified" among others. These are all TV series bad guys you are referencing. In a movie, you have only X amount of time to pull off a really good bad guy.

If you had to pick the quintessential "movie" bad guy ...who would it be? ...and what qualifications make this person the ultimate bad guy?

-Birdman
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You forgot this dude, but thats okay.

I pardon you

I-Pardon-You-8.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Birdman said:
Okay, Maz,

I'm going to take FFP's question to the next level. You say "Boyd Crowder in FX's Justified" among others. These are all TV series bad guys you are referencing. In a movie, you have only X amount of time to pull off a really good bad guy.

If you had to pick the quintessential "movie" bad guy ...who would it be? ...and what qualifications make this person the ultimate bad guy?

-Birdman
Click to expand...

Wait, so FFP gets to name a TV villain as his/her pick, and I don't get to choose a TV villain in response? What are the rules here? :P

As I mentioned, I don't watch enough movies, and I have a terrible memory for those I do watch, but I'll have a think about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maz said:
Any individual who has the power/wealth to do whatever he wants whenever he wants with no consequences is a robotic supercomputer as far as I'm concerned. There is no need for the writers to rely on plausibility (and the response "he's just really good at what he does!" doesn't cut it for me), and there is no hint that he is experienced or particularly talented, just extraordinarily smug. He's basically a pantomime villain. One big yawn, as far as I'm concerned, but I've had this argument with hundreds of Sherlock fanboys/girls and I know people don't agree, so let's leave it there :)

For brilliant antagonists, I'm not sure. I watch more TV than movies, so I prefer TV antagonists, where the perspectives keep switching and you can almost understand why a 'bad' character does what he/she does and antagonists have their own antagonists. So, for example, Boyd Crowder in FX's Justified, or just about every character in HBO's Game of Thrones, as everyone in that story seems to be an antagonist in some other character's story. They are smart, often powerful and resourceful, but not all-powerful or in possession of unlimited resources. The writers know where to place limits, which is what makes for good writing in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. We will leave the Sherlock series then. We clearly differ in taste on that one. Debating it further would not add value to this post :)

Tv series with decent bad guys.

-Boardwalk Empire (I love this series)
-Breaking Bad (didn't really watch it, it was a bit boring)
-Macguyver (its Macguyver, it was awesome)


All the bad guys in these series have limits and their motivations are understood.

The question however that Birdman asks is pertinent. In a film, we don't have an entire series to defeat the villain, we only have between 1 and 3 hours to discover all there is to know of him/her and destroy said villain. You must surely have a film villain you could point at as an example.
Even Titanic has a bad guy...the question is, is it the womans current boyfriend the total douche? or the schmoozing git that steals her from him?

This is where I think personal choice comes in. Sometimes, to me the good guy is the bad guy because sometimes I just want to see the good guy beaten.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've only seen one of those shows (Breaking Bad), and I would say firstly that we disagree again: it's the greatest show I've ever seen, just about. But secondly I agree that the various bad guys are pretty amazing (until the last lot).

I really do have a bad memory for films I've seen. My very favourite movies don't even have an antagonist in the traditional sense. But here are a couple that do spring to mind: the truck from Duel, and the shark from Jaws :) I'll think of some more, I'm sure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maz said:
I've only seen one of those shows (Breaking Bad), and I would say firstly that we disagree again: it's the greatest show I've ever seen, just about. But secondly I agree that the various bad guys are pretty amazing (until the last lot).

I really do have a bad memory for films I've seen. My very favourite movies don't even have an antagonist in the traditional sense. But here are a couple that do spring to mind: the truck from Duel, and the shark from Jaws :) I'll think of some more, I'm sure.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying Breaking Bad, was bad, I may even like it if I had the time to watch it.

The shark from jaws...restricted and motivated. Fair point. I would never have thought of a shark as an
antagonist but its fair to point out old pointy tooth as a reasonable contender.

I do like my characters to have boundaries, and it certainly makes them more plausible if they do, but I like them to not be restricted as much as others might.
Lets say bad guy is top of the food chain, he must be able to do things that others can't otherwise the plot immediately falls over. For me, if bad guy is a total bad ass but is not better then the others, there is no reason why some other bad guy wanting his position hasn't toppled him already.

Take scarface for example. There are no good guys in it, just bad guys, and the entire movie is this struggle of bad guys overthrowing other bad guys to get what they have. Thats realistic. The motivations are obvious. And the biggest bad guy wins, why? because he has more guns. He is restricted but he has something that the bad guys under him don't have.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maz said:
Wait, so FFP gets to name a TV villain as his/her pick, and I don't get to choose a TV villain in response? What are the rules here? :P

As I mentioned, I don't watch enough movies, and I have a terrible memory for those I do watch, but I'll have a think about it.
Click to expand...

Shit! You're right! ...I totally missed that!

-Birdman
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think an antagonist is effective when they have depth, personality, and most often - humanity. My favorite villains are Sy the Photo Guy, Daniel Plainview, and all of the antagonists in the 2013 film, Prisoners. Sy the Photo Guy was just a disturbed and realistic character, severely damaged and trapped somewhere between dreams and reality. Daniel Plainview was an example of uncontrollable egotistical madness and lust for dominance and power, making him one of the most violent and unsettling characters in films. Prisoners was disturbing to me because of some of the sympathy we felt for those who did, to say the least, bad things. Throughout the films, the antagonists are just "off". You can't quite put it together... they're just... off.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top