Star Wars, Harry Potter, Stranger Things

[streaM Freak]

Looking at the hero/villain relationships in these movies and show, why do you think there is a clear and present relationship, but such a drastically different manifestation of those shared traits?

Also things to consider:
Do we think that villains are redeemable?
Do we think that heros are corruptible?
Do we think there is always a connection between villain and hero, or does it just make for good entertainment?

 

[bvc]

It's interesting to look into Grindewald's past in the off-shoot movies. He never gets redeemed but he definitely seems willing to play with the scales. I adore Newt Scamander. Snape is interesting. Voldemort is pure evil.
Kylo Ren was never redeemable after he killed his father (Han Solo). He may have done some good things. But he was irredeemable after that.

 

[streaM Freak]

Thank you I'll have to look more into those Harry Potter characters at some point - didn't know the movies were so complex, sounds interesting to look into

 

[mal3volent]

Thank you I'll have to look more into those Harry Potter characters at some point - didn't know the movies were so complex, sounds interesting to look into

The Grindelwald stuff really isn't explored hardly at all in the main series of films. You have to watch the fantastic beasts series or read the books.

Generally I find most good villains and heroes aren't all that different. They usually start off pretty much the same and are shaped into what they are by their choices and how they dealt with adversity. So you can have purely supernatural/cosmic entities as villains that have personified forms... like Randall Flagg, Pennywise, etc. Or actual humans who started out like us but went down the wrong path. That's the trope I've found in most stories.

 

[Foreigner]

Some of the more interesting hero/villain dynamics I've seen are where the hero must integrate their dark side, and therefore become closer to the mentality/MO of the villain, in order to eventually overcome the villain. They risk becoming tainted themselves in order to win. It's sort of a yin-yang dynamic... where the villain contains some of the hero and the hero contains some of the villain, as part of their ultimate clash.

I'm not a big fan of retconning past villains with origin stories to make us feel sorry for them, or explore them more deeply. It ruins the archetype of what the villain is supposed to represent, which is something much more simple and pure. It's also a bit too post-modern for my taste. I mean yeah, sure, we can do a biopic on any villain we want, but at the end of the day their outcome is to become a malicious person who harms innocent people and destroys anything good in the world. So their origin story doesn't matter much to me. They are still just plot service for the protagonist.

Like the wicked witch of the west. The book about her in 1995 was original and novel... we didn't often explore villains like that. But then they took it to extremes and we are supposed to be okay with her just because she sings tralala with Glinda.

 

[streaM Freak]

I'm not a big fan of retconning past villains with origin stories to make us feel sorry for them, or explore them more deeply. It ruins the archetype of what the villain is supposed to represent, which is something much more simple and pure. It's also a bit too post-modern for my taste. I mean yeah, sure, we can do a biopic on any villain we want, but at the end of the day their outcome is to become a malicious person who harms innocent people and destroys anything good in the world. So their origin story doesn't matter much to me. They are still just plot service for the protagonist.

Valid

Perhaps you'd like to talk about the hero then?

 

[Foreigner]

Valid

Perhaps you'd like to talk about the hero then?

Sure. I think the best heros don't slay the dragon, they get slayed by the dragon. Whatever their hopes and plans were, they get dashed and their immature hero ego gets destroyed. The hero does things for themselves, the warrior does things for others because they have suffered trials. It's only through the hero's downfall and initial corruption that they can fight the real battle to become the warrior. Once they are the warrior, they understand their real mission and seek to fulfill it.

 

[streaM Freak]

Sure. I think the best heros don't slay the dragon, they get slayed by the dragon. Whatever their hopes and plans were, they get dashed and their immature hero ego gets destroyed. The hero does things for themselves, the warrior does things for others because they have suffered trials. It's only through the hero's downfall and initial corruption that they can fight the real battle to become the warrior. Once they are the warrior, they understand their real mission and seek to fulfill it.

Very interesting I never put that together.

Thank you, that makes sense

 

[streaM Freak]

@Foreigner - are you saying that basically the space between both is the ideal spot? Does one necessarily need aspects of both hero and villain, or is it just something that can be a path

 

[Foreigner]

@Foreigner - are you saying that basically the space between both is the ideal spot? Does one necessarily need aspects of both hero and villain, or is it just something that can be a path

It depends on the specific hero and villain we're talking about...

But in older stories, it's a classic good vs. evil trope. The evil is pure and not redeemable. The good is in a long battle with the evil to defeat it.

In more contemporary tropes, evil used to be good but went the wrong way, and perhaps may still have a shred of good within them that can bring them back from the brink, otherwise they must be vanquished. The good person on the other hand must get in touch with their own shadow to defeat the evil because a deep belief in good alone is not enough to understand their opponent. The lesson is that you cannot transform into a more powerful, self-actualized version of yourself without touching on the same darkness that corrupted your opponent. You must also "ingest the poison," but instead of being compromised by it, you alchemically transform the poison into personal power. This is the true hero's journey.

So I don't think it's about "in between is best," it's about integrating the light and shadow into one conscious whole without one's spirit being corrupted forever. But perhaps I am being too Jungian about it.

For example... a lot of people think actualization means projecting the best, "most good" version of themselves, always turning to the light, always avoiding the shadow, only doing what feels good, never doing what feels bad. But this refusal to look at the shadow is what gives the shadow power to suddenly upset their entire life by blindsiding them. The warrior on the other hand has gone to the depths and has integrated a larger reality that includes the shadow. There is nothing they can't see now, no major blind spots.

In most stories the hero is initially defeated because they have no clue about the shadow. They think goodness and purity is all they need, incorrectly believing that themselves do not contain a piece of the very shadow they are trying to defeat. The lack of integration is their weakness and is how the villain overcomes them easily. The villain is initially more powerful because they are already deep in the shadow. They are drawing from a source of power that the hero is not yet aware of. The difference is that the villain is consumed by the shadow and never comes back from it (maybe), so they have forsaken the good side of themselves, and refuse to reckon with both. As a result they too are splintered off from their own complete power. When the hero integrates both, he defeats the villain because the villain was not able to perform that same integration. This is when the hero becomes the warrior.

 

[streaM Freak]

It depends on the specific hero and villain we're talking about...

But in older stories, it's a classic good vs. evil trope. The evil is pure and not redeemable. The good is in a long battle with the evil to defeat it.

In more contemporary tropes, evil used to be good but went the wrong way, and perhaps may still have a shred of good within them that can bring them back from the brink, otherwise they must be vanquished. The good person on the other hand must get in touch with their own shadow to defeat the evil because a deep belief in good alone is not enough to understand their opponent. The lesson is that you cannot transform into a more powerful, self-actualized version of yourself without touching on the same darkness that corrupted your opponent. You must also "ingest the poison," but instead of being compromised by it, you alchemically transform the poison into personal power.

That too I have never thought through. Hmm.

So okay, another question if you don't mind, what about classic good v evil do you find to hold truth?

I've heard you talk about dislike of the current dynamic, now I'm interested in the older stories (which I don't know much about)

 

[Foreigner]

That too I have never thought through. Hmm.

So okay, another question if you don't mind, what about classic good v evil do you find to hold truth?

I've heard you talk about dislike of the current dynamic, now I'm interested in the older stories (which I don't know much about)

Sorry, I just edited my post above to include other things.

I only dislike the current dynamic because I think the trope of the villain's origin story, or the "prequel" to villainy, is not done properly. But that doesn't mean I don't think it has no value. The way a lot of villain backstories are written now, is to make it seem like they really are a good person who is just deeply misunderstood or lost, and needs to be saved. But not all villains can be saved or want to be saved. Some require destruction. It's wrong to teach viewers that "love conquers all," and that if enough love is poured into the villain, he/she will come back from their forsaken state and rejoin humanity. Some villains will not settle for anything but the complete destruction of everything sacred, and must be destroyed.

I like the classic good vs. evil trope because it's simple yet effective. How do you reckon with something that is no-holds-barred trying to destroy you and all you can do is fight it, or be destroyed yourself? The evil may even seem justified at first. The narratives are clear and satisfying, as well as the conflicts. You can still go really deep with both sides, without overlapping them in a post-modern way that renders the idea of good and evil null. I feel that modern media now discards the classic good vs. evil trope because they feel it's too one-dimensional, and it's more edgy to explore the idea that "people aren't always what they seem." But the good vs. evil thing is a universal allegory. It's so primal that Jung even categorized it as a basic archetype in the subconscious of all human minds. We can still write narratives of this battle AND make the bad guy super compelling and interesting. For example, Darth Vader in Star Wars. He used to be a Jedi. Super interesting back story, rich character... but he is totally unredeemable. He services the hero-become-warrior by being a radical, uncompromising menace. He will destroy entire planets and billions of people to crush all resistance so he can rule the galaxy with an iron fist. He has no regard for the sanctity of life. Life exists to service his mission if it cooperates, otherwise he brushes it out of the way. The only overlap between good and evil we get is that he's actually Luke's father. Therefore Luke, the protagonist and representative of all that is good about The Force, was actually made from this evil man, when he was once in love, before he was corrupted. He then tries to corrupt Luke with the same forces that corrupted him. Besides that, it's a classic good vs. evil battle. Simple, effective, speaks to all audiences. No need to handhold about if maybe Darth Vader has a seed of good or is "misunderstood." No, he's evil. He started good and then fucked it up. He chose his karma.

 

[streaM Freak]

@Foreigner - do you know anything about the movie Hellraiser and how that may fit in to the depiction of good and evil? To my knowledge, Hellraiser is a bit of both? Mostly malevolent but not always?