I dont like "Misunderstood villain" trophe

[Maxmillian 138]

Because it makes them seem redeemable.

Though when i think of a parody of that, i think of this joke video. Except anyone listening to a long monologue of that, would likely have called it nonsensical at this part 0:24

 

 

Which is why this is my favorite video to burst that bubble.

 

I dont mind knowing the motivation of a villain, or having depth. But in the end one makes a choice. Thats it. Take "Two Face" in Dark Knight movie. An Idealist who fell rock bottom when exposed to the horrors of reality, but in the end he still made that choice. To me thats way better written than "We are all just misunderstood people". Which i just hate.

I consider "Scorpion and the turtle" story to be the best example of explaining reality of evil, because in the end you always have a choice.

[Megas 27,960]

The problem is that some writers seem to think making them misunderstood is enough to absolve them of all their misdeeds or to make them seem more sympathetic. When its done well it can be really good but I think more often than not it's usually done for the sake of subversion

[OverTheStars 304]

I think it's less about the trope itself and more about bad writing. There are some antagonists that are redeemable and have really good redemption arcs (think Zuko from Avatar), but I think it's only lackluster if the villain has done irredeemable things or if their arc to become better is lacking or rushed.  I feel like if either of those things happen it just reflects poorly on the protagonists. Like what do you mean you're okay with (insert atrocity here) because the villain said they're super sorry? I think it might be a result of lazy/rushed writing because the writers want to have a peaceful solution but don't want to have to actually put in the work into making the villain actually work to be redeemed.

That being said, a misunderstood villain doesn't always mean that they are intended to be redeemable. There are some villains who start off as misunderstood with the potential for redemption but then spiral into being irredeemable.

Edited March 6 by OverTheStars

[The FBI 603]

it is an overdone trope and it gets the weirdo joker memes goin with angsty teens thinkin' they are "to deep",

MLP show fim had a similar thing going but prolly a product of its time or usually justa thing to teach kids to think beyond black or white 
 

[Dah Onion Eater 5,363]

I know exactly how you feel, the trope can be done well, but in a series I watch it is NOT done well at all

[Samurai Equine 53,510]

First off, I don't judge a trope nor any type of story by how often you see it. I know people are feeling the fatigue on superhero movies and multiverse stories, but I don't care about that. To me, what matters is how well these stories are written and how much you enjoyed them. If they are done well, or if you enjoyed them, then that's really all that matters. 

Secondly, this trope actually has two problems.
The first is the obvious one that everyone mentions; the writing. If you are going to have a tragic villain, do something with that. Redeem them. Make them face the consequences of their actions, and then put in the work to make things right. Make them go on a journey of self discovery that makes them realize the error of their ways. Do all the things, but please don't rush it. Even if you don't plan to redeem the character, then at least play up the tragedy of their fall. There's no point in advertising a sympathetic villain if you're not actually going to do something with it. You might think the character you wrote is more interesting this way, but if you don't make use of their narrative potential, then they might as well be one-dimensional after all.

And to be clear, I have nothing against simple stories nor one-dimensional character motivations. It happens a lot in shows made for younger children. It helps teach us story writing and character writing in simple terms. If the writing is really cleaver, more lore/character details can gradually be built upon the simple stuff. However, even the simplest of stories can be celebrated if they have the right kind of charm or heart to it. I just don't like when creators and advertisers lie to us. Don't make the audience think we are in for a deeper, more layered story when we're not. Don't make us think these characters are complicated when they aren't. Don't make us think the story is going to be super serious when it's based on something campy or silly by nature.

The second problem is that there are audience members who are complete bleeding hearts. There are people who instantly love the misunderstood villain characters, as well as heroes with tragic origins, and other similar character types. These people could almost care less if the story or the writing is good, they just want a sympathetic character that they can emotionally cling to. And because there are audience members who respond to these characters, there are writers who will throw them in for the sake of profit/ratings. It's not about writing them well, it's not about giving a completed character arc, it's not about any kind of narrative plan. It's only about getting as many eyes as possible to watch your show, read your fiction, buy your merch, etc. It sort of creates a vicious cycle. Audience want tragic character that they can emotionally relate to, writer throws it in for their emotional validation, studio thinks it works, rinse and repeat. What's strange is that the bleeding heart audience will try to convince you this is somehow good writing, but they'll probably never provide examples of why. At least no reason beyond their emotional validation.

So those are my thoughts. However, I try not to judge fiction by these things. We're all a little different. Everyone has moments where we enjoy things that weren't exactly masterpieces of good writing. Even the BEST stuff can still have some flaws or inconsistencies. And more then that, we all respond to different things! At the end of the day, all that matters is if you like something or not. Even if the story if actually kind of bad; if you love it, keep loving it. You can probably find others that feel the same! No one else has to understand why, and you don't have to stop loving it just because others don't. It can be something special just for you to enjoy.  Before I admitted out loud that I was a brony, I quietly watched the show on my own for a while. I didn't need to find a community, and I didn't need to watch any critics. I liked MLP:FIM, it made me happy, and that was all that mattered. But I am glad I eventually came around. I found a wonderful community when I did. 

[OverTheStars 304]

On 2025-03-16 at 11:28 PM, Samurai Equine said:

 

The second problem is that there are audience members who are complete bleeding hearts. There are people who instantly love the misunderstood villain characters, as well as heroes with tragic origins, and other similar character types. These people could almost care less if the story or the writing is good, they just want a sympathetic character that they can emotionally cling to. And because there are audience members who respond to these characters, there are writers who will throw them in for the sake of profit/ratings. It's not about writing them well, it's not about giving a completed character arc, it's not about any kind of narrative plan. It's only about getting as many eyes as possible to watch your show, read your fiction, buy your merch, etc. It sort of creates a vicious cycle. Audience want tragic character that they can emotionally relate to, writer throws it in for their emotional validation, studio thinks it works, rinse and repeat. What's strange is that the bleeding heart audience will try to convince you this is somehow good writing, but they'll probably never provide examples of why. At least no reason beyond their emotional validation.

 

I agree! Or even if the creators have no intention to redeem a character/make them sympathetic, they're pressured to do so by fans or higher ups. I'm the type of person who latches onto characters easily, but the writing and consistent characters always comes first. If I like a villainous character and out of nowhere they get this out of place and out of character redemption arc, I just feel kinda cheated. Sure they might be in the plot more since they're with the protagonists now, but the writing is so rushed that it doesn't even feel like the same character. I feel like a lot of people forget that you can still like a character who's a villain and find them sympathetic while also not needing them to redeem themselves. Sometimes just keeping them a misunderstood villain works better for the plot and message.

[Dreambiscuit 10,756]

I do enjoy a well-written villain with an interesting story, but I’ve seen way too many characters who are just plain crap being treated like they’re just poor little victims and everyone else is to blame. Modern movies portray so many characters like this because they think being dark is so cool and being good is not, and they glamorize the dark side like something to be embraced while falsely twisting the rest of society around to feed this delusion. Bad writing is one thing, but irresponsible writing is quite another. I don’t like either, but the latter is far worse and grossly prolific these days. I have no use for it.