Are Pure Evil Villains Better Than Sympathetic Ones?
2021 was a fantastic year for villains, especially if you’re a superhero fan. Out of all the many standout performances in last year’s various superhero movies and, several of them were from actors portraying villains — like Tony Leung as Wenwu in Shang-Chi, John Cena as Peacemaker in The Suicide Squad, and Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin in Spider-Man: No Way Home.
TV was no exception either, as shown by the breakout performances of Kathryn Hahn as Agatha Harkness in WandaVision, Daniel Bruhl as Baron Zemo in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and J.K. Simmons as Omni-Man in Invincible, just to name a few. However, many of these beloved villains fall into one of two distinct categories — sympathetic villains who are humanized by the tragedy that created them, and pure evil villains who revel in the dastardly deeds they commit. And needless to say, the question of which style of villain is better is a matter of heated debate in many fan circles.
RELATED: The MCU's Most Sympathetic Villains
One problem that plagued both Marvel and DC’s shared movie universes in their early days was a lack of compelling villains. The likes of Whiplash, Ronan the Accuser, Ares, and even Lex Luthor were often derided for being bland, underdeveloped, and poorly-written. Many films had main antagonists who felt more like plot devices than actual characters, existing solely to threaten the heroes while lacking any real depth of their own. However, this began to change once these villains started being portrayed with more nuance and humanity.
Some of the most beloved movie supervillains from recent years are notable for being depicted in a more sympathetic light than their predecessors. Take Killmonger from Black Panther, Vulture from Spider-Man:
Read more on gamerant.com
