#but sometimes audiences don't want realism. they want to feel GOOD when the villain is taken down.

[croik]

what do you dislike about Kayne/the butcher in terms of writing?

Everything 😌

No but really I'll share my thoughts under the cut.

I could probably write an essay about how the introduction of Kayne has already irreparably damaged the show's narrative, but the short version is that by existing, he has erased virtually all stakes, imo. He appeared basically out of nowhere, deflated all tension leading up to the final confrontation with the King in Yellow (who was the main antagonist at the time), and following that confrontation removed all the consequences of it. By undoing Arthur's broken bones and returning John, everything about Arthur's and John's choices on the plateu were invalidated, as well as the choice we the Patrons had made, despite it being billed as a very significant vote. He replaced them with entirely new and completely arbitrary consequences (the memory loss, whatever John's deal is).

His motives may or may not become clear later on, but in the meantime, we're left with a villain who seems to be reshaping the story just for his own amusement, with no regard for the characters' agency or consequences. If Kayne can bring Arthur back from literal death whenever he wants, why should I ever be worried for his safety? Why should I care if John is losing his memory again, when Kayne has full control over his mind and existence? There's no point even wondering what he's after or what the conditions of his deal are until he reveals them himself, and even then, it might just get undone again.

It's contrived, imo. It's lazy. It's a get out of jail free card when you snap a character's femur and then realize you don't want spend time on healing, or come up with some other explanation to get rid of the injury so the plot can barrel forward. He's too powerful, and until he tips his hand, we can't trust that anything else will stick or matter.

Butcher is different, but the problem I have with him is the writing trying too hard to convince us that he's smart/good at this. Him clocking Arthur as blind after a few minutes, after personally watching him READ THE NOTE he himself gave him, and despite none of the other people who spent longer with Arthur noticing, is a desperate bid for us to think he's smart. Him climbing on top of the moving train, where he can't see or hear his quarry, and dropping in exactly when Arthur is next to the specific window, is very dramatic but nonsensical. He chats on and on with the officers, basically shouting at the audience how scary and important he is for far too long.

And he just happened to chase Arthur into an apartment building with a chair and rope set up in the basement. Again it's all a little too convenient. There's a lot about the current scenario that doesn't make much sense logistically, but it doesn't matter because we're just supposed to take the Butcher at his word that he's very good at this.

And hey, I'm not looking for realism. That's not my issue. I just don't like a story telling me that the villain is the best in his field, and then showing him rely on happenstance and luck while he prattles on and on, and sometimes magically intuits something unearned.

(I'm also not a fan of his "oo I'm in love with my victims" shtick, but someone else explained that better already)

Disclaimer these are all my personal feelings and I'm not trying to convince anyone or say you shouldn't like these characters, I fully admit I also have strong personal reasons for disliking them unrelated to the writing so I can't be 100% objective. But who even can be, amirite?

#malevolent blah #masked #not trying to be a hater #ok a little hate #but its okay to not like parts of a show #bring back Yellow plz #much more interesting

[equalseleventhirds]

also (w359 spoilers ahead), marcus cutter is a stand-out villain bcos like, u kno that writing advice that goes 'everyone feels justified in their actions so u have to make a Justification for your villain doing evil', but ppl keep doing those villains wrong (i have Thoughts on why but that's another post)

cutter, like, we understand his motivations. we know he was wronged in his youth! we can see some sympathy there! and we can see his goal is what he genuinely thinks of as a Better Humanity.

and yet we are not pulled into 'well he's right he's just Using The Wrong Methods'. we can also see how what he believes is wrong, even tho he's twisted it around to think it's right. we can see where a lot of his goals are mostly about making things better for himself, even as he pushes a line of 'for progress! moving forward!' along with those self-interested goals. and, vitally, he's not up against heroes who are trying to ~keep the status quo~ or w/e, or go sadly 'well because of your Methods we cannot accept your Very Good Goal'

he's a very good example of a villain with a reason, a plausible reason, an at times sympathetic reason, but with whom we do not side, and who also gets to be campy and evil and fun.

#w359blogging #i think one of the major failings of ppl taking the 'give villains a justification' advice and doing it wrong #is that they assume 'justified' means 'sympathetic' but like. VERY sympathetic. #unfortunately if a villain is TOO sympathetic we the audience... stop liking the heroes #ppl don't necessarily... like to feel conflicted abt good vs evil in media. this is why sometimes Just Evil Villains succeed so well #bcos the 'give villains a justification' thing is about adding realism to your writing #but sometimes audiences don't want realism. they want to feel GOOD when the villain is taken down. #(not all the time. some ppl like the conflict. but also some media is so damn bad at doing a Properly Conflicted Thing #like? black panther? did great on 'good motive bad methods' bcos the good motive was CONTINUED by the good guys #other media... says 'good motive bad methods' and dismisses the motive entirely bcos of the methods #no one can ever take up that cause again without being tarred by the same brush (is the message of the story) #and that's uhhhhhh rly shitty writing and also NOT a good way to feel conflicted abt the heroes & villains for the audience #bcos either they must hate the villain's good motivation or they have to like. question the heroes. .......anyway.) #this is all to say! cutter's a fantastic balance between 'understandable motivations' and 'just genuinely evil u can root for him to fail' #like you UNDERSTAND him but you don't AGREE with him. he's got the realism without that ethical quandary. #it's not the same approach to an understandable villain as black panther but it is a good one for a different message #....................i said these thoughts were another post. they are instead tags. sorry about that.