Why do people hate the "Well-Intentioned Extremist" villains?

I was just giving my two cents, about why I'm sick of villains who the narrative pretends aren't scum. That people can use their magic for evil does not make "Kill everyone who makes me feel inadequate!" a respectable position.

Funny, I was about to mention Amon and the Equalists as an excellent example of a good Well-Intentioned Extremist villain. He's intelligent, compelling, charismatic, mysterious and- as far as the facts are concerned- almost entirely correct.

I think you're rather missing the point of the Equalists. There's a salient difference between "some people use their magic for evil which means magic is evil" and "the predominance of this magic grants a subset of the population a disproportionate and unearned advantage over every other person through no merit of their own".

The former is petty, the latter is the core of every historically significant social justice movement of the last few centuries.

Except that their endgame is some Harrison Bergeron shit. If I may paraphrase Grant Morrison, no matter how they justify their stupid, brutal behaviour, or how anyone else tries to justify it, in the end they're just bastards with daft ideas based on violence and coercion.

The Equalists are good examples of villains that could have been great. The show never addresses their complaints and completely sidesteps the main issue of bender and non-bender equality and the plot pretty much tosses Amon's character through the window for a cheap twist near the end of the season, which makes him a random vengencea-seeking mastermind rather than the leader of a political movement.

Yeah Amon's own personal hypocrisy ended up meaning the points he had raised on behalf of genuine actual non-benders got discarded, when actually there was some decent debate to be had under the rhetoric.

But generally I think it's getting a character who is sufficiently bad as to be an actual villain (not an anti-hero) but STILL have a good reason and understandable motive. It's hard to do it right and done wrong I for one find it aggravating and makes me more unsympathetic than I am to card carrying villains like Drakken, who is at least fun.

Right, from what I've seen people don't dislike Well-Intentioned Extremist villains, they dislike it when they turn out to not be well intentioned at all because it either feels like a Debate and Switch or the lengths they're going to will cause far more harm than any reasonable good that might've resulted.

Why should their complaints be addressed? It's like addressing the complaints of Quebecois separatists.

And you're honestly surprised that people who do shitty things tend to turn out to be shitty people? Throw around Debate and Switch all you want, that's basically what you're complaining about.

edited 2nd Jun '15 8:27:10 AM by ElkhornTheDowntrodden

Also keep in mind that in real life, there are plenty of despicable and terrible people who have lots of supporters and sympathizers behind them.

I would argue that a part of the point with a Well-Intentioned Extremist is that while they have good points, and a good cause, they somewhat undermine it with their methods.

That's why they are both well intentioned and extremists. That being said, if done right, people will still recognize the truth behind what they were fighting against.

Hell, some of these guys take such extreme measures because it's the only way to get people to listen. Even if they fail, someone will look at what they said and wonder if fixing the problem might prevent another dude like this from rising up.

Of course, a lot of the time, they do far more harm than good as well, so it's up in the air really.

When it comes to "Well-Intentioned" Extremist-type villains, this gif◊ comes to mind.

There are also the ones who are so desperate to change things, but so cynical (either by nature or experience) that they no longer believe they can get their message across without doing something really drastic.

They know it's awful, but are convinced it's the only way, but this only works when you show why things are so bad that their actions are seemingly necessary.

It's also risky in that it might make the heroes look too bad if the Villain is too right about things.

My gentleman of African descent.

Don't people usually like Pixar's villains? Aren't most of them Well-Intentioned Extermists?

Not Lotso.

He said most, not all.

And Lotso is kind of ultimately a bit weak in terms of how good of a villain he is. Starts off strong, kinda peters out.

edited 2nd Jun '15 2:19:04 PM by Odd1

I've heard this complaint before but I've never bought it. I think it's just that well-intentioned extremists are more memorable not more common. You still got guys like Joker, Carnage, Vaatu, Jafar etc people who just want power or just want to see the world burn. Why do you think Ozai is considered the least impressive of the Avatar:TLA villains? Unlike Zuko who was misguided, Zhoa who wanted to spread the glory of the Fire Nation or Azula who was broken Ozia was just a megalomaniac who wanted power for the hell of it and was something for the audience to hate.

Another issue with well-intentioned extremists is when they're they're presented as the only ones addressing the injustices they're fighting against. To bring it back to the Equalists, wouldn't it have been better if we saw people who hated oppression by Benders but were willing to use more peaceful methods to have their voices heard? I'm not saying don't use the Equalists, but show that their viewpoint was not the only one.

...Because they had a point? What the show did was equivalent to making a work set in the Segregation Era of the US, have the villain be a black terrorist fighting for equality by terrorist attacks and murder, and completely sidestep the entire issue of the segregation once he's defeated.

edited 2nd Jun '15 7:18:05 PM by Gaon

I'm sure there's someone who could say something in response to that which would start a huge political shitstorm

Except the show failed to show any substantial oppression except as a reaction to their shenanigans.

Seriously, am I the only one in this thread who read Harrison Bergeron?

edited 2nd Jun '15 11:28:01 PM by ElkhornTheDowntrodden

I remember that one time when Gaang were looking for earth-bending teacher and some guys were jerks and dint want them to tell them where tournament was taking place so Katara froze them in uncomfortable position and left them like that even after she got the info.

Small thing, I know. Joke, I know. But I get uncomfortable when heroes uses their powers to punish jerks and go too far.

Eh, it seemed like a warm day, ice melts rather quickly then.

39 and 40:

I think the main exceptions are Hopper and Lotso.

Sid, Darla and Dentist, possibly Chick Hicks, and Dean Hardscrabble aren't really "evil", just either dicks, or only really a threat in the eyes of the toys/tank gang.

[quoteblock]Except the show failed to show any substantial oppression except as a reaction to their shenanigans.[/quoteblock]

At one point the show specifically points out the city's major criminal gang is composed entirely by benders, the city's council is composed entirely by Benders, many of the jobs we see in the industry seem to be bender-specific, and culture in general is entirely focused on the benders (like the most popular sport being bender-exclusive).

At the very least someone needs to rethink their cultural traditions.

edited 3rd Jun '15 6:44:30 PM by Gaon

I don't count Syndrome as a Well Intentioned Extremist either. As much as he ranted about his MUH SUPERPOWERED UTOPIA intentions, I thought he was just using that as an excuse for what basically was just stroking his own ego and proving he was 'right'.