She-Ra and the Princesses of Power

I'm leaning towards "her own gain" right now. But who knows?

Currently, barring a plotline about her corrupting Glimmer, I'm predicting that she'll try something but will be rebuffed, with Adora making a final statement about how much she's grown, and from there Shadow will earnestly be on their side.

I guess it depends on how far her obsession with Adora goes, and whether there's something genuine at the heart of it that can be purified into goodness.

Edited by GNinja on Sep 5th 2019 at 4:47:09 PM

Rrrrrrgh!

The crew sees the "All character's noises" compilations.

They're canon now.

"Join our army of child soldiers", says the queen and mother of a child soldier.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Awkward Adora is seriously the best. Her actress nails the dorky moments.

@ Beatman1, so how do you think they should portray Horde Prime, as a Complete Monster or having some redeeming values?

If you want Catra to have some redemption arc, she will need to part of Horde Prime's ultimate defeat, with him threatening several worlds, only something like could redeem her.

If Hordak is a sympathetic character, Horde Prime shouldn’t be. He/It should be something beyond negotiation or appeasement, and has to be defeated directly. It also helps justify Hordak with the age old “Just following orders” excuse.

And it would reinforce how the "flaws" he likely had were likely related on his trusting others and giving people chances to redeem themselves. Which we've seen Catra botch.

Whereas Horde Prime threw him away at the first opportunity.

Edited by OmegaRadiance on Sep 7th 2019 at 7:06:46 AM

I agree, I think sometimes you need a truly evil villain to drive the story. Masters of the Universe is not Steven Universe, it has some truly vile irredeemable villains in its canon:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Monster/MastersOfTheUniverse

I can see Hordak and Horde Prime being Decomposite Character with Hordak, with Horde Prime getting more of the cruel aspects of the character we see in DC Comics and the 2002 cartoon.

I fully expect Horde Prime to be completely irredeemable. I don't expect him to be even slightly sympathetic, tbh.

A little under a year ago I had a conversation with Molly Ostertag, author of The Witch Boy and Noelle Stevenson's fiancée (and they're getting married in two weeks! Excite!), where we discussed how to write antagonistic forces and enemies in stories. What she told me was that 'nothing but evil' villains are, for her, just not interesting to write and that there's so much more character potential available in sympathetic antagonists and multiple points of view. I figure Noelle likely feels the same, in that it's more compelling to reveal layers in a character than to just have them turn up with the same "grrr I'm evil" growl over and over. Doesn't mean they can't be threatening, if anything sometimes it can provide more real menace to their threat in how firmly they believe their convictions.

For what it's worth, I find Catra compelling not because she's sympathetic, but because she goes down the opposite path you'd expect a rival character like her to go. Instead of learning from her mistakes or having simple misunderstandings that drive her away from redemption, she chooses from the very first episode to reject any attempts to understand Adora. She actively desires power and protection from anything that can harm her, no matter the cost. That doesn't mean she's not a developed character with a lot of depth and emotional resonance, but character development isn't just an exclusively positive force.

She's a character who defies attempts to be empathetic, yet she can't live in a world where she and Adora are on the same side, be it Horde or Rebellion. She doesn't want to consider that Adora might be right, or does what she does out of simple kindness. No, there must be a scheme, must be some kind of manipulation, because that's all Catra herself sees.

I can definitely see that perspective, although I also think that a more straightforwardly villainous character can compelling, or at least entertaining, if the writing behind them is solid. I'm thinking of the contrast between Redcloak and Xykon - one's sympathetic to an extent, the other isn't in the slightest, but they're both great villains regardless.

Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Sep 8th 2019 at 3:13:17 PM

I remember craving for sympathetic and tragic villains in the past, to the point of going full "Draco In Leather Pants" on some truly horrific bastards. Now, after seeing a lot of "Reality Is Unrealistic" level of horrendous assholes in real life and the way dumb people form a cults around their favourite bad guys (like fans of Joker from Dark Knight movie), plus how assinine many writers write sympathetic villains and bunch of pretentious YouTubers love to scream how "villains suck and antagonists rule", i found myself craving for more straightforward villains and Complete Monsters, finding some of them more interesting and engaging than many of sympathetic antagonists.

Edited by VeryVileVillian on Sep 8th 2019 at 12:56:04 PM

Funny thing about sympathetic villains that 9/10 of them fall under category "cool motive, still murder". Whatever sobby backstories or noble intentions they have, they still make it all invalid by trying to kill protagonists who go very from "did something bad to villains, but nothing justifying murder" to "literally saved the world over and over again".

^Eh, depends on multiple circumstances really. Like standards of setting(like in war setting everyone is trying to kill each other so its easier to forgive in comparison :p), whether they have ever successfully went beyond "attempted murder" part, how "real" the fiction is(like slap stick violence vs abusive family member violence), whether 9 out of 10 sympathetic villain plots actually involve murder, that sorts of stuff.

^^Ya know, ye are probably using it in correct context, but I'm getting allergic at people using word pretentious a lot, so just to check, do you mean actual meaning of the word?

That said, I did always kinda not feel bad for Catra (and Scorpia and Entrapta) by some extend. Mostly because stuff like bombing a ball is straight up terrorist action <_< Its why I was positively surprised they are going with negative character development route with Catra. Entrapta also has real major lack of empathy going on, I think most redeeming part for Scorpia was that she seems to be under wrong understanding about her family willingly working for horde, but its still weird how she is treated at same time as comedic teddy bear and "commits terrorism".

Like, I don't think this show does Sympathetic Villain trope particularly well if the goal is to be Sympathetic? It makes their villainous actions feel too "real" to have them be sympathetic.

Edited by SpookyMask on Sep 8th 2019 at 1:46:43 PM

Pretty sure that Shadow Weaver will remain irredeemable, for the same reason that Catra will never be completely beyond redemption. This is a kids' show about a cast of kids, and it's not going to say that there's no way you can come back from an abusive childhood (for those who see themselves in Catra), or that you have any responsibility to fix your abusive mother (for those who see their parents in Shadow Weaver).

By "pretentious", i mean people, who "figured out the whole world and nature of people entirely" (as they love to claim) or just love to convince you that they have vast knowledge in topics, while in reality they know very little about said topics at best.

Edited by VeryVileVillian on Sep 8th 2019 at 3:29:20 PM

Hmm, yeah thats accurate.

(for record of my pet peevee, pretentious means that you unjustifiable/excessively exaggerate your own worth or importance. So basically anyone who thinks they are more valuable than they actually are. I'm annoyed whenever people use the word to refer to works which clearly don't claim to be more important than they actually are since just being artsy or even snobby itself doesn't count)

When it comes to villainy, I find too many writers recently go too far in the opposite direction. If the villain is just a one dimensional cackling madman (or woman) it can be very dull, especially if the narrative doesn’t move forward. So I get that.

But if it’s the opposite and every single villain has some sort of excuse and the audience is guilted into feeling bad and not being able to save any sort of catharsis once they’ve been defeated (no examples will be given), then you replace that dullness with frustration and apathy towards the narrative at large. Everyone is bad and you feel bad. Let villains, even if they have sympathetic traits, be villainous.

What if that’s the tone you want to go for, though? What if you want to deliberately deprive the audience of catharsis because you feel that the situation you’ve envisioned doesn’t merit it. I think that that’s a legitimate tactic to take.

I really don't think the show is currently lacking for villains. Catra is in the lowest place she's ever been right now. Hordak doesn't have anyone to bring out his better traits with Entrapta gone. And Horde Prime is right on his way.

Anyway, I think there can be just as much catharsis from a villain realizing they were wrong as there can be from a villain being blasted with a big laser.

Edited by Moth13 on Sep 8th 2019 at 3:18:06 PM

I think that’s overused these days and can be boring to an audience who finds themselves thoroughly disinterested. You don’t necessarily have to cheer for someone, but if everyone is terrible and you can’t look at anyone without being asked to feel bad (this tends to be why comedy can get away with it, it doesn’t ask the audience for that emotional response, just to laugh at the horribleness) it’s gonna cause the audience to abandon the show. The audience needs something, even with say, Bojack Horseman trying to be a better person.

A rather interesting case study? Pro wrestling organization WCW. When Vince Russo took over writing duties he subscribed to the ideas of shades of grey, so no one had anyone to cheer or boo and were more often than not frustrated, bored, and eventually they gave up on the product. By the time the company tried reversing course, it was too late.

Edited by Beatman1 on Sep 8th 2019 at 3:36:58 PM

I think it's possible to have a sympathetic villain who is still depicted as being bad and needing to be defeated soundly by the heroes. I don't think it has to be one or the other. Horde Prime might have a sympathetic backstory but that doesn't mean he won't still be considered a bad person by the narrative. Hell, Shadow Weaver was given a sort of sympathetic backstory and she still seems be treated by the narrative as untrustworthy.