Fictional "Villains" Who Did Nothing Wrong Thread

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Did Jake Sully ever just tell those Smurfs why they wanted the tree or was he too busy banging the Princess?

I don't think he *ever intended* to try. Remember, the mercenary commander was (correctly) convinced that wiping out the Na'vi was the only long term answer given how badly his employers wanted to harvest *all* the unobtanium ore, so he basically hijacked Sully's communications mission into tactical intelligence gathering with the promise that in return he'd fast-track Sully for advanced medical treatment. Sully was perfectly willing to go along with that until he decided that alien brain-tentacle sex was better than genocide.

Honestly, I think the mercenary commander was right about that -- the company's efforts to communicate with the Na'vi were simply PR cover material, the long term plan was always to wipe them out in order to enable larger-scale mining efforts. It's the entire reason they brought the Dragon and Scorpion gunships with them at all; were their intentions actually peaceful, the Huey/Blackhawk equivalent Samsons had more than sufficient firepower for self-defense even against Pandora-grade fauna.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
All of those film remakes are the real villains. For all of the shit Kevin Costner got for Prince of Thieves, its still leagues better then the subsequent film remakes trying to be more faithful, EngRish, historical, gritty, Michael Baytastic or diverse. And yes many of those adjectives are oxymoronic.

No way, Men in Tights is totally the best Robin Hood forever and ever.
 

Ash's Boomstick

Well-known member
No way, Men in Tights is totally the best Robin Hood forever and ever.

hes-right-you-know.jpg


Of course followed very closely by this one.

robin_hoo.0.jpeg


While being British myself it can be difficult to see where the legends ends and the fantasy begins, if you go by the era that the story is supposed to be from, the characters and their ages/cultures/genders/professions were very likely nothing like the modern day versions that we see in films and television. Nor would Robin himself be the good hearted, selfless and decent man that people try to make him, everything these days is seen through the eyes of 20th to 21st century adaptations that will never be close to the original legend because of the truth in history.
 

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
The original Peter Pan storiess are extremely dark and almost horror-ish when you look closely at them. Kind of like a lot of old fairy tales.

The thing is, Peter Pan murdered any Lost Boy who grew up. Hook is a former Lost Boy who just barely managed to get away (with one hand in the bargain) and the pirates are actually all Lost Boys he rescued from Peter culling them.

Hook not only did nothing wrong, he was maimed in the process and he's spent his entire life trying to save Lost Boys from being betrayed and murdered. Hook is a real hero.


Wait...what!? That is NOT anything I've ever heard.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Wait...what!? That is NOT anything I've ever heard.
It's "reading between the lines" a fair bit. Bordering on head canon. There are alternative interpretations, though however you slice it Peter Pan wasn't a great guy. Which is kinda fair enough, he's a tween, with under developed intelligence and morality.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Wait...what!? That is NOT anything I've ever heard.
Chapter 5 of the book by J. Barrie:

All wanted blood except the boys, who liked it as a rule, but to-night were out to greet their captain. The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.
 

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
No way, Men in Tights is totally the best Robin Hood forever and ever.


Best. Song. Ever.


It's "reading between the lines" a fair bit. Bordering on head canon. There are alternative interpretations, though however you slice it Peter Pan wasn't a great guy. Which is kinda fair enough, he's a tween, with under developed intelligence and morality.


A kid who stayed a kid. But I'm going to hold out on the whole Pirates and Hook as former lost boys. Never heard that one at all.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Chapter 5 of the book by J. Barrie:

All wanted blood except the boys, who liked it as a rule, but to-night were out to greet their captain. The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.
"Thins them out" could be taken to mean he simply returns them to the normal world. Regardless of how you take that part, it doesn't follow in any obvious way that hook's pirates were lost boys slated to be killed who got saved by hook. In fact, since several seem older than Hook it's contraindicated.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
"Thins them out" could be taken to mean he simply returns them to the normal world. Regardless of how you take that part, it doesn't follow in any obvious way that hook's pirates were lost boys slated to be killed who got saved by hook. In fact, since several seem older than Hook it's contraindicated.

That's true, but given that the very same sentence casually talks about them being killed "and so on", it's pretty clear that the world of the "real" Peter Pan is not nearly as innocent as the Disney version.

Also, if the Lost Boys and Pirates are constantly fighting with each other and killing each other off, as indicated, where do replacement pirates come from? Peter is apparently the only one with the ability to actually bring outsiders into Neverland. I'll agree that the theory that the pirates are grown-up Lost Boys is only head canon, but that still leaves a big question about the pirates.
 
Last edited:

Megadeath

Well-known member
That's true, but given that the very same sentence casually talks about them being killed "and so on", it's pretty clear that the world of the "real" Peter Pan is not nearly as innocent as the Disney version.

Also, if the Lost Boys and Pirates are constantly fighting with each other and killing each other off, as indicated, where do replacement pirates come from? Peter is apparently the only one with the ability to actually bring outsiders into Neverland. I'll agree that the theory that the pirates are grown-up Lost Boys is only head canon, but that still leaves a big question about the pirates.
Oh, I'm not saying it is an invalid interpretation. It does fit all the facts, and explains some things better than other ideas. It's not the only interpretation though, and others fit better in other ways. My only objection is in phrasing things as "this is" rather than "it may be".
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Oh, I'm not saying it is an invalid interpretation. It does fit all the facts, and explains some things better than other ideas. It's not the only interpretation though, and others fit better in other ways. My only objection is in phrasing things as "this is" rather than "it may be".

Yes, but the "Peter 'thins out' his own Lost Boys when they grow up" part is canon, and the context does imply killing.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Yes, but the "Peter 'thins out' his own Lost Boys when they grow up" part is canon, and the context does imply killing.
One could argue that the context would disagree since it draws a distinction between when the Lost Boys die and when Peter thins them out.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
So Picard won't save millions of humanoid tribesman... but he will stand up for a carnivorous creature that has eaten millions and will go on to eat millions more?

TNG did have something of an issue with having an individual episode having a good plot, bit thst when put into context of the wider series its nonsense and everyone acts weirdly OOC all the time.


Picard and his staff also didn't use the logic puzzle to destroy the Borg collective because they befriended and made a single drone independent, so trillions now die or lose who they are because of it.

To be fair the episode, the Borg were not characterized as the civilization destroying genocidal locust monsters that STFC and voyager would establish them as, so at the time it wasn't as indefensible, but it was still dumb. Though the "lets give them thos weird MV Escher drawing and hope they OCD themselves to death over it" plot was also really stupid.

Honestly, given later events there's no way the "Let's just hope they learn something" plan should have ever worked and Picard woyld have known that, so I tend to just not acknowledge that it happened (particularly because it doesn't quite line up with STFC).
 

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
Yes, but the "Peter 'thins out' his own Lost Boys when they grow up" part is canon, and the context does imply killing.


Would have been something interesting to have explored in the movie Hook. Which yeah, I get isn't a canon interpretation of Peter Pan. But I never got the impression Peter was anything malevolent, merely irresponsible and immature.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
"Thins them out" could be taken to mean he simply returns them to the normal world. Regardless of how you take that part, it doesn't follow in any obvious way that hook's pirates were lost boys slated to be killed who got saved by hook. In fact, since several seem older than Hook it's contraindicated.
It takes a lot of willful interpretation to get anything but killing out of "thins them out." We know what it means when somebody thins the herd, we know what happens when you thin out the crops, it never involves anything save killing.

Given that Neverland affects growing up weirdly, some pirates appearing older than Hook doesn't indicate much. They may have aged faster due to whatever thinking makes one grow up there, or could have been older before Peter got around to thinning them given Peter's sense of time is all kinds of messed up.

A kid who stayed a kid. But I'm going to hold out on the whole Pirates and Hook as former lost boys. Never heard that one at all.
It, I'll grant, requires a lot more reading between the lines than Peter killing ex-Lost Boys. However there's several things that point to it and it's a pretty common theory.

There's the odd connection that Hook and Mr. Darling are always played by the same person suggesting some connection there, but that's vague. Hook himself has odd qualities, such as being obsessed with Good Form but not actually knowing what Good Form is, which are suspicious. He also aspires to attend Eton college, a curious ambition for a pirate, which plays into his desire for good form (He remembered that you have to prove you don’t know you have it [Good Form] before you are eligible for Pop.) Hook's last line is also Eton's motto. These qualities would make perfect sense for a Lost Boy who grew up and now wants to do adult things like attend college and isn't sure how, but don't make any sense if Hook is actually a golden age pirate.

The biggest one is Barrie's own line "All this has happened before, and it will happen again." Being as Hook and the pirates (save two) are all deceased at the end, this wouldn't be possible without somebody stepping up to become pirates and there's no more pirates in the world, hence where did the next generation of pirates come from so it could happen again?

And we do know it happens again due to the last chapter of Peter and Wendy, after Wendy grows up, Tinkerbell dies and a new fairy replaces her, and Pan eventually shows up and takes Wendy's daughter and then her granddaughter, and things start over.

As you look at Wendy, you may see her hair becoming white, and her figure little again, for all this happened long ago. Jane is now a common grown-up, with a daughter called Margaret; and every spring cleaning time, except when he forgets, Peter comes for Margaret and takes her to the Neverland, where she tells him stories about himself, to which he listens eagerly. When Margaret grows up she will have a daughter, who is to be Peter’s mother in turn; and thus it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.
 

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
Given that Neverland affects growing up weirdly, some pirates appearing older than Hook doesn't indicate much. They may have aged faster due to whatever thinking makes one grow up there, or could have been older before Peter got around to thinning them given Peter's sense of time is all kinds of messed up.


Or they were already old when they somehow found a way to Never Land.

As for the rest, I'm not sure what to think.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Or they were already old when they somehow found a way to Never Land.

The origin of Hook and the pirates is definitely a hole in the backstory. One interesting twist is that it is a casting tradition that Captain Hook is almost always played by the same actor as George Darling, which is a modification of Barrie's original casting intent that Hook be played by the actress of Mary Darling. One could argue that either form of this is a key symbolic point showing the fantasy nature of Never-Never Land, but one could also argue it's a purely out of character meta.

There's the odd connection that Hook and Mr. Darling are always played by the same person suggesting some connection there, but that's vague.

See above; while this can be interpreted symbolically, it was an out-of-character development.

Hook himself has odd qualities, such as being obsessed with Good Form but not actually knowing what Good Form is, which are suspicious. He also aspires to attend Eton college, a curious ambition for a pirate, which plays into his desire for good form (He remembered that you have to prove you don’t know you have it [Good Form] before you are eligible for Pop.) Hook's last line is also Eton's motto. These qualities would make perfect sense for a Lost Boy who grew up and now wants to do adult things like attend college and isn't sure how, but don't make any sense if Hook is actually a golden age pirate.

I would point out that the more common interpretations of those implications is that the adult Hook already did attend Eton before becoming a pirate, something that Barrie himself doubled down on with an out-of character remark that, "Hook was not his true name. To reveal who he really was would even at this date set the country in a blaze" i.e., that Hook was an English nobleman whose fall to piracy would cause great scandal. Hook is also said to have previously been a bo'sun under Blackbeard, a further incompatibility with the 'grown up Lost Boy' theory.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
I would point out that the more common interpretations of those implications is that the adult Hook already did attend Eton before becoming a pirate, something that Barrie himself doubled down on with an out-of character remark that, "Hook was not his true name. To reveal who he really was would even at this date set the country in a blaze" i.e., that Hook was an English nobleman whose fall to piracy would cause great scandal. Hook is also said to have previously been a bo'sun under Blackbeard, a further incompatibility with the 'grown up Lost Boy' theory.
That's a fair cop, it is a common theory that Hook attended Eton as well and quite likely more common than the Lost Boy theory. It makes no sense, however, because Hook notes that he needs to have good form to be "Eligible for Pop" and yet does not believe he himself has good form, and obsesses with getting it. If he'd already attended Pop he'd already know that he had good form.

I'll also note that Hook was bo'sun, hence a senior officer, under Blackbeard (Edward Teach died 1718). He also, according to the same paragraph, served alongside Captain Flint and Long John Silver (Whom he defeated and nicknamed Barbecue). Now I'm not complaining that Treasure Island is fictional as it's perfectly reasonable that it's a true story in the world of Peter Pan. Rather I'm noting that from the dates in Treasure Island (1754 is on the map as when the treasure was buried), Flint and Silver lived a minimum of 35 years after Edward Teach died. For Hook to have done all that he would have to have been at least in his 60s by the time he got to Neverland, which hardly fits his description in the stories.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top