Klonor
12-04-2005, 23:28
We’ve all seen the action/adventure movie where, after hours and hours of struggle to reach the villain and fighting his/her way through hundreds of minor henchmen, the hero has the villain at the end of his gun/sword/spear/pointy stick/etc. and you’re thinking to yourself “Finally, justice is at hand!” The two usually have some small bit of dialogue, occasionally a final plea for life from the villain or more of the usual “You’re weak” that the villain has been spouting the whole movie, and then when the camera is solely on the hero and you can’t see the villain you see the hero shoot/cut/stab/poke/etc. The camera then moves to the villain and you see that the hero has shot/cut/stabbed/poked/etc. right next to the villains head and the hero says “You’re not worth it” and doesn’t move to finish off the villain. In most movies the villain will then do something to force the hero, or somebody working with the hero, to kill him, moving for a hidden gun on his leg or trying to escape or some other such thing, but it’s always out of necessity and not because the hero chooses to finish off the villain. Now, what I just don’t get is, why isn’t the villain ever worth it?
The villain is a mass murderer, a drug lord, a weapons smuggler, or some other such hideous person whose actions have resulted in the death and incapacitation of hundreds of innocent people. The hero has been personally wronged, and so have people close to the hero. The hero has every right to take revenge, why doesn’t he? Seriously, why not? Is it because he’s simply above killing? That might be it, if the hero hadn’t already killed hundreds of henchmen when invading the villains’ stronghold. Is it because the hero is a cop and isn’t allowed to kill someone who has already surrendered? That might be it, if the villain wasn’t still trying to fight and clearly hadn’t given up. Is it because the hero is inherently good and simply doesn’t have the stomach for slaughtering a captured foe? That might work, too, if you hadn’t already seen him kill many captured foes.
The henchmen are always worth it, killed when the hero is going after the villain, and so is anybody else who is ‘evil’ and between the hero and his goal. But the villain, the main bad guy responsible for all the evil actions of his underlings and the source of all the hero’s troubles, is never worth it. Why the hell not?
The villain is a mass murderer, a drug lord, a weapons smuggler, or some other such hideous person whose actions have resulted in the death and incapacitation of hundreds of innocent people. The hero has been personally wronged, and so have people close to the hero. The hero has every right to take revenge, why doesn’t he? Seriously, why not? Is it because he’s simply above killing? That might be it, if the hero hadn’t already killed hundreds of henchmen when invading the villains’ stronghold. Is it because the hero is a cop and isn’t allowed to kill someone who has already surrendered? That might be it, if the villain wasn’t still trying to fight and clearly hadn’t given up. Is it because the hero is inherently good and simply doesn’t have the stomach for slaughtering a captured foe? That might work, too, if you hadn’t already seen him kill many captured foes.
The henchmen are always worth it, killed when the hero is going after the villain, and so is anybody else who is ‘evil’ and between the hero and his goal. But the villain, the main bad guy responsible for all the evil actions of his underlings and the source of all the hero’s troubles, is never worth it. Why the hell not?