* WARNING: No doubt there will be plenty of movie spoilers in this thread *
So a post in the Ratatouille thread got me thinking about what are some sympathetic movie villains. Characters that are definitely the bad guys, but you can understand with their motives.
The only one that immediately sprang to mind was HAL 9000 from 2001. He was psychotic, but only because reached an absurd (yet logical) solution to the problem of two conflicting orders.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ed Harris as Brigadier General Francis X. Hummel in "The Rock." Noble villainy at its' finest.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'll say it, cause somebody's got to. Annakin Skywalker in Episode Three. Sure, the acting sucks and he's just a whiny little punk you want to beat up, but he's still sympathetic.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The villain from The Incredibles, whatever his name was. Tom Hanks' character in Catch Me If You Can.
I actually have zero sympathy for Anakin Skywalker in Episode III. I found him completely despicable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The villain from The Incredibles, whatever his name was.
Buddy, his name was Buddy.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
More: Ra's Al Ghul from Batman Begins. Draco Malfoy from Harry Potter and ________.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Gollum in Lord of the Rings. The Operative in Serenity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
from TV Babylon 5: The Shadows, Bester
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'll say it, cause somebody's got to. Annakin Skywalker in Episode Three. Sure, the acting sucks and he's just a whiny little punk you want to beat up, but he's still sympathetic.
But he's so STUPID.
The old movies claim you turn to the Dark Side out of it seeming "easy, seductive"
Anakin turned because he just wasn't very bright. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I'm disturbed by how often I see people say that Buddy/Syndrome was "sympathetic".
He FORCED himself on Mr. Incredible right in the middle of a dangerous criminal situation. His inventions caused said situation to get far more destructive and dangerous than it otherwise would have been
Of course Mr. I is going to blow his top! The kid was a stupid punk who was going to get innocent people killed.
Then he goes on to murder HOW many super-heroes, just because he felt one treated him badly?
Then he allows missiles to strike a plane containing innocent children?
Then his "brilliant invention" turns out to be just as dangerous as the devices he built as a kid when freed from controlled conditions, putting how many millions of innocent people at risk?
Then he tries to kidnap and brainwash a baby?
Sympathetic? It was very obvious all his speeches about being "hurt" and "making things equal for everyone" were just a lot of hot air used to justify his selfishness and cruelty. I can't sympathize with him at all.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
From anime: Folken Fanel in The Vision of Escaflowne.
He does terrible, unspeakable things...but we learn exactly why he does those things, and almost understand why from his viewpoint such cruelty was justified.
It helps that he's truly compassionate and fair to those beneath him, and is anguished by how much pain he's caused.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:He FORCED himself on Mr. Incredible right in the middle of a dangerous criminal situation. His inventions caused said situation to get far more destructive and dangerous than it otherwise would have been
Well, duh. He was a kid, and he was well-intended. I can't count the number of times I tried to "help" my parents as a kid and ended up making the task more difficult or actually causing one of them physical harm.
His speeches about equalization obviously weren't aimed at promoting the common man to the level of superhero, they were aimed at bringing heroes down. His reasoning and intention behind wanting to destroy heroes everywhere resonated with me, because if my parents had been less understanding about me screwing up so much as a kid, I could easily imagine myself feeling the same way.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Tom Ripley in Ripley's Game (I know there are other Ripley movies, but I haven't seen them). The character is despicable, but you find yourself rooting for him anyway. Perhaps it's not so much "sympathetic" as it is "seductive."
--Mel
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The Bowler Hat Guys in Meet the Robinsons.
The theif in Inside Man (though I suppose he wasn't really a villain.)
Tyler Durden in Fight Club.
Coffey in The Abyss.
Posted by AutumnWind (Member # 9124) on :
Mr. Glass from Unbreakable
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Puffy: Just because he is sympathetic does not mean he can't become dispicable. I sympathized with his mental journey that turned him into Syndrome. I don't sympathize with just how evil he became.
But come on in the deleted scene where the baby sitter asks him what the S on his costume stood for and he said, "Sitter" and then explained that he couldn't walk around with a costume with the letters "BS" for obvious reasons, that you didn't snicker. Funny villains are sympathetic. "I'm geeking out just thinking about it!"
From Anime: Testuo from Akira is a sympathetic villain, at least at the very end. That movie was kinda weird IMO
Not from Anime: Mel Gibson's character in "Payback."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dr. Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, Hannibal Rising. You don't find out why he's sympathetic until the last movie, though.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
vonk, personally, I don't think any character in Fight Club was sympathetic, hero or villain. I can understand Tyler's motivation, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to it.
-Bok
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Davey Jones in PotC: AWE. Totally sympathetic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jayne in Firefly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Archibald Cunningham from Rob Roy...he's not very sympathetic, but eventually you learn his background and it's not very surprising he turns out to be a right bastard.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Spike from Buffy.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Knives Millions in Trigun.
Not that challenging his brother's pacifism until he is forced to kill someone is particularly nice or that he wasn't particularly sadistic to do it...
But in the end Knives is right about something-- death is simply a part of life. It's Tolstoy against Nietsche-- we can either act and kill the spider or not act and let the grasshopper (or was it a butterfly? or whatever it was...) die. Even saving the other bug kills the spider eventually. Whatever you do, when confronted with a deadly conflict, you kill. Even if you do nothing.
Edit to add: my sympathetic villain from Pirates is Norrington.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Gollum in Lord of the Rings. The Operative in Serenity.
Those are the other two that spring to mind. Especially Gollum.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Long John Silver, in about five different shows.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Am I the only person on earth that liked "Treasure Planet"?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'll say it, cause somebody's got to. Annakin Skywalker in Episode Three. Sure, the acting sucks and he's just a whiny little punk you want to beat up, but he's still sympathetic.
I agree. I don't think he was simply stupid. I think initially he wanted to do the right thing, but he let his pride get in the way and made a series of increasingly bad decisions. And he absolutely was seduced by the easiness of the dark side.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd like to put forth the theory that almost every good movie has a sympathetic villain. Simply because it's most realistic. I think most of the people throughout history who are widely considered 'evil' thought their actions were justifiable, and the fact that they thought they were doing a net good makes them sympathetic. Still horrible, of course, but sympathetic.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: vonk, personally, I don't think any character in Fight Club was sympathetic, hero or villain. I can understand Tyler's motivation, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to it.
-Bok
Well, you obviously haven't been disillusioned enough. Give it time. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I am not Jack's callousness to the world.
-Bok
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Ha!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, y'know, I enjoyed that movie, but I never really thought about it from the angle I read from your post, Bok.
I guess I accepted right away, as part of the movie, that one of the premises involved was that the world was a pretty crappy place. I mean, for Fight Club, accepting that is sort of like accepting weird mutations for watching X-Men, right?
But now that I think about it...heh, Tyler Durden and his ego/alter-ego seemed to be pretty independant, self-starting people. So why are they so angry that the world and life has left them down? Don't they realize that life is what you make it? It seems they do realize that, sort of...but only partially.
Am I making any sense?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think they do realize that life is what you make of it. They are rebelling against what they (or he) feel is a sterile, predetermined path set out by our family, jobs and media. They feel that they've been misled all of their lives into believing what is or is not a good life, or the American dream.
In other words, they aren't angry that the world or life has let them down, they're angry that they've missed the meaning and quality of the world and life because of the actions and attitudes of contemporary American society. The attitudes and actions that propegate the idea that an individual's life quality is tied up in what they own, what they do for a living, how much money they make, who their family is, etc.
I think that they realize that life is what you make of it, and are putting that into action in a way that breaks the boundaries of commonly accepted thought/action.
Also, I don't think the movie required that you accept a false reality for it to work. It is set in the real world with real reactions, Palahniuk merely percieves things to be worse than others. I suppose the supsension in disbelief is that Palahniuk's preception is a valid one.
Hmm, am I making any sense?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
You are, Rakeesh, but life is only partly what you make of it. There's a lot of stuff that happens to you which is totally out of your hands and it can pile up really quickly... and when it does, no one wants to give you a chance to recover.
When I moved to South Carolina, I found that my bank (Washington Mutual) didn't have any branches for hundreds of miles around. It took me over a week of searching to find a bank that would let me open an account because of my poor credit rating. I'm talking about a savings account here.
So a divorce and 4 months of unemployment was *that* close to making me completely unable to conduct business in today's world (no one would cash my pay check either, including the bank it was drawn on-- can they even legally do that?) when the appropriately named Bank of Traveler's Rest finally gave me a chance.
So yeah... I can totally relate to wanting to destroy the financial infrastructure to get the have-nots a fighting chance against the haves, who do everything to slant the rules their way and make sure they "have" more.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Tyler Durden in Fight Club.
Agreed.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I agree with the idea that there are no heroes or villains in Fight Club. Durden was a strange character and the closest thing the movie had to an antagonist, but I wouldn't call him a villain.
Maybe the buildings that got blown up in the end. Them was some evil looking buildings, yo.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I can understand the motive, as I noted, but the characters, themselves, were pretty despicable in, well, character.
Note that the only character that gets any sort of redemption (and of course, being Fight Club, it's a sort of ironic, after-the-fact sort of redemption) was a character that died.
Nothing the characters actually do is redemptive, which probably is just reinforcement of the idea early on that all those support groups that give you a kind of redemption, really don't.
Even Tyler Durden, Mr. Independent, is not only dependent on his snivelly side, but what's the first thing he does? Start a (demented) group.
-Bok
[ July 19, 2007, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think any character in Fight Club was sympathetic
That's how I feel.
quote:I guess I accepted right away, as part of the movie, that one of the premises involved was that the world was a pretty crappy place. I mean, for Fight Club, accepting that is sort of like accepting weird mutations for watching X-Men, right?
That could be my problem.
I would call Durden a villain.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Darth Vader anyone? Not Anakin Skywalker, but the proper, black-clad, David Prowse/James Earl Jones arch villain.
Kahn?
Super villains both, but at the end you end up with a soft spot for them. Go on, you know you do...
Another cracker: Blackadder! The archest of villians, but we love him (well sort of).
Posted by AutumnWind (Member # 9124) on :
Actually thanks to Rakeesh's X-Men reference, I'd like to toss in Magneto.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of the thread, but it's not "villains who have some explanation for their villany" but it's "villains who have good, logical, valid reasons for doing what they're doing, but have been forced into methods which are not palatable". By which token I exclude about 2/3 of what people have said.
Hanibal Lecter? Maybe he has his reasons, but they aren't valid. Darth Vader? Maybe Anikin started out trying to do something good, but his actions which made him villainous aren't directed at that good. How does killing all the apprentices help him save Padme? Knives Milions? Maybe he was right about death, but his motivation was revenge on his brother and the whole world because he wasn't human.
The Operative, yes, Francis Hummel, yes, Gollum, ok,
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I don't know about the others, but...
quote:Hanibal Lecter? Maybe he has his reasons, but they aren't valid.
Did you see Hanibal Rising? He has valid, sympathetic reasons for becoming the monster he is. I don't know if he's sympathetic in the other three movies, but in that one at least I definitely think he is. I was rooting for him for most of the movie.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:He has valid, sympathetic reasons for becoming the monster he is.
No, he does suffer a tragedy that turns him into the monster he is, but that doesn't make it a good reason for choosing to eat people later in his life.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
***SPOILERS FOR HANIBAL RISING***
I guess that's just not how I interpreted it. To my mind he suffered a horrible contastrophy at the hands of evil men during WWII. His family was gunned down and he had to watch as the men ate his sister, not to mention him eating some as well. I thinks that's enough to cause deep psychological trauma. Later when he was hunting for the killers I felt very sympathetic, and wanted him to find them. When he ate them I took that as a psychological break, brought on by the fight against his nightmare enemies. I didn't think he just chose to eat them 'cause he thought it would be cool, but because in his mind that was appropriate to the level of crime they commited. I can also sympathise with that. They did eat his sister after all. YMMV.
Edit: also, I didn't think the villains decision has to be "good" for them to be sympathetic. I thought it was 'I can sympathise with the decisions they made, even if I don't think they were the right ones.'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Most of the characters in the Godfather trilogy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I don't know about the others, but...
quote:Hanibal Lecter? Maybe he has his reasons, but they aren't valid.
Did you see Hanibal Rising? He has valid, sympathetic reasons for becoming the monster he is. I don't know if he's sympathetic in the other three movies, but in that one at least I definitely think he is. I was rooting for him for most of the movie.
Ewww I wouldn't call what happened to him valid. Sure it was horrible and it effected him deeply.
Spoilers*
But the whole point of the movie was that Gong Li's character, who loved him, and he loved her tried to get him to stop and settle down with her. The very end of the movie is the culmination of everything where he basically chooses to torture and eat the last man who had crossed him and in doing so forsook Gong Li the rest of his life. That choice set him up in his life of crime because he did not stop with the men who had murdered his sister, he went on to kill and eat others the rest of his life.
I mean look at what he could accomplish when he was focused. He became a doctor AND managed to track down, stalk, and kill every single one of the 4 men. He kept saying, "I can't stop, I made a promise to my dead sister." Can you imagine that line coming out of the Hopkinesk Hannibal? He could have put a bullet in the head of the last man and run off with Gong Li but no he had to stay and carve into the guys chest and to eat him.
Hannibal is NOT a sympathetic villain to me, interesting yes, efficient yes, tortured yes, forced to be who he is no.
[ July 20, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Huh, it's very interesting to see how different people interpret movies. I like this thread.
And I just want to repeat this part: I didn't think the villains decision has to be "good" for them to be sympathetic. I thought it was 'I can sympathise with the decisions they made, even if I don't think they were the right ones.'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Huh, it's very interesting to see how different people interpret movies. I like this thread.
And I just want to repeat this part: I didn't think the villains decision has to be "good" for them to be sympathetic. I thought it was 'I can sympathise with the decisions they made, even if I don't think they were the right ones.'
Right but there is a difference in sympathizing with the added weight of a specific circumstance and sympathizing with everything a person does based on the strength of one or even several events. I personally can't think of a single event that effects EVERYTHING I do.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
It is not a stretch for me to believe that the trauma Hanibal experienced during the war would be enough to effect his phsychological development and his mental state for the rest of his life. I think that if the event is traumatic enough, as his was, it is enough to change who you are. He was not the same boy after the war as he was before. (IMO)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
vonk: OK but enough that you think the sheer magnitude of everything he did was mostly if not fully justified? For me I just think the majority of what he did was still a result of his decisions that he was able to make freely just like anybody esle.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think a lot of the strife in the world is directly reflected in the fact thatthe vast majority of villains are sympathetic to someone, while a miniscule number are sympathetic to everyone.
Edit: and maybe the most sympathetic "villain" I've seen is Homer's dad in October Sky, masterfully played by Chris Cooper.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: vonk: OK but enough that you think the sheer magnitude of everything he did was mostly if not fully justified? For me I just think the majority of what he did was still a result of his decisions that he was able to make freely just like anybody esle.
Maybe not justified, but certainly understandable. Again, I don't think he made good, or just, decisions, but I understand why he made them and I sympathise with his plight. I don't think he made the decisions he made "freely." I think he made them under extreme mental duress brought on by deep psychological issues stemming from his childhood. His calm demeanor could indicate that he is thinking clearly and sanely, or it could be another defense mechanism to hide his emotional state, as I think is evidenced by the depiction of him when he enters the home for boys.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Several characters in Battlestar Galactica come to mind:
Gaius Baltar, if you forgive him for his overly developed sense of self-preservation.
Boomer, from season one, when she didn't know whether or not she was a Cylon...
Then I recall the early episodes of Heroes, in which the audience was led to assume that Noah Bennett was a villain. Eventually, we got to see that most of his motivation stemmed from trying to save his adopted daughter from those that would misuse and/or kill her.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Gaius Baltar, if you forgive him for his overly developed sense of self-preservation.
Nope. Can't do it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Then I recall the early episodes of Heroes, in which the audience was led to assume that Noah Bennett was a villain. Eventually, we got to see that most of his motivation stemmed from trying to save his adopted daughter from those that would misuse and/or kill her.
Nope, Snape was my first, "good guy who acts like a coniving, scheming, jerk." When I saw Mr. Bennet I got the exact same vibe so I never believed he was REALLY a bad guy.
edit: Note this is Snape in reference to the first Harry Potter book only.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Someday, someone is going to write a story with a villain who acts like a conniving, scheming jerk, and your head will a splode.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Someday, someone is going to write a story with a villain who acts like a conniving, scheming jerk, and your head will a splode.
I'll just write the book myself, I'll call him Porter but his forum name will be mr_porteiro_head. He will prowl like a lion seeking whom he can destroy, and back injury will be is ultimate demise.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: That sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
Speaking of, I know it's not your style to talk about yourself much but how is the back doing?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Meh. I've been lazy with the physical therapy lately, and that's bit me in the bum.
I still on my back most of the time, including now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Meh. I've been lazy with the physical therapy lately, and that's bit me in the bum.
I'm still on my back most of the time, including now.
If you want the worst of this behind you it's not a good idea to lapse back into that pattern Porter.
....snicker... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
SPOILERS - - - - -
quote:I mean look at what he could accomplish when he was focused. He became a doctor AND managed to track down, stalk, and kill every single one of the 4 men. He kept saying, "I can't stop, I made a promise to my dead sister." Can you imagine that line coming out of the Hopkinesk Hannibal? He could have put a bullet in the head of the last man and run off with Gong Li but no he had to stay and carve into the guys chest and to eat him.
Hannibal is NOT a sympathetic villain to me, interesting yes, efficient yes, tortured yes, forced to be who he is no.
Boy BlackBlade, it's like you watched a different movie than I did. In the movie I watched, Hannibal was basically driven insane/turned into a monster by his experiences in Lithuania towards the end of WWII. After that, sure academically speaking he could have exerted superhuman intellectual and emotional power and, I dunno, overcome his insanity by sheer will alone, but that was never really in the cards.
Then he discovers that a) he ate his sister as well (and thus fell under the shadow of his promise to his sister), and b) had one more person left to track down and kill before he could ever hope to kill himself and still keep his vow.
He didn't torture and kill the last man because he crossed Hannibal, he tortured and killed him because he murdered and ate his sister. Now, my theory (and it's been too long since I read the books to remember): he was never able to find the last murderer, the one who lived in Canada. Never able to track him down, he was never able to jump the last hurdle between him and his oath to Mischa. My theory is that had he found the last guy, he would've killed him and shortly after himself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Spoilers*
Rakeesh: There could be ALOT of difference how the movie presented the books material. I have not read the book, I've only seen the movies, hence my comments are strictly related to the movies portrayal.
In the movie Hannibal is deeply effected by the incident, (he is rendered mute) but he also does not remember exactly what happened. Lady Murasaki takes him in and gets him to speak again as well as refining him. He flourishes under her influence. He kills the butcher for insulting Lady Murasaki which is purely an act of sadism. He gets an initial jog to his memory by injecting himself with sodium thiopental, he does it on purpose. He then slowly gets his memory back by interogating the men one by one just prior to eating them. In the movie he incapacitates the last guy and while Madam Murasaki begs him to come with her he decides to stay and slowly eat the man alive.
I'm just saying Hannibal may have been emotionally scarred, but he didn't just make bad choices, he made the worst choices possible in several scenarios.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm going to second magneto. I'm surprised he didn't come up earlier. The opening scene to the first X-men movie should give the viewer a really deep understanding to why he's chosen the path and the methods he has.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
In all fairness though, the men who ate Lecter's sister were in a pretty desperate situation themselve. Perhaps our symapathies should go to them as well.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally second Coffey from the Abyss. I didn't realize it so much in the movie itself but in the book you can see that he's a dedicated excellent officer who is doing his very best under the circumstances.
For a moment at the very end, I thought the narrator was going to be revealed as Coffey, that the aliens saved him and healed him, and he was telling the story, including his terrible mistakes, himself. It would have been so powerful and deep if that had been the case, such a tale of remorse and redemption. I almost wish Uncle Orson had ended it like that. But as it was, it was still a great story.
I loved how technically accurate and feasible all the technology was. That made the story come to life for me, and be wonderfully real. But Uncle Orson's back-stories for all the characters made it much more than just an action adventure tale. I really love that book. Thanks to Deany for introducing me to it. I had thought that a movie novelization would not be allowed to be good. In this case I was much mistaken.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Starscream: I mean, come on, his boss is a non-appreciative jerk, his co-workers are all bullies who dislike him, he hasn't had a date, ever, since the only female decepticons are ones that want to disect you. Finally, the Universe gave him a voice that could shred titanium. No wonder he turned to evil. How sympathetic can you be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm just saying Hannibal may have been emotionally scarred, but he didn't just make bad choices, he made the worst choices possible in several scenarios.
Which times were those, BlackBlade? I'm just curious.
the_Somalian,
No, I'm afraid your reasoning doesn't bear out. If you remember why those men happened to be in the area, why they even knew the Lecters for example, and what they did afterwards...they were all awful, horrible men who blundered on their own into a terrible situation.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm just saying Hannibal may have been emotionally scarred, but he didn't just make bad choices, he made the worst choices possible in several scenarios.
Which times were those, BlackBlade? I'm just curious.
the_Somalian,
No, I'm afraid your reasoning doesn't bear out. If you remember why those men happened to be in the area, why they even knew the Lecters for example, and what they did afterwards...they were all awful, horrible men who blundered on their own into a terrible situation.
They were just making the best of a horrible situation. It was either collaborate with Nazis...or die.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They were just making the best of a horrible situation. It was either collaborate with Nazis...or die.
They didn't just collaborate, they were enthusiastically attempting to advance themselves.
"We'll give you Nazis all the food and fuel we have," is forced collaboration.
"We'll fight by your side and murder some undesireables to gain entry into the SS," isn't collaboration. It's alliance.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:They were just making the best of a horrible situation. It was either collaborate with Nazis...or die.
They didn't just collaborate, they were enthusiastically attempting to advance themselves.
"We'll give you Nazis all the food and fuel we have," is forced collaboration.
"We'll fight by your side and murder some undesireables to gain entry into the SS," isn't collaboration. It's alliance.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)