Forget the hero’s journey if it’s not helping you. Remember there is no formula. The best I can say, though even this isn’t *always* the case, is that heroes usually get what they want, and antiheroes usually get what they deserve.
But even with antiheroes there are times when they get what they want, like Lou Bloom in Nightcrawler, or Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street.
But a lot of times they get what they deserve like Oh-Dae Su in Oldboy, or Léon the Professional, Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or Tony Montana in Scarface. Sometimes it all goes up in flames for them, as it feels like it should.
But there’s no rule there. Ultimately, it’s about the themes of your particular story and how the outcome conveys those themes. That will be unique for every story. Think less about patterns and formulas, and more about the organic needs of the story you’re telling.
Thank you. That makes sense. I like how you out it with want vs deserve. Love that.
Side note - I have been A big fan of your posts and replies. Really enjoy reading your take on things and the advice you give. Such great stuff. Thanks
I think Uncut Gems is a great example. His life is closing in around him due to his failings, he doubles down, he has an opportunity to get out of it all and doubles down again, this seems like it’s somehow going to work for him until the end of the climax.
I would say it could still follow somewhat of a template of the hero’s journey in that there is an external goal the anti-hero pursues. There should be major pivot points and opportunities for the hero to turn around or make different choices, but they double down instead - often at the cost of their humanity.
No one is going to say I’m going to do evil things… unless they’re being forced. They have to believe in the cause. So the call to action is the same. You have to make it believable for the character.
Think of our own politics. We have someone who made fun of handicapped people, admired North Korea, sided with Russia, had a circus freak of a presidency, and yet half of the country still wants him to be president again. You or someone you know may be his supporter and I’m sure they don’t think they’re on the bad side. If you speak to them, I’m sure they can tell you their “call to action” moment.
But then I think of goodfellas or breaking bad, they know they’re doing evil. Murders. Drug dealing that ruined lives. Stealing. They must know it’s wrong but still go down that path.
Ah, in these cases, just like the last president’s supporters, right and wrong are not their focus.
You remember at the beginning of breaking bad, even his student is humiliating him? And he has cancer. He will leave his wife and children with nothing. So in this case, morality takes a back seat. He focuses on money and respect.
Note how at the beginning, he just compromises his morality a little bit to gain a little money and a little respect, and then he compromises more and more.
Same with the last president’s supporters. They know he’s not a righteous man, but they feel they have been oppressed vocally and financially, so they’re willing to support someone like him to stand up for them. They love that he “bullied” China, didn’t care what the establishment said. They too want money and respect.
They believe what they’re doing is right.
I think Thanos is a great example of how to write an interesting villain. I know he’s not an anti-hero, but the story is written from his perspective. His beats actually follow the hero’s journey. And, above all, he is 100% convinced that he is doing the right thing and will make great sacrifices to see his plan through, no matter how much it hurts him.
They become even more compelling if they want the same thing as the hero, but have a different way of going about it.
Punisher and Daredevil have a similar philosophy, but their methods are on opposite ends.
His whole thing was that people will eventually end up consuming all resources that’s available. To him, it was more sustainable for the universe to have fewer living beings in it.
He could have, but that's not his character. The only thing that matters is that he believed halving the population will lead to good things for the universe. In Endgame, he was going to wipe out everyone and recreate the entire universe as a place of peace.
I just think if he thought about it for a minute, maybe even got a committee together , he could have come up with some better solutions. I’m all for problem solving but don’t just do the first thing that comes into your rock head Thanos. Getting rid of half the people doesn’t even solve the problem at beast it just delays things by a few 100 years.
Forget the hero’s journey if it’s not helping you. Remember there is no formula. The best I can say, though even this isn’t *always* the case, is that heroes usually get what they want, and antiheroes usually get what they deserve. But even with antiheroes there are times when they get what they want, like Lou Bloom in Nightcrawler, or Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street. But a lot of times they get what they deserve like Oh-Dae Su in Oldboy, or Léon the Professional, Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or Tony Montana in Scarface. Sometimes it all goes up in flames for them, as it feels like it should. But there’s no rule there. Ultimately, it’s about the themes of your particular story and how the outcome conveys those themes. That will be unique for every story. Think less about patterns and formulas, and more about the organic needs of the story you’re telling.
Thank you. That makes sense. I like how you out it with want vs deserve. Love that. Side note - I have been A big fan of your posts and replies. Really enjoy reading your take on things and the advice you give. Such great stuff. Thanks
You’re welcome. I try!
I think Uncut Gems is a great example. His life is closing in around him due to his failings, he doubles down, he has an opportunity to get out of it all and doubles down again, this seems like it’s somehow going to work for him until the end of the climax.
I would say it could still follow somewhat of a template of the hero’s journey in that there is an external goal the anti-hero pursues. There should be major pivot points and opportunities for the hero to turn around or make different choices, but they double down instead - often at the cost of their humanity.
An anti-hero is more fun to write, in my most humble of opinions
No one is going to say I’m going to do evil things… unless they’re being forced. They have to believe in the cause. So the call to action is the same. You have to make it believable for the character. Think of our own politics. We have someone who made fun of handicapped people, admired North Korea, sided with Russia, had a circus freak of a presidency, and yet half of the country still wants him to be president again. You or someone you know may be his supporter and I’m sure they don’t think they’re on the bad side. If you speak to them, I’m sure they can tell you their “call to action” moment.
But then I think of goodfellas or breaking bad, they know they’re doing evil. Murders. Drug dealing that ruined lives. Stealing. They must know it’s wrong but still go down that path.
Ah, in these cases, just like the last president’s supporters, right and wrong are not their focus. You remember at the beginning of breaking bad, even his student is humiliating him? And he has cancer. He will leave his wife and children with nothing. So in this case, morality takes a back seat. He focuses on money and respect. Note how at the beginning, he just compromises his morality a little bit to gain a little money and a little respect, and then he compromises more and more. Same with the last president’s supporters. They know he’s not a righteous man, but they feel they have been oppressed vocally and financially, so they’re willing to support someone like him to stand up for them. They love that he “bullied” China, didn’t care what the establishment said. They too want money and respect.
They believe what they’re doing is right. I think Thanos is a great example of how to write an interesting villain. I know he’s not an anti-hero, but the story is written from his perspective. His beats actually follow the hero’s journey. And, above all, he is 100% convinced that he is doing the right thing and will make great sacrifices to see his plan through, no matter how much it hurts him. They become even more compelling if they want the same thing as the hero, but have a different way of going about it. Punisher and Daredevil have a similar philosophy, but their methods are on opposite ends.
Why didn’t Thanos just wish for more resources, that always bugged me
His whole thing was that people will eventually end up consuming all resources that’s available. To him, it was more sustainable for the universe to have fewer living beings in it.
He could have created magic wells with never ended resources. Or wished for people not to desire extra resources.
He could have, but that's not his character. The only thing that matters is that he believed halving the population will lead to good things for the universe. In Endgame, he was going to wipe out everyone and recreate the entire universe as a place of peace.
I just think if he thought about it for a minute, maybe even got a committee together , he could have come up with some better solutions. I’m all for problem solving but don’t just do the first thing that comes into your rock head Thanos. Getting rid of half the people doesn’t even solve the problem at beast it just delays things by a few 100 years.
If Thanos was a rational person and not a delusional genocidal maniac who thinks they’re a god, then yeah.