FA+
Shop
Voring the main bad guy disturbs me
11 years ago
Ok so its been a long while since i made ANY journal. I've been meaning too but most of my thoughts were ether repetitive or very controversial. Then one idea popped in my head after watching
*spoilers* "Cloudy with a chance of meat balls 2" *non spoil point*
In the end of the movie, the main villain gets eaten by a weird monster and is dead instantly and pretty much forgotten. For some reason, these type of vore death in normal stories kind of bug me. As i thought about it i asked my self why. Like, why would this weird monster from this movie affect me badly yet the dragon vore in Shrek i felt was just, even if i wasn't in to vore.
One solution i came up with was that perhaps the deaths were timed differently. A quick vore death for a villain, especially one you are interested in, is never really good. A snap of a finger and he's dead, life taken away in a second. It kind of snaps you away from that realism that he was the bad guy cause the scene was so shocking.
In shrek however, the villain was going to succeed and kill every one. This was an extremely dangerous moment and such action needed to be taken to stop it.
The best example i can give is if a character had a major fight with an enemy and after quarreling with him for some time, the hero whips out his pistol and shoot him in the face, thus ending the battle abruptly. its a sudden end that wasn't really necessary. There was no struggle for life for ether side and, story wise, ruins a good opportunity to see the hero and villain duke it out, leaving you with a bad taste in your mouth.
Its pretty much the same with vore. A great adventure that lead up to this battle and is over with a single move with little or no effort from the hero. Just *poof* villains dead.
Tell me what you think, whether you agree or disagree i love to see other people who may or may not have this...issue i guess XD...and why?
(if i had the ability i would love to have demonstrate this in art form)
*spoilers* "Cloudy with a chance of meat balls 2" *non spoil point*
In the end of the movie, the main villain gets eaten by a weird monster and is dead instantly and pretty much forgotten. For some reason, these type of vore death in normal stories kind of bug me. As i thought about it i asked my self why. Like, why would this weird monster from this movie affect me badly yet the dragon vore in Shrek i felt was just, even if i wasn't in to vore.
One solution i came up with was that perhaps the deaths were timed differently. A quick vore death for a villain, especially one you are interested in, is never really good. A snap of a finger and he's dead, life taken away in a second. It kind of snaps you away from that realism that he was the bad guy cause the scene was so shocking.
In shrek however, the villain was going to succeed and kill every one. This was an extremely dangerous moment and such action needed to be taken to stop it.
The best example i can give is if a character had a major fight with an enemy and after quarreling with him for some time, the hero whips out his pistol and shoot him in the face, thus ending the battle abruptly. its a sudden end that wasn't really necessary. There was no struggle for life for ether side and, story wise, ruins a good opportunity to see the hero and villain duke it out, leaving you with a bad taste in your mouth.
Its pretty much the same with vore. A great adventure that lead up to this battle and is over with a single move with little or no effort from the hero. Just *poof* villains dead.
Tell me what you think, whether you agree or disagree i love to see other people who may or may not have this...issue i guess XD...and why?
(if i had the ability i would love to have demonstrate this in art form)
Alot of my favorite book series were ruined a bit for me because of these cop out endings, especially when I knew said villians could have done alot more to made things alot more interesting. Sadly though its pretty hard for one to change such, some just prefer the easy out in stories. Personally, even to me, the villain is just as much of a notable character and one I tend to enjoy getting to know (even if its to loathe).
And there's more ways to go about doing the vore aspect than most realize, it doesn't always have to be the clean sweep after all. Why not a struggle of some sort or whatnot before or even after? A simple dismissal isn't really doing anything justice overall in my opinion. And yeah, the 'convenient plot saver' has gotten rather tiresome these days.
1. Doing something as simple as naming your corporation "Live" and expecting people not to associate you with evil after you are found out doing something bad is the exact opposite of what you should do, if you're uncreative with names use "Goodshine" or "Happy Tree". (no don't use Happy Tree)
2. The only thing that made the character unique was the creators using their 3D software to its fullest with rubber animation, if they had removed that he'd be your stereotypical Evil Mentor/Mad Scientist character.
Also i feel that CWACOM 2 was going to be put in theaters again with its great idea and jokes but ran in to trouble or budget issues
Cause in one of your examples I saw that scene in Indiana Jones when it was suppose to be a whip vs sword fight, but they went with the cut where he just shot the swordsman showing he's more of a thinking man, and being the hero doesn't mean you have to "fight fair"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
I don't put it beyond Indy to simply just use his weapon.
If anything really annoys me in movies though, it's when some sort of creature vores people during the entire film, then at the end the so-called hero kills said creature and everything's over. Many soft-vore based horror films copy this very ending identically. How about one where the hero gets vored too for example, and the anaconda / alien / escaped creature / bla bla bla "wins the match"?
Only movie that comes to mind now is Desperaux though.
Another is The great Mouse Detective, though it wasn't the main villain who got eaten by the cat.
In the Lion King Scar is torn apart by the hyenas. Though it was after a big fight, and it was kinda horrid.
What might be causing some confusion is that the climax of Shrek was handled well, but was not necessarily an epic confrontation between Shrek and Farquaad. In fact, Farquaad is more of a side character. Half of it is Shrek and Fiona coming to terms with their own shortcomings and confronting their own fears, and the other half pertains to Fiona's curse.
Farquaad's demise is more of a side note. An epic fight between Shrek and he would have been pathetically one-sided in favor of the hero, and it would have been completely out of character for him to respond positively to Shrek and Fiona coming together the same way all of his subjects did, so a quick rub-out via dragon is basically just the best possible option from a list of generally bad ones.
As for why it's done so often, well. . . I think the idea is to try to give the villain a clear and obvious end (most people aren't satisfied with just seeing the villain in financial ruin and/or on the run) while still maintaining a heroic quality. They don't want the hero to just murder the villain in cold blood like the shot-in-the-face scenario you described, so they instead have the villain die at the hands of an uncontrollable third party antagonist (like in Anaconda or Mom & Dad Save The World) or a former ally (like in We're Back or The Princess & The Frog).
It's a cheap way out, in other words. They don't feel like sullying the protagonist, don't want to show the villain any mercy, and don't want to create an epic mano-a-mano climax where one wouldn't fit, so they try to fudge their way around it with something like that.