The Gang of Five
The Land Before Time => General Land Before Time => Topic started by: Serris on February 21, 2008, 05:23:13 PM
-
What kind of villian do you want to see in a Land Before Time movie?
I personally think that some of the villians should pose a greater threat than they previously showed (some of the sequel sharpteeth come to mind :rolleyes:).
"Super" Sharpteeth means a sharptooth like The Original LBT Sharptooth (near-invulnerability and supernatural strength).
"Rogue Great Valley" inhabitant means someone like Pterano.
-
If they want to have sharpteeth, why not drop the joke comedy ones and have one more like the first one.
-
Rogue Great Valley inhabitants could make for an interesting gray area that's not present in LBT. As it stands (with the exception of Chomper) the carnivores are the bad guys, the herbivores are good. Can't have a nasty plant eater, or two or three...?
-
Rogue Great Valley inhabitants could make for an interesting gray area that's not present in LBT. As it stands (with the exception of Chomper) the carnivores are the bad guys, the herbivores are good. Can't have a nasty plant eater, or two or three...?
The main Villian in my fanfic is a planteater I shoul;d work on it more.
-
I agree with Petire. Thats one of the reasons why i liked Pterano so much as a villain as he was actually unique to any other villain presented thus far in LBT. Theres also character development with Pterano as well (dunno if thats the way to describe it). So ya, i would like to see a villain more like Pterano in a new sequel.
-
Natural disasters! How can you fight mother nature? The greatest villains are those who are impossible to overcome.
-
While I have to admit, having a super sharptooth reappear in the series would be nice to see...I'd rather have a valley resident go all Anakin Skywalker and just betray everybody... :D
-
The Great Valley Guardian, who, for example? I don't think, that scriptors really can make someone of already created characters a betrayer. They rather add a new one for just a one episode. :(
Here's my opinion: if there really can be a herbivorous vilian, he should come from the Mysterious Beyond, and trying to unlock the ways to the valley... For example, he actually was squeezed by some clever sharptheeth, who promised to let this herbivore-betrayal and his family to leave in peace, while he's going to feast in protectless valley. :huh:
-
It would be great to have an LBT villain who doesn't have "evil" written all over his face. While we did have Pterano as a deceiver (though he apparently turned out alright in the end) you could tell that he was to be a crook the moment he appeared on the screen. It would be interesting to have a real sly who fools everyone until he or she drops the mask.
A problem about such villains is that it is very difficult in the world of LBT to find motives for their actions. On the one hand they could be predators, but this would be rather obvious in most cases. Perhaps a scavenger or omnivore, pretending to be perfectly satisfied with green food, might be an option. An outright planteater with an appetite for meet would be somewhat... strange :x Not very likely in any case.
One could come up with motives such as the one for Pterano, but this is very tricky. LBT dinosaurs are usually happy so long they have enough to eat and to drink and are in relative safety. So long long this is the case (usually it is in the Great Valley) there is little reason for them to thirst for power or show any readiness to submit themselves to anybody else's orders. I'm afraid the striving for power by itself (so common among mankind) is not a very likely motive for LBT dinosaurs.
Finally we have the evil trait of racism. A really bad racist who is capable of hiding his or her racism while plotting against other species might be interesting.
-
I was looking for a topic like this.
I just want to say I think would LBT really needs is a sophisticated, classy, criminal that's psychotic, yet can have a calm exterior, has a dry, sarcastic sense of humor, yet can get very annoyed if their plot is ruined by the meddling kids. xD
-
I would definitely like to see a Rogue Great Valley Inhabitant appear somewhere in the future. I don't know why I have such a thing for kidnapping, but the only time one of the gang was kidnapped was in LBT 7 with Ducky. I guess that's what inspired me to write my kidnappings in my Revenge fanfics. Anyway, it would be interesting to see more of the gang being put in peril in that sense. It would be hard because of motives and whatnot, but I think it would put some more flare into it.
Then again, I realize this is supposed to be directed towards children, and they may not understand kidnapping as much as we do, but it's just a thought.
-
The Rogue Great Valley Inhabitant seems to be a popular choice. I think it's an interesting idea, though doing it could be quite difficult.
With the sharpteeth, it's easy, they're just hunting to survive, but a flattooth would probably need a more sinister motive to turn on its fellows and thus that's probably why we haven't seen anything like it in the series. (Aside from Pterano, but I can't really view him as villian.)
-
So ya, i would like to see a villain more like Pterano in a new sequel.
Now, remember that song, "Good Inside" in this sequel.
Pterano wasn't a "villain" though he had some villainous parts, i.e, he kidnaps Ducky hoping that no one would stop them from fulfilling the plan. Pterano would be a good dictator, but he does repent from his arrogance. He even does a noble act by saving Ducky from falling in the end.
So no, I don't believe Pterano will be a villain again.
-
The closest thing to rogue inhabitants are Hyp and his friends from the 3rd movie. Early on maybe threehorn could be also but he seems less inclined in that direction.
Maybe something like we saw in The Forbidden Friendship episode could happen where some dinos take threehorn's side, and some Littlefoot's Grandparents where they have divided up the Great Valley between them, & of course only the kids can fix things as usual.
-
I put "Other" as my vote. I really don't care where the villain comes from or what he/she/it is. I just want to see an intelligent, competent, and frightening villain for once. That's all.
Who says we have to give the villain a logical motive. To quote Alfred from "The Dark Knight": "Some men, aren't after anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men, just want to watch the world burn!"
To quote the Joker: "I'm an agent of chaos."
I would LOVE to see a villain like that in LBT. Someone who looks calm and collected, but is actually just completely insane and enjoys watching the pain and suffering he brings down on others through his machinations.
-
I put "Other" as my vote. I really don't care where the villain comes from or what he/she/it is. I just want to see an intelligent, competent, and frightening villain for once. That's all.
Who says we have to give the villain a logical motive. To quote Alfred from "The Dark Knight": "Some men, aren't after anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men, just want to watch the world burn!"
To quote the Joker: "I'm an agent of chaos."
I would LOVE to see a villain like that in LBT. Someone who looks calm and collected, but is actually just completely insane and enjoys watching the pain and suffering he brings down on others through his machinations.
Wait, are you saying that you want a darker and edgier reboot of LBT?
Oorah! I'm not the the only dark LBT fan!
I did this in Twilight Valley. Procella (sickleclaw/Deinochyus OC) and Ms. Maia (!) are a fusion of two motice types. They are following orders but also enjoy inflicting pain on others.
-
Someone who looks calm and collected, but is actually just completely insane and enjoys watching the pain and suffering he brings down on others through his machinations.
That would be a motive (enjoying watching the pain etc.). But the way this motive is presented would be crucial to make it credible. I realize the irony of talking about credibility with reference to a movie of talking and singing cartoon dinosaurs, but I guess some reference as to why a character acts the way he or she does is usually a good thing. There can be even some explanation for the characters enjoying the pain of others without that explanation meaning any kind of redemption of a character whatsoever.
Pterano wasn't a "villain" though he had some villainous parts, i.e, he kidnaps Ducky hoping that no one would stop them from fulfilling the plan. Pterano would be a good dictator, but he does repent from his arrogance. He even does a noble act by saving Ducky from falling in the end.
While I agree to Pterano being no villain at heart, he is extremely self centered and with the exception of his lines to Petrie at the very end he never ever acknowledges any guilt for his actions.
Rinkus and Sierra come in as ready-made bearers of blame as they don't show any good intentions whatsoever. Given the chance for power or recognition I don't think Pterano would be beyond being tempted.
As for the nobility of saving Ducky, he didn't really take any personal risk in doing this. Personally I think there is still a lot of potential of Pterano for one side or the other. In any case I don't think he has yet "aufgearbeitet" his history (there just is no good English equivalent for this German term which means something like dealing with the own past in a manner as to acknowledging guilt, looking for what caused it, being aware of both, and working to prevent it in the future).
-
Serris: Not a reboot, just a sequel that takes the series off in a different direction. Yep, It'd definitely make the film darker, which would be a nice change of pace. Now, not every LBT would have to follow that example, but it is something worth exploring. This IS a setting where you HAVE to fight for your survival almost everday, after all.
Malte: I don't think it would be necessary to explain why someone who is revealed to be clearly completely insane would enjoy doing exacting torment on other. Besides which, I think it would kill some of his menace.
It would actually be a lot simpler to have the main characters just say it.
Littlefoot: "So, it was (insert name here) who caused (insert attrocity here) by (insert manipulation here), but why?!"
Cera: "Isn't it obvious? HE'S NUTS! We're dealing with a looney!"
And if that's not good enough, the creators can just cast Mark Hamill, a voice actor who specializes in deranged psychopaths and manipulative dirtbags, as this villain. Believe me, he'll sell the whole "doing because he's completely insane and derives a sick pleasure from it" idea well enough that no one who pops the DVD in will doubt it, nor would the implication be lost on even the most dense mind.
Edit: If anyone looks up Mark Hamill out of curiousity, you'll likely find a bunch of a Star Wars stuff, because he played Luke Skywalker. However, when his cinematic career didn't pan out well, he turned to stage and voice acting, and that's where he's been ever since.
-
I see what you mean and I guess something could be done this way (so I'm not trying to disprove you on anything here), but personally I still think that some background information would help. Especially if that nut is to be the deceitful kind of character called for by most people.
If somebody manages to fool everyone into believing he or she was a perfectly good, honorable, sane, and innocent character I suppose that somebody would have to be of a certain intelligence to be able to put on such a convincing mask. If somebody does possess that intelligence that somebody is at least not likely to have no background whatsoever onto which the insanity is based.
A all thorough nut who is drooling and giggling all the time is not likely to deliberately fool others for long. Still there may be the possibility that this drooling and giggling nut, without even trying to put up any pretense, might be considered just a "harmless fool" for a while.
I have one scene in mind (lacking the full story surrounding that scene though) in which a deceitful villain him or herself actually pushes Littlefoot and the others deliberately on the right track when they are practically convinced that somebody else is the doer of whatever mischief (and that's a very big whatever). That villain (having come across as the friendly and selfless helper all along) could tell Littlefoot and the others to rethink about their conclusions. The villain could show them the flaws in their conclusions and tell them to think about who else might benefit from whatever had been done until the scales would fall of the goggling eyes of Littlefoot and the others. :blink:
Of course at that time the villain is not likely to wish to let Littlefoot and the others get away to tell anyone of the knowledge they aquired through him or her.
-
I have to respectfully disagree with you here, Malte. I think giving a villain of this kind a background runs too close to make them too human/sympathetic and less menacing. Norman Bates of Alfred Hitchcock's classic "Psycho" is a perfect example of this. In the original version of the film, he was never given a proper diagnosis at the end, like in the theatrical version. So why was the Doctor included to tell us just why the heck Bates is so nutty? The producers said that leaving Bates' psychosis a mystery made the film too unsettling. In a nutshell, they made Hitchcock give Bates a more explained to motive to make him less scary. And yet, Mr. Bates is quite able to look and behave normally to his customers, yet he is completely insane.
The villain from "Disturbia" works the same way, only this time the filmmaker was allowed to not give him a proper background or motive. The villain in "Disturbia" is a serial killer who looks and acts normal on the surface, but unneath lies the mind of a maniac. We never find out why, because its not important. This is a lesson the filmmakers of "Hannibal Rising" did not take to heart, unfortunately.
As for your remark about how one would need to have a certain level of intelligent to fool everyone. I agree, but it doesn't work against my concept. We've seen the type in real life. There have been some maniacal killers in real life that we figure out even after we caught them. A lot of questions were left unanswered, and these are the most famous killers. In fact, arguably, the most famous serial killers in history is Jack and Ripper and the Zodiac Killer, and we still don't even know who the heck they were or why they did it, because they were never caught.
Now, doing it your way by giving the villain a background would probably make the villain function better as a character, but it would take from his ability to function of this kind of villain. In terms of a villain who acts out of insanity, instead of more logical motives, the more unanswered questions that surround them, the more daunting they seem. I think its safe to say that it is no coincidence that the most remembered killers are still make us raise an eyebrow, and that the most effective crazy villains have no background to speak of..
I like the scene you came up with. That would be a clever way for the villain to cover his trail, for a time, anyway.
-
I haven't seen Psycho so far, but I always wanted to. It is definitely one of the (sadly many) movies on my to watch list :yes
In case of both, Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac Killer the motives remain unknown, but so remain the criminals. They were never identified with any certainty. If they were I suppose there would be a bit more of an idea about the backgrounds. I do admit that in many (I daresay most) cases of serial murders and the like who are caught everyone is shocked that somebody that "friendly" and "normal" would do something like that.
In many such cases (Jack the Ripper included) there is a strong likelihood of a perverted kind of sexual drive being involved in the atrocities. This however is a motive which I consider absolutely unfit for an LBT story. Jealousy might work, but not something so far beyond that (not saying that you ever even suggested otherwise; just a general statement).
I see where you are coming from, but personally I still prefer some motive for the villains. It is just a matter of taste anyway.
-
Whoa, back up there! I never said anything about giving the villain a perverted sex drive.
Well, we'll just have to agree, but I think the route you're talking about here gives rise to too much possibility for the audience to 'feel' something for the villain, other than disgust and contempt. That always irks me. I don't want to feel sorry for the villain. I don't want to like the villain. I'm happy with a character who is just a purely malevolent force creating chaos. If there's any character development to be had, let it come from the the heroes.
Anyway, if my memory serves me weel, the original film never states the Sharptooth's reasons for tracking the group almost every step of the way on the journey. There's obviously some sort of obsession or mania going on there.
-
You are right. No motive is given for The Sharptooth's pursuit of Littlefoot and the gang.
But I want the villian to be a 3d character. Yes, I want them so hatable that you WANT to see them dead but I like my characters 3d.
-
Those are the best, but very few are seen, except under certain writers usually.
-
Well, whether a character is 3D or not isn't just in how much you know about them. A part of what makes a character good and memorable is how they're played out. Their own words, actions, how well his dialogue is acted out, and how well the character's mannersims are acted out/animated speak louder than amount of backstory.
-
Sorry, my post came across the wrong way. I never assumed you to consider such a drive to be practicable for an LBT story villain. It is a possible motive of the murderers that had been named, but I never understood you to consider this as an option. I should have been clearer on that one.
I guess the essence of this discussion is that there are two different point of views neither of which is right or wrong as they are primarily based on taste. I hear what you are saying about not wishing to feel something for the villain. It is a valid point to take.
Personally I don't believe good or evil to come into the world just for good's or evil's sake but rather because the conductor of good or evil deeds seeing some gain in the acts he or she commits. Sometimes villains are demonized to the degree that we "credit" them with being "not human". I think that to some degree such a "demonizing" works as a measure of self protection pretending that only somebody who is not a human and therefore not of the same stuff as everyone else could commit such unspeakable crimes.
Sometimes I think that showing the "weak" moments of a villain is a good idea. There can be moments where the villain doubts that what he or she is doing is "right" and what damage he or she is causing. If in spite of this awareness the villain still pursues his or her devastating course I think it is not so much making you feel positive about him or her but rather despise the inability of the villain to change the course which he or she recognized as harmful.
-
I prefer my villians to have some kind of motivation, or goal. They can act quite insane, but I'd like them to at least be clever.
If they believe themselves to be doing the right thing, that's an interesting plus. Such as doing it for their species, or government, it at least gives them some degree of humanity, which can be lessened by any foul acts he/she commits.
Anyway I think we've kind of strayed off topic.
-
I think you're both over-looking that there are people out there who just love to cause strife and chaos and don't care about right or wrong and are incapable of having "weak moments" because they have no conscious. In actuality, yes, some evil does exist just for the sake of "evil". Ergo, it would be no negative to have a fictional character just like that.
And who says a villain we don't know much about can't be clever? Jafar from Aladdin has no specific history to speak of, but he was very clever. And I defy anyone to say that the Joker from The Dark Knight wasn't a great villain, and we don't know squate about him or his motives.
The villain I have in mind does have a motivation: to watch gleefully as the world burns because he's frikkin insane and derives a sick kind of satisfaction from it. Its not very specific, but its still there. Why wouldn't this fly with you two? Just because he doesn't have a backstory doesn't mean he can't be a 3D villain. As I said, it all depends on how well he's played out.
Drake, I don't want to be rude, but I have to be frank. The kind of thinking you presented sickens me. I know its a matter of taste, but the idea of feeling anything other than contempt for such a figure just makes my skin crawl. I will be saving my sympathies for Samwise and Frodo instead of Gollum, thank you very much.
It is not a plus if the villain thinks they're doing the right thing. They'd have to be pretty stupid to think that killing millions of innocent people, disrupting the order causing the world to fall into chaos, supporting an ideal that sacrifices those not considered "important" aside to thw wolves, trying to destroy the world, trying to take over the world, trying to force an idea of others, or whatever, and the like is the right thing. And I'd be even less inspired to feel sympathy for one who did, because at least the unsympathetic villains are fully aware of the consequences of what they're doing. They just don't care as long as they get their way.
A villain does what he/she does out of personal and selfish gain. To think that someone who destroys, conquers, lies, and steals could be a sympathetic figure is just naive.
If there is character growth and sympathy to be had, let it come from the heroes. The villain should always take second fiddle to the characters we're primarily reading about or watching, anyway.
Conclusion, I know I was pretty rough in this post, but you have to understand that in the case of the villain, talk of sympathizing with the figure who summoned up a meteor to strike and destroy the earth or back-stabbed his way to the top is just something that puts me off very quickly. Its one of those things in fiction I feel strongly about. The way I look at it, if you feel sorry for the guy whose already destroyed about a dozen planets, I just think you're more likely to be fooled by a real life trouble maker. That's why I don't let myself take a sympathetic stance on it, because how we look at fictional DOES and WILL effect how we view the world. And in real life, I can't name a single lowlife or warmonger who did any of the things they did out of a remotely understandable motivation.
But, there you have it in a nutshell: sadistic, unbalanced villains are not and should not be tragic figures. They are little people. They are not Sephiroth.
-
I wasn't actually refering to super psycho villians when I made that post.
Just because they have some degree of humanity doesn't make them sympathetic. I rather meant that it would be better if one understood what the villian was after. Psychoes that just enjoy killing kind of don't appael to me as villians.
I would have disagree. The prospect of a villian thinking that he can do any sort of atrocity he wants so long as his ends are justfied could just make him more foul.
(Looking back I'm not too sure I worded my previous post very well.)
-
Now, now WR. Nobody tried to talk you out of your point of view and it has been stressed by everyone that being a matter of taste rather than petty right or wrong. No need to get agitated.
Also you may have overlooked one detail in my last post. I tried to point out that having a villain who could easily take a different path but still decides for the "dark side" is not any more sympathetic for that than one who never ever shows the ability to choose (in fact it may be even more vicious if somebody is evil by "choice" rather than by some mental disorder or the like). Very often the world is not just black and white and evil as a villain may be I consider it no infringing of this "quality" if he or she was aware of and theoretically able to choose better. You are correct that delight in others suffering and destruction is a motive (I think I even mentioned it in one of my posts), but I suppose it to be the exception if there is no background whatsoever if somebody takes such delight in this.
Gollum / Smeagol is the very particular case of an extremely split character, but I guess going into analyzing here would go to far off topic.
Just please keep in mind that nobody here is attacking you or anything. You have your points, you have your reasons, others have other points and there reasons and in case of such a matter of taste this is good the way it is. No need to get angry about it.
-
To Malte: I know that, but as I said, I get very put off quickly when people start in with the "make the villain tagic" crap, which I thought you were both going for. I've been in this kind of argument so many times before that I seem to have come to expect people to just to want the villains to be sympathetic.
The world's also not as gray as some would like to believe, either. Moving on from that, I can see your point, but I still have to disagree. I personally find villains who will just never stop to be more frightening, because a sane villain will be less likely to do anything destruction that's without a lot of planning and reason.
We could start a topic about Gollum and talk about him there, if you like.
To conclude, sorry about becoming short.
To Drake: You need to tell me that you're not talking about psychos if you're not.
Just because they have some degree of humanity doesn't make them sympathetic. I rather meant that it would be better if one understood what the villian was after. Psychoes that just enjoy killing kind of don't appael to me as villians.
I beg to differ on that first point. As for understanding the villain, that's always a given. Even the villain I'm thinking of has a motive, that much is hardly ever left out of the writing.
I take you don't have much fondness for the Batman franchise.
For the villain committing atrocities to get his way. We're not going to agree, so I'm not gong to argue that point.
-
I take you don't have much fondness for the Batman franchise.
Afraid not, I prefer Marvel comics to DC. I was a Batfan in the past though. :lol
-
Super-Sharpteeth seems like the best idea, although Rogue Valley inhabitants are still cool, too.
-
I'd prefer to have no sharpeeth that can leap an 1/8th of a mile, run faster then a speeding locomotive, and have bullets bounce of their chest. Why not just regular ones. They can still be dangerous with their claws, teeth, normal non super speed, ect.
-
I second that. Sharpteeth don't need only super abilities. All they do need is being spared the indignity of being so much tamed down and stupified as has been the case in most of the later sequels.
-
Really. I don't know just who the creators think they're protecting. Not a single kid out there that has wide-eyes for dinosaurs and adventure hasn't seen both the original Land Before Time or the Jurassic Park movies. Charlie and co, the kiddies have all already seen a T-Rex tear a lawyer to shreds in JP. Drop the safe act, already.
-
What if there was a villian who was a good guy, had good intentions, and cared for his herd? Not very villiany yet, eh? I'm just getting started. A villian can have the best intentions, yet his methods to achieve his goals can be so tyrannical, cruel, and down right evil, that his actions outway his intentions enough to be considered villianous. A perfect example of doing the right thing in the wrong way. No matter your intentions, it is no excuse for doing terrible things. Then even those who he is trying to help, while his intentions may be valued, will despise him. How can you look up to someone who acts like a criminal? If someone wants to better things, yet steals, kills, and destroys, he isn't really bettering things, is he? Everyone is judged by what they do, not what they think. So if they do what's wrong, then they will be perceived as such. No matter how much you stand for what you believe, whether it's right or not, if you decide to abandon all the rules to get it, then you might get what you want but will certainly lose yourself in he process. So there should be someone who is a villian in every aspect of the word, except where his heart is. Pretty creative, yet actually possible. I like it.
Now while I can take credit for writing this and expressing the idea in such a way, I can take no credit for the idea itself. It is actually an idea I heard from brekclub85. I hadn't seen him in this thread yet and I was afraid that he might not show up. And since his idea is related to this topic completely, I just wanted to make sure it got posted at all, whether I did it or not. But I still made it very clear that I take no credit, for I didn't think of this at all. When I share others' ideas, I always give the proper credit. I don't think I said it nearly as well as brekclub85 could have, being as it's his thought, but this is the best explanation I could write. Sorry if it isn't dead on.
-
Yeah, one thing I don't like is how we've never really, for lack of a better term, gotten inside the minds of the sharpteeth in the LBT series besides series, and they are always protrayed as mindless killers besides Chomper and his parents.
That's why, I had in my Sharptooth Valley fanfic, one of the major villians (Redfoot) be a leafeater who does something terrible to the sharpteeth, but he thinks he's doing the right thing. Leaf eaters can be evil too.
The LBT movies have mentioned the Circle of Life, but I don't think they ever said that meat eaters (who eat other dinos) are required to make the world balanced. They also never mentioned that sharpteeth need to survive, and we all know what it takes for them to survive. That's not evil, it's instinct. There is a difference
Plus, I wanted to say "screw you" to the cartoon cliche of making every meat-eating carnivore the bad guy. A story or series where the carnivores are the good guys and the herbivores being the bad guy would be awesome IMO.
-
(Sigh) If I had waited ten more minutes I would have known that I didn't need to write my post at all. I don't usually speak for others, but brakclub85 had made such a good point a while back that I just wanting to make sure his idea, which I love, was expressed. You never know if someone falls in a coma or something and can't post. Well I'm sorry for stealing his spotlight. He just had such a good point I got hasty. I'll try to stick with my own ideas now. Still, ya gotta admit that out of the many members and topics, writng about someone then having the same person show up at the same topic at about the same time and writing right after you do, well, winning the lottery seems equally likely.
-
It's ok, I'm not bothered by you posting first. Just glad you think my idea is clever and well-done. (PS, did you get my PMs Friendly Sharptooth?)