@CDRW Tbh, I would've prefered it if that was ACTUALLY the case.

I'd MUCH prefer an awesome villain to be defeated by fate rather than being made to look inferior by the protagonists

pagetopper!

edited 4th Mar '12 3:35:23 PM by gingerninja666

It was a mercy kill.

And the rest of us would be raging 'till the end of days.

edited 4th Mar '12 3:35:43 PM by CDRW

But Ginger is here? He's supposed to be the life support.

@CDRW but why? Why would you want a competent villain to be made to look like an idiot

This is why I didn't want you to say that! Now I feel like shit

edited 4th Mar '12 3:37:20 PM by gingerninja666

Looking at EQD's episode roundup right now. Holy crap, I noticed the whole Lyra/Bon Bon thing, but I didn't notice that Bon Bon's saddlebag had Lyra's cutie mark as a clasp. That's awesome.

Really Ginger, you'd rather have a stroke of luck defeat the villain? You know it's possible to outsmart someone without them looking like an idiot. Intelligence is not a binary state you know, you can have a smart villain who is just barely outmaneuvered.

edited 4th Mar '12 3:39:21 PM by Crowfall

Because it's emotionally unfulfilling to have him defeated by dumb luck. It makes the protatgonist's struggle seem like it was all for nothing.

Likewise, you can have a protagonist defeat a villain without actually outsmarting/fighting him, or the ilk. In The Colour You Bleed, Red Letter (the villain on the more political side of the plot) is defeated by Blueblood's character growth - Blueblood became unpredictable, and there was no longer anything Letter could do to win, because he was still working off the impression that Blueblood would act selfishly and stupidly, when that was no longer the case. Similarly Iron Towers, the villain of Blueblood's character arc, was beaten because he expected Blueblood to be a coward, and because he had gone insane over the course of the story. Both villains defeated by Blueblood's efforts, without directly being outsmarted or outfought. They remain competent as when they began, but failed due to a new element being introduce that aided the hero.

Ginger keeps the thread going through his sheer awesomeness. :D

Well hey, if you guys are bored with the slowness of the thread, why don't you take some time off to go answer some questions Soviet Pony has for Trixie?

edited 4th Mar '12 3:46:39 PM by CDRW

Is that like a reverse tumblr? Do we have to draw a response or just write one?

I wish I was more important to the thread like Ginger.

I agree, I prefer the potential Awesome Moment a hero gets from actually defeating a villain through competence, it makes it seem like they earned it more. They just have to make it believable and show there was some amount of struggle and endurance in actually doing. There's a difference between defeating a villain and pwning them effortlessly.

@ Crowfall, yup, that's exactly what it is. You don't have to draw anything, just write out an answer (or several!) and send it in with the answer button on the right.

Sorry for not responding, I watching FLCL to cheer me up from the ending of Bebop. It was a request I ask for a Sonic artist to sketch my character. Needless to say it help me, redesign my dreadlock mouse.

edited 4th Mar '12 3:54:47 PM by DavidtheMouse14

@kegi That's pretty much my favourite way for a villain to be defeated. Not because they were outsmarted, but because they didn't understand something about the protagonist.

Take my second Favourite villain of all time: Rotti Largo from Repo! The Genetic Opera.

80% of that film's events happen beacause of his manipulations. He's completely... COMPLETELY successful up until the VERY last second, when a girl refused to kill her own father. That's all. He wasn't outsmarted. A girl just proved to be a better person than he'd expected

edited 4th Mar '12 3:54:49 PM by gingerninja666

I honestly can't agree with your position Ginger.

In my opinion the villain simply "misunderstanding" something about the protagonist is much less satisfy and makes the villain look less competent then if he was actually outsmarted.

edited 4th Mar '12 3:59:55 PM by Mio

Yeah, exactly. Iron and Letter were in control (well, dubious control - there was shit going on that no one had a handle on) - but in the end they failed because they expected Blueblood to be a scared spoiled brat, and he wasn't.

It's more that I prefer the hero to be a better person than the villain, not better than them.

edited 4th Mar '12 4:02:52 PM by gingerninja666

Then I guess you could say that I would rather that the protagonist actually win, then the antagonist simply lose, if that makes any sense.

Why are you so picky about your villians anyway?

Ginger, your tastes are incredibly specific.

I'd rather the villain lose, (or the protagonist win) in a way that doesn't make the villain look incompetent.

This is easier to do with fighting than with intelligence.

I hold competence in INREDIBLY high regard

edited 4th Mar '12 4:09:46 PM by gingerninja666

The problem with that, Ginger, is that you see any mistake that the villain makes ever as a sign of incompetence. You can be competent without being perfect.

'Sup guys. I was off doing nothing important. It looks like conversation died out a little bit...

Hi ilsemmr!