Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious Inceltrait: You root for the villain on tv/films

Who do you generally prefer?

  • Heroes

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Villains

    Votes: 48 98.0%

  • Total voters
    49
Kincels

Kincels

Future Leader
-
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Posts
147
I hate when the heroes get in the way of the villains plan to take control of society and wreck things.

And when especially when they save foids from getting what they deserve, heroes are cucks.
 
My avi is a based villian tbh
 
I remember watching Gordy (about a talking pig). And I always wanted the pig to die.
 
I always hated how the bad guys lost. Hollywood is recycled garbage. Such greed.
 
I love the cantankerous ugly villains.
 
Except when the villain is a Chad.
 
This is a big reason why I dont bother watching shows. The "good" guys always win. Whats the point in watching a show where the outcome is always the fucking same? Brain dead shit.
 
the person who votes heroes is a cuck
 
This is a big reason why I dont bother watching shows. The "good" guys always win. Whats the point in watching a show where the outcome is always the fucking same? Brain dead shit.
bbbasws
 
Lol nobody voted 4 the heroes
 
Ironically, villains are always better posed than the hero of history, but muhh evil always loses.
 
Do the villains ever win? They almost always lose, eventually.
 
Most of the times yes
 
Villians of course
 
I even like some irl villains. Some would be badass in a movie, this includes:

Josef Mengele
Ed Kemper
Ted bundy
Jeffrey dahmer
Albert fish
Andrei Chikatilo
Richard Ramirez
Nikolas Cruz
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris
Aribert Heim
Shiro Ishii
Mao Zedong
Hitler
Stalin
Leopold II
Elliot Rodger
Richard Chase
Dennis Rader
Gordon Northcott
Stephen Paddock
Kip Kinkel

don’t approve of what they did but I’m saying they’d be badass villains in a movie or videogame
 
The villain (if actually developed) has experienced hardship and wants to change the system.

The hero never does anything. He's just a counterforce to keep the cucked status quo. He's no different from those cops who beat up protestors angry they have been laid off. Funny how in real life no one likes them but cucked Hollywood expects us to root for them.
 
if they made heroes ugly I would for them
 
The villain (if actually developed) has experienced hardship and wants to change the system.

The hero never does anything. He's just a counterforce to keep the cucked status quo. He's no different from those cops who beat up protestors angry they have been laid off. Funny how in real life no one likes them but cucked Hollywood expects us to root for them.
 
The movie "Gladiator" is a perfect example of why it's more logical - for most men, not just incels - to identify with the villain over the hero. Honestly, this analysis could be used for 99% of what Hollywood puts out, since Hollywood is so formulaic and simplistic, but Gladiator is a great example because it's a well-known film with particularly one-dimensional "heroes."

The main hero, Maximus, is a good-looking gigachad who is lusted after by every pretty woman he meets. He is an extremely powerful man, entrusted with the command of the emperor's armies, a brilliant general, an expert in physical combat, a skilled political manipulator, is loved and respected by everyone, is handpicked by the emperor to be his successor, and even has an eyeroll-inducing sixth sense to sniff out when he's in physical danger or is about to be betrayed. He is a "Gary Stu" (a male equivalent of a "Mary Sue," an unrealistic, one-dimensional character who is perfect at everything and has no flaws). This not only makes his character impossible to identify with, it makes him BORING. There's no room for his character to be developed because he's already "perfect." The only people who are fans of Maximus are

a) foids, because they want to fuck him
b) bluepilled losers who try to live vicariously through Maximus so they can temporarily forget what losers they are in real life

In contrast, the main villain, Commodus, is a man who tried so hard his whole life, but was never good enough. He could never be the brilliant general, the skilled politician, the mighty hero who was beloved by all like Maximus. Most importantly, his failures are due to traits he was born with and has no control over. When he sees the one advantage he WAS born with - his status as the son of the emperor - rendered meaningless when the emperor decides to make Maximus his successor - he snaps. He orchestrates a coup and makes himself the new emperor. This is the sort of thing that makes a character INTERESTING. He's complex. He has flaws. He has a motive for doing what he does. Men, even chads, can identify with him because every man, even chad, has had that occasion in his life where he just wasn't good enough, no matter how hard he tried.

Of course, it's Hollywood, the hero has to win in the end, so the movie ends with Maximus killing Commodus in the arena, dying a heroic death himself, and getting his cock sucked figuratively by all of Rome while Commodus' body is left to rot. The Hollywood Jew's message is very clear. Know your place, goyim, bow down to the chad above you in the hierarchy, don't rock the boat, obey your massas, pay your taxes, and keep slaving at your 9 to 5 so your Jew boss can get more shekels. Commodus had to be punished, not for being a tyrant or killing innocent people, but for refusing to accept his place.
 
Last edited:
The movie "Gladiator" is a perfect example of why it's more logical - for most men, not just incels - to identify with the villain over the hero. Honestly, this analysis could be used for 99% of what Hollywood puts out, since Hollywood is so formulaic and simplistic, but Gladiator is a great example because it's a well-known film with particularly one-dimensional "heroes."

The main hero, Maximus, is a good-looking gigachad who is lusted after by every pretty woman he meets. He is an extremely powerful man, entrusted with the command of the emperor's armies, a brilliant general, an expert in physical combat, a skilled political manipulator, is loved and respected by everyone, is handpicked by the emperor to be his successor, and even has an eyeroll-inducing sixth sense to sniff out when he's in physical danger or is about to be betrayed. He is a "Gary Stu" (a male equivalent of a "Mary Sue," an unrealistic, one-dimensional character who is perfect at everything and has no flaws). This not only makes his character impossible to identify with, it makes him BORING. There's no room for his character to be developed because he's already "perfect." The only people who are fans of Maximus are

a) foids, because they want to fuck him
b) bluepilled losers who try to live vicariously through Maximus so they can temporarily forget what losers they are in real life

In contrast, the main villain, Commodus, is a man who tried so hard his whole life, but was never good enough. He could never be the brilliant general, the skilled politician, the mighty hero who was beloved by all like Maximus. Most importantly, his failures are due to traits he was born with and has no control over. When he sees the one advantage he WAS born with - his status as the son of the emperor - rendered meaningless when the emperor decides to make Maximus his successor - he snaps. He orchestrates a coup and makes himself the new emperor. This is the sort of thing that makes a character INTERESTING. He's complex. He has flaws. He has a motive for doing what he does. Men, even chads, can identify with him because every man, even chad, has had that occasion in his life where he just wasn't good enough, no matter how hard he tried.

Of course, it's Hollywood, the hero has to win in the end, so the movie ends with Maximus killing Commodus in the arena, dying a heroic death himself, and getting his cock sucked figuratively by all of Rome while Commodus' body is left to rot. The Hollywood Jew's message is very clear. Know your place, goyim, bow down to the chad above you in the hierarchy, don't rock the boat, obey your massas, pay your taxes, and keep slaving at your 9 to 5 so your Jew boss can get more shekels. Commodus had to be punished, not for being a tyrant or killing innocent people, but for refusing to accept his place.
agreed 100%
i was just glad maximus died, so it was kind of a "draw". with hollywood, we could've had him survive and then fuck commodus' sister right next to his cold corpse with the arena crowd applauding
 
I've ALWAYS rooted for the villain even as a small kid.
 
It depends on the villian tbh.
 
Based. Nobody voted for heroes.
 
Always cheered for the Decepticons. They just wanted their planet back :feelsbadman:
 
Villains are better characters than heroes.
 
Ironically, villains are always better posed than the hero of history, but muhh evil always loses.
Not always. I don't really like Chaotic Evil villains but villains like pic related had a just cause.
General Zod
 
Not always. I don't really like Chaotic Evil villains but villains like pic related had a just cause.
View attachment 204181
Yes, I should have said "almost always." Villains like Eren de Shingeki no kyojin or Griffith de berserk represent a villain very well. Although Guts, who is the "hero" is also very well written.
 
We are the villains according to modern society in real life so I sympathise with the villains in movies and tv series.
 

Similar threads

Samurai
Replies
90
Views
2K
Darkday
Darkday
sultryloser
Replies
44
Views
2K
Nagger
Nagger
PoodankMcGee
Replies
12
Views
414
Todd Thundercock
Todd Thundercock
Misogynist Vegeta
Replies
5
Views
141
SupremeGentleCel
SupremeGentleCel

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top