[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_9739.png (1.27 MB, 1400x683)
1.27 MB PNG
If you have ever wondered what makes a character, particularly a villain in a movie good or bad you can use my shitting test. Despite the name it’s just imagining them in very dull, everyday scenarios where they have no one to monologue at. And if you picture it as an incredibly silly idea then they are a badly written character. For example
>Would it be silly if Anton were choosing between what drinks to buy at a convenience store? Yes
>Would it be silly if he were shitting? Yes
Then you just found out Anton is a badly written character. And inb4 you say “you dumbass nigger every villain would be silly in these situations” and I say no, I can totally see Patrick Bateman choosing between toiletries and it being totally in line with his character because Patrick Bateman is a good villain. Of course this doesn’t apply to simple, evil for the sake of evil characters and monsters like the Xenomorph or Michael Meyers. Thoughts?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.