villain characters

anonymous asked:

Consider tho,,,aliens meeting the super cruel murderous villain character's actor after the play is over and just being like "draw your guns!!it's the murderer!!" And everyone defusing the situation frantically

FACE YOUR DEATH VILLIAN I WILL AVENGE THAT CHILD

anonymous asked:

Uhh I know pretty much nothing about Tekken but I randomly came across your art and now I'm lowkey invested in asulilli so...

that’s okay you don’t really need to know anything but I WILL TELL YOU ANYWAY so please sit. So you don’t need to play the game (you really don’t need to, trust me), here’s a summary:

Asuka is the type of person to start beating people up in the street because she’ll think it’ll help everyone get along better. Happy-go-lucky though overconfident in her abilities. Despite being the first cousin of Jin Kazama, a once-villain main character who basically fucked the world up, she still gets pissed when people bring up their relation. Like, really pissed

Lili lives in a tax haven, has a butler and wears a lot of frills like we’re in the Elizabethan era again, speaks French and wants her dad to love her even though he is opposed to her main interest: STREET FIGHTING!! An interest that was discovered when she was kidnapped at age 16 and smashed a guy through a limousine door before jumping out of it just in time for this shot

Every Tekken game revolves around a tournament that all characters enter for various reasons. Asuka beats Lili in Tekken 6 and Lili now obsesses over it/her and pursues Asuka as her self-proclaimed rival [the words ”rival” and “love interest” are obviously interchangeable as demonstrated several times in various Japanese games]. Lili is really extra in basically every aspect of her life so she’ll usually make up excuses to run into Asuka, like transferring to her school, or making people in the street have a punch up to get Asuka to show up there, so LILI CAN BEAT THOSE GUYS UP IN THE STREET FIRST what the fuck??? what the fuck

In Tekken Tag 2 (the “““non-canon””” game that came after T6) her butler straight up said to Lili’s face that he knows what she’s trying to do for Asuka and that she should tone it down a bit.

Tekken 7 is releasing in June and there has been a 9 year gap since the previous canon game so if you can smell my desperation, that’s why.

everyone has that one character in a show they watch where during every ep they’re usually just waiting for that specific character’s scenes to come on and enjoy everything about them from the way they talk to the way they walk and smile whenever that person comes onscreen. a scene without that character in it feels like it’s just missing something and in your eyes they’re the best thing about the show and you don’t want anything bad to happen to them ever

I decimated this village days ago! Just for you…

5

Margherita Lucilla Siani - Overwatch OC: Overview

Ta-daaaa! This post has been stocked in my scraps for like… a decade! I’ve been changing things, names, dates so many times that I have issues myself to remember who and when. But we are finally here!

Some general, basic informations about my Overwatch Child, Margherita. It’s the first time ever I go this deep with an Original Character, so I really hope you like her! More infos, skins and backstory will come soon.

Fancy to tell me if you’d like to play as her? Ahah! I totally would!

I wrote more detailed explanations about her abilities, but I’m gonna hide the rest of the post since I talked too much. LOL

Keep reading

can Lena Luthor’s storyline be Asami Sato-inspired? not this bs of will-she-won’t-she-turn-evil-because-she’s-a-luthor. 

We already have Lex Luthor as Superman’s archenemy. why not try something new and have Lena Luthor be one of Supergirl’s greatest allies and one of Kara Danvers’ trusted friends

because honestly, a Super and a Luthor working together for the greater good has the potential of being one of the most beautiful things that could happen in the show

2

N E G A T I V E  character development; a playlist for wicked characters. The ones we not so secretly love. Their flaws, selfish motives and mistakes is what makes them realistic and relatable. Imperfection is beauty after all.  → listen 

“Heroes are more than just stories, they’re people. And people are complicated; people are strange. Nobody is a hero through and through, there’s always something in them that’ll turn sour… you’ll learn it one day. There are no heroes, only villains who win.”

3

Star Wars Meme - Characters [4/10] → Wilhuff Tarkin

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

anonymous asked:

Hello! I have a plan to get my main character injured by the antagonist. But, since the mc lives, is it better to describe the danger or get the mc injured so he (and the audience) would have no questions about the seriousness of the antagonist?

When to Injure Your MC

If you ask many writers why they beat their characters up so much, the immediate playful answer might be “Because it’s fun!” but there is (or should be) some strategy involved in when and how you injure your main character. So before I answer the question directly, I’m going to discuss these strategies a little.

Reasons to Injure a Character:

1. To create additional challenges in a high-stakes situation

If a character’s journey has been fairly easy to far, an injury is one way to complicate things. But the only way it works is if the injury lasts long enough to really hinder them. 

For instance, if you have a character that has the magical ability to heal others, then a character being injured and then healed two minutes later doesn’t create much of a challenge, nor does it heighten suspense since the character’s life was never truly in danger. So an injury that’s introduced to complicate things should take some time to recover from, and it’s usually more realistic anyway, especially when you consider the tortuous stuff we do to our MCs sometimes.

However, if you do have a healer character, and they’re currently separated from the character you injure, then a challenge is immediately presented. The injured character has to continue their journey through the injury, to either reach their destination or be reunited with the healer that can help them. 

2. To foreshadow a future situation

The situation I described above, where a character is injured and then healed two minutes later, could work, if it’s being used to foreshadow the second situation I described, where the two characters are separated. Showing the healer in action early in the story can foreshadow a later complication when the healer is unable to assist their companion, whether it’s due to a separation or a sudden loss of powers. 

It can also work as exposition to show the way the healer’s power works. 

3. To show the antagonist’s maliciousness 

The anon above suggested they injure their character to show the antagonist means business, and that definitely qualifies as a good reason to injure a character. 

See, when an antagonist hurts a character - and not just an MC, but anyone - they show that they don’t care who gets in their way. They want what they want, and in their opinion, the ends justifies the means. Even when a character isn’t necessarily in their way, and they do it for pleasure, it tells a reader a great deal about the antagonist’s psyche, and how far they’ll go to further their own agenda. 

My only caution here is to be wary of how often you’re using this reason. Often times it becomes easy to justify an antagonist’s plan by saying “They’re evil and they enjoy torturing people.” But villains who are evil just for the pure enjoyment of it grow uninteresting and predictable quickly. So despite the pleasure they get out of hurting people, they must have some greater scheme in front of them. Some ultimate gain that they’re hoping to achieve. A combination of these two things can breed a fascinating antagonist. 

4. To deepen a character bond or relationship

Injuries or illness are great opportunities to write a dynamic where one character is taking care of another, showing how close the two characters are, and how attentively they’ll care for the other. But this dynamic is most compelling when it’s a reversal, such as a little brother taking care of an older one, or when someone who the protagonist has built up to be invincible is suddenly sidelined and needs the protagonist’s help. 

Like the previous reason, i would just be careful how frequently this occurs. Situations like these are more effective when they’re big, and they last long term, rather than several smaller instances where a character keeps getting hurt and cared for. 

There may be other reasons out there to justify injuring a character that I haven’t thought of here, but I can surely tell you one reason not to:

Avoid injuring a character purely for the fun of it. 

Now listen, what you do in your own private writing universe is your own business, and if you want to put your characters through hell because it’s fun, I commend you for finding so much joy in the process of writing and I encourage you to keep at it. But when it comes to finding an audience, and telling a cohesive, well-paced, well-plotted story, you gotta start considering each move you make as a writer, and ask yourself if each plot point needs to be there. 

Back to the anon…

Now that I’ve gone into all this detail, let me get back to the specific question that the anon asked. Since the character ultimately lives, is it better to just show the possible danger, or to actually have the antagonist injure them to show they’re serious?

My answer to you would be that you could injure the character, since your reasoning falls within the reasons I listed here (reason #3), and it would be even better if it qualified for two reasons, such as delaying their progress to achieve their goal (reason #1) or repairing a strained relationship when a companion must take care of them (reason #4). 

Your argument that the character lives (so why bother?) ignores the need for conflict in a story. Readers appreciate conflict, as long as there are logical reasons for it, and if you consider these reasons I discussed, you should be in great shape. 

However, I think that you could show your antagonist’s malicious intentions without injuring the character, if you felt the injury would be too much for an already conflict-heavy plot. The antagonist might show anger/violence towards the people working for them (out of frustration), or even to innocent bystanders, or other minor characters whose fates we’re not as tied up in. So I think there are still options for you if you wanted to avoid an injury. 

-Rebekah

Some days I am absolutely convinced that the Legends of Tomorrow writers room just consists of a bunch of people playing a weird tabletop RPG and writing down whatever happens:

DM: the countdown is nearly up, and NASA is about to discover the time travellers on the moon

Stein’s player: I start singing the ‘Banana Boat Song’

DM: *sighs* roll

vanityfair.com
Sherlock Season 4 Will Be “Big, Chewy,” and Darker than Ever
Co-creator and star Mark Gatiss previews the next installment of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman’s detective juggernaut.
By Darryn King

In Season 4 of Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch’s dashing detective comes up against a new, never-before-encountered adversary. After having outwitted several criminal masterminds, infiltrated a Chinese smuggling ring, uncovered a military conspiracy, foiled a terrorist plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament, and faked his own death, it may be his greatest challenge yet—a baby.

“It’s not Two Men, One Woman and a Baby,” series co-creator Mark Gatiss says of the arrival of John and Mary Watson’s child. “But we do have fun with it. The notion of Sherlock having to be around a baby is just funny and intriguing. Because he would approach it like a case. He would probably read up on it and think, I can do this. But babies aren’t logical.”

Gatiss adds: “But it’s not suddenly some sort of rom com.” He pauses for a moment. “That’s Episode 2.”

That’s a joke—although the creators of Sherlock aren’t averse to barefaced deception. Speaking to Vanity Fair last year in the lead-up to the Sherlock Christmas special, “The Abominable Bride,” Gatiss and fellow show-runner Steven Moffat encouraged the assumption that the episode, set in 19th-century London, was a one-off, stand-alone affair, separate from the series proper.

The truth was slightly more complicated. Much of “The Abominable Bride” turned out to be taking place in Sherlock’s drug-induced imagination, and the “stand-alone special” in fact stood very much alongside the “regular” episodes. It was an elaborate hoax culminating in a meta-twist worthy of a show about fiction’s most celebrated sleuth.

“We lied to you,” Gatiss admits, more gleeful than apologetic.

It helps that Gatiss has the sincere-seeming “soft, precise fashion of speech” originally ascribed to the criminal mastermind Moriarty. A certain amount of cunning comes with the territory: perhaps inevitably for a show awhirl with ingenious riddles and mysteries, Sherlock has inspired a following of would-be detectives obsessed with picking up clues and unraveling the show’s secrets.

Gatiss, who also stars on the show as Sherlock’s brainier brother Mycroft, is determined not only to outwit the Sherlock sleuths, but to also confound the expectations of those who know the old stories. “It’s such a spoilery age,” he says. “People demand things all the time. But, genuinely, if you gave it to them, they’d be disappointed. It’s so wonderful if you can maintain it. It’s marvelous to keep your secrets.”

Among the mysteries fans are currently salivating over is the hinted existence of a third Holmes sibling, possibly named Sherrinford (Gatiss: “Well. We’ll see. The clues are there …”), and the nature of the posthumous return of Sherlock’s arch-nemesis. (“Moriarty is dead,” Gatiss insists, adding, “More importantly, Sherlock knows exactly what he’s going to do next.”)

Spoilers aside, there’ll be the usual astonishments in store in Sherlock Season 4, whose three 90-minute episodes—“The Six Thatchers,” “The Lying Detective,” and “The Final Problem”—will air weekly in the U.S. from January 1 on Masterpiece on PBS. The last episode lifts its title from the original story in which the Sherlock Holmes character was killed off, plummeting off the Reichenbach Falls; the earliest promotional image for the season was of a violin with one of its strings broken.

What’s certain is that the series will feature a new villain in (played by Toby Jones), whom Gatiss has described as “purest evil.”

“The danger with anyone other than Moriarty is you run the risk of them appearing as a diluted version,” he says. “Thus our other villains are very different: Magnussen was a businessman in the Murdoch vein—not evil as far he’s concerned. Just totally amoral. Culverton Smith is different again—you’ll have to wait and see!—but very much a man of these strange, rootless, dark times. What can you not do if you have power?”

Sherlock interacting with the Watson baby promises to be some light relief from what is shaping up to be a more serious and somber fourth season, one that has an “epic scale.” Cumberbatch has called it, approvingly, “myopically dark.”

“What’s very exciting about these three episodes is to really play the repercussions of the last season,” says Gatiss. “There are lots of things that come to fruition this season which we have been seeding for a while. We knew we were going to get here. And, with the things that we’ve been planning, the darkness was sort of inevitable. They’re not things that could have happened any time, and where we get to is a very different place to where we’ve been before. He said, elliptically.”

Even Sherlock, the self-described high-functioning sociopath, continues to develop and evolve from episode to episode. “Sherlock isn’t the same man as when we first encountered him,” says Gatiss. “Sherlock can never be ‘one of us.’ His appeal lies in his otherness. He says things we can’t, sees things we can’t. But we don’t like him if he’s a total prick. We want to believe he can learn from his mistakes and become better at it. Or at least better at seeming like a human being.”

Gatiss also revealed that the season will revisit and elaborate on scenes from the past. “There’s quite a few things that we have retro-engineered to make us look more clever. It’s like a ridiculous tradition now, having to remount something which we shot two years ago.”

Since the third Sherlock season aired in 2014, Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, who plays John Watson, have starred together in the third Hobbit movie, trod the boards in separate Shakespeare stage productions in the U.K., and been conscripted into the Marvel Universe. The three new episodes, Gatiss promises, are worthy of in-demand actors at the apex of their careers. The unique format of the show—long intervals between seasons of three 90-minute episodes each—strongly dictates that there are no “throwaway” or inconsequential episodes.

“If you’re doing movie-length episodes, you can’t just do a ‘story of the week,’ ” says Gatiss. “If we’d done our original plan of six hour-long episodes a season, maybe by now we would have done one where Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade take over for a week, you know—that sort of thing. Because you can. But when you do 90-minute episodes that come out every couple of years, you have to think what you can throw at the characters which makes it a story worth telling.

“Everybody, particularly Benedict and Martin, responded so well to the material,” says Gatiss. “Everyone’s on their top form, and they kind of relished it. This is big, chewy stuff.