Which villain would you have a drink with?

[Rath Darkblade]

While Jurassic Park is broadly Man's hubris vs nature, the moving and shaking and biting was a claws-on endeavour by a selection of engineered creatures resembling dinosaurs.

Since my safety is guaranteed, I would want a drink with them, especially the iconic tyrannosaur.

I've never seen Jurassic Park, but I wouldn't call the dinosaurs villains. They just do what dinosaurs do. It's like jumping into a tiger cage at the zoo and expecting it not to eat you.

(And yes, two people once did that ... and ended up on the Darwin Awards. Surprised?)

 

[Stuart Dren]

I've never seen Jurassic Park, but I wouldn't call the dinosaurs villains. They just do what dinosaurs do. It's like jumping into a tiger cage at the zoo and expecting it not to eat you.

It's also a book. Worth a read if you like Crichton.

In my most personal opinion, JP is man vs nature when distilled. I'm fine with viewing an antagonizing man eater as a villain (lion, crocodile, xenomorph, flesh-eating disease--whatever) because I don't think choice is a requirement of villains. I of course am not the authority on the definition.

You could also argue that the competing bio tech company (was it InGen?) or even Hammond himself is the villain since the former set things in motion and the latter facilitated the disaster via his personal failings. I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Hammond would be a lot less intersting to drink with, though.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Fair enough. I haven't read Crichton, but I am of the opinion (and of course I am not an authority, either) that moral choice is a major requirement of villains. If you have the classic "good vs. evil" choice, and you choose "evil" (however it's defined), then you are a villain.

I'm not sure if that's defined as an ethical choice, or a philosophical one, or what have you, but I'm sure everyone knows what I mean. So can we argue that animals, who are (for the most part) concerned with survival - getting enough to eat, somewhere dry to sleep etc. - are concerned with ethics to the point of having developed concepts of good and evil?

I'm sure I'm not the first nor the last to ask this question, and I know The Philosophy Thread is the place for it, but it's interesting nonetheless. If an animal reaches that point, then it can be said to be either heroic or villainous. But from what I've seen, most animals haven't, and so can't be either heroes or villains. (Again, note the word 'most'; I'm trying not to generalize here).

Anyway, enough philosophizing (and I'm sorry to digress). Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

So can we argue that animals, who are (for the most part) concerned with survival - getting enough to eat, somewhere dry to sleep etc. - are concerned with ethics to the point of having developed concepts of good and evil?

Spend some times around equine mares before you start arguing that point.

 

[Dogberry's Watch]

Hammond would be a lot less intersting to drink with, though.

He'd spare no expense, though.

 

[THUNDAIR]

Bo and Luke Duke

 

[Luxuria]

Sure! I would have a tea party with Agrippina the Younger, Lucretzia Borgia, and Livia.

 

[defaux]

John Wick. Is he a villain? He's not exactly a good guy.

Hannibal Lecter.

Can't think of anybody more literary -- mostly what I've been reading lately either doesn't have a real antagonist, or else not one I'd want to meet as you wouldn't trust a word that comes out of their mouth.

 

[DLC]

Dr Gonzo

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Sure! I would have a tea party with Agrippina the Younger, Lucretzia Borgia, and Livia.

Hmm. A tea-and-poison party?

It's uncertain, though, how villainous those three were. Livia was a master (I don't think I should say 'mistress') of ancient Roman politics, the slogan of which is (or should be) "Ruling with a Smile and a Stab". Agrippina the Younger is reputed to have murdered her uncle Claudius with a dish of mushrooms, but we only have Suetonius's word for it. Lucrezia Borgia's reputation rests on the words of uniformly hostile men, who were hostile not only to her but also to her entire family. (To be fair, the Borgia family were not angels). </understatement>

It's possible that those who criticised Livia, Agrippina the Younger and Lucrezia simply did so because they were women ... and even worse, women who committed the unpardonable sin of daring to meddle in politics -- and worse still, be good at it. ;-P

Or, possibly, they were very nasty. But then, show me one politician in history who wasn't ... and survived for more than, say, five minutes.