Hack writers love to write a "villain with a point" who "makes you think" but then they can't figure out how to still make them a villain so they just have them kill a bunch of people so the heroes can be like "killing people is wrong!"
I'd say it's in order to associate the villain's views with evil without actually making an argument, but it's probably just laziness.
i mean it seems to me the way you make that conflict happen is make the 'good guy' the king of the place and make the revolutionary a good guy too. the king has a point that hes a good guy and just wants to fix things in a way not too dissimilar, but the other guy has the point to want to get rid of the king, because who knows if their kid is gonna be on board, or who knows if the bureacracy is good
Hack writers love to write a "villain with a point" who "makes you think" but then they can't figure out how to still make them a villain so they just have them kill a bunch of people so the heroes can be like "killing people is wrong!"
I'd say it's in order to associate the villain's views with evil without actually making an argument, but it's probably just laziness.
i mean it seems to me the way you make that conflict happen is make the 'good guy' the king of the place and make the revolutionary a good guy too. the king has a point that hes a good guy and just wants to fix things in a way not too dissimilar, but the other guy has the point to want to get rid of the king, because who knows if their kid is gonna be on board, or who knows if the bureacracy is good