No, he's "the best villain of all time" because the film is structured in a way that places him in the usual slot of the protagonist, that is to say, the film is set up to provide Thanos with obstacles and hardships to overcome, and sets the usual heroes as his obstacles.
The protagonist of the story is the main character. The protagonist of a story is the one for whom obstacles are set in their place, that they must overcome to achieve their goals. The protagonist is the one that the story focuses on their viewpoint, their angle, their struggle, their victory.
Again, I am aware of the difference between the "good guy/hero" and the protagonist. That's why I specifically used the word protagonist.
What's frustrating for me is that all villains should have obstacles and hardships to overcome. Marvel villains have been terrible because they refuse to give half of them any real screentime. They generally get one scene to spout off their agenda, another to show they're super mean and evil, and then their finale. Thanos was a villain finally given screentime to show these obstacles and hardships as any good villain should. He's a great Marvel villain because he finally met the bar that has been set for ages, and Marvel villains failed time-and-time again to meet.
This.
I wouldnt say so, but you're not really paying mind to their verbiage: "We sort of..."
Man wait until Feige does Triumph and Torment, the Youtube armchair film doctors will be all over themselves
Agreed. But I'm going to be super edgy here and say that because I go back-and-forth so much between Thanos being the protagonist/not being the protagonist...perhaps they're all protagonists? We switch between point-of-view so much in this story that it's hard for me to say Thanos is the sole protagonist.
I'm a big fan of John August, and he does a great job breaking it all down here.
Who would be the Esther Boserup to Thanos' Malthus in the Avengers universe? Heh
Again, I *really* hate to use Death Note as an example, but it's the most blatant that I can think of.
Do you understand the difference between a protagonist and a main character?
Do you have a quote of them saying this? I only ask because if we break down by Hero, Main Character, and Protagonist, Thanos is easily the Main Character. And I see a lot of articles of them talking about making the movie about Thanos, him leading it, etc. But none where they say he is the protagonist (that I can find). I have no hill to die on and I'm genuinely asking because we're all being so picky that I want to hop in and see if we can all put a definitive pin in this.
If you go by the broad definition of the word he is a protagonist. But if someone doesn't think he is, it doesn't diminish the movie make me lose any sleep over it.
Agreed. And I just read another article and have to agree...Thanos really is the one going on the "Hero's Journey." And even though it has hero in the name, when I think of it from that perspective and his journey to get the stones, I have to concede that he is surely the protagonist.
Well even if you're making a sympathetic villain, you still have to make them definitively *wrong* for them to still be a villain, even if they came to be 'wrong' through good-hearted reasons.
It's still a complete joke, even if we take into account that this only counts "blockbusters". Thanos would be up against the likes of Hannibal Lecter, Michael Corleone and Colonel Kurtz, to name a few.
We are not talking about The Crow here
Um, where does this interview mention anything involving the word "protagonist"?
I mean, if this hill is "protagonist and main character are not the same thing" then yes I absolutely will
What did it for me was:
Along with this from John August:
Thanos travels from Point A to point B literally in his quest for the stones. And I listen to Scriptnotes regularly, and they frequently talk about protagonists not needing to necessarily change as well. There are some protagonists who only re-affirm their already held beliefs throughout a movie, and I think Thanos fits nicely with that as well.
So how would you classify a 'blockbuster movie' then? Because all three movies I mentioned were absolutely huge and ended up in the Top 10 highest grossing movies of their respective release years. Traditionally, blockbuster movies are defined as hugely popular and financially succesful movies, so all three would easily qualify.
Action heavy fast paced movie for a mass audience. Silence of the Lambs being a blockbuster is a very strange assertion to me.
