Board Thread:Movie discussion/@comment-13359-20150717132449/@comment-111.68.60.251-20150718111838

Kooshmeister wrote: You are aware I wasn't being literal, right...? Yeah. Thing is, from my point of view, I disagree that most of the audience would think "Yeah Rexy's evil cuz [x]" because I assume that the audience understands that the antagonist dinos are just normal animals and can't be held accountable for their actions. I suppose it's just a difference in how you and me perceive the general audience would see things.

Kooshmeister wrote:

a dinosaur who ate someone that wasn't a villain. I'd argue against that, actually. From what I see, he's an antagonist to the protagonists. Not a villain per se, but he's still one of the antagonistic forces in the film, even when he sides with Hammond later on (for profit, anyways). The movie even goes out of its way to tell the audience that Gennaro isn't someone to root for.

Kooshmeister wrote: As to Indominus, I think branding her as evil is a little unfair. Especially since even if you could engineer "evil," then doing so removes Indominus' choice in the matter. And since, to me, evilness is a choice, then Indominus can't be evil since her behavior is entirely in her predetermined nature, thus, in its own way, instinct (for her), and out of her control. Actually, I was talking from a meta perspective. Rexy is written to be a sort of "force" rather than a clear character. It's clear that whatever she does it out of instinct rather than any kind of sentient malice or goodwill. Well, for Jurassic Park 1, anyways (dat bullshit last scene with Blue is just too much).

Indominus, on the other hand, was clearly written to be the villain. Like the writer pretty much said, "Alright guys, this girl's totally evil. Let's make her clearly malevolent and give her obviously evil features. Let's also make her do all this shit so the audience doesn't get any wrong impressions". You can argue that she's a tragic villain, but it's clear that the writer really wanted to put her in an evil role rather than that of a simple antagonist.