The Cartoon Hero Presents: Disney's Tarzan from Cartoon Hero on Vimeo.
And thus Six's character arc is complete. What he does now will be interesting.It was the Filmation Tarzan series that locks his character in my mind, and unlike any of the movies and TV shows it was, or so I've heard, the most faithful to the book. For example Tarzan and Jane do not get together on their first meeting but a later encounter the Filmation show never got to, plus various jungle language words showed up in that version. If you aren't bothered by their animation it's worth checking out.
Wait. Hold on. You think Clayton is a bad villain, because..... he's too villainous? Um.I know that the criticism you're TRYING to express is that there isn't much depth to his motivations or character, but when you explain your reasoning as to why that's the case, that's literally the only thing you mention as an example and reason. That he's obviously a villain and there's no decency in him. That's all you say there, despite pointing out that it's obvious and that somehow this is what robs you of thinking he's a good villain.Well to be honest, I think you're incorrect on that generalized view to begin with, and just basically trying to force this notion that there can only be ONE TYPE of villain... a sympathetic one who is deep, as if that's the only good way to go about it, and nothing else is.Kefka from Final Fantasy VI and Luca Blight from Suikoden II, and even other villains like Cruella deVille are AMAZING villains, as well as incredibly well-regarded ones in general, and their motivations are NEVER deep, if there even is any. There's also scores of other other one-note, shallow villains who are effective because they are meant to represent this shallow, unrepentant evil. They're obvious from the moment you see them, possess no positive aspects to them whatsoever, and are pretty one-note in the motivation and demeanor department. But that's why those two examples and many more are actually great.... in their OWN way. They have absolutely nothing good in them, they are obvious from the beginning, and they only serve the purpose of making you hate them and their cruelty that you cannot reason with, and you cannot understand or empathize with. And if you were to ask me what is the substantial difference between a villain like that and Clayton, I can say... there really is none. It's like saying Jaws was a terrible villain because he was a shark that just killed anything in front of him. That's the point and why Jaws is effective as an unreasonable, giant killer shark that only exists to do one thing: Kill.So again, I absolutely don't agree with your argument or where it comes from or the way you stated it, even with your comparison to one other villain that happens to BE the only type of villain you seem to say, (at least in this review) that can exist in a work: For them to be multi-layered, deep, or for it to be a surprise halfway into the story, and I find that to be an ironically one-note and shallow assessment and one that kind of misses the point.No, Clayton is the embodiment of the unreasonable and non-negotiable unfeeling bloodlust of man, and thematically, that is the antithesis of the character Tarzan is shown to be. Even despite being raised by "animals". Clayton only sees Gorillas as mindless beasts to be hunted who can only do things like kill and therefore it is supposed to be ironic that HE is the type of "one-note beast" he thinks the gorillas are. Being that ironically devoid of humanity himself, IS the point of his character, which you dismiss as a "badly written detriment", to the point that I think you're missing the point of the whole thing. (cont)
He's honestly a perfect opposite parallel to Tarzan himself, the same kind of man who defended someone that shot at Tarzan's ape-family from Kerchak who tried to retaliate with murdering Clayton back, even though Clayton won't show that kindness back to Tarzan because he is cruel, shallow and one-note, representing what Tarzan is not. That is a VERY viable way for a villain to be a good villain and I don't think you're giving the movie the credit it deserves for clearly, intentionally doing that with him.So no, in terms of the story and being the thematic opposite of someone like Tarzan who has with morals and understanding.... Clayton is a great villain for this story because he simply does not and that's it. A good villain doesn't have to just fit in one single possible category the way you seem to present, and that's why I can't agree with you, here and I think you grandly misinterpreted the entire thing.
Someone's a little upset.
Your comment is very deep dude.