Abbi Glines Quotes

I look for characters that are extremely flawed and the anti-hero.

I love to start characters in a place where you think you know them. We can make all kinds of assumptions about them and think they have no redeeming qualities, but like everyone, they're complex.

A lot of the time, a moral compass is all that separates a hero from being a villain; otherwise, the two are very much the same. Both are generally the richest and most complex characters, and they get to have all the fun. I guess it's those types of roles that I ultimately gravitate towards.

I always tell my students to complicate your characters: never make it easy for the reader. Nobody is ever one thing. That's what makes characters compelling.

What I have learned from working on those great shows is what is the DNA that makes them so deeply involving and interesting for an audience over a long period of time. So much has to do with character, complexity, and sophistication.

What makes a good villain is someone who doesn't just challenge the hero but comes organically out of that character's history and circumstances.

We want our villains and antagonists to have distinct motivations.

The villain of any story is often the most compelling character.

Operas elucidate, in a way sometimes absent in other theatrical productions, the very human fact that in every hero, there is a thread of duplicity. In every villain, there is another side to consider: We don't have to like him or her, but we are compelled to think about motivation.

'3:10 to Yuma' was one that I just kept on talking and thinking about after reading it. And I think the reason is because, like in most Westerns, you have the very clear-cut bad-guy/good-guy, however, as the movie progresses, you kind of see that it's a very fine line that divides these two.

I'm attracted to playing characters that have flaws.

If you think about Shakespeare, you remember Richard III and Macbeth before you remember Ferdinand, whose role is just to fall in love and be a bit of a wimp. I love the baddies. More important, though, is making the baddies somehow, weirdly, understood.

It's fun playing the villain now and again; villains are so simple, and you don't have to worry about the audience loving you.

So the characters that I choose, I like to make sure that they have depth and that they have some sort of bite. It's more fun.

I love to make even villains people you can relate to. When you find out who did it, I think you almost like the person, which is not easy to do.

There's a darkness to Riddick that I think allows people to want him to do bad things because you know Riddick is going to do bad things: that's just the way it is. But I think that at his core, who he is and what he's fighting for is something that everybody can identify with.

In general, I am more interested in the darker characters when I watch or read stories.

Generally speaking, I would say villains are a little more exciting to play, but if you get a flawed hero, then that can almost be just as amazing.

I'm very glad people love 'Breaking Bad,' but the harder character to write is the good character that's as interesting and as engaging as the bad guy.

In my career, I've been lucky to do the bad guys that are more interesting, where the audience wants to spend more time with them and get to know them. That's what I'm always looking for and trying to do.

I find flawed characters much more interesting than perfect ones and enjoy the challenge of making readers root for them in spite of their unsympathetic path and destructive choices.

The character of Cable is complex.

Even the toughest people have a backstory, and villains don't feel like they're the bad guys.

I don't think there are any negative roles anymore. I think we can aptly put such characters under 'anti-hero' tag.

The anti-hero walks the morally gray path and constantly flirts with redemption, and that flirtation is just a blast to write.