Avi Arad Quotes

Villains are very, very boring to do. They're so much easier than heroes.

For me, in any story that I take, the antagonist is more interesting and multi-dimensional.

In any story, the villain is the catalyst. The hero's not a person who will bend the rules or show the cracks in his armor. He's one-dimensional intentionally, but the villain is the person who owns up to what he is and stands by it.

It is much more fun to write about villains then heroes. The villains are the ones that think out the scheme, and the heroes just kind of come along for the ride.

Sometimes there is more exploration in the character for a villain.

Even with a villain, you don't want him just to be some pockmarked punchbag.

I think that characters who are nice all the time and who you sympathize with can get really boring.

If you don't care for the villain, if you don't love him and hate him at the same time, then he's just boring.

I firmly believe that a story is only as good as the villain.

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.

The villain in superhero movies is often, I think, what makes the movie.

With all due respect to the other writers, I don't want to disparage any other writers; I don't want to have to invent a bigger villain than Deathstroke so Deathstroke can seem heroic fighting this bigger villain. I'd rather just have Deathstroke be who is, and he's kind of a bastard.

Somebody - and I'm going to guess it was Hitchcock - once said that everyone has their reasons. If you remember that, as a writer, you'll write better than average villains.

I think everybody likes to play the villain. They're always much more interesting characters.

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

I don't play the role of a villain, really, but I like playing anti-hero kind of roles. I like characters where there's conflict, drama, and more personal investment than just being heroes.

Well, I don't feel that I've played so many bad guys, and I'm rot really drawn to villains per se. I think a lot of people relate to some of my characters' inner struggles.

'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.

It's as boring to see a completely evil villain as it is to see a completely good guy.

The bad guys are not typical; they are not just bad, they are interesting. They might be good or bad.

The characters you refer to as predatory and unsavory are useful. They're the ones who make a novel into a thriller. They're active, and most of the common virtues, the signs of a good person, are not.

When you're not playing the hero of the story, then you have to know that you're always a foil for the good guy. I love playing that. I think that's always an interesting place to be.

With any good story, you need the adversary, the heroes and villains. You need a good mixture to make it work.

I have been thinking a lot about what we see in villains, how we relate to villains, and what it is about certain villains that we actually empathize with. Like Macbeth. We're not supposed to like a guy who kills the king and takes over, but there's something about him we're really fascinated by.

I've always wanted to play the villain. But the young girl is never the villain.