Christopher Priest Quotes

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

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.

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 don't think you can play a villain with a negative point of view.

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.

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

In all our pictures, we had an antagonist who becomes the good guy, and the underdog fulfills his quest.

Good guy' or 'bad guy', hero or anti hero; doesn't matter to me, what role I play, only the character have something magical.

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.

I don't believe in anti-heroes. Duke Wayne played a mean guy but never an anti-hero.

I played characters with villainous aspect. But out-and-out villain? No.

You know, the best-laid plans of mice and men... I like playing bad guys, and I don't have a problem doing that. They're interesting characters, and there's as many different kinds of bad guys as there are good guys - they're rich, they're strong, they're powerful, and so that's fine with me.

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

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

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've always had antiheroes in my film.

Nobody wants to play the antihero.

The script of 'Shaapit' was such that the leading man couldn't be shown indulging into anything heroic.

Bad guys are always fun. It's one of the reasons why I love McKay so much.

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.

I have played bad-guy roles, but they were significant to the story.

The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) has done things that are far more heinous than anything Grant Ward has ever done as far as we know, and yet, at the end of the movie, you're rooting for him to come back on the side of the angels.

Whenever I have tried to make a character bad, they end up being good in some way.

It seems to me that most characters, in anything, are flawed in some way, just like most people. You look for the good in the flawed people and vice versa, and then try and make them appealing in some way.

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