We can have a little revenge. As a treat.

48 comments

I'm just tired of the trope of the person looking for vengeance getting right up to the point of killing the object of their revenge and then stopping because "it will make me just as bad as you." No it won't! The movie has made it very clear that he's an evil son of a bitch! Kill the fucker!
- Plus the hero killed like thirty goddamn people along the way to the big bad guy. Some of those guys had families too, asshole! You're already a monster!
  
  And if you let him live, he's just going to keep killing other people eventually. All you win is a moral high ground for barely 5 minutes after the credits roll. Monsters are really good at convincing themselves that they're not monsters!
- Or you have Booker Dewitt who's like "oh I was a Pinkerton and I killed natives I hate myself" while killing everyone on the screen in increasingly comical ways and drowning himself before drowning himself.
- I think it was well done in The Last of Us 2
  
  Warning: massive spoilers below
  I loved the last episode of The Last of Us. I loved that he wasn't about to make that sacrifice, even if it was for the fate of humanity. I loved that he was willing to kill everyone in the building to save his daughter, or whatever you'd call her. It was such an amazing direction to take, because nobody ever takes that direction.
  
  I'm not a gamer, but I'll take your word for it.
  
  There are legitimate criticisms for that game, but whenever anyone brings up “ReVENge baD” as the criticism it just makes me angry. It’s like they already made up their minds about all of the characters and were just too stubborn to change their minds during the story.
- That's not exactly what it's trying to say... It's a detante of a subtler version of the aphorism "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind." Regardless of if the person deserves it or not, "If I kill you in cold blood while I have you at my mercy, it will change me for the worse."
  Once the wretch is powerless and begging you for their survival, would you really just end them? You're the one that has to live with that.
  
  Is there any indication they've actually changed? Usually not. They just don't like that consequences are happening to them, personally, and so they're crying about it. Most of the time they had no problem killing innocent people or sending their own goons to die trying to stop the hero from getting to them, the tears and emotional manipulation are just the last ditch effort.
  And if you spare them they'll probably do it all over again.
- Well there's one country in the world currently taking this approach and..... it's being met with mixed feedback.
  I agree though, kill the bad guy and don't waste time talking to them about it first.
  
  If we're thinking of the same country, it'd be like the bad guy using a bystander as a human shield and the person seeking revenge just goes ahead and stabs them both; not exactly what we'd expect from the "good guy".
  
  I wouldn't expect it to happen in the real world, but we're talking movies here.

travel for two weeks
lose 3 party members
finally arrive and defeat the villain
"Nah, I don't really feel like it"

I think you have to find the line where revenge can do more harm than good, and where revenge is just going to end the arc (so to speak)
In Montoya's case it brings the killing to an end, because The Count (as far as we know) has no one to miss him, no one to seek vengeance for him and no one to get pissed that he is dead. So when Montoya stabs him that's it -- The Count is dead, Montoya's need for vengeance is satisfied and the story is done.
But if you go to something like Romeo and Juliet (or West Side Story because I can remember the character names), then getting revenge there just causes the cycle of violence to continue.
Bernardo stabs Riff. Tony stabs Bernardo. Chico goes looking for Tony, and eventually shoots him. And then -- at the end, the two gangs want revenge.
Now clearly if Maria kills Chico for him shooting Tony, it won't bring Tony back, but it will cause more anger in The Sharks.
And if The Jets kill Chico for shooting Tony, then it won't bring Tony back, but it will cause more anger in The Sharks.
And if The Sharks get revenge for Bernardo's death by taking out Ice, then it won't bring back Bernardo, but...... you get the idea.
Which is why Maria says "no", and tells them to let it go. She might loathe Chico and want him to pay for Tony's death, but killing him won't help.
I grew up with West Side Story and Xena, so I am more on the "don't kill people for revenge" side of things.
Not that I am saying Montoya was in the wrong, of course :)
- It was such a powerful scene for Montoya as well and the post by OP is missing the context.
  Count offers him money and power at the request of him cementing that both of those mean nothing to him. It stresses how much he wants his father back.
  Then you have the real world where Mandy pulled the emotion from his own father being taken from him (by cancer?)
  Finally. This was a kids movie. You go through the whole movie with PG dialogue to be dropped that bomb. Less is more when it comes to swears.
  
  "Son of a bitch" is pretty tame as swears go, particularly in the 80s where even G kids' movies would probably be pushing PG-13 these days. I do agree having otherwise clean dialogue does increase the impact when it's used, but I'd argue that it's Mandy that really sells it. There's a lot of real pain, loss, and anger behind that line when Mandy speaks it, and that gives it some serious weight.
- I think a key point of that, though, is don't start killing for revenge. Like comments above, if you kill 30 underlings to get to the boss you are seeking revenge against, and then stop that revenge right before killing them, you aren't exactly taking a moral high ground.
  
  The saying is "Before setting out on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Maybe we should pump up that number a bit.

Revenge is an imperfect mechanism to accomplish the real good of stopping those that harm people.
- "To The Pain" is a much better solution as it leaves a lasting example and warming to others.
  "'To the pain' means that the first thing you lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists, next your nose... The next thing you lose will be your left eye, followed by your right. [...] Your ears you keep, and I'll tell you why: so that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish; every babe that weeps at your approach; every woman who cries out, 'Dear God! What is that thing?' will echo in your perfect ears. That is what 'to the pain' means; it means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery, forever."
  — Westley, The Princess Bride
  
  While I tend to agree from an emotional and comeuppance perspective, stuff like zero tolerance laws a d "law and order" policies tend to show tackling the source and causes of crime for most to be more effective than a harsh punishment, with similar things with rehabilitation. That said, some people just gotta die. For everyone else's sake, or they just keep repeating their actions.

See also: Kill Bill
- And Deadpool

I feel like this is where The Northman shines.

Certainly not moral, belivieng that pain should be avoided or respect for life itself.
I prefer the old logic.

48 comments