A Quote by Patrick Rothfuss

It's one thing to not want an evil-sorcerer type villain in your story, but it's another thing to avoid having any sort of antagonist at all. A story without an antagonist gets weird pretty quick.
In the early days, Jerry was an antagonist, which was arguably his best casting. 'The King's' quick wit is perfectly suited to be an antagonist, but at the same time, he's so funny that it is hard to hate Jerry Lawler as the villain - especially at this stage of his long career.
A villain number is a very valuable thing to have, but if you look at most musicals, one way or another there's an antagonist number.
For me, in any story that I take, the antagonist is more interesting and multi-dimensional.
I would love to, on one project, play a villain. Any kind of villain. Any kind of antagonist. Somebody who's just rotten but fun, or the anti-hero.
But though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can be applied to light. ... Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of human invention, that obscures truth, and represents it in distortion. Truth never envelops itself in mystery, and the mystery in which it is at any time enveloped is the work of its antagonist, and never of itself.
Donna Mills came on the show as a female antagonist, about a year before, so now they wanted to have a male antagonist. I was cast as a Senator to shake things up.
Where you have a villain in the piece or the antagonist, whatever you want to call them, there has to be humanity at the core of it or it's faintly ridiculous. Nobody is just villain through and through. You have to feel something for them.
I think repetition is the hardest thing to avoid with sequels, because you've told a story and now you're adding more story to the story.
It is one thing to be able to state the price the antagonist paid, another to be able to count you own real gains.
Every field piece I did on 'The Daily Show' was a story that lasted five to six minutes. We had a protagonist, we had an antagonist and often put them at odds. We knew the story we wanted to tell before we went in, and often it was about plugging whatever character you have - in this case, a real person - into said part.
I don't judge in my books. I don't have to have the antagonist get shot or the protagonist win. It's just how it comes out. I'm just telling a story.
Evil is relative - and what I mean by that is that our villains are as complex, as deep and as compelling as any of our heroes. Every antagonist in the DC Universe has a unique darkness, desire and drive. And the reason for being of 'Forever Evil' is to explore that darkness.
It's rather disconcerting to sit around a table in a critique of someone else's work, only to realize that the antagonist in the story is none other than yourself, and no one present thinks you're a very likable character.
I don't really have a method or a technical process. I studied [Sanford] Meisner, and that's the thing that really works for me. That sort of instinctual, in the moment, what the other actors do, working off them and letting the story unfold, as opposed to having an idea of what the story should be.
The thing is that my father's story helps to communicate what was at stake with my mother, and my mother and father had so much a partnership that his story is integral to her story, as her story is to his - really, her story can't be told without his story.
Any carefully planned thing destroys the creativity. You can't think your way through a story; you have to live it. So, you don't build a story; you allow it to explode.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!