Villains have always been a staple of storytelling, the ultimate obstacle for heroes to overcome.
But today’s television landscape has turned the idea of the villain on its head, replacing the stark black-and-white moral divide of the past with something more complex.
Gone are the days of purely evil opponents.
Instead, we are in an age of compassionate sinners—sinners whose actions, no matter how heinous, stem from motives we can understand without being completely sympathetic.
So what triggered this shift? Why do audiences now root for antiheroes—or at least try to understand the paths that lead them to darkness?
Let’s take a deeper look at how TV villains have evolved and why this shift resonates with today’s audiences.
Villains of the Past: Simpler Times, Simple Evil
In the early days of television, villains were purely evil caricatures. J.R. Ewing from Dallas and Alexis Carrington from Dynasty orchestrated their notoriety, but their motivations rarely transcended greed, power and revenge.
They’re unapologetically brutal and fun to watch but offer no complexity.
Even animated villains lean toward this simplicity.
Skeletor from “He-Man” and Gargamel from “Smurfs” are cartoonishly evil without any redeeming qualities. This worked for the time, allowing viewers to clearly differentiate between good and bad and find a hero worth rooting for.
But audiences eventually grew tired of this one-dimensional portrayal. They crave villains that feel real—messy, flawed, disturbingly resonant.
The Turning Point: Complex Villains Take Over
The 1990s and 2000s ushered in a new generation of villains.
The Sopranos’ Tony Soprano isn’t just a gangster, he’s a husband and father who battles depression. Walter White in “Breaking Bad” didn’t start out as a protagonist, he became one out of desperation and uncontrolled pride.
The characters are not likable in the traditional sense, but they are easy to relate to. Their actions make us uncomfortable, forcing us to question our own ethics while supporting them.
This shift reflects a cultural moment.
Therapeutic culture and growing mental health awareness encourage a deeper exploration of character motivations. Villains don’t need to be likable, but they need to be human.
Sympathetic Villains and the Modern Era
Today’s TV villains have taken complexity to a new level. Ozzie Cobb in “Penguin” is a typical example.
Early on, viewers speculated that he might be jumping on the antihero bandwagon, but as the series unfolded, Cobb revealed himself to be the embodiment of evil—a villain who thrives on power and manipulation, and does so without apology.
In contrast, Sofia Falcone delivers an antihero role that subverts expectations and adds a fascinating moral complexity to Gotham’s dark world.
Other shows in recent years have followed this trend.
Jessica Jones gave us Kilgrave, a terrifying predator whose backstory added depth to his horrific actions. Killing Eve brings us Villanelle, a highly trained assassin who combines charm, intelligence and vulnerability.
Even BoJack Horseman redefined this archetype, presenting a deeply flawed protagonist whose self-destruction made him his own worst enemy.
Why do these characters resonate? Because they are related.
Villains with understandable motivations feel more real, and the audience can see their own fears, desires, or struggles in them.
They challenge our sense of morality, making us question why we root for characters like Dexter in “Dexter” or Joe Goldberg in “U” even when their actions are morally indefensible feet.
Redemption Arc: Saving the Unsavable
The rise of the redemption arc is another key factor in the villain’s evolution. Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones is a prime example.
He emerges as a morally bankrupt villain, but his character undergoes profound growth, earning sympathy through his vulnerability and eventual transformation.
But not every villain is destined for redemption.
Breaking Bad‘s Gosflin remains unflinchingly sinister, proving that complexity doesn’t always require change.
Likewise, Ozzie Cobb in “Penguin” showed us that some villains are irredeemable – and that’s okay.
These arcs remind us that villains don’t need to be likable to be fascinating. Whether they grow in darkness or remain steadfast, their complexity fascinates us.
While this trend adds depth to storytelling, it’s not without risks.
Shows like “Dahmer” have faced backlash for humanizing real-life killers, raising ethical concerns about glorifying true crime villains.
Likewise, you have a tenuous relationship with Joe Goldberg, a predator whose charm and inner monologue threaten to romanticize his actions.
If treated carefully, these stories force us to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature. But if not handled properly, they can blur the line between understanding villains and forgiving them.
Villains on television have come a long way from the one-dimensional caricatures of the past.
Today’s morally ambiguous adversaries reflect a world that recognizes the complexity of human behavior.
From the unapologetic evil of Ozzie Cobb to the reluctant heroism of Sofia Falcone, these characters explore morality, justice, and power in greater depth.
They remind us that the best villains are more than just obstacles to heroes—they’re mirrors that force us to confront our own capacities for good and evil.
Where do you stand?
What are your thoughts on television’s shift from purely evil villains to sympathetic sinners?
Are you interested in a character like Ozzie Cobb, or do you prefer the unapologetic charm of a classic villain like J.R. Ewing?
Share your favorite TV villains in the comments and let’s dig into the line between villainy and humanity.
