I don’t like it when villains in movies are just evil for the sake of being evil, that makes a prime example of bad character development and makes the villain really shallow, boring, uninspired, and just plain uninteresting.
And I hate it when the villains motive is the same old same old “tAkE oVeR tHe WoOoOoOrLd Mwahahahahahahahaha!!!”
I really like when the villain actually has a relatable motive, and the viewer is able to sympathise with them. Even better, is a film with no villain at all.
Overall a really tired trope: the villain that’s just simply a villain that wants to take over the world/universe and enslave all of humanity and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Also, how about a film where the good guys lose, sad ending, and the (relatable and well developed) villain wins.
A villain who is “evil for the sake of being evil” and whose ultimate goal is to take over the world may be a tired trope, but it isn’t an unrealistic one. Fact of the matter is that corrupt individuals who seek power for the sake of power exist, even if they aren’t cartoonishly evil.
The “misunderstood” villain is just as tired a trope, and I’d even argue that particularly “relatable” villains have been a trend in the past couple decades. I think you’re looking at this with too much of an absolutist mindset. Yes, some villains are shallow and underdeveloped, but sometimes a villain’s simple characterization is a stylistic choice. What really matters is how the character serves the story.
And I’m not saying that you can’t or shouldn’t have a preference for certain types of characters. I just think it’s good to keep an open mind about these kinds of artistic decisions. Sometimes complexity is a good thing, sometimes simplicity is a good thing, and both can also be bad things if not done well.
And the good guys basically lose in The Empire Strikes Back. 😉