The sadistic delay

Note: In this post I am using the term "he" instead of "he or she," because it's quicker and because the post more generally involves the actions of male characters than female characters. I am not trying to sideline women. Thank you for your understanding.

I was watching a movie last week -- I don't remember which and it doesn't matter, as you will discover in a moment -- in which a good character survived as a result of a delay in killing him by a bad character. 

I am going to call that moment "the sadistic delay," and I'm going to explain what I mean by that.

(But first: The movie in question wasn't Dune Part Two, but I thought an image of Feyd-Rautha would at least give the post a sense of immediacy. Plus he looks really badass, and whether he's actually guilty of this behavior or not, he's just the sort of villain who would be.)

A "sadistic delay" occurs when a bad character has the opportunity to kill a good character, but does not because he's got to savor the moment before applying the kill. He may only savor the moment for a few seconds, but in doing so, he botches his advantage and allows a third party to save the day, or even the prospective victim to save himself.

This is because bad people like killing too much to do it quickly.

And this has led to the survival of numerous heroes throughout the history of cinema.

Now, when a good character kills, he kills with a grim determination and plenty of regret. He capitalizes on his advantages and kills quickly. And afterwards, it is clear he is disturbed by having had to do this. But the previous transgressions of the the person he killed, in probably a kill-or-be-killed situation, meant there was no other choice.

A bad character?

He gets a sadistic grin on his face. He raises his weapon higher than it needs to be raised. He might throw a bit of triumphant shade at his prospective victim. He might even laugh.

And in that delay, which can last anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes if he wants to deliver a pre-kill victory speech, he usually lets his entire motivation in the movie go unrealized. (Though really, villain speeches are a different category of screenwriting transgression that numerous others have already written about.)

And yet this villain will do the exact same thing next time, if he survives this interaction. 

It's funny how hacky screenwriters can be when they want to be. They're so worried about making sure we know this is a bad character, that they will not resist any opportunity to remind us of this. The other 32 terrible things this person did in the movie? Maybe they don't mean anything if he doesn't preemptively gloat at the key moment of the narrative.

And this can pop up in the most ridiculous of scenarios. A villain can be getting beaten terribly in a battle, having lost most of his army or other support structures, and to any impartial observer would appear to be on the verge of utter defeat.

But if he thinks he has a moment where he is absolutely sure to finally kill this hero who has been getting the better of him?

Cue that sadistic grin and that sudden unwarranted confidence that totally misunderstands the dynamics of the current situation.

Because this person has a taste for killing, and perhaps this will be the most satisfying kill he has ever performed.

I say, savor it after the fact when you have already nuked the city or gotten the magic amulet. There will be plenty of time to gloat later on.

And they tell us villains are supposed to be smart.