🔗 Share this article

A recurring motif runs through numerous 2025's genre movies. This concept that stretches all the way back to the days of Charlie Chaplin. In James Gunn’s *Superman*, the antagonist is a envious, ruthless billionaire wielding his vast wealth to defame Earth's superhero icon while orchestrating world events for personal gain. In *Jurassic World: Rebirth*, the villain is a rich pharma-bro spending tens of millions to cast the heroes into a dinosaur-packed arena for his own profit. Within the animated sequel *Zootopia 2*, the wrongdoers are a family of extremely affluent lynxes who stole a well-meaning mother's altruistic invention and set her up for murder, purely for their own profit.

A Lineage of Cinematic Wealth Disparity

In the remake of *The Running Man*, the antagonist plays a rich antagonist running a TV network that earns a fortune by taking advantage of and killing people enduring extreme hardship, while leveraging deepfakes and a sophisticated smear campaign to depict them as greedy, lazy, scary criminals. The Oz-based film *Wicked* doesn’t emphasize economic inequality quite that directly, but its antagonists enjoy clear extravagance while exploiting and abusing Oz's poorest citizens, forcing them out of jobs and toward imprisonment or servitude. *Ne Zha 2*, the year's top box-office hit, pits the scrappy inhabitants of a impoverished farm town against haughty aristocrats who inhabit extravagant sky-high mansions above the clouds. Even, the lighthearted farcical update *The Naked Gun* centers on a billionaire's plan to cause planetary doom — for financial gain, naturally.

It is not inherently notable in a string of movies assuming as fact that the wealthy have disproportionate control, no morals or empathy, and a insatiable, privileged appetite for more wealth. "The wealthy are antagonists and scrappy underdogs are heroes" as a plot device dates back to the early days of film, with the Little Tramp's adventures setting his chronically destitute Little Tramp character against corporate bosses, authority figures, and bumbling wealthy fools. From the Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland "Let’s put on a show" movies from that era to the 1980s dance movies that updated the exact same bit for the era of the exploitative, damaging Silicon Valley antagonist, the entire history of cinema is replete with "eat the rich" stories, which take it for granted that riches is at odds with core morality, and exalt the overthrowing, defeat, and sometimes destruction of elite figures.

The Release That Changes Nothing

However, inexplicably, we never actually consuming the elite. Whenever elected officials react to a public shooting event by blaming popular entertainment, I sigh with frustration, because if people actually were that susceptible — if frequent consumption to an idea via media was enough to allow it to permeate the public consciousness — surely American society wouldn’t still revere billionaires. Still the daily reports demonstrates constantly that a alarming number of Americans instinctively link affluence to smartness and importance, even after decades of cinema's biggest movies promoting the opposite.

Actually, it appears that the endless parade of eat-the-rich storylines in American cinema has created a safety outlet that gets in the way of real-world action. Given a frequent serving of predominantly triumphant stories where the hero prevails, while the billionaires are defanged and humiliated, everyone can walk away content about right prevailing. These movies are like ethical parables, implying that society is just, and that plucky heroes will root out any malicious actors among the largely hard-working, virtuous, deserving wealthy who succeeded by their bootstraps.

An Angrier Edge in 2025

But while 2025's movies do not break new ground in that regard, they do follow some recent trends among class warfare stories: They’re getting more furious, sharper, more direct, and seemingly more lethal. It’s rarely enough in the current era to see rich people learn a useful lesson in humility, like in 1941's *Sullivan's Travels*, or be stripped of wealth to the people they oppressed, like in 1983's *Trading Places*. In 2025, avaricious, malicious rich individuals were eliminated by mythological beasts (*Death of a Unicorn*) and eaten by a enormous hybrid beast (*Jurassic World: Rebirth*). They were blown up on a alien world (*Mickey 17*) and gunned down at close range on national television (*The Running Man*). They were murdered with a improvised weapon (*Companion*) and beaten to death by an rising rival (*Him*).

"Almost none of 2025’s extremely affluent villains get the hauled off to jail conclusion, likely due to it’s become so clear that the wealthy operate under a separate justice system, and are all too likely to negotiate their release."

The "behind bars" resolution no longer satisfies anymore. Conversely, these villains are likely to die at the final act of their movies, often in particularly grotesque, ironic ways.

Key Exclusions

There are exceptions, certainly. The iconic villain in *Superman* is simply disgraced, revealed, and dispatched to prison. Monstrous manipulator Julian Dillinger in *Tron: Ares* finds himself confined to the digital realm, a setup that obviously being saved for future installments. Korda in Wes Anderson's *The Phoenician Scheme* is stripped of all his money and is redeemed as a person. The Lynxley family members in *Zootopia 2* are exposed as culprits, but they don’t meet|avoid