🔗 Share this article

An age-old idea runs through a host of 2025's blockbuster hits. This notion which extends all the way back to the time of the Little Tramp. Within the DCU reboot *Superman*, the antagonist is a greedy, heartless billionaire wielding his enormous resources to smear Earth's greatest hero while orchestrating world events for his own profit. Within the dinosaur sequel *Rebirth*, the villain is a wealthy pharmaceutical heir squandering a fortune to trap the heroes into a prehistoric death trap to boost his wealth. Within the animated sequel *Zootopia 2*, the wrongdoers are a clan of super-wealthy lynxes who stole a altruistic inventor's beneficial creation and pinned the blame on her for murder, all for their own profit.

A Tradition of Film Wealth Disparity

Within the dystopian thriller *The Running Man*, the antagonist plays a rich antagonist operating a TV network that earns a fortune by preying upon and eliminating people living in abject destitution, while employing deepfakes and a sophisticated media apparatus to label them as greedy, lazy, scary criminals. *Wicked: For Good* doesn’t emphasize wealth disparity as overtly, but its villains reside in obvious luxury while preying upon and oppressing Oz's disadvantaged inhabitants, forcing them out of jobs and into cages or slavery. *Ne Zha 2*, the year's number one movie, contrasts the resourceful people of a struggling farm town against condescending upper classes who live in extravagant gold-and-jade palaces above the clouds. Even, the lighthearted farcical update *The Naked Gun* centers on a billionaire's plot to bring about planetary doom — for his own profit, needless to say.

There’s nothing particularly surprising in a series of movies assuming as fact that the affluent have disproportionate control, are devoid of conscience, and a endless, demanding appetite for greater riches. "The wealthy are antagonists and everyday folks are heroes" as a concept dates back to the early days of film, with Chaplin’s silent movies contrasting his always poor iconic vagrant against fat cats, authority figures, and inept, drunken millionaires. Beginning with the Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland "Let’s put on a show" movies from that era to the 1980s dance movies that refreshed that very premise for the era of the exploitative, damaging entrepreneurial bad guy, the complete chronicle of cinema is replete with "eat the rich" stories, which presume that affluence is contrary to core morality, and exalt the defusing, defeat, and sometimes destruction of powerful, wealthy people.

The Catharsis That Alters Little

Nevertheless, inexplicably, we consistently fail to consuming the elite. Whenever lawmakers react to a new mass shooting event by pointing fingers at graphic media, I sigh with frustration, because if people really were that impressionable — if regular exposure to an idea via media was enough to allow it to permeate the collective psyche — surely American society wouldn’t still worship billionaires. And yet the headlines makes it obvious regularly that a frightening percentage of Americans innately equate riches with smartness and value to society, even after decades of the world's most beloved movies communicating the reverse.

In fact, it looks as though the constant stream of class-conscious storylines in American cinema has given us a relief valve that impedes real-world action. Provided with a regular dose of predominantly triumphant tales where the everyman triumphs, while the billionaires are neutralized and shamed, everyone can leave the theater satisfied about good conquering evil. These stories are like moral fairy tales, suggesting that institutions function, and that resourceful individuals will weed out any malicious actors among the generally industrious, moral, worthy wealthy who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

An Angrier Edge in 2025

Even though 2025's movies aren’t new in that sense, they do follow some modern developments among anti-wealth stories: They’re getting angrier, more incisive, more specific, and apparently more lethal. It’s rarely enough these days to see rich people be taught a lesson in empathy, like in 1941's *Sullivan's Travels*, or forfeit their fortune to the people they exploited, like in 1983's *Trading Places*. In 2025, selfish, cruel affluent villains were killed by mythological beasts (*Death of a Unicorn*) and eaten by a colossal prehistoric creature (*Jurassic World: Rebirth*). They were blown up on a alien world (*Mickey 17*) and gunned down directly on a broadcast (*The Running Man*). They were stabbed to death with a wine opener (*Companion*) and bludgeoned by an up-and-coming rival (*Him*).

"Very few of 2025’s extremely affluent villains get the packed into a police car conclusion, likely due to it’s become so obvious that the wealthy function with different standards, and are very likely to buy their way out."

The "behind bars" outcome no longer satisfies anymore. Rather, these villains are prone to perish at the final act of their movies, often in notably grotesque, ironic ways.

Key Exceptions

A few stories differ, certainly. The iconic villain in *Superman* is only disgraced, revealed, and dispatched to prison. Evil mastermind Julian Dillinger in *Tron: Ares* finds himself confined to the computer world, a setup that obviously being saved for a follow-up film. 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 thieves and liars, but they don’t meet|avoid