Char Aznable was the main antagonist in Mobile Suit Gundam and I always cheered for him. Amuro was such an angsty teenager that it was hard to sympathise with him compared to the charismatic and tragic figure of Char.
Ever Cheer For the Bad Guy?
- Thread starter Julianking93
- Start date
In the archetypal good-versus-evil fanfare? Rather often. I've got sort of a weird outlook on the way most plots tend to be: the good guys represent tradition and the good ol' days, whereas the bad guys are progressive and, while misguided, making an effort to change the world as they see fit instead of enforcing the status quo.
Another thing that turns me against the good guys is the fact that the heroes are usually not very well-developed; I guess most directors figure "hey, they want the same thing you want, right? That's all you need to know," and forget to create a three-dimensional protagonist. The bad guy, however, usually has to try justifying his actions at some point, and that means he'll have extra consideration put into his character about his motivations and everything else, which is usually a dimension deeper than the protagonists. This causes the villain to be the most well-crafted and interesting character in the plot, and therefore, the guy I'd like to see come out on top.
Most importantly, I can always relate to the villain better than the protagonist. The hero always fights for some bullshit that's never worked for me, and doesn't really work all that well for anybody else, for that matter: love, the status quo, the government, doing what's "right", and a bunch of other stuff that would be great causes to rally behind in a world far more perfect than this one. The hero makes some pretty serious decisions in the name of silly ideas, and it either makes their thought process very difficult to comprehend, or makes them seem very, very simple-minded, neither of which is terribly endearing. It doesn't make me want to get to know that person, let alone cheer for them to succeed. The villain, however, can usually be counted on to fall into one of four categories, and I like all of them:
1) The villain is disenfranchised and downtrodden, which causes him/her to lash out at society in retaliation for perceived persecution that we've all felt before. Not only can we relate to the feelings of being rejected, ostracized and/or persecuted, but if it's done well enough, the villain becomes downright pitiable.
2) The villain is overly human. Good-versus-evil movies have this recurring theme where the good guys represent what the ideal human is, while the bad guy is a very blunt depiction of what a human being really is, although to a much more severe degree. It's supposed to carry this pretentious message of "honor, dignity and selflessness are what make the world go round", but it's usually just put out there for us to take at face value instead of being explored. This causes us to see two things: the hero is what society wants us to be, and the villain is who we are. We've acted like the villain many more times than we've acted like the hero, and we go, "hey, that asshole in the cape is trying to kill me." Plus, in this instance, the villain usually acknowledges their amorality and refuses to apologize for it, which is kind of like a little wish-fulfillment fantasy character for us to project ourselves onto when we wish we could act out every vile impulse that comes to mind.
3. The villain is insane. This one can go either way for me. I typically only gravitate towards the more whimsical and insipid of insane villains (think of the Joker, back when he would steal a child's report card and skip off gleefully shouting "ha, ha, I made someone cry!"). There's no need to over-analyze the whimsical sort of kook, because they're purely entertaining. Their personalities are bright, vibrant, and often with a sobering dark edge to them when the shit hits the fan. They're a one-man/woman band that can carry the entire plot forward on their shoulders because they're equal parts adult and child, which makes their capacity for both hilarious comedy and grievous tragedy readily apparent. The always-chaotic-evil-type insane villains, however, are typically ones that cause me to shrug and forget about them, because their insanity is often just an excuse for them to do shitty things the hero has to fix, without having to write dialog explaining the reasoning behind it.
4) The villain is out for revenge due to personal tragedy, and will not rest until he gets it. Now, these guys have simple motivation, but they represent the complex affliction of obsession. When it's poorly done, it's just another excuse by a lazy writer for the villain to do bad shit, but when it's done well, the villain is typically portrayed as someone who has suffered a lot of losses, and what would have been their arbitrary license to fuck shit up becomes a tragic story of someone trying to cling to the last vestiges of their sanity by focusing in on the idea that committing their evil act will bring them some semblance of peace. Panicky, unstable, and constantly teetering on the brink of soul-crushing despair, they remind us of the lowest point of our lives, and how we can't really say that we would've done things much differently, were we in their shoes. As a result, they're believable human beings who were pushed to the breaking point, and they quickly establish themselves as being equal parts victim and perpetrator. In other words, infinitely more interesting than the slogan-spewing, gun-twirling douchebag that had an easy ride through life because the forces of fate decided to deal him an unusually good hand.
tl;dr yes
Another thing that turns me against the good guys is the fact that the heroes are usually not very well-developed; I guess most directors figure "hey, they want the same thing you want, right? That's all you need to know," and forget to create a three-dimensional protagonist. The bad guy, however, usually has to try justifying his actions at some point, and that means he'll have extra consideration put into his character about his motivations and everything else, which is usually a dimension deeper than the protagonists. This causes the villain to be the most well-crafted and interesting character in the plot, and therefore, the guy I'd like to see come out on top.
Most importantly, I can always relate to the villain better than the protagonist. The hero always fights for some bullshit that's never worked for me, and doesn't really work all that well for anybody else, for that matter: love, the status quo, the government, doing what's "right", and a bunch of other stuff that would be great causes to rally behind in a world far more perfect than this one. The hero makes some pretty serious decisions in the name of silly ideas, and it either makes their thought process very difficult to comprehend, or makes them seem very, very simple-minded, neither of which is terribly endearing. It doesn't make me want to get to know that person, let alone cheer for them to succeed. The villain, however, can usually be counted on to fall into one of four categories, and I like all of them:
1) The villain is disenfranchised and downtrodden, which causes him/her to lash out at society in retaliation for perceived persecution that we've all felt before. Not only can we relate to the feelings of being rejected, ostracized and/or persecuted, but if it's done well enough, the villain becomes downright pitiable.
2) The villain is overly human. Good-versus-evil movies have this recurring theme where the good guys represent what the ideal human is, while the bad guy is a very blunt depiction of what a human being really is, although to a much more severe degree. It's supposed to carry this pretentious message of "honor, dignity and selflessness are what make the world go round", but it's usually just put out there for us to take at face value instead of being explored. This causes us to see two things: the hero is what society wants us to be, and the villain is who we are. We've acted like the villain many more times than we've acted like the hero, and we go, "hey, that asshole in the cape is trying to kill me." Plus, in this instance, the villain usually acknowledges their amorality and refuses to apologize for it, which is kind of like a little wish-fulfillment fantasy character for us to project ourselves onto when we wish we could act out every vile impulse that comes to mind.
3. The villain is insane. This one can go either way for me. I typically only gravitate towards the more whimsical and insipid of insane villains (think of the Joker, back when he would steal a child's report card and skip off gleefully shouting "ha, ha, I made someone cry!"). There's no need to over-analyze the whimsical sort of kook, because they're purely entertaining. Their personalities are bright, vibrant, and often with a sobering dark edge to them when the shit hits the fan. They're a one-man/woman band that can carry the entire plot forward on their shoulders because they're equal parts adult and child, which makes their capacity for both hilarious comedy and grievous tragedy readily apparent. The always-chaotic-evil-type insane villains, however, are typically ones that cause me to shrug and forget about them, because their insanity is often just an excuse for them to do shitty things the hero has to fix, without having to write dialog explaining the reasoning behind it.
4) The villain is out for revenge due to personal tragedy, and will not rest until he gets it. Now, these guys have simple motivation, but they represent the complex affliction of obsession. When it's poorly done, it's just another excuse by a lazy writer for the villain to do bad shit, but when it's done well, the villain is typically portrayed as someone who has suffered a lot of losses, and what would have been their arbitrary license to fuck shit up becomes a tragic story of someone trying to cling to the last vestiges of their sanity by focusing in on the idea that committing their evil act will bring them some semblance of peace. Panicky, unstable, and constantly teetering on the brink of soul-crushing despair, they remind us of the lowest point of our lives, and how we can't really say that we would've done things much differently, were we in their shoes. As a result, they're believable human beings who were pushed to the breaking point, and they quickly establish themselves as being equal parts victim and perpetrator. In other words, infinitely more interesting than the slogan-spewing, gun-twirling douchebag that had an easy ride through life because the forces of fate decided to deal him an unusually good hand.
tl;dr yes
hehe, well last time i remember cheering for "Whiplash" in Iron man 2
I try sometime, but the bad guy is usually so retarded that basically gives the good guy all the time in the world to win, but the protagonist is almost as retarded "almost". The protagonist finally figures it out in the end and wins.
with the slight exception of the blonde chick who was helping Jamie Foxx's character(who didn't really have anything to do with the cope out with the criminals) Im with you all the way.Cheveyo said:
what this guy ^ said.MelasZepheos said:
Sometimes when Im watching wrestling I want the heels to win.(its all scripted I know you don't need to tell me) Anyway aside from the wrestling thing and the two above it I mostly cheer for the good guys.
I wanted Shrek to die since about he became friendly in the first movie... 4 movies later and he's still around...
Any villain played by Gary Oldman immediately commands my respect and awe. Just because it's Gary Oldman.
I rooted for Darth Caedus in the Star Wars EU series. His motivations and reasoning were just....right.
Megaman Legends series. I always, always, ALWAYS rooted for the Bonnes. They spent all their time building robots from scraps, creating huge war machines that they cherished as family, just to see them destroyed by Megaman. Plus, they were a united family, and you can see that if you played "Misadventures of Tron Bonne." You play the game in a battlesuit called Gustaff. In Megaman Legends 2, you have to fight Tron Bonne in the same battlesuit, which is almost a character on its own, and blow it up. Right after it helped you.
Also, the Gesellschaft airship. Misadventures of Tron Bonne is all about earning money to pay a loan due to the airship's cost. You spend all your time in that ship; it's your only home. If you play Megaman Legends after Misadventures, you'll have to friggin' destroy that airship you worked so hard for and loved so much.
Screw Megaman Volnutt. He's an idiot. Go Tron, Teisel, and Bon! The Bonnes! Oh, did I mention they were orphans?
Also, the Gesellschaft airship. Misadventures of Tron Bonne is all about earning money to pay a loan due to the airship's cost. You spend all your time in that ship; it's your only home. If you play Megaman Legends after Misadventures, you'll have to friggin' destroy that airship you worked so hard for and loved so much.
Screw Megaman Volnutt. He's an idiot. Go Tron, Teisel, and Bon! The Bonnes! Oh, did I mention they were orphans?
In the movies most of the time I'm hoping that the villains win for once (especially Avatar). can't really say much for villains in games and books, though.
Sauron.
But, seriously, Randall Flag in The Stand. He was actually rebuilding in Vegas, and in Boulder, they just sat on their collective ass, singing the anthem and worrying about an insane old woman.
But, seriously, Randall Flag in The Stand. He was actually rebuilding in Vegas, and in Boulder, they just sat on their collective ass, singing the anthem and worrying about an insane old woman.
In Avatar I wanted the humans to win. Is it just me or are the blue monkeys the most unlikable characters in a movie you're supposed to be sympathizing with.
The humans had god damn BATTLE MECHS and SPACE MARINES. What did the smurfs have? Oh, Dragonhawks and bows and arrows. How "cool". Not to mention the girl the main character falls in love with is so obnoxious I'm normally laughing when something's supposed to be serious. She's not even hot to make up for it. But you know who's super-hot? The human pilot. So that's 2 for the Humans, 0 for the Na'vi.
Jake Sully was a total asshole who completely betrayed his race that could have used the planet for colonization to escape from Earth, suffering from over-population. All for his ability to walk as an Avatar.
Not to mention the Na'vi aren't really the epitome of peace and perfection. Seriously, getting pissed off your giant tree (that's only significance is that it's some type of religious shrine) is going to get destroyed when you could easily just adapt and go to a new one, is really stupid, especially when considering the humans were trying to be diplomatic. Think of it this way, if some random superpower came and destroyed your country's capital, but would allow you to live in peace and independence afterwards, would you get all up in arms about it? Or start fucking sobbing? I wouldn't.
Oh, and speaking of the Na'vi being annoying, did anyone else die of laughter when they started chanting "Eyah, Eyah, Eyah" and that old witch-docter woman started doing, like, psychadelic dance moves? And everyone was sitting Indian style doing this crazy dance thing. When I was in school and we watched this, me and all the people around me agree'd it was really funny and anti-dramatic.
HEY! And why the HELL is it acceptable or even fair to just bring in the friggen wild life to battles with you? Seriously, why on God's earth would a fucking animal you've been hunting for YEARS AND YEARS come to join you to help you fight a battle? It doesn't work that way!
God I hate James Cameron..
/rage.
The humans had god damn BATTLE MECHS and SPACE MARINES. What did the smurfs have? Oh, Dragonhawks and bows and arrows. How "cool". Not to mention the girl the main character falls in love with is so obnoxious I'm normally laughing when something's supposed to be serious. She's not even hot to make up for it. But you know who's super-hot? The human pilot. So that's 2 for the Humans, 0 for the Na'vi.
Jake Sully was a total asshole who completely betrayed his race that could have used the planet for colonization to escape from Earth, suffering from over-population. All for his ability to walk as an Avatar.
Not to mention the Na'vi aren't really the epitome of peace and perfection. Seriously, getting pissed off your giant tree (that's only significance is that it's some type of religious shrine) is going to get destroyed when you could easily just adapt and go to a new one, is really stupid, especially when considering the humans were trying to be diplomatic. Think of it this way, if some random superpower came and destroyed your country's capital, but would allow you to live in peace and independence afterwards, would you get all up in arms about it? Or start fucking sobbing? I wouldn't.
Oh, and speaking of the Na'vi being annoying, did anyone else die of laughter when they started chanting "Eyah, Eyah, Eyah" and that old witch-docter woman started doing, like, psychadelic dance moves? And everyone was sitting Indian style doing this crazy dance thing. When I was in school and we watched this, me and all the people around me agree'd it was really funny and anti-dramatic.
HEY! And why the HELL is it acceptable or even fair to just bring in the friggen wild life to battles with you? Seriously, why on God's earth would a fucking animal you've been hunting for YEARS AND YEARS come to join you to help you fight a battle? It doesn't work that way!
God I hate James Cameron..
/rage.
Audition? A Japanese horror film. Admittedly the protagonist is fairly stupid, but he's Japanese so I don't know if you'd call that 'white'. (Not in a racist way)HarmanSmith said: