Rooting for the bad guys

[Soviet Steve]

Avatar, because of the total absence of subtlety. I'd glue on a twirly mustache, get a black top hat and cape and start laughing maniacally whenever I was in a scene with Sergeant Evil. Same thing with Modern Warfare 2.

 

[Mitzeh]

Well as Kingme18 said, Law abiding citizen. And as everybody else said Avatar...And a lot of superhero movies and other "badass" takes on a whole army and wins movies...god, I just hate them. Oh and Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner....i just wanted to see him catch that bloody bird for once, i felt a lot of pity for the poor coyote, he tried so hard.

 

[3quency]

Taking all these examples into account, why do you think it is?
Is it down to bad writing and characterization or something else?

I mean, let's look at a couple of examples,
Avatar was a fairly clear cut case of infuriating author tract about how "TECHNOLOGY IS TOTALLY EVIL U GUYZ", which was all I needed to root for the villains. It didn't really help that either way we were supporting a heroic white male (even if one was stealing a body).

And then we have Thor. Loki's character arc was really pretty good and made him an understandable villain, but it didn't make me will him to victory. I got what he was about and I felt sorry for him but at the same time I hoped he'd lose. Sadly, there wasn't nearly as much development for Thor himself, which oddly left me taking Agent Coulson's side.


So in this case, for me it was a matter of writing. Do other people feel the same?

 

[Smertnik]

Shredder was my hero <3 He had ninjas and robots and whatnot, how could you not root for him?

Does Tom and Jerry count? because I just wanted to see Tom get that little fucker for once.

I hated the mouse. I mean, Tom was just mostly minding his own business while the rodent did everything he could to get him into trouble. At some point I became so annoyed with the show that I just stopped watching it altogether.

 

[Freechoice]

I wanted General Victor Sarrano to win at the end of Bulletstorm. I came up with a clever little epithet for Grayson Hunt by removing one letter of his first name and replacing one in his last with another.

The bad guy was the far more interesting character.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Definitely Avatar.

That movie tried way too hard to make me like the aliens and hate the humans, but I just couldn't take those tall, skinny monkey people seriously.

Heck, when they started crying after the tree gets blown up I actually laughed because of the way they cry; it looks and sound so hilarious.

Also, the only character in that film that I liked was a human (The colonel).

 

[FalloutJack]

In many cases, the villains have all the style. This is not universe, since there are a number who are also crap, but you know...

 

[Arakasi]

Go Dexter!
... Well he's morally grey.

 

[TwiZtah]

No, pretty much never, because in many cases, the villains are just pansy-ass whiners or what we gamers hate, corparate fuckers whose only goal in life is money (Avatar general guy?), boo fucking hoo you didn't have a good upbringing. That does not make it okay to kill etc.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I guess Ghirahim (from Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword)sort of count but only because he sometime throw a fit like a brat so I figure give him what he wanted already and be the end of it.
Also I didn't really care to save the world since what I really saving is just a floating town insland inhabited by what 30 people?

 

[Thyunda]

LoTR. I do not root for the good guys or the bad guys. I find the entire series fun to watch or read but utterly retarded at the same time. Hundreds of years of constant war? HOW HAVE YOU NOT INVENTED ANYTHING MORE COMPLEX THAN A CROSSBOW.

To be fair, it took us 1600 years of constant war in Europe to develop anything more complex than a crossbow.

 

[ABLb0y]

Avatar. The Na'vi are racist jerkasses who basically ensure humanity's death, whilst all they wanted was to make a deal with them.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

*one wiki search later*

"Call Me Joe is a science fiction novelette written by Poul Anderson and published in 1957.[1] The plot involves an attempt to explore the surface of the planet Jupiter using remote-controlled artificial life-forms. It focuses on the feelings of a disabled man who operates an artificial body. The story was published in Astounding Science Fiction magazine by its editor John W. Campbell."

1957.

So... Avatar is bad because... James Cameron... Read a book and like some of the ideas within it and adapted them into a film depicting how the white man fucked the native Americans? Wait... What?

Is Shakespeare "The Zynga of literature" because he based some of his most famous works on tales significantly older than he was? (Romeo and Juliet, for a start). Is every fantasy author that has used elves who are tall, fair skinned, beautiful and agile the "Zynga of Fantasy Books" because their ideas are derivative of Tolkein?

Yes, there are some similarities. But sorry mate, that is how the media works. People draw from the things that they read and enjoy when they are young. It is not a ripoff, it shares a plot element but, well, that is life. About 99.5% of romantic films in the cinema are based on older love stories. Sorry, I just disagree with your "Zynga of film making" claim because Zynga are much worse. Oh, and Avatar was actually pretty good.

The Author should have got more credit.

But James Cameron is far from bad.

Thank you thank you than you.

I'm so tired of people shouting from the rooftops that unoriginal = bad, when originality doesn't actually exist. No matter how unique an idea may seem, something very similar to it has been done before. People like to believe that claiming something is unoriginal will make them seem cultured and intelligent for knowing about other things like it, but it actually has the opposite effect; if they were truly as cultured as they claimed, they'd realize that nothing was new.

(Also it's really funny watching people try to justify their Avatar hate with stuff that wasn't even in the movie, like claiming that the movie is propaganda for claiming that technology is evil. It didn't say anything of the sort in the movie, and everything that happened--good and bad--was facilitated by technology. It was about one guy's desire for freedom and his love of the pre-industrial/hunter-gatherer lifestyle that he had begun to live. That doesn't mean it's supposed to be a statement about everyone. I really think most of the Avatar hate is the result of confirmation bias.)

 

[itaywex]

All hail Lelouch vi Britania. (Code Geass)

Also Yagami light from death note (most of the time).

And of course Dexter.

 

[370999]

I aalways root for the Empire in Star Wars. Liked the humans in Avatar, Always liked the human government when it was evil in the X-men series.

 

[Astoria]

I was rooting for Palpatine throughout Epidode 3 of Star Wars mostly because the jedi were so arrogant. I wanted Magneto to win too in X men because in the end he was right about everything really.

 

[Leninv3l]

Definitely Avatar.
Heck, when they started crying after the tree gets blown up I actually laughed because of the way they cry; it looks and sound so hilarious.

"THEY'RE GONNA HIT HOME TREE!!!!"
Lol... I'd have to say that I was rooting for Tony Montana to prevail. He was a bad guy, right?

Yeah. He was a bad guy.

 

[Thyunda]

LoTR. I do not root for the good guys or the bad guys. I find the entire series fun to watch or read but utterly retarded at the same time. Hundreds of years of constant war? HOW HAVE YOU NOT INVENTED ANYTHING MORE COMPLEX THAN A CROSSBOW.

To be fair, it took us 1600 years of constant war in Europe to develop anything more complex than a crossbow.

Ok, fair point. However the situation is slightly different. The wars in Europe were not wars of survival. I mean, the states involved were fighting for power, glory and the continuation of the lineage. Gondor is fighting for THE SURVIVAL OF HUMANITY.

Finally...

I cannot find the exact amount of time LoTR has been in technology stasis. Aragorn is part of the 39th generation following Isildurs death. The war has been going on for that long, without a break, in Gondor. We started the first world war with tanks. We ended it with nukes. That was within 4 years. Ok, different times, Technology was already advancing at a rather alarming rate.

But in 39 generations of war, 39 generations of a war for your very SURVIVAL, they have not made a single discovery. Not one.

Although my main problem with the films and books is the amount of times they are being shot at but get lucky. Seriously. Not one of them thinks to carry a shield. And, bar Boromir, NONE OF THEM PAY FOR IT.

You do have a fair point with your second paragraph. As in, a very fair point. I remember, when reading the Lord of the Rings, being completely unable to comprehend the vast time differences between historic events and current ones. If the Second Era had ended with more primitive weaponry (as in, chainmail and iron swords) it'd be more believable. But the fact that Anduril is as valid a sword in Aragorn's time as it was in Isildur's time makes absolutely no sense.

It's not even as if they were totally broke and unable to afford weapon-development. Maybe they just trusted in magic? By the time of LOTR, at least, Denethor was pretty delusional, so maybe he would have forbidden it?

I don't know why I'm trying to rationalise it. Put simply, it doesn't actually make much sense. But it DOES explain why the shambolic hordes of Mordor were so effective. THEY made advancements in weaponry and armour, and even machinery. Saruman's Uruk-hai employed explosive devices when assaulting Helm's Deep. They wore plate armour and carried specialised blades.

But...then...Isengard was destroyed by the trees. THAT must be why. Every time they try to get anywhere significant, the bloody environmentalists fight back.

And...I don't think we employed nuclear weaponry in the First World War. Tanks and fighter aircraft were the major advancements back then - and not even 'tank' tanks. No cannons...well, no turret. The male tanks had two cannons, two machine-guns. The females four machineguns. What was I talking about?

Oh. One last thing. Boromir was the only person to carry a shield. And he was the only one taken down by arrows.
Though it makes sense in context. Four Hobbits - the shield is about their height. That is not a sensible piece of equipment to be carrying. Legolas and Aragorn are archers. The only reasonable shield for them would be a buckler, which wouldn't be much help against arrows. Gimli's a heavily armoured dwarf. Shield is pretty much unnecessary. Boromir, as we know, carried a shield. I'm missing somebody. Who the hell am I missing?
Gandalf? Was he part of the Fellowship? Yes. I suppose he was. For a while, anyway. Gandalf is a wizard. He don't need no shield.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The whalers in Whale Wars.

Go get 'm, boys! Kill some whales and ram some boats.

 

[WolfThomas]

Is it bad that I want to see a movie about the Gruber brothers when they're younger? Pulling off some elaborate heist disguised as something else.