Why is shows with despicable people in the lead so "hot" these days?

[Avilan the Grey]

...See headline?
I kind of feel like a grumpy old fart for not watching any of the "cool" shows. Be it Breaking Bad or The Americans or whatever.

Basically I seem to be one of the few people who prefer a badly written show with characters I like over a "well written" show with characters I hate.

[Crow]

...See headline?
I kind of feel like a grumpy old fart for not watching any of the "cool" shows. Be it Breaking Bad or The Americans or whatever.

Basically I seem to be one of the few people who prefer a badly written show with characters I like over a "well written" show with characters I hate.

A cynic might say that it is because these characters represent the hidden desires of a depraved and morally-bankrupt society where classical principles have no meaning.

An anarchist might say that these characters represent the freedom that is denied to a society that has realized that their "freedoms" are just a veneer under which is hidden just another form a slavery.

An optimist might say that people hate these characters just as much as you do, and watch out of hope that the character will get what's coming to them.

Tough question. I suspect the answer depends heavily upon who you ask. Personally I think it's a combination of the factors I mentioned (which is only a short list, and in no way exhaustive).

[GloatingSwine]

People like the vicarious thrill of watching bad guys get away with it?

Gangster movies have been around almost as long as movies, it's just that the phenomenon took longer to get to TV.

[Avilan the Grey]

Crow: Good summary.

As for the rest... yeah, I guess that's a point. Personally though I am closer to Bruce Wayne as a kid: Bad guys should be punished, swiftly and hard. Otherwise the story would be just like in real life, where bad guys usually get away with it.

Also, there is a difference for me between liking the writing, and actually like the characters (of course, for me, the writing does not matter at all if all I want is to kill the main characters (because they deserve it)).
When people list Elizabeth as a "great and strong woman" they are basically ignoring what she is, who she is AND what she does (murdering aside, accepting the Central's demand to make her daughter like her). And that is mainstream writers admiring her. Just as an example.

[BannedInSchool]

Some other thoughts about villain protagonists: they allow you to have villains that are more understandable, and at moments sympathetic, than the average mustache twirler, and protagonists that both step over the line and when they do it's not presented as good and right just because they're the good guys. You can also have the good guys not always succeed just because they're they protagonists of the story or the villains fail because they're not. In TV that's not an exhausted theme quite yet. :smallsmile:

[McStabbington]

If it helps, you should always remember that there's a bit of difference between the shows that everyone is watching and the shows that get talked about online. If I recall correctly, the Number One show on television for many, many years, is Navy: NCIS, which is about as square-jawed and wholesome as a show where every cold opening shows a gruesome murder can get. It's just not "hot" because it's typical viewer needs to count out how much bran they've eaten this week to know if they're going to stay regular.

In larger part, I think the reason that the "hot" shows deal with more moral ambiguity reflects a shift in business models in the television and movie industry. Thirty years ago, if you wanted your art to reflect a nuanced understanding of themes like violence and evil, you really had to write a movie script, because every television program was built to be a stand-alone show where the status quo remained the same so viewers wouldn't be confused in syndication. Today, the same desire would mean that you have to do it as a serialized piece of fiction on television, because movies are built to be commercial juggernauts that appeal to as many demographics as possible, which means you can't use blood, or pain and suffering, because those are the things that automatically kick you up to the dread R rating that teenagers can't get into. And how can you honestly show the consequences of violence if you all your violence is bloodless and causes insta-kills?

[Clertar]

That being said, last year's big TV success was True Detective, a show about good guys doing good deeds.

[Bhu]

Writing bad guys is easier.

[LokeyITP]

The thing is we're not in your head. We don't know who this everyone is you speak of, and what they're actually talking about. If you're talking about this forum, pretty much every show discussed here is ridiculously wholesome as far as longer conversations or regular threads. At least I'm assuming Dr Who and Ponies don't qualify as generally despicable :)

Don't watch the Americans, heard it's ok, but glancing at clips it didn't grab me.

Breaking Bad isn't just about the protagonist/antagonist/whatever White is. The thing that makes the writing and plotting great is it isn't just about the main character, the world doesn't revolve around White. Every character has agency (omg women with agency in US media, alert congress), every character does what they can with what they have. That's stupid rare, and only part of the reason why it's a great show. And it's well written, acted and beautifully filmed, also rare to get all those together on one show (I usually have to settle for one out of three).

[Kitten Champion]

Stories about despicable characters have been kinda ubiquitous in both comedies and tragedies since comedies and tragedies were a thing. I suppose it's problematic if the work clearly intends to justify or even glorify a morally repugnant character like an Ayn Rand "hero"... but Walter White - for instance - is obviously tragic.

[Dragonus45]

I would say the beauty of Walter White is that he is a subversion of the usual tragic villain type character,
in that he has many many opportunities to leave and it is only as the series goes on that you realize that Heisenberg is just him living out the fantasy of "Taking Back" all the things he feels life owes him. Only by the time that becomes apparent your already caught up in whats going on and the rest of the cast so the fact he is such a monster never really stops the show from moving forward.

Of course you also have the obvious answer that evil is sexy/cool. I mean who, at least a little, doesn't WANT to be Darth Vader with the sleek black armor and cloak and the cool force powers. And look at 50 shades of grey, it features one of the most despicable *******s in the history of fiction and some people are gobbling it up because in the end he is just the extreme conclusion to a phenomenon in the romance genre where people are all to happy to have the bad boy who is dominant sweep them up and take them. Now in the end no one really wants either of those things, people generally prefer not to be genocidal maniacs and few people would be able to stay in a relationship with the cardboard cutout that is Grey but for at least those few moments you spend watching/reading the material you can let the fantasy take you for at least a little while.

[AGD]

I understand you at least a bit. I love Breaking Bad and other shows, but the reason for that isn't that the protagonist is a bad guy, but that I find the show good. And it annoys me, when someone says to me today "This Show is so perfect, because the protagonist is a bad guy and that is so originally and new!". Then I want to say, "Dude, a bad guy as Protagonist isn't new anymore! We have lot of shows about bad guys today!".

I feel like Dexter is kind of overrated because of that. I feel like the show runs mostly on kitchen psychology like "I must kill, because I have seen my Mom killed".

[Cespenar]

That being said, last year's big TV success was True Detective, a show about good guys doing good deeds.

Some guys doing good deeds anyway.

[SiuiS]

Crow: Good summary.

As for the rest... yeah, I guess that's a point. Personally though I am closer to Bruce Wayne as a kid: Bad guys should be punished, swiftly and hard. Otherwise the story would be just like in real life, where bad guys usually get away with it.

Also, there is a difference for me between liking the writing, and actually like the characters (of course, for me, the writing does not matter at all if all I want is to kill the main characters (because they deserve it)).
When people list Elizabeth as a "great and strong woman" they are basically ignoring what she is, who she is AND what she does (murdering aside, accepting the Central's demand to make her daughter like her). And that is mainstream writers admiring her. Just as an example.

These shows? The bad guy DOESNT get away with it. You get a first hand look at how an upstanding person mutates and warps in order to follow a flawed ideal that leaves you sick to your stomach when watching. Breaking bad isn't about how a bad guy got away with it; it's about how a good guy became the most destructive force in his own life, relationships crushed by his grip as he tried to cling to them. Sons of anarchy isn't about a good guy getting away with it; it's about a villain who almost becomes a good guy but finds the path of least resistance easier, and then destroys his life, his loves, his family, his hometown and his ideals because doing the right thing was sorta hard.

It's a lesson in why we should be good people. Because while I wouldn't mind millions of dollars, I wouldn't touch what either of the 'protagonists' from those series went through. It's not worth success if it destroys you. And their form of success? Always destroys you.

[Derthric]

Some guys doing good deeds anyway.

While True Detective is very dark for a show I think the leads inhabited a more grey area of morality. But the last line was a rather up beat one and positive observation IMO.

That being said, these dark leads are nothing new to entertainment. It's a fairly old trope, see Macbeth, Michael Corleone, most leads in a Scorsese film.

Plus many of the antagonists of these shows are down right despicable in their own right. Thinking specifically of the early seasons of Breaking Bad and House of Cards, haven't seen the Americans. So the evil is relative. Also there is an underlying understanding that at some point these tyrants will fail. And their fall is all the more compelling and interesting because we know who they are. As opposed to being cackling villains the heroes best every week.

Just think of it this way, everyone remembers Ahab how many people would know Ishmael's name if it wasn't the first line of Moby-****.

[Crow]

I'm not immune either. I can't be the only guy who reads Othello and understands exactly what Iago is going through. I root for him every time, even as I disagree with his methods!

[Yora]

I would say shows with evil protagonists are popular because they are telling stories we havn't already seen a thousand times before.

[t209]

So it's Nineties anti-hero all over again.
To be fair, I prefer the optimistic tone as a middle-class kid in a totalitarian country (Burma/Myanmar) my self. Then again the isolationist policy meant that I never got exposed to nineties comic, along with being too young to read them. Though I never got interested in Captain America* until I read some of his comics after watching First Avengers.
*Like how he's more like a hero with an American flag rather than a personification of a country (he even tried to turn the latter idea away in Nomad arc but chose the former in the ending).
edit: Though Walther White from Breaking Bad was a tragic hero who was doomed by his pride (his ego even costed him a chance to become a wealthy man) himself.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I think Crow's list contains reasonable speculations.

I once heard it claimed (I have no idea if it is true) that popular media reflects the general sentiment felt by culture about the state of society they live in and the future.

But maybe there's a simpler explanation. Maybe all the kids who read comic books in the 90s are writers now and they're simply treating the goofy grimdark concepts they've always liked in a more mature way?

I usually don't have a problem with despicable characters in fiction. More often than not, it's either a sign of an escapist fantasy or a morality play. If it's the former, it's probably an accident on the writer's part. If it's the latter, it's probably going to end badly for the unrepentent when the ending comes. The fun of the latter is the suspense of watching how it all finally goes down.

And if one understands that (or gets caught up in the writing) it becomes much more tolerable.

I think it's probably just when something is written very well and gains a significant fanbase because of that, cargo-cult marketing folk think the success is the result of the genre and subject matter moreso than the writing quality. So similar projects get approved for production until the fad dies down.

[Closet_Skeleton]

They're dramas, you can't have dramas about flawless people. You can't judge dramas against heroic narratives.

Personally I've always found something ironic about audiences claiming to be unable to sympathise with complicated characters in unsolvable situations just because they'd be villains in a black and white story. Sympathising with admirable people isn't 'good', its narcissistic, its not even really sympathy.

I find nothing moral in the idea that stories should be all about conflict and should demonise the losers and white wash the victors. That sounds pretty evil to me.


A cynic might say that it is because these characters represent the hidden desires of a depraved and morally-bankrupt society where classical principles have no meaning.

An anarchist might say that these characters represent the freedom that is denied to a society that has realized that their "freedoms" are just a veneer under which is hidden just another form a slavery.

An optimist might say that people hate these characters just as much as you do, and watch out of hope that the character will get what's coming to them.

I disagree completely with your definitions of all those people. (well maybe not the cynic, there are a lot of crappy cynics).


That being said, last year's big TV success was True Detective, a show about good guys doing good deeds.

Did we watch the same True Detective?

I hated the characters in that so much I gave up on the penultimate episode.

[Darth Ultron]

Well it depends.

NCIS is right at the top of ''hot'' now-a-days, along with a ton of other crime/law/police dramas. And the Big Bang theory and Modern Family top comedies. So there are plenty of positive shows for people that like the fictional fluff of the perfect good world. They can watch any number of shows were fictional law enforcement officers solve crimes and catch bad guys and clean up the streets.

And a lot of people like the fiction of super efficient, all powerful, cops catching the bad guys. And some people don't like that so much.....it's so bland and boring.

So they do make alternative shows, ones that don't follow the 1950's TV rules.

[veti]

It's become harder and harder to write characters who can pass for "good". There are so many professional outragists watching TV that the moment you show your heroes do something the least bit objectionable, you're swamped in hate mail. And the internet spreads the word so quickly, while also exposing you to the blame of millions more people than actually watched the show.

For example, if your hero saves 101 cute puppies, then makes a throwaway remark implying they're not 101% behind gay marriage, guess which 5 seconds of the show will attract all the attention?

Writing evil protagonists absolves you of that pressure. You always have the defence that "hey, you're not *supposed* to take this person as a role model, what are you *thinking*?" And so you can write them into a flawed but well rounded character.

TL;DR: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

[Clertar]

IRT True Detective:

Sure, the two leads are not like Son Goku or Superman. Then again, antiheroes have been around for decades and centuries. It's just a (hyper)realist setting, is all.

http://www.imagesandquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/506134_602i.jpg

Still not a show like Hannibal, where the protagosnist is a "bad guy".

[t209]

IRT True Detective:

Sure, the two leads are not like Son Goku or Superman. Then again, antiheroes have been around for decades and centuries. It's just a (hyper)realist setting, is all.

http://www.imagesandquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/506134_602i.jpg

Still not a show like Hannibal, where the protagosnist is a "bad guy".
Well,
True Detective became more like Lovecraftian prequel.

[Frozen_Feet]

I would say shows with evil protagonists are popular because they are telling stories we havn't already seen a thousand times before.

They most certainly have been seen a thousand times before. Perhaps not on TV or by the particular viewers of today, but fiction, like fashion, travels in cycles. You want antiheroes so edgy you'll cut yourself? Read a national epic or two, maybe start with Kalevala. :smalltongue:

[Reddish Mage]

Seems to me that there are relatively few Breaking Bad's out there and a lot more like Family Guy where the protagonists are arguably [chaotic-]neutral (at least as depicted in their setting) and even more like True Detective, NCIS, or Flash and the other superhero shows. See what they did with Arrow after season 1, the sudden seizing of "do not kill ever" morality by Ollie in Season 2 was so cloying and uncharacteristic that I stopped watching the show.

There's always been media showing bad guy protagonists: Oceans 11, is just one of them. There's also been a lot of media with "heroes" that don't stick to the comic code. Read the original James Bond novels or see the original movies. Really evil protagonists guys in pulpy-type books and comics goes back to at least the Victorian era, although I can only think of Marquis de Sade's works that made their way into "literature."

...Can we count some of those gods and "heroes" in mythology? Things go pretty dark in some of that stuff you know...

[Mx.Silver]

Basically I seem to be one of the few people who prefer a badly written show with characters I like over a "well written" show with characters I hate.
I think you may have answered your own question here. It's probably in no small part due to a few shows with villain protagonists being quite successful (due to being generally well crafted), and that this success has encouraged networks to produce shows of a similar style in the hopes of getting similar success.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If you're talking about this forum, pretty much every show discussed here is ridiculously wholesome as far as longer conversations or regular threads. At least I'm assuming Dr Who and Ponies don't qualify as generally despicable :)
Dunno, if the stuff I've read about on TV Tropes, there's something rotten in the heart of Ponytown.

I'm a fan of wildbow's works, and while I can't speak about those who watch Breaking Bad or Dexter (or any television programming, really—not my cup of tea. Neither is tea, actually), I like a bit of moral ambiguity. Black-and-white morality has its place (I'm also a RWBY fan—well, a RWBY Volume 1 fan), but it feels artificial.

[Closet_Skeleton]

And the Big Bang theory and Modern Family top comedies.

I've seen opinions that the Big Bang theory's cast are all horrible people, but comedy follows different rules.


...Can we count some of those gods and "heroes" in mythology? Things go pretty dark in some of that stuff you know...

Looking at works from different, ancient cultures will change the moral concepts too much anyway.

For example, the Iliad is supposed to be about heroes on both sides while to some modern readers the Trojans are the doomed noble guys and the Greeks are all pretty nasty fellas.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I frequent a lot of message boards (usually music related, so everyone on it is only there to stave off considering suicide for a few more hollow hours) but this question only seems to crop up here, and with upsetting frequency. I don't know if it's the same guy or not, but everytime I see it I become very uncomfortable. Part of it may be because it always seems to be the kind of thought the advocation of censorship thrives in. But outside of my personal paranoia it unsettles me because it's one of the few opinions in the world outside of my scope of understanding.

I can disagree with people and concede to that while fondly slapping them on the bum and sending them on their way. Even for things I'm very vocal about, like the superiority of albums over singles. I know why people prefer singles (I just think they're morons). To be unable to see the appeal (not the superiority, mind, the "appeal") of an unlikable lead completely defies my understanding of humanity. It's probably more telling of me, perhaps, but it does render all my powers of expression rather impotent.

I'm sitting here writing out explanation after explanation, poring over the phrasing to make sure I'm not being too condescending, but it all seems so second nature, to me. "Surely he knows this stuff" I think to myself "I'm probably going to come off like a belittling elitist jerk." So I delete it all. I've written a novel's worth of this stuff, already.

So that's where we're at. At a stretch, I guess it's just all subjective. That's usually my go-to for massive gulfs in opinion, but it's unsatisfying way to leave it, I think. I've just been asked "What's the deal with gravity? Why are all these folks being pulled down to the Earth these days?" and all I can possibly say in response is "I don't know what to tell you, buddy".

[BannedInSchool]

I've seen opinions that the Big Bang theory's cast are all horrible people, but comedy follows different rules.
Heh, now I recall someone complaining about Seinfeld and how they couldn't understand its popularity with those horrible people.

And now I'm contemplating the similarities between Walter White and Londo Mollari. :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

I have had a number of discussions iRL with friends that keep telling me to watch, for example, Breaking Bad with the Good Writing as the only real argument, and they are always dumbfounded when I tell them the quality of the writing is of no importance to me.

As for other arguments or explanations here... These kind of people are not rare, and once they were heroes. For real. Because the word "hero" has nothing to do with what we now mean when we say "hero". Be it in the Odyssey or Iliad (which is where we get the word from) or the Kaleva or the Edda, the stories are filled with genuinely awful gods and heroes.

One thing might be that these characters are NOT written as audience replacements, like many badly written heroes are (Luke will always be less cool than Han, because Han is not meant to be the one everyone identifies with, he is the one everyone would want to BE. Same with Will Turner vs Jack Sparrow...). Here, in these shows, there is nobody the audience is expected to emulate, and that means they can write more detailed characters. Also: Disney Villains.


I've seen opinions that the Big Bang theory's cast are all horrible people, but comedy follows different rules.

The BBT people are not horrible. Some of them are less than perfect, but they aren't "horrible".
HIMYM on the other hand... At least two people in the show are actually, truly, horrible people. The obvious one is Barney of course (although the finale shows he only did it to hurt the evil corporation he worked at) but the most awful person on the show is Lily, who is actually a very scary person when you actually pay attention to her behavior...

[Crow]

Avilan, have you ever checked out The Shield?

[Avilan the Grey]

Avilan, have you ever checked out The Shield?

Only read about it, never was tempted to watch it. Why?

[Crow]

Only read about it, never was tempted to watch it. Why?

It's more a show about good characters who do despicable things. Or despicable characters who do good things. It depends on the viewpoint of the viewer. You might want to check it out sometime. It's also interesting as one of those shows that really shows an accurate depiction of the things police in my old stomping grounds have to navigate every day.

[Eric Tolle]

Because it's the 1970s all over again.

[Agrippa]

Because it's the 1970s all over again.

What do you mean by that?

[DJ Yung Crunk]

What do you mean by that?

Look up "New Hollywood"

[SowZ]

They're dramas, you can't have dramas about flawless people. You can't judge dramas against heroic narratives.

Personally I've always found something ironic about audiences claiming to be unable to sympathise with complicated characters in unsolvable situations just because they'd be villains in a black and white story. Sympathising with admirable people isn't 'good', its narcissistic, its not even really sympathy.

I find nothing moral in the idea that stories should be all about conflict and should demonise the losers and white wash the victors. That sounds pretty evil to me.



I disagree completely with your definitions of all those people. (well maybe not the cynic, there are a lot of crappy cynics).



Did we watch the same True Detective?

I hated the characters in that so much I gave up on the penultimate episode.

They were some of the most well realized characters I've seen on TV in years. Their motivations were multi-leveled and I felt like I understood each of them as human beings by the end. Are they likeable? Certainly not. But well written? Absolutely.

[GloatingSwine]

I was listening to David Sirlin's podcast series (about game design) and this actually came up, the idea of morality in stories.

His argument was that stories where the main characters exist outside our current moral or legal framework (either a criminal like Walter White, Tony Soprano, or Dexter, or a different culture like Rome or Game of Thrones) then when that character encounters a challenge they can't use the same solutions which are available to us. Therefore there has to be more examination of the morals of the characters and what choices they make rather than shared assumptions with the audience.

Which means there is inherently more scope for personal drama because these underlying elements have to also be examined.

[TheEmerged]

I would say shows with evil protagonists are popular because they are telling stories we havn't already seen a thousand times before.

For some of us, Yora, they're stories we've only seen hundreds of times before. This is nowhere near a new issue.

"They say if you live long enough, you'll see yourself turned into a villain. I think I've lived long enough I've been turned into a hero again."

[eggynack]

I'm not really sure why you think this is some new trend. People write about despicable people in the lead, and indeed have written about despicable people in the lead just about since writing was a thing, because it's an interesting thing to write about. It's no more "hot" these days than it ever was. Yes, Breaking Bad is a thing, and a great one at that, but I can just sit here naming amazing pieces of media that are filled with good people doing good things in the lead role, and the ratio should be similar to how it always is. Breaking Bad is modeled after Greek tragedy, after all, and if it's not clear from the name, that form of art isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

[Psyren]

As for the rest... yeah, I guess that's a point. Personally though I am closer to Bruce Wayne as a kid: Bad guys should be punished, swiftly and hard. Otherwise the story would be just like in real life, where bad guys usually get away with it.

It sounds like your tastes run towards escapism - an ideal world where the bad guys are caught and the good guys win, even if it takes a while. Which is perfectly fine, but the other kind of show can serve a good purpose too. Some works represent a Call To Action of some kind, and they want their audience to get pissed about injustice or evil going on right under their noses, and get organized to do something about it. Look at Animal Farm for instance - the whole message of the book is "Hey, you know those pigs who are running roughshod over everything and at the end of the book they win - guess who the book is really about? Because it ain't about farm animals, I'll tell you that much."


It's become harder and harder to write characters who can pass for "good". There are so many professional outragists watching TV that the moment you show your heroes do something the least bit objectionable, you're swamped in hate mail. And the internet spreads the word so quickly, while also exposing you to the blame of millions more people than actually watched the show.

For example, if your hero saves 101 cute puppies, then makes a throwaway remark implying they're not 101% behind gay marriage, guess which 5 seconds of the show will attract all the attention?

Writing evil protagonists absolves you of that pressure. You always have the defence that "hey, you're not *supposed* to take this person as a role model, what are you *thinking*?" And so you can write them into a flawed but well rounded character.

TL;DR: "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

If you're writing a genuinely good guy, then having him throw out a line like that just strikes me as stupid writing. It would be like Superman (current-day Blue Boyscout Superman - yes I know about the WW2-era stuff) using a racial slur - yeah, people would get mad even if he did it once and the backlash would be entirely deserved.

[eggynack]

If you're writing a genuinely good guy, then having him throw out a line like that just strikes me as stupid writing. It would be like Superman (current-day Blue Boyscout Superman - yes I know about the WW2-era stuff) using a racial slur - yeah, people would get mad even if he did it once and the backlash would be entirely deserved.
Yeah, that seems like the kinda flaw you'd wanna work in early, if possible, because otherwise it's just jarring. And then, given that you've set that flaw up, you're definitely not working with Superman here. He's a reasonable hero who happens to be racist, which is such a common thing that there's an entire trope page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleBigot) about it.

[veti]

If you're writing a genuinely good guy, then having him throw out a line like that just strikes me as stupid writing. It would be like Superman (current-day Blue Boyscout Superman - yes I know about the WW2-era stuff) using a racial slur - yeah, people would get mad even if he did it once and the backlash would be entirely deserved.

See, this right here is exactly the attitude I mean. A "genuinely good guy" simply isn't allowed to hold values that seem dissonant to some fraction of the viewers. Nobody wants to watch a hero who doesn't agree with them about something they consider important. Even if that disagreement is purely philosophical and has no practical consequence.

Personally, I have RL friends of 20 years' standing who can still surprise me with their views about current political questions. But a fictional character? - has to be 100% predictable, otherwise I'm guilty of "stupid writing".

[eggynack]

See, this right here is exactly the attitude I mean. A "genuinely good guy" simply isn't allowed to hold values that seem dissonant to some fraction of the viewers. Nobody wants to watch a hero who doesn't agree with them about something they consider important. Even if that disagreement is purely philosophical and has no practical consequence.

Personally, I have RL friends of 20 years' standing who can still surprise me with their views about current political questions. But a fictional character? - has to be 100% predictable, otherwise I'm guilty of "stupid writing".
I think you're pretty clearly wrong, given that I just gave you a big page of citations for characters who are otherwise. It's fine if a good guy says something I think is wrong or bigoted, or better yet, taking this from a more objective perspective, if he says something that is generally considered such, but it needs to be pretty clear in story that this isn't one of the good things this good character does. Otherwise, it's basically just the creator saying this bad thing, and I have to disagree with the idea that media should be a way to promote bigotry.

[Porthos]

Like others, I'd dispute this is anything new. The 70s and 80s, for instance, were replete with "cool" anti-heroes/anti-villains. Including TV shows.

Hell to show this isn't that new, The Sopranos was THE show of the late 90s/early 00s.

For the 70s, Dirty Harry was not supposed to be a role model. Especially in the first film. The A-Team was supposed to make you a tad uneasy while cheering on all the carnage. And even if you don't accept that, Dallas was the original Breaking Bad. And, yes, Dallas spawned an endless cavalcade of imitators.

All in the Family was well known for having an antagonist lead. Well, pretty close to antagonist, at any rate.

So, yeah. Everything old is new again. The only real difference between now and the 70s/80s is:

A) Many more outlets with far less oversight (cable/Netflix)

B) An Internet to serve as a megaphone/amplifier for all of the discussion.

[veti]

I think you're pretty clearly wrong, given that I just gave you a big page of citations for characters who are otherwise. It's fine if a good guy says something I think is wrong or bigoted, or better yet, taking this from a more objective perspective, if he says something that is generally considered such, but it needs to be pretty clear in story that this isn't one of the good things this good character does. Otherwise, it's basically just the creator saying this bad thing, and I have to disagree with the idea that media should be a way to promote bigotry.

I have the following issues with that "big page of citations":

The page isn't all that big. When I compare the sheer number of citations to, say, this (related) page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WickedCultured), it's downright pitiful. When you ransack 60 years of cinema and come up with just six examples, that doesn't exactly scream "common".
"Noble" is not the same as "sympathetic". You can get away with calling Ulfric Stormcloak "noble", but I find it hard to imagine anyone even momentarily considering him a role model. Same applies to Conor from Angel. For Rorschach, even "noble" seems a stretch.
Of the citations I'm familiar with, I'd challenge several of them. First, it's not "bigotry" if you apply it equally to everyone (the Vimes/Dirty Harry example) - that's "misanthropy", which is a different thing entirely - "bigotry" by definition has to be discriminatory. Second, if it's "bigotry" to be rude about someone else's choice of career (the Mal Reynolds example), then I don't think I know anyone who's not guilty. Who doesn't make judgmental remarks about at least one of (bankers/advertising execs/politicians/journalists/priests/prostitutes/police/real estate agents/recruitment agents/media execs/TV presenters/teachers/lawyers/civil servants/etc.)?

[eggynack]

I'm honestly not even sure how "Superman except homophobic" would work. How does this strange plot line play out? What is the form of story we're angling towards here?

[Psyren]

See, this right here is exactly the attitude I mean. A "genuinely good guy" simply isn't allowed to hold values that seem dissonant to some fraction of the viewers. Nobody wants to watch a hero who doesn't agree with them about something they consider important. Even if that disagreement is purely philosophical and has no practical consequence.

Personally, I have RL friends of 20 years' standing who can still surprise me with their views about current political questions. But a fictional character? - has to be 100% predictable, otherwise I'm guilty of "stupid writing".

You mean characters written as moral paragons have to reflect the morality of the culture of their audience? Stop the presses! :smalltongue:

So in your view - if modern-day Superman or Captain America were revealed to be racist, sexist, classist, homophobic etc., and the fans got upset about it - that would be unreasonable of them?

[Closet_Skeleton]

Captain America was frozen when homosexuality was illegal in most countries.

Superman is from a planet where its legal for cousins to marry so who knows. But its not like the morality he's supposed to represent was deeply tied to civil rights or feminism.

[sktarq]

Basically I seem to be one of the few people who prefer a badly written show with characters I like over a "well written" show with characters I hate.

Also there is a difference in liking the character and liking the character as a character. I would never want to meet Walter White or have to put up with Gregory House but the stories they take me on are fun and interesting. As character, a disassociated idea of what human can be, how we work, etc they are fascinating.

Also writing a good, as in moral, character has less variation than "non-good" ones, because it covers so much more ground-Holmes, White, Tony Soprano all have very different perspectives and when they make choices they do for reason other than "it was right" and that constellation of options makes things interesting.
And to others the ideal of a good escape is nowhere everything works okay because it may as well be on Mars and is too far the escape they want.

[Porthos]

Because it's the 1970s all over again.


What do you mean by that?


Look up "New Hollywood"

This is a pretty cogent point that I think should be elaborated on. The Wikipedia entry gives a good background on just what "New Hollywood" was. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hollywood) But, ironically, the TV Tropes (which rightly gets flack from time to time) link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewHollywood) talks a bit more about how the demise of the Hays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code) Code (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheHaysCode) was one of the major factors leading to the creation of New Hollywood.

Now TV didn't have the Hays Code, per se. But it DID have the FCC looking over its shoulder, so there still was a dampening effect going on. However cable has far fewer restrictions, mostly self-imposed. And so as multimedia age truly arrived on the scene, TV saw its own form of branching out into previously taboo-ish subjects.

This being said, the analogy only goes so far (like all analogies). As I noted before, there were in fact TV shows that had despicable characters in the lead in primetime TV back in the day. Still, with both the relaxation of what the FCC will allow (the so-called 10 pm rule) combined with an overall relaxation of what is considered societally acceptable for prime time viewing combined again with the rise of cable and streaming, it's no wonder that it seems like these sort of characters are more prevalent than they were. It's because it's simply easier to make them now.

Still, these things come and go in peaks and valleys. Some of the edgy films of the 20s and early 30s lead to the Hays Code in the first place. The eventual backlash to Hayes led to New Hollywood. The backlash to/demise of New Hollywood led to blockbusters*. And so on and so on and so on.

* I've seen more than one commentary that has states that the then unheard of success of Star Wars was not only did it not look like anything the public had ever seen, the fact that it was a fun movie that simply wanted to audience to have a good time was a much needed antidote to all of the depressing/gritty films that dominated the 70s. This analysis is more than probably a little weak. But I also think there is more than a grain of truth in it.

tl;dr: These things come and go. When the market gets too saturated from one type of storytelling, it'll shift to another. And back and forth and back and forth (if with many permutations along the way).

[goto124]

The idea of a homophobic Superman sounds interesting in fact, if only to explore how morality has changed over time. Once upon a time, sexism was normal! Can't you have a knight in shining armor who believes women should stay in the kitchen? How it's handled can also be a big factor, but I would like those sort of heroes to exist.

[Knaight]

I would also add that shows with despicable people in the lead are often focused on having nuanced characters in general. This tends to produce side characters, including side characters who are very much good people, who are still interesting. By contrast, a lot of shows which aim to have good people in the lead (and which don't just fail) tend to have a fairly boring main character, but are also frequently plagued with a fairly boring side cast.

Take Dexter. Dexter is very much a despicable person, and while the narration can be entertaining because of that, the show would fail on that point. On the other hand, James Dokes from the exact same show is very much an interesting good character. So's Deborah. So are a number of other characters. The strength of these side characters improves the show dramatically.

[Ravian]

Bad guys are usually proactive. A good guy might make plans, but they're always in reaction to the actions of a bad guy, but the bad guy is always up to something against the status quo, and it's often attractive for other people to watch a clever guy try and get away with it.

That's what I see most of the time, people don't like the villain because he's evil (not on its own anyway), it's because he's cool, smart and up to no good. Why do you think we've been romanticizing thieves and pirates and such for the past few centuries? Because there's something inherently cool about a guy that's had enough of society, and decides to stick it to the man in the most dastardly way possible.

One of the prime examples I can think of is the Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. The Count's not "exactly" evil (I'd put him about true neutral with neutral evil tendencies) since for the most part his targets deserve some manner of comeupance. But he's doing it by taking sadistic pleasure in ruining their lives. In essence it's living vicariously, everyone wants to feel a little bad sometimes, even if you're not at all the type normally. And when the bad guy can pull it off with such style, we get a little rush.

It's not just movies or anything. I saw one of those React videos the other day introducing some seniors to GTA5. Some of them started more wary of it than others, but even most of the more disapproving seniors were having some fun going on a little rampage by the end. (I think there was only one that was still adamantly opposed to the game by the end).

Sometimes people just need a little time to cut loose and be the bad guy. And living vicariously as a villain on TV or in a video game is far more healthy than doing it for real.

[AtlanteanTroll]

The idea of a homophobic Superman sounds interesting in fact, if only to explore how morality has changed over time. Once upon a time, sexism was normal! Can't you have a knight in shining armor who believes women should stay in the kitchen? How it's handled can also be a big factor, but I would like those sort of heroes to exist.

Try reading the webcomic Steve Roger's American Captain, if you can. It's based on Steve Rogers as presented in the new MCU in the downtime between films, and focuses on his ... time dysphoria? He has some interesting conversations with people, and gets called out for being a misogynist at several points when he's trying to be what he takes for gallant. Fun read. Interesting read. Insightful, witty, and a bit sad.

[Avilan the Grey]

Also there is a difference in liking the character and liking the character as a character. I would never want to meet Walter White or have to put up with Gregory House but the stories they take me on are fun and interesting. As character, a disassociated idea of what human can be, how we work, etc they are fascinating.

And that is another reason I don't like these people... I DON'T find them fascinating. Irritating, disgusting, horrible, annoying, vile... sure. Fascinating? No. There is nothing fascinating about them.

[veti]

You mean characters written as moral paragons have to reflect the morality of the culture of their audience? Stop the presses! :smalltongue:

I would phrase it as "Why should a hero have to be a moral paragon, perfect in every respect?"


So in your view - if modern-day Superman or Captain America were revealed to be racist, sexist, classist, homophobic etc., and the fans got upset about it - that would be unreasonable of them?

Damn straight. Those "fans" are precisely the people who stifle any attempt to be innovative, nuanced or thoughtful in modern culture. And that leads me right back to my starting point: that's why writers now have a significantly harder time writing straightforward "heroic" characters.

[Seerow]

The idea of a homophobic Superman sounds interesting in fact, if only to explore how morality has changed over time. Once upon a time, sexism was normal! Can't you have a knight in shining armor who believes women should stay in the kitchen? How it's handled can also be a big factor, but I would like those sort of heroes to exist.

If you haven't, you should read the Dresden Files. The main character freely admits he's got chauvinistic tendencies, and it comes up with a fair bit of frequency throughout the series... yet the series has a lot of strong female characters that don't like being treated like an object to be protected.

[eggynack]

And that is another reason I don't like these people... I DON'T find them fascinating. Irritating, disgusting, horrible, annoying, vile... sure. Fascinating? No. There is nothing fascinating about them.
And that's your prerogative. But, just as there are options for people who do like that sort of thing, like myself, there are also options for people who like things unlike that, like myself. Animated stuff right now has been particularly amazing, with Steven Universe, Bob's Burgers, and Gravity Falls falling the most in those optimistic "Good people doing good things" parameters. Ponies also trends towards that, though I think the quality of the actual show there is a bit lower. Parks and Recreation just ended, but it too has those positive tendencies. All shows whose primary focus is on positive and healthy relationships between likable characters. There are also, of course, many shows which fall in the middle of those two extremes. If you want something between despicable villain protagonist and Superman friendship protagonist, well, I'd actually say that the majority of television falls somewhere on that spectrum.

[Ravian]

Damn straight. Those "fans" are precisely the people who stifle any attempt to be innovative, nuanced or thoughtful in modern culture. And that leads me right back to my starting point: that's why writers now have a significantly harder time writing straightforward "heroic" characters.

I think the problem is that some of these heroes are supposed to be more icons than anything else. I will note that darker versions of moral paragon heroes are about a dime a dozen. John Walker the US Agent (he's a captain america villain) was a jingoistic foil for Steve's ideals. Hyperion was one of numerous Superman deconstructions where his idealistic upbringing is the result of a government program that recovered him after his landing. Heck Smug Supers is a troupe specifically for dealing with these types (Captain Hammer comes immediately to mind)

I'll admit most of these are just going into the extremes of edgy or parody, but nuance can get really difficult when you're trying to keep a long running series like that. Especially when it comes to superhero comics which often had the burden of trying to be family friendly for a good period of their existence. For the longest time if a superhero seemed too repugnant he would be called a bad influence on children and censored. (It's why Batman started out dark and mysterious before devolving into camp and goofiness in the silver age.) Of course than anti-heroes followed the silver age and went in the exact opposite direction. (Superhero comics and subtlety are a very rare combination.)

[Psyren]

I would phrase it as "Why should a hero have to be a moral paragon, perfect in every respect?"

Not all of them do, but some heroes (Supes, Cap etc.) are indeed written that way. If you don't like it, don't read those books/watch those media, pretty simple. Stick with your Wolverines and Black Widows et al instead.


Damn straight. Those "fans" are precisely the people who stifle any attempt to be innovative, nuanced or thoughtful in modern culture. And that leads me right back to my starting point: that's why writers now have a significantly harder time writing straightforward "heroic" characters.

Okay, good luck with that.

[Avilan the Grey]

I can deal with anti-heroes, I love the Renegon playstyle in ME for example, but there has to be much more than pet the dog moments for that to work. Or, for that matter, I must have a credible reason why the person is an a-hole too. A BELIEVABLE reason.

[eggynack]

I can deal with anti-heroes, I love the Renegon playstyle in ME for example, but there has to be much more than pet the dog moments for that to work. Or, for that matter, I must have a credible reason why the person is an a-hole too. A BELIEVABLE reason.
I think that Breaking Bad does that job well enough for most purposes. He's a guy with just insane amounts of wasted intelligence, and his entire life has left him feeling completely impotent and powerless. Walter has his basic surface level reason that he convinces himself of, that he's doing this to protect his family, and as the series progresses he becomes more and more jaded to each murder. I never really doubt his reasons for being despicable at any point in the story.

Considering another example of a rather despicable character that I love, you have Rick of Rick and Morty. He's a character that has nigh on infinite control of his reality, and he's seen that there is an infinite quantity of both himself and his universe, and all he can do in response to that abyss is fall into drunken apathy. He doesn't care if he kills alien bureaucrats, or causes the destruction of his world, because those things are infinitely replaceable. He's buried his own dead body, and has likely left behind his entire family in the same fashion more than once. It's a frigging amazing show.

[Lethologica]

I feel like the Godfathers are relevant to one or more of the ongoing conversations.