Lex Luthor in the last Superman movie. I don't care about good guys or bad guys as much as I do underdogs and "the man" and Lex Luthor is an awesome underdog in that movie.
I also have a soft spot for a well-thought up plan which are always fucked up by some untouchable do-gooder. That includes building a badass super-fortress i.e. the Death Star I and II, Steam Castle, Coccoon, Borg Cube.
Oh and...
Talleyrand on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Lex Luthor in the last Superman movie. I don't care about good guys or bad guys as much as I do underdogs and "the man" and Lex Luthor is an awesome underdog in that movie.
This is a good point. While I feel that Superman Returns was mostly a failure at every angle, Lex Luthor certainly has to make his own way, as many villains do.
The stereotypical Western narrative isn't often about overcoming overwhelming odds, it's about using overwhelming power to destroy an objectively "bad" threat, which itself is usually more cunning and woefully overmatched by the forces of good.
It's an interesting paradigm, to be sure, and one that I feel needs more introspection within the literate mediums.
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
On the other hand, cutting the Gordian knot is sometimes the only way to untie it.
Or as Homer Simpson said about a jar whose top would not come off, "JUST SMASH IT OPEN!"
ETA: I felt this way a lot during Death Note. A lot of Light's problems could have been solved if he had invested in a gun or other conventional means of killing people.
I have to say I never really thought about which villains I would root for, but since this thread is here...
Roy Batty from Blade Runner. A genetic clone with a inbuildt killswitch thats going to kill him after a couple of years. Combined with a system that thinks of him as less then human... I can root for him going apeshits on the people that made him and trying desperatly to survive in any way he can.
Scorpius from Farscape. Just a plain awsome villain with a single minded focus on his goal the extermination of the scarrans. Threating enough that you can believe that the hero gets a nervous breakdown after being chased by him for the better part of season.
Lex Luthor from the DC universe. Not because I think he is good or has good intentions, but because I sorta agree with his worldview. In a world with superpowers the worst thing you can be is a person without them(and Batman doesn't really count as his "crazy prepared" and unlimited funds counts as a superpower in the end). A world with Superman is great.... If you are SUPERMAN! For the rest of us its looking up at the sky as gods fly overhead. That always strikes me as a sucky place to live. Add the fact that the Heroes never seem to permanently stop the bad superpowered people(you know by killing them) and its on step away from dystopia. Lex Luthor may be evil, but at least he is a human evil.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I have to say I never really thought about which villains I would root for, but since this thread is here...
Roy Batty from Blade Runner. A genetic clone with a inbuildt killswitch thats going to kill him after a couple of years. Combined with a system that thinks of him as less then human... I can root for him going apeshits on the people that made him and trying desperatly to survive in any way he can.
Scorpius from Farscape. Just a plain awsome villain with a single minded focus on his goal the extermination of the scarrans. Threating enough that you can believe that the hero gets a nervous breakdown after being chased by him for the better part of season.
Lex Luthor from the DC universe. Not because I think he is good or has good intentions, but because I sorta agree with his worldview. In a world with superpowers the worst thing you can be is a person without them(and Batman doesn't really count as his "crazy prepared" and unlimited funds counts as a superpower in the end). A world with Superman is great.... If you are SUPERMAN! For the rest of us its looking up at the sky as gods fly overhead. That always strikes me as a sucky place to live. Add the fact that the Heroes never seem to permanently stop the bad superpowered people(you know by killing them) and its on step away from dystopia. Lex Luthor may be evil, but at least he is a human evil.
What you were saying about Lex Luthor reminded me of this essay regarding how the real world, its citizens, and the justice system deals with superheroes and supervillains.
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
I agree with this a lot - You often hear soldiers talking about IEDs and guerrila warfare/insurgency as a 'cowardly way to fight', but I don't see how that is any more cowardly that popping hellfires at people from 3 miles away. It's using the technology you have available to best counter what the enemy has.
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
I agree with this a lot - You often hear soldiers talking about IEDs and guerrila warfare/insurgency as a 'cowardly way to fight', but I don't see how that is any more cowardly that popping hellfires at people from 3 miles away. It's using the technology you have available to best counter what the enemy has.
Whatever the enemy does to you, it's always a cowardly way to fight if they win or inflict any casualties at all. It's become part of our national rhetoric. I would suspect most soldiers, or at least their officers, would recognize that this isn't really true though - even if they don't say it.
I the Taliban and their sympathizers call the Americans cowardly for using close-air support and UAVs. It's all just a propaganda rallying cry.
I always rooted for him, even when he was being "good."
Gods yes, Scorpius. My favorite ambiguous maybe-villain ever. He's utterly ruthless and will step over anyone to reach his goal. If he needs to grovel and beg to get something, he'll get down on his knees without a second thought - and never once feeling shame for doing it.
And it takes a long while for the viewer to understand his real goal. He's not chasing Crichton across the galaxy just to be an evil man in a black gimp suit.
Season 3 finale spoiler: goddamn, this episode. Watch this if you don't care about watching Farscape, because this is a villain I respect.
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
I agree with this a lot - You often hear soldiers talking about IEDs and guerrila warfare/insurgency as a 'cowardly way to fight', but I don't see how that is any more cowardly that popping hellfires at people from 3 miles away. It's using the technology you have available to best counter what the enemy has.
Indirect combat has always been viewed as cowardly by those with the most brute force to swing around.
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
I agree with this a lot - You often hear soldiers talking about IEDs and guerrila warfare/insurgency as a 'cowardly way to fight', but I don't see how that is any more cowardly that popping hellfires at people from 3 miles away. It's using the technology you have available to best counter what the enemy has.
Not to mention we used similar tactics during the war that won us our independence.
My favorite villian: Kefka. He wanted to destroy the world to prove that nothing matters. If he succeeded, he would have been right.
Cliff on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
I always rooted for Wile E. Coyote and Elmer Fudd, if only because Roadrunner and Bugs Bunny are always such dicks about winning. Isn't it enough you outsmarted them, you have to rub their faces in it too?
So, it seems there are likable villains - people enjoy watching them and root for their plots to succeed - like Syndrome or the Joker. And there are unlikable villains - people are happy when they suffer and side with the protaganist - like Vidal or like Frank from UOATITW.
What puts someone in one category or the other? The Joker does worse stuff than Frank, yet he's much loved. Why do people identify with some villains and not others?
For me it has a lot more to do with the writer's portrayal than their actions, so saying X villain I like has killed more people than Y villain I don't like won't change my opinion. However, certain actions can make an otherwise likable villain cross the line.
But tons of villains are unlikable. For example, ANY CHARACTER played by Christopher McDonald. Poor guy is pigeon-holed as playing gigantic douches. Also, most heads of faceless, evil corporations and empires (and sometimes mafia families: see KickAss) are just unlikable, as are most of the mooks. Thanks to nationalism and racism, your average middle eastern villain will have NOTHING redeemable about him.
Also, I can't tell if it's sexism (since I tend to like ruthless magnificent bastards but all examples I can think of are male) or how her character was written, but I did not like Azula from Avatar: the Last Airbender. She was a good villain and there was some depth there, but she was utterly and genuinely unlikable. As was her father, but see: head of faceless, evil empire. You know who also sucks? Evil councils. Because, y'know...
"Reapers."
I dunno. I understand that some villains are likable, but I almost never want them to win. Where's the fun in that? Just go read Marvel "What If" comics if that's what floats your boat. That isn't to say I write something off as a bad when that happens, though (see: No Country For Old Men).
In fact, I'd say that I already went through my "evil characters fascinate me" phase. I played a lot of pen & paper RPG's growing up, and I tended toward anarchist characters with flaws and depth. Now I realize that it really is more enjoyable to be the good guy--because it's more difficult. As someone else mentioned earlier, being good needs to be portrayed as a difficult choice, because in reality, it is. Humanity is basically selfish, and it is the selfless that we should celebrate.
Now, some evil guy has a change of heart and does something noble? That's cool. I like a good redemption story. Notice I said 'good' redemption story, implying it must be written well. Having Sylar go back and forth between good and evil every episode, like he's flipping a switch, is ultimately what made me stop watching Heroes.
Also, based on what I'm reading in this forum, it's very trendy to hate on Avatar. I'm going to state that for what it was, I liked it. And yes, the bad commander-guy was really like-able in a weird way. Never did want him to succeed, and you do love to hate him, but it's with a hint of begrudging respect. I also saw him in Devil in a Blue Dress playing an awesome GOOD GUY, so I think this has more to do with the actor being type-cast as "BAD MOFO". He's like a white Samuel L. Jackson.
Actually - The Aliens movies, Starship Troopers, Predator, Indipendence Day - I always want the aliens to win. It's sort of an anti-human agenda.
Oh yes starship troopers. I rooted for the aliens in that movie since the fight was Nazi's vs. Aliens. I always figured that the Aliens never attacked buenos aires and the Nazi's did it themselves to justify exterminating the bugs in there quest for Lebensraum.
I always wanted to see Al from Deadwood get ahead. I also wanted to see someone cut Tulivers fucking heart out, I hated that guy. And E.B. Farnum too, he needed to die.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
I dunno. I understand that some villains are likable, but I almost never want them to win. Where's the fun in that? Just go read Marvel "What If" comics if that's what floats your boat. That isn't to say I write something off as a bad when that happens, though (see: No Country For Old Men).
In fact, I'd say that I already went through my "evil characters fascinate me" phase. I played a lot of pen & paper RPG's growing up, and I tended toward anarchist characters with flaws and depth. Now I realize that it really is more enjoyable to be the good guy--because it's more difficult. As someone else mentioned earlier, being good needs to be portrayed as a difficult choice, because in reality, it is. Humanity is basically selfish, and it is the selfless that we should celebrate.
Now, some evil guy has a change of heart and does something noble? That's cool. I like a good redemption story. Notice I said 'good' redemption story, implying it must be written well. Having Sylar go back and forth between good and evil every episode, like he's flipping a switch, is ultimately what made me stop watching Heroes.
Also, based on what I'm reading in this forum, it's very trendy to hate on Avatar. I'm going to state that for what it was, I liked it. And yes, the bad commander-guy was really like-able in a weird way. Never did want him to succeed, and you do love to hate him, but it's with a hint of begrudging respect. I also saw him in Devil in a Blue Dress playing an awesome GOOD GUY, so I think this has more to do with the actor being type-cast as "BAD MOFO". He's like a white Samuel L. Jackson.
Re: The pen and paper RPG thing - A friend of mine and I, two members of a fairly large group, tend toward evil characters frequently (though not exclusively). Every time he and/or I play a good character, it seems like we're saying "Dammit if I was (evil character's name) I could (simple, ruthless plan) but it's out of character so I can't!"
The difference is that, since you said "anarchist," I'm assuming you're referring more to chaotic neutral (which, IIRC, is the only alignment I haven't played because our group has too many CN rogues). He and I tend toward Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil respectively. Ironically, the first Neutral Evil character I played - in a game that went on-and-off for years - ended up gradually mellowing out to True Neutral by the end, so it's not like I just play ruthless puppy-kickers. Then again, I like a good redemption story myself, though I don't think the aforementioned case qualified as that either.
Also, I wasn't really hating on Avatar. I liked Avatar a lot. Saw it twice in 3D. I just thought that the villains were cartoonishly and simplistically evil, and James Cameron did not suspend my disbelief that there was no other source of Unobtanium in the whole accessible universe.
Megalomaniageek on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Also, based on what I'm reading in this forum, it's very trendy to hate on Avatar. I'm going to state that for what it was, I liked it. And yes, the bad commander-guy was really like-able in a weird way. Never did want him to succeed, and you do love to hate him, but it's with a hint of begrudging respect. I also saw him in Devil in a Blue Dress playing an awesome GOOD GUY, so I think this has more to do with the actor being type-cast as "BAD MOFO". He's like a white Samuel L. Jackson.
He was also in Public Enemies, as an old-school badass from Texas who helped bring down Dillinger. More honorable character though.
I wanted Bill the Butcher to win in Gangs of New York because fuck the Irish.
OH good, god. ANY movie with Daniel Day Lewis has me rooting for his character. There Will Be Blood? I mean, I don't think people caught on, but Daniel Plainview WAS a bad guy and I loved every second of it. Especially the ending. I was SO ecstatic with it. Driving home the initial message that the book meant to convey.
I haven't seen that movie yet. That guy is a fucking incredible actor and it sucks that he does very few films.
I root for the villains in a lot of movies, especially when the character who is supposed to be on the side of the law starts randomly breaking the law to bring the bad guy to justice.
The example of L versus Light is interesting because both sacrifice the fuck out of their ideals simply to defeat their opponents, so the support you have for the characters is whether you're supporting the general things they stand for.
There was a study called At the Edge of the Knife, about police brutality in the Americas. The author notes that though America is a first world nation, it also has a huge number of 'judicial killings'. He says that this is because we, as a society, haven't given up 'violence' to the state. Think about it. Let's say there's a story about a vigilante and the cheif of police after a bad guy. Who's the protagonist and who's the supporting character really depends on what side of the Atlantic you're on.
Once this was brought up, the huge # of vigilantes in American fiction (from superheroes to will smith) is kinda disturbing.
Ethan Smith on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
As a sidenote, this is at least relatively modern. Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus is quite a clever, tricky, manipulative person, and those traits were all seen as heroic by the audience of the time.
Anyway, I was reading the thread and came across the Wile E Coyote example, and was gonna say I always rooted for the Trix rabbit, but now that I think about it, that's not really rooting for the bad guy. The children are clearly the villains of that tale.
If Dr. Hannibal Lecter counts as a villain, he has my vote.
Also, does anyone remember that old live-action Mortal Kombat series that was abruptly canceled? The writers must have been very angsty, because they decided to make Shao Kahn drop the kill-hammer on all the heroes. It think it was one of the rare moments where a black-and-white villain won over his counter-parts.
I remember that show. Not only did Shao Kahn kill all the heroes, he also killed all the quasi-villains (Shang Tsung, Quan Chi etc), kicked the shit out of Raiden, and bragged about everyone he'd killed to his face.
Pretty badass.
I came in here to mention this. There was supposed to be a follow up to fix it but that never came so youre just left with the heroes being murdered in ncold blood and evil winning. Totally fucked with me as a kid.
Isn't the story of Mortal Kombat that when Liu Kang arrives the bad guys have won 999 years in a row and if they win the next one they get Earth or something?
It's like the Star Wars prequels, you have to have the bad guys winning to set up the heroic storyline in the later movies/games.
Also
The good guys in C&C always suck. Westwood had me rooting for Stalin for crissakes.
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
As a sidenote, this is at least relatively modern. Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus is quite a clever, tricky, manipulative person, and those traits were all seen as heroic by the audience of the time.
Anyway, I was reading the thread and came across the Wile E Coyote example, and was gonna say I always rooted for the Trix rabbit, but now that I think about it, that's not really rooting for the bad guy. The children are clearly the villains of that tale.
Remember Odysseus stands in mark contrast to brawn heroes such as Theseus, Achilles, and Heracules. The idea of brawn hero's and disdain for cunning is not a recent innovation. Of course niether are underhanded "cunning" hero's such as Odysseus.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
As a sidenote, this is at least relatively modern. Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus is quite a clever, tricky, manipulative person, and those traits were all seen as heroic by the audience of the time.
Anyway, I was reading the thread and came across the Wile E Coyote example, and was gonna say I always rooted for the Trix rabbit, but now that I think about it, that's not really rooting for the bad guy. The children are clearly the villains of that tale.
there was a weird scene in the iliad, where they do a chariot race. There's one guy who's really strong, and has really awesome horses, and everyone expects him to win. He's beaten by a guy who uses cunning to race really well. In the end, they give the first place prize to the strong guy, because "he deserved to win". reading that, i was like o_O
I'm not sure if it's a broader part of the Western tradition, or maybe more of an American thing, but there is a sense of pride using brute force to overcome cunning.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
As a sidenote, this is at least relatively modern. Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus is quite a clever, tricky, manipulative person, and those traits were all seen as heroic by the audience of the time.
Anyway, I was reading the thread and came across the Wile E Coyote example, and was gonna say I always rooted for the Trix rabbit, but now that I think about it, that's not really rooting for the bad guy. The children are clearly the villains of that tale.
there was a weird scene in the iliad, where they do a chariot race. There's one guy who's really strong, and has really awesome horses, and everyone expects him to win. He's beaten by a guy who uses cunning to race really well. In the end, they give the first place prize to the strong guy, because "he deserved to win". reading that, i was like o_O
I feel like I should remember that, but by that point I think the chapters o' lists had worn me down and I had stopped paying overly much attention to it.
Coincidentally, those chapters should have basically proved beyond a shadow of the doubt that The Iliad had its roots in oral history.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
All this talk of cunning made me think of Lucifer by Neil Gaiman. Certainly a bad guy I was rooting for. However, as with Sandman, calling anyone in that universe "good" or "bad" is quite subjective—but considering I'm talking about Satan himself I think I can get away with calling him bad.
I think my favorite part was when he went to Izanami's hell (the House of Windowless Rooms) to get his wings back. It's important to note that during his stay he was completely mortal and stripped of his divine powers.
During his stay, he:
1) Upended a cauldron of molten lead over the gatekeeper's head when the gatekeeper wanted him to find a particular stone in the cauldron.
2) Converted a supremely powerful she-demon spider to his cause after calling her a whore.
3) Completely dodged the carefully lain death-traps at his welcoming dinner while simultaneously getting away with calling the host's son Kagutsuchi a rapist necrophile.
4) At the dinner also poisoned the normally flawless Kagutsuchi who wields the completely unstoppable Three-Named Sword, causing him to miss ever so slightly and kill his own brother instead of Lucifer right before Kagutsuchi died of poison himself in front of a smirking Lucifer.
5) Blackmailed the Goddess of Death and flew out of Hell.
It's not exactly a book with good or bad people. It's a book where people just continue to act in what they think is society's best interest. Any value statement put upon them is strictly a reflection of your own beliefs.
It's not exactly a book with good or bad people. It's a book where people just continue to act in what they think is society's best interest. Any value statement put upon them is strictly a reflection of your own beliefs.
I know. That's why the last two words were in quotes.
Way I see it, Rorschach was no better than the Taliban. Loved him in the book, but I'd hate him eye-are-ell.
I think all my favorites have been mentioned.
Hans Gruber, Darth Vader, Scorpius.
I have one that I'm not sure which one is the villian, if either of them really are, Richard Kimble and Samuel Gerard from The Fugitive. Maybe neither of them since in the end there really is an actual villain.
Ohh, Khan Noonien Singh in The Wrath of Khan. It's not so much that I root for him, as I completely understand why he wants to make Kirk suffer the way Khan has suffered because of Kirk.
As far as Death Note goes. In the beginning I thought Light had a good idea, by the end of the series, I wanted to snap his neck myself. He got what he deserved.
How about the Queen in Snow White. Here she is, being all beautiful, and up comes along some tart to steal her crown of beauty. What kind of a woman lives with 7 men anyhow?
Whenever Christopher Lee played Dracula.
Whenever Peter Cushing played Dr. Frankenstein, which made me root for him when he was in charge of the Death Star. Also a huge bummer he didn't make it off the thing.
Cyrus in Con Air. This may have more to do with the actor than the role though.
And definitely due to the actor, but just about any instance where Tim Curry plays a villain. Same goes for Alan Rickman actually.
Wheel of Time: I would be happy with the Seachan enslaving everyone east to the Spine of the World. Then the Forsaken could nuke the planet with Golden Age technology and then the Dark One could eat the Forsaken and then all would be right in that world.
Colanut on
0
Options
Mercutio87So build that wall and build it strong causeWe'll be there before too longRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
I feel like this is quite common in media. We just love a good, intelligent, cunning villain. (who ever enjoys a truly evil, stupid, dull villain?) As people already mentioned, Dexter, Hannibal Lecter, most of the bank robbers in Heat, the Master from Dr Who, the Joker, the Bride from Kill Bill, all of the Watchmen depending on how you interpret them...these are all people who are "bad guys" but we root for them to varying degrees. Or you get bad guys who are never even portrayed as villains...like the entire cast of Ocean's 11.
One of the things I really liked about Casino Royale, was that it didn't portray Bond as a womanizing, charming, egotistic super spy. It showed him as a womanizing, cold, egotistic hitman who for whatever reason had enough of a moral code to ultimately be working for the government. His own boss views him as a somewhat untrustworthy thug. He's *not* a very good or nice person, but he's still the "protagonist".
Posts
I also have a soft spot for a well-thought up plan which are always fucked up by some untouchable do-gooder. That includes building a badass super-fortress i.e. the Death Star I and II, Steam Castle, Coccoon, Borg Cube.
Oh and...
This is a good point. While I feel that Superman Returns was mostly a failure at every angle, Lex Luthor certainly has to make his own way, as many villains do.
The stereotypical Western narrative isn't often about overcoming overwhelming odds, it's about using overwhelming power to destroy an objectively "bad" threat, which itself is usually more cunning and woefully overmatched by the forces of good.
It's an interesting paradigm, to be sure, and one that I feel needs more introspection within the literate mediums.
Naturally, "good" versus "bad" is a very, very common theme. But the idea of using brute force as being the only "honorable" method, versus cunning as being "dishonorable", might be more a product of recent (by recent, I mean within a century or two) history.
As though cunning would cheapen the good.
Or as Homer Simpson said about a jar whose top would not come off, "JUST SMASH IT OPEN!"
ETA: I felt this way a lot during Death Note. A lot of Light's problems could have been solved if he had invested in a gun or other conventional means of killing people.
Roy Batty from Blade Runner. A genetic clone with a inbuildt killswitch thats going to kill him after a couple of years. Combined with a system that thinks of him as less then human... I can root for him going apeshits on the people that made him and trying desperatly to survive in any way he can.
Scorpius from Farscape. Just a plain awsome villain with a single minded focus on his goal the extermination of the scarrans. Threating enough that you can believe that the hero gets a nervous breakdown after being chased by him for the better part of season.
Lex Luthor from the DC universe. Not because I think he is good or has good intentions, but because I sorta agree with his worldview. In a world with superpowers the worst thing you can be is a person without them(and Batman doesn't really count as his "crazy prepared" and unlimited funds counts as a superpower in the end). A world with Superman is great.... If you are SUPERMAN! For the rest of us its looking up at the sky as gods fly overhead. That always strikes me as a sucky place to live. Add the fact that the Heroes never seem to permanently stop the bad superpowered people(you know by killing them) and its on step away from dystopia. Lex Luthor may be evil, but at least he is a human evil.
What you were saying about Lex Luthor reminded me of this essay regarding how the real world, its citizens, and the justice system deals with superheroes and supervillains.
I agree with this a lot - You often hear soldiers talking about IEDs and guerrila warfare/insurgency as a 'cowardly way to fight', but I don't see how that is any more cowardly that popping hellfires at people from 3 miles away. It's using the technology you have available to best counter what the enemy has.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Whatever the enemy does to you, it's always a cowardly way to fight if they win or inflict any casualties at all. It's become part of our national rhetoric. I would suspect most soldiers, or at least their officers, would recognize that this isn't really true though - even if they don't say it.
I the Taliban and their sympathizers call the Americans cowardly for using close-air support and UAVs. It's all just a propaganda rallying cry.
Gods yes, Scorpius. My favorite ambiguous maybe-villain ever. He's utterly ruthless and will step over anyone to reach his goal. If he needs to grovel and beg to get something, he'll get down on his knees without a second thought - and never once feeling shame for doing it.
And it takes a long while for the viewer to understand his real goal. He's not chasing Crichton across the galaxy just to be an evil man in a black gimp suit.
Season 3 finale spoiler: goddamn, this episode. Watch this if you don't care about watching Farscape, because this is a villain I respect.
Indirect combat has always been viewed as cowardly by those with the most brute force to swing around.
Not to mention we used similar tactics during the war that won us our independence.
My favorite villian: Kefka. He wanted to destroy the world to prove that nothing matters. If he succeeded, he would have been right.
Face Twit Rav Gram
Of course, Tyranids rule it all.
Actually - The Aliens movies, Starship Troopers, Predator, Indipendence Day - I always want the aliens to win. It's sort of an anti-human agenda.
What puts someone in one category or the other? The Joker does worse stuff than Frank, yet he's much loved. Why do people identify with some villains and not others?
But tons of villains are unlikable. For example, ANY CHARACTER played by Christopher McDonald. Poor guy is pigeon-holed as playing gigantic douches. Also, most heads of faceless, evil corporations and empires (and sometimes mafia families: see KickAss) are just unlikable, as are most of the mooks. Thanks to nationalism and racism, your average middle eastern villain will have NOTHING redeemable about him.
Also, I can't tell if it's sexism (since I tend to like ruthless magnificent bastards but all examples I can think of are male) or how her character was written, but I did not like Azula from Avatar: the Last Airbender. She was a good villain and there was some depth there, but she was utterly and genuinely unlikable. As was her father, but see: head of faceless, evil empire. You know who also sucks? Evil councils. Because, y'know...
"Reapers."
In fact, I'd say that I already went through my "evil characters fascinate me" phase. I played a lot of pen & paper RPG's growing up, and I tended toward anarchist characters with flaws and depth. Now I realize that it really is more enjoyable to be the good guy--because it's more difficult. As someone else mentioned earlier, being good needs to be portrayed as a difficult choice, because in reality, it is. Humanity is basically selfish, and it is the selfless that we should celebrate.
Now, some evil guy has a change of heart and does something noble? That's cool. I like a good redemption story. Notice I said 'good' redemption story, implying it must be written well. Having Sylar go back and forth between good and evil every episode, like he's flipping a switch, is ultimately what made me stop watching Heroes.
Also, based on what I'm reading in this forum, it's very trendy to hate on Avatar. I'm going to state that for what it was, I liked it. And yes, the bad commander-guy was really like-able in a weird way. Never did want him to succeed, and you do love to hate him, but it's with a hint of begrudging respect. I also saw him in Devil in a Blue Dress playing an awesome GOOD GUY, so I think this has more to do with the actor being type-cast as "BAD MOFO". He's like a white Samuel L. Jackson.
Oh yes starship troopers. I rooted for the aliens in that movie since the fight was Nazi's vs. Aliens. I always figured that the Aliens never attacked buenos aires and the Nazi's did it themselves to justify exterminating the bugs in there quest for Lebensraum.
Re: The pen and paper RPG thing - A friend of mine and I, two members of a fairly large group, tend toward evil characters frequently (though not exclusively). Every time he and/or I play a good character, it seems like we're saying "Dammit if I was (evil character's name) I could (simple, ruthless plan) but it's out of character so I can't!"
The difference is that, since you said "anarchist," I'm assuming you're referring more to chaotic neutral (which, IIRC, is the only alignment I haven't played because our group has too many CN rogues). He and I tend toward Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil respectively. Ironically, the first Neutral Evil character I played - in a game that went on-and-off for years - ended up gradually mellowing out to True Neutral by the end, so it's not like I just play ruthless puppy-kickers. Then again, I like a good redemption story myself, though I don't think the aforementioned case qualified as that either.
Also, I wasn't really hating on Avatar. I liked Avatar a lot. Saw it twice in 3D. I just thought that the villains were cartoonishly and simplistically evil, and James Cameron did not suspend my disbelief that there was no other source of Unobtanium in the whole accessible universe.
He was also in Public Enemies, as an old-school badass from Texas who helped bring down Dillinger. More honorable character though.
I haven't seen that movie yet. That guy is a fucking incredible actor and it sucks that he does very few films.
The example of L versus Light is interesting because both sacrifice the fuck out of their ideals simply to defeat their opponents, so the support you have for the characters is whether you're supporting the general things they stand for.
There was a study called At the Edge of the Knife, about police brutality in the Americas. The author notes that though America is a first world nation, it also has a huge number of 'judicial killings'. He says that this is because we, as a society, haven't given up 'violence' to the state. Think about it. Let's say there's a story about a vigilante and the cheif of police after a bad guy. Who's the protagonist and who's the supporting character really depends on what side of the Atlantic you're on.
Once this was brought up, the huge # of vigilantes in American fiction (from superheroes to will smith) is kinda disturbing.
As a sidenote, this is at least relatively modern. Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus is quite a clever, tricky, manipulative person, and those traits were all seen as heroic by the audience of the time.
Anyway, I was reading the thread and came across the Wile E Coyote example, and was gonna say I always rooted for the Trix rabbit, but now that I think about it, that's not really rooting for the bad guy. The children are clearly the villains of that tale.
Isn't the story of Mortal Kombat that when Liu Kang arrives the bad guys have won 999 years in a row and if they win the next one they get Earth or something?
It's like the Star Wars prequels, you have to have the bad guys winning to set up the heroic storyline in the later movies/games.
Also
The good guys in C&C always suck. Westwood had me rooting for Stalin for crissakes.
I would join a shadowy organization for him.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I feel like I should remember that, but by that point I think the chapters o' lists had worn me down and I had stopped paying overly much attention to it.
Coincidentally, those chapters should have basically proved beyond a shadow of the doubt that The Iliad had its roots in oral history.
Nah, just Utusho. She was the one who actually posed a danger.
I think my favorite part was when he went to Izanami's hell (the House of Windowless Rooms) to get his wings back. It's important to note that during his stay he was completely mortal and stripped of his divine powers.
During his stay, he:
2) Converted a supremely powerful she-demon spider to his cause after calling her a whore.
3) Completely dodged the carefully lain death-traps at his welcoming dinner while simultaneously getting away with calling the host's son Kagutsuchi a rapist necrophile.
4) At the dinner also poisoned the normally flawless Kagutsuchi who wields the completely unstoppable Three-Named Sword, causing him to miss ever so slightly and kill his own brother instead of Lucifer right before Kagutsuchi died of poison himself in front of a smirking Lucifer.
5) Blackmailed the Goddess of Death and flew out of Hell.
Gaiman is awesome.
Also, Vandemar and Croup.
Aaaand, Alan Rickman in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.
I'll carve his heart out with a spoon!
It's not exactly a book with good or bad people. It's a book where people just continue to act in what they think is society's best interest. Any value statement put upon them is strictly a reflection of your own beliefs.
I know. That's why the last two words were in quotes.
Way I see it, Rorschach was no better than the Taliban. Loved him in the book, but I'd hate him eye-are-ell.
Hans Gruber, Darth Vader, Scorpius.
I have one that I'm not sure which one is the villian, if either of them really are, Richard Kimble and Samuel Gerard from The Fugitive. Maybe neither of them since in the end there really is an actual villain.
Ohh, Khan Noonien Singh in The Wrath of Khan. It's not so much that I root for him, as I completely understand why he wants to make Kirk suffer the way Khan has suffered because of Kirk.
As far as Death Note goes. In the beginning I thought Light had a good idea, by the end of the series, I wanted to snap his neck myself. He got what he deserved.
How about the Queen in Snow White. Here she is, being all beautiful, and up comes along some tart to steal her crown of beauty. What kind of a woman lives with 7 men anyhow?
Whenever Christopher Lee played Dracula.
Whenever Peter Cushing played Dr. Frankenstein, which made me root for him when he was in charge of the Death Star. Also a huge bummer he didn't make it off the thing.
Cyrus in Con Air. This may have more to do with the actor than the role though.
And definitely due to the actor, but just about any instance where Tim Curry plays a villain. Same goes for Alan Rickman actually.
PSN : Bolthorn
One of the things I really liked about Casino Royale, was that it didn't portray Bond as a womanizing, charming, egotistic super spy. It showed him as a womanizing, cold, egotistic hitman who for whatever reason had enough of a moral code to ultimately be working for the government. His own boss views him as a somewhat untrustworthy thug. He's *not* a very good or nice person, but he's still the "protagonist".