Doing things which oppose the goals of the protagonists I don't think automatically makes a character a villain. It makes them part of the ensemble. Maybe one good way to define a main villain is whether stopping him will allow the heroes to overcome all their major obstacles
:bz: :bz: :bzz:
+2
Larlarconsecutive normal brunchesModerator, ClubPAmod
Not sure how'd I define anti-hero, seems like a broad category that includes all kinds of unconventional heroes
:bz: :bz: :bzz:
0
Larlarconsecutive normal brunchesModerator, ClubPAmod
edited May 2013
Honestly, my understanding is that it's acceptable to use "antihero" as a synonym of "villain" in instances where the villain is the protagonist. But I'm not an English major so I'm just going to put this down and go play in the street.
To be fair, Walt has put himself on the line for Jessie repeatedly throughout the show.
He went out of his way to get Jessie back to working with him, and then when Jessie started going down a very bad road, Walt beat him to it so that Jessie wouldn't have to.
The guy has become seriously evil, but he does look out for his own. He's also got massive anger/pride issues and doesn't fully understand his own motivations at times.
I have a friend who argues that because you don't want Walt to win anymore, they have ruined his character
The lead character of a show should be someone you identify with and root for, if the central character of a show is someone you don't want to win anymore they have irreparably fucked up the show
He also argues that the last episode of Season 4 was a giant mistake that has caused the show to go downhill incredibly fast
Tell your friend that Richard III is a classic work by William Fucking Shakespeare, and that Richard as a character is an unsympathetic, power-hungry murdering dickbag from the very beginning of that work. Main characters in literature being unsympathetic or someone you root against is not a new, novel thing that we have to rail against. Not every work has to follow a paragon of goodness as they conquer evil.
I mean, unless he knows better than William Shakespeare.
And there are many, many other examples that predate him as well.
Honestly, my understanding is that it's acceptable to use "antihero" as a synonym of "villain" in instances where the villain is the protagonist. But I'm not an English major so I'm just going to put this down and go play in the street.
He could definitely be called an anti-hero all the way through the fourth season, as long as by anti-hero you mean he's not a good guy but he's generally struggling against people worse than he is, making him pretty much the lesser of two evils.
Fifth season so far spoilers:
But by the fifth season, he has become the villain of the story and I think "villain protagonist" definitely fits more than "anti-hero".
the antagonists in the 5th season are pretty much the cops (who we should be rooting for because Walt is a murderer), Jesse (who finally decided Walt had become too frightening to be around, and is starting to get his shit together), and his own family, who he thinks are standing in the way of his rise to power as he builds what he sees as a legacy.
Walter White is the villain of Breaking Bad at this point.
Isn't an antihero just a main character with no redeeming qualities or virtues?
not really because being the main character doesn't make you the hero
I don't see how that matters. You don't have to be considered an immoral hero to be an antihero. It's not a strictly literal designation.
Walt isn't doing things for noble reasons. Not since he went full Heisenberg. It was about keeping his turf, retaining power and having control. Half the shit with Gus was bad decisions from Walt and/or Jesse, which escalated into all-out war.
To be fair, Walt has put himself on the line for Jessie repeatedly throughout the show.
He went out of his way to get Jessie back to working with him, and then when Jessie started going down a very bad road, Walt beat him to it so that Jessie wouldn't have to.
The guy has become seriously evil, but he does look out for his own. He's also got massive anger/pride issues and doesn't fully understand his own motivations at times.
He's not afraid to manipulate or control Jesse for his own agenda. He hates it when other people do it.
Poisoning Brock, for example. He's "looked out for his own" by corrupting and terrorizing his wife so much she tried to commit suicide and is terrified of him.
Like, as bad as he was by the end of 4, he was dealing with Gus, who was undeniably the most evil dude in the show.
I mean, Walt has done some heinous shit, but he's never straight-up murdered anyone just to scare the shit out of somebody.
Neither has Gus. At least, not then.
Victor had to go. He had been seen at the crime scene, he left his car at the scene, and he starting cooking without permission. He stepped way outside his boundaries and he had to go.
It just happened that it also worked to send a message.
Most definitely a bad guy. But he doesn't really have any malice in the work he does. Doesn't really seem to get thrills out of it, at least not by the time we get to know him.
It's just a job to him, and he knows his place. He's pretty much fine just being a cog in the machine, getting his pay and going home and having a beer.
Most definitely a bad guy. But he doesn't really have any malice in the work he does. Doesn't really seem to get thrills out of it, at least not by the time we get to know him.
It's just a job to him, and he knows his place. He's pretty much fine just being a cog in the machine, getting his pay and going home and having a beer.
Ehh. The Nuremberg Defense didn't work for soldiers following orders, I don't see how it would excuse someone following the orders of a murdering scofflaw.
Not to say that Mike isn't likable, but the fact that he's smart, affable, capable and has his own internal guidelines and morality (which he breaks thanks to the influence of a pretty major character) just makes him a likable Lawful Evil character, not a neutral party.
0
Larlarconsecutive normal brunchesModerator, ClubPAmod
Larlar I agree with you somewhat on the anti-hero thing too!
But he is pretty much just the bad guy now in the 5th season
0
Larlarconsecutive normal brunchesModerator, ClubPAmod
But part of my stance is that those two statements are interchangeable.
protagonist bad guy = antihero
Do you see now why you cannot come with us to antihero isle, where the finest luxuries will always at least partially be made from the bones of freshly murdered nuns?
Most definitely a bad guy. But he doesn't really have any malice in the work he does. Doesn't really seem to get thrills out of it, at least not by the time we get to know him.
It's just a job to him, and he knows his place. He's pretty much fine just being a cog in the machine, getting his pay and going home and having a beer.
I guess I just think "anti-hero" is a really weird word, because we already have "protagonist" and "antagonist" to define roles i/r/t to story structure/focus, and "hero" and "villain" to describe overall morality. And some folks seem to be using "anti-hero" to mean evil protagonist, and some folks seem to be using it to mean flawed-good-person, and the whole thing's turning into a big mess because it's an ill-defined term.l
+2
I Win Swordfightsall the traits of greatnessstarlight at my feetRegistered Userregular
I have actually heard someone say "what that wasn't rape they're married"
Walt is absolutely an anti-hero. That is the term to describe a protagonist who lacks what we traditionally acknowledge as heroic qualities to varying degrees.
If we want to have a hero/anti-hero discussion with regard to Walter White/Heisenberg as part of a larger discussion on the duality of the character, sure, but to try and say Bryan Cranston's character is not an anti-hero belies a lack of understanding of what an anti-hero is
Posts
I don't see how that matters. You don't have to be considered an immoral hero to be an antihero. It's not a strictly literal designation.
He went out of his way to get Jessie back to working with him, and then when Jessie started going down a very bad road, Walt beat him to it so that Jessie wouldn't have to.
The guy has become seriously evil, but he does look out for his own. He's also got massive anger/pride issues and doesn't fully understand his own motivations at times.
Wait, when did these moments happen?
Tell your friend that Richard III is a classic work by William Fucking Shakespeare, and that Richard as a character is an unsympathetic, power-hungry murdering dickbag from the very beginning of that work. Main characters in literature being unsympathetic or someone you root against is not a new, novel thing that we have to rail against. Not every work has to follow a paragon of goodness as they conquer evil.
I mean, unless he knows better than William Shakespeare.
And there are many, many other examples that predate him as well.
He could definitely be called an anti-hero all the way through the fourth season, as long as by anti-hero you mean he's not a good guy but he's generally struggling against people worse than he is, making him pretty much the lesser of two evils.
Fifth season so far spoilers:
Walter White is the villain of Breaking Bad at this point.
anti hero is not a hero or variety of hero. Its a protagonist who is somewhat to complete bastard
Walt isn't doing things for noble reasons. Not since he went full Heisenberg. It was about keeping his turf, retaining power and having control. Half the shit with Gus was bad decisions from Walt and/or Jesse, which escalated into all-out war.
He's not afraid to manipulate or control Jesse for his own agenda. He hates it when other people do it.
He's pretty much become a total monster in 5.
I mean, Walt has done some heinous shit, but he's never straight-up murdered anyone just to scare the shit out of somebody.
Regardless of his reasons,
which, in my book, is just as horrendous
True.
Neither has Gus. At least, not then.
It just happened that it also worked to send a message.
Most definitely a bad guy. But he doesn't really have any malice in the work he does. Doesn't really seem to get thrills out of it, at least not by the time we get to know him.
It's just a job to him, and he knows his place. He's pretty much fine just being a cog in the machine, getting his pay and going home and having a beer.
Denying he's the bad guy
Ehh. The Nuremberg Defense didn't work for soldiers following orders, I don't see how it would excuse someone following the orders of a murdering scofflaw.
Not to say that Mike isn't likable, but the fact that he's smart, affable, capable and has his own internal guidelines and morality (which he breaks thanks to the influence of a pretty major character) just makes him a likable Lawful Evil character, not a neutral party.
run away with me to antihero isle
we can raise the most beautiful supporting character children and no one will ever care what classically heroic values they exhibit, if any
protagonist bad guy = antihero
Do you see now why you cannot come with us to antihero isle, where the finest luxuries will always at least partially be made from the bones of freshly murdered nuns?
He's banal evil.
I think that just calling him a villain is simpler, because it really doesn't matter to me if he's the one we are following the story arc of
But I'm not going to straight up say you're wrong because you aren't
No.
I'm sory bry I don't believe a real person could say this.
I agree. Even by the end of 4 I was defending him, but now... not so much.
It's sweet that this is where you draw the line on real people saying horrible things
I encourage you to never drink with marines who are fans of the show
I have unfortunate news for you
http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/tagged/steubenville
https://medium.com/@alascii
If we want to have a hero/anti-hero discussion with regard to Walter White/Heisenberg as part of a larger discussion on the duality of the character, sure, but to try and say Bryan Cranston's character is not an anti-hero belies a lack of understanding of what an anti-hero is
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
the idea's the same. men are completely absolved in either case cause their beastly sexual acts are "only natural" and "expected"
basically, all agency is put on the woman: "she should've known better"
and that conception is incredibly warped
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
Nope, he just