Like any conversation, it was filled with contradictions and absolutes and WHY do I bother stating a case? At this point, either there are going to be so many exceptions to my stance that it barely counts; or I will completely change my stance to the opposite after stating something absolutely. (For reference: see everything I say I won't or can't do and now do.... It's annoying. "Yes, you're going to be a liar no matter what - you're welcome.")
Anyway, I was discussing villains.
The original point was: could the villain in a story be the best character?
As in: could the character that everyone else fights against (perhaps 'antagonist is better suited but...Villain portrays my point better.) be actually the best person? Never murders, doesn't break the law, is kind to kittens and all manner of cute creations, is generous chivalrous, etcetra, etcetra, ad nauseum, ad aeternum.... Yet this perfect person is the villain?
In my opinion: yes.
Why? Because essentially: the villain is just the one that the majority of the people oppose. Simplistic? Yes. But in its essence...
Of course, the Villain is also the one that lies, steals, kills, betrays, and does whatever necessary to achieve his end goal. Generally, the end goal he wishes to achieve is the reason he is termed the villain - the reason most stand against him - as it is something that stands against the morals of the majority of sane people. However, there are occasions where the end goal is not the one that rouses opposition, but rather the methods enacted to accomplish it.
I find that in the moment, while I can find many villains - antagonists - that fit in the role of the latter, I know few off the top of my head that fit the role of the former.... Off the top of my head, three for the former would be: James Moriarty, DC's Joker, and...Red John. Three that have laudable goals but went about them in wrong ways would be Agent Smith, Loki (in the first Thor at least, and then it depends how much you want to read into the character.), and obviously Ras al Guhl. I would have said the Doctor (long, long story....But I always liked the darker renditions and my first and one favourite is the First who tried to murder someone so....there would be that. Also: he kidnapped them to protect himself - if I hadn't researched the show? I'd say he's DEFINITELY the villain.), but then I realised that he doesn't technically count because while the Dalek's might see him as the villain - the majority of people don't. (That we know - there's the whole warrior thing but...)
Agent Smith is just doing his job and HONESTLY who would choose a life outside the Matrix?? It's a mess! Loki was either pointing out that his brother wasn't ready to rule (in which he was completely right or that society is going nowhere fast. Er. It's already going nowhere - they have space travel but dress like Shakespeare in the park??
It annoys me - but....still better than Stargate's Asgardians. Now, THERE'S a villain with a good motive that went about it in a rubbish way. But I haven't actually finished that series yet.....
Although, I'd take Stargate over Marvel even..... Sadly, they canceled the last series about a year or so before I found out about it and that IRKS me.
Anyway! Back on point. What was my point...
Oh! Villains.
So I'm accused of being psychopathic, sociopathic (whatever), manipulative (that I plead guilty to at least.), sick, and cruel.
I maintain that I merely prefer intelligence. And realism. Some degree of suspension of disbelief is acceptable and expected: but if you don't want me to talk through the film or story or entertainment? Please give me either complex characters or complex plots to distract myself with. Else? Deal with it.
Soooo.....then we get down to the actual topic: I don't like most heroes.
Now, I say 'most' because off the top of my head I can think of none.
Most heroes (or protagonists - but that includes the anti-heroes which I prefer, so we're just going to call them the heroes) are incredibly predictable. They're usually some version of aesthetically pleasing, strong, morally good and principled, have a girlfriend (or get one in the process of the film), have lost a loved one in a manner that relates to the antagonist, is betrayed sometime in the story, gets caught in the most obvious of traps, and somehow manages to triumph every time.
I'm sorry.
What?
I get it. Good always wins. I agree mostly whole-heartedly (I'm also rather pragmatic or fatalistic or cynical....)! But does that automatically mean that Good has to be dumb?
I. Think. Not.
(Again, I have WAY too much fun finding pictures....)
But please: prove to me that the majority of heroes don't follow that basic storyline give or take a few things? Then you may cherish the look of surprise on my face.
And I will be surprised. Because while I've not seen the MOST stories, I've seen an awful lot.
Usually, however, the predictable story is tempered by differences. Honestly, my problem generally comes more from poor plot than poor characters - but because the characters were tied into the plot, they suffer and I end up complaining.
The most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head of an utterly predictably hero-arc is that of Nick Burkhardt.
"Most heroes (or protagonists - but that includes the anti-heroes which I prefer, so we're just going to call them the heroes) are incredibly predictable. They're usually some version of aesthetically pleasing, strong, morally good and principled, have a girlfriend (or get one in the process of the film), have lost a loved one in a manner that relates to the antagonist, is betrayed sometime in the story, gets caught in the most obvious of traps, and somehow manages to triumph every time."
"Nick is incredibly predictable. He's to some apparently aesthetically pleasing, strong, morally good and principled, has a girlfriend, loses a loved one at the hand of the creatures he's supposed to hunt and oppose, is betrayed by at least his girlfriend, gets caught in the most obvious of traps set by his greatest opponents, and somehow manages to triumph every time."
....See my point?
Now, this isn't saying that there aren't any good heroes - au contraire, I CAN come up with a few if given the chance and time.
(This list also does not include anti-heroes or too twisted individuals just to prove that I CAN like good people. It's just harder.)
Off the top of my head? The first hero would be Ian Chatter-CHESTERton. But that might just be because I was watching the....Not Empty Child - that's the Ninth's....Whatever the pilot serial for the First was called. Or William Murdoch. (If you want someone good? He is good. But still so very, very interesting now why can't they make heroes like THAT??? Hmm?? AND intelligent enough to keep up with the villain (and yes, there is one...) without almost a case of Deus ex Machina...
There's also Steve Rogers. And Aram Mojtabai. And Alexis Castle. And Theresa Lisbon. And Grace Van Pelt. And Wayne Rigsby. And Abby Scuito. And Donald Mallard. And Tony Donozzo. And Tim McGee. And Angela Perry. And Chuck Taggert. And Sarah Forbes. And Edwin Jarvis. And Cisco Ramon. And Jim Gordon. And Alfred Pennyworth. And Donald Ressler. And Angie Martinelli. And Jack O'Neill. And Daniel Jackson. And Sam Carter. And Rodney McKay. And Carson Becket!!!! And Evan Lorne. And Spock. And Leonard McCoy. And Donna Noble. And Amy Pond. And Rory Williams. And Romana I. And Sarah Jane. And Iolaus. And John Watson. And Jo Martinez. And Henry Morgan. And Lucas Whal. And Herman Gottlieb. And Cadfael. And Hugh Beringer. And Fisher's Jack Robinson. And Alex O'Conner. And Aragorn. And Elrond. And Faramir. And Bilbo. And Clyde Easter. And the Baudelaire Orphans. And even Peter Pevensie. And as much as I'd LOVE to say Martin Hausman, that would be cheating on two levels: that series hasn't technically aired yet, and he plays anti-heroes at best and charming, relateable villains at worst and always dies or leaves too soon.
And I could find more - but I left the majority of my notes elsewhere and sadly Mrs. Hudson refuses to pick them up for me....
Rubbish.
I'll do my own writing then, ja?
Now, what do those characters have in common? Why do I like say...Rory Williams and not Barry Allen? Why do I like Steve Rogers but not Clark Kent? Why do I like 'insert character' and not 'insert character'?
I have NO idea.
I generally tend to be a contradiction - it's easier to sum it up that way. Whatever I say about myself, there will be another part of me that directly opposes that and WHY is it that way.... It just complicates matters...
But the main correlation betwixt those characters? They have a dry sense of humour and a sharp wit. Most dress well, but I honestly don't notice appearance until after I get to know someone - until then they're just...faces. Nothing. Whether or not I like their personality determines whether or not I think them aesthetically pleasing and good GRIEF is that hard to explain.... And apparently also generally discounted. Thanks. Figures.
Reasons I still watched Doctor Who even when they RUINSES the Master: Missy is the embodiment of my interactions with the majority of entertainment.
Yeah. Well. So is life.
Although, I do wonder if perhaps the best thing about the heroes I like is the way they interact with the anti-hero.....
Except, no. Because Clyde had absolutely no support (AKA I didn't watch the rest of the episode...) and Murdoch has no anti-hero. And Murdoch is also MAJORLY predictable, honestly; yet.....
While Nick Burkhardt is the existing embodiment of everything I hate in heroes? Murdoch is a case where the same things that infuriate me about heroes somehow....don't matter?
Maybe it's the loyalty? Maybe it's the ability to stand by what they believe or their friends regardless of what comes against them. Maybe it's the ability to bed the rules to protect those they've consciously or subconsciously promised themselves to. Maybe it's the constant weight in their actions that thinks how their choice will affect those around them.
Because the villains? All of the characters I like? More than just being relateably flawed and having a intelligent and smart humour, they're loyal. This loyalty transcends everything else - whatever may be to. But this loyalty is also rarely to themselves. It's a loyalty to someone else: and this also humanises them further. Because everyone has a loyalty to something outside of themselves. It may be shallow - but it still exists.
So in the end? If they're intelligent, have a dry humour, and are incredibly loyal and principled (whichever way...), then I will likely enjoy them. If they are complex characters with ulterior motives, then I will enjoy them. If they have opportunity for growth, are relateable, make mistakes, fail, but are able to THINK....
And I think that's about as wrapped up as you're going to get on this subject.
At least I have an answer for myself now....
