Bad guys we root for-is it indicative of how badly written good guys are?

[QuinnFillory]

I recently read an article on how we root for the villains in tv and movies and a thought occurred to me: a lot of the time, we end rooting for the bad guys in comparison to the good guys because of how the good guys are written. Either the good guys aren't really all that good, or the bad guys have too much of a point, or the good guys are actually working for the wrong side.

Example: Continuum, the tv series. The main character was fighting time-travelling terrorists. Sounds noble, right? However, she was fighting for a future where people are under the control of the corporations that have taken control of the country in the future. Also, she later admitted that she was really just fighting to ensure that her family still existed. She later teamed up with them to change the future for the better.

Here is the article: https://www.avclub.com/7-bad-guys-we...535502#replies

[Huntsman Spider]

TV Tropes has several terms for this sort of thing, mostly interlinked with each other.

"Designated Hero" and "Unintentionally Unsympathetic" are what happens when the protagonist is supposed to be heroic, or at least sympathetic, but there is just too much dissonance between how heroic/sympathetic the protagonist is treated as by the plot and how unheroic/unsympathetic his or her actions, attitude, and/or fundamental characterization turn out to be for him or her to be a credible hero in the eyes of (much of) the audience.

"Designated Villain" and "Unintentionally Sympathetic" are the same as applied to villains, where the antagonist is supposed to be villainous or at least unsympathetic, but if his or her actions are looked at from an outsider's context as opposed to the POV of the protagonist(s), then s/he might well be the only one operating from genuinely noble or at least sympathetic intentions or motives as opposed to the "Designated Heroes" being ultimately more self-serving than the plot/writer wants to admit.

Connecting both of these is the trope "Protagonist-Centered Morality," where the mentality of either the main characters or the writers themselves is that, "What the protagonist decides is right is right, and anyone standing in opposition or even disagreement is the bad guy no matter what." The protagonist, again, may be intended as the hero of the piece, but the implicit egocentricity in his or her "morality," such as it is, makes it hard to relate to the protagonist as someone who should be treated as the hero that the plot/writer wants him or her to be.

Then sometimes, there's "Rooting for the Empire," where it's acknowledged that the villains are evil, but they have their fans and supporters because they're more effective, more compelling and interesting, or just plain cooler than the heroes. Alongside that is what TV Tropes calls "Draco In Leather Pants," where a villain's negative qualities are whitewashed by his or her fans because said fans find him or her "cooler" or "sexier" and therefore don't really want to acknowledge that the villain is the villain, and "Ron the Death Eater," where a hero is "bashed" or demonized by some fans because for whatever reason, those fans can't stand that particular character and refuse to acknowledge any of his or her more positive aspects. (For those of you in the Harry Potter fandom, you probably know better than I do why fandom's tendencies to elevate or idolize villains while demonizing heroes are named after Draco Malfoy and Ron Weasley.)

To relate this to real life somewhat, perhaps the reason people tend to root more for villains in comparison to heroes is that we realize, on some level, that those designated as heroes are really just enforcing a system or status quo that is all too often unfair or unequal in terms of how rewards and punishments are doled out. On some level, we can recognize that unfairness, but we also recognize that if we lash out or call it out, we may end up targeted for punishment as well. Thus, we end up rooting for villains because the villains are not as afraid as we are to challenge, call out, or topple the system that we ourselves recognize as unfair or not serving all of us equally, even if their own motives aren't necessarily altruistic. Vicarious rebellion, in short.

[Tuck]

Example: Continuum, the tv series. The main character was fighting time-travelling terrorists. Sounds noble, right? However, she was fighting for a future where people are under the control of the corporations that have taken control of the country in the future. Also, she later admitted that she was really just fighting to ensure that her family still existed. She later teamed up with them to change the future for the better.

The terrorists in Continuum were unrepentant murderers. They were all "ends justify the means". (They were fleshed out and made more fully human and sympathetic as the show went on, but they were pretty vicious out of the gate)

At the same time, because of how the show depicted the future, it was clear early on that they would address the problems with the future world the main character was protecting.

In any case, it's easy enough to be sympathetic to someone who is fighting for a pretty clear-cut good (stopping murderers) inside a bad system. I mean, Robocop becomes a pretty pointless movie if you can't do this.

[XPac]

I don't think an enjoyable bad guy is necessarily an indicator of a poorly written good guy. An entertaining character is an entertaining character, regardless of their moral allignment.

[Huntsman Spider]

I don't think an enjoyable bad guy is necessarily an indicator of a poorly written good guy. An entertaining character is an entertaining character, regardless of their moral allignment.

True enough, but if you find yourself rooting for the bad guy to succeed more often than not, then sometimes, it is most likely because the writer has failed to write the "good guys" as genuinely good, having a genuinely good cause to fight for, or sympathetic at bare minimum.

[AJBopp]

I can't think of a single bad guy I've ever rooted for.

The closest I could come is Gus Gorman.

[Vegeta]

Yeah, sometimes the bad guys can be simply too amusing or interesting in comparison to the bland hero. Take the old G.I.Joe cartoon series. Most of the good guys (with the exception of Snake Eyes and Shipwreck) were fairly interchangeable in persona and appearance. Where as all the main bad guys had unique costumes, over the top behavior and political in-fighting. Not to mention they seemed to work harder for a win, everyone loves an underdog and if the bad guys are portrayed as such, you can't help but feel for them.

[Sain]

Just realized while typing this that I guess a misconception would be confusing rooting-for and enjoyment-of. I enjoyed Killmonger more than T'Challa, but I wasn't rooting for him. I enjoyed Thanos' attack, but also smei rooted for him. But that was because I wanted to see how our heroes handle the fallout, not because I didn't like them.

But I do see what you mean, because there have been rare instance where I am actively rooting for the villains purely because I dislike what they've done (or lack therof) with the heroes. To a lesser extent I found for the few episodes I've seen of Neo-Saban era Power Rangers that I have no problem seeing the rangers get their asses huuwhooped.

[Agent Z]

I recently read an article on how we root for the villains in tv and movies and a thought occurred to me: a lot of the time, we end rooting for the bad guys in comparison to the good guys because of how the good guys are written. Either the good guys aren't really all that good, or the bad guys have too much of a point, or the good guys are actually working for the wrong side.

Example: Continuum, the tv series. The main character was fighting time-travelling terrorists. Sounds noble, right? However, she was fighting for a future where people are under the control of the corporations that have taken control of the country in the future. Also, she later admitted that she was really just fighting to ensure that her family still existed. She later teamed up with them to change the future for the better.

Here is the article: https://www.avclub.com/7-bad-guys-we...535502#replies

Not necessarily. Sometimes it just means the villain is written very well and is in no way a reflection of how the hero is written.

[Hellion]

Sometimes it is a matter of predictability in the story. It's no secret that Sons Of Anarchy was conceived of as "Hamlet with motorcycles," so any audience member well-versed in their Shakespeare could anticipate certain plot points and character arcs. The show pretty accurately followed the structure of the play until post-season 4 when Kurt Sutter became his own worst enemy and derailed the show.

Because I knew the central character of Jax was going to inevitably lose his shit and do terrible things, I could never really get invested in him. I found Clay and Gemma far more interesting just because I knew they wouldn't die until the very end of the show, so they could do anything up until that point to aid in Jax's turn to madness.