History Analysis / DesignatedVillain

** This is especially bad when the ‘hero’ belittles, humiliates, and otherwise torments his/her enemy and [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality is portrayed as justified]], but when the enemy does ''the exact same thing'', s/he is a {{jerkass}}. This often leads to AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: if we only ever see a character’s behavior around someone who hates them, what’s to say they ''aren’t'' sweet to their friends and family? This can then make an already UnintentionallyUnsympathetic protagonist worse, if they treat their loved ones poorly.

* Sitcoms and Telenovelas with a LoveTriangle (well, is there any without one?) usually arrange it as a designated couple and ‘the other’, who is an obstacle in the designated couple’s happiness. They are usually referred to as the heroes and villains of the work. However, ‘the other’ may be a villain or not depending on what s/he actually does to keep the relation or in other topics. Specially if the designated couple have just met and ‘the other’ has been in the relation from years ago (and more if there are kids in the scene), doing anything to protect the relation may be perfectly justified in most cases.

* Any time a new boss/authority figure makes any type of budget cuts, it is almost guaranteed that he or she will be [[MeanBoss portrayed as a villain]], and their rising to their position of authority will be portrayed as a TyrantTakesTheHelm moment. Never mind the fact that in RealLife budget cuts are often necessary, particularly in tough economic times. The idea that budget cuts may sometimes be justified is apparently an unpopular one with many writers, and all authority figures who suggest budget cuts will be portrayed as absurdly evil villains who actively hate the arts/their employees/teachers/children/the community and want to cut the budget ForTheEvulz rather than because of fiscal/economic realities.

** If they have a ‘no pets allowed’ policy, it’s usually because they hate animals instead of more legitimate reasons like the potential to spread disease, or for the expensive damage pets can do to the property such as urinating everywhere, or chewing or clawing the walls or floors.

* Any time a new boss/authority figure makes any type of budget cuts, it is almost guaranteed that he or she will be portrayed as a villain, and their rising to their position of authority will be portrayed as a TyrantTakesTheHelm moment. Never mind the fact that in RealLife budget cuts are often necessary, particularly in tough economic times. The idea that budget cuts may sometimes be justified is apparently an unpopular one with many writers, and all authority figures who suggest budget cuts will be portrayed as absurdly evil villains who actively hate the arts/their employees/teachers/children/the community and want to cut the budget ForTheEvulz rather than because of fiscal/economic realities.

* In a work that’s VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory, the opposing side will get [[HistoricalVillainUpgrade an upgrade in villainy]], while the side with the protagonists may be [[HistoricalHeroUpgrade made to seem more heroic]]. Evidence in the story can still remain for a grayer view, though, sometimes either side may appear NotSoDifferent, and anyone who researched the event will be shaking their heads as to why each side’s traits were exaggerated.

** If they have a ‘no pets allowed’ policy, it’s usually because they hate animals instead of more legitimate reasons like the potential to spread disease.

* Similarly, landlords (or bankers, etc.) get this treatment simply for demanding that protagonists pay them the money they’re rightfully owed or vacate the premises. If the ‘creditor’ figure is not outright portrayed as a jerk or involved in some underhanded scheme, they still get painted as ‘fabulously wealthy landowner being merciless and unforgiving to characters’ hardships.’ Unfortunately, there really are people with this sort of NoSympathy for landlords in RealLife.

* Similarly, landlords (or bankers, etc.) get this treatment simply for demanding that protagonists pay them the money they’re rightfully owed or vacate the premises. If the ‘creditor’ figure is not outright portrayed as a jerk or involved in some underhanded scheme, they still get painted as ‘fabulously wealthy landowner being merciless and unforgiving to characters’ hardships.’

*** There’s a seemingly easy AuthorsSavingThrow at play: if the authority figure wants to cut the budget on the backs of poor people, many viewers would see that as bad. Yet if they had been abusing the services that were cut, it might be necessary to teach them [[AnAesop a lesson]], albeit perhaps a [[FamilyUnfriendlyAesop controversial]] one for this audience. When such a thought leads to an assumption, sincerely held or [[{{Hypocrite}} feigned]], that ''all'' economic problems are poor people’s fault, however, it is a problem.

* In most movies about SavingTheOrphanage, old theater, school, ball field, etc., the villain is someone who wants to tear down this location to put their own business there, a completely legal and understandable (if somewhat tragic for the protagonists) way to make a living. Often they’re corrupt or try to achieve their goal of obtaining the property through dishonest or illegal means, but sometimes the movie has no other way to paint them as an outright villain than to make them kind of a jerk. (A production intended for kids especially would do this, because the creators think [[ViewersAreMorons kids are insufficiently intelligent to understand corruption]].)

* In most movies about saving the old theater, school, ball field, etc., the villain is someone who wants to tear down this location to put their own business there, a completely legal and understandable (if somewhat tragic for the protagonists) way to make a living. Often they’re corrupt or try to achieve their goal of obtaining the property through dishonest or illegal means, but sometimes the movie has no other way to paint them as an outright villain than to make them kind of a jerk. (A production intended for kids especially would do this, because the creators think [[ViewersAreMorons kids are insufficiently intelligent to understand corruption]].)

** If they have a ‘no pets allowed’ policy ,it’s usually because they hate animals instead of more legitimate reasons.
* [[CassandraTruth The people who think the hero is crazy and needs to be locked up]] usually think so because the hero is, well… ''acting'' totally crazy. In real life, if somebody you know [[YouHaveToBelieveMe starts going on about voices, special powers, or other worlds]], getting mental help for them is generally the ''right'' thing to do.
* Any time a new boss/authority figure makes any type of budget cuts, it is almost guaranteed that he or she will be portrayed as a villain, and their rising to their position of authority will be portrayed as a TyrantTakesTheHelm moment. Never mind the fact that in RealLife budget cuts are often necessary, particularly in tough economic times. The idea that budget cuts may sometimes be justified is apparently not a popular one with many writers, and all authority figures who suggest budget cuts will be portrayed as an absurdly evil villain who actively hate the arts/their employees/teachers/children/the community and want to cut the budget ForTheEvulz rather than because of fiscal/economic realities.

* In many particularly cheesy kid and teen movies, anyone who doesn’t immediately give the DesignatedHero their way is portrayed as a jerkass. A typical example is a character who did nothing worse than compete with the protagonist for something, yet somehow deserves to be punished and humiliated, or a teacher who actually makes the protagonist work and is portrayed as a SadistTeacher because of it.
** This is especially bad when the ‘hero’ belittles, humiliates, and otherwise torments his/her enemy and [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality is portrayed as justified]], but when the enemy does ''the exact same thing'', s/he is a {{jerkass}}. This often leads to AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: if we only ever see a character’s behavior around someone who hates them, what’s to say they ''aren’t'' sweet to their friends and family? This can them make an already UnintentionallyUnsympathetic protagonist worse, if they treat their loved ones poorly.
* Sitcoms and Telenovelas with a LoveTriangle (well, is there any without one?) usually arrange it as a designated couple and ‘the other’, who is an obstacle in the designated couple’s happiness. They are usually referred to as the heroes and villains of the work. However, ‘the other’ may be a villain or not according to what does s/he actually do to keep the relation or in other topics. Specially if the designated couple have just met and ‘the other’ has been in the relation from years ago (and more if there are kids in the scene), doing anything to protect the relation may be perfectly justified in most cases.

** If they have a ‘no pets allowed’ policy it’s usually because they hate animals instead of more legitimate reasons.
* The people who think the hero is crazy and needs to be locked up usually think so because the hero is, well … ''acting'' totally crazy. In real life, if somebody you know starts going on about voices, special powers, or other worlds, getting mental help for them is generally the ''right'' thing to do.

** If they are a school principal or superintendent, they will be depicted as a DeanBitterman who needs to lighten up. If they are a political figure they will inevitably be a StrawCharacter, and if they run a business, they will always be portrayed as being a CorruptCorporateExecutive. [[FelonyMisdemeanor Apparently, fiscal responsibility is the Eighth Deadly Sin in the world of fiction.]] The fact that this attitude is often carried over into RealLife — resulting in anyone who suggests budget cuts being portrayed as evil however fiscally sensible their proposals may be — is also rather frustrating.

** This is especially bad when the ‘hero’ belittles, humiliates, and otherwise torments his/her enemy and is portrayed as justified, but when the enemy does ''the exact same thing'', s/he is a {{jerkass}}. This often leads to AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: if we only ever see a character’s behavior around someone who hates them, what’s to say they ''aren’t'' sweet to their friends and family? This can than make an already UnintentionallyUnsympathetic protagonist worse, if they treat their loved ones poorly.

* In any work [[WriteWhatYouKnow based on one’s own experiences]], the author will remember someone who caused him or her grief at any given moment through that (understandably) coloured lens, but will not make much effort to give that other party multiple dimensions.

* In any work [[WriteWhatYouKnow based on one’s own experiences]], the author will remember someone who caused him or her grief at any given moment through that (understandably) coloured lens, but will not make much effort to give that other party multiple dimensions.

* In most movies about saving the old theater, school, ball field, etc, the villain is someone who wants to tear down this location to put their own business there, a completely legal and understandable (if somewhat tragic for the protagonists) way to make a living. Often they're corrupt or try to achieve their goal of obtaining the property through dishonest or illegal means, but sometimes the movie has no other way to paint them as an outright villain than to make them kind of a jerk.
* Similarly, landlords (or bankers, etc.) get this treatment simply for demanding that protagonists pay them the money they're rightfully owed or vacate the premises. If the "creditor" figure is not outright portrayed as a jerk or involved in some underhanded scheme, they still get painted as "fabulously wealthy landowner being merciless and unforgiving to characters' hardships."
** If they have a "no pets allowed" policy it's usually because they hate animals instead of more legitimate reasons.
* The people who think the hero is crazy and needs to be locked up usually think so because the hero is, well... acting totally batshit. In real life, if a friend or family member starts going on about voices, special powers, or other worlds, getting mental help for them is generally the ''right'' thing to do.
* Any time a new boss/authority figure makes any type of budget cuts, it is almost guaranteed that he or she will be portrayed as a villain, and their rising to their position of authority will be portrayed as a TyrantTakesTheHelm moment. Never mind the fact that in RealLife budget cuts are often necessary, particularly in tough economic times. The idea that budget cuts may sometimes be justified is apparently not a popular one with many writers, and any authority figure who suggests budget cuts will be portrayed as an absurdly evil villain who actively hates the arts/his employees/teachers/children/the community and wants to cut the budget ForTheEvulz rather than because of fiscal/economic realities. If they are a school principal or superintendent, they will painted as a DeanBitterman who needs to lighten up. If they are a political figure they will inevitably be a StrawmanPolitical, and if they are in the business world they will always be portrayed as being a CorruptCorporateExecutive. [[FelonyMisdemeanor Apparently, fiscal responsibility is the Eighth Deadly Sin in the world of fiction.]] The fact that this attitude is often carried over into RealLife--resulting in anyone who suggests budget cuts being portrayed as evil no matter how fiscally sensible their proposals may be--is also rather frustrating.
* In many of the particularly cheesy kid and teen movies out there, anyone who doesn't immediately give the DesignatedHero their way is portrayed as a jerkass. A typical example is a character who hasn't done anything worse than compete with the protagonist for something, yet somehow deserves to be punished and humiliated, or a teacher who actually makes the protagonist work and is portrayed as a SadistTeacher because of it.
** This is especially bad when the "hero" belittles, humiliates, and otherwise torments his enemy and is portayed as justified, but when the enemy does ''the exact same thing'', he/she is a {{jerkass}}. This often leads to AlternativeCharacterInterpretation - if we only ever see a character's behavior around someone who hates them, what's to say they ''aren't'' sweet to their friends and family? This can than make an already UnintentionallyUnsympathetic protagonist worse, if they treat their loved ones poorly.
* Sitcoms and Telenovelas with a LoveTriangle (well, is there any without one?) usually arrange it as a designated couple and "the other", who is an obstacle in the designated couple's happiness. They are usually referred to as the heroes and villains of the work. However, "the other" may be a villain or not according to what does s/he actually do to keep the relation or in other topics. Specially if the designated couple have just met and "the other" has been in the relation from years ago (and more if there are kids in the scene), doing anything to protect the relation may be perfectly justified in most cases.
* In a work that's VeryLooselyBasedOnATrueStory, the opposing side will get [[HistoricalVillainUpgrade an upgrade in villainy]] while the side with the protagonists may be [[HistoricalHeroUpgrade made to seem more heroic]]. Evidence in the story can still remain for a grayer view, though, sometimes either side may appear NotSoDifferent, and anyone who researched the event will be shaking their heads as to why each sides' traits were exaggerated.