Talk page archive:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DesignatedAntagonistDiscussion
Rothul:
Removed:
I believe they show that people who voluntarily leave the Bronx and are "Sent To Arizona" are, in fact, just killed. Thus, while the "heroes" of the story are incredibly unappealing, they appear entirely justified in wanting to stop the corporate overlords from killing them (though the fact that this aspect is so buried in
Narm is one of the reasons why the movie sucks). It's hard to argue the
Corrupt Corporate Executive and the Genocidal Death Squad as anything but a standard (if over-the-top and incredibly poorly conveyed) villains.
Deadpool Fan: It is claimed thats what happens to people who don't move willingly, it is never admited. And its not Arizona, its New Mexico. Plus, half of the squatters are admitedly CRINIMALS! The guy Trash picks up half way through the film is a guy who commits jewel store robberies for a living and teaches his son how make bombs. The reason he helps Trash is because doing so will allow him to become "the head of all the big robberies again". In essence the goal of the company is still basically urban renewal and making the place safe for regular people again. Whereas Trash's side is made up of mostly crooks and deviants who themselves are responsible for how the Bronx is in the movie. Their gang wars destroyed the area. There is no denying that the bad guys in the film are evil, the fact is the only way they can be SEEN as evil is because of their genocidal acts and their overblown Snidely Whiplash personalities. If you removed all those indications from the film they wouldn't look so evil.
If you're going to make a case like this for this example to be removed, then why not the Enclave? Autumn admits that the only reason he's turning on the Purifier is so the Enclave can become all powerful and dominate the Wasteland once more whereas the Brotherhood is just doing it for the sake of making the water clean again. At least the GC corporation is trying to fix up the city whereas the Gangs fighting in New York only care about protecting the crime infested hell hole of a home they created in order to commit more crimes. One could argue that there are innocent people in the city, and there are obviously innocent people, but thats the point. The only way to make the villains of this story remotely evil is to make them genocidal bastards, their motivation in the end is to get rid of poverty, improve education, build hospitals and stop crime! Its the methods they use that paint them as evil, not their motivations. If they weren't painted as ridiculously over the top mass murdering psychos then the heroes of this story would be just a bunch of crinimals trying to stop hospitals and schools from being built. Thats why they're designated villains, because the only way to make their goal look sinister is to portrayal the means to get there as evil. So, rebuilding the Bronx requires the bad guys to kill mass amounts of innoncent people for no reason other then to make them evil.
The example counts.
Caswin: I've never even heard of the Enclave, but the definition of
Designated Villain being used here assumes a "villain" who is The Enemy because The Movie Says So, rather than any actual evil deeds they commit. The GCC's policy of "kill anyone who doesn't immediately submit" may be a ham-fisted way of turning them into clear-cut villains used by a writer who couldn't be bothered to work out a better story, but nonetheless, they have earned their villainous credentials.
Didn't someone make a counter-argument to the Max Powers entry at one point? Did the crash eat it? —
Document N
Idler: Interesting that Guy of Gisbourne is on here
and the
Draco In Leather Pants pages. From my extremely limited watching of the show, I liked him more than any other character, mainly because Robin Hood always comes off as so smug.
Clerval: You know, I've just got to take this out. Creon isn't a villain, he's an antagonist. It's not the same thing. That he wins an argument and fails to push his advantage might be annoying, but it isn't a failure of the playwright to make him convincingly evil, because he isn't meant to be.
Also, the page quote. It does seem really odd to me to illustrate under-motivated villainy with a speech in which a villain
explains his motivations. Yeah, he does pretty much announce that he's
bad, but that he's self-aware about it doesn't take away his explanations: I can't fit in in peace-time, I hate the society that's always been so unsparing to my deformity, no one is ever going to love me, so I might as well go all out for what I can get.
Anyway, the bit I cut:
* In Jean Anouilh's
Antigone, Creon actually wins the crucial moral argument with
Designated Hero Antigone... then turns around and stops talking to her just after she asks him what she should do instead of opposing the state. Antigone returns to her original plan, seemingly for no other reason than that Creon would not deign to answer her.
Deleted 18-Till-I-Die's arguements, as he never read the books in question.
Twilight Fan: I rewrote the Galbatorix entry. Yes, with the last part intact Galbatorix himself it is a
Subverted Trope. Yes, most of the reedimng arguments makes sense, so normally I'd root for the empire. But after reading Brisingr I realized that a heroic person would not, ever, say that he would have made anyone into a slave, ever, which made me decide that Galbatorix is the opposite of a hero.
Big T: I took the following contested example (and
natter) from the first part out. We need to decide if it's an example; then, if it is, put it back as a single bullet point. (spoilers from original)
Video Games
- Fallout 3 has you trying to stop Autumn's evil plan to... activate the water purifier that your father built to provide clean water to the people in the wastes. The same water purifier that you're planning on activating as soon as you stop Autumn from doing it. No, it doesn't make any more sense in context. The fact that you have plenty of different dialog choices and decisions you can make, but don't have a single one which acknowledges that Autumn's plan isn't exactly the purest strain of evil, only makes it more jarring.
- It's actually more black and white. Autumn's plan is to modify the water to kill anyone that drinks it if they've been exposed to radiation, thus killing everyone except his own personal army and the people still in the vaults. The player just wants clean water.
- Wait, I though that Autumn did want to provide clean water; it was Eden who wanted to poison everyone but the Enclave; the whole reason Autumn backstabbed Eden was because Autumn wanted to control the Wastelanders, while Eden wanted them dead. That said, Autumn's a commanding officer in a fascist military force, and willingly gunned down a scientist working on the purifier in order to intimidate the player character's father, another purifier scientist. He's not genocidal, but certainly homicidal.
Lawyerdude: Here's my two cents on that. A Designated Villain is somebody who's only evil because "they" say he is, not because of anything he's done. Autumn shoots a scientist for no good reason, has your character captured, and shoots you if you decide to cooperate with him. Honestly, I can see Autumn as a sympathetic villain. He is honestly doing what he believes to be right, and is willing to kill people who stand in the way of the "greater good". What would somebody in his position be willing to do to secure what is undoubtedly an infinitely valuable resource?
Doctor Nemesis: Moved this for discussion:
- Carl Bruner in Ghost is treated as a villain by Sam, who blames him for being killed by the mugger Carl sent after him, and even goes so far as to stalk him typing the word "murderer" onto his computer and mocking him over how he is going to be killed by the gangsters he was laundering money for. However, Carl only wanted to get hold of the notebook containing Sam's account passwords (which Sam had been stupid enough to show Carl in the first place) and he only got killed accidentally and because he wouldn't give up the notebook. Carl does later threaten Sam's girlfriend, but only after Sam removes the laundered money from its account out of spite and the aforementioned taunting.
Since although it's been years since I've seen the flick, Bruner still sounds pretty villainous by this description alone; he's corrupt, he's a thief, and he's still responsible for the guy's death (albeit unintentionally). His motives might not be entirely unsympathetic (although I seem to recall something about him being obsessed with the guy's girlfriend as well) but this doesn't exactly sound like a 'designated' villain.
Matthew The Raven: He's definitely evil. I think it's funny how the entry tries to pain Sam as the bad guy who deserved to die for not wanting to give the poor thief
all of his money, and somehow removing all of
your legally owned and earned money out of
your account to get back at the guy who had you mugged and accidentally killed is somehow a despicable, spiteful act, perfectly justifying a threat to your girlfriend's life. Cut it.
- Naruto's Danzo isn't going to be winning any awards for "Greatest Guy Ever" any time soon but from the way he's portrayed (by fans and Kishimoto alike) you'd think that he was pure evil. His crimes are motivated by a desire for a better, stronger Konoha, a philosphy that stands in opposition with Naruto's desire for peace.
thatother1dude: You're contradicting yourself. First you're saying he's shown as pure evil. Then you're saying that he's shown to simply have a vastly contrasting philosophy to the main character. So at the same time you're making two different claims about the author's intentions (which one is accurate isn't really something we can say right now), neither of which by themselves would make his a
Designated Villain.
Also that "by the fans" thing really isn't at all relevant.
Anaheyla: First of all, I didn't say he was shown as pure evil, I said "you'd think he was pure evil", a distinction I'm not suprised you refused to recognize.
The point is that Danzo is made out to be far worse than he actually is, based on the fact that he possesses a contrasting viewpoint to
Naruto's and his actions in pursuit of
what he believes to be the greater good are different from what Naruto would do. Whatever his past actions the fact that him making Sasuke a missing-nin or him not sending his ROOT agents to die in a pointless attack on Pain are portrayed as far worse than what he's done in the past is rather telling.
Let's review.
After he was introduced a bunch of TEH EBIL! acts were subsequently ascribed to him, all in quick succesion. It's blatantly obvious that we are expected to dislike Danzo, based on what he's done and how he's portrayed.
Any arguments or observations that don't treat this viewpoint as the gospel of Jesus Christ himself are written off as
Misaimed Fandom because he is clearly
Obviously Evil and there's no
possible way he can be anything else.*rolls eyes*
And lo, he's been made
Hokage, a further stain on his reputation of villainous evil and down right nasty not-niceness! Why is he Hokage? Because "the Third's teachings have destroyed the village!" he says. Another belief that flies in the face of a doctrine that is portrayed as holy and pure and inviolate and infallible.
Seems to me that he fits the bill of
Designated Villain rather nicely.
Thatother1dude: You say he's not evil but he's doing evil thing? Are you saying he's "presented" (and I'm seriously wondering how) as completely evil when he's "really" a
Well Intentioned Extremist? Anyway, he's just
at least as responsible for the destruction of the village as the Third Hokage's teachings (he helped Hanzo kill Yahiko out of paranoia as a political favor). And can you cut the ultra-smug attempts at sarcasm? It's really annoying.
Anaheyla: I'm not saying "he's not evil but he's doing evil things" I'm saying "he's made out to be worse than he is". That's what I meant when I said "Danzo is made out to be far worse than he actually is". It's ok, lots of people make that mistake.
He helped Hanzo kill Yahiko, but that wouldn't have happened if Jiraiya(The irreproachable student on the equally guilt free Third Hokage) had taken Orochimaru's advice and kill Nagato, Yahiko and Konan rather than letting them live in a
Crap Sack World. There's plenty of blame to go around, not all of it Danzo's.
Danzo is far from a squeaky clean saint, but he's being set up as an evil villain because he doesn't believe in the same things Naruto does. His actions are villified because they aren't made in the spirit of seeking to end the "spiral of hatred" or whatever but because he wants to make Konoha stronger so that people like Orochimaru and Nagato don't try and destroy their bloody village.
Some New Guy: And yet part of the reason Konoha was destroyed was because Danzo
didn't send any aid when he very well could have. He even went so far as to sabotage an attempt to get help by killing a messenger frog...or something like that.
Anaheyla: The village would have been destroyed whether he sent aid or not. The only way it could have been prevented would be to stop Pain, something that isn't going to happen when you send an
army of faceless, nameless mooks after him. He killed the messenger frog to keep it from bringing back Naruto, so that Pain couldn't get his hands on the Kyuubi.
Danzo did not believe Naruto had the chops to deal with Pain(for which he is portrayed as a horrible human being, despite him subsequently being proven right), a belief justified by what he had seen of Naruto's abilities to that point. Having no way of knowing about Sage Mode, he did what he believed would have prevented Pain from succeeding.
Thatother 1 Dude: But the point was that he'd prefer the village being destroyed and rebuilt under his leadership than lead by people who's policies he disagreed with. It's not just that he has a more cynical view of how to defend the village, it's that he only cares about the prosperity of the village
as an institution. He doesn't really care about the actual
villagers as he simply thinks they're tools to make it stronger, and he thinks it's fine if a bunch of them die if it will eventually make the village stronger in the long run. He didn't just tell Root/The Foundation to stop fighting Pain because it was useless, he told them to stop helping
anyone do
anything (including escaping) because he didn't want to lose any of the men loyal to him helping people he didn't care about.
And as for who's "responsible" for Pain, let's just think of which thing is more likely to make a powerful enemy that hates your village:
- Teaching an orphan with a great power who's parents were killed by your village to fend for himself.
- Helping someone kill a person that you don't know anything about (or if you did "know" something it would either be that he was innocent ) as a political favor.
Also, that "
kill them to spare them the pain" thing was just Orochimaru being an asshole, since it was pretty clear they could have eventually made decent lives even if left to fend for themselves.
Finally,
who is making him out to be "more evil than he really is"? The protagonists have made some general statements that he's not someone they could really trust, but no is calling him some sort of super-bastard. More often
no one comments on the really bad things he does because he never does them when anyone who call him out on it is around.
Lawyerdude - Removed:
- Also Khan in Star Trek II. He wants revenge against Kirk and kills anyone who stands in his way, but his motivation is avenging his wife's death. This makes him somewhat sympathetic, even if his anger is misplaced, and he was stranded on a desolate planet for fifteen years. You can't blame him for going a little nutty.
Sorry, but Khan is most definitely a bad guy. Yes, he went crazy after being isolated and wanted to avenge his wife's death that
Kirk had nothing to do with!. He also used brain bugs on Chekov and Captain whats-his-face, killed the crew of the Reliant, killed most of the civilian scientists on Regula, and tried to kill the crew of the Enterprise. He was allowed to colonize Ceti Alpha V after trying to steal the Enterprise and kill Kirk for no reason. Khan is a mass murderer, pure and simple.
Man Without A Body: Removing this entire Wicked Witch debate, because she genuinely
does do evil things, like mutilate the woodcutter (forcing him to rebuild himself out of tin), enslave the Winkies, and
try to kill the heroine for an accident. And her little dog, too.
- In the Book of The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the West doesn't do anything until the heroes come after her. Their reason for doing so? The Wizard demanded that Dorothy (a child of less than eleven) kill her and take her broomstick, and when the little girl starts crying, saying that she can't kill someone, he offers only this as a good reason to make a kid hunt down and kill a complete stranger: "Remember that the Witch is Wicked—tremendously Wicked -and ought to be killed." Definite Nightmare Fuel, especially given that the Wizard isn't exactly the most honest or noble of people.
- They made a considerable effort to fix this in the classic film by making the Witch much more overtly villainous. It didn't quite take, though, because her main motivation (getting her dead sister's slippers back) can be seen as sympathetic. This particular element was not in the original book.
- This was essentially flipped around, with a few Retcons in the novel Wicked, where the Wicked Witch of the West became a Well Intentioned Extremist and the Wizard a fascist, most likely inspired by reactions to the original novel just like the above one.
SpiriTsunami: If I'm reading the description correctly, "Designated Antagonist" was
more accurate than Designated Villain.
Jerrik: It depends. An antagonist is just someone who opposes the main character,
and can have any kind of moral alignment. This trope describes when being an antagonist is suppose to make the person
evil. Antagonist is just too broad a term for this trope.
