Why do I love villains, yet hate villain protagonists?

Rooting for the Empire is something I'm guilty of in almost forms of media. More often than not I sympathize with the villains goals, or at least find them as characters more interesting than the heroes. Evil Is Cool, Evil Is Hammy, Evil Is Sexy their all tropes that I love and herish. The Villain Song is always without fail my fav song in a musical. My philosophy has always been: "A film is only as good as it's villain" and I stand by it even to this day.

Yet I detest Villain Protagonists with all my heart and soul, and end up rooting for the Hero Antagonist. I don't know why, the elements for I SHOULD like them are all here, but I still hate them. Could someone offer me a possible reason why?

Examples of VP's that I hate: Light Yagami, Lelouch Lamperouge, Sebastian,Patrick Bateman

edited 7th Jul '11 1:55:51 AM by gingerninja666

Perhaps your obsession is with antagonists and not villains specifically?

In order to make a protagonist at all viable, you generally need to sympathise with them to some extent, even if you aren't supposed to agree with them. They have to be, as protagonists, understandable, if not heroic.

Perhaps it's the combination of trying to make a villainous character sympathetic? While most villains are given some valid points, they are generally shown to be more in the wrong than the hero, who gets more of the sympathy scenes. The combination of sympathy scenes + villainy scenes is too much for you?

There's also the issue that antagonists get less screen-time than protagonist - and some characters work best with limited screen-time, too much makes you feel they are over-exposed. The go from being intriguing to overwhelming, and their conviction they are in the right goes from an interesting counterpoint to something you wish they would shut up about.

Another possible theory: could it be that Villain Protagonists are more prone to being Villain Sues? Authors are going to be more likely to favor their main characters over their antagonists - while this doesn't mean that every or even most Villain Protagonists are Villain Sues, I suspect it is a larger overall percentage then with villain antagonists.

However, this is just a theory and may not apply to your characters in question.

I share this affliction, although there are certainly exceptions.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to liking characters more when their motivations are not completely spelled out. The second the villain gets bumped to protagonist, it becomes the author's job to explain them them to me, and that's usually a lot less satisfying than whatever I would have imagined for them myself.

Similarly, I have a tendency to like my favorite side characters less during their Day in the Limelight episode than I do ordinarily. There's an inexplicable tendency to normalize characters who are not traditional heroes when writers are faced with giving them a lot of screen time.

edited 7th Jul '11 9:02:39 PM by Bailey

I agree, part of the interest in a villain comes from the mystique and mystery behind their motivations. They're generally meant to be compelling foils to the protagonist. Actually getting behind a villain makes it somewhat more variable in terms of interest. There's also the intent with your protagonist; do you want them to have a somewhat sympathetic goal?

I'm not big on Villain Protagonist shows, but for different reasons. I'm sort of that guy who likes villains that are sympathetic, but not too sympathetic, as in they have likeable traits and can even be outright endearing, but you can still root for the good guy beating them. Without that line, I don't see much different between a standard hero beating a villain and a one note bully beating an admirable underdog.

I hate Hero Antagonist characters, they exist for little reason other than to be bland, unlikeable and yet always come out on top, with to me is tantamount to a Karma Houdini, and even the latter can at least have pathos to justify it sometimes.

Add to that Villain Protagonist dynamics often are more simplistic and one note, because to enthasise the villain is the main point of sympathy nothing else is given development in fear of being more likeable. A standard hero dynamic can still have likeable villains and a fleshed out universe, a Villain Protagonist one rarely does.

Not to mention a lot of writers tend to have problems still keeping the karmic value of the scenario and start giving the villains a Draco in Leather Pants treatment. This is especially noticable for shows that evolved into Villain Protagonist shows later on (eg. in Spongebob Squarepants where Plankton got more spotlight, and Mr Krabs was devolved into an odious jerk that picked on him for fun).

The Dreamstone is a key example of a franchise that would have worked ten times better if it wasn't a Villain Protagonist show, both because it made it the embodiment of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot, and because the show's dynamic was so incompatable with it, that the end result was rather awkward and somewhat mean spirited.

edited 15th Nov '12 6:05:21 PM by Psi001

OP should watch Mega Mind.

I don't think it's "mystique" that really matters. Mystique is simply an easy technique to use because it eliminates the possibility of what I'm about to say next.

A Villain Protagonist is a character who is difficult to keep plausible. Even if the characters in-universe don't know who the person is or what tricks they employ to avert justice, the reader does. In Real Life, criminals who get away are by default invisible to the public, and often how they escape justice is boring and through no merit of their own but the incompetence of the justice system. A Villain Protagonist is someone whom the audience is completely aware of from start to finish, and they need to remain villainous in order to (by definition) be a Villain Protagonist. (An otherwise good person who does villainous things as a hobby or by necessity is either a Mr. Vice Guy or Unscrupulous Hero), and if the means by which they constantly escape justice don't constantly maintain plausibility and/or Rule of Cool, that character becomes less credible in the audience's eyes.

In fairness, most Villain Protagonists don't get away with it, especially comical Butt-Monkey protagonists, to the point they often come off as disproportionately punished.

It's possible you're just a contrarian: you root for villains, not because of any qualities the villains actually possess, but because you like doing the opposite of what you're told; if the author tells you to root for the hero, you root for the villain; if the author tells you to root for the villain, you root for the hero.

edited 17th Nov '12 2:57:48 AM by RavenWilder

That's perhaps kind of similar to Don't Shoot the Message, but to the extent of actually wanting to shoot the message.

Or in words relating to villains, if it's a Villain Protagonist, the creator will give you reasons why you should root for said villain, but if you disagree with said reasons, or just find them too artificial to apply to the character, you have very little reason to like the villain. However, a normal villain you're not supposed to like won't have those reasons. There may be an attempt at justifying an excuse for why the villain is a villain, but in the end, it's still a villain. This means you'll have to analyse the villain yourself, and come to your own conclusion about why you like him.

Of course, that's still not relating to coolness, hamminess, or sexiness, but those aren't about liking the villain because you sympathise with the villain. Related to that, on the other hand, is that I've often heard a villain can be a lot stronger than a hero without being seen as a Mary Sue, but I think that's one case of confusing villain with antagonist. A stronger antagonist generally means the protagonist will have a greater obstacle to overcome, so it's more okay with a strong antagonist. A Villain Protagonist will likely struggle with that balance.

edited 17th Nov '12 3:36:31 AM by AnotherDuck

Sounds like the "contrarian" idea to me, FWIW. You don't like villains—you like antagonists.

Why do you like villains in the first place? You don't like them for their characterization; they usually receive less than the heroic characters. You don't like them because they're sympathetic; as villains, the entire point is that they're less sympathetic than the heroes.

No, you like the villain because he is a threat. He is the obstacle the hero must overcome, and demands respect from you because he demands respect from the hero. You fear them because they demand fear from the heroes.

The problem with the villain protagonist is that the villain no longer is an obstacle, the hero is. However, the hero rarely receives the necessary respect and fear to make them a credible threat, and the villain protagonist's role appears easy. Worse, because the hero is no longer the protagonist, they will typically receive much less characterization, and that characterization will go to the much less sympathetic villain. Suddenly, the guy who you're spending the most time with faces no real threat and you can't sympathize with him, making him unrelatable.

This is why Butt-Monkey Villain Protagonist characters like Invader Zim and Wile E Coyote are more popular while non-Butt Monkey ones generally aren't; their constant failures make it easier to sympathize with them.

edited 20th Nov '12 5:20:14 PM by Scardoll

At the same time making the Villain Protagonist too pitiful has draw backs, since if you get too carried away with making them sympathetic you take away the karmic factor and make it less them being sympathetic villains but Cosmic Playthings that are being "bullied" by the supposed heroes for no reason.

I think The Dreamstone shows this problem in action. The Urpneys are sympathetic to the point they are villains in name only for the most part. They are completely useless at their schemes, affable to the highest order and even their own evil actions are enforced onto them unwillingly by their Bad Boss. Not to mention even if they were evil competent villains, their overall goal of giving people scawy dreams is so ridiculously petty, that it's really hard to see the heroes tormenting or even trying to kill them every episode as karmic (note that while the heroes are made to be less sympathetic, they are still played straight with no grey undertones, intentional anyway). As such the setup actually seems much more mean spirited.

The Wile E Coyote example is notable since while enthasis is made that only the Coyote is meant to be sympathetic, Chuck Jones made it written lore that the Road Runner could barely touch him or cause his abuse, he lost constantly at his own hand due to his worthless inventions. The same effort was made into other villains (who became borderline examples later on as Bugs was toned down), they were pathetic, but they were still jerks that brought it all on themselves and could stop anytime. Some directors didn't like using Elmer Fudd because was in fact so pitiful and affable he took away this karma and looked more like a conventional bullied fall guy.

Invader Zim cleverly goes around this by making the Hero Antagonist Dib an equally bumbling jerk as Zim, and so the villain, while never making much progress in his evil plans, at least gets petty victories over the hero when the time is fit.

edited 20th Nov '12 9:05:26 PM by Psi001

wich side is OP rooting for in W H40k?

Please read the dates on threads before raising them from the dead.