When have you Rooted For the Empire?

Making the heroes the underdog was one of the tricks mentioned in the Cracked article to make the audience like the heroes, which they are from a Watsonian perspective. From a Doylist perspective, though, the villains are generally the underdogs, especially in more idealistic stories.

What that means is that people will have different opinions about who's the real underdog, and often root accordingly.

well it depent, if the villian is a deamon, or a lederich aboination, is to alien to people to root for them

also i think is one of the few reason people use bad future so they can show the public what will happen if the heroe lose, another trick of course

A lot of the time when viewing works of fiction, I tend to do the opposite of this trope in that I won't ever side with the antagonists, even if the work tries to make them look sympathetic or the protagonists morally questionable.

I guess two of the few works where I did end up Rooting for the Empire (kind of) were:

1. Grand Theft Auto V. Since Steve Haines just acted like a smug asshole at worst the few times he showed up on screen, he ended up coming across as considerably less actively malevolent than Trevor Philips, who was often obnoxious when he wasn't just plain creepy (an adjective I don't use lightly).

2. As much as Carver in Season Two of The Walking Dead was intended to be an Evil Counterpart to Kenny, to some extent I preferred the former over the latter, partly because Carver was so charismatic and partly because I still hadn't forgotten how much of a passive-aggressive twat Kenny could be in Season One. With Carver, you know he's an asshole (and even he seems to know it part of the time), whereas Kenny will act like your friend, and then not only turn on you when the going gets rough, but behave as though it's your fault that he does so.

edited 16th Jul '14 1:09:51 AM by Robotnik

in my case i enjoy see the governor in walking dead, i dont want him to win, i just want him more in screen that rick, it count no?

I think that's more Love to Hate, really.

I'd say another reason to side with the antagonists in large scale conflicts is pure cultural preference, even in fantastic stories. For instance, I still cheer for the Spartans in 300, not because I'd prefer a borderline fascistic monarchy over the surprisingly egalitarian Persian Empire, but because it's the neighbors we're talking here - only we get to knock them around. However, I'm more appreciative of the Orcs and Easterlings rather than the Elves and Gondorians in The Lord of the Rings, since the whole "bloodthirsty monstrous heathen horde attacking the kingdom" thing pretty much describes my ancestors, and I'm kinda proud of that heritage.

The trope namer itself utilized paper-thin caricatures of the Chinese, the British, and the Republicans as its main antagonists, with the latter dressing up as the Nazi to try and drive the point home. Thus, aesthetics aside, it's not unwarranted for people to simply root for whoever rings closest to home, even if they're supposed to be the villains.

edited 16th Sep '14 2:02:12 PM by indiana404

is strange who people think the nazi are diferent from the german soldiers, i rooted for the nazis in inglorius bastard, because the bastard are only extras in that flim, the british spy die to early and shoshanna mutual kill with the nazi soldier was really strange for me

and i dont love to hate the governor, i just think is more intersting to watch than rick, i know he is going to be kill and just want to see how

Even the Nazi themselves covered a pretty wide variety of individuals - Stephen Spielberg noted that after making Schindler's List, he didn't want to have Indie fight them again, as it seemed too cartoonish... so he substituted the dirty commies instead.

In a general sense though, the Nazi are pretty much the last remaining acceptable political targets that are both menacing enough to base villains around, and dead enough not to have many living supporters. Commies are no longer relevant, religious fundamentalist desert dwellers are a bit too relevant, not to mention relatively weak, and the Chinese are a main source of funding. So the currently remaining guilt-free targets are down to Nazi, zombies, and sometimes Nazi zombies.

Personally, I think it's for the better. Always chaotic evil antagonists in fiction have usually struck me as uninventive, if not unnerving, no matter if we're talking about Orcs, Decepticons, or the Sith. The fact that people still root for them is more a testament of how we've become wary of morally unambiguous violent conflicts, which is pretty optimistic when you think about it. Maybe even the Nazi will come around to it.

Cheering for the bad guys even knowing full-well that they're evil? No, I've never done that.

I think a key pivot in the trope is that writers are often lazier with heroes. There's more fun with the villains, they have less restrictions, you make them anything so long as that in the end, they clearly antagonize the hero and lose for it (most of the time anyway). This can lead to all sorts of unique characters with varying degrees of sympathy, menace, style and charisma.

What writers tend to forget is that putting emphasis on the hero is just as important, even for a Hero Antagonist you usually have to make clear they earned their victory. No hero is automatically heroic, they have to have characteristics and actions that show they are the moral superior. What's more it is more detrimental if you make mistakes with them. People will rarely care if the villain does something evil, that's their job and in the end they'll likely be punished for it anyway. Making so much as one plothole with the hero can derail them into a hypocrite or a bully, and it will be all the more insufferable because they will get away with it, hell the story will constantly tell you they deserve to win.

edited 20th Jul '14 4:28:43 PM by Psi001

I'd say the problem isn't so much with heroes, as it is with "Heroes"™ - that is, characters with a contractual guarantee to never be put in a morally questionable light... while also regularly employing decidedly violent solutions to just about any problem they face. The retconning of Han Solo shooting in self-defense is one such example, with the solution being to make his opponent - a heretofore unremarkable bounty hunter - into a trigger-happy thug that makes the Stormtroopers look accurate. Perish the thought the hero - a confirmed organized crime smuggler, mind you - may not be morally pristine.

On a larger scale, the same method results in obviously evil antagonists employing hordes of faceless goons, in order to justify why Violence is the Only Option. Thing is, anyone can be a hero in such circumstances. Maybe that's even the explicit purpose of the story. It does, however, make for bland and passive audience surrogates in place of actual protagonists. Consequently, faced with such cardboard caricatures on either side, viewers may start Rooting for the Empire simply because Evil Is Cool, while Good Is Boring. As good a reason as any, given the circumstances.

edited 22nd Jul '14 12:51:22 PM by indiana404

indiana404: also the nazi have style as villian: they have a ocultist organization, they experiment in people and try to build a superweapons, have the really cool uniform(let face it: commie uniform are BORING) and hitler was a deep follower of large ham and chewit tie escenary, they pretty much follow every villian trope

i now that using always chaotic evil is lazy in most part but there is some moment in history like you can`t use it in any other way: how you make interesting the confederation in the civil war without sound pro-white or something?

in fact, it seen that the american civil war is one of the few conflict that demand a white and black morality(and yes, i make a horrible pun here, move on)

(let face it: commie uniform are BORING)

Counterpoint: ushankas.

Funnily enough, a disproportionate amount of American Civil War fiction seems to treat the Confederates as heroic, doomed patriots fighting for freedom (we'll ignore the obvious irony here). The Union's sketchier acts, like Sherman's scorched-earth campaign, don't help. Check it.

edited 24th Jul '14 3:00:03 PM by Iaculus

"During the Russian Civil War, when Aleksandr Kolchak ruled in Siberia, he introduced around 1918 a winter uniform hat, commonly referred to as a kolchakovka, which was basically an ushanka with an extra eye-flap. However, Kolchak and the White Army lost the war, and the ushanka did not find immediately usage in the new Soviet Union."

so, it was the dirty commies who use a gear the white army introduce first,

and yeah, i know about the lost cause from metapedia(men, their are hilarious, pure narm) flim like birth of a nation didnt help a bit in that area

I'd say if the Samurai can be presented as heroic traditionalists fighting the (technologically superior, natch) Western manipulators... as opposed to, y'know, a feudal caste vying for political dominance, a monopoly on firearms, and the ability to kill peasants as they will... then it's no great stretch to imagine the same for the Confederates.

It's a similar thing with the Whites in Russia - the few times they gained control over a town or two, they somehow managed to be worse than the Reds; yet modern (as in, 25 years too late) anti-Communists still view them as heroes, even champions of democracy, simply because they fought the Union... even though they mainly fought one another.

Here's the thing though - even assuming one side is in the wrong politically, that's still no reason to have everyone fighting for it be a nasty hate sink that can be gunned down at no moral expense. Or, for that matter, whitewash and sanctify those who oppose them. The Nazi themselves faced British colonialists, Chinese Communists, the USSR which single-handedly carried out more than half the war effort, and the Americans who still practiced segregation, and ultimately ended the war with their own final solution, a veritable Death Star-like bombing of civilians with the worst weapon they had at the time. Twice. Dunno about you guys, but in hindsight, things look pretty grey to me.

Consequently, this is why I said I prefer anti-heroes, at least in a wartime narrative - there is much less of a chance to try and turn it into some sort of moral parable, preemptively dehumanizing the villains to indiscriminately slaughter people en masse, just so the story can have them be slaughtered themselves, guilt-free. It's also why I'm pretty accepting of always chaotic evil robots, zombies, alien bugs, basically anything openly inhuman, because then, the conflict functionally becomes one of man against nature, which doesn't have the same vibe. Nor can such a foe be really considered "evil" from a moral standpoint; no more than a forest fire can.

A lighter and softer question - is there some sort of rating-enforced mandate for American animated shows and cape-starring superhero comics that the dog should always shoot first? It's just that I've seen more than a few examples of a morally ambiguous choice or situation ultimately defused by a plain writer cop out, so I wanted to know if it's a matter of executive meddling as opposed to mere bad writing.

edited 25th Jul '14 12:49:41 AM by indiana404

"I'm pretty accepting of always chaotic evil robots, zombies, alien bugs, basically anything openly inhuman, because then, the conflict becomes one of man against nature, which doesn't have the same vibe."

that is why i like terminaitor 2 over the first one, even with killing machine is was quite hard to root for sarah connor because she suffer a lot of mental strees and it almost kill a a men it a mechanical precision, it was a great way to argue a lot of nature of man and machine alike

But in the other way, aliens,deamons and the like are use in game so you can have your gritty power fantasy without worry about issues in war time shooters

also is strange how simpathy works: you root for the north but hate the white colonialist that take the american natives land, like the alies in the second world war but then hate the union....

Also what you say have to be one of the fine moments in dark humor went you consider that, for all the atempt of the nazi to make a superweapon, is america the one who use the damn thing....

sometimes empathy is a strange thing.....

Sadly, I think it's really just that most national media functions on Protagonist-Centered Morality, promoting allies and demonizing enemies... and falling over itself whenever the two trade places. That's why I'm appreciative of how most anime portrays the antagonists in a military conflict - the majority are only human, with plenty of worthy opponents on the deck, and only the occasional complete monster; all while the protagonists are hardly saints themselves, and ultimately Both Sides Have a Point. Japan's had centuries to experience that there are no default good and bad guys in war, so it's understandable why the matter isn't strawmanned into white hats fighting black hats.

Still, I do prefer stories that have Commie villains instead of the Nazi, partly for the same reason that Mexicans love Speedy Gonzales - it's my side(-ish), so I get to root for it no matter what - and partly because the Reds were (and may yet be) a worthy opponent to the US, while the Axis were actually utterly outmatched and outgunned by the Allies. And, let's face it - a husky Russkie is simply more intimidating than a fancy Fritz, no matter how boss his uniform looks like.

in fact protaginst central morality is so present that some protagonist are downright villian, bella from twilight is pretty much a sociopath that desconstruct i want to be special(hell, nostalgia critic pretty much and eragon seen to care about thing a randoms times, falling between wangst AND angst what angst?

and sorry but i disagree, for me the nazi pretty much use every villian trope ever, they lose because they have a tendecy to fight a lot of enemies at the same time, but they give the soviet the fight of their life and crepile britian pretty hard, in second place is the imperial japn because they fight to the bitter end without give up, and italy....nah, they are the butt monkey of the axis for a very good reason

I dunno, could be that the modern standard villain tropes evolved with the Nazi in mind; before them, the archetype revolved around evil brits and the yellow peril. Conversely, the villain tropes on this side of the curtain were more about ultra-capitalist corrupt corporate executives and imperialist governments that send soldiers on pointless wars without caring about their lives. You can guess where those came from. Another tragic take on the same theme is how the same Afghan insurgents once blessed as "freedom fighters" by Rambo himself, eventually morphed into the Taliban when they turned their sights westward, becoming the default terrorist villains of modern warfare fiction.

It's like what you said about Bella - she's a total blank that girls can easily project themselves onto, so they experience the story strictly from her own point of view. But, seen as an external character, as another person, all her flaws become evident. Similarly, superheroes and other escapist characters frequently get deconstructed whenever their trigger-happy mentality is analysed on its own, from a third-person perspective. And indeed, what differs a freedom fighter from a terrorist frequently comes down to whether or not he's aiming at you. It's like the trope namer itself ultimately admitted - many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. Still, some don't, and the real trick is to find out which are which.

edited 25th Jul '14 2:02:37 PM by indiana404

yeah, some nation have make the tipical face of most villians:european nation make the evil colonialist,american corps make the corrupt ceo and evil mercenaries,the nazis create the tipical facist-racist goverment

also i have a theory that you can like a chararter but enjoy another one, i enjoy see a villian works, but i never liked then, that is way i hate draco in latter pants: fans who enjoy the villian excuse everything he does so they can have a cake a eat it too

I don't mind leather pantsing myself - I actually take it as a sign that the original work has had a goof in characterization. The trope namer had no less than three whole groups of people - Hufflepuffs, Muggles and Slytherins - presented as bland, unpleasant, or downright sociopathic flat characters, respectively. The story actually leaves tremendous voids in proper characterization, which the fans fill by themselves, usually after a short trip to the fridge and the dresser.

For that matter, the Empire itself is no different in the movies proper - the only sign of its evilness we actually see in the original trilogy is the destruction of a Rebel leader's home planet, that she claims is unarmed and peaceful... after lying about everything else in that conversation, and explicitly going to said planet in order to organize a preemptive strike on an Imperial station using stolen plans. You can see why this doesn't look convincing from a neutral perspective, regardless of all the scary music booming whenever Darth Vader walks around the hall.

In short, a lot of authors leave empty spaces in characterization, which fans will fill however they like, and adjust their sympathies based on what they think isn't being shown. And again, I'm actually glad that it's done to supposedly clear-cut villains (or clear-cut heroes, for that matter), as it shows an unwillingness to unconditionally accept vaguely depicted yet ostensibly black and white narratives - the kind frequently abused in politics. It's grown-up thinking, is all.

edited 26th Jul '14 7:08:18 AM by indiana404

I haven think about it and yeah, you are right in harry potter, for me Draco is a wasted oportunity to do something else, he was just a bully to was to afraid when thing become dark

And in fact, for me this whole "peole dont see thing and fill the blanks" is reallly true for harry potter and pretty much the main reason why james and ginny get the ron the death eater:we dont see ginny change and the only see james is him being a jeark to snape

and with star war....well the fact that the empire have a planet-size a used against a planet is quite evil...

Now my problem with draco in latter pants is how shallow fan fiction couminity can be, and how deep beauty equal goddness can be for them

edited 26th Jul '14 2:09:15 PM by unknowing

Indeed, there's a reason why a synonym for beautiful is "attractive". Then again, you can consider it the inverse of the hero criticism described above. If an escapist character can come off as destructive and pointlessly violent, then a villain doing the same things can function as Wish-Fulfillment. If people can root for serial killers, then a galactic dictatorship that makes the repulsorcraft run on time is nothing special.

Speaking of which, what bugs me the most about the Star Wars Empire is how it turned out to be not an opposing state, but a direct descendant of the Republic, while the racially diverse and aristocrat-led-and-funded Rebels were functionally no different from the Separatists. Yet the narrative itself was only too happy to flip the roles of cartoonishly flat heroes and villains, depending basically on which side is currently opposing the main characters. Consequently, the prevalence of single character stereotype races, already unnerving on its own, loses all logic altogether. The Wookiees help the Republic while Trandoshans (the nasty yellow lizardmen) raid it... yet the Empire, virtually the same government, is quick to enslave the former and enlist and reward the latter. How does that work?

What I get from this is that the Star Wars franchise has many a Villain by Default, with no regard for political circumstances, consistent motivations, or just plain common sense. Hence come the aforementioned voids, which fans are free to fill based on as little as aesthetic preference. Though here, it's not so much about classical beauty, but that a lot of the bad guy races strike me more as ugly cute, while the faceless goons and enigmatic minions are perfect blanks for audience projection. Boba Fett is all but the trope codifier in that particular regard.

edited 27th Jul '14 11:34:38 AM by indiana404

People usually rooted for slasher villians because then find the protagonist to much of a jerk to handle, of course this let to another problem: the fact that fans want to kill a chararter only because they anooy then, sometimes that sound a little by socopatic for me

And for the empire bashing the ewoks, its pretty much the result of palpatine who backstabing them after he show he true colors, the empire use alien more tha allie them because of their pro-human politics

But i can see for what you are saying that yes, there is certain ironic coming by the fact that palpatine create the separatics and use anakin as his dragon, only for another rebeles to come and destroy his empire with the son of his dragon....

Yeah, "proportion" doesn't really apply when it comes to how people view fictional characters. And sometimes people they don't know. It's one reason why people may dislike a fundamentally good character who makes one bad decision, while they like an evil character who makes one good decision. Proportionally, those acts probably don't even nearly even out the score, but in how people think, that one action counts for everything, especially if it's something the audience care about.

Yeah, even the original trilogy falls flat in that regard, with Darth Vader's single act of redemption earning him a place in Force Ghost Heaven, disregarding twenty years' worth of atrocities; the prequels starting off with mass child slaughter was just a cherry on top.

I also find it ironic how the Empire's pro-human stance doesn't actually show up in the movies proper, with the army freely employing alien informants and bounty hunters and cooperating with Hutts. The only derogatory comment in the series is a single officer referring to Chewie as a "thing", which is mirrored minutes later by Leia outright calling him a "walking carpet". If anything, the movies and TV shows milked every chance to display not evil racists, but indeed evil races. And the upcoming Rebels cartoon will treat us to yet another creepy alien darksider openly in command of Imperial forces.

Again, I consider such inconsistent mash-ups to be a sign of an over-abused villain kitchen sink - writers try and put anything they consider "evil" in the antagonist corner of the ring, even in cases where it simply wouldn't work out. As a result, it starts looking less like an objectively depicted universe with some genuinely nasty characters that should be opposed, and more like an utterly biased personal story that's quick to demonize all opposing forces as a homogeneous bunch of black hats. It's like when conspiracy theorists get paranoid about evil Masonic Satanist Jewish Catholic Muslim Commie Nazis - the complaint speaks more of the complainer than anyone else.

edited 27th Jul '14 2:25:10 PM by indiana404