Unpicture...able: No Antagonist

While, yes, there isn't an antagonist in the image but that doesn't show the lack of an antagonist. Personally I don't believe it's possible to picture it at all (unless there's an image where this is lampshaded or made clear) and best to leave it without an image, but that's my personal preference.

Motion to pull

Meh. It's not bad when it has that caption.

I haven't seen that movie and it does seem pretty bad :P Dozens of images might "work" just as well with that caption...

My first thought was some sort of Robinsonade, Man Vs. Nature.

I think the picture works to show an internal struggle. I have no idea where it is from.

The other part of the trope sounds very different from me. That is, the Man Vs Nature or Man Vs Catastrophe bit.

Keep Until Better Image Suggested

Keep Until Better Image Suggested. Works well with caption. Works centred on internal struggles can definitely fall under this trope. Just because this trope can't have a perfectly suitable picture doesn't mean the current picture actually harms the page or detracts from it in any way. "Any picture could work well with that caption" is no reason to remove the current picture, unless one is found that actually works better for the page (with the caption or without).

Basically, while I agree this isn't the easiest trope to picture, I don't see what a reason for actually removing the current picture is, rather than just leaving it alone. It may seem "un-picture-able," but someone's obviously found a way to put a relevant enough picture to it, and I prefer seeing articles with pictures rather than articles without.

The only time a picture should be removed without any replacement is if it is actually actively harming the page (it leads to confusion about the trope, it's NSFW, it is just distracting silliness like a random meme or something, etc). I think the burden of proof is on those who want this image gone to provide arguments that show it's hurting the page. I don't see any harm myself.

edited 12th Feb '12 9:07:55 PM by girlyboy

Keep Until Better Image Suggested for me.

Man vs. Nature, you say?

edited 17th Feb '12 5:32:08 AM by tbarrie

Might the bear qualify as an antagonist?

edited 13th Feb '12 6:28:00 AM by Catbert

I'd say so. Current one is better.

Keep Until Better Image Suggested.

Oh, boy. I think we're interpreting the term "antagonist" too strictly, but that's an aside.

x 4, It looks like the bear is laughing, so I doubt he could be considered a true antagonist.

edited 13th Feb '12 10:11:31 AM by Willbyr

Laughing has no bearing on being an antagonist or not. Nor is actually being friendly with the hero.

That said, I have no idea where the picture is from.

I think this is actually an interesting issue when it comes to writing.

A struggle between a man and a bear may or may not be an example of this trope, depending on how it's treated in the actual story.

For example, the story may simply portray the bear as a force of nature. The man is the only character in the story, and he must struggle to survive in the wild; the bear itself is not a character at all, but more of an environmental hazard or obstacle. It is not portrayed as having any agency, personality, etc., any more than, say, a storm or mudslide that the protagonist must also survivive. In this case, it's an example of the trope.

On the other hand, it's just as easy to imagine a story where the bear is also a character. The man is a protagonist struggling to survive, but the story also shows us things from the bear's perspective; the bear is portrayed as having agency, a personality, motivations (even if simple, animal-like ones) that are in conflict with those of the man, etc. In this case, it could be argued that the bear is a proper antagonist.

Laughing and friendliness don't rule out a character as the antagonist, but as visual cues go, I'd venture that they're counterproductive to demonstrating how antagonists are normally portrayed.

Are we even really talking about the image at this point? Keep Until Better Image Suggested, again.

Yeah, the current image is fine. (The Hunstsman image was a joke, albeit in retrospect an overly obscure one.)

Whether or not something is a force of nature doesn't rule it out as an antagonist. If you had a movie about people trying to survive a hurricane, the hurricane would be the main antagonist.

This trope seems to be about characters whose faults or failings hinder them.

The article does note that disaster stories are a kind of subtrope to this.

My opinion is, it's about works that do away with the usual people vs. people template. There's no need to narrow it down and leave a hole. Overly specific tropes cause troubles.

For some reason, a full cast shot from Lucky Star comes to mind.

Any Iyashikei show would qualify by default there is No Antagonist in the genre let alone much conflict.

meet the cast.. The entire cast of◊ Hidamari Sketch... Not an antagonist in the bunch.

I think an antagonist has to be an actual character. A hurricane can't be an antagonist. Unless it's a character. Some sort of sapient hurricane that has set itself the goal of undoing our heroes. Which can happen, I suppose!

I don't know. I've experienced writing workshops that referenced non-sapient entities as antagonists.