Designated Hero/Villain cleanup and maintenance

I only got one response, but any other thoughts if I should remove said character? One response is definitely not a consensus. There's also some thoughts on Akiko Glitter right above in a similar way, but no answer to that either.

That sounds like a cut.

Oh, it was cut already. My bad.

I don't think we ever had any issues with Gene's entry nor was it needed to changed? I don't remember if the part about "him leaving Akiko Glitter to die"(who is an antagonist, not a remotely heroic figure) was supposed to be cut?

Since I remember some shoehorning in about Akiko Glitter's fate being really really despised to the point it bloated tons of entries in a "single issue wonk" sort of way. I think that was fixed, though. The page history can be hard to read sometimes. XD

Came across this on the Lackadaisy page;

• Designated Hero: The Lackadaisy Gang gets this title, due to being the protagonists. But being bootleggers who stop at nothing to keep their struggling business afloat means they aren't exactly paragons of all things pure and good.

This honestly reads more like a Draco in Leather Pants edit. The webcomic (and animated pilot) make it clear that the protagonists are criminals and thus shouldn't even be considered "paragons of all things pure and good."

Cut?

Edited by WiryAiluropodine on Apr 6th 2023 at 6:15:03 PM

Sounds like a cut.

Yeah, that's misuse, and I agree with cutting it.

YMMV.Sponge Bob Square Pants S 5 E 18 What Ever Happened To Sponge Bob

• Designated Hero: SpongeBob takes his friends' insults too seriously and leaves town, causing it to collapse into chaos without anyone to cook Krabby Patties. As mayor of New Kelp City, he repeals a law that was enacted to keep the town safe, turning it into a burning wasteland. He flees the city and goes back to his fry cooking job. SpongeBob made two cities descend into anarchy over the course of a day and never faces any punishment.

How dare SpongeBob get offended at his friends remarks that he's an idiot boy. They were just stressed and didn't mean it personally and not acting like jackasses for no reason. Clearly, he should've manned up and let his friends talk shit to his face. And ignore the people who caused the chaos of their own agency, simply because of SpongeBob leaving, he made them act this way, somehow.

Heavy dose of sarcasm aside, I think the story being all SpongeBob's fault is the least commonly held opinion on this episode.

• Designated Monkey: Some believe that the actions that cause people to get angry with SpongeBob, from breaking Gary's shell by hugging him, to knocking Patrick over and ruining his mom's cake, to getting stuck in pottery and knocking Mr. Krabs and his money into the deep fryer, are a little too conveniently-placed together, on top of everyone, especially Patrick of all people, specifically calling SpongeBob "idiot boy." In fact, the only reason why SpongeBob ruined Sandy's robot is because he was wearing his water helmet with an opening on the top, when he has a water helmet that covers up the top.

This seem confusing; who is the monkey in this instance? Then there's the Weasel Words.

• Designated Villains: The Bubble Poppin' Boys have a good reason for not wanting bubbles to be blown: the soap can irritate peoples' eyes. One of them even explains this to SpongeBob, and in the end, the citizens of New Kelp City panic from being blinded by bubbles. It's also mentioned that they have a charter (which needs to be granted legally) that prohibits bubbles in the city. So while they are intimidating, they're merely upholding the law, and there are disastrous results after they're kicked out.

I don't remember them too well, but weren't they being Jerkasses about it? It's like saying the police didn't do anything wrong by strangling someone to death because they were "upholding the law".

Yeahhhhh, while the Bubble Poppin' Boys were correct about safety of their city, it's not SpongeBob's fault that the entire city decided to have a bubble riot as soon as the law was repealed. Like, he changed a law that was being violently enforced and the people went apeshit, but it's not like he knew that such chaos would happen.

Agree that Designated Hero is inaccurate and too biased.

Designated Monkey seems OK to me. It's saying that Sponge is the monkey because he's going through contrived misfortunes that wouldn't normally happen.

Designated Villain... eh. They were being dicks, and then they were proven right. I don't think the show wanted us to see them as evil considering they were very clearly vindicated later. They were antagonists for being mean, but they're not villains and the episode doesn't portray them as such.

I don't remember well. But I think is not that there was a law prohibiting, just that the antagonists hated bubbles and forbid anyone from blowing them. They were not law enforcement, they were a gang.

But the example is still ridiculous. Since it is blaming spongebob over the idiocy of both cities (a riot becuase you couldn't get Krabby Patties?).

I mean, they were a gang but they were a gang enforcing a law that was, like, baked into the city's charter and stuff.

The rest of the series has always been very pro-blowing-bubbles, so I'm pretty sure the gang thing is meant to be an overcorrection, it's just that the city goes too far in the other direction.

Found this on the YMMV page for Cassiopeia Quinn;

• Designated Villain: Many readers feel that Vrax is the series' real protagonist as she is a selfless, honorable law enforcer while Quinn, albeit altruistic, is still a thief and a criminal and can occasionally come off as smug and unlikable. It doesn't help that Maddie gets far more character focus and development.

The character in question (Madison Vrax) is the deuteragonist of the webcomic who is always presented as a Sympathetic Inspector Antagonist. She may be the primary antagonist to Cassiopeia's Affably Evil Loveable Rogue protagonist (i.e. the Zenigata to Quinn's Lupin), but there appears to be no evidence of Vrax ever being portrayed as the outright villain of the story.

Edited by WiryAiluropodine on Jun 1st 2023 at 10:51:22 PM

I removed it. Vrax isn't written as a villain.

From Hannah Montana

Designated Villain: Mr. Bradley in the movie is treated as a villain just because he wants to build a mall. He doesn't even do anything villainous. The only passibly mean thing he does is taunt the town people they won't be able to stop him building that mall. Which is Stupid Evil, because those people are his potential customers. Miley actually thinks the mall development is a good idea at first before being told down by her grandmother.

I haven't seen the movie, but from what I can tell from other pages, said mall would be overtaking a local farm. Question is, is that enough to make this not apply?

As far as I remember, it wasn't overtaking a farm so much as an open, unused field. But I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters, so I could be wrong.

I never saw the movie but I have seen criticism with Saving the Orphanage narratives like this because some people argue that the bad guy's idea would bring in more work and be cleaner/safer than the norm, and it's an Appeal to Tradition.

But the entry itself admits the movie depicts the man as Stupid Evil by mocking the rest of the town, so is that cruel enough?

Edited by mightymewtron on Jun 14th 2023 at 1:07:50 PM

He was a Jerkass, but not evil. He served as a foil to Miley, who also initially hated being back in Tennessee and was pumped to hear about the mall when she was first introduced to his plan; and, ultimately, both are driven by love for their family (as the villain agrees to leave everyone alone and keep the Hannah secret because his daughters beg him not to expose her)

And I think the biggest issue with this specific Saving the Orphanage Plot is that there wasn't an indication the land was being used for anything. It wasn't an area the town was, like, actively using, it was just a field. It was also established that there wasn't a lot that could be bought or sold in the town, and that modern entertainment was a long drive away.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 14th 2023 at 1:12:52 PM

What is the difference supposed to be between these tropes and Unintentionally Sympathetic / Unintentionally Unsympathetic?

Edited by molokai198 on Jun 14th 2023 at 9:21:44 AM

Whether or not a character is meant to be sympathetic doesn't always equal their moral status. Intended Anti-heroes and despicable villains can be Unintentionally Sympathetic, while supposedly morally upstanding heroes and sympathetic villains can be Unintentionally Unsympathetic.

Edited by badtothebaritone on Jun 14th 2023 at 8:27:42 AM

YMMV.Star Trek Enterprise lists T'Pol as a Designated Villain. However, while she was kind of portrayed as The Bore at times, she was never a villain. Seems to me more like Unintentionally Sympathetic.

Agreed.

It still kind of feels like an unnecessary subtrope to me; a Designated Hero by definition will be Unintentionally Unsympathetic even if you can be Unintentionally Unsympathetic without being a Designated Hero, and vice versa.

That strikes me as a pretty extreme lumper stance. We've got plenty of subtropes.

I'd also add that US/UU are commonly used for individual instances as well as characters as a whole ("the narrative tries to portray Bob as wrong in this particular scene, but to many fans...")

Let me put it this way: Heroism and Villainy are different from Sympathy and Non-Sympathy. The Designated Hero is not a hero you fail to sympathize with, it's a hero who does evil things. The Unintentionally Sympathetic villain isn't necessary someone you root for, it's only someone you feel bad for. People are capable of rooting for characters they don't sympathize with (which is why Anti-Hero in general is common), and they're capable of feeling bad for characters they don't want to see win (which is why Anti-Villain is also somewhat common).

Yeah, often there's overlap. You're normally supposed to feel bad for the hero. The point is that this isn't an inherent thing, and the two reactions are fundamentally different at the end of the day.

Brought from this ATT.

From YMMV.Barbie 2023:

• Designated Hero: The Barbies. At the beginning of the Film they're highly dismissive of the Kens, having them be second-class citizens and leaving them homeless, with President Barbie even dismissing them as "accessories". When the Kens implement Partiarchy in Barbieland, the the way they take back control is by employing Alpha Bitch tactics, psychologically manipulating the Kens into fighting each other, then reducing them back to been second-class citizens under the flimsy justification that for as long as Patriarchy exists in the real world, then Barbieland must be a Matriarchy, with the Film seems seeming to run with the idea that so long as men hold any positions of power, that Patriarchy ]exists

The film goes out it's way to point out that Barbies are in the wrong with their treatment of Ken and even admit it themselves. I feel like this doesn't count.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 25th 2023 at 12:38:49 PM