Times where the hero seems like the villain

[Thyunda]

I read a book once called "The Last Templar". It was about modern day templars trying to find the diary of Jesus Christ. The story was pretty decent adventure romp, until the very end when they discover actual proof that Christ was just a mortal man. And then the main characters throw it into the sea. This was supposed to be some turning point for the main character, who was an atheist who didn't like organized religion. After spending time in a village of christians who weren't assholes, she decides that believing in Christ is too important for people, and it's what allows them to be good. It pissed me the hell off when I read it, because it assumes that the only reason people are decent is because God expects it of them. Fuck that.

Is...is that what you took from that? I would have thought that the action was down to the fact that a lot of decent people are Christians and there's literally no reason to tear their lives up just for the sake of being 'correct'.

A lot of people used to comfortable that the world was flat and the sun revolved around us. That doesn't mean we bury and ignore truth in the name of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

Does that change my point any? A bitter truth is always better in the long run than a sweet lie.

Are you going to provide some evidence of this? Some that I won't just disprove out of hand?

Holy shit dude. Fucking forget about it. This argument is really stupid. I didnt like the ending. Deal.

So...would you have rather I kept quiet and let you give your opinion unchallenged?

Considering you have nothing to say more than "I disagree", I can this would go nowhere. I'd rather skip to the end.

Well, your evidence was that people believed that the Earth was flat and that they were better off learning the truth - I merely pointed out they didn't believe the Earth was flat.
My evidence is that you were more content enjoying your opinion than having it proved wrong simply for the sake of 'the truth'.

Except you didn't prove my opinion wrong. You clutched at straws that didn't really have anything to do with my point.

But...but I did prove you wrong. The truth...man. The truth. You backed your opinion up with shoddy evidence and haven't provided an alternative, so in proving your evidence non-existent, I proved your point wrong. That's how truth works, dude.
If you need further evidence - how would you feel if this 'evidence against Christianity' started a war and people died over it? Would you still insist the 'truth' was better?

Dude, no you didn't. All you did was show I got one example of my point wrong. That's all. My point still stands. You do realize that, right? Need a few more? Fine.
It's better to know there's no monsters in your closet than to assume it didn't eat you because you did your homework.
It's better to know that you got a promotion because you worked hard than to assume it's because you found a lucky penny.
It's better to be a good person because being a good person is just better than being an asshole, than to believe you're only doing it for a reward in heaven.

And if the notion of God is the only thing keeping someone from starting a war and hurting people, then the world is better off without them.

Believing in oneself, and finding strength from that is infinitely more rewarding than playing nice and hoping it will pay off in the afterlife. I'll take the human mind and capacity for good will over "be nice cause God says so", any day.

Then tell that to the families of the dead. I'm sure they'll appreciate the 'I told you so'.

 

[Lieju]

Superman in Man of Steel. I don?t want to beat a dead horse, but seriously, the movie seems to just overlook the fact of how much unnecessary destruction Clark causes to Metropolis during his fight with Zod. ?Protector of Earth? he was not.

Two indestructible beings of god-like power go to all out war with each other, one of which has never been in combat before a day or two previously and the other determined to kill every human being on Earth in a grief filled rage, and you expect the city to come out of that unscathed? It's not unnecessary, it's a miracle that it wasn't much, much worse, and they have Clark to thank for that. I don't think Man of Steel was overlooking the collateral damage, I think all of the previous movies were overlooking the unavoidable truths that come with characters this powerful.

Even if that's the case, the movie didn't focus on Superman's mental journey and reaction to it.
If the movie had told the story of a person who tries to do good, but is inexperienced, and then has to face the damage he did, the people he killed, and grow and change because of it, people's reactions would have been different.

The movie didn't tell it's story well.
So it comes across as Superman just breaking shit because it's cool, because the movie thinks the fightscene in Metropolis is cool.
It's presented as 'cool', not horrifying.

 

[Ranorak]

No one has mentioned The Doctor yet?

Just going to list the examples given from tv tropes

Spoiler: Obvious spoilers from both the new and the original series

Donna turned down an invitation to take a spin around space-time with the Doctor after he wiped out the Racnoss. She continues to call him on his various "Time Lord-y" decisions throughout Series Four, particularly when he states the destruction of Pompeii is a "fixed point in time," and so he decides not to interfere; and how he neglected to help the enslaved Ood when he last met them.

Joan Redfern calls the Doctor on the consequences of his dalliance as a human in "The Family of Blood": "If the Doctor had never chosen this place, on a whim... would anyone here have died?"

From the classic series, "Resurrection of the Daleks" in Season 21 has the Doctor's companion Tegan leaving as a result of her disgust over the bloodshed she had just witnessed and the Doctor saying he must mend his ways. (He doesn't.)

In Series Four, "The Unicorn and the Wasp", Agatha Christie gets in on it. "How like a man to have fun while there's disaster all around him! ...I'll work with you, gladly, but for the sake of justice, not your own amusement."

Queen Victoria also calls him and Rose out for giggling and acting silly immediately after a terrifying adventure.

The Series Four finale, Journey's End, gives us an example of the hero calling himself out: The Doctor banishes his clone self to a parallel universe after his act of genocide upon the Daleks. Although the clone self also gets to be free to be with Rose Tyler through that banishment, and in a cut scene would've got a piece of Grow-Your-Own TARDIS...

He gets called out by the villain (Davros) - "You turn your companions into weapons!"

Jackie Tyler, Rose's mother, would chew the Ninth Doctor out for showing up out of nowhere, taking her daughter away with him with no explanation, and not even always getting the return date right.

Even Margaret Blaine, a.k.a. Blon Fel-Fotch Pasameer-Day Slitheen, an alien who has proved herself perfectly willing to destroy entire planets, gets in on the act in the episode "Boom Town", when she observes that the Doctor's "happy-go-lucky life" seems to generate an awful lot of destruction.

The Ninth Doctor gets a couple very brief ones in the episode "Dalek." One in the form of a Dalek commenting on how he would make a good Dalek for suggesting its new orders were to kill itself, one in the form of Rose pointing out that the Dalek wasn't the one pointing the gun at her.

Martha gives the Doctor a bit of a chewing out for his self-righteous attitude towards a group of UNIT officials, pointing out that they were doing their best to save the planet and frequently had to do so in his absence. Although, at the end of it, Martha mentions wanting to make them 'better'.

At the end of The Waters of Mars, the Doctor has told himself that as the last of the Time Lords, he can change the laws of time as he sees fit and after violating the rules and changing a fixed point in time, has gone slightly mad with power. Adelaide, one of the people he saved, is rightly horrified, and gives the Doctor a good verbal battering. She then brings him back down to earth...by killing herself to make sure the timeline goes as it's supposed to.

Often just the way the seventh Doctor treats Ace, especially when it's to further a hidden scheme of his.

In The End of Time Part 2 Wilfred calls out the Doctor for his refusal to kill the Master, when doing so would restore humanity to its regular state.

In The Time of Angels, the Doctor spends a lot of time walking around like he owns the place, which usually works for him. The Bishop in particular is offended at how arrogant the Doctor is, and calls him out on it.
"I know that, Doctor. And when you've flown away in your little blue box, I'll explain that to their families." Ouch.

Done quite well by Rory during The Vampires of Venice.
Rory (to the Doctor): You know what's dangerous about you? It's not that you make people take risks, it's that you make them want to impress you! You make it so they don't want to let you down. You have no idea how dangerous you make people to themselves when you're around!

Rory does it again in "The Big Bang". Subverted as the Doctor was testing him.
Doctor: Your girlfriend isn't as important as the whole universe.
Rory: SHE IS TO ME! (punches the Doctor)

May apply for Rory again in The Girl Who Waited when the Doctor makes Rory choose which of two Amys (Present Amy or Future Amy) to take with them. Note: this is after the Doctor explicitly tells them that they can take both Present Amy and Future Amy aboard the TARDIS. Later, the Doctor tells Rory flat-out that he lied to them. Then makes Rory choose which to keep. After Rory and an unconscious Present Amy are already on board. And Future Amy is sobbing right outside the TARDIS. Then leaves Rory to explain to Present Amy the dirty job of what had to be done when she comes to and asks what happened to Future Amy.:
The Doctor: Your choice.
Rory: This isn't fair. You're turning me into you!

The Doctor even does it to himself, in the form of the Dream Lord, pointing out his self-righteous attitude, and the fact that he never visits his 'friends' after he leaves them.

In "A Good Man Goes to War" the Doctor realizes too late that the antagonists have stolen Amy and Rory's baby and are going to turn her into a weapon against him. River Song arrives to call him on it:
Doctor: You think I wanted this? I didn't want this! This wasn't me.
River: This was exactly you. All this! All of it! You make them so afraid. When you began all those years ago, sailing off to see the universe, did you ever think you'd become this? The man who can turn an army around at the mention of his name. Doctor. The word for "healer," and "wise man" throughout the universe. We get that word from you, you know. But if you carry on the way you are, what might that word come to mean?

In "The Wedding of River Song" the Doctor does this to River when she refuses to kill him, thus altering a fixed point and nearly destroying time.
Doctor: River! River! This is ridiculous! That would mean nothing to anyone. It's insane. Worse, it's stupid! You embarrass me.

The Doctor's companions have been calling him on stuff like this since his very first incarnation - Steven nearly left the TARDIS over the Doctor's refusal to save anyone during The Massacre.

Jamie, probably one of the Doctor's most loyal companions, gives him a right telling off after being manipulated in The Evil of the Daleks.

The Doctor's companions have been calling him on stuff since the very first episode. Remember Susan's freak out when he decides to keep Barbara and Ian prisoner?

Two episodes later, the Doctor moves as if to BASH AN INJURED MAN'S HEAD IN (because he wanted to escape to the TARDIS and thought they were wasting time), and Ian intercepts him asking what the hell he thought he was doing.

Barbara Wright gets a great one in The Edge of Destruction. The Doctor is threatening to throw her and Ian out of the TARDIS, into empty space, and she tells him he has no right to threaten them as he owes his life to the two of them several times over already.
Barbara: Accuse us? You ought to go down on your hands and knees and thank us!

Amy gets an especially epic What The Hell Hero moment in "A Town Called Mercy", when the Doctor attempts to hand Jex over to the Gunslinger:
The Doctor: We could end this right now. We could save everyone right now!
Amy: This is not how we roll, and you know it. What's happened to you, Doctor? When did killing someone become an option?
The Doctor: Jex has to answer for his crimes.
Amy: And what then? Are you going to hunt down everyone who's made a gun or a bullet or a bomb?
The Doctor: But they keep coming back, don't you see? Every time I negotiate, I try to understand. Well not today. No, today I honour the victims first. His, the Master's, the Daleks'. All the people that died because of my mercy!
Amy: See, this is what happens when you travel alone for too long. Well listen to me, Doctor, we can't be like him. We have to be better than him.

 

[lord canti]

Superman in Man of Steel. I don?t want to beat a dead horse, but seriously, the movie seems to just overlook the fact of how much unnecessary destruction Clark causes to Metropolis during his fight with Zod. ?Protector of Earth? he was not.

Goku in Dragon Ball. If you?ve read the series and see the sheer amount of times he?s allowed such villains as Vegeta to escape just so he can fulfil his battle addiction and ?fight them again sometime?, you should agree with me. I know he?s basically a man-child and Dragon Ball?s heroes are only heroes in as much as they?re just martial artists with superhuman powers who tend to get themselves embroiled in fights with villains who happen to want to destroy the planet or something (Gohan ? especially when he?s the Great Saiyaman - is the closest we get to a bonafide hero, which is ironic since he never liked fighting in the first place), but it?s really to an unhealthy degree that Goku prides a battle with a worthy opponent over the lives of his family and friends, even after he?s been shown the danger of said action.

Ranma in Ranma ½. I haven?t read the manga in a long while, but I just always thought he was a cocky little shit that, like Goku, seemed to create the majority of the problems he tried to solve. Same goes for Akane, who borderline-abuses Ranma because she's the most fucking tsundere character in existence.

Integra from Hellsing. Technically, the antihero Alucard is the protagonist of the series, but Integra is still classed as a ?hero?. There?s one scene in the series that kind of made me think, ?Even if it?s justified, you still gave your vampire assassin an order to slaughter a crew of innocent, deceived human beings who were just doing their jobs based on the info they?d been given. They weren?t even fucking vampires?. (Good, I said that without technically spoiling anything.)

Light Yagami, from Death Note, acting like a villain throughout the entire series.
He's a mass murderer with a God complex. Not to mention the fact that he's a genius, and will do whatever it takes not to be caught by the police. He uses the Death Note he finds to rid the world of its criminals - seemingly a noble pursuit, sure, but it quickly turns questionable when the God complex kicks in and people you like start dying as a result of his overly convoluted (albeit awesomely put together) plans.

The difference is that Light is meant to be a villain protagonist. The series made it clear, even shortly after the beginning that, while we may be willing to root for him just so we can see his cat-and-mouse game with L, he's an immature narcissist who early on kills a guy (Lind L. Tailor, right?) just because he thought he was the same detective that was questioning his moral authority.

In this series, it's clear that, while he has his flaws, L is meant to be the hero. He's just not the protagonist, so there's less focus on his ideals (if any; even Near seems to care more about the morality or lack thereof of Light's actions than L, who sees Light as his mental equal).

In Death Note, I find both L and Near to be... kind of intended to be heroic in a sense, despite being antagonists. At least in the end. But they have little qualm with torture or inhumane treatment and (especially Near) treat serious cases like a game to be won. "If you can't win the game, If you can't solve the puzzle, then you're just a loser", is a rather telling quote from him. And of course Light is obvious, though he clearly wasn't meant to seem like a hero (besides, contrary to what's stated earlier in the thread, his god complex is obvious from the first episode). Really, I think Matsuda is the real hero of Death Note.

OK, yeah, this I agree with. It seemed like Near cared more about getting revenge on Light for

Spoiler

killing L

than stopping Light from killing people (I do think Near respected L, even if that quote implies otherwise; I think Near was just stating a fact but not caring about the tactless nature of how he said it, since he's that kind of character), even if he disagreed with Light imposing his own morals on the rest of the world. But yeah, Matsuda was the closest to a pure hero we got, as well as the closest to a relatable protagonist character.

Ok, first of all the police who got killed in the hotel were not killed under Integras orders that is if I remember that part directly. Secondly the entire army of Catholics that she had Alucard attack knew what they were going up against. Also, L and Near never claimed to be heroes. L even says so hiself that the only reason he takes a case is if it intrigues him.

 

[Random Argument Man]

The main guy in the movie Limitless

***SPOILERS***

The guy gets hooked on a magic drug that cures him of his laziness and idiocy. He uses he new found powers to become personally wealthy, fuck other people's girlfriends, possibly kill prostitutes and lie to the girl he ostensibly loves.

The movie portrays all this as okay as the 'hero' is some blue collar shlub whereas the big revealed antagonist is a self-made businessman so he's 'bad'.

No negative consequences comes to the hero at the end btw. Even the murders are sorta just forgotten about and he gets everything he ever wanted free of strings.

Fuck this movie.

I always thought that movie decided to choose the wrong genre. It decided to become a thriller while it would've worked better as a drug movie. You start the drug, you feel invincible and things come crashing down so hard afterwards.

The ending was also changed. In the original ending, the guy never fixed the problems with the drugs and he believes that he will figure it out eventually. However, I still think this movie has missed the opportunity of becoming a better Requiem of a Dream.

 

[leethal]

the Sweeney, ray Winstone is loveable 50 something smartass who
steals from crime scenes
breaks the law,
witness intimidation,
assaulting civilians,
having sex with the internal affairs officers wife who gets killed because of him then slams the IA officer into the wall saying don't push me
or something to that effect.


and we are suppose to root for him? why
he is more of a villain then the villain and he has a badge, that make him worse.

hated that movie
don't know why people liked it (think everyone was just desperate for a british blockbuster to be successful)

 

[william12123]

This is probably gonna get some flack, but I think like this about the assassins in Assassin's Creed.

(Disclaimer: AC is one of my favorite series ever. The Templars are also villanous, just on a different scale)

If the basic name of the organisation isnt enough, the PC often survives off theft (be it pickpocketing, robbing chests, taking horses). Kills hundreds of mostly innocent guards (who cant ALL be templars, and most of which are simply trying to stop the maniac that just appeared in their midst). Philosophically, they are also unconvincing ("nothing is true, everything is permitted" may be a philosophical saying about the falseness of religion/history, but they are clear in the first AC that they don't explain that to their members).

I've always felt more convinced by the Templar speeches about order & peace. I know full well that some of them are quite nuts & want to dominate humanity (and are also composed of slavers, pirates, killers, etc.), but DAMN they are convincing in their speeches sometimes.

I always had fun with AC IV's premise, but a bit in reverse. The best way for the templars to convince the world that they dont exist is to create a Videogame that disparages them. If assassins try to recruit after that, it would be pretty easy to become convinced they are nuts.

 

[Hades]

This is probably gonna get some flack, but I think like this about the assassins in Assassin's Creed.

(Disclaimer: AC is one of my favorite series ever. The Templars are also villanous, just on a different scale)

If the basic name of the organisation isnt enough, the PC often survives off theft (be it pickpocketing, robbing chests, taking horses). Kills hundreds of mostly innocent guards (who cant ALL be templars, and most of which are simply trying to stop the maniac that just appeared in their midst). Philosophically, they are also unconvincing ("nothing is true, everything is permitted" may be a philosophical saying about the falseness of religion/history, but they are clear in the first AC that they don't explain that to their members).

I've always felt more convinced by the Templar speeches about order & peace. I know full well that some of them are quite nuts & want to dominate humanity (and are also composed of slavers, pirates, killers, etc.), but DAMN they are convincing in their speeches sometimes.

I always had fun with AC IV's premise, but a bit in reverse. The best way for the templars to convince the world that they dont exist is to create a Videogame that disparages them. If assassins try to recruit after that, it would be pretty easy to become convinced they are nuts.

I very much agree with you.

Throughout the games i only found the Assassin's having the moral high ground when the Templar's were led by lunatics not believing in the Templar ideals in the first place. In AC III the Templar's where led by the reasonable Haythen who genuinely believed in what the Templar's claim to stand for. As soon as the Templar's got such a leader i didn't find the Assassin ideals having a leg to stand on.

 

[rosac]

With regards to the superman video posted above, the reason why I believe the scene is so powerful is because before now superman hasn't done much collateral. This is the scene where he has finally, after attempting to beat Darkseid in his usual restrained manner, "cut loose" allowing himself to do collateral because it is the force necessary to defeat such a foe. He normally does everything to find another way, but couldn't here. Whereas in Man Of Steel, there was no real "Other way" shown. Just a lot of punching. I believe the next film SHOULD focus on people being pissed at how much destruction superman has done... maybe including batman?

 

[Gizmo1990]

The Dresden Files. Harry Dresden is a good man but when it comes down to it he will do what is necessary and that is not always the right/good thing to do. A number of times he has done some damn near evil things in order to stop greater evil.

This example has MASSIVE spoilers for book 12 and beyond

Spoiler

He kills a woman he once loved, and the mother of his child to save said child and wipe out the entire Red court, an entire species of Vampire. Now while it is good that he destoryed such a large force of evil it created a massive power vacuum that every bad guy in the world then tries to fill causing more damage than the Red court did. By book 14 the White council of Wizards, which has protected the world from evil (or at least tried) for centuries has had it's arse kicked so badly due to the chaos that they have basicly abandoned the US and middle east and is barly holding onto Europe and East Asia, all while magical and mortal alike are being screwed over by every power hungry faction out there, which is basicly all of them.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

The Dresden Files. Harry Dresden is a good man but when it comes down to it he will do what is necessary and that is not always the right/good thing to do. A number of times he has done some damn near evil things in order to stop greater evil.

This example has MASSIVE spoilers for book 12 and beyond

Spoiler

He kills a woman he once loved, and the mother of his child to save said child and wipe out the entire Red court, an entire species of Vampire. Now while it is good that he destoryed such a large force of evil it created a massive power vacuum that every bad guy in the world then tries to fill causing more damage than the Red court did. By book 14 the White council of Wizards, which has protected the world from evil (or at least tried) for centuries has had it's arse kicked so badly due to the chaos that they have basicly abandoned the US and middle east and is barly holding onto Europe and East Asia, all while magical and mortal alike are being screwed over by every power hungry faction out there, which is basicly all of them.

I think that's kind of the point.

Spoiler: Similar spoiler warning as Gizmo's

When reading the series, I've found it to always be about the temptation of power, as well as what having power does to shape who you are. There's a bit in Turn Coat where Dresden is facing some Wardens who are clearly scared shitless of him, and he remembers that they can't read his inner monologue and know how tired and desperate he is: to them, he's the guy who starts wars, kills werewolves by the pack, and rides around on a zombie T-Rex. He's not a villain, he's just getting so powerful that it becomes hard for him to maintain his perspective- he didn't realise that using his power to stop the Red Court would throw the world into chaos and seriously mess up Molly, and now he's trying to fix what he did. As far as I can tell, that theme is going to continue more blatantly now that he's the Winter Knight.

Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones/ASoIaF.

Next to the Starks she's obviously being set up as the "good guy" on the show, but I can't help but hate her guts.
- She thinks she has the right to rule the 7 kingdoms, even though she has no memory of being there.
- The Targaryens had only been there 300 years, enough to be a dynasty but hardly that well established.
- The only reason she can even be in contention is her dragons, which she can no longer control.
- Even if she does take back the kingdoms she is cursed and unable to produce an heir, her line would end in ~50 years.
- All of her decision making has been knee-jerk reaction to what she felt was right, after she conquers her third city the first two fall into ruin again.
- She is building an army of foreign former slaves to take Westeros.
- She has a good thing going across the narrow sea, but is thinking about throwing it all away for a land she doesn't really have any tie to.
- It is still not for certain that she's not just as insane as her brother.

Spoiler

Through 1/4 of ADwD: I hate that my favorite major house, the Martells, will side with her, and that my least favorite house, the Greyjoys, have the most potential to stop her.

I think that Dany is good to show the idea of what a cleansing of Westeros nobility would mean. Sure, she's got a good claim to the throne, but as you point out she's got some major issues when it comes to knowing how to rule. She's good for all the people who say, "Kill the Lannisters, Littlefinger, the whole lot, and bring in someone untainted by politics!" Then they see what that actually means.

Spoiler: spoilers for the entire series of A Song of Ice and Fire books

Right now I'm not sure what the plan is for the Connington boy who says he's Aegon, but I think that it could be good. As is pointed out in the book, Dany and the other claimants see the Iron Throne as their right or a prize, while the boy sees it as his duty.

 

[Sampler]

Not sure if this counts - but Ferris Bueller.

What a monumental cockhead he was. Deceitful, lying, lazy, manipulative, egotistical, superficial, and overall a douche icon. I understand it's a comedy and that I wasn't supposed to take him too seriously, but holy crap, I hoped and hoped that he would be punished in some way, but nothing of the sort happened.

Not sure why, but I always hoped Ferris's girlfriend would see what a cockend he was and leave him for the nice guy who respected her. That'd show the arrogant *bleep*


..this probably says more about me than the film..

 

[Loonyyy]

Oh wow. Next thing they'll be applying for a government arts grant. Can't they just work hard, make something that'll survive in a free market, and pull their film up by it's bootstraps?

YOU DARE EXPECT THE GLORIOUS UPPER CLASSES TO WORK?! Things were so much better when kids had to clean out machines while they were running! And people should have a more appropriate appearance in the work place, none of this "practicality" nonsense!

On a more serious note I'm not surprised.

I'm sorry I questioned the rule of our righteous overlords. My lack of moral clarity and "objective" thought must have made me rebel. Truly, the only way to be free is to submit to authoritarian jackasses, who's only worth is the possession of fortunes that they never broke their back for.

I'll go have some children so I can send them to the factory.