Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Guest Blogger: Villians vs. Heroes

This was sent to me by long time blog-reader DM and I thought it was a great point of view. I totally understand what he's saying. I also think writers can paint characters into a corner,  which just makes it all worse
SO, do you agree or disagree? While I don't want my Faison killed, I totally GET IT! 

I hate to say this because I adore every single actor on screen, but I am really not liking the Robin rescue storyline.
Last week I was watching a Friday the 13th marathon, movies which I haven't seen for decades. Cheesy, yes, but I did find myself rooting for the heroine. I wanted the blonde female virgin to escape triumphant and while doing so to get an axe, gun or machete and give Jason a good thrashing. Knowing full well, that the villain never dies, at least I got to cheer for the hero and for the villain to at very least go down for the count.

This series was from back in the 80s. It is now the 'teens and we root for the villain. Both on screen and in real life. When someone kills a bunch of people, the story is  all over the Internet and tv screens. When a little boy helps a lady cross the street, no one knows. Or cares.

What I am getting at is that Anna held a gun to Dr O and Faison. Instead of shooting them, even just disabling them with a shot in the leg, she goes on and on ad nauseum verbally talking to them to give them a chance to come up with a way to turn the tables and over power her. Nikolas has a gun drawn on Faison. And did nothing. Robin had a gun drawn on Dr. O. and could have shot her in the leg or shoulder to slow her down, but does nothing. Tracy had the guts to shoot Jerry and how did that turn out? He is wielding a gun using the shoulder/arm that he was shot in, with no stress or strain. Miracle cure for the villain. If it was the heroine, she would still be in a sling for sympathy.

If Freddy Kruger or Jason Voorhees was chasing you, you would look for a weapon and USE IT. How about Osama Bin Laden? When he was alive, if you came face to face with him and you had a gun, would you shoot him? Yes. But on GH?

Evil always wins. Evil never dies.

I want to root for the underdog and root for the good guy ever now and then. Especially with all that is happening in the real world. When Luke shot Helena, I cheered. I screamed. I jumped out of my chair. I was smart enough to know she wasn't dead and would be coming back as long as Constance Towers is available, but still, I applauded when my heroes win, even temporarily. And evil lost. Even temporarily.

I remember first watching GH in 1977. On the horizon was Luke and Laura, a spirited couple, a hero and heroine who, no matter what unrealistic trouble they got into, we knew that they would persevere and win. They had to. They were our heroes. And we rooted for them. Then, for about a decade, the big heroes on GH became Sonny and Jason, two mobsters who killed (excuse me, ordered others to kill for them). People tuned in daily to see their knights in shining black armour. Women wanted their sons to be like them, and their daughters to marry someone like them. I have been reading GH blogs religiously lately, and so many people are excited about Faison, Dr. O and Jerry Jacks, that we forget who our heroes are. Or at the very least should be. We root for the wrong people because we have become used to that in our daily lives.

With all the good guys vs. bad guys action on the screen the past 2 days, I want to be able to root for a good guy (or, gal) to win. But I can't.

I don't believe in heroes anymore.



Carrie said...

I agree. I felt this was especially true in Guza era but it's still true now. I was by the tv for a few minutes and saw there was another shooting today at a school. 12 and 14 year olds killing people? Something is seriously wrong in this country and with our values. We're so ok with violence that it's permeating to real life and blinding people. I'm not blaming videogames/movies/television exclusively but it's not helping and the results are devastating.

AntJoan said...

Guest blogger: We still root for the heroes, but GH makes them stupid and ineffective. However, they still are the heroes we love, and Jerry Jacks, et. al, are villains we love to hate.

Di said...

I agree with him totally. When I was a kid you always left the theatre or the tv screen with a good feeling because the good guys always won. Maybe that was a little lopsided but it gave us the hope we needed to live our lives in what was often a very scary world.

Now the bad guys always win and we wonder why the younger generation either feel totally hopeless or pick up a gun to solve their problems.

And I think some days that evil is winning.

soaplover said...

I understand what DV is saying, and agree for the most part. (When applying this to slimey Sonny and his ilk, however, I fully wanted him and Jason to PAY and pay...)

I suspect this problem is partly due to some superb casting. Shows hire such talented actors to play villains that they get to be a joy to watch. The actress who plays Obrect is simply marvelous--often a bit over the top, but really fun to watch. Connie playing Helena is so experienced, so talented... again, abit cartoony, but fun to watch. The actor who plays Jerry Jacks is another big talent, as is Faison.

But I don't long to see them win--not at all! I realize they are the stumbling blocks to complicate our heroes' lives and plotlines. I still wait for the good guys to win and cheer when they do.

What bothers me right now in stupidity on the part of our good guys. Nik finds Robin in that lab and they have a long chat before they move out of that lab with the locking door. Anna and Robert enter same lab and talk and talk before moving to get out of the room. Why didn't they return to the main room upstairs once they established Robin had been there? Why weren't they searching the building for her? Why did they stay in the lab--almost as if they were waiting for Jerry to return and lock them in?

This stuff annoys and it is unnecessary to the story. This stupidity factor is why it seems the bad guys are winning. Put the good guys in danger and they seem to lose their brains and cunning. When Nik took Robin up to the main room, why didn't they take the time to tie Obrect up and immobilize her? She could still give them trouble, and we knew Jerry was coming. Nobody ties up Faison, the escaped maniac? I was disappointed Faison, with hands free, did little to counteract Nik. You don't leave really dangerous bad guys with their hands and feet free!

This story has espcially good villains and I don't want to see any killed off because once they are locked up, they can always wait a few years and turn up more interesting evil. But I do want them locked up--at least Faison. (personally, I kind of want to see and hear Obrect perform at Kareoki again!)

When I was a kid, I loved that Gene Autry always won but I also had a crush on sympathetic 'bad boys', such as Mr Rochester (Jane Eyre). It was a far more innocent time and the world no longer seems to like innocence at all. TV, movies, games, whatever--no more innocence and few happy endings. Now if a writer or producer produces happy endings or shows innocence, there are cries of 'silly' and 'unrealistic' or 'soppy.'

I liked entertainment a lot better in the olden days...

Denise Preston said...

I think that's what made the original Luke and Laura story so compelling. Luke was certainly an "anti-hero", but he was heroic and street smart, and he and Laura always came up with a plan to outsmart the bad guys, along with an interesting array of "side-kicks." The heroes were heroic AND interesting. Today, the bad guys are the interesting ones and the good guys seem bland. I think it comes down to writing. You can make a hero or heroine fun and interesting, but you have to have GOOD writing. It's easier and more fun to write for the bad guys, I'm sure, because they are so "out there," but the hero or heroine are supposed to be who we are rooting for, right?