Poll of the Day > Is it normal to dislike/hate protagonists in tv shows/movies?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Many times I dislike or hate protagonists or main characters in tv shows and movies. They are supposed to be liked and I just can't like them.

I'll use a few examples and I'll obviously cover the spoilers for your convenience.

The Walking Dead - I hate Rick. He makes stupid ass decisions. I don't know why everyone allows him to be the leader. In season 1 or 2, he put the group at risk (some even died iirc) just because a girl got lost. They spent days if not weeks looking for her and she ended up being dead just because Rick felt personally responsible. Everyone had assumed she was dead anyways. Another example is letting the Governor escape or giving him a chance. I forgot the details tbh. But we all know how that turned out. Anyways, I usually want the bad guys to kick his ass or kill him or whatever. This also applies to most of Rick's group too. I end up loving the bad guys usually.

Jane the Virgin - Jane can be really annoying and unlikable. She ends up doing stupid ass stuff that gets her in trouble just to make other people happy. She also gives bad people so many chances. People that lied to her, manipulated her, tried to kill her grandma, etc.


How I Met Your Mother - While Barney isn't exactly the MAIN character (technically no one really is I suppose), he sure got treated like it and he had the most screentime sometimes and memorable moments. He got annoying after a couple of seasons and became so unbearable later on. He ended up doing stupid jokes that were just too stupid to be funny. And got like 2 seasons just for his character.

Fast & Furious movies - Dom is fucking op af! He can't be beat and he keeps overcoming impossible obstacles in every single movie. No one stop him at all. Not assassins, not the military, not experienced assassins, not drug dealers, no one! It's unbelievable. He has no fucking experience at all; he's just a racer and mechanic. We know heroes and main characters in other movies won't end up dying and will end up winning (in most cases for both), but with F&F, he is never in any real danger and overcomes situations in the most bs ways possible.

Rush Hour movies - James Carter was funny in the first one. But it went downhill fast. He's just annoying as hell and makes the movies unwatchable. I recently tried watching Rush Hour 3 again but I had to stop. Chris Tucker's character was so damn annoying and unfunny. And by annoying I mean the kind of annoying person that you just want to get away from irl if you ever met someone like that. Besides, Rush Hour 3 was a bad movie no matter what.

Avengers/MCU - I dislike some characters like Captain America. He's just annoying, thinks he's always right, and makes bad decisions. I haven't watched Spider-Man Homecoming and I don't care about watching it, but he was annoying af in the Civil War movie. I had watched him in the trailers and felt the same way but gave it a chance and I was not wrong. I can't imagine what he's like in SM Homecoming. I would not like it. I'll probably watch that movie if I'm extremely bored and if it pops up on HBO or something. Otherwise I don't give a damn at all and honestly don't want to waste my time getting annoyed by shit characters with shit jokes and dialogue.

WWE - Many of the good guys are cookie cutter good guys and are boring as hell. They usually only lose when the bad guy cheats. The bad guys are more entertaining, but they are also cookie cutter nowadays in modern WWE.

I had more recent examples in mind last night but this was all I was able to come up with today. :/

If you guys and gals can help me out that would be great. Especially if its from recent tv shows and movies.
---

Welcome to the Internet. I hope you enjoy your stay ^_^

And yes, it's very, very normal.
---

It's okay to hate them if they are female

It's normal and acceptable to be passionate about the fictional lives of characters in any form of media, because the entire point of art is to make you feel something, and the best performances of any entertainment product should succeed at that - whether it being making you like a character so much that you cry when they die or lose something precious, or to hate a villain character so strongly that it makes the hero's success all the more satisfying (see also, how many people wanted Joffrey dead in Game of Thrones).

If you wind up disliking characters you're clearly meant to like/empathize with, or loving people you're clearly supposed to be repulsed by, that's still relatively normal, but it also tends to imply that the writer of the piece absolutely failed at doing what they were supposed to do (ie, most of the time it's bad/stupid writing that leads you to reject the intended arc and start making your own).

I'm not going to go down all your examples (especially since I haven't seen some of them), but I can at least point out that the WWE is definitely an example of the writers not being able to find their ass with both hands and a map, so a lot of characters these days are falling flat, and a lot of the heels are coming across way more likeable or justifiable than the babyfaces are (*cough*Roman Reigns*cough*). That's not your fault (as much as the WWE likes to pretend that it is), that's their fault.

But in general, humans (at least in modern times) always tend to think that the bad guys are cooler than the good guys.


---

Yes, there are a *lot* of dislikable protagonists. In general, though, heroes are defined by their villains. A really great hero generally is just a reflection of an incredible villain (Batman being an exception, despite his incredible rogues gallery).

pipebomb_phil posted...

WWE - Many of the good guys are cookie cutter good guys and are boring as hell. They usually only lose when the bad guy cheats. The bad guys are more entertaining, but they are also cookie cutter nowadays in modern WWE.

More or less. Granted, there have been some charismatic faces over the years even though many of the faces cut cooler heel promos.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

to hate a villain character so strongly that it makes the hero's success all the more satisfying (see also, how many people wanted Joffrey dead in Game of Thrones).

Ramsay Bolton was also an incredible heel, although he wasn't nearly as hatable as Joffrey because Joffrey also established himself as a sniveling crybaby so he really had no redeeming features. He also just never got it, which made him all the more unlikable; no matter how many times people pointed out how Aerys made the people turn against him, Joffrey would shout, "They have to! I am the king!"
---

Zeus posted...

Ramsay Bolton was also an incredible heel, although he wasn't nearly as hatable as Joffrey because Joffrey also established himself as a sniveling crybaby so he really had no redeeming features.

Ramsay also has an odd sort of coolness to him. Like, he's clearly crazy, but he's also a bit snarky, and like you implied, he DOES get shit done. So while he's way more squicky in some ways, he's also more likeable in an odd, twisted sort of way.

Sure, you're still rooting for someone to shove three feet of steel directly into his face, but I don't think you get that same universally visceral YES! moment with him the way you do with Little King Shitheel.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Sure, you're still rooting for someone to shove three feet of steel directly into his face, but I don't think you get that same universally visceral YES! moment with him the way you do with Little King Shitheel.

Thankfully his death was a lot more satisfying than that, especially since we get to see Jon Snow nearly beat him to death first. Come to think of it, *most* of the major villain deaths have been pretty dramatic between Joffrey's poisoning, Xaro getting locked in his (empty) vault, Ramsay being fed to his own dogs, Viserion getting his golden crown, Pyat Pree gets roasted by the baby dragons, etc

Actually, it's one more reason why I hated Littlefinger's death because he didn't get anything nearly as dramatic. They built the guy up as basically being responsible for the War of the Five Kings then all he gets is a summary trial and execution, and not even an ironic punishment like many of the others received.
---

It's normal, but not always a problem with the story. Sometimes the protagonist is supposed to be obviously in the wrong or a person who is not relatable. And sometimes it just doesn't impact one person the same way it impacts another.
---

The fall of Walter White comes to mind.
---

Zeus posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Sure, you're still rooting for someone to shove three feet of steel directly into his face, but I don't think you get that same universally visceral YES! moment with him the way you do with Little King Shitheel.

Thankfully his death was a lot more satisfying than that, especially since we get to see Jon Snow nearly beat him to death first. Come to think of it, *most* of the major villain deaths have been pretty dramatic between Joffrey's poisoning, Xaro getting locked in his (empty) vault, Ramsay being fed to his own dogs, Viserion getting his golden crown, Pyat Pree gets roasted by the baby dragons, etc

Actually, it's one more reason why I hated Littlefinger's death because he didn't get anything nearly as dramatic. They built the guy up as basically being responsible for the War of the Five Kings then all he gets is a summary trial and execution, and not even an ironic punishment like many of the others received.

That whole storyline was weak. No spoilers, it just felt like one hamfisted 180 degree dramatic turn after another and I'm glad it ended, regardless.

That scene probably should have been longer as well, at least to compensate for the lack of real buildup.
---

ajmrowland1 posted...

That whole storyline was weak. No spoilers, it just felt like one hamfisted 180 degree dramatic turn after another and I'm glad it ended, regardless.

It's because the show sort of floundered once they left GRRM's writing behind and had to start coming up with their own plots (ie, he told them how the story is supposed to end, but not how he was planning to get there, so now they're struggling to connect the dots). Nor does it really help that they now feel like they have to close off every hanging storyline in the span of two short seasons, so a lot of stuff is going to feel rushed while other stuff simultaneously feels a bit aimless.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

ajmrowland1 posted...

That whole storyline was weak. No spoilers, it just felt like one hamfisted 180 degree dramatic turn after another and I'm glad it ended, regardless.

It's because the show sort of floundered once they left GRRM's writing behind and had to start coming up with their own plots (ie, he told them how the story is supposed to end, but not how he was planning to get there, so now they're struggling to connect the dots). Nor does it really help that they now feel like they have to close off every hanging storyline in the span of two short seasons, so a lot of stuff is going to feel rushed while other stuff simultaneously feels a bit aimless.

It doesn't flounder that much in Season 6 for me. I think the main issue is, like you say, they realized they only had 13 episodes left in the entire series after Season 6 got criticized for being too long and uneventful, so the flow of Season 7 suffers as a result of having too many things to do with too little time.
---

I loved HIMYM, and I heavily disliked Ted. He was easily the worst character in the entire show.

ajmrowland1 posted...

It's normal, but not always a problem with the story. Sometimes the protagonist is supposed to be obviously in the wrong or a person who is not relatable. And sometimes it just doesn't impact one person the same way it impacts another.

Kinda like how Bill Burr's character in F is For Family is a toxic asshole for... well, pretty much all of it but it's just downright unpleasant throughout most of season 1. Barely managed to get through that season.
---

Walking Dead Season 7 spoilers (first two episodes) - Glenn finally dies! lol. Never liked him. I did like Abraham though. Poor Abraham. Neegan is pretty cool btw. Very ruthless.
---

never been one to dislike or hate a protagonist, at most I simply don't care for them. but on villains or in wrestling heels I did like CM Punks heel character for awhile as they took the whole "straight edge" goody two shoes don't drink smoke or do drugs, and represented the fact some people can take it to very dickish and all around annoying levels.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

but on villains or in wrestling heels I did like CM Punks heel character for awhile as they took the whole "straight edge" goody two shoes don't drink smoke or do drugs, and represented the fact some people can take it to very dickish and all around annoying levels.

"Straight edge means I'm better than you!"



I hate that I missed almost his entire WWE run (stopped watching when they were pushing Lashley instead of Punk on ECW) since he was probably the best thing to happen to the WWE since the Rock or Austin. He was an incredible heel and had a great run doing that before being a pretty decent face.

And, in general, I'm still pissed out that the only WWE event I ever bought a ticket to -- a ECW house show where Punk was booked -- got canceled.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

but on villains or in wrestling heels I did like CM Punks heel character for awhile as they took the whole "straight edge" goody two shoes don't drink smoke or do drugs, and represented the fact some people can take it to very dickish and all around annoying levels.

"Straight edge means I'm better than you!"



I hate that I missed almost his entire WWE run (stopped watching when they were pushing Lashley instead of Punk on ECW) since he was probably the best thing to happen to the WWE since the Rock or Austin. He was an incredible heel and had a great run doing that before being a pretty decent face.

And, in general, I'm still pissed out that the only WWE event I ever bought a ticket to -- a ECW house show where Punk was booked -- got canceled.

damn i've been to two major wrestling events, a WCW Nitro and a WWE Raw. I quit watching around the time Punk came in though Cena was getting stale and it irritated me they kept playing him like he was a underdog when he had proven he was anything but. (damn I actually remember cena's debut on smackdown against kurt angle when angle had that open challenge to anyone who would take him on)

i'm mad I grew up a Hogan fan and while I did get to see him at Nitro he didn't actually wrestle, he came out with the wolfpack talked some smack let disco inferno hold his title belt and that was that.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I quit watching around the time Punk came in though Cena was getting stale and it irritated me they kept playing him like he was a underdog when he had proven he was anything but.

Same, since I quit late 2007 early 2008. While Cena was annoying, they were strongly pushing Lashley who, at the time, was just Cena 2.0 -- great physique, but boring as fuck both on the mic and in the ring (although at least we've seen Cena have personality and charisma at times) over far better talent which factored into my decision to stop watching.

Of course, this was also around the time that the completely awful "Who killed VKM?" storyline abruptly ended with the Benoit murder-suicide, which followed the shameless exploitation of Eddie Guerrero's death to put the title belt on the far-too-small Rey Mysterio, the less egregious exploitation of RW Hawk's death to give Animal another tag team run with Heidenreich, and a lot of other creative decisions (such as wasting ECW's then-one hour runtime on scrap like the "Extreme Expose") which killed my interest in the brand.

Ironically enough, it was CM Punk leaving (for real) that got my interest since I realized they *had* finally let him have a good run and I was curious what was going on with his status. Of course, he later broke his silence and basically confirmed that most things I hated about the WWE were true. By then I was following the product again, though.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I quit watching around the time Punk came in though Cena was getting stale and it irritated me they kept playing him like he was a underdog when he had proven he was anything but.

Same, since I quit late 2007 early 2008. While Cena was annoying, they were strongly pushing Lashley who, at the time, was just Cena 2.0 -- great physique, but boring as fuck both on the mic and in the ring (although at least we've seen Cena have personality and charisma at times) over far better talent which factored into my decision to stop watching.

Of course, this was also around the time that the completely awful "Who killed VKM?" storyline abruptly ended with the Benoit murder-suicide, which followed the shameless exploitation of Eddie Guerrero's death to put the title belt on the far-too-small Rey Mysterio, the less egregious exploitation of RW Hawk's death to give Animal another tag team run with Heidenreich, and a lot of other creative decisions (such as wasting ECW's then-one hour runtime on scrap like the "Extreme Expose") which killed my interest in the brand.

Ironically enough, it was CM Punk leaving (for real) that got my interest since I realized they *had* finally let him have a good run and I was curious what was going on with his status. Of course, he later broke his silence and basically confirmed that most things I hated about the WWE were true. By then I was following the product again, though.

I always considered Lashley a lesner 2.0. both where boring and nothing but their muscle going for them. though i'd take lashely over lesner, never liked the guy especially paired with heymen or whoever his name is spelled
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I always considered Lashley a lesner 2.0. both where boring and nothing but their muscle going for them. though i'd take lashely over lesner, never liked the guy especially paired with heymen or whoever his name is spelled

Lesnar was almost always heel or heelish, though, and he could work a faster match which Lashley didn't seem capable of at the time. And, despite having a bigger (well, broader shoulderspan at least) and better physique, Lashley never looked imposing or as sadistic as Lesnar. Lesnar looks like a guy who enjoys torturing puppies in his spare time.

Plus, while Lesnar barely ever cuts his own promos, he *can* cut a promo. I've watched some of Lashley's TNA promos and... well... they were about as bad as his WWE promos *despite* working a heel character which is usually easier. (At least he seems to move faster in the ring now, though.)
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I always considered Lashley a lesner 2.0. both where boring and nothing but their muscle going for them. though i'd take lashely over lesner, never liked the guy especially paired with heymen or whoever his name is spelled

Lesnar was almost always heel or heelish, though, and he could work a faster match which Lashley didn't seem capable of at the time. And, despite having a bigger (well, broader shoulderspan at least) and better physique, Lashley never looked imposing or as sadistic as Lesnar. Lesnar looks like a guy who enjoys torturing puppies in his spare time.

Plus, while Lesnar barely ever cuts his own promos, he *can* cut a promo. I've watched some of Lashley's TNA promos and... well... they were about as bad as his WWE promos *despite* working a heel character which is usually easier. (At least he seems to move faster in the ring now, though.)

true, I just felt they where both boring muscle heads with no gimmick. even whatever his name masters was had a gimmick to some degree.
---

It annoys me when they're so good they refuse to kill someone who gets away and murders 12 people every repeatedly. At that point they're just kind of pansies.

One time? Totally fine. 7 times? That's just poor writing.

Yellow posted...

It annoys me when they're so good they refuse to kill someone who gets away and murders 12 people every repeatedly. At that point they're just kind of pansies.

One time? Totally fine. 7 times? That's just poor writing.

atleast with batman they try to explain it away as he fears if he does it once it would make it too easy to just keep doing it. what really bugs me though is how come no arkham guard has snuck into the jokers cell while hes sleeping and put an end to him. i'd take a life sentence just to end him. self sacrifice and all
---

Yellow posted...

It annoys me when they're so good they refuse to kill someone who gets away and murders 12 people every repeatedly. At that point they're just kind of pansies.

One time? Totally fine. 7 times? That's just poor writing.

Few problems with that attitude:

1) Rule of law. Vigilantes want a pretty tight line where they're outside of the law yet law enforcement generally doesn't come after them. However, the second they start killing people, they become a target for law enforcement.

2) Moral codes and the slippery slope. If a hero has never murdered anybody, it's obviously going to be a much harder decision. And, in general, their attitude of righting wrongs includes not doing wrong.

3) It's up to the system. It's not the hero's responsibility to either punish or carry out punishments.
---

Since I can remember, I've usually pulled for the bad guys. Namely Cobra, Skeletor, and the Galactic Empire. Indiana Jones and the Monster Squad kids were the exceptions when I was little, as I wanted them to win.
---

Zeus posted...

Yellow posted...

It annoys me when they're so good they refuse to kill someone who gets away and murders 12 people every repeatedly. At that point they're just kind of pansies.

One time? Totally fine. 7 times? That's just poor writing.

Few problems with that attitude:

1) Rule of law. Vigilantes want a pretty tight line where they're outside of the law yet law enforcement generally doesn't come after them. However, the second they start killing people, they become a target for law enforcement.

2) Moral codes and the slippery slope. If a hero has never murdered anybody, it's obviously going to be a much harder decision. And, in general, their attitude of righting wrongs includes not doing wrong.

3) It's up to the system. It's not the hero's responsibility to either punish or carry out punishments.

the authority got away with it. but then again who the fuck was gonna stop them, for the most part they where a OP version of the justice league. they rode around on a ship that in the blink of a eye they could just leave that universe. and due to the ships technology they all had the powers of teleportation, all they had to do was say "door" and a portal would pop up that would pretty much take them wherever they wanted.

I liked the authority comics, they where different in that they had no reoccurring villains as they most of the time killed them. though in once case they had the doctor (reality bending powers) turn a dude into a chicken then dropped him off at a farm full of hillbillies that they knew had sex with their livestock, chickens included
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Zeus posted...

Ramsay Bolton was also an incredible heel, although he wasn't nearly as hatable as Joffrey because Joffrey also established himself as a sniveling crybaby so he really had no redeeming features.

Ramsay also has an odd sort of coolness to him. Like, he's clearly crazy, but he's also a bit snarky, and like you implied, he DOES get shit done. So while he's way more squicky in some ways, he's also more likeable in an odd, twisted sort of way.

Sure, you're still rooting for someone to shove three feet of steel directly into his face, but I don't think you get that same universally visceral YES! moment with him the way you do with Little King Shitheel.

Joffrey was more sympathetic than Ramsay Bolton. I felt a tiny bit bad for Joffrey because there was never any way he was going to get out of Tywin's shadow, even if he was a good person. Also unlike Ramsay, Joffrey never targeted his family members for execution. His biggest act, killing Ned Stark, was impulsive and cruel but basically where the Lannisters were going with Ned anyway.

wah_wah_wah posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Zeus posted...

Ramsay Bolton was also an incredible heel, although he wasn't nearly as hatable as Joffrey because Joffrey also established himself as a sniveling crybaby so he really had no redeeming features.

Ramsay also has an odd sort of coolness to him. Like, he's clearly crazy, but he's also a bit snarky, and like you implied, he DOES get shit done. So while he's way more squicky in some ways, he's also more likeable in an odd, twisted sort of way.

Sure, you're still rooting for someone to shove three feet of steel directly into his face, but I don't think you get that same universally visceral YES! moment with him the way you do with Little King Shitheel.

Joffrey was more sympathetic than Ramsay Bolton. I felt a tiny bit bad for Joffrey because there was never any way he was going to get out of Tywin's shadow, even if he was a good person. Also unlike Ramsay, Joffrey never targeted his family members for execution. His biggest act, killing Ned Stark, was impulsive and cruel but basically where the Lannisters were going with Ned anyway.

Joffrey very likely would have killed some of his relatives eventually. He hated Tyrion, bullied Tommen, etc. Keep in mind that he threatened to rape Aunt Sansa. How long do you think it'd before he killed her? The difference between Ramsay and Joffrey is that Joffrey died before he do even more heinous things.
---

Yes, including the ones who actually are likable, but make tons of dipshit decisions (e.g. Tony Stark).
---

I_Abibde posted...

Yes, including the ones who actually are likable, but make tons of dipshit decisions (e.g. Tony Stark).

speaking as a DC fanboy Tony Stark is the kind of hero as to why marvel heroes have been more popular. they are more human so to speak. they have a good heart when it comes to things like saving the world but in their personal lives they are definitely flawed people.
---

Tony Stark I generally like, but I'm behind on Marvel movies atm.
---

Daenerys, I've pretty much disliked throughout GoT, sometimes she's cool but most of the time she acts like an entitled biitch.
---

pipebomb_phil posted...

They are supposed to be liked and I just can't like them.

Are they, though? A protagonist is really just the central or most important character, the person that events revolve around. There's no universal rule that they are or should be liked.

Also, Barney is not the protagonist of HIMYM :/

ChouBF posted...

pipebomb_phil posted...

They are supposed to be liked and I just can't like them.

Are they, though? A protagonist is really just the central or most important character, the person that events revolve around. There's no universal rule that they are or should be liked.

Also, Barney is not the protagonist of HIMYM :/

I don't think sitcoms have protagonist. main characters maybe. but anything involving the word "agonist" implies there is some ongoing conflict.
---

I figured Ted was the protag of HIMYM, everyone else are deuteragonist.

Im sure there are a lot of people that hate the protag of a story though for most stories that would be considered a problem for the author.

mooreandrew58 posted...

ChouBF posted...

pipebomb_phil posted...

They are supposed to be liked and I just can't like them.

Are they, though? A protagonist is really just the central or most important character, the person that events revolve around. There's no universal rule that they are or should be liked.

Also, Barney is not the protagonist of HIMYM :/

I don't think sitcoms have protagonist. main characters maybe. but anything involving the word "agonist" implies there is some ongoing conflict.

The protagonist is the main character. And most sitcoms do, unless the sitcom revolves around a couple who have equal importance (Sanford and Son). Hell, most sitcoms *name* the protag in their title: Seinfeld. Everybody Loves Raymond. Everybody Hates Chris. Malcolm in the Middle.

There are a few shows where everybody in a group seems to have equal importance -- Friends, Traffic Lights (although really it's just the guys who have precedence), The League, etc -- but they're more exceptions than the rule. Even shows like King of the Hill and the Simpsons -- which don't denote a person in the title -- feature the dad as the protagonist (and usually the son as a secondary).
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

ChouBF posted...

pipebomb_phil posted...

They are supposed to be liked and I just can't like them.

Are they, though? A protagonist is really just the central or most important character, the person that events revolve around. There's no universal rule that they are or should be liked.

Also, Barney is not the protagonist of HIMYM :/

I don't think sitcoms have protagonist. main characters maybe. but anything involving the word "agonist" implies there is some ongoing conflict.

The protagonist is the main character. And most sitcoms do, unless the sitcom revolves around a couple who have equal importance (Sanford and Son). Hell, most sitcoms *name* the protag in their title: Seinfeld. Everybody Loves Raymond. Everybody Hates Chris. Malcolm in the Middle.

There are a few shows where everybody in a group seems to have equal importance -- Friends, Traffic Lights (although really it's just the guys who have precedence), The League, etc -- but they're more exceptions than the rule. Even shows like King of the Hill and the Simpsons -- which don't denote a person in the title -- feature the dad as the protagonist (and usually the son as a secondary).

protagonist just sounds like a odd word when the show has no main ongoing conflict. when I think protagonist I think someone whos standing up to a villain over the course of the story. if thats not the case main character is what I call them.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

protagonist just sounds like a odd word when the show has no main ongoing conflict. when I think protagonist I think someone whos standing up to a villain over the course of the story. if thats not the case main character is what I call them.

Most things don't really have "villains." You can have antagonists, but even that's not necessarily a guarantee since the problem doesn't need to be human in nature. In most medical dramas, for instance, the problem is the patient's condition.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

protagonist just sounds like a odd word when the show has no main ongoing conflict. when I think protagonist I think someone whos standing up to a villain over the course of the story. if thats not the case main character is what I call them.

Most things don't really have "villains." You can have antagonists, but even that's not necessarily a guarantee since the problem doesn't need to be human in nature. In most medical dramas, for instance, the problem is the patient's condition.

to each their own I suppose. still sounds odd to me. when I think of protagonist I assume there is an antagonist.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

protagonist just sounds like a odd word when the show has no main ongoing conflict. when I think protagonist I think someone whos standing up to a villain over the course of the story. if thats not the case main character is what I call them.

Most things don't really have "villains." You can have antagonists, but even that's not necessarily a guarantee since the problem doesn't need to be human in nature. In most medical dramas, for instance, the problem is the patient's condition.

to each their own I suppose. still sounds odd to me. when I think of protagonist I assume there is an antagonist.

Well... Jerry has Newman, Hank has Kahn, etc.
---

Zeus posted...

Tony Stark I generally like, but I'm behind on Marvel movies atm.

Now Tony Stark on the other hand, before he kills two people he's just having a silly quirky awkward conversation because that's how little he cares.

Marvel Humor™

Yellow posted...

Zeus posted...

Tony Stark I generally like, but I'm behind on Marvel movies atm.

Now Tony Stark on the other hand, before he kills two people he's just having a silly quirky awkward conversation because that's how little he cares.

Marvel Humor™

I'm guessing I haven't hit that film yet. But sure, they go overboard on stupid action tropes in those films.
---