SurveySometimes I have wished for the TV bad guys to win
      – BorgClown, 2009-05-14 at 20:17:34   (10 comments)

On 2009-05-14 at 20:28:27, BorgClown wrote...
I used to think how the evil characters were more crafty and persistent than the dumbos goodies, yet the dumbos goodies always win, mostly due ti by dumbos luckies. Now I understand why. As a teenager I saw a Mexican movie where a good, poor old lady had her husband die, her son turn to drugs, and his grandson killed because she bought him a Superman costume and the child figured he could really fly and jumped from a 3 story building. Even more, the lady was going be evicted because she couldn't afford the rent, so she was going to use her life saving to stay a little longer. But her drug addicted son had stolen them. The movie ends where she realizes she has no money, no family and soon no place to live. Her misfortunes were caused by a few evil people and plain bad luck, because the evil people weren't even coordinated against her, they just wanted to take advantage. And the effing bad guys never had a problem.
On 2009-05-14 at 20:30:07, BorgClown wrote...
So there, I had my dream come true: Several evil people having their happy ending while several good people died or ended miserable. It left me with such a sense of injustice that I have never wished for the bad guys to win again, eve if I know that IRL the bad people usually fares better. I even think that horrible movie helped to shape my character in some way.
On 2009-05-14 at 21:20:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Firefly showed us that sometimes the idea of good and bad can be blurred - the heroes are the guys that operate outside the law (and are considered bad by the government), and the bad guys work for the government (and thus consider themselves good). But in practice to be bad you need to lack morality, and have a missing sense of compassion/empathy. Such people exist in real life, and these sociopaths can be very good at blending in and appearing normal. It's unlikely that you'd ever want a sociopath to 'win' at anything, as they can inflict terrible harm and have no conscience about it at all.
On 2009-05-14 at 23:48:21, Thelevellers wrote...
I just finished watching season two of Dexter, and had an entertaining realisation - I was rooting for an anti-hero whilst he fought with who must be an anti-anti-hero...?! Dexter being the classic anti-hero, a serial killing cop, and someone trying to catch him, by definition of Dexter being the anti-hero, while being what would usually count as a hero, isn't. Joy. I often root for the 'bad guy' when the 'goodies' are obviously rubbish, if they don't have the skills to win, and are running purely on luck/money, I have no desire to see that win... Intelligence should always suceed - as eventually surely some morality will appear...?! Lol...
On 2009-05-15 at 22:34:49, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I guess it's mostly in Star Trek where the good guys always win in spite of themselves. But I still cannot think of any case where I'd want someone who was genuinely bad to win. Bad is bad, and not worthy of support.
On 2009-05-16 at 03:31:56, BorgClown wrote...
A bad person with intelligence and talent would have my respect more than a good person who is dumb and useless. Goodness is not that important of a quality. Of course, my idol would be a good, brilliant and talented person.
On 2009-05-16 at 03:38:53, BorgClown wrote...
And what about the Coyote and the Roadrunner? He deserved to kill and eat that bird, even if it was a sentient being. And the Coyote had the means of buying food, but he was obsessed with killing and eating that bird.
On 2009-05-16 at 10:01:55, Thelevellers wrote...
Definitely agree with coyote deserving the kill there Borg! Bloody roadrunner.. I'll 'beep beep' him one day... ;-)
On 2009-05-16 at 16:34:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Animals do have morality, distinct from ours, but it's important to be smart enough to go against your instincts and act in a more positive way. For a real coyote, there's no doubt that instinct would win but Wile E Coyote really demonstrated an understanding of things - which meant he deserved to lose for not applying his intelligence to help rather than hurt. I agree that intelligence/talent is preferable to dumb/useless behaviour, but I cannot agree that goodness is unimportant - if anything it is the most important quality to possess, if only socially. If people are bad, they'll do things like not pay you money you're owed. (-:
On 2009-05-18 at 05:17:57, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: I wish that money was masterfully tricked from me rather than by blunt, dull abusive practices. I'd feel better.