Nitpick: Flashman thinks he’s a total rotter, and he’s not far wrong - the man is, after all, an unrepentant rapist. But he does have some vestigial decency; at the conclusion of the Indian Mutiny, he orders men released prior to their execution by cannon-fire. There really isn’t any reason for him to do this other than a sense of empathy and compassion, perhaps brought to the fore by the utter nighmarishness of the Mutiny.
I could enjoy Seinfeld because the characters always got their comeuppance. Also Elaine was an 8.8.
I came to this thread to mention just this. Although, I think if the movie had ended 5 minutes before it did, with Roxy destitute, alone and forgotten, it could have really worked. Her sleazy lawyer, corrupt authorities, and fellow murderesses, it wouldn’t have mattered that they succeeded, if only Roxy ended up as yesterday’s news. I have to agree with the OP, I can enjoy a villainous protagonist, so long as he gets his comeuppance.
I need to like the characters, though they don’t have to be the good guys. For instance, I would have LOVED Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham to have beaten Costner’s Robin Hood. That was a great character, just not a very “good” one.
And obviously, that’s a “win” situation–plots don’t need to have that particular dynamic. But the characters still have to be likeable and interesting.
For instance, we stopped watching Mad Men after several episodes because we found exactly zero of the characters interesting or likeable. We could watch it for the sheer costume/set-dressing period porn aspect of it, but that’s only interesting for a few episodes.
The usual threats. It’s giant jewel-eating darkness-vomiting spiders this week.
Well, just one, but still.
Upon further thought I agree (and I do like the Vlad Taltos series). I can root for a sympathetic character like Vlad and enjoy it when he wins, even though he isn’t a good guy (especially in the earlier written books). But when I start wanting even the protagonists to die…no; that’s just not fun for me.
As I’ve gotten older I’ve realized that lack of “good guys” ( or a work where the good guy fails ) is not really an impediment to my enjoyment. But unrelenting downers are, which is kinda a blow to any pretensions I might have had of being a film sophisticate ;).
At one time I would have argued otherwise, clinging to the imagined virtue of getting enjoyment from even the bleakest fare. But about the time Brokeback Mountain came out I finally had to admit to myself that I simply was not interested in indulging another misery-fest, no matter how well-written, skillfully acted or beautifully shot. I just don’t enjoy them - they’re more of a slog than a pleasure.
Bleakness has to be leavened out with something. I love a certain degree of bleakness in service to the greater story - I’m a huge fan of stuff like The Wire. But by contrast a Jude or a Dancer in the Dark just isn’t worth my time anymore.
More like an observation.
Skald Galbasi, scëal balgaskannën!
“Skald, pervy hobbit fancier, fancied by pervy hobbits.”
I think. I might have messed up the conjugation, and ended up saying “Skald, fancy hobbit perver, perved by fancy hobbits”.
I tried to work your love for Turin into an elvish pun, but had not the skill. :mad:
I truly lack JRRT’s gift for languages. 
It may end up like that anyway. At the time the show/movie ends, vaudeville has less than a decade of life left in it!
No. Usually if that is the case, I end up wishing that they all would die.
Same here.
Yes, I can and it surprises me that so many can’t
One example I like to bring up is the Little Shop of horrors from 1986. Seymore is a rather likable character who does some truly awful things. Yet when it comes to getting his just desserts, no one wants to see it. Instead they want a typical happy ending where the boy and girl get together.
The DVD has the original ending and I feel it is much more appropriate for the story and makes the movie much better.
I have no patience for stories where no one is allowed to be happy. I don’t care if people have to suffer, but there has to be some kind of payoff other than the unrelenting misery of existence.
The only way I can enjoy a book or film where there is no one I can identify with is if it is incredibly well written and/or acted. Otherwise, I get bored and start wishing everyone in it would die.
I don’t need good guys, if the writing is good. Decent prose or big ideas can get past the need for sympathetic characters - For instance, Roquentin being an insufferable prat hardly lessened my enjoyment of Sartre’s Nausea in the slightest.
It’s kind of like what** amarinth** said - I don’t have to like the characters, I have to like the author.
Pretty much this - I have this problem with Game of Thrones, actually. I don’t CARE who “wins” and who dies because none of the characters have anything that makes me want to see them survive. Therefore, there’s no investment or reason for me to watch - in a story full of people I can’t stand, the outcome is irrelevant because no matter what happens, I won’t care.
A good story is one that can get me to invest in the characters. (Again, the difference between “good guys” and “characters you can root for” is noted.) And I don’t generally invest in despicable people.
Note though: This is generally more applicable for works that take longer to consume - I can tolerate (but will probably never re-read) a short story with no one I care about in it, and even a film is often short enough that is isn’t burdensome, but a novel, series of novels, or TV show? Forget it.
Like many others, I do need a character I can root for, but I do not need a “good guy”. An example that I don’t think anyone else has mentioned is Leon, from The Professional. By no stretch of the imagination is he a good guy, but he’s not an absolute monster like the antagonists are, and in context, that’s enough.
More interesting, though, is when I can sympathize with both sides of a conflict, or even where both sides can reasonably be described as “good”. For an example of the first, I present Order of the Stick: Yeah, obviously I want the good guys to win, but on the other hand, Redcloak really does have a legitimate grievance, and what he wants for his people really is reasonable (Xykon, of course, is unsympathetic, but nothing says that all of the villains must be sympathetic). And for the latter, I’d present Princess Mononoke, where there’s a conflict between what’s good for humans and what’s good for the creatures of the forest, and you really do want both sides to live in harmony, even though you know that it just isn’t possible.
I was about to say I love stories without good guys and actually prefer them. Then I thought about it for a second and you know what? Setting plays a huge part of it for me too.
Jacqueline Carey did a duology which is basically LotR from Sauron/his side’s POV. I really, really like it, even though all the main characters fall on the evil side and are the people we’re supposed to be rooting against.
But then I think about, say, a story about fratboys who roofie sorority girls and do obnoxious things while drunk and I’d hate that. I don’t know why the setting makes so much difference to me - I think it’s because I can distance myself from, say, the Lannisters, but the Plastics from Mean Girls hit way too close to home.
Bad Santa: enough said.
Reservoir Dogs? Aside from the undercover cop, I suppose.