Describe how a 'good' TV or movie character was actually a villian. Show your work

Probably it’s not so much how he got the dates, but that he cycled through women pretty fast and often had some trivial reason for not liking a particular woman any more.
That’s my recollection anyway. Or was it that every time there was some conceit that the woman left him?

In real life, men that have so many relationships have to be somewhat cold-blooded because some of those women would bound to be upset with abruptly ending things…it’s not like these were one night stands he met in a nightclub.
But in sitcom land, I think we can accept that if you want to tell lots of jokes about dating, you have a girl (or guy) of the week, and we shouldn’t keep tally (NB: large image) of just how many there have been.

I think the word “predator” is going a little too far as well, but he was kind of sleazy, or creepy, or something, and if he cornered me at a party, or invited himself to join me at a coffee house, I’d feel on the defensive, quite honestly.

It’s why I mostly stopped watching the show. In the beginning, I liked the ensemble cast, but really, mainly I liked the dog.

For about half the run, I taped it and fast-forwarded through part the dog wasn’t in.

Probably a better description than ‘predator’. He just came across as sleazy to me.

I wouldn’t go out with him, because I’d be afraid to be alone with him if all I knew about him was what I got from half a party, or a few conversations over coffee, judging by his behavior in those situations as shown on episodes.

I believe the producers of Frasier said that they didn’t really want Frasier in a LTR because they’d already explored that side of the character on Cheers.

And honestly, those relationships were a part of the character’s backstory. He’d already had two LTRs with seemingly appropriate women, one that included a child. Diane was flaky and Lilith was awful. What do you expect him to do? Jump into LTR #3 as if he has no history? Most people in that situation are going to be mopey, bitter, or jumpy (“playing the field.”) Honestly, that is life.

I do push back on the notion of there being something particularly wrong with either male or female promiscuity. On another site I saw Roz referred to as a predator as well, and that’s just wrong. I know the person that posted this has walked it back, I’m not trying to harp on it. But there’s a difference between actually intentionally hurting people and low level dating hijinks. I think Lilith was worse than Frasier from what I saw because they had a kid together. Frasier didn’t have any children with any of these other women.

Really, what bothered me most about that show was the whole Niles/Daphne/Maris thing. I think that fits this thread. We’re ostensibly supposed to be cheering on them getting together, because the always unseen Maris is implied to be awful. I thought it was wrong for them never to show Maris given the circumstances. We’re always just taking Niles’ word for everything and that’s not fair to the audience. It was different on Cheers with Norm and Vera because Vera didn’t really need to have a personality. The circumstances were different on Frasier.

I recently rewatched Frasier and the “loving someone from afar” stuff with Niles and Daphne seemed much less cute and romantic in retrospect but for the life of me I have no idea why anyone would call Frasier a “Predator”. Words have meanings and if you widen them to include everything, they end up meaning nothing.

And Daphne and Niles don’t get together until Daphne about to marry Donny, who is a perfectly satisfactory person, and Niles is engaged to Mel, who started off a decent person (but was portrayed as increasingly bad (particularly after she learns that her new husband wants to leave her immediately)). A lot of trouble could have been avoided if Niles had been better (like leaving Maris when their marriage was apparently dead so he could openly date Daphne, rather than how he did behave).

You are correct that someone was keeping them on the island but it wasn’t Gilligan. For one, his sabotage would be too obvious, certainly to a professor or a level-headed Midwestern girl even if it wasn’t to the oblivious billionaire (and his wife), the failed starlet, or the inept and probably terminally inebriated ‘Skipper’ who stranded them there. For another, he had no privacy in which to make his plans, given that he shared a small cabin equipped with just hammocks for him and the the captain. Finally, he had no particular motivation to keep everyone on the island. He was constantly berated by nearly everyone and clearly was not getting on with either Ginger or Mary Ann. (And no, he and the Skipper were not lovers; their bickering was purely of the sibling variety.)

No, the ‘villain’ keeping them on the island was ‘Professor’ Roy Hinkley, who despite his handiness in constructing any number of clever mechanical and electrical devices and a keen knowledge of the natural world, somehow could not figure out a way to get a signal to the outside world or fix the relatively minor damage to the S.S. Minnow, and also happened to have the only private cabin on the island. Why was he keeping them there? Was he conducting a psychosocial experiment? Had he gotten in to deep with the Communist Party and was nearly caught sneaking atomic secrets in a hollow nickel? Did he sleep with the dean’s underage daughter? Who can say? But it was he who always arranged for Gilligan to be placed in a linchpin role assuring that the scheme of the week for escaping the island would fail. His plans, his assignments, his nefarious scheming to make it seem that Gilligan was always at fault.

Poirot and Brown are fumbling amateurs compared to the unquenchable thirst for blood of Jessica Fletcher, a serial killer of unmatched record so clever that she often gaslighted her targeted patsies into believing that they had actually committed the murder she had clearly constructed. Week after week death surrounds her and yet no one even thinks to question a kindly widow despite the fact that her entire profession is writing plausible murder scenarios. How many has she killed, and how many more will die by her hand?

Setting aside the question of whether ‘split personalities’, i.e. Dissociative Identity Disorder is a real thing (most cognitive scientists, as opposed to psychologists, would argue that it literally can’t be separate identities even if there is some kind of firewall between memories), Walter White is clearly not suffering from it. It quite consciously makes decisions to “break bad”, and then rationalizes this in the most egregious way possible, a practice that serves him all the way to the point that it gets his Hank, DEA brother-in-law, killed. White has always been bitter, passive-aggressive, and resentful, and rather than compete in a world where his skills and intellect might actually be challenged has deliberately resigned himself to the role of high school chemistry teacher where he will always be the smartest guy in the room (or at least so he believes). He spends so much time lording his knowledge over others and rationalizing himself as a Scarface-esque gangster that he doesn’t acknowledge—or perhaps care—the toll this is taking on himself and others, which marks him as an unrepentant narcissist but there is no indication that he is at any time unaware of what he is doing.

As for my offering, Steve Douglas of My Three Sons is clearly a predator and cult leader who eliminates two of the three titular sons, as well as father-in-law ‘Bub’ and (presumably) his increasingly suspicious wife while taking on younger and credulous new members of the household, actually fleeing cross-country in mid-series because the authorities were probably taking too much of an interest in him. We can only guess at other sacrifices he may have performed off-screen or in his youth, and indeed it is entirely possible that he is the killer Walter Neff, escaped from Death Row in San Quentin and having established himself under the guise of an aeronautical engineer. It is an exercise for the reader to figure out how The Shaggy Dog figures into this but one may readily assume that Douglas had access to high grade LSD and psilocybin-containing mushrooms that would cause anyone affected to hallucinate, and used these to control his growing cult of worshipers even as he became progressively more detached.

Stranger

Charlie Harper, and to a lesser extent brother Allen, on Two and a Half Men, pursue hot young women as if they are the only men left on earth and need warm bodies in which to plant their seed. The comical part is that they live in a vast paradise of eager willing bimboes and even if they try to settle down with one like normals, there are always distracting options, plan B’s, waiting in the wings . Nothing wrong with this, no one is actually being coerced, but they have stalked, nagged and pressured some of their hearts’ desires with unsettling, unflagging fervor.

The Seinfeld characters also cycled through endless relationships, dating and dumping, dating and dumping. For the silliest reasons! Jerry couldn’t take the ‘man hands’, he was a germaphobe, he was self-centered and easily bored…the reason why it was a comedy was watching these people try to connect and comically failing but just moving on to the next iffy relationship.

Nobody would mistake the Charlie Harper character for a “good guy” initially, in order for one to make a counter argument that he’s actually bad. “Likeable rogue”, at best. Perhaps an argument could be made that Allen, the seemingly “good” brother is actually as bad or worse than Charlie. I don’t know, haven’t seen the show in years.

Same. None of the Seinfeld characters were ever portrayed as ‘good’. Their complete narcissism and selfish self-interest were made apparent from the very start.

Of course, the Haitians then imported these ideas and started their own revolution, which would be a great concept for a followup book to the Harry Potter series. Harry is now a grizzled Auror, established in the system he once fought against. He is sent to deal with people challenging the status quo - the Wizarding World’s secrecy, its treatment of sentient magical creatures, the treatment of muggle-born wizards or squibs. And this eventually leads Harry to question some of the decisions that those in power in his world have made.

Not the sort of series I can see JK Rowling put out, unfortunately.

Weirdly, it feels like a lot of stuff was leading up to that. What’s the point of e.g. having Harry notice that the big statue of all the magical races working together literally centres humans and makes the others subservient if you’re not going to follow through and show the consequences of that realisation for Harry and for wizarding society? There was quite a lot about how goblins/centaurs/werewolves/house-elves were mistreated and marginalised and it just… went nowhere. Did Rowling or her editor chicken out? One line in the coda about seeing the first house-elf pupils at Hogwarts or somesuch would have done it, it didn’t need a lot. Rowling is in fact very adept at plots so it’s very odd that this thread was laid but never tied off.

But yes, if someone wrote that fanfic it could be quite something.

Yes, definitely. Or Hagrid going out to get the giants to ally with the good wizards, but failing to make gains because the giants remember how badly they’d previously been treated, and also the death eaters beat them there. Great, so the wizards failed to reach out to the giants for years and years and years, and because of that Voldemort got to them and got their support for Team Bad Guys. So, now that Voldemort has been defeated again, do the good guys come up with a better way to reach out to the giants, to ensure that the next Edgy Wizard of the Week can’t turn them again? Who knows, apparently that whole sideplot wasn’t REALLY about the giants and their role in the conflict - it was about setting up Hagrid’s half brother/pet giant so that he can dispose of Umbridge at the end of the story, because afterwards the whole plot thread is pretty much dropped. Voldemort’s allied giants don’t do anything important, once Voldemort is beaten everyone forgets about them, and that’s that.

One assumes that SOME changes must have been made. The Dementors abandon Azkaban and join Voldemort; surely they aren’t put back in charge of the prison as soon as the rebellion is put down? But we never hear about what these changes are.

At the end of the series, yes.

At the beginning, it’s not so clear. Remember the framing device for the first six seasons or so was Seinfeld doing stand-up. I think Seinfeld as stand-up is someone we’re supposed to relate to, maybe not super empathetic but someone relaying relatable observations that the audience agrees with. To me, the genesis of the show was a relatable situation, and it later evolved or devolved into “four terrible people.”

What do we really know about the side effects of long-term exposure to Flubber?

The stand-up comedy framing device showed how Seinfeld supposedly got his comedy material, but I don’t know that it was supposed to make him more relatable to the audience. Co-creator Larry David famously had the “no hugging, no learning” mantra from the very start. I don’t think the characters were ever meant to be at all likable, which was part of the whole premise.

It really did take a while for all of that to be present on screen though. The whole arc where they were trying to get the “Jerry” sitcom on the air, the “show about nothing”, which was again based on Seinfeld’s stand-up act, observational humor, extrapolating the source for that humor, what does a comic that comes up with that sort of act live like? I remember that arc and any nastiness on the show at that time was limited to non-existent. People don’t go to see Seinfeld do stand-up and watch some freak or hateful guy.

They really didn’t get into the whole “these people are assholes” bit until the second half of the show, because Larry David wanted to go that way.

Also, there were shows and acts that DID go that way from the start. Remember Dabney Coleman and the multiple attempts to build a show around him?

I was not watching Seinfeld from the first season, because I thought all the characters were assholes.

I searched the thread for “Lupin,” and found only a reference to Harry Potter. So, first: my daughter and I were talking about Hogwarts recently, in contrast to the delightful Scholomance series by Naomi Novik.

Mild spoiler for Scholomance: it’s a wizarding school where something like 25% of students survive to graduation, the remaining three-quarters murdered by classmates or eaten by monsters. It’s horrifically vicious, except that outside of the school, the survival-to-adulthood rate for wizards is closer to 10%.

Scholomance is horrifically cruel–but it’s still in some ways leagues better than Hogwarts. That’s because, in the awful universe of the book, it’s the best that the adults can manage. Whereas Hogwarts is full of needless cruelty. There’s:

  • Slavery
  • Nazi teachers
  • Teachers empowered to physically torture students they don’t like
  • Students divided into a “house” system that encourages them to hate one another.
  • Teachers turning a blind eye to life-threatening attacks from one house on another.
  • Quidditch, a game whose dangers make football look like tiddlywinks.
  • A tournament that makes Quidditch look like football.

Whereas the Scholomance is the best shelter that adults can offer to children, Hogwarts is a bloodpit that adults have created for children and for other species.


But I came here to talk about Lupin, and specifically Diop, the French gentleman thief from the new TV show. If you haven’t seen it, it’s marvelous, pitting very intelligent criminals against one another and against intelligent police, in the vein of the best seasons of The Wire. Diop is a tremendously sympathetic character.

Except: he’s a freakin nightmare of a boyfriend.

As a thief, he’s brilliant at deception and misdirection. All well and good, but when it comes to his personal life, he can’t stop using those skills. He’s constantly gaslighting and otherwise lying to his sometimes-girlfriend, in a way that is damn near unforgivable. He tells himself he does it to keep her out of danger and worry, but if he were serious about that, he’d cut off contact with her, not use her for sexual/emotional support while lying to her about everything that’s going on.

I think the showrunners know that and give him the flaw to make him interesting. But it’s pretty brutal if you pay attention to how he treats her.