I think they’re vague on that score, because what constitutes a “heroic quality” is often culturally derived, or may vary by genre. For example, an American western would view individualism and distrust of authority as standard heroic virtues, while a Chinese historical epic might see someone exhibiting those qualities as antiheroic.
I also don’t take any of those definitions to mean an absolute lack of heroic qualities, just that they’re missing one or more big ones. I would, for example, have no problem calling Rincewind, from Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels, an antihero. He’s not villainous at all, but his central character trait is, consistently, abject cowardice.
Sometimes, doing the right thing means committing (what they see as) a lesser evil. For example Superman snapping Zod’s neck for the climax of Man of Steel (2013). It was a controversial scene. Does that mean Superman isn’t a hero?
I didn’t see it, but if he deliberately killed someone, no matter how evil that person was and how great the risk involved in letting him live, that doesn’t sound at all like canonical Superman, so maybe in that particular film he wasn’t a hero. I’m not surprised it was controversial.
Yeah, “Superman isn’t much of a hero,” was a pretty common complaint about the film. But “hero who fails to live up to their own moral code,” isn’t necessarily the same as an antihero, especially when their moral code is much more exacting than what society expects. Superman is waaaay more moral than 99.9% of humanity, including me. I don’t have a moral problem with someone killing General Zod, because that asshole absolutely deserved it. But I did have a problem with Superman killing Zod, because Superman should have much stronger and inflexible morals than I do.
None of the above contradicts my point. Here’s the post you quoted: “An anti-hero, at the least, has to be doing things that they, in their own mind, think is heroic.”
I thought it clear in my posts up until now, that any hero-ism performed by anti-heroes is in their own mind and not that of conventional mores of society.
Really? Because by my read, every single one of them contradicts you. None of them have any sort of requirement that the person think they are doing good in any way.
I’m not even sure what your bolding is meant to highlight? How does the use of “conventional” or “traditional” support your argument?
Sorta. Back in 1988. But this was an Alt-superman- The Time trapper made an pocket universe, then that world - and pretty much the billions in it- were destroyed by Zod and crew. The Alt-Superman does turn Green Kryptonite on the three, but the two of them kill each other, and the female villain dies also- presumably thru the green kryptonite . So Supes doesn’t kill Zod directly, but his actions certainly lead to their deaths. But again- not Main line Superman, and alt supes from another world/ dimension.
So, DC and Marvel have done tonnes of what-ifs and alternate dimensions stories. They are not considered canon.
IIRC, that wasn’t an Alt-Superman; that was the mainline Superman, filling in after the death of the Alt-Supes that would’ve been his pocket universe counterpart. (Which is why he can brandish the Green Kryptonite at them like you mentioned: it’s Alt-Kryptonite, and would affect him if he were the Alt-Superman — but he’s not.)
Yep, i think you are right. But Zod and crew killed everyone in that universe. And was Supes trying to kill them or punish them? Since Zod and Quex-Ul kill each other, it is hard to say. But it looks like it. However, according to this reviewer, later writers kind of muddied the facts or changed them so Supes didnt kill anyone.
There was also a What-If story that was the last story of the pre-Infinity Crisis Earth-1. Superman had to kill possibly the worst and most dangerous villain he’d ever faced (a turned-fully evil Mxyzptlk). Then because he had broken his vow to never resort to killing, he punished himself by using Gold Kryptonite to depower himself and then vanished from history, presumed dead.
Because I’m not debating that anti-heroes act unconventionally. Your argument is the view taken objectively (us, movie viewers) From that POV, yes, many of them are bad people. My argument is from the POV of the anti-hero. From the many anti-hero movies I’ve seen, my take is that they believe they are doing what needs to be done, i.e. the right thing, despite it might be not traditionally heroic.
Above I’ve listed protagonists that I don’t consider anti-heroes because they weren’t trying to do something good.
But isn’t the fact that they the word “hero” is in their name a giveaway? They are heroes but in an anti way. Otherwise they are just called villains.
ETA: I found this definition online:
“While an anti-hero may not fit the traditional definition of a hero due to their flawed morality and unconventional methods, they can still be considered “heroic” in the sense that they may ultimately do good things or fight for a just cause, even if their actions are morally questionable or self-serving; essentially, they are heroes with significant flaws and complex motivations.”
Also this:
“In the realm of heroes, the anti-hero stands apart from the traditional hero in fascinating ways. Known for unconventional heroism, an anti-hero often lacks typical heroic qualities like selflessness or noble intentions.”
Heroes by definition are heroic - anti or otherwise.
Some are doing things that they think are morally justified. Some aren’t. The point is, that’s not a requirement for the term. You can have an antihero who is aware that they’re a bad person, and that they have bad (or at least, selfish) goals. The characters motivations aren’t part of the definition of the term.
“Anti” means “opposed to,” so if we’re going to interpret the term literally, it would be “someone opposed to the hero,” which would just be “antagonist.”
But where you’re going wrong, here, is that you’re assuming “hero” only has one definition. It usually means, “a good person who does remarkable things for the benefit of his society.” But it also means “the central character in a story,” and it’s the tension between these two terms that defines an antihero - it is a character who is the “hero” of a story, in the sense they’re a protagonist (or, at least, major figure in the narrative) but who fails to meet the first definition, in that they’re not a “good person,” or not concerned with doing things for anyone else’s benefit.
As I mentioned in that other thread, I think Gene Hackman’s Little Bill in Unforgiven is the best example of this. He absolutely thinks he’s the hero (an actual Bona fide hero sheriff of the kind Saul Rubinek’s character writes romanticized stories about) but he’s definitely not, he’s the villain.
Fine, I’ll concede that point. I wasn’t trying to tie down a textbook definition, I was speaking generally on a message board. I feel that the majority of anti-heroes fit this mold and that’s my opinion.
I’m not interpreting the term literally. It’s used as it is because that’s one of the definitions that’s standard usage in Hollywood. I provided examples.
This isn’t true. I’m well aware of the various definitions of “hero”. I think my previous posts will bear this out.
Look, I’m not a Hollywood insider. But I have known a couple, I’ve taken a couple screenwriting classes from Earl Wallace and from William Kelly and I’ve written and submitted a screenplay. And though I’m no expert, I’m familiar enough with these terms carry on a casual conversation in a thread where the OP asks “how would you classify the following”.
When making your point about precise definitions you quote the OED. Otherwise you invoke standard Hollywood usage.
I’ve noted that I don’t believe this is true several times before. I don’t how else to say it.
To sum up, there is no hard and fast rule that defines what an anti-hero is and all anti heroes are different. Therefore I feel my opinions regarding this are just as valid as anyone’s in this thread.
I get it, you think I’m wrong. I disagree. But I’m OK to agree to disagree.