Tag Archives: Media:Television

Gracepoint: The 10 week saga of UTTER DISAPPOINTMENT

(First off, I’d like to apologize for like a YEAR of no posts. I sort of… forgot. I’m very sorry. However, recently, someone liked one of my posts and I remembered ‘oh hey!’. Originally, I made this blog for a college class and after that class ended, things died down. For that I apologize sincerely. However! I have a need to revive and revitalize this blog and I’ll start with this and see where it goes.)

(The Gracepoint promo photo is at least better than Broadchurch’s, huh?)

If you’re like me, you watched the beautiful, riveting BBC drama Broadchurch illegally (woops, sorry FBI!) and thought it was AMAZING!

Because of how incredible the acting, characterization, cinematography, and writing was in Broadchurch, I was appalled to hear that there was going to be an American knockoff remake called Gracepoint airing on Fox. When I found out David Tennant and his terrible American accent were going to be on the show playing the SAME character but with a different name, I actually head desked (my forehead was never the same).

However, I did watch the show. And the first few episodes were almost the exact same. The same blocking, the same cinematography, the same lines, the same direction… everything was the SAME! …Only not as good. The middle portion of Gracepoint got good. I won’t lie to you guys. It got different in the middle and it was a very good show as long as you don’t compare the two. And I tried my hardest the WHOLE season to not compare it to Broadchurch. I’m good at the ‘apples and oranges’ approach to adaptations in general. The problem with that, however, is that to start out, Gracepoint wasn’t based on Broadchurch, it was like a carbon copy. After a while, it got better. It was easier to NOT see how Gracepoint didn’t get it quite as right as Broadchurch and focus on what Gracepoint DID get right.

The biggest plus for Gracepoint is that Mark and Chloe were much more likeable characters than the Mark and Chloe in Broadchurch. I just find that I enjoyed Michael Peña as Mark Solano and Madalyn Horcher as Chloe Solano better than Andrew Buchan and Charlotte Beaumont as Mark and Chloe Latimer. Other than that, all of the characters were less emotionally impacting on Gracepoint. I don’t know if it was the acting or the writing or the pacing or what, but Gracepoint, while good, didn’t CONNECT the way I wanted it to.

So on it’s own, it wasn’t a BAD show. It just wasn’t a NECESSARY show. There are plot holes that they opened and didn’t close (like what the hell was Vince doing with Danny without Mark and Beth knowing?! Why was Tom lost in the woods?!) because they were busy trying to make the EXACT SAME show as Broadchurch but with a different format (10 episodes of 42 minutes rather than 8 episodes of 50 minutes).

But the main reason I’m so freaking BUMMED is simple:

The only reason I decided to watch this show is because of what a Fox Executive said: “We have a different ending than they have, so there will be something to stay tuned for with a twist.”

… and after 10 weeks of what started the exact same, got better and different in the middle, and SEEMED like it was going to end differently?

THE ENDING WAS BASICALLY THE SAME! The only ‘twist’ was that he wasn’t the killer by ‘technicality’, and not even a good technicality, a boring one that was so not shocking at all.

Seriously, Fox. Great way to TANK what could have been a good ending. If they had chosen an ACTUAL different killer, it would’ve blown our minds probably.

But it wasn’t.

It was the same but more boring.

God Bless America, huh?

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 14, 2014 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , ,

What Makes A Person? Exploring The Ethics of The TechnoFuture In “Almost Human”


If you haven’t already been watching Fox’s new futuristic Sci-Fi cop drama, you should be!

Almost Human, the newest J.J. Abrams show created by J. H. Wyman, is a show about the police force of the future in 2048 in which the uncontrolled technological advances in America has risen the crime rate by over 400% and, in an effort to meet the rising crime rates, police officers are paired up with androids as partners that are combat-ready.

Detective John Kennex, played by Karl Urban, is distrustful of androids after waking up from a seventeen month coma after his android partner abandoned him in his refusal to leave a fallen human co-worker, which resulted in the man’s death and Kennex ending up having to have an android prosthetic leg. When he returns to work and destroys his first android, he is assigned a more lifelike model: A DRN


The DRN androids are an older model. They were made to be as human as possible, meaning they have the ability to feel and understand emotions like a human. Unlike the MX model androids like the police force uses, the DRN model androids were most often decommissioned after they developed emotional problems. Kennex’s partner, nicknamed Dorian and played by Michael Ealy (above), is unlike the other police androids in that he has a personality. He has emotions. He even is offended by being called a ‘Synthetic’.

What distinguishes Man from Machine?

One theme that runs throughout the show (so far, it’s only a few episodes in admittedly) is the concept of ‘what is a person’? The MX androids are devoid of any real human characteristics other than appearance, and even that looks synthetic. Though they speak and react like they are thinking for themselves, they are clearly programed based on logic and nothing else. Kennex views them so far from ‘human’ that in the first episode he actually throws his MX android partner from a moving vehicle, facilitating its complete destruction.

This raises the question to the viewers that, if the other androids are just machines, what is Dorian? Is he just another machine even though he has a character and a personality?

In the episode “Skin”, the police force is sent into the world of IRCs – Intimate Robot Companions – which are basically ‘sexbots’. They are a legal trade since IRCs are reported to have decreased the rate of sexual violence significantly, and the IRCs (mostly females) are sold in showrooms like cars. In the course of the episode, one of the IRCs, named Vanessa, asks where her ‘friend’ (another IRC) Vanessa is and if she can see her. Dorian realizes that Vanessa is designed to form a bond with people and to miss them (presumably so that the owner of the IRC will feel wanted). When Vanessa has to be deactivated, she asks Dorian where she’s going and he tells her “to a better place” (something he had learned earlier in the episode from Kennex). Dorian then witnesses her being deactivated.

What Does Understanding Do to a DRN?

The problem with the DRNs was explained as “emotional problems” that made them “volatile”, but it’s easy to understand why this might be so. Dorian, unlike the other androids at the police station, is aware that he is not real. He feels like a person, he has emotions like a person, and he has a personality that is distinctly developed from his ability to understand and process human thoughts and emotions. But he still knows that he’s not a “real person”.

Like with Vanessa, he knows that he too will one day cease to be useful and be deactivated. He says at one point, “I may not have had a childhood, I may not have been born, but I act out of free will, and my memories mean something to me.”

It isn’t hard to understand why the DRNs would have emotional problems when they are aware that, though they feel like a person, they’re not. It is the truest form of dehumanization, to literally not be a human being, but to feel the same as one.

What Other Questions of Ethics Will Almost Human give us?

I’m very interested to find out, actually! The most recent episode touched on the idea of human cloning, which is another TechnoFuturistic ethical debate waiting to be had. I’m very excited to see what other questions of ethics Almost Human will make the audience think about, because so far it has been extremely thought provoking.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 12, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,


This post contains SPOILERS!


Everyone with any form of social media account has discovered that for some unknown reason MTV’s Teen Wolf has an EXTREMELY active fan following. In this past summer’s Season 3a (3b will be coming in January), the main ‘bad guys’ are a group called the Alpha Pack and a ‘dark druid’ called the Darach. In the Alpha Pack, there is a set of identical twin Alphas (who combine into a really freaky looking mega!wolf sometimes) named Aiden and Ethan.

In all my years as a fan of television shows that have dedicated fan presences online I have never come across a more vastly divided set of fan opinions than those around the twin Alphas. From sympathizers to haters there are so many opinions on Ethan and Aiden. However, recently I came across an anonymous tumblr ‘ask’ a friend replied to (that I won’t link in respect for her privacy) in which the anonymous person expressed their opinion that “The Murder Twins are pure evil and they should have killed them, not let them stick around.

I’ve been meaning to make a post like this for a while now, and this incident has given me a perfect opportunity to force myself to do so. As we know, here at Modern Minutia we have a soft spot for sympathetic villains. As such I feel like it’s about time someone argues the much less popular opinion that they deserve so much more sympathy than this person seems to think.

To start with, let’s look at their biggest ‘crimes’:

  • We meet them as they are trying to get Isaac and his mystery rescuer. (They later help fight her and their leader, Deucalion, kills her.)
  • They later attack Isaac and Scott and then frame Isaac for attacking them.
  • We find out that Ethan and Aiden got close to Danny and Lydia because their leader thinks they will need to kill one of them.
  • They attack most of the pack at some point.
  • Worst of all of these, the twins help kill Boyd.

(The one thing that fans seem to find the MOST unforgivable is their part in Boyd’s death. The most often used line is ‘Are we forgetting they KILLED BOYD?!’ really.)

Yes. They are part of a pack that does unspeakable things and commits horrible acts. There is no denying what the Alpha twins have to be held responsible for. I do agree with the less dramatic and angry fans who simply say that they would like to see them show remorse for what they have done (Though with this show’s seeming phobia to character development, I’m not holding my breath). However, to the fans who feel that they don’t deserve to be forgiven, and ESPECIALLY those who feel they deserve to die, allow me (with the help of a friend who helped me organize these arguments that has no real online presence so will remain anonymous) to outline all of the reasons they deserve sympathy.

Point #1: THEY ARE KIDS!

Apparently this escapes some people’s notice, but these are CHILDREN. Yes, there is the hint that they may not actually be the age they are pretending to be to fit in at the school, but they are clearly somewhere in the range of sixteen to twenty and even if they are legal adults, they’re still KIDS. Even if they are full out evil why would you want to see CHILDREN die?! Who is heartless enough they wish to see children die for their ‘sins’ instead of be given a chance to atone for them?

Point #2: They are ABUSED kids!

Ethan reveals to Scott and Stiles in “The Girl Who Knew Too Much” that they were from a pack of ‘monsters’ who were the type of werewolves that gave the reputation of mindless killing machines to all werewolves. They were the Omegas of that pack, meaning that they were beaten and abused by their brutal pack. They were only able to rise up and kill their abusers when Deucalion came to them and helped out. From this we can infer that, most likely, the twins either are orphans or their parents were part of the group abusing then. They have probably been abused and mistreated from a very young age. They faced so much daily and inescapable torment until Deucalion came and saved them.

Point #3: Deucalion gave them power.

When Derek became Alpha the surge of power made him seek out and turn three teenagers who he knew wouldn’t say no just because he could. Those three teens were all overcome with their new found power as betas. They all displayed their new found power in extreme ways to prove that they were no longer invisible like they were before becoming werewolves. Yes, these four people all had pretty poor lives and were given power. However, Ethan and Aiden went from suffering even worse abuse than Isaac and less attention than Boyd or Erica to suddenly being powerful Alphas in an extremely powerful pack where they were no longer the victims. It is a proven psychological fact that “Even the smallest dose of power can change a person.” Now we look at the sudden transference from ‘powerless’ to ‘powerful’ and who gave this to them? Deucalion. Who gives them their orders? Deucalion. Why does this matter?

Point #4: Loyalty

Obviously, anyone who is saved by another person expresses gratitude towards that person. Anyone who is given power by someone else also has gratitude for that as well. Hand in hand with gratitude comes loyalty. If they challenge his orders, they are challenging the loyalty they feel to the person who saved them. Think of someone who did something for you that changed your life for the better. Now imagine that being the ONLY person who has EVER shown did anything that changed your life for the better EVER. The pull to pay them back would be tremendous. This is the type of pull that Ethan and Aiden face. They owe everything to Deucalion. They owe their power to Deucalion. They owe their very lives to Deucalion. That brings us to…

Point #5: Fear

While Deucalion saved them, and they are loyal to him, they also fear him. He may not abuse them the way their old pack did, but he does discipline them. We saw him strike them across the faces and cut their cheeks, so there is at least a measure of discipline. Beyond that, however, is the knowledge of how strong he is and what he could do to them if he chose to. They have been under his command long enough to see him kill people. If not Deucalion, the others in the pack are loyal to him and wouldn’t hesitate to do his bidding. While many fans would argue here that ‘I would chose death over committing murder’, there is another thing to remember.

Point #5 continued: Fear for each other

They are the Alpha twins. It is possible that if there was only one of them, they might would chose death over being forced to kill. Many people would die for other people. Many of us would sacrifice ourselves for perfect strangers, even. It’s different, though, when it’s someone you care about that is threatened. Ethan and Aiden know that if they question Deucalion, he can hurt the other twin. It’s likely they have suffered watching their brother hurt before in their days of being abused children. Anybody with a close sibling knows that you would do anything to save them. How many times have we said, “I would kill for my family”? Only identical twins can really understand the bond between them. Aiden and Ethan are all each other has. They are part of each other. They are (literally) two halves of a whole. They are both well aware that, “If I anger Deucalion he won’t hurt me, he’ll hurt my brother and it will be my fault.” So they know they are on their own with only each other to trust.

Point #6: They have NO REASON to trust the Beacon Hills pack.

While the viewers know that Scott and his friends would likely help Ethan and Aiden defect, they have no reason to trust them. They have no reason to trust anyone. They have only ever known being either used or abused. They have likely never known kindness in their whole lives. They grew up knowing that they can only trust each other and, when Deucalion saved them, he only did so to use them for his own devices. They have no reason to suspect that, if they defected from Deucalion, they wouldn’t have two packs after their blood, not just one. Even though we see Ethan at least showing the beginnings of remorse for what they have done, Ethan and Aiden both know that their options are to stick with Deucalion and survive even if it means doing bad things, or run away and try to survive with even more people wanting them dead.


We get at least some idea that they didn’t want to kill Boyd. There is no denying that there was reluctance in their part. However, Kali’s order to hold Derek’s claws so she could drop Boyd on them is still an order. They knew that saying no would mean turning their backs on their pack with no other pack to run to for protection. They are CHILDREN who have MOST LIKELY never known any kindness before Deucalion’s semblance of compassion, who have no reason to think they will find anything but threats from anywhere else, who fear for their lives and the lives of each other, and who have a reluctant loyalty tying them to Deucalion and his orders.

I don’t mean to get belligerent, but I really just fail to understand how anyone can say ‘they deserve to die’. I understand those who wish to see them show remorse and atone for their actions, I too want to see this. The way this show is written, we often don’t GET that sort of character development, so I generally just infer that it’s there. I can understand if a fan can’t accept that because most shows aren’t so lacking in the character moments, but ‘they should have killed them’?

I really don’t think so.

(Opinions are welcome, but please don’t argue with each other in the comments. Logical and calm explanations only, please!)

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 25, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

Doctor Who: Countdown To “The Day Of The Doctor”


While I make no claims to be a Doctor Who expert, I AM a big fan. I’m sure all of us can agree that when it comes to Doctor Who, you are either a big fan or have no idea what’s going on in Doctor Who. Trying to understand Doctor Who from an outsider perspective is nearly impossible. As one of the most often heard lines shared by fans claims:


But for those of us who ARE Whovians (as the fans are called), one of the biggest television events of the year, if not the decade, or possibly even our lives (if you want to be dramatic) is coming up fast. The 50th Anniversary Special of Doctor Who, “The Day of the Doctor” is not only airing November 23, 2013, but it’s also going to be simulcast across the entire freaking world so that nobody has to avoid spoilers like the plague in the hours leading up until their region’s air-time. (For those of us in the US, that time is 2:50pm EST) You still don’t think it seems like THAT big of a deal? Try the fact that the entire week leading up to the 50th Anniversary Special, BBC America has a scheduled full week of nothing but the “Doctor Who Takeover Special”.

For many people, no matter how long you have been a fan, The Doctor is an important part of your life, not because it’s just a television show you enjoy greatly, but because the characters are some that you hold in your heart. Doctor Who is such an overwhelmingly well done undertaking that creates characters that viewers learn to know as if they were friends, not fiction. And sadly for everyone, there comes a time that no matter who they are, your favorite character must leave. The Doctor himself is no exception.

Every fan can tell you who their Doctor is. Not everyone has a favorite companion, but everyone has their favorite Doctor. The one person who is THE Doctor to them in a way no other shall be. Fans go into “The Day of the Doctor” with heavy hearts beneath their excitement because we all know that that time is fast approaching and Matt Smith’s run as The Eleventh Doctor has to end to make way for Peter Capaldi‘s Twelve. However, while the 50th Anniversary Special marks one last hurrah before a passing of the torch, so to speak, in the Christmas Special, it also marks a wonderful chance for one last hurrah with some of Whovians’ favorite characters they have long since bid farewell to.

In this trailer we see that, though Eleven is leaving us soon, seeing him interact with his previous regeneration (David Tennant’s Tenth Doctor) and his old companion Rose Tyler once again shows exactly how the Doctor has grown and changed as a character through his eleventh regeneration.

While Whovians eagerly count the days until “The Day of The Doctor”, BBC graciously gifted us with a seven minute prequel to tide us over until the 50th Anniversary will inevitably blow our minds:

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 15, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

Ignoring The Male Victims: Are The Writers Ignoring Them or Is The Audience In Denial?

I had planned my next blog post to be about Sympathetic Villains, but this topic was brought to my attention during a discussion earlier in the week about the television show Supernatural.

In episode 9×02- “Devil May Care”, there is a scene in which the ‘big bad villain’, the demon Abaddon, has Dean caught and she threatens him with possession. In the scene, she says:

“Oh. Well… you know, I’ve loved this body since the moment I first saw it. You’re the perfect vessel, Dean. You give a girl all sorts of nasty ideas. So go ahead and play hard to get, and I’ll peel off this “no demons allowed” tattoo and blow smoke up your ass. […] It can get worse. Trust me. ‘Cause once I’m on top, I’ll make you watch. And I’ll use your body. Have you ever felt an infant’s blood drip down your chin? Or listened to a girl scream as you rip her guts out? Because you will. You and me, lover. We’ll have a grand old time.” -This scene



During this scene, my dear friend Amber and I were absolutely left uncomfortable by everything Abaddon says. We both discussed how it made us feel that cold feeling in your gut after you see something disturbing on television, because to us that WAS disturbing. In my mind, everything she said is undeniably ‘rapist’ type language, if not a full on rape threat.

However, after this episode ended we went online and found terrifying numbers of other fans talking about how ‘the sexual tension could be cut with a knife’ or ‘OMG that was so flirty!’. In fact, a quick google search didn’t find a single post or fan discussion on how rapey that scene was.

Another example in which the writer and many of the viewers seem to either not believe a male character is the victim of rape or choose to ignore it would be Derek Hale from Teen Wolf. In the two and a half series that have been released so far, his story includes:

  • Being a victim of pedophilia (ephebophilia if you want to get technical; he was 16 and she was 22) and statutory rape at the hands of the woman who murdered his family.
  • Being the victim of what would legally be considered rape due to lack of capacity to consent by the woman who helped him home after finding him severely injured, suffering extreme blood loss, and barely conscious.
  • Many other non-sexual but non-consensual uses of his body (such as being used as an instrument of murder by having his claws held in place while someone else impales his friend on them).

This isn’t the forum for discussion on real life attitudes towards female-on-male rape/rape threats, but this isn’t an isolated incident in modern television/film/other modern media. There are numerous cases of a male character being the victim of rape/rape threats by a female character for which the scene is either played off for laughs, or entirely ignored.

The attitudes by writers and viewers alike at failing to see a male character as the victim of rape is extremely discomforting.

1 Comment

Posted by on October 26, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

The Modern Anti-hero: What IS an anti-hero?

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary entry, the definition of an anti-hero is

Antihero- a main character in a book, play, movie, etc., who does not have the usual good qualities that are expected in a hero;

a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities

In literary circles, there is much debate over what exactly an anti-hero is. Some believe any hero without heroic qualities (he lies, cheats, steals, etc.) is an anti-hero (think of Robin Hood). Others believe any ‘dark’ character would be an anti-hero (think Sirius Black post Prisoner of Azkaban). It is even argued that a non-protagonist-or-antagonist villain is an anti-hero (think Gollum). There are debates between what the actual characteristics of an anti-hero are. Is it a dark, gritty hero? Is it a selfishly motivated hero? Is it a villain with good intentions? All of these are debated ideas of what the anti-hero is in literature. The fatal flaw in these examples, I find, is that there seems to be a hard-line of choices between Heroic protagonist, anti-heroic protagonist, and villainous antagonist.

In “Exploring The Dark Side: The Anti-Hero’s Journey”, James Bonnet says,

“Villains become anti-heroes when the story is about them; when we see the process they undergo to become villains.” 

However, in modern media and pop culture, it’s easier to see beyond this solid three-part spectrum and allow for a more flexible way of identifying a character in the story.  I would argue that the best way to clearly identify characters is a five-part spectrum:  Hero, Dark Hero, Anti-hero, Sympathetic Villain, and Villain.

Hero: The hero is your clear and true ‘good guy’. I don’t agree with the idea of ‘absolutely heroic traits only’ because unless we’re talking about Jesus or Captain America, almost every hero has his or her flaws. However, a true Hero is the clear and obvious ‘good guy’. Usually this person is the protagonist of the story who swoops in and saves the day.

A good example of the hero in modern media and pop culture: Image

Harry Potter, the eponymous protagonist of J.K. Rowling’s wildly popular Harry Potter series, is a great example of a pure, unadulterated hero. From the very beginning, the reader/viewer (depending on whether you’re talking about the book or the film) knows that Harry Potter is the ‘good guy’. He’s the protagonist who constantly saves the day, saves his friends, and saves the world in general. There are flaws, sure, but they are minor compared to his large heart and refusal to give up. You are left without a single doubt that he is a hero.

Dark Hero: The Dark Hero is one of the gray areas that usually ends up being called an ‘anti-hero’ incorrectly. A dark hero is a character who has flaws of character that make them harder to like. They may even come across as a not very good person only to grow and change into a better person because of the events of the story. The Dark Hero often doesn’t want to be a hero at first but finds himself or herself unable to stand by and not intervene.

A good example of a Dark Hero in modern media and pop culture:


Oliver Queen, the vigilante superhero from the Green Arrow comic series and, most recently (and pictured above) from the CW’s Arrow, is a perfect example of where Dark Hero diverges from ‘anti-hero’. Sticking with Arrow for this example, Oliver Queen begins in his back story as a pretty unlikable character. He’s the type of trust fund kid who is a bad son, a bad boyfriend, a bad brother, and an all around bad person. His story changes when tragedy strikes. He becomes a better person through a series of dark events and terrible situations and he comes out the other side as a vigilante who seeks justice. Many would perceive his former ‘bad guy’ traits combined with his vigilante justice as an anti-hero. Where he diverges from the ‘anti-hero’ spectrum is that his motivations go from ‘right the wrongs of his family’ to ‘save the city’. Like any hero, he sees injustice and wants to fix it. His methods may be rather dark (what with his method of ordering the bad people to ‘fix it or die’ often leaving behind the bodies of the bad guys) but he is still, at the core, a hero saving the day for non-selfish motivations.

Anti-Hero:  The Anti-Hero, when consulting the five-part spectrum of characteristics, is more closely defined than the dictionary definition. An Anti-Hero is, in it’s most simplest form, neither a villain or a hero. The Anti-Hero is selfishly motivated in his ‘heroic’ actions. It isn’t a villain who does ‘evil’ things, but rather a person who does heroic things almost incidentally while doing stuff for only their own gains.

A good example of an Anti-Hero in modern media and pop culture:


Sherlock Holmes, from Sherlock, is a great example of an Anti-Hero. As a consulting detective, he obviously does ‘good’ things since he helps the police catch criminals. Unlike a hero, though, Sherlock Holmes is a cocky, arrogant, rude character. His main motivation for helping people is to prove that he’s smart enough to do it. He isn’t completely cold and he isn’t a villain, but he doesn’t have any characteristics of a hero. Even when he is self-sacrificing for various reasons, Sherlock Holmes only does so for the people he cares about for his own reasons. An Anti-Hero is almost precisely that: a character who mostly does heroic deeds for selfish reasons. An Anti-Hero often has shining moments of heroism before returning to their selfish state. The emphasis on selfish nature is pretty much what sets apart the Anti-Hero from the Dark Hero.

Sympathetic Villain: The line between Anti-Hero and Sympathetic Villain is a little more concrete compared to the line between Sympathetic Villain and Villain. Still, it is an important distinction when searching for the motivations of a character’s actions. The Sympathetic Villain is one that is popular in many forms of modern media and pop culture. The characteristics of a Sympathetic Villain are almost the opposite of the characteristics of a Dark Hero. The Sympathetic Villain most often starts out as a good or at least neutral character who, when something bad happens, becomes villainous. Often, a personal traumatic event or a history of emotional trauma is present before the Sympathetic Villain slips over the edge into villainous territory. The character is still a villain, still commits villainous acts, and is still viewed as the ‘bad guy’, but often the audience feels bad for the character even as they wish for their defeat.

A good example of a Sympathetic Villain in modern media and pop culture:


Loki of Asgard, the Marvel character, is a good example of a Sympathetic Villain, especially for a film based on comic books where your villains are usually cold, hard villains. Loki is a Sympathetic Villain because his actions throughout his storyline in Marvel films are able to be understood with a level of empathy from the audience. His original villainous actions are more devious with the intentions of making things right than ‘evil’ until emotional traumas send him overboard. In a later film when he is closer to a ‘pure’ Villain in his actions, it is hinted that he has been tortured to insanity so the audience still feels sorry for him, even though he is the bad guy of the story. The Sympathetic Villain is often used to engage the audience so that they are able to identify and empathize with both sides of the story being presented in an attempt to draw them in and create emotional attachments with the characters. The same way the Dark Hero draws the viewers emotions in, the Sympathetic Villain is responsible for the same thing.

Villain: The Villain is exactly what you think: the bad guy. However, the difference between a Sympathetic Villain and the pure, honest Villain is that the Villain has very few or even NO redeeming qualities. There is nothing to really draw sympathy from the audience. There is nothing to excuse their actions in any manner. The Villain does bad things and has no justification, perceived or realistic, for said actions. In most cases, the Villain is the one character that exists to play antagonist opposite of the ‘good guy’ and will eventually be defeated most of the time.

A good example of a Villain in modern media and pop culture:


Kate Argent from Teen Wolf, while probably less known than many Villains, is a good example of a Villain because she embodies the traits of having no redeeming qualities, earning no sympathy from the audience, and having no real excuses for her actions. Kate Argent’s penchant for torturing her victims, her history of horrific acts (for example, burning down a house with a family with children inside), and multiple references to pedophilia and past statutory rape make her a character so ‘evil’ that she rouses absolutely no sympathy from the audience. Therefore, she is just a Villain. A GOOD villain that audiences love to hate, but still a non-sympathetic villain.

While there are many opinions on what is and isn’t an Anti-Hero, the five-part spectrum of characterization definitely makes it easier to identify what isn’t an Anti-Hero. By following the motivations, it becomes easier to understand where a character falls in this spectrum, and knowing the type of character you are dealing with makes understanding and appreciating their actions and reactions so much easier. When you better understand what motivates the character, what the character’s goal is, what means the character is willing to go to to achieve those goals, and what the outcome of those actions will be you become a more active participant in whatever media you are presented. This in turn makes the experience of these works that much more enjoyable.

And in the end, enjoying the work you’ve immersed yourself in is the whole point.


Posted by on September 26, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feeling Animated

Celebrating the Art of Animation

film, television, adventure & lifestyle

Captain Lokii's Treasure

A chest full of wonder

Ready Steady Cut

Your favorite pop-culture site's favorite pop-culture site


Every corner of film - from the grit to the stars

Film TV Documentary

"You're only given a little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it." Robin Williams


Film reviews, news, trailers, and articles written by our diverse team of writers from across the 🌍

Meg Talks Movies

Let's talk & review some movies!

TL;DR Movie Reviews and Analysis

Movie Reviews in one sentence (or you know like the whole thing, whatever floats your boat)


passionate about cinema

The Reverb

a podcast review blog

The Movie Directory

... all things movies, trailers and soundtracks.

Film & Nuance

Exploring the art of film

Flicks and Pieces

Film & TV Reviews, News & Musings

Movie Decode

Your Favourite Movies Unravelled


Ericka Smith

Discussing New Media

The purpose of this page is to analyze New Media and develop new thoughts about where it is headed.

New Media