Why Anti-Heroes over Anti-Villains?

For the last, I'd actually argue something.

Namely, it's the job of art, to some extent, to force people whether they like it or not, to question their own perceptions of things. To take a quote from the movie V that illustrates this,
"Artists use lies to reveal the truth, politicians use lies to hide it."

To apply here, art can, and has, made people change their perceptions of morality, and similar subjects. So, I think the key would be to get a popular work(perhaps it became popular for other reasons) that had a prominent anti-villain. We already have this in stories like Watchmen, lets see where else this can crop up.
 
Philp Pulman had a very well executed utilitarian anti-villian in The Shadow in the North, and an equally excellent speech by the heroin were she tells him even if he achieved everything he says he will (world peace, building schools blah blah) it will still be a bad world.
 
For the last, I'd actually argue something.

Namely, it's the job of art, to some extent, to force people whether they like it or not, to question their own perceptions of things. To take a quote from the movie V that illustrates this,
"Artists use lies to reveal the truth, politicians use lies to hide it."
Oh, I agree. Problem is that mainstream entertainment is not treated as art, but as a commodity. Add the fact that most people are artistically illiterate, and it becomes even harder to actually force them to consider their opinions. American Psycho, Fight Club, Starship Troopers, RoboCop and others clearly show that the average person has no goddamn idea what social commentary or satire is. They simply don't have the tools necessary to decode it, so they just absorb it unquestioningly.

To apply here, art can, and has, made people change their perceptions of morality, and similar subjects. So, I think the key would be to get a popular work(perhaps it became popular for other reasons) that had a prominent anti-villain.
Just getting some more intellectual but still mainstream movies would also be a first step. People have to have their head in the game for them to even register an anti-villain as more than a villain.

We already have this in stories like Watchmen, lets see where else this can crop up.
That's still just identifying with someone where we agree with the goal (preventing nuclear annihilation) and just do not like their method. Getting people to sympathize with someone they more clearly see as "The Enemy" seems a bit more challenging.
 
With the last, I see it as a necessary linking step, if you will, to introduce the concept of an anti-villain more into the mainstream. You need to get people used to the concept of what an anti-villain is much more for that to work.

For the first, I don't totally blame the audience as much as the lack of an,"opener," film, for lack of a better word. What I mean by this, in this context, is something that is overtly artsy, yet is able to become popular. Kind of like your 2nd step, and in other ways, like Evangelion done right(not saying it was completely bad, but the anime had issues.)
 
I'm not sure V fits in with that group. Doesn't he attack a villainous authority to bring about a brighter future for everyone else? That's quite different from attacking innocent people because the end justifies the means. Even if he only does it to get revenge, it's still going after the actual source of the problem.

V does have something more to him then others of that kind. But he still kills like there is no tommorrow. He doesn't seem to be very nitpicky about collatoral damage either. Of course he saw himself as collatoral damage, so anyone else wouldn't be very different. he saw any innocent casualty as a martyr. But while he meant to kill the villains in his search for revenge he ended up killing some anti-villains as well. I don't approve of that. Sure killing some sick people gets my sympathy, but not all his 'victims' where true villains.

Killer300 said:
For the last, I'd actually argue something.

Namely, it's the job of art, to some extent, to force people whether they like it or not, to question their own perceptions of things. To take a quote from the movie V that illustrates this,
"Artists use lies to reveal the truth, politicians use lies to hide it."

To apply here, art can, and has, made people change their perceptions of morality, and similar subjects. So, I think the key would be to get a popular work(perhaps it became popular for other reasons) that had a prominent anti-villain. We already have this in stories like Watchmen, lets see where else this can crop up.

Like i said; Shakespeare.

Those are basically forces of nature, so don't really fit a villain-hero scale. Which I guess is your point. There's no evil intent behind their actions, so they can't be villains. (Well, depending on the mummy it might be)

Assuming you mean Jurassic Park T-rex, you could argue it functions like an anti-hero though. It stands above human morals, but still acts as a surrogate for the audience, punishing the lawyer for his transgressions against morality and later saving the protagonists at the end of the film.

Well the series of unfortunate events turned him into some sort of Anti-hero. But he was basically one of the many anti-villains in the movie(John Hammond too). Dennis Nedry was the true villain. and Ian Malcolm the anti-hero(as he was the one who made everyone realise the flaws in the parc and put himself in danger to safe others).
 
With the last, I see it as a necessary linking step, if you will, to introduce the concept of an anti-villain more into the mainstream. You need to get people used to the concept of what an anti-villain is much more for that to work.
That's a good point. Moving the Overton Window if you will.

For the first, I don't totally blame the audience as much as the lack of an,"opener," film, for lack of a better word. What I mean by this, in this context, is something that is overtly artsy, yet is able to become popular. Kind of like your 2nd step, and in other ways, like Evangelion done right(not saying it was completely bad, but the anime had issues.)
Yeah, it's a systemic problem more than any real fault with the audience.

V does have something more to him then others of that kind. But he still kills like there is no tommorrow. He doesn't seem to be very nitpicky about collatoral damage either. Of course he saw himself as collatoral damage, so anyone else wouldn't be very different. he saw any innocent casualty as a martyr. But while he meant to kill the villains in his search for revenge he ended up killing some anti-villains as well. I don't approve of that. Sure killing some sick people gets my sympathy, but not all his 'victims' where true villains.
This is the comic book version of V, right? I'm only really familiar with the character from the movie, which seems a bit more sympathetic than comic book version (according to wikipedia).

Well the series of unfortunate events turned him into some sort of Anti-hero. But he was basically one of the many anti-villains in the movie(John Hammond too). Dennis Nedry was the true villain. and Ian Malcolm the anti-hero(as he was the one who made everyone realise the flaws in the parc and put himself in danger to safe others).
Can the T-rex ever really become a villain per se though, working on pure instinct? I will give you that it functionally straddled the line between anti-villain and anti-hero in the movie, but that basically comes down to it being an amoral entity. It's an anti-villain when it's a threat to the heroes, and an anti-hero when it's a threat to the villains.
 
Last edited:
I think this is addressed in "Continuum" from both sides. On one hand you have Protector who serves corporate government but is otherwise a nice person with a husband and a child she cares about. She serves government because she thinks it's right. OTOH you have anti-corporate resistance who are ruthless and kill anybody who stands in their way. And while their actions in opening of the series can be justified and civilian casualties seen as collateral damage their actions later on are pure disregard for human life, specially since they have no connection to corporate government.
 
Look at how Magneto has "evolved" over the years...

True... Magneto in the early Silver Age often went by the title "The Leader" and the world he tried to build looked alot like 1930s Germany.

X-Men04-13.jpg


X-Men04-16.jpg


There was little doubt of his goals and objectives in that era. How it fits with the later revelation his father was a Jewish German soldier in WW1 and he along with the rest of his family was killed by the SS and he was forced to work in the camps well you decide.

silverage.jpg
 
Given that heroes, anti-heroes, anti-villains, and villains are a spectrum and there is some overlap between anti-heroes and anti-villains, I'd say there's as much interest in anti-heroes as in anti-villains among some groups.
 
This is the comic book version of V, right? I'm only really familiar with the character from the movie, which seems a bit more sympathetic than comic book version (according to wikipedia).

Both of them are not very shy of murder.

Gorm the Old said:
Can the T-rex ever really become a villain per se though, working on pure instinct? I will give you that it functionally straddled the line between anti-villain and anti-hero in the movie, but that basically comes down to it being an amoral entity. It's an anti-villain when it's a threat to the heroes, and an anti-hero when it's a threat to the villains.

One can make an animal turn into a villain by having it specifically attack Humans and not to eat but just to kill like the shark in Jaws. I guess the T-rex doesn't qualify, but he did seem pretty interested in humans.


Given that heroes, anti-heroes, anti-villains, and villains are a spectrum and there is some overlap between anti-heroes and anti-villains,

talking about overlap. I tihnk we can introduce the alignment charts from Dungeons and Dragons into this.

Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good

Lawful Neutral
Neutral
Chaotic Neutral

Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil.

So tell me, where do the anti-heroes and Anti-villains fit in?
 
Both of them are not very shy of murder.



One can make an animal turn into a villain by having it specifically attack Humans and not to eat but just to kill like the shark in Jaws. I guess the T-rex doesn't qualify, but he did seem pretty interested in humans.




talking about overlap. I tihnk we can introduce the alignment charts from Dungeons and Dragons into this.

Lawful Good
Neutral Good
Chaotic Good

Lawful Neutral
Neutral
Chaotic Neutral

Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil.

So tell me, where do the anti-heroes and Anti-villains fit in?

If we go by tvtropes, anti-heroes:

The morality of the scale, starting from Type II, goes from unambiguously good to evil, but the specific morality of any particular character (in particular their Character Alignment) is an issue of major mileage variance.

Type I: The original anti-hero, this exists somewhat outside of the scale and thus does not have a set morality, but still tends to be good or neutral, with a few exceptions.

Type II: These are more unambiguously morally good, and some would even laud examples as grumpier versions of Incorruptible Pure Pureness Pillars of Moral Character.

Type III: These are iffier, but no worse than neutral. Some stay in the "good" category throughout. This type is willing to Shoot the Dog or otherwise do what they must do.

Type IV: These are the darkest possible while having fundamentally good intentions, but can also frequently be seen as neutral at best. Pay Evil unto Evil is the defining Trope here.

Type V: These are a Darker and Edgier neutral at best, and recurrently A Lighter Shade of Black aimed against greater evils. See Black and Gray Morality, He Who Fights Monsters.

Sliding Scale Of Anti-Heroes

and anti-villains:

Type I, Type II, and Type III usually can be evil, although they average out at a darker shade of grey. Type IV characters are a light grey at their worst, and good characters aimed at greater goods at their best.

Sliding Scale Of Anti-Villains
 
There have always been anti-heroes and anti-villains (as mentioned Shakespeare have a lot of them). But why are anti-heroes more popular?

Probably several reasons, and they may differ between countries. The moral code that ruled Hollywood and moviemaking in the US was no-existent in other countries.

a) Anti-heroes are after all good guys, and safe to cheer on.
b) Just the next step after the Lone Wolf that cleaned up the Wild West - continuing an existing stereotype/story.
c) We can associate with the anti-hero. Everybody have had a bad day and want to break regulations, rules etc. But how do we feel like anti-villains?
d) The role of anti-villain was taken by the regretfull criminal, that died a moral death after confessing his sins and warned other from following his example.

I can guess that more of an opressive government may give more sympathy to anti-villains like Robin Hood (that originally was a robber, taking form the rich). And the lack of this form of government (at least for the media-producing class) resulted in more anti-heroes than anti-villains.

Didn't China have a tradition of literature about "noble villains" fighting with the people against the government? How is the antihero/antivillain in the former communist countries, where people spent 40 years under a V-alike government?
 
Once they stop being villains they stop being anti-villains.

Take Iron man during Civil War. At first it appeared he was being the anti-hero while Captain America became an Anti-villain. In Iron Man's point of view Captain America needed to be brought to justice, but it was actually Captain America who was morally right and Iron Man was the one who needed to be brought to justice. Thus, Iron Man was the anti-villain. He got punished eventually.

In my view it was just a case of different sides with different POV much like Avengers vs X-Men.
 
In my view it was just a case of different sides with different POV much like Avengers vs X-Men.

Well you might be right, but Iron Man was definitly being very unethical and unconstitutional. it was more then a simple difference.

Anyway. I have been obsessed by the word "Anti-villain" for the last couple of days now(thanks for that) and come to think of it there are much more examples that one might see the protagonist or sometimes the antagonist as well being anti-villains.

Has anyone seen the movie "The prestige" with Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman? If you didn't you should. But i think both main charaters can be viewed as Anti-villains. What do you all think?

and what about the hunter from snowwhite? Too difficult?
 
I'm reviving this thread because I actually want to continue this.

For one, I think an avenue for an Anti-Villain would be showing how the, "kill them," morality so often used by anti-heroes will not improve things.
 
In my view it was just a case of different sides with different POV much like Avengers vs X-Men.

Yeah, but since the whole thing was a thinly veiled allegory for the War On Terror, the anti-Registration writers ended up dominating the narrative, making the pro-Registration heroes evil, as opposed to being merely another side of an issue.
 
Dexter on the other hand, follows the code of Harry (most of the time) to kill only people who have evaded the justice system and are themselves killers, usually killers likely to strike again. As a serial killer he hardly qualifies as a hero, whether he is anti-hero or anti-villain is hard to tell. Season 2 of the tv series was probably the most interesting in terms of whether or not he is a villain.
its always been my impression that an anti-hero uses bad means to achieve good goals (chaotic good, if you will) while an anti-villain uses good means to achieve bad goals (lawful evil), though i may be (and probably am) wrong about that

in any case, another example would probably be Light Yagami from Death Note, who uses a notebook dropped into the human world by a shinigami (death god) to kill those he deems as being evil, namely any and all criminals, but he ends up using it to kill anyone who tries to stop him as well, and ends up becoming more of a villain than a hero. to give contrast, Lelouch Lamperouge from Code Geass maintains his ultimately good goal straight through to the end and, finally, orchestrates his own death to achieve world peace
 
The why is fairly simple.

It's psychologically easier to have your heroes have flaws than it is to have your villains have virtues. When we see the flawed hero who we identify with, it confirms their humanity for us, and we can reassure ourselves that while we're all flawed human beings, and the business of "good" that we're in isn't squeaky clean, we're still on the side of the angels.

Antiheroes tend to go up against blackest evil more often than they go up against antivillains, and it's even less likely for standard hero fair to face antivillains. Antivillains represent the possibility that we're actually the villains, and the antagonists of another story.
Seems to be on the mark. Sometimes, IMO, you can't deduce between an anti-villain and an anti-hero. And the distinction between antagonists and villains is worthy.
 
On the other hand, there's also the kind of "hero" represented by the likes of the Comedian at the one end and the Hulk at the other: brutal individuals who can be just as menacing as the enemies they're fighting. If the choice is between the likes of the Hulk or the Abomination and having those two throw down in a major populated area, the encounter would not be a pleasant one for whatever city was in their paths of destruction. Kid Marvelman is one of the few characters in a series to actually show how destructive that kind of thing would be.
 
Top