I think the smart guy being the antagonist is mostly because they don't want the audience to feel like the hero is smarter than them. Hence why it occurs in things like Superman that are for the funzies and attract a more casual audience. But I think Megamind is just playing of that trope as part of its referential style. Megamind and Metro-Man is heavily implied as a Lex Luthor/Superman thing. EDIT: Hero not villain, oops.
Me too. My first novel had three chapters in a row with no comedy (because a bunch of people died horribly) and I was instructed to put some humour in because it was too different from the rest. At first I was all "WHA how can I make that funny, it's tragic?" but once I tried it was pretty easy. I learned that a) you can make anything humorous without ruining the tension and b) any scene can be improved by evoking more than one feeling in the reader.
Yes, but saying anyone is an excellent businessman is really saying that: - he knows how to convince one person that what he has to sell isn't worth much, and - he know how to convince another person that what he wants to buy (which is the same thing as above) is worth a lot. To me, that's just cheating people and it doesn't take brains, it takes cunning and a disregard for the welfare of others. Scratch a successful businessman hard enough and you'll find a criminal under the veneer.
And then there's Agatha Christie's Hucule Perot, one of the smartest characters in all of fiction. I can't stand the prissy little twat, but he's quite popular.
My understanding is that she didn't like him either, and it was an inconvenience that her readers liked him so much. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3654904/The-strange-case-of-Hercule-Poirot.html: "Christie grew to dislike Poirot intensely - she once called him a 'detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep'."
I really hate any character which tries to imply something stupid as if it were true or believable. Like that stuff with inspirational coaches earlier where it's just a bit silly the way they run things. I also really hate any character that tries to portray intelligence but is is really bad at it, like including a load of inaccurate or unimpressive science/technology quotes to show of their nerd credz. (I'm looking at you, Ben Whishaw Q in Skyfall. ) The worst thing is when this is done to otherwise good performances with otherwise good dialogue. Like that example.
This isn't about the actors or voice actors that portrayed these characters. This is about the writing. Eren Jager: Attack on Ttitan How can you possibly rely on that character to carry the story. He is also very cliche. Whiny protagonist kid that only refuses to see things logically, fails at everything, complain, and scream! I can't stand those characters. It's not like he has done anything that moves the plot except be captured all the time. Levi is a much better character. Why isn't the story about him? Firelord Ozai: Avatar the Last Airbender All the build up on showing us his face just dropped and felt flat when his character was actually flat! Sozin was a much better villain because he was dynamic. I would have loved to see the villain have the Magneto complex where his best friend is his enemy. Come on, Aang has to fight a villain that burns his own son's face, and use ruthless tactics to achieve his goals. At least give him some depth. He was evil just for being evil, and following the tradition of the four fathers. Daenrys: Game of Thrones She really hasn't done the dirty work herself. 5 seasons she has done nothing but shun away her supporters, be arrogant, and use tunnel vision to achieve her goals. She is very narrow minded and she is always ungrateful. Anakin Skywalker: Prequels of Star Wars What could possibly go wrong with the most iconic villain in human culture? I know, give him to bad writing. Just watch the prequels.
I dislike big old Mary Sues and Chosen Ones. I also dislike unnecessarily sarcastic teenage characters - we get it they are rebelling and all that but please, it just grates on me and instantly makes me not care about what happens to the character.
I was going to let this sit because the topic had moved past it, but then I found a review for the tie-in video game. Holy crap, the tie-in video game. According to the reviewer, his character murdered an emotionally disturbed stalker who needed psychological help, murdered the stalking victim because she was too traumatized to bother giving therapy, murdered a mother with her child in her arms . . . All in the name of maintaining the system and keeping order. This was the government and legal system the FMC of the show chose to protect! No wonder the MMC refused to accept this and went rogue! (From what I've heard of the movie, we're apparently supposed to think the FMC made the right choice and has the means to convince the leaders to change the system. I still say screw that.)
Just to make sure everyone knows, what I mean by "imply" is that the character's design and storyline tries to imply that.
The whole chosen one thing, and characters that bitch about everything. The entire character line up from Bet Me is a close second, to the first two. Also flat or wooden characters that lack any emotional depth, or substance. (And no I am not going to say which book/s I am referring to on this one, but if you can guess then +50 points to you.)
I'd add "poorly written" then. Especially the first one, which hadn't even had the grammar edited on the first edition. (Shudders)
Background characters with no real drive or reason for being there. Remember Marsov, from Mad Max? Guy has like one line and does one thing, and yet he's just as interesting as Furiosa.
I can't argue with your point about the all-too perfect women and men that are bad ass automatically from the start. This is also one of my least favorite type of character. My other least favorite is the damsel in distress, I mean seriously I just can't handle that at all especially when they are immature and whiny to boot. I do have to argue that Mercy Thompson isn't really a man-eating, all-too perfect, perfect alpha soldier as you put it. I have almost no knowledge of hand-to-hand combat and weapons so I can't find fault in Patricia Briggs for that short fall. Also I believe Mercy is describe as lean, and she considers herself as not pretty, but a lot of very beautiful women don't see themselves as such. Also Mercy does not win, win, win, win as you say. She goes through a lot of very bad events including rape and the subsequent PTSD. Her life is not pretty and the two love interests she has are Sam who doesn't actually love her, just lonely, and Adam who respects her because she can hold her own despite everyone doubting her. She gets hurt a lot, almost dies a lot, sometimes she's the one getting rescued and other times she is the one doing the rescuing. She's dynamic. I'm sorry if I went off on a tangent I just love the series and consider Mercy probably one of the most believable character out there. Don't get me wrong though Patricia Briggs has messed up in some ways, but I think Mercy is realistic unlike a lot of characters in books I've read.
I tried to read a Kris Longknife novel, but I couldn't get into it. I admit that I enjoyed the Torin Kerr books, though. Haven't read any Honor Harrington.
Oh, don't worry about the tangent. I'm just stoked someone else has read the series as well. The win-win-win bit had more to do with Torin Kerr than Mercy, actually. Torin is like the female version of the male badasses in some of the thrillers I indulge in, and while the character type annoys me, sometimes I'm ok with it if I feel like reading that kind of stuff. I read Chris Ryan's thrillers and his MCs are always male torin kerrs. I read Mercy Thompson books up until Silver Borne, but that's where I got stuck. I think that was the book that started with Mercy's and Adam's date and it was just... really boring. I also don't think Mercy is a man-eater, she's actually not even trying to get into every dude's pants at all, they just fall at her feet belly-up, and that was my main gripe. Adam, Sam, and then the vampire guy, they all seemed to be into her. Combine that with her going on about how she's not very pretty and I also remember she mentioned her muscles and how them being manly (pffft) made her more unattractive than other women. That was to me a Bella Swan moment: like how Bella complained she's too pale and skinny or something, and my eyeballs almost rolled off their sockets when I read it. But I have huge respect towards Briggs for tackling the rape the way she did. I think it's important YA novels discuss darker subjects as well, and I felt this weird kinship with Mercy when she was dealing with the aftermath, despite her being a fictional character! Having said all that, there were elements about Mercy that grated me, especially the triangle with Sam and Adam; I just found it unnecessary to attach this Hunk 2 to Mercy when she already had one Mega Hunk jumping through hoops for her. My hubby also read the books and he was surprised it didn't come to blows between Sam and Adam considering they're both werewolves and Sam was pretty much trespassing on his territory. But then, it still is a YA series, so perhaps Briggs had to make her alphas a bit nicer. If the books were more geared towards adults, there would've probably been blood. However, none of that brought me anywhere near the book-throwing rage I felt when reading the first two Sandman Slim novels...
I have a problem with the underdog character who clearly isn't ones. The entire universe acts like they are a doormat when in fact there's no proof of it. Though, that might be just bad storytelling and not the character.
Is Mercy Thompson YA? I would have said Paranormal Romance...? I really liked the first two books in the series, but I quit after the third. (My Goodreads review with my reasons why is at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/925979369). I feel like Mercy really changed through the three books I read - from a strong, independent woman in the first two into a pale echo of that by the third. In the first two she was determined to take care of herself, in the third she went running to the werewolves for help at the first opportunity. So I guess that's another kind of character I dislike - the kind that starts off interesting, and then gets warped into something less so.
I was under the impression it's YA, but I checked from Briggs' homepage and there it's classified simply as "urban fantasy." I've only read books 1-5, so I'm not sure to which direction the series has gone after that. I guess it could be called paranormal romance, although at least in the first couple of books romance wasn't in such a central role. It only became too much for me by the time I started Silver Borne because, like I said, it was just boring. And I don't even think romance is boring in and of itself -- I lapped up the romance side plot in one of those Chris Ryan thrillers I mentioned and those books are a lot sillier than MT -- it's just that the development of Mercy and Adam's relationship doesn't interest me.
The chosen one plot really pisses me off now a days, and not just for being entirely clichéd, but because it ruins the protagonists. They lose what makes the moments suspenseful and fulfilling. They don’t struggle, they don’t achieve, they don’t win or lose. When they overcome a great obstacle, it’s not a great moment of triumph for the hero, because they have destiny on their side. They’re the chosen one, everything they do is nothing of their own skill or sheer determination, they have destiny. I loved Harry Potter, but I hated that there was a prophecy that basically told you that Harry was safe until the final chapters (Though they did kind of salvage it by saying the person who made the prophecy was wrong sometimes). One really good thing about a story I read once (Can’t remember the name) was where the hero was told of a great prophecy that foretold their rise to greatness as they strike down the great evil, but as soon as the Hero leaves the scene with a determined cry, the teller immediately mutters ‘’I hope he doesn’t find out I was lying through my teeth…”. Then the story proceeds with the hero experience the story with the thought that he has destiny increasing his chances of survival, with hilarious effects (The other characters constantly have to save him when he goes in over his head). Now, onto the other stuff I hate: The Sympathy Whore – Yeah, those ‘characters’ who hold no other personality trait aside from “THE WORLD HATES ME!” because the writer is too lazy to make them relatable or likable, thinking you’ll be invested if you just keep throwing tragedies at them as the character displays just how misunderstood and secretly philosophical they are (Paging Jodie from Beyond Two Souls!). What? You find yourself annoyed or disinterested about the character? THROW IN AN ATTEMPTED RAPE SCENE! Not enough? Let’s make it two! The ‘Independent Woman’ – These are characters in the loosest definition of the word, they’re not there to be well rounded, developed and relatable. They’re there to go “Ha! I, a female, have done something better than a man to the shock and surprise of all the witnesses” so the writer can tell themselves that they’re so scandalous and progressive. This is the same for minority characters as well, the writer cares less about making an actual character and more about pandering to the social in because making someone relatable means giving them hardships and flaws, AND GIVING THOSE TO A CHARACTER THAT ISN’T WHITE OR MALE IS A SIN! The Skin Crawler – “I’m sorry ‘Bland Pretty girl number 12’, but you can’t be around me. I’m a monster who doesn’t do anything monstrous. My life is hell even though I’m rich, have a body chizzled from stone and so intelligent Stephen Hawking is calling bull. I’m obsessed with you, but I’d rather creepily stalk you from a distance instead of just dating you. Don’t talk to me, I’M A HIDIOUS ABOMINATION!” Abuse, for the lols! – Hmm, we need an easy way to get our readers to root for this underdog and his quest to tap dat as- I mean, cuddle and love that hot chick. I know, let’s just give her a bland, one dimensional boyfriend who you could never believe she dated in the first place. Our protagonist hasn’t said one word to Hot Chick, but Boyfriend still gets up in his face about it and for good measure beats his girlfriend. Why? Is it because he’s damaged? Is it because he was abused in the past? Is the girlfriend the only person he has left? Nah, just cus. What a guy! – When you find that your reader thinks your protagonist is just a jackass who needs to be yelled at, or kicked in the balls, just slap ‘Quirky’ on his face and you’ll be A-Ok. Because then the reader will just blame their own view on the world and think you’re being insightful. So, you read Shakespeare? – If you want your villain to be taken seriously, he must read Shakespeare and quote it at every opportunity!
