- 4. I spend a long time each day pondering meaningless things. Like, REALLY meaningless. Currently I'm trying to work out if "Mightn't've" is a valid word. You can SAY it and it'll sound fine, but it just seems wrong.
What makes it so unusual is the fact that there IS no good guy. The closest there is to a good guy is a niave soldier who's working for the bad guys for the right reasons. He's an idealist who hopes to change the system from within.
To aspiring writers, think about this. An awesome villain has a hundred times more awesome points then an awesome hero. This is partly because you rarely see your villain in moments of doubt. Darth Vader suddenly became a lot less cool when he ceased to be the kick arse lord of the Sith, and became Emo-Vader (new trilogy). But still, a well written villain has alot of potential to be awesome.
And the best part of it? Traditionally a good guy is reactive. He seeks to preserve the status quo and keep the world from changing TOO much, while the villain seeks to destroy/control (object/group of people A). This means that unless the writer wants to REALLY be weird, the hero will win 9,999/10,000 times, since for the villain to win means the status quo is really screwed up. So you go into the story having a pretty strong idea of how it will end up. If the villain is the main character, however, there is no such guarantee to pacify the audience.
If the villain wins, status quo is all screwed up, and things become a lot more complex. Imagine if Marvel comics did a story arc about Magneto where he actually managed to WIN, and wipe out all the humans (and House of M doesn't count). So that makes the audience unlikely to think the villain will win.
But can you imagine a story where the main character loses? That would be like "Whoa, WTF mate?" as the internet meme goes. By it's very nature a story about a main character who loses would be completely screwed up, especially if the character is a villain who otherwise has no redeeming qualities (Rocky was about striving against the odds, Dr Horrible had a really likeably villain and unlikeable hero).
Of course, there are some lame 'neither win nor lose' endings. You know the type. The villain unleashes the demon he planned to chain to his will, but it turned out to be too strong, so he had to destroy it himself. Or the Hero and the Villain have to unite forces to destroy an even BIGGER villain. So while the main character was a bad guy, he wasn't THE bad guy. Well screw them, and to use them is lame.*
So the audience doesn't know what'll happen! It makes things FAR more unpredictable. And Anson, before you ask, that "Blood and Bones" movie you showed doesn't count. That thing was just horrible. Dude... No, just no. You don't get to pick movies in the future. And if you do, we all have to sit down and watch Ghost Busters or Ace Ventura afterwards, to cheer ourselves up.
One concept I've heard of that my inner geek must discuss: A Roleplay (pen and paper style) campaign consisting of this concept. The GM creates a unique kingdom of some kind, working out power structure, social hierarchy, economy basis, primary imports/exports, millitary structure, internal political rivalries and factions, ethnic minorities, castles and cities, etc etc. Then the players create some high powered evil characters, and in a sandbox style campaign they get to work out how precisely they will destroy or conquer the kingdom.
Dude, I've got a Nerdection
* This'll come back to bite me. In ten years I'll have written a story about a Villain who has to team up with a Hero to defeat a bigger villain. Anyone who calls me on it gets ONE free beer. (Offeronlyvalidonepercustomerandrequirescustomertopurchaseabeerfortheoffererpriortocashinginonoffer)
No comments:
Post a Comment