How to Make UNLikable Characters 

My personal rule of thumb is that no matter how unlikable you try to make a character, there will be at least one person who ships themselves or likes said character. Really freeing for me tbh

I misread it as "unkillable" and the idea of an immortal Caillou is as terrifying as cosmic horror.

When you mentioned Peppa Pig I thought of Daddy Pig, he always gets teased of his stomach size and he's humble even if his choices sometimes lead to mistakes. Once I saw this one episode with my sister where a spider web was connected to his car and he needed it to drive to work but Peppa said breaking it would ruin the Spider's hard work so Daddy Pig is forced to ride a tricycle to work and doesn't even argue. In the end Peppa straight up quotes: "Daddy Pig does work hard but Mr. Spider works even harder" like seriously your Dad is literally riding a tricycle to work

You forgot to mention Uncle Iroh as a character that is universally liked.

My proudest moment as a father so far was when my kid came upstairs to hang out and said “I can’t watch that, Caillou is really annoying”

Okay, no hate on the character I’m about to mention, but Mickey Mouse is such a static character who gets a lot of easy wins, and I think he’s more iconic and recognizable than admired as a deep, developed character. Now Donald Duck, he’s a great example of a very flawed, but very loved character. He’s extremely short-tempered, unlucky, has an almost indecipherable voice, and he’s constantly failing. But he’s funny, kinda relatable, and because of him, we get other characters like Daisy, the triplets, Scrooge, Della, Webby, the Three Caballeros, they all started bc of the this stubborn-wreck of a duck(and I love him for that)

For me, the most unlikable thing a writer can do is throw in a romance arc for no good reason, or when a character has too many people fawning over them. Like, can the male main protagonist and the female secondary protagonist please just have a platonic relationship? For example, Black Clover, if you’re familiar with it. Still love it though, just a personal gripe.

One way to make a character unlikeable to me, is through the simple use of double-standards. Basically, if a character is not held to the same standard as the protagonist, or at least to the standard of another likeable character. For example; the main character has a certain belonging that another character uses without their permission. The main character gets frustrated and states that they absolutely refuse to share with anyone else, keeping the precious belonging all to themselves. The main character eventually suffers a punishment for this, and learns a lesson about not being selfish. Then, in a later episode, another character has a certain belonging that they absolutely refuse to share with anyone else. The main character gives in to temptation, uses it without permission, and is immediately punished for it. The main character then goes on to learn a lesson about respecting other people's property and not being greedy.

I do love how One Punch Man is a show about a character who has a ridiculously perfect fighting ability, but it flips the script to show how much disappointment and stress this causes him. They know we expect an annoying hero trope and instead they focus on the internal world of someone who doesn't measure success the way the viewer moght expect him to.

"I remember a very forgettable movie"

It's inspirational that Caillou pulled himself together enough to become Saitama. I wish him well on his journey.

Gregory Heffley is pretty much just the correct level of unlikeable for us, we're seeing through his eyes as we watch him make morally questionable choices and making failures at times

If this isn't a Caillou hit piece then we need one.

"Some of you are entitled to the wrong opinion that *this* isn't a crime."

Prince Zuko's evolution, in my honest opinion, really stands out as a clearly well-done character arc. From an angry, traumatized child that tries to get his father's acceptance in the name of honor, to a calm and wise mentor to the Avatar(and not only), an ambassador and father. Oh, and adopting Uncle Iroh's hairstyle.

I think a good way to avoid “perfect” protagonists is to interpret 1 or more of the heroes strengths as weaknesses like what was literally done with Hercules.

One thing that drives me up the wall is actually the inverse of #3. Specifically, a selfless character who keeps being the 'good guy' despite constantly being punished for it. There's being a likable hero, and then there's being a doormat.

Me: >makes a purposely unlikeable character Others: “Omg they’re so cute” 😚😚 Me: *>flips table*

Eric Cartman is a good example of a character that most people love and hate at the same time.

An unlikeable character for me is the assumed audience that prompted laugh tracks in American live action sitcoms. I remember a scene in Home Improvement (with Tim Allen) wherein his character delivered the line and the audience laughed more than what was probably expected. The actors had to wait for the laughter to die down before continuing. The writing of dialogue was meant to tell a story - not explicitly to garner laughs, though that happened, and some of it was intentional. Sitcoms now have characters speaking in one-liners as if those one lines are an endless waterfall of epiphanies in a desert of intellectually defunct audience members: "And then I said, 'You can't do that!'" - cue laugh track "So he sat down, anyway, right?" - cue laugh track "Story of my life." - cue laugh track "You and me both." - cue laugh track "Cheers." -cue laugh track "Hey! I'm here!" -cue laugh track All these lines would run successively as if it were a conversation "real people" might have, and the laugh track creates a disparateness for each line that causes the conversation, ergo the thoughts of the characters (?), to be both incohesive and incoherent. There's something odd, demoralizing, demeaning, and rather alien about the assumed audience as a collective, if not single, entity that sitcom writing targets with its intentional non-stop laugh tracks. I don't like that audience that has caused writing to change track.

Things going unfairly well for a character always ticks me off so bad lmao, it's something I'd love to do for an antagonistic figure

Literally every character on Riverdale. You can tell how little effort the writers put in and it only gets worse and worse.

honestly, I feel like Mirai Nikki really nailed some of the characteristics you show here, and I feel like it's totally intentional - the main characters' refusal to grow, their refusal to stop focusing on the past/future, is what causes their respective endings

When it comes to unlikable characters, the one that sticks out to me most is Chick Hicks from Cars. I mean, yes he has somewhat of a tragic backstory because he wanted to be the nice car growing up, but his dad taught him that nice cars finish last, so from that point on, Chick became the one car that nobody can stand because he's so full of himself. Just because he won ONE Piston Cup while Lightning won more than one, he thinks he's the forever champion.

I’m so glad you mentioned Nausicaa, she’s a great example of a character who is an incredibly good person with little to no recognizable flaws, but is still likable to the audience because we have a strong idea of who she is and get to see her be vulnerable. The scene where she tries to keep the baby ohm from crawling into the toxic river is one of my favorite moments in any of Miyazaki’s films. I almost cried because of just how SELFLESS she is.

I feel like this video is just describing Caillou

One character trope I despise is the “Main Five” trope, in which there are five distinct, specifically created characters that form an unrealistic, pandering, “diverse” group of characters. You have: -the main dude who is usually white, handsome, and charismatic -The hyper white/Latina girly girl who becomes a love interest -The skinny, nerdy guy who usually wears glasses and easily gets offended -The hardcore, edgy, usually Asian tomboy girl that rivals her feminine counterpart -And of course, the sassy black guy with all of the one-liners and catchphrases. Power rangers did it, Big Hero 6 did it, Teen Titans did it, as well as many other shows and films (not just superhero related). Heck, one of the reasons why I unsubscribed from Smosh back in 2016 was because the 5 new actors they got were just real life copy-paste characters with these “personalities” to appeal to teens, which resulted in hundreds of cringey, unfunny videos. Edit: Since Anthony is back, I resubscribed to Smosh! I still don’t care for most of those new actors they brought in though.

I used to not like the art design on Peppa Pig too, until I saw another series with much of the same team, called Ben & Holly’s Little Kingdom. It’s not super advanced but showed me that the art style was meant to feel personal to the age group of the target audience. Peppa Pig is supposed to look like it was designed by a preschooler. That’s why the character and environment designs are how they are. The whole show is put together to seem like something a 4-year-old had done. It is meant to connect with its audience on a personal level this way.

I misread it as "Unkillable Characters," and was beyond confused when I saw Calliou lol

Chloe from the last season of The Fairly Oddparents. She was put in to boost ratings, came off as a perfect character who could do no wrong and everybody loved her, for some reason needs Fairies because she messes up sometimes (even though everyone still loves her, and apparently doesn't think it's actually her fault), and turned Timmy's day into a living nightmare (like it isn't already). She becomes a more "complete" character later, but her introduction leaves such a sour taste in my mouth that I don't care to watch more of it. I loved Fairly Oddparents, too.

"A character who repeatedly goes through the same challenge over and over again and we wonder 'are you ever gonna learn?'" It's okay, you can say Goku. 🤣

Schulz really knew what he did when he created Charlie Brown, because he is not flawless and struggles with almost everything - which is why so many people can relate to him. (Including me!)

Just wanted to add some background on Caillou and to further explain why he is so unlikable. Originally the character was designed by Hélène Desputeaux as a baby in books for babies, not some entitled 4 years old brats. Following a dispute with her editor, she more or less loss creative control over her character. Her original work is still available for sale on her website, but sadly was completely overshadowed by the horror of the more marketable version of Caillou. The character known to most is this weirdly undefined mix between a baby, toddler and child that is entitled BECAUSE that's what the producers want to see in their audience... it's more profitable.

There is one case that avoids the “perfect characters” idea. It avoids this by having bad things happening to the main protagonists. It’s called a series of unfortunate events, and klaus, sunny, and violet are all perfect children, but terrible things happen to them, and they are overall very unlucky.

I (female) have an aversion to nearly all “strong, independent” female protagonists.

A genre of characters that really gets under my skin (and something that’s guaranteed to start an argument amongst fans of related series’s) is the “born powerful protagonist”. Not all characters like this are bad (Superman and Harry Potter are pretty good examples) but a lot of them can get grating quick (especially in shonen anime). Imagine being an expert martial-artist. You’ve spent your entire youth mastering a specific skillset and you’re eager to show your talent to the world. You sign up for a fighting tournament, make it all the way to the end, and you instantly get punked by some dipshit 12-year-old who has never trained a day in his life and has gotten this far solely because they’re either the child of some mythical hero or they’re ‘cursed’ with some demon powers. It’s a surefire way to neuter the sense of character spectrum in your show because now it’s been established that anyone who’s allowed to contribute to the plot must now be some prodigy or demon-possessed puppet. I hate it.

I tried creating an unlikeable main character for a comedy, and people found him relatable and funny.

I dislike what I call "the obligatory comedic talking animal sidekick." For some reason, they tend to have overly-cute or else hyper-caricaturized visual designs (ick), and they usually have obnoxious voices. That's not to say comedic talking animal sidekicks are always bad - they're not. What I'm against is film/cartoon writers feeling like they have to check off an "animal sidekick" box, and therefore they insert a character that adds nothing to the actual story or character interactions, apart from forced humor. That's a fingernails-on-chalkboard sort of thing for me. All the more so if they're the ONLY talking animal in the lore of the particular world they belong in. We need to at least feel that there COULD be other talking animals somewhere in this realm (or even that there used to be more, and now they're extinct). Otherwise, it's just jarring. Disney has a pretty good handle on this concept, actually. For instance, in Pocahontas, which is (very, very loosely) based on history, it makes sense that her animal sidekicks do not talk, since there are no talking animals in the real world. In Tarzan, the implication is that all animals can talk, but only Tarzan knows their language. In other films like The Princess and the Frog and even Cinderella, multiple animals are capable of speech. And in each of these cases, the sidekicks actually contribute to the story, i.e. the mice making Cinderella's dress for the ball, and Terk and Tantor rescuing Tarzan from the ship. In fact, I think it's precisely BECAUSE Disney does this so well that other animation studios try to follow the "formula" of adding animal sidekicks. And sometimes, it just plain doesn't work. Only include characters that help your story.

On another hand, I have always been absolutely obsessed with some of the characters that everyone "loves to hate" specifically because they're so hated. It might be my savior complex, or my ability to understand where each character comes from, but this video definitely highlights the difference between a poorly conceptualized character, and a hated character.

I like how the thumbnail implies that Caillou is purposefully designed to be unlikable as a character

I think the idea of "repeated character arcs" could have potential to be good if under the right circumstances. What I mean is as humans, sometimes it's difficult for us to completely change after one incident. We may learn something from a single experience, but it doesn't always leave a lasting, permanent change. You may see yourself in a similar situation after the last one, and may even repeat the same mistakes (1. Because you have the expectation that things will turn out different or 2. You simply didn't learn- sometimes it takes 5 extra experiences before it sticks) So a character experiencing the same arc could potentially work if it's a conscious decision: In order to show a more realistic growth period- which also include relapses or even using past experiences to help make a step forward instead of instantly going back to square one. Sorry that this was long and made no sense, this video just made me think

Tobias (from Amazing World of Gumball) is the best 'unlikeable' character since he pretty _much_ deserves it most of the time. A good piece of karma if you will

"It looks like it was done in 4 seconds, blindfolded" and "some of you are entitled to the wrong opinion that this isn't a crime" both killed me. Thank you, Brookes, for the laughs but also for the videos. I've been using these videos to help me with all the significant NPCs I make for my current Pathfinder 2 setting so I appreciate them a great deal.

"Repeated character arcs". Exactly what DC's been doing to Barry Allen in the comics since they brought him back to life.

Me a DM trying to get my players to stop liking my villains: "Write that down! Write that down!"

do the exact opposite of all of these steps to make the most likable character ever

Ash Ketchem because he’s constantly learning the same lesson every other episode but also magically forgetting everything he’s learned from the season prior, even forgetting about Pokémon he’s caught before

If you think of this video he is giving us both a thing not to do and what to do if you want to make a good character or a bad character. This video really helps me a lot with my writing. As a person who makes my own characters and post them online this really helps.

A lot of people always bring up Superman as a perfect character with no flaws but that's kind of the point. Superman's best stories are where you acknowledge he's bullet proof but the people he wants to protect aren't.

I like how this video describes perfectly every character in Miraculous Ladybug

Kirito from Sword Art Online is a good example of a Gary-Stu/Mary-Sue as he always comes out on top of every obstacle that is thrown at him no matter how impossible it seems and has a ton of girls that are head over heels for him (even his sister *yuck*)

I personally think JoJo's Bizarre Adventure handled character arcs very well by greatly changing the cast with each new part, thereby allowing each new main character to develop in a manner suited to their backgrounds and personalities. It can be a good way to alleviate the problem of repetitive arcs.

Another ting to mention, flawless characters will never have a personality of any sort. They are cardboard cutouts of a person. It's impossible to develop a personality without struggle before hand.

I love Nausicaa. From her design to her personality. She's wonderful, and someone I personally aspire to be like.

You know what my favorite kid's show was? Babar (the original TV series in the 90's). The first four episodes are like Bambi style, he gets attacked by hunters and is separated, but he teaches the old elephants how to fight back. When he confronts a hunter, he destroys the hunter's weapons and lets them escape even though they ruined his family. He learns about city life in France, and makes a city for the elephants stylized like a French kingdom and becomes their king. He always gets confronted with moral dilemmas as the king, and you'd see issues you'd never see in a kid's show in it, he even deals with a pandemic and the show realistically shows Babar getting the medicine for his family first.

I love how one of the biggest flaws a character can have is being flawless

2:00 superman is like the worst example for a “flawless” character as he always struggles, we don’t read a Superman comic where he isn’t struggling with something.

Sometimes it's possible for a character to be unliked because of their fanbase rather than because of the character itself. Generally this happens when a character gets so popular that you can't seem to get away from people constantly bringing them up or making reference to them. It causes an inner gut reaction that's probably easiest to sum up as "I get it, everyone likes this character. Can we all just shut up about it already?". Such experiences can sour one's perception of a character, causing them to not want to experience the media the character comes from for themselves.

The 2nd wreck it ralph, ralph breaks the internet. Ralph's character arch was great in the first movie, but now it is about not wanting to lose a friendship. Vanillipys, ralph's friend, her arch was good in the first movie, in the second it was about her going TURBO and everyone is fine with it aside from Ralph.

Let me just point out Artemis Fowl (books). He starts out as an anti-hero fueled only by the purpose of money to save his father. He admits he doesn't like to harm people, he does it because he feels like they need to be dealt with. In the first book he casually makes death threats. In the last book he dies to save everyone. His story arch did take a major back step when his memories got erased in the 3rd book, but he fixes himself up after telling himself about how Holly helped him. A major jerk in the beginning, and a somewhat decent person at the end. My favorite story arch.

The one type of character I can never stand is an inactive whiner. Just constant complaining about the situation they’re in. I feel it’s a big thing newer artists do where they think their character is a), so cool for constantly and silently angsting, or b), is a small uwu bean who has the saddest backstory in the universe and cries over it; both of the two never actually doing anything to try and resolve it even though it should theoretically be the entire point of the story given how much it effects them.

Make a character be right in the narrative, when they clearly are not from a moral standpoint, make them all-powerful with little to no justification, make the rules of the setting bend to the character to make things possible for them that should not otherwise be possible. Those are the three easiest ways to make a loathsome character - and not because they're meant to be unlikable, but just by the sheer power of bad writing.

About point 1, there is a really funny anime show called "Haven't you heard of me? I'm Sakamoto" The whole basis is that he is "perfect", but they take it to extreme levels, and he is very likeable because of how funny the situations turn out with him.

I would say one of the most likeable unlikeable characters is Greg Heffley from the Wimpy Kid books, except he is written in a way for you to root for him and want him to change, but he is still stuck in his selfish ways.

I think this advice could be helpful in creating a villain the audience can't root for. Make the villain win more than is satisfying, or don't let them treat their failures as a loss. A villain who always feels in control taps into that frustration for a good purpose- not liking the bad guy more. When paired with more horrific tendencies, a villain who feels like the strongest character in every scene can quickly become a powerful source of dread and loathing.

The kind of character I hate the most is those that are all bark and no bite, I can respect the evil emporer who wants to take over the world and would do anything for it, but what would make me hate him the most is if he tried to give up the moment things go wrong

For me it's Bakugo from My Hero Academia. He isn't portrayed as a character we are supposed to hate, being friends and shown to casually hang out with the main cast in friendly or at least neutral scenarios. However, his design is spiky and aggressive. He acts violent and aggressive. He never acts friendly or kind or selfless. Even when doing hero work and saving people he does it rudely, aggressively, and with selfish motives. He doesn't have a single redeeming quality and has been stagnant in that fact for the entire story so far. And yes, I am aware of a spoiler event that has recently happened in the manga that has yet to be shown in the anime. I believe it will be an overall improvement to the story.

when it comes to powers perfect is ok if the weakness is the character themselves. A Supergenuis having a physically weak body, a godly character with either mortal rules or personal rules limiting them, maybe a random / uncontrollable power that has a cost like the power controlling it’s user, etc.

I personally like characters who are Anti-Hero or even straight up villains, like the Joker, or Dead-Pool, because they have much more complicated stories and break free from the loop of: "Oh I'm the protagonist so I must do good."

The best kind of hateable character is something likable but pesters EVERYONE and often causes situational devastation towards a plan

Jennifer Love Hewitts character in "I Know What You Did Last Summer" fits this for me. She does little to no character arc, never has any flaws, and doesn't even deal with the killer until the end. Meanwhile the character Helen has a huge character arc, deals with the killer nearly the entire movie and has several flaws that she notices and improves upon. No idea why she dies and we deal with such a boring character afterwards

Mabel is what does it for me in Gravity falls. From a character design perspective, I don't dislike the oversized sweater or the braces, but I don't like the way her eyes sit. From a personality point of view, she's extremely selfish, gets a lot of what she wants and almost never suffers consequences from the situations that she causes (despite being the deuteragonist of the show).

A character that recently REALLY stood out to me as unlikeable was Ava in Borderlands 3. She was static, complained nonstop, gets a very likeable character killed, blamed Lilith for said death, then everything ends up working out in her favor. It's to the point where I think the writers made her terrible on purpose

Curious how a character like Sherlock Holmes falls into this. Despite a number of his flaws he's always right, he's portrayed as condescending to his best friend many times and is despite that loved to this day.

i really love characters who start of unlikeable and become likable through intense character development, but in a way where you still recognize them as the same person. i also love realistic character development. you won't completely change and at some point might take stepbacks or stop changing which can lead to a bit of arrogance. it's great when chracacters go through multiple character developments, but with different intensity and on different levels. the amound of people i know who hate some characters for just being female is wild though. i never understood that, but i had mulitple straight female friends who disliked certain personality traits and arcs only for female characters. kinda sad and off-putting.

"4. Static characters getting easy wins" for some reason empress Theresa springs to mind

My personal least favorite type of character is the hyper-generic protagonist character with the same overused backstory, same dull personality traits, and in some cases, absolutely little to no character development. Protagonists should be just as interesting and quirky as any other character yet many writers don’t seem to understand this.

What about: a seemingly perfect character that is actually deeply flawed and Not even trying to Hide it, but because of a continually contrived Plot Always comes Off looking perfect

This feels more like how to not make mistakes when doing likable characters

"A character that does nothing wrong" *proceeds to look at Disney's characters.*

I'm reminded of Bloo from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. His design is unique, yet simple, but he's also an annoying brat most days who gets annoyed by rules and such. Yes, he's relatable, but in the same vein, he's unlikeable. Let's not mention Bendy

UPDATE: Biko, who I mentioned in this video, the main character of my animated series, (who I like to think is fairly likable) is available to give you healing as a plush, only until 11/6/22! Grab it to directly support the development of my animated series Stormfellers! www.makeship.com/products/biko-plush

I think Hey Arnold does the perfect characters thing well because Lila and Olga are supposed to be perfect but they feel like a human and have good moments

I like how Cailoo or however his name is spelled is basically on everyone's hate list whenever unlikeable character is mentioned just for how easy a target he is. EDIT: In my case, I don't think I have one character I hate that much except for maybe manga-anime perverts that are supposed to be comedic relief for being perverts because they are so one-dimensional. Usually feel like a rehash of old ideas (e.g. "oh no, definitely-not-Roshi-from-Dragonball is taking panty shots lmao") and the worst cases don't even punish the characters for their behaviours, while also detracting from the plot

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think tacking on a few tiny, sometimes unrelated flaws can allow someone to claim a character isn't perfect and therefore isn't a mary-sue/gary-stu either. Maybe I'm too picky, am acting entitled or have unrealistic understandings, but I've seen this in a lot of characters and have seen friends write characters this way too. Just because a character trained for a week or two to be impossibly unbeatable or has a homicidal anger issue about a very specific thing but is otherwise perfect and loved by all doesn't make them flawed and balanced to me, but that's just me.

My least favorite characters and stories are the ones where characters do terrible things and are either constantly being forgiven or are just never held accountable in any meaningful way. I especially hate it when the writer then, instead of actually having the character work to redeem themselves (like Zuko who had to work extremely hard to gain the trust of the main cast), tries to give the character a tragic backstory as if to say that "Oh it's okay that they did all these terrible things because they've had a hard life and they should just be forgiven and never be held responsible for their actions". Christian Grey is a good example of this, but I've seen it done elsewhere. But, to end on a positive note. The one thing that I like most in a character is compassion. It's why Katara is my favorite character in ATLA. It's why, I think, that people love Superman so much. It's why my favorite moments with Batman are where he shows deep compassion for people, even for his enemies like in the end of the episode with Baby-Doll in BTAS (if you haven't seen that scene, I highly recommend checking it out). And it's why I like Iron Man. Even though he can act kind of full of himself it never really gets annoying for me because 1) it kind of feels like it's a way to mask his own insecurities (or at least, that's how it comes across as to me), 2) Stark genuinely feels bad when he learns that his company is responsible for killing innocent civilians overseas and when his invention Ultron killed so many people including that one young man, 3) instead of making excuses he works to redeem himself by making his Iron Man suit and siding with the signing of the Sokovia Accords, and 4) he actually is willing to put himself in danger to save others like in the first Avengers. That's why, to me, Stark is such a likeable character even if he does act kind of full of himself at times.

Literally all of these are a perfect description of James, the main character in Onision's pathetic excuse of a book, "Stones to Abbigale"

To me characters don't necessarily need to be liked or disliked perse but they at least should be understood. However, things can be complicated because l can like a character's role in the story and how they impact the plot but l can hate them as a person like if they were a real person and did in real life what they do in the story. For example, I like Joker's character in the story but l hate him as a real person. There's also good and bad qualities that can complicate things. Like, maybe the hero of the story makes a horrible mistake or the villain of the story does a good thing.

"Some of you are entitled to the wrong opinion that this isn't a crime." - I laughed out loud at this. Your deadpan delivery of that line was great. On the actual topic of the video, I think the most frustrating characters for me are definitely those who fit into the third category: selfish people getting all the good things because they're the protagonist. Or worse, because they're *popular* and the writers want to capitalise on that. There's a particular character in the Dragon Age franchise who was written in the last game as though they had undergone this huge amount of character growth. The trouble was that most of that "growth" seemed to take place offscreen, and they continued to espouse a lot of the same problematic views that they had shown in the previous games, just with a little more subtlety.

4:32 Counterpoint: Fluttershy from FiM. While many fans were annoyed that "character who's shy and easily scared has to find ways to be brave and stand up for herself" was used over and over again for the whole show (just with different framing), it's even pointed out in-universe that no one ever learns a lesson once and completely changes as a person, especially over something very ingrained to their personality. I personally think it can work well.

"Selfish characters being unfairly rewarded." Ugh . . . Borderlands 3.

This whole video literally just dissects the problems with Family Guy's characters

3:35-3:51 A character that did absolutely nothing: "The president's safe. I...I did it. I saved him."

Thank you for making this, man. I'm working on a webtoon so having the verification that I'm doing character creation right helps massively.

“It looks like it was drawn in 4 seconds blindfolded” has me absolutely dead Tysm for these videos. I just found your channel, and I’m taking notes. Thank you so much.

Parents can't stand Caillou, that fictional character is the definition of a disobedient kid. A honest mistake of Canada, don't worry Canadians we still love you guys.😎

“A character that seems to go through the same arc over and over” *Barry Allen flashbacks intensify*

As a kid, my character archetype pet-peeve was the "the little sister," especially if she had some kind of supernatural gift. Take for example Haley in American Dragon. Francine in Lloyd in Space. DD from Dexter's Lab. D.W. from Arthur. The list goes on and on and on. They're just so 'perfect,' don't struggle with anything, are usually unchanging, and, (again especially if they have some innate talent or supernatural gift, which they usually do) feel unjustly rewarded. All while making life unnecessarily difficult for their brother, whom is not allowed to retaliate in any way because "she's a sweet innocent girl and your sister, be nice to her." Absolutely drove me nuts as a kid, hated it, made some episodes of some shows unwatchable for me. Because there is usually an episode which address this dynamic head-on, and the sister will in the end show some semblance of remorse for their behaviour, but in the very next episode they'll be back at it again. Not to mention that even though the show acknowledges the bratty behaviour, it's still framed as acceptable because "she's a sweet innocent girl." Meanwhile the one example of "the little sister" that I did enjoy as a kid was Megan from Drake and Josh. Entirely because the show never tries to frame Megan as if she is redeemable or justified for just being a younger girl to the protagonists. She was comically malevolent, and the writers seemed to understand that was the point.

This reminds me of Ben 10. Ben started out as a 10 year old kid who was flawed in many ways, and who wasn’t really ready to be the hero of the world, but needed to save the world anyway. He had his moments in the classic series, but when he had his character arc moments, god damnit he had his moments. Whenever Ben does something so selfless even to the people he dislikes, it shows me how good of a character Ben was. Alien Force (the second ben 10 show) had ben as a 15 year old, who was much less flawed. He was wiser, less cocky, and overall more responsible. This was so satisfying, almost like seeing your own child go from a delinquent, to a vigilante. Except, by season 3 of Alien Force, ben was back to his antics. The reason people liked it in the classic series is because Ben was a child, a 10 year old, and even then you could see him develop. Once you saw him develop, and then just, go back, it sucks. In Ultimate Alien he went through the arc again, and whoops, he got immature by Omniverse again, having to get more mature again. Every iteration of Ben (especially from Omniverse) had huge moments of character development, but it stings when the development is something we already saw before.

Non-character arc or flat/static character stories can be great as long as there are no plotholes and the main character gets enough amount of stakes or the character can't win so easily.