Get a full month of MUBI FOR FREE: mubi.com/thetake (With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union) Support The Take on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thetake Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!
The reason Skyler is so hated is because she is such a passive character whereas Wendy Byrd is very active. Audiences generally dislike characters who are passive.
Ireally need and want you guys to put the list of series and movies used in each episode, some movies and shows are not accasible in my country so I would like ti be able to search to stream and watch them
Characters that exist in that gray area are naturally more interesting because no real life person is all good or bad. Even though we don't always like what they do, we like that they make the fictional world seem real. That's my theory anyway.
We don't always like what they do, but we relate to it. Because we've all done shitty things, but there can be shame in admitting your sins. We enjoy watching these characters because they show us we're not alone. At the same time, they help us see what we should have done. They do what characters in stories are supposed to do: which is help us see the right path.
Sonia C.D. I wouldn’t call her a protagonist or an antihero, she is a main character so antagonist is the word. Protagonist means you are the good guy, antihero have different morals standards with the heroes meanwhile does not have the same goal with the heroes (Cersei is a player, she wanna win). An antihero in GoT would be The Hound or Jaime.
@@JohnDoe-um8td The thing is, an anti-hero is THE HERO of the story, we just call him/her anti-hero because the character is flawed and not as morally sound like the traditional hero archetype. A villain is always a key character, the yin to the hero's yang, but I disagree it can be interchangeable.
Ya I think the antihero is an apt representation of how the stress of everyday life is overwhelming the average media consumer nowadays, and the American dream and other such idealized goals are less seeked out
Natalie P No, no. There was an American Dream, more so for certain groups, and it was achievable. From the 50s to the early 70s, employment was high, college affordable, healthcare affordable, housing affordable and job hours were reasonable. And then Reagan happened. The failures of modern America and it’s stagnation is mostly rooted here. I feel like liberals don’t understand that there was an American Dream, and it only happened due to what would now be deemed socialist by modern conservatives. 90% tax on the rich under Eisenhower, infrastructure repairs after taking funds from the military from Eisenhower to LBJ, and national services to help poor Americans (LBJs Great Society). It existed, it *existed*- but we refuse to make the same moves to get back there. Always remember that, so you can shove it in the faces of modern politicians in how they failed us.
The Antihero 2.0 feels like a direct response to the Antihero's in past media. Characters like Tony Soprano and Walter White were very much allowed to get away with their bad behavior, without much scorn or consequence. So the 2.0 version encourages the audience to reflect more critically on the anti-heros behaviors by showing the damage they do in detail and pushing them to be accountable, instead of just admired. See: Bojack
Isn't it sad that the audience failed to connect the dots themselves? I think Breaking Bad gave plenty of time to the outcomes of Walt's shenanigans. Think about the aircraft collision following Jane's death where a teddy bear falls into Walter's pool - this happens in season two. By then, it should have been clear that Walt's cruelty caused the death of those people, including a child. Still, many viewers started to see Walt as the villain of the show much later, if at all.
Walter's flaws are clearly shown as early as S2 and it is very noticable if you rewatch. I also did not pay that much attention to Skyler's suffering for instance in my first watch (first two seasons, by the roof pizza it was so painfully clear I straight out hated Walt for making Sky suffer like that) because I was too focused on the actual adventure. Whole thing was like a videogame where Walt moves on segment after segment (Crazy8, Tuco, Atm Meatheads etc.) I think partly audience wanted Walt to succeed because they watched everything through his eyes and partly the pace is so fast in S2 because it wasnt a Netflix drop where we could binge entire Season overnight, it had to hook us up every week. In Better Call Saul because we know the endpoint they take their sweet time and show us every character flaws&all and its amazing!
@@red_calla_lily honestly, I had to stop watching after Jane's death. I was just so disgusted by his behavior, the damage he does to everyone around him, and how much Jesse and Skylar just don't deserve to be treated like that. I ended up watching the whole thing later in bits, but never understood how people revered him.
I mean they weren’t really allowed to get away with their bad behavior? Most people were able to recognize it too. Also, in reality, bad people don’t always get “what they deserve”.
Ummm yeah NO! Anitheros are a direct response to what current society sees as heroic. To quote OverlySarcasticProductions, in Ancient Greece Guile Heoros were Anitheros. There is no 2.0, this entire video is bullcrap pulled out of their asses.
I loved it. It would be amazing if you did non-romantic pairings that worked well on screen such as Don&Peggy, BoJack&Diane. Screenwriters should learn that not everyone has to date to make a good show.
my biggest gripe on tv. On the show Insecure, there's been 2 season-worth of tension between main character, Molly and her colleague Taurean. Still I saw comments online where are people are expecting them to shag at some stage. It completely threw me off.
I'm glad to see more women in tv as much as the next person. All we need now is a transgender antihero and we'll finally reach a new high of equality and diversity.
@Tim Evans I think that's why alot of female villains, especially from cartoons, are almost more loved than the female protagonists. Because even though they were terrible people, they were still more honestly human. I mean I hardly remember sleeping beauty's name but Maleficent has always been that bitch to me lolll
@@alienboy1322 I'm sure we will eventually but at the moment it could do more harm than good considering there is barely any representation in the first place.
@@daraghokane4236 I mean it's hard to know if a person is good and evil, but there are actions that almost everybody find unethical and Rick does some really messed up stuff in the series. Point being: if he acknowledges that evil is real, then he has to accept that evil is living within him.
I definitely agree with you. I started watching it due to boredom and soon realized what an amazingly psychological show it is. I would love to see a video from the take about this show.
@Tim Evans Yeah, I think being picked by the CW (it was originally a Showtime pilot) was simultaneously good and bad for the show. Good because, well, it allowed the show to be produced, but bad because of the image the CW has... I'm 100% sure the show would have more recognition and awards if it aired in another channel or streaming service
*Classical Anti-Heroes:* A protagonist who suffered from flaws that needed to be overcome. *Modern Anti-Heroes:* A protagonist who lacked the quality of heroism and basically a black knight who embraced the flaw rather than overcome.
I don't think that's what the video was saying. More like the classic anti-hero was a villain made to be sympathized and admired while the modern is made to be empathized with but cautionary tale
Your profile pic is a prime example of your modern anti hero description. However, I always viewed clockwork orange as a nightmare fuel where characters just exist, doing their actions and you aren't supposed to be connected to them.
I generally agree, he was a villain for the most part, but he did have a very satisfying and quick redemption arc at the very end. He really went through a lot and the way his character developed/evolved really shows it nicely.
Because they are more real and more relatable. Almost everyone has a dark side and everyone wants to find a way to survive under the shadow of other people's dark sides.
Not everyone has a dark side... I’m not saying I’ve never lied, cheated, or stolen... but none of that defines me! ... if I could do anything to help other people and the world and humanity and nature to no longer suffer... I would do do it! ... but ‘the system’ has abolished true local community, and replaced it with every man for themselves capitalism! ... makes it challenging to do any good in the world when the individual has little to no means(time/money) to offer
But Cersei is also a conflicted character. Her first and foremost desire is to protect her children, which is natural and a trade we as viewers can sympathize with. As the show goes on we learn about her upbringing, how Tywin always told his children that they are better and more worthy than anyone else. While Jamie was somewhat able to free himself from this narrative and persona (we won't talk about season 8, cause it never happened, right?), Cersei was - maybe also because she was a woman - not able to free herself. She was bad, but it was not entirely her fault. She was trapped in a loveless and abusive marriage, alone. She had only her children and also her sense of superiority. Thats what made her great and more of a "grey" character and - for me at least - somewhat of a anti-heroine.
@@lauratirier3821 Cersei does not want to protect her children as children, she only wants to portect them as extensions of her power. Cersei is a narcissist, she thinks of nobody else than herself. Her upbring by Tywin is certainly a big part in how she became one, and we can sympathise with that upbringing, but just as the cancer diagnosis is a explanation for why Walter White sets down the path he does, it does not justify the actions by the end. Cersei and Jaime is interesting because she is the villain and he is the anti hero. Their situation is not often explored in fiction, he probably was more exposed to relationships that where not abusive, because of his knight training, than she was confined to the household, so when he gets an opportunity to change he tries, while she goes straight down the path of villanhood because she thinks that is how things are supposed to be. I also find it very true that Jamie goes back to her, it may not be what we wish for him, but in real life we so often ask ourselves why the victim goes back to the abuser, and here we see it portrayed in fiction in a way that echoes that.
@@lauratirier3821 I see where you're coming from but like the other person who replied to you said - she really doesn't give a shit about her kids, actually. They're tools for her to exploit. I understand that the show made some liberties to portray her as "a caring mother" but I think that did a disservice to her character, and while she's an abuse victim, she's also an abusive monster and bullies others, simply because she can. We're meant to understand where she comes from but she is, within the narrative of the story, a primary villain, comparable to Ramsay. I fully believe that they took that "boo hoo my babies" approach simply because she's a female character, and the idea of having an uncaring mother on screen who isn't immediately punished for that is unthinkable in mainstream media. Her motherhood is more of a byproduct of being female, not something she particularly cares about beyond what she can use it for - i.e: controling the throne as Queen Regent while her child is young. That being said, your interpretation is perfectly valid, especially given that the show had a LOT of inconsistencies.
Rebecca Bunch is one of the few antiheroes I genuinely care about. Yeah she’s a bad friend who stalks her ex-boyfriend, makes horrible decisions, and is extremely self-absorbed but she is also completely miserable and self-destructive. The more bad things she does, the more messed up her life is. On the more good things she does in her life ( like receiving help, working at friendship, holding herself accountable for her actions, and actually putting in the work to be a better person) the better her reality is. It’s almost as if being a good person and loving who you are can lead to good results! No one’s perfect and life can be the worst, but there’s no excuse for actively destroying someone else’s life because you’re sad about yours.
Tariq Thomas Yeah, one of the things I love about the show is that it’s about an anti heroine getting better. In many of the shows mentioned here, the anti hero’s arc was about their downward spiral to becoming worse, like Walter White. Rebecca got help and worked on herself and we could see the good it brought her, potentially inspiring others to do the same
Yes! Crazy ex girlfriend is such a smart show. Another thing I love is the character of Trent, which as a reflection of Rebecca we aren’t emotionally invested in, reminds us how messed up Rebecca truly is. However, while Rebecca realizes her flaws and goes on to improve herself, Trent remains stagnant, which make for a great parallel and show how much she has grown.
Too bad the majority don't understand this message and glorifies this anti heroes. Just like the ones who think Rick Sanchez is awesome. The guy doesn't even like himself, for christ sake.
I fear many people identify with him. They have all his flaws and they really don't like themselves, either. It makes them feel represented and understood.
Yeah, I love that show but after season 1 I basically just watched it with the view that everyone in it is just a terrible person. Morty, Summer, Beth, Jerry, and obviously Rick. There's not much character drama in that show that I find interesting, because once a person literally genocides two entire universes, they're basically beyond any redemption. So instead, I watch it for the absurd scenarios and the comedy.
another change ive noticed in this trope is that the antiheros have become more prominent in comedy. like in arrested development, schitt's creek, fleabag, broad city, bad moms, its always sunny in philadelphia etc. also usually this trope sort of crosses over with the bad mom trope. maybe something to think about...
@@JohnDoe-xf8ew On the channel Be Kind Rewind, they did an excellent look at this in their 'Oscars So White pt 2' feature - I'd love to see The Take do an analysis on 'The Exotic Foreign Woman' in general
@Tim Evans African women and other indigenous are fetishized BECAUSE of the rooted racism. The Take did a video on the Black woman trope and how black women are sexualized and fetishized because they are viewed as sub-human, or not as human as white people BECAUSE of racism and other damaging social structures.
@Tim Evans That's the wrong concept for this trope. You're thinking of mixed children that are exotic for being half of something that isn't white but familiar enough from being mixed with white. Asian fetish stems from a misinterpretation in the media based off ignorant assumptions from the past and fantasy.
I actually prefer moral ambiguity. If anything people should do think pieces on the environment, and institutions that force people to be pragmatic anti heroes/anti villains out of necessity. Cause it's not all necessarily about good guys vs bad guys. But enablers and deifyers, or ideals vs ideals.
I like it when people have to make tough decisions and live with the consequences, but I do agree that it's the easy way out to declare that there's never a right way...
@@edi9892 But that's the thing, the first batch of anti-heroes did have to live with consequences like alienating people and lost relationships (see how House's version of a happy ending was breaking up with Cuddy because it wasn't working and faking his death to stay with Wilson who now had cancer, he'd wind up alone very soon when Wilson dies). It's just that the narrative doesn't stand on a moral pedestal and judge constantly the same way a classic good versus evil tale does. There is a place for more consequences while still showing moral ambiguity.
@Blackdragon I think you can embrace moral ambiguity without disregarding objective morality which is different from absolute morality. I think it's good that the culture is restoring some sense of right and wrong. However, I don't think it's good idea to regress into rigid black and white morality that's absolute. Because to do otherwise proves that we are becoming less sophisticated as opposed the other way around.
Agreed. Real people are hardly ever inherently good or bad because a moral compass varies between each person. I’ve never met a real person who embodies one of these idealized characters that falls on either end of the moral spectrum
You guys should ABSOLUTELY make videos on the show Lucifer. It’s right up your alley and provides a TON of fascinating multi-layered characters practically begging for exploration like this.
@@briannalee1998 Because we all knew the ending would be self-acceptance and commitment to recovery, they could have done anything. I don't know why they went the love rectangle way. I often told people that Rebecca Bunch was my Walter White. They didn't understand what I meant.
I also loved CXGF but the last season was horrid. It has rendered Greg, Josh, Nathaniel's character progress for the sake of Rebecca's development. Even Rebecca only rejecting Nathaniel would be enough for the self acceptance part imho
Regardless of the content of season 4, it still had some real bangers (no idea how many times I've listened to Don't Be a Lawyer). And I've gotta respect that.
I think the show is overlooked since it was running at the same time as mad men. I also suspect a lot of people think of it sort of as a run of the mill hospital drama, even thought it is not, because the stakes are more mundane than in some of the other shows talked about here.
I was confused about their statement on him as well. From very early on in the show, it was obvious he was just a bad guy willing to do anything to get what he wanted with no remorse or guilt. He straight up murdered a woman because she had dirt on him. That's not anti-hero, just villain.
Yeah, his character is based largely on Richard III (this feels more obvious in the original BBC House of Cards), whom Shakespeare depicted very unambiguously as a villain, because these simplistic binary "good guys VS bad guys" rules didn't exist yet.
Yes! My best friend said he hated when girls would call him their “gay best friend” instead of just “best friend”. As if they had best friends and he was a different category
This video really made me think. The fact that we no longer assume an anti-hero will improve shows a society that has pulled back all the curtains on our leaders or perhaps a society with little hope. Where it’s not about change but burning the forest down so it can regrow. Thanks for this.
She's an anti-hero from the beggining, her goals are selfish and get people killed. It's just that Villanelle is so unapologetically evil it makes Eve to look like an angel in comparison.
@@basicindiebro Yeah and in the first episode she calls Villanelle killed a guy genius. It's like she's an anti-hero and Villanelle is simply a villain, they let the villain set the moral tone.
@@killbillgoodfellas Really? This season 3's softening the Villanelle character to make her more humane, turning her into a tragic Anti-Heroine. Even to the point where she's sparing the lives of targets and hesitating in carrying out hits.
I may just be wrong, but I think most people don't actually glorify these characters. I know Bojack the best, as Bojack Horseman is the only show on the list I've seen repeatedly outside of sex and the city, and I love him. I don't think he is a good person, nor am I intersted in meeting him in real life, but I love him in the show because I can relate, as someone who always feels like nothing works as well as I hope/expect them to. I think Bojack should have committed suicide in the end of the show. I think a view from a half way down could have been slightly altered to become the finale. The reason why I didn't love the ending is because we have no idea what he does with his life after this. His best friend moved on, he was arrested and was demonised in the media. Mr. Peanutbutter is the only one he has left. What would his life be like with that?
@@fhasgw2398 If bojack killed himself it would have sent the wrong message. That you can't turn your life around around. Maybe even glorify suicide. Bojack probably worked on improving his life after that.
Well I see your point, but at least now you can see a lot about the person in front of you from the anti-heros they glorify(especially if it gets to the point of outright glorification). That's not something you could easily do with the classic, "black and white" morality movies unless you get in really deep and nuanced conversations about them, which is smth many people don't do, especially for something so obvious as a movie with a hero and a bad guy,the hero's best friend and a plot twist etc. you know what I mean 🌞🌞
The Philbert scene where diane goes full meta on the antihero genre is my favorite of the whole show, she simultaneously cautions the viewer and gives bojack a real arguement as to why he shouldn't just accept who he is
Please do Barry!! The third season will probably add more dimension whenever it comes out but so far it really fits with the antihero 2.0 with both Barry and Sally
"A guy opens his door and gets shot and you think that of me? No, I am the one who knocks!" - WALTER WHITE That quote still gives me shivers down my spine to this day!
no, he was based on a real person. One of the things that annoys me most about The Wire fans is that they think it's fiction. The scary thing about The Wire, is that it isn't.
I kinda feel that way too. I actually think Breaking Bad and Mad Men DID go out of their way to emphasize the fact that Don Draper and Walter White were not aspirational people and spent a lot of time portraying the damage they do to those around them in pretty stark and uncomfortable detail. Both show creators have also come out and expressed surprise that there were so many fans who still found them to be aspirational role models or heroes in any way. I think a bigger difference, at least in these two cases (haven't seen Sopranos or others so can't speak for the rest), isn't so much that they are more glorified by the writers of the shows themselves, but rather that audiences in recent years are more willing to be critical and put more emphasis on their flaws and toxicity than they did when the shows originally came out.
Antiheroes 2.0 are tuned for dumb people that have to be told that the protagonist is not a good guy, of course shows like Breaking Bad were immensely superior.
Just saw Fleabag not too long ago. It’s one of the saddest and funniest shows I think I’ve ever seen. If you enjoy terribly dark humor and understand people are very flawed (I can see how some might be “turned off” by the protagonist because she’s so forward/taboo) then you’ll really enjoy the show. Highly recommend!
If you liked Fleabag, I think you'd also enjoy Crazy Ex Girlfriend, another show with a flawed female protagonist mentioned in this video. I iove both shows and I think both have a lot in common
“Of course I have regrets, Senator. I regret losing my family. My wife was murdered because I was responsible for protecting David Palmer during an assassination attempt. My daughter can't even look at me. Every day I regret looking into the eyes of men, women and children knowing that any moment their lives might be deemed expendable in an effort to protect the greater good. I regret every decision or mistake that I might have made which resulted in the loss of a single innocent life. But do you know what I regret the most? Is that this world needs people like me.” - Jack Bauer
Very interesting video the Take, even Chloe (Kristen Ritter) from the show "Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23" which although it came out before these aforementioned shows listed in the video (the ones that are under the Antihero 2.0) seems to fall into this category to a degree. However, Chloe's actions in each episode of the show differ from the other Antihero's actions we've seen under the 1.0 and 2.0 category respectively, because even if her actions do get her and/or her best friend, June into trouble in certain episodes cause she's a Con Artist and a party animal, she does mean well and shows a genuine soft spot to June and Janes Van der Beek.
I think Ladybird is an amazing Anti-heroin. There are times when I really disliked but related to her so much. She has so many imperfections... But you still love her character because it really hits home.
They repeatedly made it very clear that he is not an admirable character. Expecting characters to be held account for all their actions would actually hurt storytelling in my opinion. The real world doesn't work like that, why should stories? Viewers should be able to realize by themselves that characters like Rick or Walter White shouldn't be idolized.
I don’t believe Rick is necessarily “glorified.” Yeah, it would be cool to have a portal gun and see a lot of cool places, but he’s emotionally estranged from his family, and refuses to come to terms with it (think Pickle Rick). Just because he isn’t held to account for his actions doesn’t mean he’s glorified.
Honestly, Rick getting his way most of the time generally at the cost of Morty makes it even more disturbing for me and obvious that he shouldn't be admired.
This happens in real life a lot tho, especially with grandpas for some reason.... I do think he doesn’t get any consequences bc all the episodes are different universe/realities, that’s like the whole point
I´m probably missing something but I cannot see Fleabag as an antihero. Sure, we all know she made a big ass mistake but I think the viewer is supposed to sympathize with her (with all the flashbacks regarding Boo and her mother´s funeral, and the conversation in the confessional). Also throughtout the second season, she really tries to be a good person, and she does fall in love and gets her heart broken.
Love seeing Crazy Ex-Girlfried on your video! It's such an underrated show. Its title puts some people off, also the fact that it's a musical, but it's so clever and creative, unlike anything I've ever seen on tv. The title is ironic; the situation is a lot more nuanced than that ;)
I think another important thing to consider is how recent the antihero 1.0 was a celebrated phenomenon. White men being praised for their bad behavior and mistreatment if others in mass media isn’t a thing of the past which is something we can’t afford to forget if we want to we meaningful change.
I like this book very much, though I haven't yet gone into the final third, which everyone says is the worst part, along with the ending. I would recommend it to Hunger Games fans - it's gripping, suspenseful, and very enjoyable. If you like Suzanne Collins' writing style, this will be a good read. Not to say that there aren't any problems. This book will no doubt be very polarizing with the fans, because it has its faults. The pacing is really bad - the story goes at a slow pace, then abruptly something big and shocking happens, but then it's over really fast and the story goes back to a slow pace. As a worldbuilding piece, it's very good. The valley song appears in full on the page - the song Peeta remembers Katniss singing on the first day of school, at the age of five. We get the Panem national anthem and we witness the story that inspired "The Hanging Tree", the song Katniss sings in Mockingjay. It's confirmed that Panem's currency is the dollar, and poker is briefly mentioned, tying the world a little more to our own. To say there are some big surprises in the book would be an understatement. I read it with a permanent expression of shock stuck to my face. I wish someone had warned me - the Capitol is not yet the Capitol and the Games are not yet the Games. There are differences like you wouldn't believe. The world is far from being what we saw through Katniss' eyes. We get a lot of flashbacks to the Dark Days. Surprisingly, the Capitol went through some pretty hard times, which explains the vicious retaliation against the districts and the Games. Not that the districts weren't justified in rebelling, already suffering from abject poverty and the strain of living under tyranny, but you understand why the Capitol came back with a vengeance and cracked down twice as hard when you see what the war unleashed inside the city. The Games are still new, underdeveloped, unpolished, primitive, and unpopular. It's extremely fascinating to watch the Games evolve, with a lot of brainstorming, as Snow, intentionally and unintentionally, contributes immensely to putting the Games on the road to becoming a cultural phenomenon. The gaudiness, body alterations, and foolish excess don't yet exist in the Capitol, but you won't enjoy the book much unless you can savor watching these snooty, arrogant elite kids flaunt their wealth, talk at length about the grandeur and prestige of their noble families and sneer at the less fortunate. You learn more about Coriolanus' friends and classmates than you do about the tributes. The 10th Hunger Games are fine, very gripping, but still, be mindful that they are shown from an outside perspective, like Haymitch's Games, so if the Games themselves and the human drama inside the arena attract you more, you might be disappointed. The action mostly takes place outside the arena, so if you didn't like Mockingjay, you won't like this much better. As a villain origin story, you might like it or you might not; opinions, I think, are going to be split in the general fanbase. Maybe you won't enjoy Snow, but I did. The book follows Snow's slow descent/ascent to the villain we all know. He doesn't start out as an okay guy - he's self-serving, ambitious, proud, haughty, bitter, and somewhat lacking in empathy - but he's not written to be all twisted and bad either, you can sympathize with him in a limited way, understand how his environment shaped him, why he's got such high self-esteem and why he needs to feel superior to others. He's more of a Walt than a Marty, if we're talking antiheros like the video.
This reminds me of the latest version of 'Emma'. Anya Taylor Joy's version of Emma is allowed to be seen as much more unlikable than previous iterations, more similarly to the way Emma is in the book version.
Oh god how I would LOVE to see some Crazy Ex Girlfriend videos on this channel, speaking of it in such videos is great and all but SPECIFIC VIDEOS ON THE SHOW PLEASE also on another note I kinda find it criminal to not include Better Call Saul in the list of TV shows with "anti heroes 2.0", the way characters like Jimmy and Kim are handled are such an improvement over Walt and Skylar from Breaking Bad in every way
Jimmy feels like a direct answer to Walter, who is a fantastic character that convinced far too many people that he wasn't the bad guy. Most viewers who watch BCS become acutely aware of the fact that it's extremely hard to cheer for Jimmy.
I would have agreed about Breaking Bad, but Walt's arrogance is baked in from season 1. We meet Gretchen and Eliot, and Walt's refusal of their financial help really pokes a hole in the idea that Walt has been as saintly as he wants people to believe. And that pays off much later, when we find out that Walt could have still been a part of Gray Matter, but because of his own arrogance, chose a buyout rather than stay a part of the company that he believed in. But Walt let his pride guide all of his decision-making. The great trick of Breaking Bad is that Walter has always been a prideful, resentful person. Cooking meth and cancer is just a reason for him to do what he always wanted to do. That's why the opening speech of the show is so important, because what happens to Walt is akin to a chemical reaction. All of the ingredients to create Heisenberg were already present. They just needed the right catalyst.
Antihero 2.0 stories also all tend to show the story from other characters’s perspectives...more than just a couple scenes here and there. Like Wendy is straight up a co-protagonist with Marty by season 2 of Ozark...whereas Skylar only got a few scenes that made her out to just be a helpless victim of Walt’s, without showing what caused her to make the choices she made.
This is why Brenda Walsh was such an atypical character not only for the time but for the show. She was never conceived as being what she became, but she was so flawed and always searching (and yelled at/derided by many male characters for it) while Kelly Taylor became this 'societal surrogate' for the 'perfect woman' who never suffered consequences for her atrocious behaviour and at whose altar everyone worshipped (except for Valerie, a glorious anti-villain).
This makes me all the more angry that Netflix CANCELLED Bojack Horseman, because we could've seen 1-2 seasons more of development and consequences with the real natural ending of the story, if they had let the creator finish it on is own time. Can't believe they had to beg Netflix to even make an ending to such an acclaimed show. I'll never forgive them for it.
I enjoyed this, but I wish you hadn't used the term anti-hero when half of the people you mention, especially the 2.0 ones, are actually dark protagonists, not anti-heroes.
do you understand what you just said? please define both of those terms 'cause you are just confusing people. The video was right to call them Anti-heroes - 'cause they are! Anti-heroes can be protagonists. A protagonist isn't always a goody-two-shoes. Even a villain is a protagonist if you write from their perspective. A villain =/= anti-hero.
@@arnaeri9290 They're not! The trope anti-hero actually means a dark hero. They always fight for the good cause, but in more vile ways then the actual good guys. How is Rick from Rick&Morty an anti-hero? He literally uses his grandchild to smuggle drugs in the bloody first episode! The only times he actually saves the day is if it benefits Rick or the people he cares about. He doesn't actually gives a damn about doing the right thing for humanity. He literally created and enslaved an entire universe. Bojack Horseman is not an anti-hero. The show is about real life struggles, including mental illnesss. Whilst that is heroic, he is not fighting for some good cause in general. Anti-heroes are mostly found in adventure or crime, etc because like anti-heroes suggests, these characters are heroes. Which is where the dark protagonist comes from. These protagonists aren't goody two shoes, that is correct. However, they are not heroes either.
@@inferiorinferno8859 yeah no. go look up what an anti-hero is. I literally did that before writing the first comment. The 'anti' in anti-hero is there for a reason. They are NOT your hero. Even if they are the protagonist s/he is not a good person. The writer makes it clear that whatever they do doesn't come from some noble sense of justice or whatever, 'cause that would be a hero. An anti-hero happens to do a good thing though that wasn't his intention. He does what he wants to do, he is selfish, egotistical, whatever. He is NOT good, he is NOT a hero. He might be perceived as one, but he is NOT. The "dark" protagonist you're using sounds to me like a "nuanced" protagonist which you find everywhere outside pg13 shows. Also, it's not an actual term, just a way to describe your MC. Anti-hero isn't a trope, it's a classification. An anti-hero deals with morality and can be a commentary on any social topic. Anti-heroes don't fight for any cause but their own. They are written specifically to not identify as a hero BUT they are not villains. This was said in the video, I don't need to repeat this. BH and Rick can be classified as anti-heroes as well as anything else that fits the criteria.
@@idil4657 Anti-hero is someone who is not a hero but opposes the villain or works with the hero because circumstance forces them to. not to be confused with the reluctant hero has always been a hero but doesn't want to be. the question is never what side they will choose but if and/or when they will act.
It’s a bit strange hearing that the show discourage the audience from identifying with the hero, while showing pictures of Bojack. The beginning of the show was one of the most relatable shit I’ve ever saw. It’s just that it doesn’t treat Bojack as a role model you’re supposed to aspire to be or “find comfort in”. To me “idolizing” and “identifying with” don’t have to go hand in hand, and therefore “critical” doesn’t mean “distance”. A storyline mirroring the relation some fans have with the show doesn’t sound like “distance”. Maybe I understand the word “identify with” wrong? To me it means “see yourself in a character”. Seeing yourself in Bojack is not supposed to be pleasant, but I don’t think it means the show didn’t meant for you to see yourself in him. It just wanted you to not like or be proud of what you saw.
I see myself in him and definitely not the good parts. I guess that was why i wanted him to get better and have a happy ending, to give myself some hope of betterment.
We 👏 need 👏 your 👏 take on 👏 *Fleabag* 👏 *ALONE* 👏 and how breaking the 4th wall created an unique intimacy with the audience!!! (using PWB in the picture was a major *clickbait* 👎👎👎... Not the first time in this channel tho, I should know 🙄🙄🙄)
I’m pretty sure that this situation is related to what is going on in the world today. The characters described feel disenfranchised from mainstream life and if you can’t be famous, be infamous! If being good hasn’t worked be good at being bad.
Awesome video, I loved this essay. I feel that even when the antihero 2.0 is brought down a peg, shown to be miserable and lonely (Rick) or selfish and depressed (Bojack), it can still make him admirable--because it makes him humble. The fan who aspires to be like the gritty, lonewolf, plays-by-his-own-rules genius antihero, when he sees his favourite character brought down, is given further traits to admire in him: humility, self-reflection. When we see that Bojack, the rich, carefree womanizer, is actually self-loathing and miserable as a result of his actions? That lends him more depth. I feel that a fan who relates to Rick Sanchez already sees herself as "up against it", the misunderstood genius shunned by society--so when Rick is revealed to actually be suicidally depressed, rather than taking that as a message to change her ways, the fan will take that to show that such is just another trait that comes "with the territory" of being an antihero in her own story. I think that even when we are shown that Carrie Bradshaw and Don Draper are miserable as a result of their OWN terrible decisions, we can still twist it to make it not their fault: it's the society that moulded them INTO an antihero. Rick isn't miserable because he pushes his loved ones away, but because the world can't accept HIS genius. Your video's final sentiment is very true: we are interested in characters not necessarily because we want to emulate them, but it also takes A LOT to turn us OFF of the antihero...
I think Vanessa Ives was a survivor. She didn’t relish in evil, she was born, raised, surrounded and attracted to, but she just wanted a normal life away from it. The normal and paranormal world always wronged her.
I personally like the moral ambiguity of the classical antihero story, as examplified by Walt in Breaking Bad. The fact that he does bad things, and the show actually displays the effects it has on his family, but at the same time presents to us a man who lives and eventually dies on his own terms. He is arguably responsible for the horrors that his co-protagonist Jesse had to live through, but without him, Jesse may also have become another nameless, lost Meth addict. What makes Walt's circumstances so important is the fact that he DOESN'T feel like the type of guy who would become what he becomes, unlike Marty Byrde. Sure, he is unreasonably proud, but that may stem from the fact that he is a genius and life hasn't been good to him regardless of this fact. The show portraits someone who gets into the life of crime through a situation that seems hopeless to him. But unlike movies or shows that portray this life to be undeniably negative, Walt, a previously "morally good" character... realises that he likes it. That it is the thing he is good at. This irritates many viewers, because they are suddenly not following the actions of a good character with flaws, but more and more those of a character who is, or should be, just a bad person. Yet many find themselves still rooting for him in a way. The viewer feels unsure whether to side with Walt or despise him. And that makes the show great in my opinion. One could go so far as to argue that the bad guy wins. But he is one damn good bad guy.
One thing that sets Jimmy Mcnulty apart from Walter, Tony, and Don is that he remains the underdog throughout the entire series. Although he's constantly breaking the rules and fighting authority figures, he almost never gets rewarded for it and ends the show getting ousted from the police force altogether, having barely made a dent in the system.
Sorry but I think there is a distinction from a morally indifferent protagonist and a true anti-hero. An anti-hero is someone who does all the wrong things for all of the right reasons. Al la the Punisher.
Marty is doing bad things to keep his family safe. Anti-hero. Most of these protagonists do bad horrible things to keep someone or themselves safe. Anti-hero.
@@Cunnysmythe No, he's describing the way anti-heroes appeared in comic books before they became ubiquitous on TV. Comic books had a long history of anti-heroes starting in the early 80's like Judge Dredd, John Constantine, The Punisher and Spawn. All of them performed unequivocally good deeds, but not due to good intentions or laudable character. To a tee they harbored regrets, failed to rid themselves of vices, fell to temptation and were forced to choose moral compromises to salvage the best possible outcomes. Not all anti-heroes bothered to try being morally righteous. The protagonist from _Notes from Undergound_ was one of the earliest examples of the trope.
@@chodori2041 I think we're in agreement - antiheroes do the right things for the wrong reasons. Anti-villains do villainous things with virtuous motivations, like Two-face in The Dark Knight shooting people in the face on a coin toss because chance is a fair and unbiased judge
By definition it’s someone who lacks conventional heroic attributes, so it can be seen as either way to be honest. I prefer to see it as someone who has alternative persuasive techniques.
I love antiheroes in film and tv they are often such complex characters! Could you do a video trope on bad/dark characters who often lead the main characters astray!
sharique They were both horrible individuals honestly. I know that I call them anti-heroes but the argument could easily be made that they’re both the villains of the story.
sonicleaves Her and Elena are both the fucking worst. The reveal that Mia came from a loving middle class background and didn’t really struggle at all made that character even more odious.
I can tell 3 minutes in that you're calling protagonist villains anti-heroes inaccurately. Anti-heroes are, most simply "good guys but with non-heroic traits." Like cowards, or liars, or etc. They're still on what the story considers to be the "good" side. Most of these examples, at least from the 1.0 examples, are just villains whose stories we're following. There's a HUGE difference. And while we can discuss how the term anti-hero is being muddled by more recent trends toward there not BEING clear "good" and "bad" sides, it still doesn't just mean "bad person protag."
Hear hear! I also wonder bar the Hays Code when it was suggested that protagonists had to be highly moral? The worst type of protagonists are the fishbowl version of the audience insert who just watches their world and doesn't participate.
You may be taking the word 'hero' in this context too literally. An anti-hero does not have to be a 'good guy'. It doesn't mean 'a hero but with some non-heroic traits'. It's a bit of a misnomer. Dictionary definition: "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." An anti-hero is #1 A central character in a story and #2 lacks heroic attributes. That's it. It's easy to confuse, in the same way that it's easy to confuse a 'protagonist' as always being a 'good guy' because 'most' of the time they 'are' the good guy and, after all, they do have the word 'pro' in their name and the 'antagonist' is almost always the 'bad' guy and they have 'ant-' in their name, but when you actually sit down and check twice, a protagonist is 'just' a 'leading or major character in a story' that can be good, bad, or anything in between. These are more meta-terms than you've got in mind here.
I can imagine something like this . A middle class wife would could not bear any child and it is her goal and fulfillment goes out of her own way doing the extreme. Due to her criminal past, she is not able to adopt a child even if she changes her way for the better. She would go to kidnap someone's child from a abusive traumatizing family to raise as own child with care and kindness. The child grows up to be a famous medical researcher instead of passing away from childhood from a broken down abusive family. The step mother knows she will never be able to redeem herself for her action but we as the viewer are conflicted because of the value of her actions. So much grey area. Both characters gained fulfillment and value, but it is also seem as criminalized.
This depends on whether people think going against the law = bad or if they feel if the law is unjust and if justice can come from breaking the law then its not wrong to break it. I feel we are moving away from the being on the right side of the law means your good morality. The context of your example makes the mom seem like a 1.0 antihero. Yes kidnapping a child is illegal and she is technically a criminal for this but she did give that child a better life and the child was going to most likely be taken by CS and put in a foster home.
I don’t care what you say, Rebecca Bunch, Bojack and Don Draper are not on the same level as the Walter Whites, Dexters and Tony Sopranos of the world. They may do some bad things but it isn’t intentional. Sure, they definitely need mental help because they are suffering from past trauma and don’t yet know how to overcome it. They don’t need to be painted as an antihero on par with murderers because they hurt some people’s feelings. Their story arches are ones of redemption for overcoming their childhood trauma that caused them to accidentally hurt those they love. But they still have a moral code. They understand the unintentional harm they are causing and seek to change. Whereas the other guys get off on inflicting pain on others. The murderers rarely ever feel any sort of remorse for their actions. They are two totally different types of characters.
Lol. Right?!? The guy literally saves lives all the time but he’s a massive narcissist and embraces it. I don’t care if my dr is the biggest a**hole in the world.... if he’s that brilliant I’ll take it!
