Good=boring? I don't think so.

[TheFeniX]

While I've not seen all the classic Doctors. I think that's an exaggeration. He's a hero... with varying amounts of grumpiness and snark.

In the very beginning he was very much intended to be an anti-hero, until a human showed him he was wrong.

Of course, the Doctor might be the ultimate example of how a hero isn't automatically a good person.

I think Greek heroes beat him to the punch by a few thousand years. The Doctor does some pretty shitty things (like leaving Harkness to rot), but he's got a pretty good handle on the long game. He's seen a lot of people die, knows sacrifices have to be made, but tries to avoid them whenever possible. Anti-hero doesn't really fit. Maybe "PTSD hero" at the start of the revival. Though I admit, I don't know anything about pre-Eccleston Dr. Who.

Meanwhile, Greek heroes were almost defined by being selfish jackasses, but having the power/skill to get their way. Fable (Video Game) borrowed from this and I thought it was a pretty neat idea... for whatever the game was worth. Might apply if the Doctor just stepped on anyone who pissed him off: but he falls over himself to give even the most evil McBadguy 2nd, 3rd, and 50th chances.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Doctor's characterization under Steven Moffat seems to lean towards "bad guy/lunatic trying to do the right thing." I have my misgivings with it personally, but its their.

[Elheru Aran]

Good characters become interesting by the choices they make, less than any inherent goodness or lack thereof. If they're good, their choices will show that, but the nature of those choices will make things more interesting. Like the ending of Wrath of Khan-- Spock could've let the Enterprise get eaten by the Genesis Wave, but he decided to sacrifice himself. That then motivates Kirk in STIII to go find him. I don't know, does that make sense?

[biostem]

I think a lot of this comes from "good guys" having to be re-active, when it comes to their deeds. There needs to be some situation or dilemma in order for their goodness to come into play. If there isn't someone in danger or in need of help, then they're basically just there.

Someone who is a bit of an a-hole, or otherwise flawed, yet does the right thing when needed, can be much more interesting.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think a lot of this comes from "good guys" having to be re-active, when it comes to their deeds. There needs to be some situation or dilemma in order for their goodness to come into play. If there isn't someone in danger or in need of help, then they're basically just there.

Someone who is a bit of an a-hole, or otherwise flawed, yet does the right thing when needed, can be much more interesting.

I don't get this idea that good guys have to be reactive.

Why can't a good guy take the initiative to try to make the world a better place? Sure, maybe its "reacting" to an existing problem, but generally villains, too, are reacting to something, weather its a desire for greater power than they have, some cause that they feel justifies their evil, revenge for a perceived wrong, or something else.

[Vendetta]

Good is not boring per se.

What is boring however is an absolute good person with no flaws whatsoever and being just better....because he is. Superman is a good example of that. I utterly find him a boring character. This also oftentimes hinders the performances of actors - if you give an actor nothing to work with re: character background performances tend to be bland and uninspiring.

People often misunderstand what "flaws" mean in dramatic presentation of a character.

A flaw in a dramatic character is not related to the character's morals or personal behaviour. A flaw in a character is when the character wants one thing, needs a different thing, and the want and the need are in opposition to each other.

Superman is not a "flawless" character, he wants to just live as Clark Kent, to just be a person who people value for who he is, but because of the circumstances of his world and his ability to respond to those because of his power, he also needs to be Superman. (You'll never see that more clearly than in Superman 2, but it's also the heart of stories like Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow and For the Man Who Has Everything)

The drama in the character comes from that tension of wanting to be a person despite being fundamentally seperated from everyone he knows by his origin and powers. He's the last son of a dead world, there is approximately nobody like him at all on Earth except maybe sometimes a cousin, and his powers will always mark him as different and keep him distant from other people who will only ever see what he can do not who he is as a person. So he also lives as Clark Kent, a secret identity not to protect other people from his enemies, but to protect him from his own powers, to experience what it's like to be a human who is valued as a person not a symbol. Without Clark Kent, Superman goes the way of Dr. Manhattan, unable to connect or care about the universe.

But since supervillains keep trying to take over or blow up the world, he has to be Superman as well.


That's what flaws in a character mean, it doesn't have to be moral or personal failings, just something which sets a character into motion because of their opposed needs and desires generating internal conflict.

[Adam Reynolds]

What I see as the flaw in Superman isn't that he is too good, it is simply that he is too powerful. Contrast this with the Marvel heroes. Why is it that Iron Mans is often considered the most interesting? I would assert that this a result of his weakness when not in a suit. While he is able to take on Thor or The Hulk with a suit, without one he is extremely vulnerable. Captain America is similarly mortal, even if superhuman.

Though as to the general issue, it partially comes down to the fact that people like dark stories as a distraction from the real sad and very mundane truth. They are irrelevant. Dark stories make you feel happier to be in your mostly boring existence. Though dark stories can still have heroic characters. One example that comes to mind is Finch from Person of Interest. Without going into too much detail on what might be spoilers to some, he is unwilling to commit immoral actions for a potential greater good, even if his own friendly artificial intelligence(one that was actually given a moral code) tells him that it is the only way to prevent a greater harm.

What is interesting with the example of Finch is that he often comes across as naive and useless in contrast to a character like Root who is willing to do absolutely anything to protect The Machine. I'm not sure what an ideal solution to this problem is from a writing standpoint.

There is also the problem that outright heroic characters really are a matter of opinion. Especially heroes that rely on violence. How many causes in reality does one really consider worth killing for?

[Simon_Jester]

The "flaw" Adam Reynolds is identifying is not a "flaw" in the sense Vendetta is talking about- this is not a criticism of either, but I noticed it.
_____________

From a dramatic perspective, Superman's greatest "flaw" is, yes, that his immense power cuts him off from nearly anyone he might identify with, it creates his internal conflict and motivates him to even have a secret identity which unlike most superheroes, he doesn't really need.

Most other superheroes need a secret identity (note that all examples are from DC, for Marvel characters the same principles apply).

Batman is a mortal man, he needs a base of operations somewhere near Gotham, and he needs large sums of money to support his crime-fighting operations. He can't really stop being Bruce Wayne. Heroes like the Flash and Green Lantern, well, they have to sleep some time; their powers can't protect them 24/7. They need some place to physically live, and if there's no facility like the JLA Watchtower for them to do so, they need a secret identity for practical reasons. Even if they could theoretically just have no fixed residence and wander the countryside living out of motels and whatnot, they still need ID and a social security number and so on.

Superman, what with the whole Fortress of Solitude thing (even if he doesn't already own one in a given iteration of his character, he could clearly build one), needs his secret identity far less than most other heroes. So for him it is a profoundly psychological thing, and this makes a lot of sense given that without a secret identity to live among the humans, he is otherwise very much alone and very much set apart from the fragile alien creatures he lives among.
_______________________________________

Meanwhile, Superman's typical perceived "flaws" in terms of readers' ability to relate to him are an entirely different question. That's not talking about "what are the flaws in the character of Superman," that's talking about "what's wrong with Superman?"

And those are, yes, basically the criticism that he's too powerful, or that he's too much of a boy scout. I think the former criticism is more valid than the latter.

[Lord Revan]

The funny thing with Superman that in hands of a good writers his strength and morality can be turned into an intresting character trait. The whole "world of cardboard" thing, basically Superman has to maintain massive levels of self control constantly or risk breaking something or someone, thus resulting in the "boyscout" behaviour, there you get intresting internal conflict while keeping Superman's morals more or less the same.

[General Zod]

The funny thing with Superman that in hands of a good writers his strength and morality can be turned into an intresting character trait. The whole "world of cardboard" thing, basically Superman has to maintain massive levels of self control constantly or risk breaking something or someone, thus resulting in the "boyscout" behaviour, there you get intresting internal conflict while keeping Superman's morals more or less the same.

If you can't show how that internal conflict manifests in their choices then it's boring.

[Lord Revan]

The funny thing with Superman that in hands of a good writers his strength and morality can be turned into an intresting character trait. The whole "world of cardboard" thing, basically Superman has to maintain massive levels of self control constantly or risk breaking something or someone, thus resulting in the "boyscout" behaviour, there you get intresting internal conflict while keeping Superman's morals more or less the same.

If you can't show how that internal conflict manifests in their choices then it's boring.

obviously but that's why I said "in hands of a good writer", For example in Superman's you show him getting angry against an enemy who can take it so you show his choice of emotional control without resorting to bodycounts and destruction that rivals a large scale battle.

that's why the DCAU depiction of Superman is one of my favorites, since they show that Superman is conflicted under the surface even if he doesn't show it at first glance.

[Zixinus]

Both extremes can be terrible. You need some bad things about an otherwise very good character and likewise a few good things about a bad character. Nobody is a pure incarnation of good or evil. In fact such entities are so abstract as to be unrelatable (or work only in specialized cases).

Furthermore, what makes a character interesting is struggle and how they respond to it, be it friction between their character and the world, their desires and morals or even between other characters. What they are versus who they want to be or who they are (a demon being charitable is interesting, a demon being evil is not noteworthy). Complex personalities, motivations, ideas, even backstories can make a character interesting because they give them a chance to be themselves. Complexities rise from both meaningful failures and successes.

A guy set out to be super-good at all times but occasionally stumbles and fails is more interesting than one that manages do it perfectly the first go. A bad guy can become interesting while doing bad things not just in style but what they reveal themselves to be. The Joker is always interesting because he's fucking insane and thus unpredictable, which is a blank canvas that you can build upon, which means that he is constantly at conflict with himself. Dr.Freeze is interesting because he does bad things due to some higher purpose (his strong, hot love for his wife contrasted to his merciless, unemotional thinking and acts).

Another key element is mystery. In the LOTR triology, Sauron is interesting because he is a mystery that unravels as the stories go. In the beginning he is this overwhelming, powerful shadow from afar that blackens Frodo's otherwise simple, happy life and whom the most powerful people in the world are afraid of. As the story progresses we learn more about him and see him exposed to the light. Only at the end, in his hubris, do we truly see a few hints of him. This is an arch that follows throughout the entire trilogy, coloring the reader's perception and the context in which things happen.

[Lord Revan]

With Sauron it also helps (though you might file it under mystery as well) is that Sauron is more of a presence (as I stated before on this thread) then a character. Sauron appears personally only a few times (and never clearly) and has only a handful of lines in the whole of Lord of the Rings.

For the amount of things Sauron personally does in whole book you'd think he would be a really shitty villain but he works because his mere existance is treated as major threat and he's both a constant looming threat and behind every one of the more active antagonists one way or another.

[ray245]

Superman isn't boring because he's good, but because he have no challenges to him as a character. Unlike Batman, which is a more popular character, Superman never needs to work for his skills. He is someone so naturally gifted that there is almost nothing on earth or the universe that could challenge him. Hence, there is nothing there to corrupt him, nor does he get tempted by absolute power. To add to that, Metropolis is a nice enough city that he doesn't face too much issue with crime over there.


But the real issue is how we tend to enjoy stories in general. We like stories or characters not because they are realistic or good, but because they are interesting. Good stories often take the protagonist down certain path that we don't anticipate in advance. We want to see people respond to challenges. It's like news for example. We don't care about the daily things in life that have been going right for people. We are drawn to things that is going wrong for people.

[Zeropoint]

Bah. If a writer can't tell a good story with Superman, it's the writer's problem, not Superman's. So, he's strong enough and tough enough to face any physical challenge without breaking a sweat? Simple. You put him up against NON-physical challenges. Give him a problem he can't solve by punching someone really hard . . . you know, like most of the problems people face in the real world.

[The Romulan Republic]

Exactly.

Luthor, at his best, is like this. He's nothing special as a Superman villain and a character when he grabs some kryptonite or builds a suite of power armour and dukes it out with Superman. You want that kind of villain, bring in Zod or Darkseid, because its a waste of Luthor (at least for the most part). He's far more formidable as the evil businessman/politician hiding behind a veneer of lawfulness and respectability, who Superman can't touch without violating his own morals and/or appearing to be just a rogue lunatic in the eyes of the public.

Much like Joker is the most interesting, memorable, and formidable Batman villain, despite the fact that their are people who are much more formidable physically.

[Civil War Man]

Bah. If a writer can't tell a good story with Superman, it's the writer's problem, not Superman's. So, he's strong enough and tough enough to face any physical challenge without breaking a sweat? Simple. You put him up against NON-physical challenges. Give him a problem he can't solve by punching someone really hard . . . you know, like most of the problems people face in the real world.

To reinforce this, another character who is in a similar situation is Bruce Banner. He is literally his own worst enemy, since pretty much nobody can match him physically when he transforms into the Hulk, but that transformation goes hand-in-hand with a loss of control. It's one of the reasons he doesn't have a great track record carrying a solo superhero movie, because his biggest threat isn't even non-physical, but is inside his own head.

[Lord Revan]

I have to say I like that this thread has lead to discussion of what exactly makes a good and intresting character. As that was my intention from the get go, maybe I've just seen too much of the "character has to be dark and edgy to be intresting" (read:character has to be an asocial jerk with with no redeeming factors) so I kind of assume that's the default of what people think.

[Elheru Aran]

Bah. If a writer can't tell a good story with Superman, it's the writer's problem, not Superman's. So, he's strong enough and tough enough to face any physical challenge without breaking a sweat? Simple. You put him up against NON-physical challenges. Give him a problem he can't solve by punching someone really hard . . . you know, like most of the problems people face in the real world.

To reinforce this, another character who is in a similar situation is Bruce Banner. He is literally his own worst enemy, since pretty much nobody can match him physically when he transforms into the Hulk, but that transformation goes hand-in-hand with a loss of control. It's one of the reasons he doesn't have a great track record carrying a solo superhero movie, because his biggest threat isn't even non-physical, but is inside his own head.

Hulk is one character that's really dependent on a good writer. There's a reason a lot of people take the easy way out of making him intelligent enough to be a character in his own right. Dumb Hulk is a force of nature that doesn't really have much character to him other than the occasional flashes of Banner. Either he goes nuts and destroys the neighborhood, or he stays puny Banner and gets nicked. Smart Hulk gets around that, but that's so the writer doesn't have to exercise their mind too much by making a reasonable story fit the Force-of-Nature Dumb Hulk.

In a sense, actually, because Dumb Hulk isn't much of a character, the story is easily not so much about him as it is everybody else. So the comic becomes less about its namesake than the various dramas going on that *don't* involve Hulk.

[Elfdart]

One way to show good guys who aren't goody-two-shoes types and aren't angst-ridden weenies is simply to put them in a position where their great powers might not be enough to save the day, or where they march off to certain death knowing full well they have to do it.

Steven Judd in Ride the High Country is obviously a good man without any real flaws aside from bad luck, which really hits him hard at the end. Ditto for three of the four samurai killed in The Seven Samurai: They know they're likely to get killed, and they won't even collect their meager "wages" from the peasants. Yet they're noble (in both senses), they have a role to fill, and they're going to fulfill their roles no matter what it costs them.

[Darmalus]

I always felt like the "good = boring" came about when popular culture decided only the villain had hopes, dreams and ambitions other than the status quo. It always feels like Good Guys never do anything but react to what the Bad Guy is doing, that if left to their own devices the Good Guys would wind up being... nothing.

[LadyTevar]

To reinforce this, another character who is in a similar situation is Bruce Banner. He is literally his own worst enemy, since pretty much nobody can match him physically when he transforms into the Hulk, but that transformation goes hand-in-hand with a loss of control. It's one of the reasons he doesn't have a great track record carrying a solo superhero movie, because his biggest threat isn't even non-physical, but is inside his own head.

You forget that The Hulk did manage to have 5 seasons on TV, following a basic "Innocent Man on the Run" formula. It did change the origin for the Hulk, but it kept the basic theme of the Hulk being uncontrolled and uncontrollable. Banner could run, he could hide, but eventually he would fall into a situation where he couldn't control his anger, couldn't control his emotions, and the Hulk would break out.

The problem with the first movie with Eric Bana was simple : The concept of Banner's Dad sucked. It was so far divorced from the comic history, the only reason it could be called The Hulk is there was a big green monster in it.

The Incredible Hulk, on the other hand, borrowed from both the comic and the TV with the idea of Banner trying to hide and learn control. It was the better movie by far, and I think the only reason it did not do as well as the other Marvel Movies was people remembered how bad the movie before was, and avoided it.

[Zixinus]

As that was my intention from the get go, maybe I've just seen too much of the "character has to be dark and edgy to be intresting" (read:character has to be an asocial jerk with with no redeeming factors) so I kind of assume that's the default of what people think.

It has the correct notion which is to make a character more complex, but misses the point. It confuses writing a dark and edgy story with just taking an existing story (good or bad) and smearing things with shit.

Making things darker and edgier can work if you can make such changes meaningful and have a place not just in the setting, but in the story's thematic nature. The relationship of different story elements (characters, setting, overall theme, etc.) and aspects of a story have to work together. Without that you are just smearing things with shit, felt as the non-dark and dark elements jar with each other. Like most things, that too can be done deliberately to good effect but it has to be done with a meaning (even if just for laughs, imagine a scene in a show that has a character that seems to have wondered in from another show and decided to stay).

Really, this stuff is all sorts of basic writing/story-crafting.

[Lord Revan]

As that was my intention from the get go, maybe I've just seen too much of the "character has to be dark and edgy to be intresting" (read:character has to be an asocial jerk with with no redeeming factors) so I kind of assume that's the default of what people think.

It has the correct notion which is to make a character more complex, but misses the point. It confuses writing a dark and edgy story with just taking an existing story (good or bad) and smearing things with shit.

Making things darker and edgier can work if you can make such changes meaningful and have a place not just in the setting, but in the story's thematic nature. The relationship of different story elements (characters, setting, overall theme, etc.) and aspects of a story have to work together. Without that you are just smearing things with shit, felt as the non-dark and dark elements jar with each other. Like most things, that too can be done deliberately to good effect but it has to be done with a meaning (even if just for laughs, imagine a scene in a show that has a character that seems to have wondered in from another show and decided to stay).

Really, this stuff is all sorts of basic writing/story-crafting.

Of course a dark and edgy character if done well is intresting, I was referring to the notion that a character has to be that way to be instresting and that being dark and edgy is what makes the character inresting regardless of other things.

[Cykeisme]

Superman is often times a reactive force, simply because he is so powerful that any thing he sets out to accomplish is almost assured to happen; so the writers have him be subdued, and restrtict him to being a 'role model' for humanity rather than do any greater action to change the world. Whereas Batman has a vision of the future of gotham and is working hard to try and impliment it, both in his vigilante actions and as Bruce Wayne.

That's an interesting observation.

If Superman wanted the world to be a better place, why doesn't he use his power to make it happen?
Thus, the logical conclusion is that Superman is apparently so boring and unimaginative, he can't imagine any way he can improve the status quo.

Yes, it's logic with a lot of holes in it, but it's probably s a conclusion people come to subconsciously.