Export thread

I've been thinking about the popular TV shows. It seems that the majority of the popular or highest acclaimed ones feature main characters who aren't just straight good guys (as one would expect of most "heroes" of a TV show), but in fact live in a gray area of questionable morals. You're asked to root for and get behind mad men, psychotics, murderers, etc.

Part of it came from a discussion with a co-worker regarding Dollhouse. She had a hard time watching it because the Dolls, essentially, are programmed hookers. What was worse to her is that the volunteers who become Dolls will have no recollection, despite the possibility of sleeping with dozens, if not hundreds of people and putting their lives on the line. And yet the show is surrounded with the idea that the main characters are the "good guys".

Now, personally? That's what I love about the Dollhouse. Its characters are complex and the morality of the show balances on that very delicate edge.

But then, there are other shows, some of which I've watched and loved. Dexter, for example. The main character is a serial killer. Yet he only kills the "bad guys". And yet he works for the police. And yet yet has to hide that aspect of himself. He does "good" work in a very disturbing mannner.

I think this trend might have started with Sopranos, but I'm not sure. I'm not by any means saying ANY of these shows are bad because, as I've said, they're really great TV. It's kind of like The Punisher, in a lot of ways. Yeah, he kills the bad guys, but honestly, he's a psychotic individual himself; a by-product of being a trained killer working in Vietnam.

Can we root for these kinds of characters when, in a lot of ways, what they do would be considered "wrong" by general standards? It certainly makes for interestering and exciting television, when they have to run from the law or in Dexter's case, hide from it.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

The current trend on TV might have started around the Sopranos, but exploring "bad" characters is a staple of drama and literature since the dawn of drama and literature.

North American TV's just slow on the uptake because it's so damn conservative.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

And here I thought you meant stuff like To Catch a Predator, which bordered on entrapment.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

They almost caught me, too, but I peeked in the window before knocking on the door. :yo:

Morally Questionably TV Shows

Hmm, wish I thought of that.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

Gruebeard said:

The current trend on TV might have started around the Sopranos, but exploring "bad" characters is a staple of drama and literature since the dawn of drama and literature.

North American TV's just slow on the uptake because it's so damn conservative.

Click to expand...

That's true. Hell, I'm studying James Joyce and Edgar Allan Poe these days. TV still has a ways to go before getting THAT morally complex.

Mind you, TV also used to be Leave it to Beaver. The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy were considered controversial at one time.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

That's kinda what I mean when I say TV is conservative. I don't mean that it expresses conservative views, but that the producers are loathe to try any idea that hasn't worked before because:

1) TV shows are made to run for years
2) They have to appeal to a lot of people to make money,
3) There's limited space available (or was back when it was 3 nets)

So TV shows were bland, boring and safe.

Perhaps more than anything, now that there's lots of channels there's space to slot in more "daring" shows, offering the opportunity that was never there before. Indeed, I'd even bet that had there been 100 channels back in 1950, we'd have a lot more diversity of TV back then.


Also, the Honeymooners and I Love Lucy probably only were controversial because they were each 1/3 of of what was being aired during their moment in time. With choices so limited, each choice is gonna be highly scrutinized. If there were 99 other shows viewers could've chosen instead, they'd have probably never notcied the "controversy."

Morally Questionably TV Shows

The Shield is a great example of this. Also my favorite-show-of-all-time(TM) The Wire features a lot of shades of gray. Weeds is a comedy, but still skates around this sort of issue all the time with the single mother dealing pot and raising her family. Finally, Breaking Bad is a much more serious and darker take on the basic idea of Weeds, and ends up being a MUCH better and more interesting show.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

I take fiction as it is: fiction. If the show's good and the whole point is not "Zomg look at how EBIL i iz!", I tend to enjoy it. I haven't seen Dollhouse, but I used to love watching Dexter (hasn't been on here in two, three years).

Now, reality TV on the other hand... bhamv3 already mentioned To Catch a Predator, which to me is a fear-mongering, patronizing, entrapping concoction of bullshittery with enough Peeping-Tommery on the side to gag a maggot. I tried to watch one episode, but found the whole fucking premise so vomit-inducing I stopped after ten minutes.

Big Brother, or at least its Finnish version, is another. Maybe it's just the Finnish mentality, but the people who go to that house tend to be the most annoying bunch of assholes you can think of, acting like a pack of monkeys throwing poop at each other.

The worst I think is one show whose name I can't remember right now. Basically the premise is that the contestant is put through a polygraph text with dozens of questions, part of which go to the show. Then he has to answer if these statements are true or false in front of a live studio audience - as well as friends and family. It wouldn't be so bad unless they hadn't taken the most demeaning, mean-spirited questions you could think of, like asking "Do you really love your children?" in front of the bloody children. It's so... GAH! People taking enjoyment out of seeing another person wriggle and try to decide what to answer, risking job, family and being able to go outside without being labeled a pervert. And for what? A lot of money, which nobody gets a lot since the questions become even more mean and voyeuristic each round.

Morally Questionably TV Shows

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Also my favorite-show-of-all-time(TM) The Wire features a lot of shades of gray.

Click to expand...

yesyesyesyesyesyesyes.

An excellent example outside of the drama realm is It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia.

The main characters are amoral, scheming, alcololic, insensitive, douchebags, but somehow you end up chearing them on.

I think Death Note is a good anime example. Your essentially cheering on a serial killer with a god complex, as he tangles with a detective who's just as amoral as he is. Fuck, the Shinigami's, GODS OF DEATH, come across as Chaotic Neutral at worst! It's really eye opening when the protagonist is worse than beings that kill people out of boredom and to extend their lifespans. The closest you get to heroes in the entire series are Mogi and Light's Father.


Also... every Japanese gameshow. EVER.

Nip/Tuck. I haven't watched in quite some time (I stopped watching in season 3), but it was easily one of the most depraved shows I ever loved. Lots of sex, infidelity, violence, and drug use with family and personal crises at every turn. It was like a traffic accident that you just can't look away from.

I think it boils down to the fact that bad guys are generally far, far more interesting than good guys.

Haven't read the whole thread, but Dexter jumps to my head. I know it's in the OP, but ...

One of my university profs used to rant about that show. The gist of her opinion was that in fifty to a hundred years, Dexter is going to be the subject of much scholarship. If the best way to get to know a culture is to look at it's media, what does it say about us as a society that a hugely popular television series can star a serial killer as the hero?

Well, considering that 19th century popular novels tended to be about square-jawed white men killing lots and lots of Indians/savages/cannibals/Chinese/Zulu/insert non-white group here...

When it comes to television you want to be able to immerse your audiences within the series for as long as possible, so making complex characters makes for more immersion--and obviously dimension.

The black and white shades are very saturday morning cartoon--us as kiddies can't grasp the moral complexities of the universes certain characters exist in. But as adults you'd assume that the audience has the capability to go beyond the surface level and challenge themselves emphatically and philosophically with the characters therein.

Plus it's way much more entertaining when characters have nuance that could grossly effect the dramatic intrigue of the show. Or, in the case of funny shows like community, laughing at the absurdity and misanthropy that--assumingly--is outside of "normal" human character.

This all reminds me...I'm a season and a half behind Breaking Bad.

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

Also, NR, the 1800s had a shitton of good novels of moral ambiguity. The Victorians...eh, maybe not as much, but it's all still there. There hasn't really been a point in literature where characters have been plain. The literary canon is full of immensely important, morally ambiguous literature that causes us to stretch ourselves morally and humanistically.

The Smothers Brother Comedy Hour really broke ground for controversy - at a time when exercising free speech was immoral and un-American. CBS did a hit job on them to kill that show.

Rather surprised no one mentioned Venture Brothers or Superjail. Those seem to fit the mold.

I'm also surprised Juice didn't beat me to suggesting Mad Men, with the fantastic protagonist Don Draper

Frankie said:

I think it boils down to the fact that bad guys are generally far, far more interesting than good guys.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

I think it's also that from a regular person's perspective, it's much more remarkable that a bad guy have a good side than a good guy have a bad side.

We're trained to expect good guys to not be as good as they seem, but I feel like we don't automatically have the reverse expectation for bad guys.

ElJuski said:

Also, NR, the 1800s had a shitton of good novels of moral ambiguity. The Victorians...eh, maybe not as much, but it's all still there. There hasn't really been a point in literature where characters have been plain. The literary canon is full of immensely important, morally ambiguous literature that causes us to stretch ourselves morally and humanistically.

Click to expand...

Preachin' to da choir, sistah... I finished my English major recently, and am currently doing my MA Thesis. On literature, actually... and on one character who's been made a hero and a villain over the years, depending on who's doing the adaptation.

have to say sunny in philadelphia is a very good example of this or for Heroes for that matter no matter how down hill that show has gotten.

The only charaters I like in that are the bad guys well Sylar particularly.

Charlie Dont Surf said:

I'm also surprised Juice didn't beat me to suggesting Mad Men, with the fantastic protagonist Don Draper

Click to expand...

Well I thought that was understood :3 That show is full of little moral dilemmas and transgressions. Oh and big ones too.

I think Dexter resonates with a lot of people because a lot of people want that kind of "justice". The people that murder and get away with it, people that hurt children (can't remember if he's killed any of those...I'm only through season 2), etc. He gets those people and there's something satisfying about living vicariously through that show. I could be way off.

AshburnerX said:

I think Death Note is a good anime example. Your essentially cheering on a serial killer with a god complex, as he tangles with a detective who's just as amoral as he is. Fuck, the Shinigami's, GODS OF DEATH, come across as Chaotic Neutral at worst! It's really eye opening when the protagonist is worse than beings that kill people out of boredom and to extend their lifespans. The closest you get to heroes in the entire series are Mogi and Light's Father.

Spoiler

Too bad neither escape unscathed. Light's Father dies and Mogi loses any innocence he had left when he shots Light in cold blood.

Also... every Japanese gameshow. EVER.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know I've posted this in a couple of other threads, but the creator says that he views both Light and L as villains, and Light's father as the tragic hero.

It's a phase, and it's not the first time it's been passed through. Other forms of lit got through dark/complex/anti-hero/villain protagonist phases cyclically. There's good and bad about it. Sure. Realistic behavior, or even dark behavior is refreshing, but people still love a hero, and they'll come back.