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
@@RosheenQuynh because it means someone is taking the time to understand a character on a deeper level and it's good to have a diversity of characters to have media attention rather than the same couple of characters
@@RosheenQuynh You didn't specify shipping so I was adressing it more characterwise, but the same applies for shipping too. Shipping is often used partially as a deep dive into the shipped characters and how they would interact with each other. Having a variety of ways a certain ship could happen is amazing and it's also great that there can be more than the same three ships for media, even if a good handful of those are crack ships
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
Chaddy Pig: Works hard to provide for his family, Rewards children when they show empathy, Endulges in childish desires without giving up his responsibilities, is liked by everybody in his work and personal life. Truely the modern hero we need
I've seen plenty of peppa (thanks to younger siblings) and there are so many episodes where Daddy Pig just gets made fun of or kinda tormented for no particular reason. I always wonder why his family is so mean to him.
No offense intended, but hopefully he didn't say that because he thinks he can't or shouldn't like things that are unpopular with a lot of other people.
@@Fimbleshanks 1. He didn’t like it cause it’s annoying, I didn’t even know caillou was still on the air. 2. Things that are hugely unpopular are unpopular for a reason, and it isn’t a bad thing to recognize that.
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)
That’s the burden of being the face of the company. Mario and Barbie suffer from a similar problem in that their foils and adversaries tend to be more interesting than they are. Don’t wanna ruin the company’s image by having the character do questionable things.
Goofy is my favorite of the Disney trinity. More specifically the way he's portrayed in the Goofy Movie and Goof Troop. A struggling single father doing his absolute best to raise his son, but in his own enthusiasm doesn't fully consider his sons feelings at times. Of course he doesn't really fall into the "unlikable" class of character, but all the same.
The idea that Mickey gets a lot of “easy wins” is false. If you’ve seen literally any of his cartoons like Get a Horse, Runaway Brain, The Brave Little Tailor, Thru the Mirror, Shanghaied, etc. the whole essence of Mickey’s character is that he’s an underdog. He’s small and weak, and his enemies are either massive, powerful, or just outnumber him altogether. And all Mickey has on his side are his optimism and wit. Mickey’s stories are about overcoming these obstacles despite having little in his favor. A lot of people don’t understand that.
The older Mickey definitely has a lot more personality and compelling stories. The recent shorts have helped bring back some of that scrappiness for sure, but there's a lot of cases where he's essentially just a logo.
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.
@Eli M I don’t watch One Punch Man but that actually seems really interesting. I like when writers take a trope and give it a spin into something unique.
@@Litchy51 OPM is really clever with how it handles it’s overpowered main character. Firstly, he is incredibly unfulfilled. Ever since he reached godlike strength, he has never get the thrill of a close match for real challenge. Making him incredibly depressed. No matter what he faces, he knows that he will win effortlessly. Making it not worth it. Then there is another problem. Because he is so strong, people often dismiss the effort of everyone else or just assume that, what he did do, isn’t actually impressive. Meaning that him being around, makes everyone appear worse than they need to be. It’s like a genius kid, getting the best possible grades without trying. Then everyone just assumes that test was too simple or that no one else ever prepared for it. Great series.
@@frankwest5388 Thats cool. A lot of stories go “not enough” where a character needs more/to get better at something, but that goes “too much” where he doesn’t like being so powerful and would like to become weaker
@@Litchy51 To further Frank's second point; when Saitama does something in the spotlight, the interpretation is to dismiss him due to his appearance or portray him as a borderline villain due to unintended collateral damage from the shock-waves of his punches. At one point, which is a crowning moment of heartwarming, Saitama plays into his negative press to uplift a normal person trying to take on a supervillain to protect trapped people; giving him most of the credit for "weakening" the guy he just exploded casually.
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.
Speaking of black clover, fuck Yuno, dude. It felt as though he just kept getting stronger just because Asta did in a fair way. Oops Asta got stronger because he nearly lost a friend and had to fight for his and his friend's life, better make yuno more op for no reason
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.
Yes! I hate this! I can only stand this is it’s part of the story. When the whole show just gaslights you like “double standards are totally fair!” it makes my blood boil.
another pet peeve could be "hero blasts through minions without remorse, but spares villain to show he is not evil". a related one could be "hero spares villain because he refuses to kill no matter how many times the villain kills others". that last one kind of makes it hard to root for batman, since his refusal to kill a single madman allows said madman to kill hundreds of innocents the next time he escapes. there are justifiable reasons for it (batman reasons that he could easily become addicted to killing, and joker wants batman to kill him), but joker has still suffered accidents that batman went out of his way to save him from, and what stops the gotham government from executing him?
@@Underworlder5 I hate this trope too. If you've already merc'd 20 of the villain's henchmen, you may as well kill him too or all that moral struggle is meaningless
@@youwouldntremembermeanyway7410 that one is a bit iffy. the main point is that if luke struck down palpatine, he would be giving in to hate, and as a result fall to the dark side. the problem there is that palpatine is the leader of the enemy faction and a tyrant. there are more reasons to kill him than hate also, about the part where he spares vader, i would say that was the right decision. he was fueled by anger at the last leg, and so would be teetering dangerously close to the dark side. in that context, he had to relent once he incapacitated vader, since the kill would have been motivated by emotion rather than pragmatism
Could Titan from Megamind be an example of that? A total creep ends up getting super powers just by sheer coincidence and surprise surprise, he ends up abusing them
Kvothe, from The Name of the Wind. I like the books and Pat Rothfuss' universe and lore, but I can't stand how even when he 'loses' he ends up winning.
GRIFFIIIIITH! from Berserk is pretty much this after the Golden Age arc, an egotistical douchebag that with the power to have fate grant him everything he could want chooses something as petty as his own kingdom and egopolis. Course he wouldnt be anything without the contrast of Guts, but still.
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.
Hard agree. She is my favorite example of a character who, at a glance, would count as a Mary Sue. But her execution is nothing short of genius, because her sense of being and *especially* her struggles in the story are very, very real.
Hm! I didn’t care for the movie specifically because she seemed too perfect to me and I just struggled with rooting for her. Maybe I need to rewatch and pay more attention!
@@ketaminepoptarts i think one of the best recent examples of this is bakugou from my hero academia. The author said he was supposed to be very unlikable at first, but hes been a constant favorite among the my hero crowd. i wonder how people would act if he wasnt conventionally attractive.
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.
This definitely could be seriously annoying to me too if done the wrong way. For something done the right way (in my opinion), I would actually point to the old Disney Cinderella - the situation she was in was clearly abusive; she didn't stick around just because she was a good person, but rather because she legitimately had nowhere else to go. The only thing she could do was fit herself in as best she could and hope that someday she *could* get out of there. If that meant doing what everyone else told her to do, so be it. The movie's message is a message of hope. Versus a character who has plenty of other options (and might even see the red flags) but decides to stay in the abusive relationship, for some reason ...? If that's not a source of frustration (or at least concern) for the other characters as well as me, something's wrong!
@@KezanzatheGreat yeah, there's a difference between being a good person, and being a spineless pushover Edit: not that people who are abused and unable to find a way out are all spineless pushovers... but the ones who are unwilling, tho?
@DBen’s Drawin’ Vids would Spider-Man go in that category? He always tries to do the right thing but always suffers for it. For him I at least think it’s done right.
Agreed, I hate that. Especially when female characters keep physically abusing the protagonist when he doesn't deserve it, because it's supposed to be "funny".
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
as a younger kid he's sort of relatable and its funny watching his life unfold, when we get older we realize he was a jerk and loses all character development at the end of every book
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
The important thing to do in that case, I think, is to make sure that the lessons they learn aren't *exactly the same* every time. You don't change a character all at once, you just take a little off at a time until they've completed their arc... the problem is that we're so wrapped up in perpetual storytelling nowadays, very few studios/artists/producers want the story of their characters to reach a conclusion, so often we'll wind up with characters spinning in circles until they lose whatever goodwill anyone gave them.
Thats exactly it- nothing wrong with even a static character, or repeating mistakes, just the specific instance I mentioned in the video- where repetition comes with a promise that never quite pays off.
@@kevingriffith6011 Honestly, I think that's been true since perhaps the dawn of cinema, if not the dawn of literature. Once a company comes across their "SpongeBob" or "Simpsons" or "The Office (US version)" they will continue to milk it as long as it makes at least a little profit for them, long after anything new or interesting can be done with these established characters and forever kept on life-support by reminding people that the original show used to be amazing, usually by re-releasing or remaking the "classic" seasons. Nickelodeon is particularly prone to this mentality, if the creators of Angry Beavers (who wanted to do a proper final episode) are to be believed, while Cartoon Network seems to be more willing to end shows that could have gone more seasons, if anything, like Ed, Edd and Eddy or the Amazing World of Gumball.
I think the frustrating thing about shows that go on for 20+ years is that there is potential to do that kind of more realistic long-term character growth, the kind that is impossible to do in mini-series or shows that only end up lasting a season or two, but in reality we just get characters like Homer Simpson or Toy Story's Woody going through the same exact character arc over and over again to increasingly boring results. I feel only indie artists, especially ones in a position where they don't NEED to make money from their art specifically, have the privilege of ending character arcs right when they start running out of ideas. Considering how companies seem keen on milking their established IPs and putting off the dreaded day when they need to make a new one, regardless of how successful the creaky old IP still is, maybe we need to start teaching aspiring writers and directors how to write character arcs that can be spread out 10+ seasons, so that their hugely popular new idea at least doesn't feel like a ball and chain holding back their creative ambitions, once the seasonal rot starts setting in but the higher-ups really want to keep the series going.
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.
Appreciate the framing of what you don't like as personal opinion, ,and providing a constructive counter of how it can be done right! I appreciate this format of comment the most, and perhaps I was naive in putting this prompt out to not expect otherwise. I happen to agree with you on all counts, here as well!
@@CharacterDesignForge Thank you! And I appreciate the video. It's hard to figure out how to fix something like an unlikeable character until you know why it's broken.
I don't like animal or anthropomorphic object sidekicks that are introduced as cheap humor or just as a lazy way to try appealing to children. The films from Golden Films really tend to add them. Sometimes they are okay, but other times they decidedly aren't bearable or funny
The phonenix from the old Conan animated series was good. Incompetent, sure, but internally consistent and saved the day at times. And the ability to turn into a shield emblem was cool.
I remember when I read the infamous "How To Draw Manga" series, the author was hammering in how stories, mainly of the magical girl variety, MUST have cute sidekicks because it's a staple of girly shows and something something cute and adorable and appeals to the younger audiences... Shorthand being, it's marketable.
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.
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.
I'll never understand why they decided to give her fairies when there were enough already liked characters on the show that clearly were miserable like Vicky's sister or Timmy's trailer park friend.
It also defeated the purpose of fairies. Fairies were for kids who were miserable. Almost depressed even. Chloe was not. She just broke all the needs for fairies.
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.
i did that with one of my own characters. on the surface, she has no real weaknesses, but is later shown to be charitable and selfless to a fault, insisting on taking on burdens even when she is in no shape to. part of her character development is learning that you can be selfish at times and count on others for help. another character has a strict sense of honor, but that results in him being very hard on himself, and has difficulty forgiving himself even when other have forgiven him a long time ago
@@stovespiegel I mean, not really....? Most shonen protagonists are selfless to an extent, but that often is not depicted as a flaw. I feel like it's more common for the shonen protag's flaw to be just how gung-ho they are, rushing into danger without thinking anything through and flying by the seat of their pants.
@@Burn_Angel admittedly, i realized that out of all my characters, she is the most susceptible to the mary sue trap, and i have already taken measures to curb that. generally, a mary sue steals the spotlight and makes the world revolve around them, while any flaw is artificial at worst for my character, i made sure any flaw she has does have consequences (the villain manipulates her by appealing to her sympathy, and her efforts to atone makes her overwork herself, and while she does get the job done, also results in needless amounts of stress). also, while she is a prominent character with a lot of screentime, she is part of a team, and they essentially take turns being the central character finally, her central character does not revolve much around her strength and feats, but using her compassion to bring out the best in everyone around her, helping her teammates with their personal issues and contributing to their character arcs. if nothing else, i want to write her as a genuinely likable and approachable woman, someone you would love to meet in real life. i have my own rule in that a good character is either likable (for heroes), intimidating (for villains) or entertaining (for either) anyway, thanks for your feedback. comments like this help me look back and refine my characters, so i appreciate any constructive criticism
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.
Between the unfortunate situations they're always in and the moronic adults who Just. Don't. Listen. The juxtaposition of their perfectness is one of the main things that keeps the audience invested. It also helps that the reason they're always utilizing their perfectness is just so they can bloody survive till the next day (as opposed to just prancing through life without any major hardships and making things unnaturally beneficial for themselves all the time).
That and it made it so that you WANTED the children to be lucky, you wanted them to find a suitable guardian where they could be safe. It does a very good job of making you want these children to be ok, despite them being perfect.
"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.
Dude, players just gravitate towards random shit, it's so strange. But honestly; it's a good thing to have your villains liked, it means they're entertaining.
@@trickydiagram5267 That's nice to know, but sometimes I want to crush their spirits by revealing a villain but then they are immediately asking, "Can I tame the motherfucker?" And it goes from end of world to pokemon.
@@chilldogs5444 You really need to make your villain hatable and imposing for the players to not 'like' them. The problem with monsters is that you can't really 'hate' a monster because ultimately your relationship with them is impersonal, sure an amorphous blob of flesh, eyes and arthropod appendages is scary and all; but who cares? You don't empathise with the thing enough to despise it; it's just a dumb monster for you to project your own feelings onto. People make the best villains, their motivations are beyond 'kill, feed, mate and repeat' and they can be smug, arrogant or be a hypocrite and lecture the heroes about their own wrongdoings. Have them spite and spurn the heroes by hitting them where it hurts, kill a loved character, make it personal. Just my two cents.
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.
God I hate laugh tracks so much. The only show I didn’t mind them in was Rosanne idk why if I absolutely have to have audience noise I prefer it to be a live audience. Friends ,home improvement, Big Bang are some of the worst literally probably have three to five minutes of just laughing in each episode
I agree, canned laughter at its worst can really break immersion and lower the writing quality. Still, there are some shows that have used it well, and it made me laugh along with the audience, shows like the middle seasons of M•A•S•H and the Dick Van Dyke Show. M•A•S•H didn't pause and wait for the laughter to finish after every line, and it had rules: the laugh track was never, never used in the operating room, no matter how funny the jokes were, and some more serious episodes didn't use it at all. On the other hand, the Dick Van Dyke Show used laughter from the specific audience of each episode, making for hilarious reactions (one lady screams in the background of a broom falling out of a closet). It's all in the execution!
The one of the best kind comedic show is sketch comedy and the best one I’d enjoyed was Kids in the Hall, because there are different jokes that pay off with each sketch that are really funny. Unlike SNL which is just unfunny. Cue Laugh track.
The sitcom shows that are filmed in front of live studio audiences are my favorites Like “Sister Sister” “Moesha” “Fresh Prince of Bel Air” or “Family Reunion” I also like Disney’s kid sitcoms
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
@@thirdplanet4471 Not really. Squidward is just a decent guy that wants to be left alone. He never acted bad and he still doesn't. He gets pissed when he has to put up with idiots.
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.
i mean thats roblox and other noob roleplayers in a nutshell, the characters are just way too much on the extreme side that they push it too far and the character is hated
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.
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.
Also, Batman. They keep saying about how "Oh, he's rich and supersmart, he's a mary sue!" but always forget that he's emotionally stunted and when he fails, he tends to fail horribly (Jason Todd, anyone?) plus he's completely paranoid, even to his allies.
@@Shadoboy Exactly, even Batman calls Jason Todd his biggest failure not because of Jason but because he blames himself for what happened to Jason both dying and going down a dark path.
Magic and shiney green rocks say Otherwise , for me he's too boring Personality, that's why I always prefer Batman and that's a different type of Comic but goku from dragonball series.
@@Shadoboy Calling Batman a Mary Sue is one of the dumbest takes I’ve ever heard, being skilled, competent and unstoppable at times doesn’t save you from being a traumatized and suffering person
@@JonathanPaspula doesn’t change the fact that he should’ve died or beaten to near death in millions of situations. He can screw with beings that would one shot him but hey he survives because “he always has a plan” like holy fuck Batman is genuinely such a Mary Sue and nobody has thicker plot armor than him.
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.
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.
@@CharacterDesignForge yeah I got that. And even that is a flaw criticism because in the stories that become a physical battle he is always thrown all over the place before being victorious. To me Superman is handled in a similar way to Rocky Balboa expect for the fact Rocky is seen as the underdog that wins the heart of people after the battle just for enduring while Superman is often expected to win because he became the champion of justice.
@@manart6506 most of the people that claim Superman is flawless only focus on his powers and not the character. Clark Kent is very flawed and his morality and compassion getting called into question along side of his godlike abilities that he has to hold back every day just to be accepted in his day to day. A lot of great Superman stories don't focus on the physical side of Superman but the emotional and rational side instead.
@@IRCannonFodder I remember reading someone say something along the lines of "The best Superman stories aren't about how a god-on-earth landed in Kansas, they're about how the nicest guy in Kansas has godlike powers" They were snarking on Zack Snyder but I think it still applies to the "personality vs superpowers" argument
@@cam4636 it sounds precisely the Zack Snyder way of tackling the Superman story. “Maybe he is just a guy trying to do the right thing”. Superman in MoS (and BvS) is so evidently flawed (as in comics) that it shocked a few people that only really know Superman as a symbol of perfection (the popular perception that doesn’t really represents the character or his stories).
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.
While I do have more issues with that character (design and well, the character trope itself she fills to), that's what Minamoto no Raikou from the Fate franchise feels to me. And quite a couple of others too, that, while I do end up liking some other character because of a character, the bunch of material sent to you from that same character over and over again, gets exhausting.
Not every character I think... but more about Marinete/ladybug herself. I find Adrien/chat noir so much more interesting, his powers, lifestyle and the relationship with his abusive father. We could see so much more of him (expecialy since he is ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS!!! ) I mean, his name is in the tittle?? It would be way more interesting to see his problems than Marinetes boring teenager problems... i mean, just some centered episodes with adrien would be ok, it dont have to be all of then, but come on, he is a protagonist too but they keep treat him as a secondary character. Only ladybug can shine and win all the battles, but he dont. He is only there to be her prince in shining armor and to be beatind for every single vilan, im every single episede. I fell sad for the kitten sometimes.
@@missn4409 Adrien it's also kinda a "wasted potential", he's just used for the Love Triangle trope. Y'know, everything should be focused in Marinette, CUZ WHY NOT!
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
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
Have had a pretty spotty relationship with Marvel What If so far but one of the least believable things was Thanos somehow being able to be convinced he was wrong by anyone. Isn’t he… mad? Totally agree
@@CharacterDesignForge what made Thanos so interesting was that he was obsessively and fanatically devoted to his way of thinking, he would never be convinced he was wrong in the sense he would stop, he would just try and one up himself (he goes from halving the universe, and when the “ungrateful” Avengers try to undo it he simply decides to kill everyone and start over).
@@CharacterDesignForge Thanos isn't crazy. He's convinced his way is the only way. And nobody has ever tried to disprove that, the most he got was a "you don't know that" from his daughter. Everyone else tried violence instead of diplomacy. His experience with his own planet has further led him to believe his is the only solution. I don't see why an actual argument proposing an undeniably better solution couldn't change his mind. Of course, not just any rando that tried this is gonna be able to convince him. Only the circumstances of that timeline could lead him to change his mind
For me it’s the villain who loses in humiliating fashion every single time yet is somehow still treated as a threat by the world and the characters while they do nothing to try and actually end the conflict.
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.
It’s possible for them to have character, just not anything readers can identify with. Having only good traits isn’t easy to identify with, because nobody is perfect.
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 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.
It can work like that, but it can also become draining--a villain who manages to always win no matter how hard others work against them makes the audience wonder why they should be invested in the fight; if the villain seems to always have the answer for everything we wonder why and the answer looks like "because the creator needs them to be" instead of "because the villain is very smart and capable"
@@cam4636 True. But "more wins than is satisfying" doesn't mean the villain can't lose, and the right balance keeps them feeling truly threatening while not completely discouraging to the reader's investment.
@@cam4636 The thing is, that kind of villain when losing then becomes much more impactful. It also creates a precedent where the protagonists cannot overpower said villain, so the author is forced to come up with a creative solution where the results are unpredictable because this creative solution can still fail to defeat the villain. Usually, a villain who does occasionally lose but mostly wins makes it difficult to tell when or how the villain will lose, so the readers/watchers are invested to see which matchups/fights/competitions may have him lose because they know it's possible, but also unlikely and unpredictable as to when.
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.
@@icecreamhero2375 Harry’s born powerful in the sense that he’s the chosen one & can use Gryffindor relics that others cannot, but that only comes into play a handful of times
The name "Naruto" comes to mind. I mean the show in general, not the character itself. The "Gaara vs Rock Lee" fight feels really bitter in the end (on purpose) because of what you said.
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
I would think they made her terrible on purpose if she wasn’t so important to the story. She’s now the leader of the crimson raiders even though there’s dozens more people that are smarter, more experienced, less annoying, and better suited for the job. Making a annoying character like Ava is something you do for a side quest, or a main quest throw-away character that they kill off for a joke, not the one you make leading the main group and probably will be an important character if not a playable character in the next game, a complete failure.
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.
Bruh, have you ever played Dragon Age? You just described my feelings about Solas perfectly. He’s the most understandable shithead I’ve ever seen in a story, so much that he’s going to be the sympathetic villain in the next game. My feelings on him are so conflicted my brain wants to explode. But yeah, if you don’t know him... Ignore me XD
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!)
I think Simba, Aladdin, and Adam are good examples of flawed (in Adam’s case severely flawed) but ultimately heroic protagonists. Even Hercules strength turned into a flaw in its own way.
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.
Of course. Mary/Gary often have the same flaws that really don't impact their lives or how others feel about them. They're clumsy, too nice, too optimistic, shy, have glasses, had some traumatic backstory that somehow didn't leave them with PTSD, etc. Edit: May I add, the trained for two weeks to be undefeatable thing is actually great in parody(see One Punch Man)
To me, a mary sue or gary stu having that kind of weakness just felt like the writer going "okay here, I put a weakness so you can't accuse me of making my character a mary sue/gary stu."
I feel like the most easy non-issue flaw people tack onto their flawless character is always that they're really clumsy. It doesn't read as a real flaw they can overcome, but just lazy comic relief that gets old really fast.
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
"manga-anime perverts that are supposed to be comedic relief for being perverts" I had a REALLY hard time getting through Kill-La-Kill because of the dad and Mataro, whose entire purpose in the story was to just nosebleed/fawn over how drop-dead gorgeous Ryuko was. Buuuut that whole anime felt very much like one big over-the-top parody of other anime tropes so...meh
@@Sarah_H Parody anime is "fine" IMO because the watcher knows exactly full well that the over-the-top element is just intended as exageration of regular tropes and the setting usually isn't serious enough for the pervert to be too distracting when given screen time. But when you are in a serious anime and you see that guy, coming out of god knows where, specially annoying if whole episodes are basically derailed thanks to their contribution.
I've stopped watching certain anime because after a point it's clear it's just the creator saying "look, GIRL PANTIESSS". Especially if the "comedic relief" is actually just killing the mood & dragging the story to a halt
For me, DW from Arthur sprang to mind. DW can whine, pout, and misbehave all day, but when someone complains about her being whiney, they're painted as a bully.
That reminded ne of Wade Watts in both RPO and RPT, especially RPT. Dude didn't even get to fight Anorak at the end of the second book. He let a dying Ogden do the job for him.
Also they just make the “strong” woman a pick-me jerk who hates girly things and “not like the other girls”. Strong girls can also be feminine and/or kind. I also hate when the girl character cuts her hair as “development” and “becoming stronger” (Sakura did it well but the others were just really unneeded)
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."
@@ghostlyflamingo07 I agree with that completley. Jotaro was a literal thug at the start of Stardust Crusaders ,and Giorno had a not so kindhearted goal. Not to mention Johnny from Steel Ball Run,whom I consider at least as evil Valentine.
@@ghostlyflamingo07 Jonathan is a massive exception, he is the definition of a goody two shoes ( though to be fair he is meant to be an parallel to Dio who is extremely evil).
But you gotta be careful with that, otherwise you could end up with a protagonist who’s a complete dipshit and ends up becoming the villain of the story but from a different perspective. If the audience starts to root against the protagonist for any serious length of time then that’s when a lot of problems begin to happen.
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.
Well, Holmes is an interesting character, and in his original iteration and the more faithful adaptations he's not portrayed as being always right. He's a drug addict, obsessive, potentially psychotic, and yet he puts his talents to work protecting others. Holmes can be beloved and admired because he tries to do good for others and doesn't do it with the intent of seeking glory.
I think he would actually fall into this if, despite everything mentioned, he was aclaimed and loved by his peers. Instead he pushes them away and seems destined to be alone.
I gotta say the same about House as a kid I liked his character but as I got older despite his many flaws he was always right always loved and admired and I'm sure it got old eventually that he was an always right bastard. I think there are examples of characters like him that mess up enough to gain sympathy without necessarily being likable tho
Honestly, Sherlock Holmes doesn't fall into this as much as you would think. He is right when it comes to solving problems because he is a hero and most stories have the hero winning, but he has enough flaws and even losses for me to consider him a layered character, albeit one that hasn't gone through a full arc, but smaller ones.
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.
Harime nui, malty, *somehow almost every male elf antagonist* the list goes on but you get my point if want a character you want to hate with passion watch anime :)
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.
@@blokvader8283 yeah nah, deku actually tries and learns from his mistakes and grows because of them. He does have some eccentricities too as far as main characters go.
I think it's even more annoying when it's lampshaded that they're bland and boring, I can list at least ten animes off the top of my head where the male protag will be like "haha I'm such an average guy with average tastes isn't that sooo boring?? If anything happened besides the most boring basic rundown of my boring little life I don't think I'd be able to handle it! Tee-hee~" and it's insufferable every time
@@blokvader8283 Deku literally shreds his arms to pieces because he isn’t strong enough to handle the power he was given, to the point he cannot get them healed properly anymore, and don’t function nearly as well as they used to. Maybe that gets fixed later but I’m not crazy far into the story so correct me if that occurs.
It's Bakugo for me he was such an asshole like unjustly so and I'm not against abrasive edgy good guy characters love me some Wolverine but damn Bakugo's motivations for being so awful feel weak and his character arc fell flat for me. It felt like he didn't grow enough I'm not saying he needs to be a softy but toning it down and have him think or collecting himself before he blows up would show he's at least trying
Yeah, his character made me stop watching bnha. The show is all like "Justice!" And I see a victim and a bully right in front of me, and I'm like. . ."why can't they fix the one problem that's shoved in everyone's faces?"
Yeah, I'm with you there. They were trying with S3 to make him a bit more relatable, and I appreicate him actually admitting his weakness and insecurity for being the possible cause of All Might losing his power. The question is, what was Deku supposed to say when Baku asked him where his Quirk came from? Had he admitted he was fooling Bakugou all these years, that would've lead to a worse consequence than telling the truth. And all Bakugou's moment of weakness leads up to is him apparently being a "proper" rival this time and no teacher EVER seeks to improve his behaviour, no, let's just focus on Deku being scolded/passive aggressively mocked/underestimated for the 500th time. Speaking of which, Deku's physical development is also too static.
@@awesomesmileyguy "Proper": *In the manga it is confirmed that Deku couldn't fight seriously because of his emotions and that all that Bakugo said that caused this was basically his plan*
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
I never knew what to think about Bloo when I was a kid. I liked him, but I liked Mac, Walt, and Eduardo a lot more. Those guys were sweethearts🥺Maybe the intention was to have Bloo be more bratty to contrast with the other characters?
With Bloo it was, to me, always a matter of writing. He'd have moments when his good side came out and he was shown to be genuinely caring and kind towards the friends that he held dear, but then his selfish and greedy side would take over five seconds later. The episodes where he let out those buzzing creatures that were Frankie's imaginary friends and when he tricked Mac into eating sugar anger me the most. He created chaos not only for some of his friends but for the entire Foster's house simply because he didn't want to do as he was told.
"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. 🤣
You can add 90’s amine Sailor Moon/Usagi/Serena to that list too... At the beginning of each series after the first one (with maybe the exception of stars) her character seems to always regress back to the character she was at the beginning of season 1 (while they give a reason for it for R, that doesn’t work so well for S and Super S). Add that to the fact that they overblow a lot of her less appealing character traits to the point, that you actually feel sorry for people around her... Usagi is not meant to be a unlikeable character, if you read the manga and/or watched Crystal you can clearly see that, but the way they handled her in the 90’s amine was pretty cringe...
@@Underworlder5 Did Goku ever really learn the lesson of "don't be a fighting-obsessed idiot"? Because I don't recall that ever sticking even in the Funimation dub(which, I've been told, gave him a rather noticeable IQ boost), even if it did occasionally hit him that Gohan wasn't obsessed with fighting like he was - though I did end up tapping out right when Kid Buu was introduced.
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.
4:43 I think of that as "the Gru problem," though it also applies to Shrek in the third and fourth movies, and it gets worse in tv shows where it's the main protagonist (e.g. Stan Smith in American Dad) learning the same lesson in multiple episodes. I think the problem comes from the writers not knowing how to write the character after their character development, which feels like it defeats the purpose of said development. Also, something I learned from watching a lot of videos like this is that writing flaws for a character isn't enough to make them likeable: you also have to write their flaws AS flaws. Meaning, you have to make their flaws something that other characters don't like about them. People don't dislike Caillou just because of the tantrums; they may get sick of hearing the tantrums, but it's his parents' lack of reactions that make people dislike him. From what I've seen, a character who gets away with annoying behavior and is still loved and praised by all the "good" characters can be MORE hated than a boring and flawless Mary Sue. So the other "good" characters (NOT the "unlikeable" villain/bad guy/annoying person) should be able to react negatively at the character for their annoying traits/actions, and the character themself should have some sense of self-awareness (NOT for a 4th wall joke, but for a desire to actually be a liked person.) Even a mean-spirited introverted character who doesn't care about popularity and embraces their "jerk/loser" status should be able to feel bad and desire to change when someone they like or they're close to has a negative reaction to their negative character trait. Having one of those "annoying" characters feel even a little guilt over their mistakes can go a long way to gaining audience sympathy. Edit: I like American Dad, and Despicable Me, and Shrek (the first two movies anyway). My example characters are not examples of characters I can't stand, they're just examples of characters that learned a lesson but then reverted to their old personality in the next episode/movie. I even like Gru in Despicable Me 2, which shows that this trope (I think it's called Reset Button) doesn't always prevent enjoyment of a character. Like most tropes, just be careful how you use it.
As for TV writing, I believe some of this is due to a lack of a linear storyline, or arching storyline (I hope I said that right). Most of these shows are episodic, they are plots only contained in one episode, then reset the next.
This also is present a lot in comics, because if the writers let the characters grow wiser and older, we’d have to do something crazy like start the universe all over again. So much bitter sarcasm there. It drives me crazy that they’ll reboot the universe, but won’t let characters have sustained development.
"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.
Now that you mention "off-screen arcs" I suddenly remembered the version of Galinda from Wicked (the book). She ended up having a complete 180 of her character which was just word vomited to the readers how much she has changed once a character she barely talked to died. This was basically as soon as it happened, too. The fact was that it seemed so out of character and so sudden. By that point, I had to return the book to the library and, overall, got disinterested to continue reading, so maybe it wasn't as bad as I remember. But hey, the book was good, just that part was really poor and I am convinced that it was the author was so tired to see Glinda be such stuck up person that he wanted her to have a complete switch. But yeah, I know how you feel. Sometimes I think so much of a story could be improved just by certain characters and their arcs being more fleshed out.
@@daubeny6796 Prefacing this by saying I’m not trying to start an argument in the comments section of the video, because I know this character has a lot of passionate fans. I was actually referring to Cullen.
@@feanaro2712 Oh my, didn’t expect him. He is pretty secondary through all first 2 games isn’t he? And he sure as hell wasn’t much of a friendly face up until Inquisition. Damm there even was an ending in Origins in which he went crazy and just went on a mage killing rampage so I guess I can see how Cullen truly isn’t the loveliest guy.
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
I remember not liking that show because playing the Pokemon games was all about building a team, progressing through gyms, etc. If Ash is just a dumbass child who refuses to learn life lessons, his Pokemon could at least start winning on their own merits and skill rather than deus ex machina plot devices and lame "friendship is magic" type reasons. The only good thing about that show was pikachu being cute and Team Rocket being an iconic gay-lesbian duo
Because Ash wasn't made to be likable, he was made to be profitable. He always goes through the same situations almost every season like clockwork because every generation is far enough apart that the previous "target demographic" won't socially interact with the next one.
“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.
I don't really like when someone gets villified for being different or just doing something annoying. I feel like Lavender in Harry Potter was just there to be annoying/comedic and then she is just more or less killed off and I don't think she did anything bad but being a little bit too much in love. I think how you treat your unlikeable characters in your story wil always affects your other characters in the story. Worse, it might make your other characters feel unempathetic if they are treated too coldly.
Not a big anime watcher, but watch a little bit with my partner: can't stand Holo from Spice and Wolf. Constantly whining about the male protag being stupid or insensitive, but when she pulls some nonsense she's "clever." Great discussion on unlikable characters! Would love to hear about likable unlikable characters.
Aw… I’m sad you feel that way. I really liked the show and I was indifferent Holo’s whining. I hoped you liked the show otherwise but Holo is a main character so I’d understand if you disliked the show as a whole.
I can definitely see the appeal of the show and actually found the premise and world building pretty intriguing. I just didn't enjoy Holo because she's "so wise," but I really didn't find her to be that way. I only watched about half of the first season and I know it's a show a lot of folks enjoy, so if I gave it more time she might grow on me? Her character as presented in those episodes made it a little challenging for me to enjoy, though. The music from the show is amazing. Would love to learn the main theme on my violin.
I have not watched the show, but based on your description, it sounds like they took the easy/lazy way of showing a character's cleverness. In real life, when someone constantly puts someone down to prop themselves up, that means they are insecure and not really saying the truth.
@@0xXNamineXx0 The show does not put down the male protagonist like Holo does. Some of the things she does are “wise”. Other things she does are not so “wise” yet the show treats these as wise too. A very minor issue for me but may also be a major issue for others.
7:19 I watched the chilling aventures of Sabrina and felt nothing but this cuz all she was was a very selfish person making the same mistakes and causing problems while everyone around her suffered due to her causing those problems but still loving her
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.
Something I don't like about characters is when a problem presents itself and it's almost resolved immediately or with a lot of violence. I'm not even talking about committing a crime or anything, I mean if someone is a jerk to the character, the character in turn uses their powers and severely injures or even kills them. The fact the character/OC is so op and can just easily take out or beat up anyone who slightly annoys or crosses them over without any remorse, kind of disgusts me in a way; especially the ones that are teens and in school. It just makes the character/OC seem like they have no awareness for the people around them, and it feels like justice isn't served but they're going on a power trip. I mean, I hate jerks too, but they still live a life and I don't want them to die just because they're a jerk.
Also, often times the fact that the hero wins is portrayed as equal to him being superior? Like, in fair martial arts type movies, thats fine. But beating some douchebag up doesnt mean you were right, just physically more powerful
I've been writing characters a lot recently and this really helped. Most of these I already know were stuff to avoid but having a full explanation has kinda inspired me to add more onto some of them. I'd talk about some of them but it'd probably be too much to fit into a single comment as I build my characters around their universe instead of the universe around them so there's like novels of context needed for some of em.
Same!! Can super relate to building characters around their universes so tons of context is needed.... I'm intrigued, do go on if you'd like to share :0
@@ithink1891 There's a good many to go over lol, but sure. It's late for me now but I can go over a few tomorrow, or if you want more direct contact then I have Discord which is probably more effective.
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.
Exactly. In that sense it's like the opposite of Pokemon (anime) where how they overuse the same protagonist writes the show to a corner. That and it's why I wished it could have gone through the same route as Jojo. Heck Pokemon adventures does this and people consider it as the superior Pokemon story. Long term protagonists can still remain compelling when done right (e.g. Luffy and to an extent Naruto) and as a bonus both have similar end goals as Ash. A tip for that is to make them drive and progress in the story and don't undergo an overly repeating character arc that leads nowhere like how Ash has to get his past progression retconned as a convenient excuse to get new rivals in one of his region hopping shenanigans doing pretty much the same thing in every region he has been through and halt actual progression by losing the league again and add more people on his friendzone list. It's one of the big reasons why the series stagnates and I'm kinda mixed to the show. It's the prime definition of a repeating character arc and idc if Journeys ended all those tropes, the problems should never have existed for 2 decades.
@@the-sillycate Yep! All the jojos had their little physical and character flaws that helped make them more interesting and fun to watch! Jonathan was a bit too nice Joeseph keeps getting into shit Jotaro SEEMS to not care Josuke has goofy hair... Wait, my doorbell rang, ima check that.
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 remember a character from a novel called "Woman", and which one came to TV (talking about the Turkey version), where the main villain called Sirin Sarikadi, becomes into the most unlikable character I have ever seen, but she is really well created, enough to be best villain I have ever seen too.
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.
Can appreciate that! Definitely true in the real world that we don't always get it the first time, but storytelling emulating the real world doesn't always serve to make for a better story. The passage of time, for example. A few other folks have brought the same example up because of the inherent flaw in trying to force an introverted/shy person to be less of either of those things or to "get over it"- when sometimes it's just part of our makeup. But I definitely understand what you're saying too, and feel like in execution there's probably a really good way to show someone struggle to really get ahold of progress like that.
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.
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.
Selflessness and is what separates heroes from villains you say? Sounds like someone stumbled upon Star Wars's conception of good and evil, because selflessness is the most fundamental trait that separates us Jedi from the selfishness of the Sith! ;-)
Let me hit you with a paradoxical situation then Would you rather save 5 people who are morally ambiguous, ordinary people Or one person who is guaranteed to become a great light-side person? On one hand, it would be almost selfish to choose the one over many But on the other, the one could save many in the future But then there's the consideration that maybe one of the many could become one to save many more Lol, good luck with that brain-mushifier
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.
Forrest Gump is a great example. A very simple character with very simple ambitions and goals, but the real draw is in how the world reacts to him. Though as innocent and happy he is, his challenges come from those he befriends being in far worse states of mind than he is.
A lot (not all) of the Jojo protagonists fall under this. Not much character arc but they’ve got fun personalities, battle powerful villains that they have to use their wits to defeat, and the effect of their actions are felt by others
Subscribed. I did come to hear Caillou get dunked on. I was actually surprised though to find such an interesting and well articulated piece on character development. Looking forward to the rest of your catalogue.
Only major caveat I have with this analysis is with point 2, Repeated Character Arcs, when the author's thesis is that being an introvert or shy or socially anxious is bad and should be overcome. I remember the brony fandom being super uber frustrated with Fluttershy's lack of development about her social anxiety and shyness, to the point some straight up hated her. Firstly, I feel like it's a failure of the author if the story can be basically boiled down to "if you prefer being alone that's bad," it's very dumb and a very skewed vision of reality to just assume that just because you are extroverted everyone should be. Second, the treatment of social anxiety and shyness by the media and people consuming it is borderline cruel, with much of the sentiment being boiled down to "just get the fuck over yourself" as if social anxiety wasn't an actual issue that takes years of therapy to get better, and shyness isn't a natural trait that doesn't just magically vanish because you force someone into a social situation. Now, returning to repeated character arcs, the fact that those things are not just surface level shit that can be solved with one good experience, some being literally traits you're born with, like introversion and shyness, makes it a very much plausible and realistic scenario that you'd see the same person go through the exact same issue over and over, I for example have yet again become a hermit because of the pandemic, despite the fact I had achieved some level of social interaction at uni before, and this is not the first time that I recede like that, and it won't be the last, because I've got social anxiety and some issue with overstimulation, and this is not a thing that just because I befriended a couple of people in university and went to some parties (plastered for the most part) in the past years I've gotten over. Yet, in fiction it is something people find irritating, which is super jarring for someone like me, to see people just rib on a character because go figure, their shyness doesn't disappear after a 25 min episode where the resolution is that they went to a party and had fun.
Dude you are seriously projecting so hard you could fill a drive-in theater. The point of #2 isn't that ppl don't instantly get over things that normally take time to get over by the end of an episode, the point is that it's annoying when a character learns a valuable lesson or overcomes a serious hurdle and is shown to be a better person for it, only for next week's episode to have them in the exact same or very similar position having to re-learn the valuable lesson they already were supposed to have learned. A good example is an old sitcom called Everybody Loves Raymond. My sister and I hate this show for this exact reason. The main character, Raymond, is the stereotypical tv sitcom dad, lazy, loves sports and cars, gets griped at by his wife because he doesn't listen to her or consider her before doing things, is horny, and is bad at being a parent. The show regularly has him put in situations where he does one or more of these things which he knows is bad, such as lying to the wife to save his own skin only for it to come back and bite him by the end of the episode, or him doing something that actively hurts his wife and him seeing nothing wrong with it until it's beaten or lectured into him why it was wrong by the end of the episode. Nearly every single episode of the show is him doing something wrong, thinking there's nothing wrong with it, him getting in trouble, him being told why it's wrong, him finally understanding why it was wrong, and him "learning" from it so that he won't do it again in the future, except he does it again a couple of episodes later and has to learn the same lesson over again, and then it happens a few episodes later, and then again a few episodes later, and it never ends. The show is annoying because it makes him come across as either an abysmally stupid incompetent person who can't help but keep making the same mistake every other episode and constantly getting in trouble for it, or a heartless selfish sociopath who lies about learning his lessons to get out of trouble but actually isn't interested in trying to be a better father/husband/son/friend/brother. He's insufferable, and that's what the second point of the video is talking about. It's not about taking a slow process and forcing it to be sped up to fit into the end of an episode or arc, it's about characters in shows who are supposed to have already been taught a lesson that they are supposed to be growing and learning and improving from, only to have them forget that they ever learned the lesson and repeat it again multiple times in different episodes. Eventually you get bored with it always being the same predictable crap or you get annoyed because the character supposedly growing isn't actually growing at all and is just wasting everybody's time and energy teaching him what he's already supposed to have known several times over by now.
Bernadette from Fire Emblem Three Houses is a good example of this being done correctly. For the most part the characters don't have a problem with Bernie being an introvert, and those who do usually learn otherwise, but rather the characters have issues with much of a recluse Bernie is. She has so much anxiety from past trauma that it is severely detrimental to not just her but also those around her. She can barely function, and the other characters are trying to help her while also learning that being an introvert is not a bad thing.
A better example of what is meant with this criticism would probably be in the movies All Dogs Go to Heaven versus All Dogs Go to Heaven 2. In the original, Charlie is basically an asshole who does whatever he wants to because he can. He is far from a likeable character. But as he meets a human girl and starts to care for her (and care about her - kind of as a parent), his character shifts enough that the whole story shifts with it. And by the end, he is actually a good guy and a relatively likeable, tragic character. But then the second movie rolls around, and Charlie is right back to being the bad guy we're supposed to root for despite having gone through such a powerful character shift in the previous movie. He's right back to his old habits and is right back to being unlikeable. And unlike the first movie, this time his unlikeability never really goes away. I do get what you're saying though, and it is really annoying when stories treat being introverted as some kind of flaw. Some character traits never go away, and certainly treating them like a problem really disses the real-life people who have them, and for whom these traits are not necessarily even that bad of a problem and certainly don't make them unlikeable! I say this as someone who's actually very shy, though I don't have social anxiety. There is legitimate criticism for these repeated character arcs when they're done wrong; but the key idea is that they *can* be done right (I would point to Zuko from ATLA for a repeat arc done right). Personally, I don't see shyness or anxiety as something that should be the focus of such an arc to begin with anyway, at least not without including some degree of acceptance for this being just part of how the character is.
@@p.v.7269 this is why I said this is caveat, and went on to explain how I find it bad writing that writers make introversion/shyness/social anxiety a bad trait that has to be overcome. Total lack of reading comprehension from you huh
I really like the Peppa Pig design. It's simple but recognizable, and it works so well with the voice acting. Also, it invites little kids to draw these characters themselves. The series has been a fan favourite in our house for a long time. As for characters I dislike: I watch a lot of kids cartoons with my daughter, and I really dislike characters that enforce stupid rules just to advance the plot of self discovery. While I usually just let her enjoy characters and plots on her own terms, I always make it a point to mention these unfair people to my daughter. Usually it's royalty or parents who don't let girls do certain things, who don't allow crossing class boundaries, who don't let a character pursue their passion, who give up on them after one failed attempt. And then it's up to the character to show them wrong after which all is right with the world. Often the character even thanks that authority figure profusely when they finally get to do the thing.
Peppa Pig is extremely trite and teaches kids bad manners(they're always insulting daddy pig and others). When I babysat my nephews, I let them watch shows for older kids(PPG, Miraculous Ladybug, Spiderman, etc) because I don't underestimate their intelligence to understand what's happening and learn the morals from it. Of course they still watch Paw Patrol and The Wiggles, but watching only toddlers shows can make them act more immature than their age, in my experience.
@@Nakia11798 That's nice. I don't know why you'd assume I only let my daughter watch one show. Also, Peppa Pig has amazingly dry humour. My daughter never once tried to act like Peppa. Probably because we watched it with her and talked about what happened. Her hero is Ms Rabbit, because she also wants to be able to do all kinds of different things. I think that's an amazing lesson to learn at the start of your life.
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.
@@deathkorpsgrenadier2894 good idea. It’s a great series, just… don’t watch the movie. They didn’t read the books before making the movie, and it shows.
@@DetectiveWraith What a wasted opportunity, it's sad that they took so long and yet /that's/ what they came up with. The first book alone could make a fantastic villain-protagonist movie!
@@Semudara agreed. I would watch all the books as a movie, if it was actually a good one, that didn’t change the entire plot of the book. Why do Directors find it so hard to adapt books into movies. The fans of the book could have made a better movie on a 10$ budget!
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.😎
I mean it's pretty much writer 101, never ever make your main character unlikable because that'll guarantee your story to not be popular. Prime examples Ender Wiggins from Ender's Game, that main character piss me off so much long time ago when that movie came out that I'm strongly advise everyone not to watch that movie because the main character is so unlikable he makes you want to punch your TV screen in blind rage. Throughout the majority of that movie he's just a pansy who gets drafted into the military and whines throughout most of the movie. The last thing that any country needs is a soldier who is not willing to protect us from Alien Invaders, again the movie is so bad I strongly advise you y'all guys not to watch the movie instead watch the Charlie Brown Peanuts movie by Blue Sky Studios or any good movie that will make you feel like a little kid again.
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
@UCD-IHsD6_lkOoSsHQCvVfuQ I would like to see more male final characters, instead of them always either showing up at the very end or sacrificing themselves to save the final girl.
I’m having trouble making a character likable. I made a character that I know many people are gonna find annoying and I’m looking for ways to balance the annoyance out, so this actually helped, thank you!
I misread it as "unkillable" and the idea of an immortal Caillou is as terrifying as cosmic horror.
They would never kill Caillou in the show, so he really is unkillable ...
He isn't unkillable, the show got cancelled.
@@Nakia11798 Sadly, it managed to get a reboot.
@@samanthearichardosn351 Dear God... Is there more?
@@captainstroon1555 What if Thanos and Caillou swapped personalities now picture that.
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
But also kinda sad, ugh...
@JoyArt Why?
@@RosheenQuynh because it means someone is taking the time to understand a character on a deeper level and it's good to have a diversity of characters to have media attention rather than the same couple of characters
@@koikat6638 How does that relate to shipping?
@@RosheenQuynh You didn't specify shipping so I was adressing it more characterwise, but the same applies for shipping too. Shipping is often used partially as a deep dive into the shipped characters and how they would interact with each other. Having a variety of ways a certain ship could happen is amazing and it's also great that there can be more than the same three ships for media, even if a good handful of those are crack ships
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
Chaddy Pig: Works hard to provide for his family, Rewards children when they show empathy, Endulges in childish desires without giving up his responsibilities, is liked by everybody in his work and personal life.
Truely the modern hero we need
@@zealotoftheorchard9853 a true hero
I've seen plenty of peppa (thanks to younger siblings) and there are so many episodes where Daddy Pig just gets made fun of or kinda tormented for no particular reason. I always wonder why his family is so mean to him.
@@Sand-Walker13 exactly always points out his big belly for no reason
Ay transformers fan classy
If this isn't a Caillou hit piece then we need one.
That's my secret... it's always a Cailou hit piece
My Caillou hit piece of choice is a baseball bat.
@@rainpooper7088 this made me chuff
And after him, the D.W. from Arthur.
Or Rey.
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”
Golden child right there, already a little man of culture.
@@schleepy6362 hes a monumental man of culture
No offense intended, but hopefully he didn't say that because he thinks he can't or shouldn't like things that are unpopular with a lot of other people.
@@Fimbleshanks 1. He didn’t like it cause it’s annoying, I didn’t even know caillou was still on the air.
2. Things that are hugely unpopular are unpopular for a reason, and it isn’t a bad thing to recognize that.
Especially his parents
You forgot to mention Uncle Iroh as a character that is universally liked.
Aw ♥️
@Stefano Contardi omg those are my exact favorites too!
@@CharacterDesignForge i love caillou i grew up with that show and i really find caillou a really funny kid🤣🤣🤣🤣.
@@CharacterDesignForge i just don't like peppa pig cuz it gives me nightmares and make a video about teletubbies
Avatar slaps
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)
That’s the burden of being the face of the company. Mario and Barbie suffer from a similar problem in that their foils and adversaries tend to be more interesting than they are. Don’t wanna ruin the company’s image by having the character do questionable things.
Goofy is my favorite of the Disney trinity. More specifically the way he's portrayed in the Goofy Movie and Goof Troop. A struggling single father doing his absolute best to raise his son, but in his own enthusiasm doesn't fully consider his sons feelings at times. Of course he doesn't really fall into the "unlikable" class of character, but all the same.
The idea that Mickey gets a lot of “easy wins” is false. If you’ve seen literally any of his cartoons like Get a Horse, Runaway Brain, The Brave Little Tailor, Thru the Mirror, Shanghaied, etc. the whole essence of Mickey’s character is that he’s an underdog. He’s small and weak, and his enemies are either massive, powerful, or just outnumber him altogether. And all Mickey has on his side are his optimism and wit. Mickey’s stories are about overcoming these obstacles despite having little in his favor.
A lot of people don’t understand that.
The older Mickey definitely has a lot more personality and compelling stories. The recent shorts have helped bring back some of that scrappiness for sure, but there's a lot of cases where he's essentially just a logo.
Sometimes I think to myself about how actual Donald Duck lore exists. I once looked up the Donald Duck family tree.
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.
@Eli M I don’t watch One Punch Man but that actually seems really interesting. I like when writers take a trope and give it a spin into something unique.
@@Litchy51 OPM is really clever with how it handles it’s overpowered main character.
Firstly, he is incredibly unfulfilled. Ever since he reached godlike strength, he has never get the thrill of a close match for real challenge. Making him incredibly depressed. No matter what he faces, he knows that he will win effortlessly. Making it not worth it.
Then there is another problem. Because he is so strong, people often dismiss the effort of everyone else or just assume that, what he did do, isn’t actually impressive. Meaning that him being around, makes everyone appear worse than they need to be. It’s like a genius kid, getting the best possible grades without trying. Then everyone just assumes that test was too simple or that no one else ever prepared for it.
Great series.
@@frankwest5388 Thats cool. A lot of stories go “not enough” where a character needs more/to get better at something, but that goes “too much” where he doesn’t like being so powerful and would like to become weaker
@@Litchy51 To further Frank's second point; when Saitama does something in the spotlight, the interpretation is to dismiss him due to his appearance or portray him as a borderline villain due to unintended collateral damage from the shock-waves of his punches. At one point, which is a crowning moment of heartwarming, Saitama plays into his negative press to uplift a normal person trying to take on a supervillain to protect trapped people; giving him most of the credit for "weakening" the guy he just exploded casually.
Saitama has the superhero equivalent of gifted kid syndrome
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.
Oh man, really feel like the platonic friendship is underrated in stories, always appreciate when they happen!
But muh shiiiiiiiips...
Lol, jk.
J. P. Beaubien: Can I interest you in a love triangle?
Sword Art Online is a prime example. Kirito is so unlikeable but every woman he meets just seems to love the taste of cardboard.
Speaking of black clover, fuck Yuno, dude. It felt as though he just kept getting stronger just because Asta did in a fair way. Oops Asta got stronger because he nearly lost a friend and had to fight for his and his friend's life, better make yuno more op for no reason
"Some of you are entitled to the wrong opinion that *this* isn't a crime."
Hmmm
"I remember a very forgettable movie"
It's lack of impression made such an impression on me
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.
Yes! I hate this! I can only stand this is it’s part of the story. When the whole show just gaslights you like “double standards are totally fair!” it makes my blood boil.
another pet peeve could be "hero blasts through minions without remorse, but spares villain to show he is not evil". a related one could be "hero spares villain because he refuses to kill no matter how many times the villain kills others". that last one kind of makes it hard to root for batman, since his refusal to kill a single madman allows said madman to kill hundreds of innocents the next time he escapes. there are justifiable reasons for it (batman reasons that he could easily become addicted to killing, and joker wants batman to kill him), but joker has still suffered accidents that batman went out of his way to save him from, and what stops the gotham government from executing him?
@@Underworlder5 I hate this trope too. If you've already merc'd 20 of the villain's henchmen, you may as well kill him too or all that moral struggle is meaningless
@@Underworlder5 so basically just Luke Skywalker in Death Star 2
@@youwouldntremembermeanyway7410 that one is a bit iffy. the main point is that if luke struck down palpatine, he would be giving in to hate, and as a result fall to the dark side. the problem there is that palpatine is the leader of the enemy faction and a tyrant. there are more reasons to kill him than hate
also, about the part where he spares vader, i would say that was the right decision. he was fueled by anger at the last leg, and so would be teetering dangerously close to the dark side. in that context, he had to relent once he incapacitated vader, since the kill would have been motivated by emotion rather than pragmatism
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
it always goes unfairly well, they have the author on their side
Probably only works on Comedies since that's usually part of the joke
Could Titan from Megamind be an example of that? A total creep ends up getting super powers just by sheer coincidence and surprise surprise, he ends up abusing them
Kvothe, from The Name of the Wind. I like the books and Pat Rothfuss' universe and lore, but I can't stand how even when he 'loses' he ends up winning.
GRIFFIIIIITH! from Berserk is pretty much this after the Golden Age arc, an egotistical douchebag that with the power to have fate grant him everything he could want chooses something as petty as his own kingdom and egopolis. Course he wouldnt be anything without the contrast of Guts, but still.
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.
Hard agree. She is my favorite example of a character who, at a glance, would count as a Mary Sue.
But her execution is nothing short of genius, because her sense of being and *especially* her struggles in the story are very, very real.
Probably my favorite ghibli movie
Hm! I didn’t care for the movie specifically because she seemed too perfect to me and I just struggled with rooting for her. Maybe I need to rewatch and pay more attention!
The manga deeps down more on her character and her "perfection" playing a major key point in the later story.
@@_Katzenberg Ooh that’s interesting!
It's inspirational that Caillou pulled himself together enough to become Saitama. I wish him well on his journey.
New theory: Caillou is Saitama as a child
One punch man will punch you multiple times if you keep insisting he’s the same person as *that.*
@@lamarepository248, well, if he has to punch me multiple times, he's not "one punch man," is he?😆
@@lynngatrell7965 when dealing with C**ll**, it would be madness to leave the faintest chance of survival
Heard that kid became the Avatar too.
Me: >makes a purposely unlikeable character
Others: “Omg they’re so cute” 😚😚
Me: *>flips table*
Cailou isn't unlikable though. Same with Jar Jar
You just might suck at writing lol
you have to also make them ugly too, people on the internet always treat ugly people way worse than pretty people
go with it
@@ketaminepoptarts i think one of the best recent examples of this is bakugou from my hero academia. The author said he was supposed to be very unlikable at first, but hes been a constant favorite among the my hero crowd. i wonder how people would act if he wasnt conventionally attractive.
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.
This definitely could be seriously annoying to me too if done the wrong way.
For something done the right way (in my opinion), I would actually point to the old Disney Cinderella - the situation she was in was clearly abusive; she didn't stick around just because she was a good person, but rather because she legitimately had nowhere else to go. The only thing she could do was fit herself in as best she could and hope that someday she *could* get out of there. If that meant doing what everyone else told her to do, so be it. The movie's message is a message of hope.
Versus a character who has plenty of other options (and might even see the red flags) but decides to stay in the abusive relationship, for some reason ...? If that's not a source of frustration (or at least concern) for the other characters as well as me, something's wrong!
@@KezanzatheGreat yeah, there's a difference between being a good person, and being a spineless pushover
Edit: not that people who are abused and unable to find a way out are all spineless pushovers... but the ones who are unwilling, tho?
@DBen’s Drawin’ Vids would Spider-Man go in that category? He always tries to do the right thing but always suffers for it. For him I at least think it’s done right.
I think it depends on the execution
Agreed, I hate that. Especially when female characters keep physically abusing the protagonist when he doesn't deserve it, because it's supposed to be "funny".
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
@@--.._ What's especially bad, is I'd probably _almost_ like him if he was just a little smarter, or paradoxically, better at lying...
To be honest he’s just bad considering the things he’s done to rowley
as a younger kid he's sort of relatable and its funny watching his life unfold, when we get older we realize he was a jerk and loses all character development at the end of every book
@@varik4363 True. I as a girl, used him as a template for typical boy behavior. Then I read it again and realized just how manipulative he was
don't get me started on his little brother >:(
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
The important thing to do in that case, I think, is to make sure that the lessons they learn aren't *exactly the same* every time. You don't change a character all at once, you just take a little off at a time until they've completed their arc... the problem is that we're so wrapped up in perpetual storytelling nowadays, very few studios/artists/producers want the story of their characters to reach a conclusion, so often we'll wind up with characters spinning in circles until they lose whatever goodwill anyone gave them.
Thats exactly it- nothing wrong with even a static character, or repeating mistakes, just the specific instance I mentioned in the video- where repetition comes with a promise that never quite pays off.
@@kevingriffith6011 Honestly, I think that's been true since perhaps the dawn of cinema, if not the dawn of literature. Once a company comes across their "SpongeBob" or "Simpsons" or "The Office (US version)" they will continue to milk it as long as it makes at least a little profit for them, long after anything new or interesting can be done with these established characters and forever kept on life-support by reminding people that the original show used to be amazing, usually by re-releasing or remaking the "classic" seasons. Nickelodeon is particularly prone to this mentality, if the creators of Angry Beavers (who wanted to do a proper final episode) are to be believed, while Cartoon Network seems to be more willing to end shows that could have gone more seasons, if anything, like Ed, Edd and Eddy or the Amazing World of Gumball.
I think the frustrating thing about shows that go on for 20+ years is that there is potential to do that kind of more realistic long-term character growth, the kind that is impossible to do in mini-series or shows that only end up lasting a season or two, but in reality we just get characters like Homer Simpson or Toy Story's Woody going through the same exact character arc over and over again to increasingly boring results.
I feel only indie artists, especially ones in a position where they don't NEED to make money from their art specifically, have the privilege of ending character arcs right when they start running out of ideas. Considering how companies seem keen on milking their established IPs and putting off the dreaded day when they need to make a new one, regardless of how successful the creaky old IP still is, maybe we need to start teaching aspiring writers and directors how to write character arcs that can be spread out 10+ seasons, so that their hugely popular new idea at least doesn't feel like a ball and chain holding back their creative ambitions, once the seasonal rot starts setting in but the higher-ups really want to keep the series going.
Have you ever read David Eddings? It might interest you.
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.
Appreciate the framing of what you don't like as personal opinion, ,and providing a constructive counter of how it can be done right! I appreciate this format of comment the most, and perhaps I was naive in putting this prompt out to not expect otherwise. I happen to agree with you on all counts, here as well!
@@CharacterDesignForge Thank you! And I appreciate the video. It's hard to figure out how to fix something like an unlikeable character until you know why it's broken.
I don't like animal or anthropomorphic object sidekicks that are introduced as cheap humor or just as a lazy way to try appealing to children. The films from Golden Films really tend to add them. Sometimes they are okay, but other times they decidedly aren't bearable or funny
The phonenix from the old Conan animated series was good. Incompetent, sure, but internally consistent and saved the day at times. And the ability to turn into a shield emblem was cool.
I remember when I read the infamous "How To Draw Manga" series, the author was hammering in how stories, mainly of the magical girl variety, MUST have cute sidekicks because it's a staple of girly shows and something something cute and adorable and appeals to the younger audiences... Shorthand being, it's marketable.
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.
Literally every character on Riverdale. You can tell how little effort the writers put in and it only gets worse and worse.
Yes, up to the point when you can't watch it anymore
As much as i like the Archies, the show does not do them justice.
99% of Netflix characters
@Simple Weirdo it does?
That show's still a thing?
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.
I'll never understand why they decided to give her fairies when there were enough already liked characters on the show that clearly were miserable like Vicky's sister or Timmy's trailer park friend.
@@yukikanegawa7470 * Chester and Tootie
She was supposed to be a parody of Mary Sues but the execution sucked.
It also defeated the purpose of fairies.
Fairies were for kids who were miserable. Almost depressed even.
Chloe was not. She just broke all the needs for fairies.
I never even gave her a chance because she was so damn annoying.
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.
i did that with one of my own characters. on the surface, she has no real weaknesses, but is later shown to be charitable and selfless to a fault, insisting on taking on burdens even when she is in no shape to. part of her character development is learning that you can be selfish at times and count on others for help. another character has a strict sense of honor, but that results in him being very hard on himself, and has difficulty forgiving himself even when other have forgiven him a long time ago
@@Underworlder5 the "too selfless" shtick is literally every shonen protag
@@stovespiegel I mean, not really....? Most shonen protagonists are selfless to an extent, but that often is not depicted as a flaw. I feel like it's more common for the shonen protag's flaw to be just how gung-ho they are, rushing into danger without thinking anything through and flying by the seat of their pants.
@@Underworlder5 That fist character almost sounds like a Mary Sue, better check that out to not ruin her as a character.
@@Burn_Angel admittedly, i realized that out of all my characters, she is the most susceptible to the mary sue trap, and i have already taken measures to curb that. generally, a mary sue steals the spotlight and makes the world revolve around them, while any flaw is artificial at worst
for my character, i made sure any flaw she has does have consequences (the villain manipulates her by appealing to her sympathy, and her efforts to atone makes her overwork herself, and while she does get the job done, also results in needless amounts of stress). also, while she is a prominent character with a lot of screentime, she is part of a team, and they essentially take turns being the central character
finally, her central character does not revolve much around her strength and feats, but using her compassion to bring out the best in everyone around her, helping her teammates with their personal issues and contributing to their character arcs. if nothing else, i want to write her as a genuinely likable and approachable woman, someone you would love to meet in real life. i have my own rule in that a good character is either likable (for heroes), intimidating (for villains) or entertaining (for either)
anyway, thanks for your feedback. comments like this help me look back and refine my characters, so i appreciate any constructive criticism
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.
That backfired hugely because Caillou got cancelled in January 2021...
@@Turbs94945 I don’t know if it really backfired, it got over twenty years of air time, which is a travesty.
@@archbishopofthecrusades9579 Well yes but over those 20 years it mostly got hate...
@@Turbs94945 You should know that any attention is good attention, they would not lose a minute of sleep even if their character was hated
I just looked up some images and the original caillou is actually CUTE???? He could’ve been so much more lovable
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.
Between the unfortunate situations they're always in and the moronic adults who Just. Don't. Listen. The juxtaposition of their perfectness is one of the main things that keeps the audience invested. It also helps that the reason they're always utilizing their perfectness is just so they can bloody survive till the next day (as opposed to just prancing through life without any major hardships and making things unnaturally beneficial for themselves all the time).
@@AD-dg3zz good point!
NPH did a good job in that
That and it made it so that you WANTED the children to be lucky, you wanted them to find a suitable guardian where they could be safe. It does a very good job of making you want these children to be ok, despite them being perfect.
@@MahouShoujo-Studios characters like the judge or uncle Monty could have given them a nice home but unfortunately they died
"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.
I misread it as "Unkillable Characters," and was beyond confused when I saw Calliou lol
We all know Calliou can't die
caillou is real and you Cant kill him.
I tried creating an unlikeable main character for a comedy, and people found him relatable and funny.
There's two types of likeable: in story,
And real life.
In Kappa Mikey, everyone hates him, but the audience loves him
That reminds me of when I first read diary of a wimpy kid and thought Greg was the most relatable fictional character ever
@SophiaTheSassy i think that was definitely the case, since I have pretty strict parents
Me a DM trying to get my players to stop liking my villains: "Write that down! Write that down!"
Dude, players just gravitate towards random shit, it's so strange. But honestly; it's a good thing to have your villains liked, it means they're entertaining.
@@trickydiagram5267 That's nice to know, but sometimes I want to crush their spirits by revealing a villain but then they are immediately asking, "Can I tame the motherfucker?" And it goes from end of world to pokemon.
Why don’t you just make them fail instantly when trying-your the DM.
@@phosphorus9867 Because they whine and I also like seeing them get all excited for their new sixteen story eight headed human flesh worm pet.
@@chilldogs5444 You really need to make your villain hatable and imposing for the players to not 'like' them. The problem with monsters is that you can't really 'hate' a monster because ultimately your relationship with them is impersonal, sure an amorphous blob of flesh, eyes and arthropod appendages is scary and all; but who cares? You don't empathise with the thing enough to despise it; it's just a dumb monster for you to project your own feelings onto.
People make the best villains, their motivations are beyond 'kill, feed, mate and repeat' and they can be smug, arrogant or be a hypocrite and lecture the heroes about their own wrongdoings. Have them spite and spurn the heroes by hitting them where it hurts, kill a loved character, make it personal.
Just my two cents.
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.
God I hate laugh tracks so much. The only show I didn’t mind them in was Rosanne idk why if I absolutely have to have audience noise I prefer it to be a live audience. Friends ,home improvement, Big Bang are some of the worst literally probably have three to five minutes of just laughing in each episode
I agree, canned laughter at its worst can really break immersion and lower the writing quality. Still, there are some shows that have used it well, and it made me laugh along with the audience, shows like the middle seasons of M•A•S•H and the Dick Van Dyke Show. M•A•S•H didn't pause and wait for the laughter to finish after every line, and it had rules: the laugh track was never, never used in the operating room, no matter how funny the jokes were, and some more serious episodes didn't use it at all. On the other hand, the Dick Van Dyke Show used laughter from the specific audience of each episode, making for hilarious reactions (one lady screams in the background of a broom falling out of a closet). It's all in the execution!
The one of the best kind comedic show is sketch comedy and the best one I’d enjoyed was Kids in the Hall, because there are different jokes that pay off with each sketch that are really funny. Unlike SNL which is just unfunny.
Cue Laugh track.
Right? It basically forces you to find their hard-trying "funny", even though that's what it is, most of the time. Trying too hard.
The sitcom shows that are filmed in front of live studio audiences are my favorites
Like “Sister Sister” “Moesha” “Fresh Prince of Bel Air” or “Family Reunion”
I also like Disney’s kid sitcoms
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
Squidward in the early episodes was like this and he had redeeming qualities
@@thirdplanet4471 very true. They had good moments but they weren't really favorites of mine
@@finalfroevo Squidward is my favourite. He was always relatable
@@thirdplanet4471 Not really. Squidward is just a decent guy that wants to be left alone. He never acted bad and he still doesn't. He gets pissed when he has to put up with idiots.
I feel the same way about Tobias LOL. I'm always happy when he gets beat up.
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.
i mean thats roblox and other noob roleplayers in a nutshell, the characters are just way too much on the extreme side that they push it too far and the character is hated
Yup!
This
You just described Arnold from the Magic School bus.
A, sounds a lot like Onion Boy in his second book.
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 love Nausicaa. From her design to her personality. She's wonderful, and someone I personally aspire to be like.
Wait what show is she from?
It’s a movie. Studio glibli made it, the maker of childhood animated movies.
@@suspiciousfigure3096 ooooh ok thanks
My all-time favourite fictional character
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.
Also, Batman. They keep saying about how "Oh, he's rich and supersmart, he's a mary sue!" but always forget that he's emotionally stunted and when he fails, he tends to fail horribly (Jason Todd, anyone?) plus he's completely paranoid, even to his allies.
@@Shadoboy Exactly, even Batman calls Jason Todd his biggest failure not because of Jason but because he blames himself for what happened to Jason both dying and going down a dark path.
Magic and shiney green rocks say
Otherwise , for me he's too boring
Personality, that's why I always prefer
Batman and that's a different type of
Comic but goku from dragonball series.
@@Shadoboy Calling Batman a Mary Sue is one of the dumbest takes I’ve ever heard, being skilled, competent and unstoppable at times doesn’t save you from being a traumatized and suffering person
@@JonathanPaspula doesn’t change the fact that he should’ve died or beaten to near death in millions of situations. He can screw with beings that would one shot him but hey he survives because “he always has a plan” like holy fuck Batman is genuinely such a Mary Sue and nobody has thicker plot armor than him.
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.
do the exact opposite of all of these steps to make the most likable character ever
I’d argue that would also make em unlikeable
Doing "the exact opposite" of bad advice doesn't always work.
If only it were that simple...
@@Hamantha Then you get an unlikeable character that readers like to hate and you can say it was your plan all along. win-win, baby
@@christophergarcia9022 people hate those writers
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.
Yep! Just referring to the common criticism that he's overpowered.
@@CharacterDesignForge yeah I got that. And even that is a flaw criticism because in the stories that become a physical battle he is always thrown all over the place before being victorious. To me Superman is handled in a similar way to Rocky Balboa expect for the fact Rocky is seen as the underdog that wins the heart of people after the battle just for enduring while Superman is often expected to win because he became the champion of justice.
@@manart6506 most of the people that claim Superman is flawless only focus on his powers and not the character. Clark Kent is very flawed and his morality and compassion getting called into question along side of his godlike abilities that he has to hold back every day just to be accepted in his day to day. A lot of great Superman stories don't focus on the physical side of Superman but the emotional and rational side instead.
@@IRCannonFodder I remember reading someone say something along the lines of "The best Superman stories aren't about how a god-on-earth landed in Kansas, they're about how the nicest guy in Kansas has godlike powers"
They were snarking on Zack Snyder but I think it still applies to the "personality vs superpowers" argument
@@cam4636 it sounds precisely the Zack Snyder way of tackling the Superman story. “Maybe he is just a guy trying to do the right thing”.
Superman in MoS (and BvS) is so evidently flawed (as in comics) that it shocked a few people that only really know Superman as a symbol of perfection (the popular perception that doesn’t really represents the character or his stories).
Eric Cartman is a good example of a character that most people love and hate at the same time.
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.
Pretty much how I feels about Sans from Undertale or Jotaro from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure in a nutshell.
Pretty much how I feel about Hawk from Cobra Kai
You've just spoken the words of gods
@Zmir Moore exactly who I thought of automatically LMAOO I literally dislike him.
While I do have more issues with that character (design and well, the character trope itself she fills to), that's what Minamoto no Raikou from the Fate franchise feels to me.
And quite a couple of others too, that, while I do end up liking some other character because of a character, the bunch of material sent to you from that same character over and over again, gets exhausting.
I like how this video describes perfectly every character in Miraculous Ladybug
Lol
Not every character I think... but more about Marinete/ladybug herself. I find Adrien/chat noir so much more interesting, his powers, lifestyle and the relationship with his abusive father. We could see so much more of him (expecialy since he is ONE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS!!! ) I mean, his name is in the tittle?? It would be way more interesting to see his problems than Marinetes boring teenager problems... i mean, just some centered episodes with adrien would be ok, it dont have to be all of then, but come on, he is a protagonist too but they keep treat him as a secondary character. Only ladybug can shine and win all the battles, but he dont. He is only there to be her prince in shining armor and to be beatind for every single vilan, im every single episede. I fell sad for the kitten sometimes.
@@missn4409 Adrien it's also kinda a "wasted potential", he's just used for the Love Triangle trope. Y'know, everything should be focused in Marinette, CUZ WHY NOT!
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
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
Have had a pretty spotty relationship with Marvel What If so far but one of the least believable things was Thanos somehow being able to be convinced he was wrong by anyone. Isn’t he… mad? Totally agree
@@CharacterDesignForge what made Thanos so interesting was that he was obsessively and fanatically devoted to his way of thinking, he would never be convinced he was wrong in the sense he would stop, he would just try and one up himself (he goes from halving the universe, and when the “ungrateful” Avengers try to undo it he simply decides to kill everyone and start over).
@@CharacterDesignForge Thanos isn't crazy. He's convinced his way is the only way. And nobody has ever tried to disprove that, the most he got was a "you don't know that" from his daughter. Everyone else tried violence instead of diplomacy. His experience with his own planet has further led him to believe his is the only solution. I don't see why an actual argument proposing an undeniably better solution couldn't change his mind. Of course, not just any rando that tried this is gonna be able to convince him. Only the circumstances of that timeline could lead him to change his mind
For me it’s the villain who loses in humiliating fashion every single time yet is somehow still treated as a threat by the world and the characters while they do nothing to try and actually end the conflict.
It's a pain in the ass to see happening, so it's probably relatable....
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.
It’s possible for them to have character, just not anything readers can identify with. Having only good traits isn’t easy to identify with, because nobody is perfect.
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.
Also they only make the girls for love triangles or s•x jokes and everything just revolves around the main white guy anyway
@@yoshisarethebombexactly
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.
Bro, you just described All for One from bnha.
It can work like that, but it can also become draining--a villain who manages to always win no matter how hard others work against them makes the audience wonder why they should be invested in the fight; if the villain seems to always have the answer for everything we wonder why and the answer looks like "because the creator needs them to be" instead of "because the villain is very smart and capable"
@@cam4636 True. But "more wins than is satisfying" doesn't mean the villain can't lose, and the right balance keeps them feeling truly threatening while not completely discouraging to the reader's investment.
David Xanatos would like a word.
@@cam4636
The thing is, that kind of villain when losing then becomes much more impactful. It also creates a precedent where the protagonists cannot overpower said villain, so the author is forced to come up with a creative solution where the results are unpredictable because this creative solution can still fail to defeat the villain. Usually, a villain who does occasionally lose but mostly wins makes it difficult to tell when or how the villain will lose, so the readers/watchers are invested to see which matchups/fights/competitions may have him lose because they know it's possible, but also unlikely and unpredictable as to when.
The best kind of hateable character is something likable but pesters EVERYONE and often causes situational devastation towards a plan
So true
like sarah from the walking dead
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.
Harry isn't born powerful he is very average at magic. Hermonie is the best at it.
@@icecreamhero2375 Harry’s born powerful in the sense that he’s the chosen one & can use Gryffindor relics that others cannot, but that only comes into play a handful of times
@@lita2720 ‘kay
The name "Naruto" comes to mind. I mean the show in general, not the character itself. The "Gaara vs Rock Lee" fight feels really bitter in the end (on purpose) because of what you said.
You can make that archetype work, but there needs to actually be growth, whether through personality or strength.
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
borderlands 3 was terrible period
I would think they made her terrible on purpose if she wasn’t so important to the story. She’s now the leader of the crimson raiders even though there’s dozens more people that are smarter, more experienced, less annoying, and better suited for the job. Making a annoying character like Ava is something you do for a side quest, or a main quest throw-away character that they kill off for a joke, not the one you make leading the main group and probably will be an important character if not a playable character in the next game, a complete failure.
@@biomechanica456th amen to that! Such a bummer. BL2 was the prime and it’s only been downhill from there imo.
Lets hope that gearbox learns their lesson bc i’m not waiting 7-8 years for another bl3. At least story-wise
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.
Bruh, have you ever played Dragon Age? You just described my feelings about Solas perfectly. He’s the most understandable shithead I’ve ever seen in a story, so much that he’s going to be the sympathetic villain in the next game. My feelings on him are so conflicted my brain wants to explode.
But yeah, if you don’t know him... Ignore me XD
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!)
"A character that does nothing wrong"
*proceeds to look at Disney's characters.*
Not all Disney characters are like that, you know.
Ik, but a good handful are now.
More reasons why Donald Duck is superior to Mickey Mouse
I think Simba, Aladdin, and Adam are good examples of flawed (in Adam’s case severely flawed) but ultimately heroic protagonists. Even Hercules strength turned into a flaw in its own way.
Merida
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.
Absolutely! That’s the key part of this video: ua-cam.com/video/eNdi5zGcu1A/v-deo.html
Of course. Mary/Gary often have the same flaws that really don't impact their lives or how others feel about them. They're clumsy, too nice, too optimistic, shy, have glasses, had some traumatic backstory that somehow didn't leave them with PTSD, etc.
Edit: May I add, the trained for two weeks to be undefeatable thing is actually great in parody(see One Punch Man)
Bruh raid shadedgehog
To me, a mary sue or gary stu having that kind of weakness just felt like the writer going "okay here, I put a weakness so you can't accuse me of making my character a mary sue/gary stu."
I feel like the most easy non-issue flaw people tack onto their flawless character is always that they're really clumsy. It doesn't read as a real flaw they can overcome, but just lazy comic relief that gets old really fast.
I like how the thumbnail implies that Caillou is purposefully designed to be unlikable as a character
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
"manga-anime perverts that are supposed to be comedic relief for being perverts"
I had a REALLY hard time getting through Kill-La-Kill because of the dad and Mataro, whose entire purpose in the story was to just nosebleed/fawn over how drop-dead gorgeous Ryuko was. Buuuut that whole anime felt very much like one big over-the-top parody of other anime tropes so...meh
@@Sarah_H Parody anime is "fine" IMO because the watcher knows exactly full well that the over-the-top element is just intended as exageration of regular tropes and the setting usually isn't serious enough for the pervert to be too distracting when given screen time. But when you are in a serious anime and you see that guy, coming out of god knows where, specially annoying if whole episodes are basically derailed thanks to their contribution.
Cailou is a French name meaning pebble... Which I'd like to kick him like.
@@Sarah_H I don't mind the pervert when its not obnoxiously overdone or treated as a good thing.
I've stopped watching certain anime because after a point it's clear it's just the creator saying "look, GIRL PANTIESSS". Especially if the "comedic relief" is actually just killing the mood & dragging the story to a halt
"4. Static characters getting easy wins" for some reason empress Theresa springs to mind
For me, DW from Arthur sprang to mind. DW can whine, pout, and misbehave all day, but when someone complains about her being whiney, they're painted as a bully.
Empress Theresa, haven’t heard that name in a while. *Why did you remind me she exists.*
That reminded ne of Wade Watts in both RPO and RPT, especially RPT.
Dude didn't even get to fight Anorak at the end of the second book. He let a dying Ogden do the job for him.
I (female) have an aversion to nearly all “strong, independent” female protagonists.
Yep, often way too much conflation of “strong” (interesting, layered, compelling) and “strong” (masculine strength, boldness, power level)
I hope you like Samus at least, she’s awesome (Other M doesn’t exist)
@@emblemblade9245 Absolutely, replayed all of them ahead of Dread, which is easily my game of the year!
Also they just make the “strong” woman a pick-me jerk who hates girly things and “not like the other girls”. Strong girls can also be feminine and/or kind. I also hate when the girl character cuts her hair as “development” and “becoming stronger” (Sakura did it well but the others were just really unneeded)
By that you mean, Mary Sue, right?
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."
There are some characters who are good people but are not like goodie two shoes, For example every jojo mcs :)
@@ghostlyflamingo07 I agree with that completley. Jotaro was a literal thug at the start of Stardust Crusaders ,and Giorno had a not so kindhearted goal. Not to mention Johnny from Steel Ball Run,whom I consider at least as evil Valentine.
@@jotarokujo8423 joseph literally started shooting a tommy gun
@@ghostlyflamingo07
Jonathan is a massive exception, he is the definition of a goody two shoes ( though to be fair he is meant to be an parallel to Dio who is extremely evil).
But you gotta be careful with that, otherwise you could end up with a protagonist who’s a complete dipshit and ends up becoming the villain of the story but from a different perspective.
If the audience starts to root against the protagonist for any serious length of time then that’s when a lot of problems begin to happen.
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.
Well, Holmes is an interesting character, and in his original iteration and the more faithful adaptations he's not portrayed as being always right. He's a drug addict, obsessive, potentially psychotic, and yet he puts his talents to work protecting others. Holmes can be beloved and admired because he tries to do good for others and doesn't do it with the intent of seeking glory.
I think he would actually fall into this if, despite everything mentioned, he was aclaimed and loved by his peers. Instead he pushes them away and seems destined to be alone.
I gotta say the same about House as a kid I liked his character but as I got older despite his many flaws he was always right always loved and admired and I'm sure it got old eventually that he was an always right bastard. I think there are examples of characters like him that mess up enough to gain sympathy without necessarily being likable tho
Honestly, Sherlock Holmes doesn't fall into this as much as you would think. He is right when it comes to solving problems because he is a hero and most stories have the hero winning, but he has enough flaws and even losses for me to consider him a layered character, albeit one that hasn't gone through a full arc, but smaller ones.
I think that its because he actually has the witd and smarts to back his poor attitude. Otherwise he'd just cime off as arrogant
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.
Harime nui, malty, *somehow almost every male elf antagonist* the list goes on but you get my point if want a character you want to hate with passion watch anime :)
@@amedoro_the_owl Oh, believe me, *where do you think this came from?*
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.
I've never watched the show, but for some reason all I can picture is Deku from MHA
@@blokvader8283 deku has several distinct character traits that differ him from most protag with a major difference in character growth so bad example
@@blokvader8283 yeah nah, deku actually tries and learns from his mistakes and grows because of them. He does have some eccentricities too as far as main characters go.
I think it's even more annoying when it's lampshaded that they're bland and boring, I can list at least ten animes off the top of my head where the male protag will be like "haha I'm such an average guy with average tastes isn't that sooo boring?? If anything happened besides the most boring basic rundown of my boring little life I don't think I'd be able to handle it! Tee-hee~" and it's insufferable every time
@@blokvader8283 Deku literally shreds his arms to pieces because he isn’t strong enough to handle the power he was given, to the point he cannot get them healed properly anymore, and don’t function nearly as well as they used to. Maybe that gets fixed later but I’m not crazy far into the story so correct me if that occurs.
It's Bakugo for me he was such an asshole like unjustly so and I'm not against abrasive edgy good guy characters love me some Wolverine but damn Bakugo's motivations for being so awful feel weak and his character arc fell flat for me. It felt like he didn't grow enough I'm not saying he needs to be a softy but toning it down and have him think or collecting himself before he blows up would show he's at least trying
Yeah, his character made me stop watching bnha. The show is all like "Justice!" And I see a victim and a bully right in front of me, and I'm like. . ."why can't they fix the one problem that's shoved in everyone's faces?"
Yeah, I'm with you there. They were trying with S3 to make him a bit more relatable, and I appreicate him actually admitting his weakness and insecurity for being the possible cause of All Might losing his power. The question is, what was Deku supposed to say when Baku asked him where his Quirk came from? Had he admitted he was fooling Bakugou all these years, that would've lead to a worse consequence than telling the truth. And all Bakugou's moment of weakness leads up to is him apparently being a "proper" rival this time and no teacher EVER seeks to improve his behaviour, no, let's just focus on Deku being scolded/passive aggressively mocked/underestimated for the 500th time. Speaking of which, Deku's physical development is also too static.
@@awesomesmileyguy indeed
@@awesomesmileyguy "Proper": *In the manga it is confirmed that Deku couldn't fight seriously because of his emotions and that all that Bakugo said that caused this was basically his plan*
The mangaka has regrets to this day overr how he overdid Bakugo early on in the series.
"Repeated character arcs". Exactly what DC's been doing to Barry Allen in the comics since they brought him back to life.
especially in the cw flash series
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
The sad thing is the pilot movie made him seem a lot more sympathetic and a bit lonely but for some reason the show turned him into a complete asshole
That show is SO underrated.
I never knew what to think about Bloo when I was a kid. I liked him, but I liked Mac, Walt, and Eduardo a lot more. Those guys were sweethearts🥺Maybe the intention was to have Bloo be more bratty to contrast with the other characters?
With Bloo it was, to me, always a matter of writing. He'd have moments when his good side came out and he was shown to be genuinely caring and kind towards the friends that he held dear, but then his selfish and greedy side would take over five seconds later. The episodes where he let out those buzzing creatures that were Frankie's imaginary friends and when he tricked Mac into eating sugar anger me the most. He created chaos not only for some of his friends but for the entire Foster's house simply because he didn't want to do as he was told.
Bloo is one of my favorite characters ever. 🤣
"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. 🤣
villain who has murdered innocents and threatens to destroy the world? better give him this extremely valuable resource so we can have a fair fight
@@Underworlder5 I was so happy when the TFS version of Gohan verbally ripped Goku apart for all of his stupid actions in their finale episodes.
You can add 90’s amine Sailor Moon/Usagi/Serena to that list too...
At the beginning of each series after the first one (with maybe the exception of stars) her character seems to always regress back to the character she was at the beginning of season 1 (while they give a reason for it for R, that doesn’t work so well for S and Super S).
Add that to the fact that they overblow a lot of her less appealing character traits to the point, that you actually feel sorry for people around her...
Usagi is not meant to be a unlikeable character, if you read the manga and/or watched Crystal you can clearly see that, but the way they handled her in the 90’s amine was pretty cringe...
@@priscillabrown210 i mean the original anime has a lot of filler seasons xd
@@Underworlder5 Did Goku ever really learn the lesson of "don't be a fighting-obsessed idiot"? Because I don't recall that ever sticking even in the Funimation dub(which, I've been told, gave him a rather noticeable IQ boost), even if it did occasionally hit him that Gohan wasn't obsessed with fighting like he was - though I did end up tapping out right when Kid Buu was introduced.
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 loved Babar!
so it wasnt a weird dream my subconscious decided to remember randomly huh
4:43 I think of that as "the Gru problem," though it also applies to Shrek in the third and fourth movies, and it gets worse in tv shows where it's the main protagonist (e.g. Stan Smith in American Dad) learning the same lesson in multiple episodes. I think the problem comes from the writers not knowing how to write the character after their character development, which feels like it defeats the purpose of said development.
Also, something I learned from watching a lot of videos like this is that writing flaws for a character isn't enough to make them likeable: you also have to write their flaws AS flaws. Meaning, you have to make their flaws something that other characters don't like about them. People don't dislike Caillou just because of the tantrums; they may get sick of hearing the tantrums, but it's his parents' lack of reactions that make people dislike him. From what I've seen, a character who gets away with annoying behavior and is still loved and praised by all the "good" characters can be MORE hated than a boring and flawless Mary Sue. So the other "good" characters (NOT the "unlikeable" villain/bad guy/annoying person) should be able to react negatively at the character for their annoying traits/actions, and the character themself should have some sense of self-awareness (NOT for a 4th wall joke, but for a desire to actually be a liked person.) Even a mean-spirited introverted character who doesn't care about popularity and embraces their "jerk/loser" status should be able to feel bad and desire to change when someone they like or they're close to has a negative reaction to their negative character trait. Having one of those "annoying" characters feel even a little guilt over their mistakes can go a long way to gaining audience sympathy.
Edit: I like American Dad, and Despicable Me, and Shrek (the first two movies anyway). My example characters are not examples of characters I can't stand, they're just examples of characters that learned a lesson but then reverted to their old personality in the next episode/movie. I even like Gru in Despicable Me 2, which shows that this trope (I think it's called Reset Button) doesn't always prevent enjoyment of a character. Like most tropes, just be careful how you use it.
As for TV writing, I believe some of this is due to a lack of a linear storyline, or arching storyline (I hope I said that right). Most of these shows are episodic, they are plots only contained in one episode, then reset the next.
This also is present a lot in comics, because if the writers let the characters grow wiser and older, we’d have to do something crazy like start the universe all over again.
So much bitter sarcasm there. It drives me crazy that they’ll reboot the universe, but won’t let characters have sustained development.
"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.
Now that you mention "off-screen arcs" I suddenly remembered the version of Galinda from Wicked (the book). She ended up having a complete 180 of her character which was just word vomited to the readers how much she has changed once a character she barely talked to died. This was basically as soon as it happened, too. The fact was that it seemed so out of character and so sudden. By that point, I had to return the book to the library and, overall, got disinterested to continue reading, so maybe it wasn't as bad as I remember. But hey, the book was good, just that part was really poor and I am convinced that it was the author was so tired to see Glinda be such stuck up person that he wanted her to have a complete switch.
But yeah, I know how you feel. Sometimes I think so much of a story could be improved just by certain characters and their arcs being more fleshed out.
Morrigan? Or Leliana?
Both fall under that description depending on what you did in DAO (Hardening Leliana)
@@daubeny6796 Prefacing this by saying I’m not trying to start an argument in the comments section of the video, because I know this character has a lot of passionate fans. I was actually referring to Cullen.
@@feanaro2712
Oh my, didn’t expect him.
He is pretty secondary through all first 2 games isn’t he?
And he sure as hell wasn’t much of a friendly face up until Inquisition. Damm there even was an ending in Origins in which he went crazy and just went on a mage killing rampage so I guess I can see how Cullen truly isn’t the loveliest guy.
Greg Heffley
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
I remember not liking that show because playing the Pokemon games was all about building a team, progressing through gyms, etc. If Ash is just a dumbass child who refuses to learn life lessons, his Pokemon could at least start winning on their own merits and skill rather than deus ex machina plot devices and lame "friendship is magic" type reasons. The only good thing about that show was pikachu being cute and Team Rocket being an iconic gay-lesbian duo
Because Ash wasn't made to be likable, he was made to be profitable. He always goes through the same situations almost every season like clockwork because every generation is far enough apart that the previous "target demographic" won't socially interact with the next one.
@@uberlord983 Bullshit, I was a child through FOUR different Pokémon generations!
3:35-3:51 A character that did absolutely nothing: "The president's safe. I...I did it. I saved him."
“A character that seems to go through the same arc over and over”
*Barry Allen flashbacks intensify*
“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.
I don't really like when someone gets villified for being different or just doing something annoying. I feel like Lavender in Harry Potter was just there to be annoying/comedic and then she is just more or less killed off and I don't think she did anything bad but being a little bit too much in love. I think how you treat your unlikeable characters in your story wil always affects your other characters in the story. Worse, it might make your other characters feel unempathetic if they are treated too coldly.
Not a big anime watcher, but watch a little bit with my partner: can't stand Holo from Spice and Wolf. Constantly whining about the male protag being stupid or insensitive, but when she pulls some nonsense she's "clever."
Great discussion on unlikable characters! Would love to hear about likable unlikable characters.
Aw… I’m sad you feel that way. I really liked the show and I was indifferent Holo’s whining. I hoped you liked the show otherwise but Holo is a main character so I’d understand if you disliked the show as a whole.
I can definitely see the appeal of the show and actually found the premise and world building pretty intriguing. I just didn't enjoy Holo because she's "so wise," but I really didn't find her to be that way.
I only watched about half of the first season and I know it's a show a lot of folks enjoy, so if I gave it more time she might grow on me? Her character as presented in those episodes made it a little challenging for me to enjoy, though.
The music from the show is amazing. Would love to learn the main theme on my violin.
I have not watched the show, but based on your description, it sounds like they took the easy/lazy way of showing a character's cleverness. In real life, when someone constantly puts someone down to prop themselves up, that means they are insecure and not really saying the truth.
@@0xXNamineXx0 The show does not put down the male protagonist like Holo does. Some of the things she does are “wise”. Other things she does are not so “wise” yet the show treats these as wise too. A very minor issue for me but may also be a major issue for others.
@@JamesSmith-rb5lv I see. Thank you for clarifying.
7:19 I watched the chilling aventures of Sabrina and felt nothing but this cuz all she was was a very selfish person making the same mistakes and causing problems while everyone around her suffered due to her causing those problems but still loving her
Peppa Pig's design isn't too bad, I think it's meant to be like Pig-ccaso!!!... I'll see myself out...
"Nah fam, sit down." *Closes door* "This is an intervention!"
That's just a bunch of spam.
@@ClearlyCry *ham
Nah, more like Andy WarHog
You a fool for that one lol
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.
Something I don't like about characters is when a problem presents itself and it's almost resolved immediately or with a lot of violence. I'm not even talking about committing a crime or anything, I mean if someone is a jerk to the character, the character in turn uses their powers and severely injures or even kills them.
The fact the character/OC is so op and can just easily take out or beat up anyone who slightly annoys or crosses them over without any remorse, kind of disgusts me in a way; especially the ones that are teens and in school.
It just makes the character/OC seem like they have no awareness for the people around them, and it feels like justice isn't served but they're going on a power trip. I mean, I hate jerks too, but they still live a life and I don't want them to die just because they're a jerk.
Violence as a first resort is so tired in stories
@@--.._ Definitely. Sometimes it fits their personality, but it's mostly just forced-
Also, often times the fact that the hero wins is portrayed as equal to him being superior? Like, in fair martial arts type movies, thats fine. But beating some douchebag up doesnt mean you were right, just physically more powerful
That sounds like wish fulfillment more than anything.
I've been writing characters a lot recently and this really helped. Most of these I already know were stuff to avoid but having a full explanation has kinda inspired me to add more onto some of them.
I'd talk about some of them but it'd probably be too much to fit into a single comment as I build my characters around their universe instead of the universe around them so there's like novels of context needed for some of em.
Same!! Can super relate to building characters around their universes so tons of context is needed.... I'm intrigued, do go on if you'd like to share :0
@@ithink1891 There's a good many to go over lol, but sure. It's late for me now but I can go over a few tomorrow, or if you want more direct contact then I have Discord which is probably more effective.
@@Taggynn oh sure!! Yt doesn't notify me anyway so yea,,, sorry for late reply. What's your discord?
@@ithink1891 Taggynn#1376
UA-cam do be funky like that.
@@Taggynn Gotcha, thanks! And yep TwT
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.
What I loved from JoJo is that almost every character had some unlikeable trait (to me). It felt refreshing.
Exactly. In that sense it's like the opposite of Pokemon (anime) where how they overuse the same protagonist writes the show to a corner. That and it's why I wished it could have gone through the same route as Jojo. Heck Pokemon adventures does this and people consider it as the superior Pokemon story.
Long term protagonists can still remain compelling when done right (e.g. Luffy and to an extent Naruto) and as a bonus both have similar end goals as Ash. A tip for that is to make them drive and progress in the story and don't undergo an overly repeating character arc that leads nowhere like how Ash has to get his past progression retconned as a convenient excuse to get new rivals in one of his region hopping shenanigans doing pretty much the same thing in every region he has been through and halt actual progression by losing the league again and add more people on his friendzone list. It's one of the big reasons why the series stagnates and I'm kinda mixed to the show. It's the prime definition of a repeating character arc and idc if Journeys ended all those tropes, the problems should never have existed for 2 decades.
@@the-sillycate
Yep! All the jojos had their little physical and character flaws that helped make them more interesting and fun to watch!
Jonathan was a bit too nice
Joeseph keeps getting into shit
Jotaro SEEMS to not care
Josuke has goofy hair...
Wait, my doorbell rang, ima check that.
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 remember a character from a novel called "Woman", and which one came to TV (talking about the Turkey version), where the main villain called Sirin Sarikadi, becomes into the most unlikable character I have ever seen, but she is really well created, enough to be best villain I have ever seen too.
This whole video literally just dissects the problems with Family Guy's characters
this and other Adult cartoons.
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.
All the best on your comic! Lots of other videos on the channel that are more, what to do than what not to do!
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.
Can appreciate that! Definitely true in the real world that we don't always get it the first time, but storytelling emulating the real world doesn't always serve to make for a better story. The passage of time, for example. A few other folks have brought the same example up because of the inherent flaw in trying to force an introverted/shy person to be less of either of those things or to "get over it"- when sometimes it's just part of our makeup. But I definitely understand what you're saying too, and feel like in execution there's probably a really good way to show someone struggle to really get ahold of progress like that.
Yeah! Plus, she remains shy and introverted and kind, but by the end, she no longer lets it cripple her
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.
It’s all in the presentation and delivery I imagine. Most of the time anyway.
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.
Selflessness and is what separates heroes from villains you say? Sounds like someone stumbled upon Star Wars's conception of good and evil, because selflessness is the most fundamental trait that separates us Jedi from the selfishness of the Sith! ;-)
Hello there
You clearly have the high ground
You are a bold one
Let me hit you with a paradoxical situation then
Would you rather save 5 people who are morally ambiguous, ordinary people
Or one person who is guaranteed to become a great light-side person?
On one hand, it would be almost selfish to choose the one over many
But on the other, the one could save many in the future
But then there's the consideration that maybe one of the many could become one to save many more
Lol, good luck with that brain-mushifier
@@spartanwar1185 what if you just eeny meeny miny moe it
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.
I see that as Sora from Kingdom Hearts! Not every character I like needs a character arc
Forrest Gump is a great example.
A very simple character with very simple ambitions and goals, but the real draw is in how the world reacts to him.
Though as innocent and happy he is, his challenges come from those he befriends being in far worse states of mind than he is.
A lot (not all) of the Jojo protagonists fall under this. Not much character arc but they’ve got fun personalities, battle powerful villains that they have to use their wits to defeat, and the effect of their actions are felt by others
Shoutout to theater employee sweeping up popcorn
Subscribed.
I did come to hear Caillou get dunked on. I was actually surprised though to find such an interesting and well articulated piece on character development. Looking forward to the rest of your catalogue.
It’s funny how game of thrones checks so many of these boxes especially towards the later seasons
I love how one of the biggest flaws a character can have is being flawless
Only major caveat I have with this analysis is with point 2, Repeated Character Arcs, when the author's thesis is that being an introvert or shy or socially anxious is bad and should be overcome. I remember the brony fandom being super uber frustrated with Fluttershy's lack of development about her social anxiety and shyness, to the point some straight up hated her. Firstly, I feel like it's a failure of the author if the story can be basically boiled down to "if you prefer being alone that's bad," it's very dumb and a very skewed vision of reality to just assume that just because you are extroverted everyone should be. Second, the treatment of social anxiety and shyness by the media and people consuming it is borderline cruel, with much of the sentiment being boiled down to "just get the fuck over yourself" as if social anxiety wasn't an actual issue that takes years of therapy to get better, and shyness isn't a natural trait that doesn't just magically vanish because you force someone into a social situation. Now, returning to repeated character arcs, the fact that those things are not just surface level shit that can be solved with one good experience, some being literally traits you're born with, like introversion and shyness, makes it a very much plausible and realistic scenario that you'd see the same person go through the exact same issue over and over, I for example have yet again become a hermit because of the pandemic, despite the fact I had achieved some level of social interaction at uni before, and this is not the first time that I recede like that, and it won't be the last, because I've got social anxiety and some issue with overstimulation, and this is not a thing that just because I befriended a couple of people in university and went to some parties (plastered for the most part) in the past years I've gotten over. Yet, in fiction it is something people find irritating, which is super jarring for someone like me, to see people just rib on a character because go figure, their shyness doesn't disappear after a 25 min episode where the resolution is that they went to a party and had fun.
Yeah that's definitely a weird "message"!
Dude you are seriously projecting so hard you could fill a drive-in theater. The point of #2 isn't that ppl don't instantly get over things that normally take time to get over by the end of an episode, the point is that it's annoying when a character learns a valuable lesson or overcomes a serious hurdle and is shown to be a better person for it, only for next week's episode to have them in the exact same or very similar position having to re-learn the valuable lesson they already were supposed to have learned.
A good example is an old sitcom called Everybody Loves Raymond. My sister and I hate this show for this exact reason. The main character, Raymond, is the stereotypical tv sitcom dad, lazy, loves sports and cars, gets griped at by his wife because he doesn't listen to her or consider her before doing things, is horny, and is bad at being a parent. The show regularly has him put in situations where he does one or more of these things which he knows is bad, such as lying to the wife to save his own skin only for it to come back and bite him by the end of the episode, or him doing something that actively hurts his wife and him seeing nothing wrong with it until it's beaten or lectured into him why it was wrong by the end of the episode. Nearly every single episode of the show is him doing something wrong, thinking there's nothing wrong with it, him getting in trouble, him being told why it's wrong, him finally understanding why it was wrong, and him "learning" from it so that he won't do it again in the future, except he does it again a couple of episodes later and has to learn the same lesson over again, and then it happens a few episodes later, and then again a few episodes later, and it never ends.
The show is annoying because it makes him come across as either an abysmally stupid incompetent person who can't help but keep making the same mistake every other episode and constantly getting in trouble for it, or a heartless selfish sociopath who lies about learning his lessons to get out of trouble but actually isn't interested in trying to be a better father/husband/son/friend/brother. He's insufferable, and that's what the second point of the video is talking about. It's not about taking a slow process and forcing it to be sped up to fit into the end of an episode or arc, it's about characters in shows who are supposed to have already been taught a lesson that they are supposed to be growing and learning and improving from, only to have them forget that they ever learned the lesson and repeat it again multiple times in different episodes. Eventually you get bored with it always being the same predictable crap or you get annoyed because the character supposedly growing isn't actually growing at all and is just wasting everybody's time and energy teaching him what he's already supposed to have known several times over by now.
Bernadette from Fire Emblem Three Houses is a good example of this being done correctly. For the most part the characters don't have a problem with Bernie being an introvert, and those who do usually learn otherwise, but rather the characters have issues with much of a recluse Bernie is. She has so much anxiety from past trauma that it is severely detrimental to not just her but also those around her. She can barely function, and the other characters are trying to help her while also learning that being an introvert is not a bad thing.
A better example of what is meant with this criticism would probably be in the movies All Dogs Go to Heaven versus All Dogs Go to Heaven 2.
In the original, Charlie is basically an asshole who does whatever he wants to because he can. He is far from a likeable character. But as he meets a human girl and starts to care for her (and care about her - kind of as a parent), his character shifts enough that the whole story shifts with it. And by the end, he is actually a good guy and a relatively likeable, tragic character.
But then the second movie rolls around, and Charlie is right back to being the bad guy we're supposed to root for despite having gone through such a powerful character shift in the previous movie. He's right back to his old habits and is right back to being unlikeable. And unlike the first movie, this time his unlikeability never really goes away.
I do get what you're saying though, and it is really annoying when stories treat being introverted as some kind of flaw. Some character traits never go away, and certainly treating them like a problem really disses the real-life people who have them, and for whom these traits are not necessarily even that bad of a problem and certainly don't make them unlikeable!
I say this as someone who's actually very shy, though I don't have social anxiety. There is legitimate criticism for these repeated character arcs when they're done wrong; but the key idea is that they *can* be done right (I would point to Zuko from ATLA for a repeat arc done right). Personally, I don't see shyness or anxiety as something that should be the focus of such an arc to begin with anyway, at least not without including some degree of acceptance for this being just part of how the character is.
@@p.v.7269 this is why I said this is caveat, and went on to explain how I find it bad writing that writers make introversion/shyness/social anxiety a bad trait that has to be overcome. Total lack of reading comprehension from you huh
I really like the Peppa Pig design. It's simple but recognizable, and it works so well with the voice acting. Also, it invites little kids to draw these characters themselves. The series has been a fan favourite in our house for a long time.
As for characters I dislike: I watch a lot of kids cartoons with my daughter, and I really dislike characters that enforce stupid rules just to advance the plot of self discovery. While I usually just let her enjoy characters and plots on her own terms, I always make it a point to mention these unfair people to my daughter. Usually it's royalty or parents who don't let girls do certain things, who don't allow crossing class boundaries, who don't let a character pursue their passion, who give up on them after one failed attempt.
And then it's up to the character to show them wrong after which all is right with the world. Often the character even thanks that authority figure profusely when they finally get to do the thing.
Peppa Pig is extremely trite and teaches kids bad manners(they're always insulting daddy pig and others).
When I babysat my nephews, I let them watch shows for older kids(PPG, Miraculous Ladybug, Spiderman, etc) because I don't underestimate their intelligence to understand what's happening and learn the morals from it. Of course they still watch Paw Patrol and The Wiggles, but watching only toddlers shows can make them act more immature than their age, in my experience.
@@Nakia11798 That's nice. I don't know why you'd assume I only let my daughter watch one show. Also, Peppa Pig has amazingly dry humour. My daughter never once tried to act like Peppa. Probably because we watched it with her and talked about what happened. Her hero is Ms Rabbit, because she also wants to be able to do all kinds of different things. I think that's an amazing lesson to learn at the start of your life.
All that damn snorting just throws me off. 😂
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.
Despite the fact that I’m 22 now as soon as I get the chance I’m rereading the entire Artemis fowl series
@@deathkorpsgrenadier2894 good idea. It’s a great series, just… don’t watch the movie. They didn’t read the books before making the movie, and it shows.
@@DetectiveWraith What a wasted opportunity, it's sad that they took so long and yet /that's/ what they came up with. The first book alone could make a fantastic villain-protagonist movie!
@@Semudara agreed. I would watch all the books as a movie, if it was actually a good one, that didn’t change the entire plot of the book. Why do Directors find it so hard to adapt books into movies. The fans of the book could have made a better movie on a 10$ budget!
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.😎
We’re trying to fix that mistake by dumping any dvds of caillou in a cauldron of boiling maple syrup, it’s a start 🥺
Don't forget they're also responsible for Nickelback and Justin Beiber...
@@DagobahResident But we also gave you Ryan Reynolds, Jim Carrey and Keanu Reeves.
I mean it's pretty much writer 101, never ever make your main character unlikable because that'll guarantee your story to not be popular.
Prime examples Ender Wiggins from Ender's Game, that main character piss me off so much long time ago when that movie came out that I'm strongly advise everyone not to watch that movie because the main character is so unlikable he makes you want to punch your TV screen in blind rage.
Throughout the majority of that movie he's just a pansy who gets drafted into the military and whines throughout most of the movie.
The last thing that any country needs is a soldier who is not willing to protect us from Alien Invaders, again the movie is so bad I strongly advise you y'all guys not to watch the movie instead watch the Charlie Brown Peanuts movie by Blue Sky Studios or any good movie that will make you feel like a little kid again.
@@tomemeornottomeme1864 You also gave us Arizonians Steve Nash
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
@ThisIsNotReel We get that in the sequel though, for the whole third act of the first movie we have a pretty bland final girl
@UCD-IHsD6_lkOoSsHQCvVfuQ I would like to see more male final characters, instead of them always either showing up at the very end or sacrificing themselves to save the final girl.
I’m having trouble making a character likable. I made a character that I know many people are gonna find annoying and I’m looking for ways to balance the annoyance out, so this actually helped, thank you!