Why ALWAYS the same damned cliche?

[takyris]

The "Good Empire" wouldn't really interest me. Or at least, not any more so than any other show. The key is whether it's done well.

There've been a fair number of TV shows that are "told from the point of view of the villain". They tend to do really well with people who are so entrenched in the genre in question that they are tired of the standard tropes, but they rarely generate enough mass appeal to last very long. "Action" on Fox was beloved by TV critics and TV insiders, and went nowhere. There was also something called "Profit" that was supposed to be dark and evil and brooding and depressing and intelligent, and... it also went nowhere.

I'm perfectly willing to read another book about an evil empire and a bunch of plucky o'ermatched heroes who fend them off with skill and courage, as long as it's done well. Modessit's Corean Chronicles seems to be doing it well so far -- small country that is trying to survive while a big country tries to take it over. The big country is definitely the antagonistic side, but it has perfectly logical and not-evil reasons for what it does.

I'd much rather have that than a poorly rendered "Good Empire being attacked by Evil insurgents" with stock characters and no moral ambiguity and villains who drool and hurt children and chew the scenery.

 

[DM_Matt]

Charisma is unfortunately more powerful than the rightness of their cause or even how thety do it.

Take Che Guevera, for example. He was a brutal terrorist who would torture or kill anyone (women, children, his own men) who either pissed him off or got in the way of his plans to establish totalitarian Communish throughout Latin America. But DAMN that guy was charismatic. Even the heroic CIA agent who killed him wrote about his amazing presense. And that is why its impossible to walk through an American college campus without seeing his image plastered all over people's shirts.

 

[Dogbrain]

And blame our own history. We revolted against a tyranical government and most Americans have enjoyed watching that scenario played out over and over again.

Actually, the government in question was far from tyrannical. It was hardly representative, but it was among the least tyrannical of its day. What had happened is that we had been getting a free ride and the capital decided it was time for us to pay for our own protection. And THEN to make matters worse, London decided to actually HONOR a treaty made with the Indians!

For example, George Washington had illegally paid for surveyors to plot out lands north of the Ohio River, in violation of the Treaty of 1763, which guaranteed these lands to the tribes that were living there.

 

[Dogbrain]

Here lies the problem-

Bright and intelligent good guys should rather quickly see the rebellion's true aims, and quit. Or else, they are just more rat bastards, and the audience won't like them. So, you're either limited to dumb main characters, or a relatively short-lived plot.

Ah, but their rat bastardness won't come up immediately. I'm not talking about the simpleminded sort of villainy that infests fanfic. The audience should be cheering for the main characters at least through the first season, with a few hints here and there that smarter-than-fanboy watchers could pick up on. Then, more and more truth comes out. In the end, the audience finds out that they have been cheering for some severely evil people, merely because they were pretty, witty, and charismatic.

 

[Dogbrain]

I'm not sure what the "hook" for such a story would be, though. A charismatic but oppressive rebellion versus a boring but fair governing body... and what? Just throwing the cliche in reverse doesn't help much.

Lots of hooks:

Following the romantic peregrinations of a spaceship crew as they fight the Greater Power and try to keep their ship going (a rebellion entirely of would-be leaders would be pretty bad at infrastructure).

Going after the "big great thing" that could end the whole fight.

They're devoted to missions of mercy (but the audience aren't shown that they only do it for the "right people"--at least not for a while). That the rebellion is all about imposing tyranny doesn't mean that they don't take care of their own. The Nazis fed a lot of poor people--if they were the "right kind" of people.

Not to mention you'd make the viewers who "get it" uncomfortable. Suddenly, they're rooting for the oppressors? Not a good way to keep viewership.

Ah, right, but of COURSE, how SILLY of me! The ONLY purpose of science fiction is to PANDER! It's not real art. Making people think or examine themselves is the absolute OPPOSITE of what science fiction is all about. Science fiction is ONLY made for PANDERING and sucking up to the lowest common denominator. Forgive me for forgetting that.

 

[Dogbrain]

That, in many ways, is the universe in which the fiction of Warhammer 40,000 is placed. The talented, interesting, beautiful people are shut down ruthlessly by the Empire of Humanity because they tend ultimately to bring in Chaos, which is actually personified Evil.

Still fails. They have to have a cliche evil juggernaut tyranny to do it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not talking about the simpleminded sort of villainy that infests fanfic.

But that's the best kind!

Ah, right, but of COURSE, how SILLY of me! ...

Is the extreme sarcasm really that necessary?

Like it or not, most series and movies are commercial endeavours. And unfortunately, the lowest common denominator, en masse, has a lot of weight behind it when commercial decisions are made.

You asked "Why cliches?" It's because that's what the LCD appreciate.

Perhaps a little less snarky when people are just trying to answer your question?

Thanks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Dogbrain]

I'd much rather have that than a poorly rendered "Good Empire being attacked by Evil insurgents" with stock characters and no moral ambiguity and villains who drool and hurt children and chew the scenery.

Quote SPECIFICALLY where I stated that this is what I wanted. I lay down the gauntlet. Where SPECIFICALLY did I say that this is what I was looking for? I challenge you to provide SPECIFIC QUOTES that this is what I was looking for.

Or were you just inventing a strawman to attack because you hadn't the acumen to come up with a real statement?

 

[Angcuru]

Well the reason that you don't see a rebellion against the good empire is that people don't rebel against a government that is in their favor. Someone trying to overthrow this government and install a tyranny is what we call a military coup.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Quote SPECIFICALLY where I stated that this is what I wanted.

You've rather completely missed his point.

The "Good Empire" wouldn't really interest me. Or at least, not any more so than any other show. The key is whether it's done well.

He would prefer a well-done Evil-Empire-Good-Rebellion to a poorly-done Good-Empire-Evil-Rebellion.

Likewise, I suspect he would prefer a well-done Good-Empire-Evil-Rebellion to a poorly-done Evil-Empire-Good-Rebellion.

But as he notes, the villainous-protagonist shows of late have not done well.

-Hyp.