Boring Invincible character

GAP

It is pretty much a given that any character who has the ability to win anything removes any doubt that the character is going to win, what is the point of watching that character do anyhting if we know he/she is just going to win anyway?

AnneBeeche

Because the poem is beautifully written and the world he lives in is cool.

And yeah, I have the same sentiments. I find a character struggling with a serious challenge more interesting to read than a character just doing what he already does best anyway.

Gelzo

On a meta level, this is exactly why it gets tiresome sometimes to see the good guys always win.

ClockworkUniverse

^As well as why the standard formula for...well, pretty much everything, includes a huge defeat/setback around the 2/3 mark.

Icalasari

^ Seems like it would be hard to have it occur at, say, 1/3 in and keep the person's attention

MillerCross

And why anticlimaxes exist (Anticlimaxes in this case referring to the moment in story where it looks like the story is going to conclude in exactly the opposite way it's going to conclude)

Honestly, protagonists are almost always winners by default. It's almost part of their nature. Fiction is about watching people struggle against a challenge and either win or fail. Most fiction goes with winning because it's the norm and because...well, it's almost the standard.

A story is no better or worse for having a character who can defeat all challenges, but it is definetly better for making said challenges look challenging and...you know, making the protagonist look like someone who's actually struggling.

Schitzo

It's not about the victory. It's about the struggle to that victory. Bad ending =/= AUTOMATICALLY BETTER

Gelzo

It's just that when you feel you know that the hero wins, it makes things a little less tense.

Anyway, I wonder if humanity has been conditioned to tell stories where the protagonist wins because throughout most of human history only survivors of a struggle have been around to tell anyone about it.

RedEyedAbyss

I know I constantly bring up Ed Wood, but it's relevant to the discussion. Anyone who knows about the guy beforehand knows he "lost" in the sense of becoming a laughingstock in the world of film. And yet, the ending still feels triumphant because he succeeded in another way: in being himself. So success isn't necessarily about the outcome, but the character's attitude to it.

MillerCross

It's just that when you feel you know that the hero wins, it makes things a little less tense.

Oh, definetly. the first sign of a good story teller is that he makes you forget about it completely. 

Of course, it's rarer these days because we're able to consume so much more media than we used to be.

success isn't necessarily about the outcome, but the character's attitude to it.

But, see, that's the outcome. Ed Wood's ending is that he managed to do the movies he wanted to make. that's a victory. Even when Lugosi was dying, when the whole legal shebang around his life as well as critical reception was...you know...going on, he did it.

that's a success. Regardless of how people see him for that success, he's still successful, because his conflict is not "I'm not going to be laughed at", his conflict is "I'm going to do what I want". 

Of course, I haven't watched it, so!

captainbrass

I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this. I always used to think that the fact that the cops usually won was one of the problems with the CSI franchise (to be fair, they didn't always get the bad guys; they weren't invincible). Having said that, I always used to feel cheated when they didn't win. I wanted to see that perp busted. And I probably wasn't unusual in that. So creators must be under a lot of pressure on this front.

And, for anyone who's interested, the other great problems with the CSI franchise were William Petersen leaving and David Caruso - just David Caruso.

MillerCross

but but but but but but 

captainbrass

^ EXACTLY.

Gelzo

I never really expect cop dramas to be good.

"Enhance."

I do enjoy watching Castle every now and then. Nathan Fillion is an entertaining actor.

MillerCross

blah blah The Wire blah blah Life on Mars blah blah Ashes to Ashes blah blah

Admittedly, all of these take cop shows and turn them upside down (The Wire by deconstructing (ew ew ew) them and Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes by being supernatural and stuff)

I'd add Twin Peaks but that's more like a really weird soap opera.

Gelzo

I guess I just haven't been exposed to those shows yet.

Seems like my awareness of a show is proportional to the number of memes it has or something.

IanExMachina

^

*Takes note to make Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes memes.*

MillerCross

Oh come on, Ian.

"Am I mad, in a coma or back in time?"

"You're surrounded by Armed Bastards"

"The Gene-Genie" 

etc etc

InsanityAddict

Does The Impression Show's rendition of Gene Hunt count?(more sketches in the sidebar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOr11W8Lm6I

IanExMachina

^^

*Takes note to actually most images/videos of these memes in use, as that is what I originally meant but should have clarified.*

CommandoDude

*Thinks back to numerous movies/video games with taglines around "From the beginning. You know how it ends" where you KNOW the villain wins*

IanExMachina

Malkavian

Honestly, if you genuinely think the hero's not going to win at any point, you simply failed to understand how fiction works.

There are exceptions to the rule, but how many times do you watch a movie like No Country For Old Men as opposed to a film like Iron Man?

DYRE

Anyway, I wonder if humanity has been conditioned to tell stories where the protagonist wins because throughout most of human history only survivors of a struggle have been around to tell anyone about it.

It likely has more to do with the fact that, as an audience, we sympathize with and to some degree identify with the hero, and as people we don't want to fail at things.  Thus, stories in which the protagonist is successful probably seem more appealing in general.