Putting each others' eyes out in the dark

[taste_is_sweet]

Hello, my lovelies. I'm off to CANADA next week for March break! It's a total Whoo-Hoo! for me, of course, but it means I most likely won't be posting. I can hear you crying already.

But before I go, I wanted to write about something interesting I saw in a TV show last night. And by 'interesting', I of course mean 'jaw-droppingly out-of-character and violent.' I won't name the show because I don't want to spoil anyone, and also because I'm not even sure the particular show matters. Here are the particulars:

1) Character A is very, very badly hurt by Reoccurring Bad Person
2) Reoccurring Bad Person is captured
3) Character B beats captured RBP to within an inch of xir life in retaliation
4) Character C refuses to turn RBP over to The Authorities, apparently only so C can threaten RBP with the 'If xie dies, you die' trope.
5) All of this is supposed to be a) perfectly acceptable, and b) to show how awesome characters B and C are.

Now, because TV Tropes is my new internet boyfriend, after I had my few moments of O.o and assorted exclamations along the lines of, are they really keeping that bad guy just for the if/then murdering? and, If Character A bites the oatmeal, how will killing RBG bring xir back?, I went to the TV Tropes site to see if the "If X dies; you die" trope had an article.

I couldn't find one, alas. But I did find Knight Templar Big Brother/Parent. It's not quite as specific as I hoped for, but it's close enough.

The Knight Templar Big Brother/Parent basically refers to going apeshit on anyone who hurt your sib/kid, and I think the trope fits even if the characters aren't related. Like beating the snot out of the Reoccurring Bad Person who hurt your buddy, for example.

"I'm not going to hurt you now. But I will probably kill you later, depending."

Okay, sure. Makes sense. I'd be pretty peeved too, if my adorable protege of adorableness was gutted like a prize-winning salmon. And the Character B who did the beat-down is, shall we say, not entirely unknown for such things. But, Character C is definitely not known for the apeshit beat-downs. In fact, C tells B to back off on the curb-kicking, which is somewhat odd considering Character C's intention in doing so is, apparently, to keep RBP alive in order to chuck xir out an airlock if Character A kaks it.

That's not very nice.

It's also not very moral, and considering Characters A, B, and C are all very much supposed to be the GOOD GUYS, the idea of Character C especially refusing to give up RBP while calmly anticipating spacing xir in the near future is not what I signed on for when I started watching the show. I mean, this is basic cable--I like to know which end of the spectrum my heroes are supposed to belong to. And murder for revenge is a little too far in the red for me.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say, and killing someone because they killed someone is way more Judge Dredd than My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, if you know what I mean. Not that I'm talking about either Judge Dredd or MLP:FIM (though I'm sure Rainbow Dash would go apeshit if Discord killed Fluttershy). But you get the point.

Which is, I want my heroes to be, well, heroic, thank you very much. That doesn't just mean being badass, it means knowing when not to be as well. And sure, fallibility and conflict and drama and all that. But honestly, this show offers plenty of that anyway. If I wanted antiheroes, dark themes and gratuitous violence I'd watch The Walking Dead, which I don't. Because I don't really like antiheroes, dark themes or gratuitous violence. What's the point of escapism if you can't go anywhere?

I might as well watch the news, except for how it's way more depressing.

Picture is from The DVD cover for this Knights Templar movie, available from Amazon.co.uk. Coincidentally, it has Norman Reedus in it. Unfortunately the film seems to be very, very bad.

Comments

[ride-4ever.livejournal.com]

I am smitten with the passion and details of this post!

And Canada -- oh Canada! Details about that?

[sgamadison.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that other people were killed in the process of saving character A and there ARE NO RAMIFICATIONS. AND people are starting to say things like this show is finally hitting its stride.

WUT? How is *deliberately* killing two other members of your organization, albeit part of a secret branch of it, in order to save character A justified?

I have to say, I am sick of these 'special groups above the law' type scenarios in television as it is. I don't like ruthlessness dressed up as 'I'd do anything for the team.' One of the things that draws me to Team shows is the aspiration to be part of said team, to be good/smart/talented enough to be a member. That's the appeal.

I *want* my heroes to be tested and come out better than me. That's why they are *heroes*.

[pyewacketsid.livejournal.com]

I don't know which show you're talking about, but it sounds Whedon-esque. Do I get an internet point? I can see him making Character C surprise!dark to show Unplumbed Depth or somesuch.

[draycevixen.livejournal.com]

I like my heroes flawed, I have to admit and the type of "hero" I'm drawn to is definitely capable of heat of the moment revenge but no, I can't imagine them holding on to the RBP just in case they want to execute him/her later. Nope.

[brumeier.livejournal.com]

I admit I'm torn here. I don't want my hero turning suddenly bloodthirsty and murderous, though I fully support acting that way to get the RBP to stay in line.

I'd like to think my heroes would go to lengths for their compatriots but yeah, there has to be a line they can't cross.

I automatically think of H50, and how Steve and Danny take turns going overboard with some suspects but the other one is always there to make sure they don't go too far.

[blythechild.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. I like anti heroes, dark themes and violence so I'm probably not your best audience for this conundrum. Part of the reason why traditional heroes don't interest me is because their actions are morally predictable, which means that any semi-educated Bad Guy can rout their plans. My main problem with the scenario that you outlined above is that Character C's actions are illogical and riddled with opportunities for RBP to escape. It's like when the bad guy in those old James Bond movies explains his dastardly plan IN DETAIL to someone he's trying to kill instead of, say, killing him which would prevent him from losing his gambit in the first place while James frees himself with some stupid gadget that Q branch cooked up with while smoking weed.

But I can see how this could be vexing to your hero expectations.

Straight up heroes aren't really en vogue these days... Perhaps your show is trying to make its characters more edgy???

[lavvyan.livejournal.com]

I'm about one step away from giving up on that show. It's a lot darker than I'd expected. Yet the characters are such stereotypes (oh, B, why are they wasting you so?) that I'm still struggling to like them after more than a dozen episodes. Will-A-Live-Or-Not consequently left me entirely unmoved; also I'm expecthing that character to turn out to be specialer than special and that trope is so overdone.

I'm not even gonna get started on C. And the good guys being the good guys? Questionabler and questionabler.

Which, I suppose, is one thing to take away from the show: the good guys aren't necessarily better than the bad guys. Considering the show runners, that message is also a bit overdone.

[reedfem.livejournal.com]

So Canadians go toward the snow for spring break?

Good to know. ;)