Credit Admiral Shran...
VOTE: TV & Media AV CONTEST: Pity the villains
- Thread starter JiNX-01
- Start date
Credit Admiral Shran...
How about Are You Nuts? Crazy characters.
Crazy characters is good. You could also do Eggheads---the super-smart characters.
Well, actually, no. That's the antagonist. The villain has to be doing something considered 'evil' or at least 'bad'. For instance, Michael Emerson's character (a psychopathic killer who managed to fool Lindsey and the team, revealing his nature only after they got him off, and who went on to stalk Lindsey) was a villain.
It's also rather questionable whether the protagonists of The Practice were heroes or anti-heroes.
Protagonist =/= hero
Antagonist =/= villain
The protagonist can be a hero, an anti-hero, or a villain-protagonist, in which case the antagonists can be heroes (e.g. Macbeth).
Well, okay, I'll bite. You're true on that one account, technically the opposing side to our hero is not neccessarily a villain by definition, but in colloquial terms, the antagonist is considered the "villain of the piece".
Furthermore, by my second definition, Helen has very much qualified as a villain, as she has overstepped her legal boundaries or at least acted immorally on several occasions. For instance, she called a suspects father - who was a cop - after the suspect had asked for a lawyer to get the kid to confess to his father, trusting the father to come to her and forgetting about the lawyer. On another instance, she lied to a suspect, suggesting he could face the death penalty when there was no chance of that, all in order to get him to confess. On yet another instance, she relied on bigotry toward a foreign culture in her closing argument to get the jury to rule against the boundaries of the law. All this, she did thinking she was doing the right thing, but nonetheless, the acts are villainous, and the very fact she considers her cause righteous qualifies her for this contest.
Besides, any argument against the rightfulness of an entry should have been made before the voting procedure started.
I rest my case.
Boy, do I watch to much legal drama or what?!
Furthermore, by my second definition, Helen has very much qualified as a villain, as she has overstepped her legal boundaries or at least acted immorally on several occasions. For instance, she called a suspects father - who was a cop - after the suspect had asked for a lawyer to get the kid to confess to his father, trusting the father to come to her and forgetting about the lawyer. On another instance, she lied to a suspect, suggesting he could face the death penalty when there was no chance of that, all in order to get him to confess. On yet another instance, she relied on bigotry toward a foreign culture in her closing argument to get the jury to rule against the boundaries of the law. All this, she did thinking she was doing the right thing, but nonetheless, the acts are villainous, and the very fact she considers her cause righteous qualifies her for this contest.
Besides, any argument against the rightfulness of an entry should have been made before the voting procedure started.
I rest my case.
Boy, do I watch to much legal drama or what?!
Relax, I wasn't trying to kick you out of the contest retroactively.
But really - even though I didn't watch every episode of The Practice - I've seen enough to know that Bobby did at least as many (if anything, more) morally dubious things, as did others on his team - there's a reason why they spoke a bunch of times about their bad reputation as immoral lawyers, and why they questioned their own ethics a lot of times. Helen Gamble was as much villain as they were heroes, in other words, there were no heroes and villains there. They even had an episode where a jury refused to make a decision and gave a statement that they can be held in contempt for all they care since contempt is what they feel for the court after the way Eugene and the prosecutor in his case treated the case.Similar threads
