A conversation I had with hubby the other night got me thinking about how many times I prefer the sidekick, or a secondary character, to the main hero. I find that many times the secondary characters are written or portrayed in a much more interesting way, and that the hero tends to be fairly dull and uninteresting outside of whatever predicament he/she may be in. The secondary character usually has a flaw or personality traits that make him/her seem more "true" than the usually flawless hero.
For instance, take "V." Yes, the series completely SUCKED, but the mini-series had great potential. But the main hero, Mike Donovan, is such a bore that I really don't care what happens to him. Ham Tyler, on the other hand, was a wonderful character--a good guy who was also a "bad guy." He was a professional killer, had all the best lines, and his backstory was dolled out in little tiny pieces.
On "Sliders", my favorite character was The Professor. He was a man of science, just like Mallory, but he was more than that. He was a Renaissance Man. He knew a little bit about many things. He was wise and yet very short-tempered and cranky. He wasn't the least bit attractive or in shape, and had to deal with that. In other words, he was more like a REAL person.
On "Robin of Sherwood," I always thought that the character of Robin wasn't all that interesting--especially the one played by Jason Connery. I was far more interested in Will Scarlet. He looked, talked, and walked more like an outlaw than any of them. He was flawed, with his quick temper, but he was the most believable.
One could also use Avon from "Blake's 7." He started out as a secondary character--the show IS called BLAKE'S 7, after all--but he quickly became more popular and more interesting than Blake himself. The transition to Avon becoming the lead character made perfect sense.
What "secondary" characters do you think are far more interesting than the leads? How often do you prefer the sidekick to the hero?
For instance, take "V." Yes, the series completely SUCKED, but the mini-series had great potential. But the main hero, Mike Donovan, is such a bore that I really don't care what happens to him. Ham Tyler, on the other hand, was a wonderful character--a good guy who was also a "bad guy." He was a professional killer, had all the best lines, and his backstory was dolled out in little tiny pieces.
On "Sliders", my favorite character was The Professor. He was a man of science, just like Mallory, but he was more than that. He was a Renaissance Man. He knew a little bit about many things. He was wise and yet very short-tempered and cranky. He wasn't the least bit attractive or in shape, and had to deal with that. In other words, he was more like a REAL person.
On "Robin of Sherwood," I always thought that the character of Robin wasn't all that interesting--especially the one played by Jason Connery. I was far more interested in Will Scarlet. He looked, talked, and walked more like an outlaw than any of them. He was flawed, with his quick temper, but he was the most believable.
One could also use Avon from "Blake's 7." He started out as a secondary character--the show IS called BLAKE'S 7, after all--but he quickly became more popular and more interesting than Blake himself. The transition to Avon becoming the lead character made perfect sense.
What "secondary" characters do you think are far more interesting than the leads? How often do you prefer the sidekick to the hero?
Hawk in Spenser for Hire was cool as hell and everyone knew Hawk could wipe the floor with Buck Rogers.
) was fantastic. John Rhys Davies is one of my favorite actors as a result of his time on Sliders
