When Crime Does Pay

S

steve aka god

New member
I’m sure most people are aware of the old adage “crime doesn’t pay”. After all, our culture has more-or-less embraced that philosophy over many decades and we’ve all grown up watching television programs where the good guys always won. I wanted to create this thread so that we could discuss animated programs that have had episodes where crime did pay. This could apply to when villains manage to defeat heroes, or when criminals manage to steal something and get away unpunished. However, in order to give this thread more substance and to allow it to become more than a list thread, I hope people will take the time to answer the following questions.

Do you believe that “bad guys” should win more often in animated programs? If so, what benefit would it have on the the animated program in question? Also, what is your favorite moment in an animated program that involved a "bad guy" winning?
 
The premise of having crime go unpunished can also be used for comedic purposes. I recently watched an episode of ?The Powerpuff Girls? entitled ?Girls Gone Mild? and it had a hilarious scene involving a car thief. I agree with you guys about Xanatos, as he proves that having ?bad guys? be victorious can be of great use in animated programs that have dramatic overtones, but there are many comedies where crime pays as well.
 
For this to become commonplace, the first thing to consider is what these antagonists are "winning." If it is by finishing off the protagonist or conquering the world, it's understandable why he wouldn't often succeed, even by a narrow margin. However, if it's to merely "beat" him or prevent his plans to stop him from succeeding, I could see it happening a reasonable amount of times. I think the series Invader Zim handled this dyad pretty well, with Zim having some victories over Dib, even when him main plains were foiled. Gargoyles and Batman: TAS also had similar instances that helped create tension and create endings that were not as predictable as good triumphing over evil.

I understand that my curiosity is somewhat peaked thinking about what would happen if the hero character were finished off and the villain carried out his plans unimpeded, however, most of the time I find myself rooting for the percieved underdog. If the protagonist is "Mr. Perfect," I like to see him knocked down a few knotches every now and then; moreso if there's not much at stake. However, if the villain is near untouchable, I look forward to any possible whupping that the protagonist can deliver.

Values, in the same vien as "likeability," can also fall into the situation. While a protagonist can fall into a "goody-two-shoes" cliche, most of them have a certain element of either a caring personality or a desire to do what they think is "the right thing to do" that put's the viewer's sympathy in their favor, especially if the villain is a creep or a goon. Protagonists that have one too many vices typically don't end up on top. Eddy from Ed, Edd, and Eddy and Dib from Invader Zim fall victim to this. If a villain has a personal motivation that the viewer can connect to, he/she's much more likely much more likely to have the upper hand and end up with a happier end or at least recieve a much lighter punishment than their more one-dimensional, evil bretheren. Zuko from Avatar and Rose from American Dragon: Jake Long are good examples of this. If these villains do meet a crushing defeat or even a death, it's often handled in a much more tragic and emotional manner, like Mr. Freeze from Batman
 
There's also the perceived "good wins" ending. A good example of that is the ending of Episode 1 where everyone's celebrating but Senator Palpatine's got the biggest smile of them all because all his work behind the scenes went as planned.

There is something to be said for the driven, more successful villain in terms of the hero as well. It's a bigger challenge for the hero, and makes their victory feel more earned. Oh wow, you beat Team Rocket. :sweat:
 
There are many programs that show heroes battling corrupt empires and evil rulers (Xyber 9, Skyland, Code Geass, all cartoon versions of Zorro and Robin Hood). Since they are fighting the established authorities, the heroes of these programs are all technically criminals, and when they succeed, they are making crime pay.

Another show that comes to mind is The Zeta Project, in which Zeta and Ro spend the whole series on the run from the law. They don't exactly make crime "pay", but they are breaking a lot of laws, ranging from identity theft to resisting arrest to criminal assault on law-enforcement officers.

And then there's Captain Planet. The Planeteers have no controlling legal authority for their activities, but the polluters they battle often do. Trying to shut down a legal factory without legal sanction is a form of extortion. Captain Planet, an alleged superhero, usually resorts to spectacular acts of vandalism to enforce his green agendas
 
Yes, as cartoons that have mixed results and villain victories are often better and have a greater sense of emotion and realism, IMO. I also think it's harder to write for that, and if something is hard to write then we're getting the best out if the writers.

In Frisky Dingo there are constant switches between Xander winning, Killface winning, even various other characters winning. It really just goes in all directions all the time, so much that it's really quite hard to tell exactly who the bad guy is.



THAT'S RIGHT, NEVER AGAIN (WINK WINK).
 
Yeah, I think the "bad guy" should win more often. I almost wonder why they even keep trying because they usually lose no matter how much the odds are in their favor. When I think of shows like Storm Hawks, it burns me how a bunch of kids can win over an entire empire time and again. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the show anyways but I'd like it much better if they didn't win every time. The closest I can think of them losing was when Aero was in prison but he escaped before the episode was over and took down the bad guys at the same time!

The DCAU did a good job of letting the villains win from time to time but even then, they tended to get caught in a follow-up episode. I think they managed to steal some money in The Great Brain Robbery as well as a pulling of a theft in Task Force X (as previously mentioned above); those were some of the best episodes, too, in part because the villains had some success.
 
The above are the only situations where it's permissible to show the so-called 'bad guys' succeeding. It's only acceptable when the rogues and outcasts are actually the good guys, and the law enforcers and authority figures are actually the corrupt heavies. Otherwise, no go. Crime can never be shown as an imitatable act or as an envious lifestyle, for fear that it could potentially corrupt young impressionable minds and make kids want to become criminals when they grow up.
 
I think these days the villains only really get away with something briefly if it's a 'we need better team work' episode. That or if it's some lead into a season arc

"I wonder what Baron Von Meanie wanted with the Legendary Demon Summoner Sword...hmmm..."
 
Mom in Futurama stole Fry's billions of dollars because he blabbed about his PIN # by saying what two items came to it. As for Xanatos in Gargoyles, he did have that one plan where he broke out the Wolf Pack, but what's-her-name refused to go and planned to serve out her sentence and also help the guard. Because of that, she got paroled early because the one who broke them out was a robotic version of him.
 
So far, The Spectacular Spider-Man has had Tombstone as a successful criminal mastermind. All Spidey does at best is putting a dent in his operations, especially since he's distracted with the number of super villains that came into being. Spider-Man as of the current time has yet to prove that Tombstone is involved in any illegal criminal activity.
 


If your doing a action/drama then I think it's important to let your villains win some battles every now and then to avoid villain decay. This is espessialy true if your show relies heavily and recurring antagonists. After Batman has kicked Riddler's ass for the umpteenth time we stop taking him seriously as a threat.

As for favorite example of a bad guy winning? I'd have to toss in another vote for David Xanatos.
 
Back
Top