Why do conflicts tend to get overblown between characters?

[Antiyonder]

Conflict, is a key element that can make and/or break a show. It's purpose to keep shows from being to nice and sappy. But just like emotional moments, too much conflict can be a hazard to the show.

Second, writers tend to think that having conflict meens the character providing it must be 100% hateful, crapping on the protagonist 24/7.

Think I'm being wishwashy? Here's a link to my previous thread Cool Jerks (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=174982)

Here's a list of antagonists that I'm refering to:
Kate Saunders (Lizzie McGuire)
Mrytle Edmund (Lilo & Stitch)
Bonnie Rockwaller (Kim Possible, my only gripe with the show though)

Aside from the fact they're hateful, their reasons for doing so are lame. That reason, the dysfunctional family bit (single parent, rude siblings, etc).

What, you think I'm being harsh? Tons of people out there have family problems and still manage to order and maintain a side plate of decentcy.

While I don't suport excuses, Magneto, Demona and Mr. Freeze have problems which make the dysfunctional family look invite. Take Magneto, his problems are much more intense:

Surviving a Nazi Death Camp.
Victim of racism.
Couldn't save a daughter of his, because a mob got in his way.
Death of his wife.

So why should characters like Kate Saunder get sympathy when she has it better? The thing is despite his career of villainy, Magneto maintains a bit of nobility.

Using Magnus as an example again, he and Professor X have had years of conflict. Does Magneto gossip about Xavier, does he pull pranks on him, does he harass him daily? Nope, and yet their conflict is enjoyed by all. Their conflict is due more to their opinions than behavior (Xavier believing in peaceful coexistence, Magnus believing it's rule or be ruled).

The reason I'm using Kate as a counter example is due to the fact that she use to be a friend of Lizzie. Yet, rather than using that to their advantage storywise, the writers wimp out and make her a typical tween witch (with a capital B I may add).


Using another scenario, what exactly was the point of Myrtle being on Lilo & Stitch? For conflict? Wasn't Gantu already there to antagonize Lilo? In my opinion, Gantu was the more intriguing antagonist to Lilo. Why you may ask? Because unlike Mrytle, Gantu doesn't antagonize Lilo for the sake of it (Being a brat doesn't count for motivation). Myrtle is fully aware that her actions towards Lilo are wrong, Gantu only causes problems for her when she's interfering with an experiment.

Heck, take Superman and Batman. Since their update in the mid80s they've had their share of disagreements. That's an example of conflict done fight. Heck, my recent line concerning Batman's opinion: "The last time you (Superman) really inspired anyone was when you were dead."

A big annoyance concerning conflict, the generic sibling rivalry. Examples include:
Arthur and DW (Arthur)
Lizzie and Matt (Lizzie McGuire)
Drake/Josh and Megan (Drake & Josh. See, I don't advocate violence, especially towards women and children. Megan, however, I would so like to see her flung into the nearest crater.)

Shows that do better with the sibling thing. W.I.T.C.H., Kim Possible and Danny Phantom, to name a few. Wtih Danny Phantom, Jazz is pretty much consider to be an interesting character, partly because conflicts between her and Danny are due to her need to protect him (rather than purposely making him miserable).

With Kim Possible and W.I.T.C.H. the younger siblings are annoying yes, but hardly hateful. Jim and Tim in my opinion are some of the better annyoing siblings out there.


Now that I've made my point, my question. Why do most writers overdo the conflict schtick? What's their damage? My belief is a little of everything.

[Bones Justice]

I think they do this because they don't know how else to get their point across during the time the character is on-screen. One-note characters are easier to write for anyways.

As for Magneto, I don't really see the whole nobility bit. One of the first things that he did was to steal a naval warship, using the ship's cannons to shell an innocent South American country to soften them up for invasion with no concern for the loss of civilian life. Later, he set a nuclear bomb to destroy the entire country just because the X-Men had come there to stop him. He stated that he didn't care at all that innocents would be killed; not very noble at all, rather he was selfish, vengeful, even childish. He just doesn't act out verbally as much like a lot of the brats that you mentioned.

[Kaoru]

I said all of above, hard to doubt all those things are factors contributing to shallow characters with ridiculous issues and childish ways to express themselves.

[tb4000]

The antagonist jerk that used to be friend angle has been done to death on shows. That Braceface show features the girl Nina that used to be Sharon's friend in grammar school. Apparantly it's an attempt to give the bully some depth, but it's so played out now.

[Antiyonder]

The antagonist jerk that used to be friend angle has been done to death on shows. That Braceface show features the girl Nina that used to be Sharon's friend in grammar school. Apparantly it's an attempt to give the bully some depth, but it's so played out now.

If they would actually use that to make the character interesting then I'd be all for it.


And while Magneto has done questionable deeds, his motives are way more believable. Again:

1. Nazi Death Camp experience.
2. Death of wife.
3. Victim of racisim.


Compare that to Nina:

1. Doll heads chopped off.

Kate:

1. She come back from camp, supposedly more mature oh and got a bra too (I kid you not).


If they think they're life is hell, then why don't they just hang themselves rather than condemning their fellow men/women?

[90'sCartoonMan]

Antiyonder, I love the way you contrast a Lizzie McGuire character with Magneto, it's kind of funny.

I think a major factor to the "overdone rivalry" thing is the fact that a lot of the examples you use are of characters in high school (or, still surrounded by a group of their peers, like in Lilo's case).

Kids are allowed to be overdramatic and shallow and whatnot because they're still young. Everything is the end of the world to them. When they have an enemy or rival picked out, they'll do mean things to them just out of the sake of rivalry. And girl characters can get really nasty!

It's kind of hard to add depth to a rivalry among two characters who are still young, because that would show signs of maturity, which probably takes away from the fun of some of the shows.

[Kagetsu]

Kids are allowed to be overdramatic and shallow and whatnot because they're still young. Everything is the end of the world to them. When they have an enemy or rival picked out, they'll do mean things to them just out of the sake of rivalry. And girl characters can get really nasty! I question it stops with kids. Showing a constant torment between characters reflects how everyone sees conflicts from their point of view. Once a determination is made that someone is wrong, they are often thought as always wrong and viewed through that prisim. (the "there they go again" syndrome)

Magneto may have good reason to be villianous, but the conflict between him and Xavier is a fundemental difference in their view of normals. Child characters seldom go to that complex level, and do tend to be a continuous conflict to win the hearts and minds of peers to gain the premium social interaction. And considering how much stress a child deals with affects their social bonds and study habits, it can be the end of the world.

Many shows have at least one episode where the main character actually sees some of why the antagonist is the way she is,,, it is most often girls character shows, boys just bash eachother and feelings get in the way.

[Antiyonder]

Maturity killing a show? In large doses perhaps, but that's part of the problem , is that most teen should aren't as well balanced.

Like, conflict though, the whole kids getting into trouble is overdone. Here's a word from Old Maid's Batman Beyond.

Many of the high school stories were insulting to teenagers. Not merely as viewers -- as people. Who were Gotham's children? Gangs (the Jokerz, the Ts) ; addicts (Mason and friends, Donnie Grasso and friends) ; nerds out of control (Willie Watt, Howard Groote) ; thieves, vandals and assassins (Terminal, the Sentries, Payback, Xander, the Splicer gang, Bullwhip's gang) ; and jerks, especially if they're jocks (Nelson and friends, Mason and friends). The trend-
setting princesses (Chelsea, Blade) aren't immune either. They goad the boys to fight over them, which is where the Golem and Synthia came from. Even Max used her extraordinary gifts to open her own extortion racket ("or I'll blow your secret wide open") and was obviously invading (hacking) other people's business years before she and Terry met.

No wonder Spellbinder got sick and tired of them. The fans know how he feels. These are not attractive kids. They're also not typical.

What this does is to stereotype a whole generation as menaces or losers, with only a few gems to be found among them. Did they think the fans wouldn't notice? There are still more good kids out there than bad ones. One wouldn't know it to watch television, though. Allegedly the series was reset in high school to make Batman more kid-friendly. The relentless abuse, however, illustrates what the suits really think of our children.

I'd go as far as stating that some kids/teens misbehave, cause they figure us adults think lowly of them anyway.


The reason I used the comparsion I did, well:

Lizzie and Kate- Ask yourself this, did the writers add conflict in a natural organic way or just a short cut for ratings. Teen Rivalry conflicts shouldn't be any less interesting because of the age group.

Professor X and Magneto- Their conflict strikes me as more natural, organic on the otherhand. The writers did the conflict for building interest in the characters and story.


Again, look at the sibling relationship between Kim and her brothers. Like Lizzie and Matt, yes, but without the exagerations. Not to mention again, they are actually likable characters.

[90'sCartoonMan]

I question it stops with kids. Showing a constant torment between characters reflects how everyone sees conflicts from their point of view. Once a determination is made that someone is wrong, they are often thought as always wrong and viewed through that prisim. (the "there they go again" syndrome)


Maturity killing a show? In large doses perhaps, but that's part of the problem , is that most teen should aren't as well balanced.

The thing is, these shows need to maintain status quo. If the audience misses an episode, they're supposed to be able to watch the next episode without having to worry about something that happened in another episode.

So conflicts can never get resolved, characters can't grow or change. Or, as Homer said, people quickly change and then quickly change back. By the end of the episode, everyone is back to start, ready for a new adventure next time.

That's the case for shows like Lizzie McGuire, anyway. Or maybe they're overdoing the conflict because instead of trying to change the established conflict, they're just trying to top it.

[Gary L Thompson]

I wish I could have hit both of the last buttons, but the poll wouldn't let me.

Under "others", the big reason is no conflict, no story. And yes, a writer that's lazy or mediocre in talent can easily do a hackneyed instead of creative job of it.


Conflict, is a key element that can make and/or break a show. It's purpose to keep shows from being to nice and sappy. But just like emotional moments, too much conflict can be a hazard to the show.

Second, writers tend to think that having conflict meens the character providing it must be 100% hateful, crapping on the protagonist 24/7.

Aside from the fact they're hateful, their reasons for doing so are lame. That reason, the dysfunctional family bit (single parent, rude siblings, etc).

What, you think I'm being harsh? Tons of people out there have family problems and still manage to order and maintain a side plate of decentcy.

Well, it's a fact of life that dysfunctional families do tend to make kids (particularly teenagers) a trial to deal with in public group settings in real life. (On average that is. However, you get these cases kids coming out of truly nightmarish family environments that grow up to be great people, while the opposite is also true.) Thing is, it's those exceptions against-the-grain which tend to be your more interesting characters. The wicked stepmother is so ingrained in the public-mind, that when we see a story of stepparents/stepchildren or step-sibling characters that adore each other, to the point where they're willing to lay everything on line, tends to make an audience to sit up and notice.


Does Magneto gossip about Xavier, does he pull pranks on him, does he harass him daily? Nope, and yet their conflict is enjoyed by all. Their conflict is due more to their opinions than behavior (Xavier believing in peaceful coexistence, Magnus believing it's rule or be ruled).

Good point.


The reason I'm using Kate as a counter example is due to the fact that she use to be a friend of Lizzie. Yet, rather than using that to their advantage storywise, the writers wimp out and make her a typical tween witch (with a capital B I may add).

Great point.


Using another scenario, what exactly was the point of Myrtle being on Lilo & Stitch? For conflict? Wasn't Gantu already there to antagonize Lilo? In my opinion, Gantu was the more intriguing antagonist to Lilo. Why you may ask? Because unlike Mrytle, Gantu doesn't antagonize Lilo for the sake of it (Being a brat doesn't count for motivation). Myrtle is fully aware that her actions towards Lilo are wrong, Gantu only causes problems for her when she's interfering with an experiment.

Heck, take Superman and Batman. Since their update in the mid80s they've had their share of disagreements. That's an example of conflict done fight. Heck, my recent line concerning Batman's opinion: "The last time you (Superman) really inspired anyone was when you were dead."

Well, the problem is that the writers are working backwards. Rather than establish their characters and have conflict flow out of them naturally, they're having conflict for conflict's sake.


A big annoyance concerning conflict, the generic sibling rivalry.

Well, any show centered around kids that reflects reality is inevitably going to feature some sibling rivalry, because that's a fact of life. Still, making one sibling genuinely hateful is a lazy way to go, there's another side to this that's often forgotten--if the siblings suddenly face an outside threat, typically they tend to stick together.


Shows that do better with the sibling thing. W.I.T.C.H., Kim Possible and Danny Phantom, to name a few. Wtih Danny Phantom, Jazz is pretty much consider to be an interesting character, partly because conflicts between her and Danny are due to her need to protect him (rather than purposely making him miserable).

With Kim Possible and W.I.T.C.H. the younger siblings are annoying yes, but hardly hateful. Jim and Tim in my opinion are some of the better annyoing siblings out there.

I believe there's a belief out there that because "Kim Possible" and "Totally Spies" superficially resemble each other (teen girls featured in tongue-in-cheek spy thrillers), that they're essentially two peas in a pod. The difference is KP actually has geniune wit and very human characters.


Now that I've made my point, my question. Why do most writers overdo the conflict schtick? What's their damage? My belief is a little of everything.

I think the conflict schtick wouldn't grate so much if there was something to balance against it. Like girls for example (pre-teen and teen), they tend to be practically joined at the waist with that special intimate friend in real life. Anime is very aware of it, so is America in the children's literature field. But American comics/cartoons seem mainly blind to this, though they don't hesitate to have that tormentor who seems to think it's her life mission to make our heroine's life miserable.


The thing is, these shows need to maintain status quo. If the audience misses an episode, they're supposed to be able to watch the next episode without having to worry about something that happened in another episode.

So conflicts can never get resolved, characters can't grow or change. Or, as Homer said, people quickly change and then quickly change back. By the end of the episode, everyone is back to start, ready for a new adventure next time.

That's the case for shows like Lizzie McGuire, anyway. Or maybe they're overdoing the conflict because instead of trying to change the established conflict, they're just trying to top it.

That is why I'm hoping that one of those anime shoujo shows with a great heartfelt storyline gets by one of the aforementioned "suits" somehow one of these years, and become a massive hit. Maybe to the point where it influences American-originated shows (much as it may be hard to believe, there was a time some decades back where serial cartoons weren't verboten on American TV).

Look, I understand what you're saying, and frankly, I agree there is a place for status-quo shows. However, I don't see why every show has to be in that mold. TV networks try all sorts of stunts and gimmicks to keep an audience--while treating like the plague one of the best means of getting monster ratings (anybody remember "Who Shot JR?"). Since Scheherazade, "to be continued next time" is one of the most proven and cost-effective means to keep an audience.

[Antiyonder]

As many Simpsons fans and viewers know, there has been an increase in the Homer & Marge marriage jeopardy episodes. While early seasons had these kinds of stories, they didn't rely on them like a proverbial drug.

I haven't seen all of those episodes, but the one that proves the problem is "Ice Cream of Margie (With the Light Blue Hair)".

This time, Homer wasn't really being insensitive, just a bit idiotic. Meaning that Marge was a bit witchy.


It could be a sign of lazy writing, but to me it seems to be that these writers are suffering in relationships of their own. I'm not saying it's true, but it is a possibility.

I mean, Tom Defalco doesn't waver in his writing of Spider-Girl, just because his wife passed away.