Thread:Tysonjackson/@comment-5754292-20160928170909/@comment-961279-20161009205605

Arguing about who is and isn't an antagonist is as useless as arguing over how much of an antagonist they are, up to and including whether or not they are a complete monster. Every time this happens, people lose sight of the other 98% of the character's personality, behavior, attitude and more that makes the character a person.

It's like looking at the color of a person's skin or nationality and saying, "I know everything about that person simply because they are a white woman, or a black woman, or a Chinese woman, or an Italian man or a Greek man or a Norwegian man." Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth were both white men who lived during the 19th century, but if that's all you focus on, you miss the fact that one was a person who led a country through a period of turmoil and helped bring about changes that are still being felt today, and the other was a well-known Shakespearean actor whose father was also a Shakespearean actor that decided he didn't like what the first person had done.

Now, that being said, here's my view on the subject of Anger:

You all have missed two very cricitcal things when trying to decide if Anger is an antagonist.

The first is that about two week ago, Faceless Illusion commandeered the page for Anger and changed it into the page for Bishop Ladja. It was unnecessary to do that. A completely new page could have been created instead of attempting to get rid of the existing page by renaming it and then editing it. Both Faceless Illusion and Empty Superior have a history of doing this and I have information I need to double-check that leads me to believe they are the same person.

The second thing is that in the context of the movie, none of five emotions can be an antagonist to Riley. They can be antagonists to other characters within her mind that represents her different aspects, but not to Riley herself.

The reason for this is that in its simplest definition, an antagonist is someone who gets in your way. To a villain, the hero is an antagonist because they get in the way of what the villain wants to do. Does Anger get in Riley's way?

No.

Anger and the other four emotions work with Riley to help guide her through her day. They activate the console that causes Riley to feel sad, upset, happy, moody and whatnot. Though Joy would like Riley to be happy most the time, you didn't see her building a barricade around the console to prevent the other emotions from getting to it, or fighting them off while she kept her hand on the "happy" control to force Riley to be happy. If Joy had done that, if she had actively forced Riley to be happy even when she didn't want to, then Joy would have been an antagonist to Riley by getting in the way of what Riley wanted to do. Instead, Joy tried reason and logic to convince the others that Riley being happy was a good thing.

Because of this, when Joy and Sadness were not around, Anger, Fear and Disgust tried to do what they could to keep Riley happy. Anger saw that she was not happy in San Francisco, so ergo, going back to Minnesota would make her happy and he rationalizes that the actions that will get her there are a good thing when they are not.

Is Anger an antagonist to Riley? As shown above, no.

Is he an antagonist to Fear, Disgust and Sadness? Probably. The movie would need to be reviewed to see exactly how.

Is he an antagonist to Joy? Yes, because being angry and happy at the same time is very hard to do. And personally, I think that if you're happy because you're angry, there's something very skewed going on.

So can the page for Anger stay on this wiki? Yes, as long as it's made clear who Anger is an antagonist towards. It's not Riley, which Faceless Illusion/Empty Superior has lost sight of.