First of all, where do you get the impression someone is seeing him as 'the bad guy'?
Secondly, why do you use passive, as if it's some kind of universal truth? WHO are you talking about, who is seeing him as 'the bad guy'? Please elaborate.
Third, he's NOT seen or shown to be as 'the bad guy', but he is a lot like Frank Grimes, or Grimey, as he liked to be called. He exists solely to underline how GOOFY the rest of the characters are, how quirky and weird Michael is, and how enormous a contrast it would create, if the group got a 'realistic manager'.
He also gets the 'established values' wrong, doesn't understand the people (i.e. 'characters'), gets Dwight and Jim completely wrong, is way less relaxed about work, dress codes and such than Michael was, and doesn't try to be everyone's friend, the way Michael did.
He's like Bizarro-Michael, and as such, doesn't fit the office, that's used to actual Michael. They know how to handle and manipulate Michael, which creates a good work environment, but this manager is realistic, so they lost control and fun, and now it's all serious work and boring stuff.
He also made some bad decisions and was insensitive towards Michael with his macho BS and his lack of humor.
All in all, no one liked him (attraction is not the same as liking someone as a human or a manager), and he messed up the normal flow of the day.
He was not a villain as much as he was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
reply
share
MiamiFootball001 (82)
2 years ago
He's a villain in the frame of the story, at least while looking at it from the perspective of Michael being the hero. Granted, Michael is a "nominal hero" at best (at least during this point in his character trajectory on the show) and Charles is the guy who is on the opposing side yet he is far from being a straight up Blofeld type of villain (at the harshest, he is pretty much the designated "punch clock villain" of the plot arc). So yeah, it is all about perspective with the major characters lol.
reply
share