We love underdog stories

Many of us sympathize with those in “have-not” roles in books, stories, and movies, I think this concept has been there for a while now mostly the writers/storytellers used it to keep the audience hooked and use this narrative to help the audience decide who they should be rooting for but does the audience really like the rags to riches story? Hell Yes

Why do we root for good people in movies? Is it because society acts this way, or are certain individuals more receptive to the plight of the underdog? Technically the protagonist is the person who deserves to win less, the other opponent is always the more trained, better versed and just generally deserves to win more but at that final moment the story circle back to square one.

Why do we root for underdogs?

If you look at the poverty ratio there will be more failures than successes and every game has 1 winner. Moreover, for us, it’s easier to relate to a failure because all of us fail and then we fight again, even Kanye has experienced more failures than successes. 

Middle-Class, relatability mindset, and poverty are the key audience writer targets and one more Positive reinforcement. Failures usually have a negative feeling attached. When we are about to fail, we remember the difficult times and success stories and attach positive mindsets In success stories, there is no positive feedback needed, it is innate.

It sells because it works every time

It boggles me every time when people talk about Nepotism in India, I mean weren’t your parents rooting for you? It’s not the kid’s fault that they have been bought up in a privileged environment, 

I mean it is their money their choice, I mean for god’s sake film making, and as a subset Bollywood is not a government campaign where everyone gets equal share, capitalism doesn’t work this way.

People are allowed to make anything they want, I mean it’s a free country (technically it should have been this way at least) and people are allowed to criticize anything they want.

When I first watched David Fincher’s The Social Network,  I wondered how the writers got away with it by not getting sued by Zuckerburg. turns out that in the US writers have the unique freedom to show off their creative muscle against any rich/bratt or even against the ruling parties (a writer’s way of saying “fuck you money”). However, in order to prevail, they must show quantifiable loss: for example, loss of revenue directly attributable to what they have portrayed (in this case it was massive reputation damage for Mark but nothing affected his business infact there was an upward trend in his stocks).

In a fair world, sane humans will love to root for the underdog and justice for the disadvantaged, and we perceive underdogs to be putting in more effort than the top dogs, so we feel like they deserve to succeed.

In China, people tend to support those that are actually the best, and not the underdogs, I Guess it’s a cultural phenomenon!

Scroll to Top