Okay, you guys seen to have misunderstood me. But before I clerify, I'd just like to say: And in order to have a good villain, you need a good hero. Its not a one way relationship, the two sides complement each other, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Now, to clerify: I don't recall saying anything about 100% perfect heroes at all (to my knowledge, none even exist). I said "good heroes", as in heroes who are basically good, and can pull it together to do the right thing in the end despite of their own weaknesses. That stills makes them far from perfect.
When I said "a tragically flawed hero", that's usually in reference to a hero with a much more magnificent flaw than usual. Like, say (this is just an example made up off the top of my head), Sir Bernard of Lichenstein is a noble middle ages warrior, but he became possessed by a berserker spirit after he made a bad deal with a witch, and it that causes him to go insane and kill everything that breathes, friend or foe. Then, he'll come out of it and have to live with what he's done. That would be a hero with a tragic flaw or weakness.
That being said, most heroes do have their own weakness and flaws to overcome, that's actually the norm in most stories, but there are a lot of them who are more good and noble than others.
Contemperary examples:
Lloyd Irving from "Tales of Symphonia": He's a true, blue friend, iron willed, selfless, kind, loyal, and honest to a fault, but he's somewhat simple-minded, easily exciteable, quick tempered, naive, stubborn as an ox, and he has a very short attention span. All the above get him a lots of trouble and he makes more mistakes over the course of the game than I count. But his heart is in the right place and all the decisions he makes are made with the best intentions. In long run, even though some of them make his ath more difficult, they usually end up being more noble.
Will Turner from "Pirates of the Caribbean": From the very start, he shares many of the same good qualities as his predessor on this list, but he suffers frm the very beginning from (somewhat justified) narrowed-minded prejudice against all men who don't follow the law of His Majesty.
Samwise Gamgee: Well, he has just about every quality anyone has ever wanted ina friend, but he's also pretty terrified o fjust about everything that's new and strane, but he overcomes and becomes the driving force of the story.
Super-Man: On the surface, he appears to be a goody-goody boyscout, but if you ever bother to look deeper, you'll see him being tempted to not misuse his powers to put an end to all suffering, something he doesn't always succeed at fighting off (you'd be surprised at how grisly a few of the man in blue's older comics have been when he lost control of himself).
See? Heroes overcoming obstacles are just part of the story, and I recognize that (dude, I've been studying story-telling for most of my life, I know how to tell a story). But that's not the point.
Come the 20th Century, suddenly we got Riddicks, Terminators, Wolverines, Daredevils, Punishers, heroic vampires, mutant girls with split-personalities, and even analytical aliens being, *ahem*, heroes, when there's barely anything "heroic' about them.
As for villains. I never understood the appeal. They are necessary for the story, but they cause way too much pain and suffering in the story usually for me tol like them or feel any pity, or even want to know anything about them. For me, the best villains are the ones you love to hate, as well as the ones who have their own obstacles to overcome before achieving their goals.
Alright, now that I've made everyone fall asleep at their computers, here's the point. What is with this new obsession of loving villains and loving heroes who are nearly as corrupt and evil as the villains, instead of rooting for the person trying to do the right thing?
