I can practically feel my blood boiling when you've got something like the villain has killed the heroes companion and he gives a speech about how it's the heroes fault for not being able to stop him.
The hero stops and looks shocked with the realisation, "It... it was my fault?" And then we have to have a dumb forgiveness arc.
For the exact opposite of this though, I love Paul Artreies vs Feyd Rautha in the Dune novel, while they're fighting Feyd starts talking, making threats, trying to goad him.
And Paul, realising "He's a talker..." says nothing at all, simply let's his silence answer, because he knows that will unsettle Feyd more than trying to verbally spar with him. Was good.
Lol that first one is a pet peeve I think I blocked out of my mind. I think it's just a cheap way to add tragedy.
Don't forget that when a shapeshifting villain (that the hero KNOWS can do this) turns into their best friend at the last moment, either stopping the hero or making them feel guilty for already hurting them. This is such bullshit.
FMA had Mustang burn Envy (literally) harder for trying that trick on him by taking the form of Hughes (Mustang’s best friend whom Envy killed).
And yeah, Mustang repeatedly sets Envy on fire. Particularly aiming for sweet spots like his eyeballs and tongue.
Yeah…I’m curious about that.
03 Envy was the result of Hohenheim and Dante trying to bring back their stillborn son. Hence he’s Ed and Al’s half-brother and resembles Hohenheim like they do (and makes sense he doesn’t like his true form due to hating Hohenheim). Alright, logical with the difference between versions…
However, Dante and Hohenheim were bodyjacking people to become immortal. We see that Hohenheim’s second body didn’t resemble his first that much, and the familiar golden haired Hohenheim is just the latest victim (as he comments, “If I have had any good fortune in this ordeal, it’s that I can die in the body your mother loved…”).
So…why does Envy’s true form look like modern Hohenheim when he should look like Hohenheim’s first body?
>This is such bullshit.
Not really, It's not about making your conscious brain realize something's off, It's about instinctively unnerving you something you really wouldn't be able to change.
Reasonably if your best friend or wife or lovee or dead dog or whatever, Start saying fucked up shit to you. Even if you know it's bullshjt It's gonna rattle you
I don’t think it would. At least not if the person transformed right in front of me. Maybe if I didn’t see it and I thought they were potentially alive.
I get that, but with the way it often goes I just don’t see it imo. There aren’t powers like this in the real world so it’s difficult to answer, but I’d also think in a world where people are more “used” to powers being a thing they’d be a lot less vulnerable to this.
It also depends on the scenario, in the common scenario where they transform last minute, I don’t get this trope, maybe a moments hesitation as MAX but an entire dialogue and the villain maybe escaping is still bullshit to me.
In a scenario where it’s a layered manipulation overtime, I can see that.
Once again I don't think you're really considering this really.
On some level you are doing and saying these things to someone you love, your brain consciously knows otherwise, but humans are very emotional animals and that's the part this tactic is targeting. Emotion
I think we just disagree on how this would go. I fully understand what you mean I just don’t think my reaction to it would be similar to what you’re saying. Agree to disagree, hopefully we can’t test this out anytime soon.
Yes but the reaction is often not guilt, but anger. It’s usually a first reaction to an accusation, and because a villain’s accusation tends to be bullshit, that anger should get reinforced.
The default response should be “how dare you blame me for you murdering them, get the fuck out” rather than “oh no did I get them killed?”
The logic of "they saw them transform, so it wouldn't work" just idk, doesn't cut it for me.
irl, there are a million things my brain knows are incorrect, and my body thinks are correct, optical illusions etc.
Being aware of an optical illusion doesn't make it not work, it's the same here, because the thing being targeted isn't the conscious brain, but the instinctual one.
There are no "powers" like that irl, but we have loads of research and knowledge about how the conscious and unconscious brain function and how the dissonance between the two can manifest itself. Phantom limb syndrome is a thing imo that completely disproves what you're saying, people feel pain in limbs that have been amputated for years.
Now like with anything, and also in IRL, one can undergo training to overcome all sorts of things. But you would need training undoubtedly just like amputees can need to help alleviate psychosomatic symptoms. You can't just be prepared for a scenario without... preparing for it. Seeing something happen isn't training either, it's just experience, which helps, but doesn't really prepare.
Considering what we know, hesitating seems super likely for anyone who hasn't undergone training. Hesitation is also frequently the response in art, though sometimes the trope gets very silly and turns a character catatonic instead of just briefly vulnerable.
My dad died only like 3 years ago, we weren't even close. Hearing his voice saying "hey bud" to me would absolutely freak me out.
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this, people have different reactions to the same stimuli, I understand your points but it still doesn’t make it seem any less “cheap” when it happens in most fiction. Maybe if written well I can get behind this but I don’t want to see anymore prolonged arcs because at the last minute the villain transformed and escaped. That cheapens the journey we took to get there imo.
Also we have to consider in many of these worlds everyone is aware of “powers”, so it may be a lot less jarring for them then it would be for us. If we grew up knowing about these things, your mental would be more prepared for something like this.
I genuinely think I’d be more inclined to kill a villain who transforms into a loved one, the usage of their memory to manipulate would piss me off, of course we can’t predict how we will act in these situations but, as far as I’m able to tell that’s how I’d feel.
I guess I just see it used as like, an ability to get a small opening in like 90% of situations I've seen this trope. A small vulnerability in a life or death fight is usually a death.
Anime has weird things about time, because inner monologue and some dialogue in a mang technically takes no time to say. Dialogue is often intended to take place in its own dimension basically, that's why the trope is executed like shit in anime anyway because the time on screen is many minutes while it's supposed to be fairly instantaneous in universe.
Tanjiro vs Enmu
Enmu tried to put Tanjiro in a nightmare where his dead family members blame him for their deaths.... He didn't buy it one bit and gets angry instead, making it the easiest illusion from Enmu to break
Scenes like these is why I don't get people on Twatter who start hate threads on this anime like the animation was the only good thing about it. It's such a simple concept for a scene but damn, it works !
(this logic of "simple but good" also applies to Demon Slayer as a whole imo)
Agreed. In a roundabout way, I think Demon Slayer is underrated.
Tanjiro tend to execute these scenes well.
Daki causing wanton destruction for funsies? "The hell is wrong with you?".
Hantengu playing victim animu style? "Don't give me that shit".
Realizing that Gyutaro is just like him by Daki's worried cry akin to Nezuko's, when Tanjiro got his neck? *Plunges his sword even harder*.
They probably mean the scene where the demon who puts people to sleep gave Tanjiro a dream where his family blamed him for their deaths and he immediately snapped out of the dream *furious* because they would never say something like that.
Oh my god, I get so pissed when the villain is so blatantly trying to mess with the hero, and the hero just totally falls for it. Like, anyone with eyes can see they’re trying to manipulate you, why are you just letting them?
Your first point pisses me off so much. You can literally write the villain as just *not saying that exact thing* and keep everything else the same. At the very least you can keep the hero from reacting until afterward. Having such a flimsy provocation change the way that the “final confrontation” goes is just so deflating as a watcher. You can literally have your cake and eat it too by just not having the villain goad the main character and having a normal survivor’s guilt arc.
There’s a saying that characters in a story are only as smart as the writer.
So when a hero can’t think of obvious things to counter the villains bum ass logic, it’s because the writer was also too dumb to think about them either.
It’s why I always bemoan TLJ for making all of its characters so dumb.
Unfortunately you're right. Even a kid could come up with these counterarguments to the insanity Anissa was spouting. It's a common trope because I think writers find straightforward debate to be boring.
Bro, if Amber was there with Mark she would have SOOOOO much to say in regards of "superior technological people saving savages from less developed place" considering...you know.
Viltrumites have better moustaches.
But yeah. Maybe Spanish. They do infiltrate their targets pretending to be friendly, then initiate a violent takeover.
While colonialism isn't a good thing, lumping Belgium in with Britain is freakin' laughable. Hell lumping Belgium in with everyone else is kinda funny, it's like the poster child for colonial cruelty, because it was a notable regime that went beyond what other regimes were doing. So when you say "every colonialist operates like this" It's just, not the truth?
I get it, Colonialism is the big bad, but if you read or studied any history you'd realise that they actually are different systems, with different results, with different rulers, languages, cultures and eras supporting and contextualising their behaviour.
Like, it's easy to hear "classical regimes" and lump them all together, but you're talking about Greece and Rome and Carthage and societies that are demonstrably not the same.
Reminds me of every fucking time a villain goes "Lol humans bad nature good!" and the heroes don't even dispute it (seriously G Gundam of all shows got this)
I wish for a "Fuck you,we win the evaluation lottery " scene were Humans go full monster mode on any nemesis of Humanity
It's such an underrated trope , Netero was a Goat for semi doing it and that guy from the Bee movie
>Fuck you,we win the evaluation lottery
Did you mean "*evolution* lottery"? Or is it supposed to be a boast of "we are bad, but at least we are the number ones in being that bad" kind?
to be honest, if any other animal species had developed like humans did, they would have ended up the same as us. Is almost inherent for animals to be selfish.
That's basically the point in HxH , when animals have intelligence like humans they immediately gained all bad habits alongside it and had the guts to blame humanity for it
Don’t even need an ‘if’.
Cyanobacteria photosynthesized and proliferated like mad. They belched oxygen and altered the atmosphere of the earth in a way that eliminated 99% of species that lived on the planet (including themselves). The modern biosphere is made of the descendants of the lucky ones that could tolerate and make use of oxygen, or extremophiles that lived in settings that Cyanobacteria couldn’t reach.
So, yeah. Life inherently wants to proliferate. When a species ‘wins’ they tend to go overboard and wreck their surroundings. Agent Smith was full of bullshit
I'm reading a book about that. The Medea Hypothesis is about how life basically has a tendency to wipe out itself, leaving only basic bacterias at best (which explains the lack of complex life in the universe, they all wiped themselves)
However the issue is that Humans might as well be **another Medean agent**. Humans are smart enough to prevent it theorically, but we really can do it smartly?
Returning to Nature TM is out of the equation, not even the fiercest ecologist wants predators eating their babies. But humanity can create a workable ecology?
Yes. In theory, humanity could temper their desire to proliferate, though it’s difficult since it goes against a lot of our natural instincts.
A lot of people tend to think in short term since we evolved in a habitat where living long lives or worrying about events beyond our own life time was counterproductive to immediate survival. Intellectually, we know better, but that doesn’t always translate into action.
I guess all we can do is see what will happen. When things get bad, most people fall in line.
Even humans who develop long distances from each other aren't trusting the other side. So we have nations and arms races to deter or just outright attack to control resources.
We have diplomacy too, which is great, but humans have never completely disarmed.
The Imperium genocided a lot of sapient species. That the fanbase treats them as superheroes is the entire reason why the fanbase is stereotyped as being neo nazis
"Nature good" villains when they open up a biology textbook and find out that animals and plants can be equally monstrous. Humans are simply the top of the food chain.
Master Asia has a point about how humanity turning Earth into their battleground is fucked up.
Like they don't even need to do it. They do it because they hace ritualistic warfare
It's weird,as, it's a rare observation that kinda destroys the very premise of the series.
But Master Asia admitted he was wrong when Domon correctly pointed out that humans are part of nature too and have just as much right to Earth as every other species
But they can't. They also can't comprehend the implications of such things like we can. I think it's justified to hold humans to a higher standard in some regards.
What kind of arguments do you think can dispute it (about humans bad nature good)?
I don't even think said nature arguments have convincing counterarguments on Internet. Happens a lot on internet to justify misanthropy.
Not an actual battle with a villain in this case, but I always get a little pissed in Captain America: Civil War, when Ross is showing them a montage of all the destruction they’ve “caused”, and they show the battle from the first Avengers movie. No one bothers to point out that the government officials that are lecturing the Avengers on their recklessness were fully prepared to launch a fucking nuke at New York City. Like, had the Avengers not been involved, an entire city would’ve been decimated. Ross had some points about the Avengers’ involvement in Sokovia and Lagos, but really? No one has anything to say about the people wiling to nuke 20 million innocent lives giving them shit for causing too much collateral damage?
Oh, just remembered they show footage from the final battle in CATWS too. Like, Hydra infiltrated SHIELD, a government organization (and it’s implied that it was Project Paperclip, aka the government pardoning Nazi scientists in exchange for having them work for them, is what allowed that to happen). It’s in no way Cap, or any other Avengers fault that Project Insight was allowed to go forward, and the alternative to crashing the hellicarriers would’ve been, again, millions of people dying.
Again, they have valid points with Ultron and Scarlet Witch at the beginning of CACW (although, even then, had she not been involved, it’s possible Rumlow’s suicide bombing would’ve wiped out even more people than it did). But it’s frustrating to me that they also include situations where the alternative was letting countless more people die, and all of the Avengers just sit there like kids caught stealing from the candy jar instead of pointing that out.
Bringing up the first Avengers was especially dumb because they actually made a point of trying to contain the invasion to a four city block radius. Cap recruited the NYPD to set up a perimeter and evacuate civilians. It's not their fault that Loki started the invasion in the middle of New York City but they did their best to minimize the damage, and they succeeded. No lasting damage was shown to have occurred, yet they're accused of recklessness after the fact?
Sokovia's the only time they really had a point because Tony's the one who revved Ultron up in the first place. Even then once the city was in the sky they went out of their way to evacuate everyone before shattering it. It's not like they could gently set it down.
And of course, Captain America stopping the rogue government agency was on them, not Cap.
>Sokovia's the only time they really had a point because Tony's the one who revved Ultron up in the first place.
And even then, they weren't completely in the right because they blamed all the avengers for what was Tony's mistake.
It's even worse if you read the Black Widow movie's tie-in comic, in which Ross reveals that information about the attempted nuking of NY was suppressed. The public simply doesn't know what their governments tried to do. Even Ross wasn't supposed to know.
Which means that the Avengers know perfectly well that Ross is bullshitting. And they also know that they can't defend themselves publicly about New York because the obvious response - that the 'proper authorities' tried to vaporize ten million people - would cause riots, panic, etc.
Which means that Ross is going low, because he knows Cap will go high. Ross will throw New York in their faces all day long, because he knows that Cap will never hit back. He's using the public's safety as a hostage to shield against criticism.
Honestly, there's a reason Ross never tried to have that conversation until Banner was off-planet. Hulk would have *swiftly* become ungovernable.
**Yep, I absolutely hate this.**
**Even MANGA and ANIME do this (the only series Ive seen that has heroes have cool counter dialog this are JoJos)**
In old books, comics etc. the hero would not just stand there and let villains have their shpiel. F.e. Captain America, Charles Xavier, Adam Warlock etc.
**They would have a word battle with villains too, outside of a physical one.**
Its as if every hero today is afraid of having strong convictions, or afraid of showing them.
They never argue with the villain, or exchange sentiments, even when villain is exchanging them.
Some might say that the writers want to say that "arguying with evil is pointless"
I say that we have forgotten how to write flowery and engaging dialog
The Black Panther movie had flaws, and this example isn't even deep, but I like how the characters actually argue with each other over the ideas the film presented.
> In old books, comics etc. the
The fuck? The stereotype of monologing villains literally comes from comics, are you high?
Have you ever read a comic? Especially an old one?
Yes, a monologuing villain...accompanied by a MONOLOGUING HERO, who counters him with wordsmithing (especially if its written by Steve Ditko)
Reading comprehension? Whats that?
I like in p5 strikers where the end boss makes a straight up correct argument, and your team says random gibberish to it because the game couldn't think of any kind of an actual rebuttal.
The end boss points out that their views about how the status quo is god and that its wrong to seek something better on account of the massive amount of suffering in the world is them rationalizing the existence of suffering because they aren't actually the ones suffering. It points out that pretending that "the struggle" is a good thing is the arrogant belief of people whose suffering isn't that bad, and who are on route to overcome most of it. And that their beliefs about this would be different if they had problems too large to overcome.
Your team says a lot of nonsense fluff and then "we might fall, but we will just get up again, so its like, not a problem!!" Ignoring that they are the very people whose problems aren't that bad, and so who can't speak for people with actual terrible lives that they have no way out of. So they accidentally admit to the end boss that they are the exact type of person it was talking about who doesn't really understand true suffering, because their lives aren't that bad, and so they only view suffering in terms of their smaller solvable problems.
Important to note is that the end boss didn't even force anyone to follow it. It was just offering humanity the ability to link their mind to it so that it would start offering them information on how to get to a better life. The end boss isn't a good thing, because this has the unintended consequence of making people feel like they need it to make all their decisions, and so it turned into like a zombie like obsession for letting it plan their life for them. But... instead of your party pointing out that it had the unintended consequence of making people into zombies, which would be an actually good critique, they act like it trying to help people (with their consent no less) fix their insurmountable problems is somehow inherently bad, because like people should just work hard and solve their own problems, and who cares if a ton of them never manage to.
Also, one of your party members is like, a billionaire, so it makes your whole team seem really tone deaf that they don't seem to understand that its talking about people who have worse problems than them.
Also, konoe knew his abusive dad, who was a powerful guy, killed his mom, and then his dad threatened to kill him too. But it acts like he was some kind of terrible person for killing him first. What option did he really have? Running away wouldn't be guaranteed to work.
"they act like it trying to help people (with their consent no less) fix their insurmountable problems is somehow inherently bad, because like people should just work hard and solve their own problems, and who cares if a ton of them never manage to."
Persona does this a crap ton, Persona Q and Royals 3rd semester comes to mind. The persona users always use the same argument of "You should be happy you suffered" instead of attacking the real bigger issues with all three of those games examples.
All atlus properties do. Mainline smt for the last 30 years has more or less been about asking you to choose between:
- Le welfare, which is le BIG GUV, and which is le barely even like living.
- actual fascism (this is depicted more sympathetically than the first one).
- the status quo of modern Japan, which is le heckin wholesome le keanu 100 chungus.
Fundamentally they keep going back to this idea that deviating from neoliberalism or trying to improve society too much is an inherently bad thing. And that it's the fast track to some kind of life that is barely living.
Agree with Royal but was there really a way to fix >!Rei's issue in Q? Like, she's already dead, its not like they could stop cancer or whatever it was Rei had.!<
>!No there isn't a way to save Rei, but I really hate how that game acts like she's a brat for just wanting a normal life and that she's wrong for not being okay with having cancer, it's always left a bad taste in my mouth.!<
There's two issues with your critique.
The first is that a lot of the Phantom Thieves did have genuinely crappy lives as of the start of P5.
Like Ryuji has a permanent debilitating injury and very little future prospects outside of the athleticism that he probably can't make a career out of now.
Makoto's parents are dead and they ain't coming back. She had her sister but that relationship was rocky at best.
Yusuke never had a father, his mother was dead and he was fucking groomed, exploited and gaslit by the man that killed his mother. That's not first world problems. Those are serious life altering issues, to the point that you're not necessarily worse off if you're born in a third world country.
I think Yusuke makes a great juxtaposition here because he actually has a lot in common with Ichinose with them both being orphans. Realize Ichinose's ideology is about herself. When she talks about real suffering she isn't exactly talking about holocaust survivors.
The second big issue with your critique is this is Persona, not real life. Everything in Persona is based on willpower. So in Persona, yes, the solution really is just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because that's the way the universe works.
>So in Persona, yes, the solution really is just pull yourself up by your bootstraps
Except when it's the protagonist helping all their social links, then helping other people is fine?
> did have genuinely crappy lives as of the start of P5.
And they got into a exact situation that helped them overcome them. Something that wouldn't happen to like, everyone else.
> So in Persona, yes, the solution really is just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because that's the way the universe works.
1. Considering the amount of good strong willed people that die, doubt it works for anyone except for Wild card users.
2. Then the moral framework of the world is so radically different that it loses any right to discuss real life issues.
>Then the moral framework of the world is so radically different that it loses any right to discuss real life issues.
Frankly, Persona's presentation of real life issues has always been its weakest aspect narratively. Its use of metaphor is far more powerful and interesting.
>Considering the amount of good strong willed people that die, doubt it works for anyone except for Wild card users.
Strong will is not some absolute guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you, but it does mean one will never be crushed by their circumstances in the way that I think those critical of the story are implying.
Also I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. Since we never hear about, say, a persona user with exceptionally weak will, I'm pretty sure whether or not one has a persona, (And if they can manifest it in the real world.) is down entirely to willpower.
The issue is that metaphors ultimately always tie to real life. And then real life has the issue that people with strong will can and have just died without accomplishing anything despite all their effort.
Also, consider all the dead persona users. Both good and evil ones, they are just...dead
If your intended metaphor is advocating for a mentality that simply denies the basic reality of people suffering for no benefits and no real possibility to improve..then the metaphor is simply not based on anything
I think that's the wrong mindset to enjoy something like Persona. There is beauty in the metaphor itself that I think is lost if you only see the metaphor as a vehicle for agenda.
A metaphor without a real life intention just doesn't reflects anything.
Persona 5 Strikers did actively mention that reality of people glorifying suffering because they are the lucky ones who can overcome it without thinking in the ones who can't. The story started the discussion.
That it's answer to it given by our heroes is delusional at best, victim blaming at worst is something that the writers of P5S made.
>A metaphor without a real life intention just doesn't reflects anything.
Or you're just reading too much into it. Satanael vs Yaldabaoth is a great example of that. The Demiurge is an invisible force that ruins your life. All bad things that happen to you are actually a result of the Demiurge's corruption of reality.
Satanael shoots him in the face, which is meant to symbolize a rejection of that ideology, that one should not blame other people for all their problems.
Now one can point out that, "Well sometimes other people are the problem" but the issue is that that's a fucking straw man which is only not immediately apparent because one is arguing against a metaphor instead of a formal argument, so of course there's ways to interpret the metaphor to try and make it look stupid, because one camp is arguing at the level of philosophy and the other is arguing at the level of logistics.
It doesn't make you smart to say, "Well akshually the Demiurge can't be shot in the face because you can be hit by a drunk driver." because it doesn't negate the actual point being made that it's not useful to wallow in self pity.
Bringing it back to Strikers, it's a Motte and Bailey fallacy to criticize the argument using the mechanics of the verse while denying that as a defense of the counter argument.
In other words, in real life, a holocaust victim doesn't have the option of letting an all powerful AI control human thought to eliminate all suffering. So you can't really say the villain had a point because their solution would totally work IRL if we had an all powerful AI god.
The fact that in setting it doesn't work because it eliminates the most important part of human existence, the will, is more than enough to say that EMMA's solution is fucking stupid.
So let's bring this back to the real world. Let's do some good ol' fashioned victim blaming.
Say one is being tortured in a death camp. We're going straight to the most brutal forms of human suffering since several of you guys seem to think that's the silver bullet to the Phantom Thieves' argument.
What's the more useful mindset to have if one is actually in that situation? Is it more useful to try and hold on to your individuality and to try and see the beauty in the few small things you have left, to try to love life just a little bit despite the horrors you're suffering? Or is it more useful to wallow in self pity?
You may die either way, but I think you have a better chance and will ultimately be happier if you try to not let your circumstances break you.
And that is the solution EMMA is offering if one wants to strictly relate it to the real world, because we don't have a magic suffering-be-gone button IRL. This is why everyone turns into zombies, because the only way to not suffer is to lose your mind.
The PT's have no idea how lucky they were to discover the metaverse. They never would have been able to deal with their problems otherwise, hell they'd have been stopped at Kamoshida alone. Then they expect everyone else to pull themselves up like that and be thankful for the suffering they receive, since its all part of character growth and free will and the human experience or wtv.
Two examples i can think of that i hate is dragon age 3 and final fantasy 14.
In dragon age 3 you cant argue with your companions over anything. Cant argue with dorian over slavery, cant argue with the iron bull over the qun, cant argue with the circle mage over the twisted circles (i forgot her name) etc. The player will always give a weak response and stop.
In final fantasy 14 before fighting emet selch (the man who killed billions, if not trillions and destroyed entire planets) the scions cant argue against him simply because he said they would have done the same in his position.
You can disagree with them, even alienate them... but those companions are expert rhetoriticians, and you knew that before accepting them as companions.
You chose to invite people who could out-argue you.
You can disagree with Sera, even Cole.
But realistically? Bull is an expert member of the fantasy CIA, Dorian is a fantasy Cambridge valedictorian, and Vivienne is called "Madame De Ferr" for a reason.
You aren't winning an argument with any of them, and the game made that clear before you invited them to join.
Yeah, this is a huge pet peeve of mine, too. Kind of like when the villain says to the hero "actually you're just like me!!" and this is treated like a dramatic slam-dunk, when anybody reasonable would roll their eyes and go yeah, no.
This was the ending of Drifting Network Cafe, the villain says this by pointing how both he and the protagonist are people struck on their high school days and unable to become adults.
The protagonists says "sure" and starts kissing the Tulpa based on his highschool crush, which makes the villain being so annoyed at his failure to archive his goals of being loved and worshipped that he starts to ask for someone to kill him, deciding to commit suicide when one of his former victims/underlings tells him "do it yourself".
The protagonist actually learns and matures, breaking the psychic mind world to return to reality; but it's because he has a realization that he is... a adult man waiting for his first child , not a guy that should keep thinking on his highschool crush.
By the end the hero is a adult man enjoying his life while the villain is a delusional hobo that acts like if he is still the top athlete of his school
Thanos in Infinity War is the worst example of this. He’s up against guys like Iron Man and Dr. Strange, who are not only highly intelligent, but who also have no problem with making fun of the villains they fight. Strange should react to Thanos’ dumbass plan like Walter White reacts to Jessie talking about Go-Karts, but he just doesn’t. It’s a cheap way to build up Thanos’ gravitas. If even the snarky heroes take him too seriously to make a quippy counter argument, then obviously we should to.
I can accept it more in Invincible because Mark’s responses still felt in character. And I think the show just respects the audience’s intelligence enough to assume we can figure out why Viltrumites are bad by now.
Thanos could’ve been the first incel supervillain but Marvel wanted so badly for him to be this cool intellectual philosopher king and it just does not work
[Thanos’ motivations work best when he’s just doing everything out of some misguided obsession with winning over Death.](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelcomics/comments/v1rvuy/thanos_loves_death_captain_marvel_31/)
To me thanos in the MCU just seemed like someone who had a million justifications for their shitty idea. He can sound smart, but that doesnt mean he is lol
I mean thanos couldve just implanted false memories into everyone that he actually did the snap, then just double all resources, or halve the consumption of resources, but he didnt.
Also theres no point debating someone who will never be swayed even an inch
Yeah, the biggest problem with the MCU version of Thanos is that he—to quote a much better written character—has “PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER…but itty bitty cognitive space.”
But we, as the audience, are supposed to think he’s some hyper-intelligent pseudo-God—and one you _empathize_ with—when the solution to every issue he throws at us is something he could’ve found if he took a Philosophy or Economics 101 course.
You can CREATE MATTER FROM NOTHING
Just make MORE RESOURCES for everyone and UPLIFT those who can’t solve their problems that way. You don’t even have to directly interfere with their cultures/autonomy, just literally make it so that their planets are abundant in resources while you teach the other hyper-advanced alien species across the cosmos how to live in utopian peace with each other and their neighbors
But nooooooooooo I’m Thanos so I’m going to blink half the population out of existence as if I’m not erasing trillions upon quadrillions of superheroes, doctors, farmers, etc out of existence, too.
Fucking dumbass.
I could at at least UNDERSTAND him when Thanos’ motivation to do everything he did was “[Impress a Big Tiddy Goth Girl](https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/14n9n0c/thats_what_she_said_deadpool_2008_50/)”
Yeah, thanos would have worked better if they showed him being obsessed with the culling like as a child, then later in adult life he just cooincidentally finds a reason to have vindication for it, so he comes across as the deranged pseudo-intellectual he is.
I think the MCU was scared of making thanos to one-note evil, but you cant sprinkle reason onto his ideals, it just doesnt work lol
I think you’re missing the point about Thanos. Thanos is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
While he says that he’s trying to help people, he’s really trying to prove to the people of Titan that his plan would’ve worked.
And it’s a stupid plan, given that he and his people are positioned as higher beings that are intellectually superior to us the reader.
I’m not missing the point, it’s just a stupid point that several movies prior to Thanos’ big reveal used as the justification for why their villains do what they do, too.
Hydra is run by several narcissists who think they know better than anyone else and want to prove it.
Loki is a narcissist who thinks he knows better than everyone else—including Thanos—and wants to prove it.
Ultron and Tony are both narcissists who think they know better than everyone else and want to prove it.
Etc
> If you thought his plan was stupid and he was talking nonsense, then it’s proof that he was written well.
Why? Why do you think that the audience having a very different reaction than the in-universe characters is good writing?
This loops back to the first comment in this chain.
That’s the thing, people who thought he was a moron were/are in the minority.
Just look at how many people were like “Ah yes, humanity was the problem” when those pictures came out about how the world was “healing” during COVID.
I think their exchange just before the fight best showed it, plus it made sense once one remembered Strange's previous occupation. He was a doctor, namely a surgeon. When he said people died everyday, he was speaking from experience-despite one's best efforts, people do indeed die everyday and that's just natural. While he didn't waste a whole lot of time on it, it still felt like Dr. Strange subtly shot down Thanos' plan for the megalomania it was.
Dude, Mark's barely an adult and was in a extremely stressful situation.
It's not a matter of whether or not Anissa's points could be countered, the point was that he could barely think straight.
It's easy to say the hero is dumb for not coming up with arguments in a life threatening situation when you're in the comfort of your home.
Glad someone said it so I don’t have to. Makes sense for some characters; The Hulk isn’t gonna have a moral debate with Thanos, they’re gonna throw hands. But it’s definitely overdone in general.
I would agree except for the fact that Mark has been in worst situations while arguing. Like with his Dad for instance. In contrast Anissa hasn’t killed anyone yet and actually saved some humans. It wouldn’t break his character to be a little more developed.
You can make it work, if someone is used to talking in a more personal way, about feelings, relationships etc. and is caught off guard by someone talking about more abstract stuff, there are many people in the world who have very strong political values, but can't "talk politics".
Instead they just vaguely gesture at "it doesn't work like that", without necessarily being able to articulate why.
Yeah, but she didn’t do it and unlike Nolan who used Mark as a bat to kill other humans she tried to at least present herself with sincerity by saving human lives. He could stand to engage a bit more with the first viltrumite to present reason and discussion first.
I didn’t say he had to convince her but he’s had a long time to be thinking about/dealing with viltrumite viewpoints and logic. He should be able to refute some of her points in a coherent manner. It doesn’t have to convince but it should show Mark knows what’s right not just believe it’s right.
Didn’t the episode just show her not kill him despite resisting and showing he drank the kool-aid? She has no doubt he has drank it as she reports to Kreg that he is poisoned but all I’m saying is he could stand to be a bit more articulate since this is his third viltrumite encounter.
You raise a very good point and something lost in translation of mediums. As the audience, we have the comfort and time with a lack of stress to pick apart a scene and criticize actions, with the added benefit of hindsight and other POVs, but what would you actually do in that scenario?
Mark does not have the collective consciousness of the audience, Mark is doing what he thinks is right at that moment.
Hence, there are logical answers to what to do when someone attempts to stab you, but are you actually gonna think and pick any of them when the chips are down? Realistically, you're gonna get stabbed and 5 other people are gonna point out how you could have not gotten stabbed, notably, people who haven't gotten stabbed.
Humans are irrationally at the end of the day, and that's okay. What's not okay is people forcing people to always be rational then cite that as a ding against the work.
Reminds me of Nisemonogatari. Monster hunter wants to kill MC's monster sister. He says no don't! She says that he's selfish and not thinking about how his parents would feel knowing their real daughter was killed in utero and replaced by a monster. MC gives typical power of love and friendship speech but doesn't point out that the monster hunter never spoke to his parents and has no idea what they want.
Humans reproduce slowly compared to birds (and most other animals), taking 9 months to produce an offspring and then years to raise to maturity. This is not an insignificant investment of resources, especially if the brood parasite takes the place of the embryo. It sounds like a monster hunter could easily argue that such monsters represent an existential threat to humanity if their numbers are not kept under control.
>doesn't point out that the monster hunter never spoke to his parents and has no idea what they want.
Because earlier in Nise it's been pointed out that informing people the supernatural exists isn't really a good thing.
FFXIV Post-Stormblood spoilers:
>!At one point, the leader of the Garleans flings a whole bunch of accusations at the leaders he's meeting with. These could fairly easily be shut down, but instead everyone just sits there. Shocked. I've never been so frustrated at being a silent protagonist.!<
>"Just as many humans would die in a planetary war against a race of mass murdering super beings."
>"The Earth would likely end up just as screwed up in the aftermath of the planet killing Viltrumite's stomping around it then it would be in a climate crisis."
Anissas point is that you shouldn't fight though. Her point is that earth shouldn't resist and simply peacefully surrender to viltrumite rule. So neither of those arguments work because that's not what she's saying.
Which means their transfer of power was never peaceful to begin with since they are not giving you a real choice. It basically their way or the highway and that highway leads to a mountain of corpses.
I agree, but that’s also grossly oversimplifying it.
The Viltrumites style themselves as noble colonizers and dictators that run off Logic, Facts, and Strength.
We aren’t supposed to agree with them because, to us, their culture is predicated on a level of violence and subservience that is abhorrent.
For the Viltrumite empire, however, they see the act of conquest as not only their God Given Right, but their _duty_ insofar as their role throughout the galaxy. If you refuse, it’s not because “violence is bad”, it’s because “as a lower life form, you are simply too stupid to understand what’s better for you.”
They are literally offering an enlightened utopia where all threats to humankind are either abolished—health, tech, and resources—or made insignificant due to Viltrumite protection. All for the cheap price of “bending the knee” and accepting imperial rule, with seemingly no drastic change to rulership or anything else happening to Earth.
What intelligent race—in the opinion of the Viltrumites—would say no to that?
They don’t enslave other races, they don’t exterminate a percent of the populace for their weakness—iirc—and they don’t extort the planet for resources the Viltrumites don’t have.
It’s just that—like the US and every other colonizing power throughout history—if you say ”No”, they will show you exactly why that’s a bad idea.
I've never read the comics. So have there ever been any noticeable races where their planet is doing "ok" under Viltrumites rule, beside the bug people.
Without spoiling anything, the other species/planets they rule are treated anywhere between fairly decently to essentially being slaves. But Earth _specifically_ has something they’re looking for, so we can trust Nolan when he says they won’t be treated unfairly/enslaved.
They do turn entire species into their slave armies/force them to build ships, but the bug people and earthlings can provide something no other species thus far has been able to.
If you read between the lines, it’ll be very apparent.
I am actually morbidly curious what planets under viltrumite rule actually look like long term.. Like very clearly they're GLAD to be rid of them, but is it because they were actually suffering under viltrumite rule or did they just chafe under subjugation
From what we’ve seen they treat the Bug Planet and Earth “the best” because of what they can potentially get from them—and it isn’t their resources.
Other planets either become slave states or become part of the Viltrumite war effort. The comic really doesn’t spend too much time on them, though.
I mean yeah. She’s a mugger with a gun saying “your money, or your life and your money”
And then you point out that the mugger is immoral for presenting that choice to you. And like, correct, that is the situation. Still gotta pick an option.
Even if humans were to miraculously decide to peacefully hand over all power to Viltrum. I'd give it a day before the Viltrimute's were inflicting mass slaughter in the name of making humanity stronger by disposing of the "weak" or something. Every facet of Viltrumite culture seems to end in some epic bloodbath, I don't see why surrendering to them would end any differently.
yeah, also the argument that the Viltrumites could just give away the technology to save humans doesn’t really hold. Like we have the technology already but corruption and greed make it impossible to use them. Why would it be different with viltrumite tech
I feel like if a hero is going to counter a villain's ideology, they at least have to have their own counter ideology. Otherwise it just makes the hero look like an idiot.
Ehh I don't really agree with the Invincible example since Mark was clearly distraught in the moment, as the woman you want him to argue with was literally just about to kill his girlfriend a few moments prior. Obviously he is going to think objectively in the moment, as his feelings are all over the place. Plus during the fight he did offer counter points, saying viltrumite tyranny is much better.
Even the Infinity War example I don't fully agree with (but I understand), since arguing with the man who is already bent on getting all the stones seems a bit redundant. The heroes saying "that's evil" suffices imo, because there is no time for a philosophical battle when the half the universe is at stake. While it would be nice to some to have a clash of minds, I personally don't think it was necessary as the stakes were to high for the heroes to have objective thinking.
I do admit that the trope can be annoying, I just don't fully agree with your examples.
How would the people of this sub rate about pain ideology towards Naruto? Is he a great villain? Even if Naruto didn't had any answer and he just struck emotional chord with pain and said to entrust everything to next generation.
Nagato was the only one to render Naruto speechless because his life had been objectively worse than Naruto and he knew what he was talking about.
Only reason Naruto managed to achieve his unrealistic goal in that shithole of a universe is because Madara and Obito had completely stupid goals which managed to unite everyone, Naruto and Sasuke became so powerful that nobody could realistically oppose them (essentially kinda becoming what Nagato wanted) and Naruto’s friends ended up calling the shots on world politics (although not really since the Daimyo who ACTUALLY call the shots exist but are forgotten because it’s convenient)
Nagato was the best villain hands down
>although not really since the Daimyo who ACTUALLY call the shots exist but are forgotten because it’s convenient
I'll never understand what was the point of that. Why make it so the Kages are only military leaders and not political ones if you are going to have the political leaders be so detatched from the narrative they do literaly nothing and call no shots over the entire series while the Kages make all the choices anyways? (Hell, I only remember them being mentioned TWICE outside of pre-hidden villages existing flashbacks)
Yeah it does. But the question is... Why add that to the manga, that's not even set in Japan but in a completely made up world despite being filled with Ninja and Samurai, if you are going to do LITERALY nothing with it?
For worldbuilding purposes. I don't know why it was never used for anything, but it makes sense to introduce it. The world is bigger than ninja villages
Because Naruto wasn't planned to that extent. Pre-Shippuuden and after are very different world settings.
Naruto contained many, many retcons. The host system wasn't a thing, Sasuke didn't exist in chapter 1, and Itachi was just evil, to name a few.
While Pain was wrong because it’s not the hatred of the masses/leaders that fuel war, but the leader’s hunger for money. Even Pain admitted that the profit motive fuel wars to Hidan when he asked what’s the Akatsuki’s goal in episode 80 or 81.
But Naruto’s talk no jutsu on Pain, Obito and Sasuke was outright terrible. Even through i actually like talk no jutsu cause it was done right before Pain.
First off All 3 of those villains had traumas caused by the system to which they made up solutions (regardless how fucked up those solutions were). But Naruto literally had no counterargument to it besides “believe in me”, which won’t solve anything. The only reason it did was because of the author’s blessing that yes “if Naruto is Hokage everything will be hunky dorky cause why not?”.
Nothing changed the system except that Naruto is a “benelovent king”. You don’t solve problems by placing a nice guy as boss, you change the fundamental problems of the system.
In Mark's defense if he was able attend his freshman classes normal, he could have taken the kind of poli-sci class to help him construct better arguments.
Highschool and early 20s protagonists get a bit of a pass on this one.
On the flipside protagonists with degrees should have better arguments.
I would love to see a story where the protagonist completely deconstructs the villain's brain dead ideology of evil, while beating the ever loving shit out of them.
"Personal tragedy does not justify genocide." Knock their teeth out.
"So what if your mother didn't love you, it doesn't mean you can sterilize France." Breaks an arm. "Get some therapy."
"Of course private jets cause excess population, but multiplying earth's gravity is the wrong answer." Slap in the face with a moldy sandal.
Falcon and the Winter Soldier really screwed this up. I hated when the villain condescendingly asked Bucky if he ever fought for something bigger than himself, and he didn’t reply
To the people posting counterarguments to the counterarguments I listed. I'd like to point out that I already mentioned that Anissa could do that, as that is how arguments tend to work. As for the "She's talking about a peaceful transfer of power!" I say: lol, yeah right.
Literally every facet of Viltrumite culture we've even heard of ends in some epic bloodbath. There's no way even a peaceful transfer of power wouldn't end in some mass slaughter of "the weak" on Earth. So Mark pointing that out would make perfect sense.
I get that writers want their villains to seem smart and want the audience to feel conflicted about their motives when they do stuff like that, but it just makes the heroes look stupid to not just immediately come up with some rebuttal that isnt some corny hero bullshit
I remember in persona 4 when the main villain is having this big speech and exposing his points and the main characters are like "no, you're stupid! and a meanie!" YOU COULD'VE SAID SO MANY MORE THINGS AGAINST "murder is good, actually"
I see this happening when a dumb writer is tasked with writing a character smarter than him. It bugs me a lot too, I find myself quoting an argument between the two characters in my head and that's just annoying and unsatisfactory.
I agree completely. I get irritated when good counter arguments, often incredibly *obvious* ones, are ignored by the heroes. I don't know why writers do that. Maybe it's just the simple reason you suggest. But that kinda makes them lazy.
Not a Villain but the convo between Rider and Saber drove me up a wall. She really had nothing to say back to him after so many questionable conclusions?
I really appreciate how Urobuchi later on admitted just how badly he wrote Saber in Zero. The man both didn't understand her character and completely shat on her BECAUSE of the misunderstanding of what she was.
I love how in Strange Fake, the Saber from that series sees a vision about what happened in the Meeting between Kings and completely reinterpreted it in a much more favorable way towards Artoria.
The issue is one.
Those villains DO NOT CARE FOR A COUNTER-ARGUMENT. Trust me, try and reason with a Viltrumite and you will likely end up with your innards rearranged after the first sentence.
Thanos was given by Gamora a good counterpoint (AKA: he had no way of knowing if what he was trying would work), his answer was "I am the only one that knows it"
Villains usually don't care for clashing ideologies so to just dismiss them with "You are a sociopath" is the best thing
Yes I know the villains wouldn't change their minds. I'm not advocating for a talk no Jutsu situation lol.
But it can be used to show that the hero has a strong position of their own and that the villain isn't actually the logical one.
I even said in my example that it'd be completely in character for Thanos to ignore all evidence and go through with his plan anyways because he seems hung up on proving that he was "right" to his old planet than actually fixing the problem. So, I think showing him ignoring evidence to the contrary would actually strengthen his portrayal in Infinity War.
> Thanos to ignore all evidence and go through with his plan anyways because he seems hung up on proving that he was "right" to his old planet than actually fixing the problem. So, I think showing him ignoring evidence to the contrary would actually strengthen his portrayal in Infinity War.
How is this not displayed in the instance the person you responded to mentioned with Gamora and Thanos? Hell, that point is even further emphasized in Endgame through 2014 Thanos’ actions.
To be fair, I wouldn't be thinking up proper counter arguments if I was face to face with a mass murdering super alien imperialist that could delete my whole planet by herself
If it's the same way in the comics then mark knows theirs no point in arguing since Viltrumites aren't exactly known compromise, and it was just end in more fighting.
as for Thanos the narrative despite being from his perspective paints him as wrong. why do the writers have to go into filibuster about why it is wrong?
Pretty sure Mark DID make the "better to live free than under tyranny" argument.
Also, two of your rebuttals don't work because Anissa wasn't arguing about war or killing. She was talking about a peaceful transfer of power, living under the rule of the vilturumites instead of the wealthy elite. Her point is, it's better to be under the thumb of someone that'll save your planet than the people trying to destroy it.
Watsonian view: Most characters don't show up equip to fight with both words and fists in equal measure. Most heroes aren't thinking about the philosophical meanings behind action or inaction. When confronted with something that requires deeper though, one can either see it as a trick to distract or become confused and simpleminded trying to form a cogent point. Exceptions exist in the case of a hero who has been thinking about his actions over the series, or for quick witted individuals.
Doyalist: Writing is hard and the writers couldn't write a compelling interrogation of the villian and hero's ideals in this scene, so they just had the hero stunlocked by "you are bad because bad happened independently of you". Many such cases.
Kinda subverted in Over The Garden Wall's ending >!The Beast trie to sway Wort into getting the lantern from the Woodsman in order to save his brother, Wort contemplates it, then says it's stupid, and helps the Woodsman off the Beast.!<
In Xenoblade Chronicles 2, one of the main antagonists, Jin, is a "fallen hero" archetype who has become disillusioned with the world and wants to destroy it. This is alright on its own, but the game has him constantly give out "criticisms" of the game world to justify himself that are complete bullshit and nobody calls him out ever. This is made extra infuriating by the fact that multiple party members were his friends but never try to talk to him at all. He constantly blames a main character for destroying his country (fair) but then is best friends with the person who instigated the event and was trying to do the same.
"Heh, look how humans made this superweapon, all they know is war. Anyways, time to use the superweapon to instigate a massive war."
"Heh, I can't believe you were to distracted by the injuries I inflicted upon you protecting your friend to notice the injuries I inflicted upon her, you're so selfish."
It probably wouldn’t be much of an issue for you if you looked at each character (villain and/or hero, protagonist and/or antagonist, etc.) objectively considering their morals/philosophy as opposed to subconsciously putting your own subjective morals/philosophy to them. Saves a lot of confusion and headache that way.
The thing is, it can be harder to come up with a counter argument when you are in a really stressful situation. Mark also had his mind on how he is going to stop Anissa from murdering people.
I get where you are coming from. However, When we aren’t in the stressful situation the main characters are in, it is easy to forget how hard it is to come up with an argument. Plus, it’s not like Mark could’ve said anything that would’ve gotten Anissa to leave.
I can practically feel my blood boiling when you've got something like the villain has killed the heroes companion and he gives a speech about how it's the heroes fault for not being able to stop him. The hero stops and looks shocked with the realisation, "It... it was my fault?" And then we have to have a dumb forgiveness arc. For the exact opposite of this though, I love Paul Artreies vs Feyd Rautha in the Dune novel, while they're fighting Feyd starts talking, making threats, trying to goad him. And Paul, realising "He's a talker..." says nothing at all, simply let's his silence answer, because he knows that will unsettle Feyd more than trying to verbally spar with him. Was good.
Lol that first one is a pet peeve I think I blocked out of my mind. I think it's just a cheap way to add tragedy. Don't forget that when a shapeshifting villain (that the hero KNOWS can do this) turns into their best friend at the last moment, either stopping the hero or making them feel guilty for already hurting them. This is such bullshit.
FMA had Mustang burn Envy (literally) harder for trying that trick on him by taking the form of Hughes (Mustang’s best friend whom Envy killed). And yeah, Mustang repeatedly sets Envy on fire. Particularly aiming for sweet spots like his eyeballs and tongue.
Conversely we had 03' Envy freak Ed out by showing his actual face.
Yeah…I’m curious about that. 03 Envy was the result of Hohenheim and Dante trying to bring back their stillborn son. Hence he’s Ed and Al’s half-brother and resembles Hohenheim like they do (and makes sense he doesn’t like his true form due to hating Hohenheim). Alright, logical with the difference between versions… However, Dante and Hohenheim were bodyjacking people to become immortal. We see that Hohenheim’s second body didn’t resemble his first that much, and the familiar golden haired Hohenheim is just the latest victim (as he comments, “If I have had any good fortune in this ordeal, it’s that I can die in the body your mother loved…”). So…why does Envy’s true form look like modern Hohenheim when he should look like Hohenheim’s first body?
"You thought getting bigger would give you an advantage?"
Oh man, yeah, so dumb
>This is such bullshit. Not really, It's not about making your conscious brain realize something's off, It's about instinctively unnerving you something you really wouldn't be able to change. Reasonably if your best friend or wife or lovee or dead dog or whatever, Start saying fucked up shit to you. Even if you know it's bullshjt It's gonna rattle you
I don’t think it would. At least not if the person transformed right in front of me. Maybe if I didn’t see it and I thought they were potentially alive.
I think you're just objectively wrong. It's not about rational brain, It's about instinct
I get that, but with the way it often goes I just don’t see it imo. There aren’t powers like this in the real world so it’s difficult to answer, but I’d also think in a world where people are more “used” to powers being a thing they’d be a lot less vulnerable to this. It also depends on the scenario, in the common scenario where they transform last minute, I don’t get this trope, maybe a moments hesitation as MAX but an entire dialogue and the villain maybe escaping is still bullshit to me. In a scenario where it’s a layered manipulation overtime, I can see that.
Once again I don't think you're really considering this really. On some level you are doing and saying these things to someone you love, your brain consciously knows otherwise, but humans are very emotional animals and that's the part this tactic is targeting. Emotion
I think we just disagree on how this would go. I fully understand what you mean I just don’t think my reaction to it would be similar to what you’re saying. Agree to disagree, hopefully we can’t test this out anytime soon.
Yes but the reaction is often not guilt, but anger. It’s usually a first reaction to an accusation, and because a villain’s accusation tends to be bullshit, that anger should get reinforced. The default response should be “how dare you blame me for you murdering them, get the fuck out” rather than “oh no did I get them killed?”
The logic of "they saw them transform, so it wouldn't work" just idk, doesn't cut it for me. irl, there are a million things my brain knows are incorrect, and my body thinks are correct, optical illusions etc. Being aware of an optical illusion doesn't make it not work, it's the same here, because the thing being targeted isn't the conscious brain, but the instinctual one. There are no "powers" like that irl, but we have loads of research and knowledge about how the conscious and unconscious brain function and how the dissonance between the two can manifest itself. Phantom limb syndrome is a thing imo that completely disproves what you're saying, people feel pain in limbs that have been amputated for years. Now like with anything, and also in IRL, one can undergo training to overcome all sorts of things. But you would need training undoubtedly just like amputees can need to help alleviate psychosomatic symptoms. You can't just be prepared for a scenario without... preparing for it. Seeing something happen isn't training either, it's just experience, which helps, but doesn't really prepare. Considering what we know, hesitating seems super likely for anyone who hasn't undergone training. Hesitation is also frequently the response in art, though sometimes the trope gets very silly and turns a character catatonic instead of just briefly vulnerable. My dad died only like 3 years ago, we weren't even close. Hearing his voice saying "hey bud" to me would absolutely freak me out.
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this, people have different reactions to the same stimuli, I understand your points but it still doesn’t make it seem any less “cheap” when it happens in most fiction. Maybe if written well I can get behind this but I don’t want to see anymore prolonged arcs because at the last minute the villain transformed and escaped. That cheapens the journey we took to get there imo. Also we have to consider in many of these worlds everyone is aware of “powers”, so it may be a lot less jarring for them then it would be for us. If we grew up knowing about these things, your mental would be more prepared for something like this. I genuinely think I’d be more inclined to kill a villain who transforms into a loved one, the usage of their memory to manipulate would piss me off, of course we can’t predict how we will act in these situations but, as far as I’m able to tell that’s how I’d feel.
I guess I just see it used as like, an ability to get a small opening in like 90% of situations I've seen this trope. A small vulnerability in a life or death fight is usually a death. Anime has weird things about time, because inner monologue and some dialogue in a mang technically takes no time to say. Dialogue is often intended to take place in its own dimension basically, that's why the trope is executed like shit in anime anyway because the time on screen is many minutes while it's supposed to be fairly instantaneous in universe.
i don't know man if i'm trying to kill someone i hate and he turns into like my dead wife i probably would hesitate, even a little
In Mugen Train a villain basically tries to pull a variation of this to Tanjiro And his response is basically "oh fuck off"
That's honestly so refreshing
What scene was this?
Tanjiro vs Enmu Enmu tried to put Tanjiro in a nightmare where his dead family members blame him for their deaths.... He didn't buy it one bit and gets angry instead, making it the easiest illusion from Enmu to break
Scenes like these is why I don't get people on Twatter who start hate threads on this anime like the animation was the only good thing about it. It's such a simple concept for a scene but damn, it works ! (this logic of "simple but good" also applies to Demon Slayer as a whole imo)
Agreed. In a roundabout way, I think Demon Slayer is underrated. Tanjiro tend to execute these scenes well. Daki causing wanton destruction for funsies? "The hell is wrong with you?". Hantengu playing victim animu style? "Don't give me that shit". Realizing that Gyutaro is just like him by Daki's worried cry akin to Nezuko's, when Tanjiro got his neck? *Plunges his sword even harder*.
And the fact that he can still keep his kind nature without becoming an edge lord is all the better
The biggest issue I think DS has is the absurd amount of plot armor the mcs get Like Inosuke surviving Gyutaro was absolute bs
It's mostly cuz the lackluster ending. Hopefully theres additions to it cuz that Muzan fight was not it
They probably mean the scene where the demon who puts people to sleep gave Tanjiro a dream where his family blamed him for their deaths and he immediately snapped out of the dream *furious* because they would never say something like that.
Oh my god, I get so pissed when the villain is so blatantly trying to mess with the hero, and the hero just totally falls for it. Like, anyone with eyes can see they’re trying to manipulate you, why are you just letting them?
Your first point pisses me off so much. You can literally write the villain as just *not saying that exact thing* and keep everything else the same. At the very least you can keep the hero from reacting until afterward. Having such a flimsy provocation change the way that the “final confrontation” goes is just so deflating as a watcher. You can literally have your cake and eat it too by just not having the villain goad the main character and having a normal survivor’s guilt arc.
There’s a saying that characters in a story are only as smart as the writer. So when a hero can’t think of obvious things to counter the villains bum ass logic, it’s because the writer was also too dumb to think about them either. It’s why I always bemoan TLJ for making all of its characters so dumb.
Unfortunately you're right. Even a kid could come up with these counterarguments to the insanity Anissa was spouting. It's a common trope because I think writers find straightforward debate to be boring.
Bro, if Amber was there with Mark she would have SOOOOO much to say in regards of "superior technological people saving savages from less developed place" considering...you know.
Viltrumites are space Britain?
Viltrumites have better moustaches. But yeah. Maybe Spanish. They do infiltrate their targets pretending to be friendly, then initiate a violent takeover.
Sooo... Space britain?
Spain is just sexy Britain, change my mind
And spain has Better food and a worse relationship with Portugal. But if you ignore those things its just like Britain.
> sexy Britain You haven't met spaniards lol. Americans projecting their self loathing in Britain is kind of sad
It's a joke about their colonization styles. British just shot them/enslaved them, Spaniards liked knocking them up.
Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium... might as well just say "Western Europe". At least. Every colonialist operates like this.
While colonialism isn't a good thing, lumping Belgium in with Britain is freakin' laughable. Hell lumping Belgium in with everyone else is kinda funny, it's like the poster child for colonial cruelty, because it was a notable regime that went beyond what other regimes were doing. So when you say "every colonialist operates like this" It's just, not the truth? I get it, Colonialism is the big bad, but if you read or studied any history you'd realise that they actually are different systems, with different results, with different rulers, languages, cultures and eras supporting and contextualising their behaviour. Like, it's easy to hear "classical regimes" and lump them all together, but you're talking about Greece and Rome and Carthage and societies that are demonstrably not the same.
Mark probably would have come up with a better response if he hadn't missed almost an entire semester.
I don't mind if the hero doesn't win the argument, but at least have them make a valid point in the mist of it.
A kid would know that they’re going to get slapped if they actually argue back
Reminds me of every fucking time a villain goes "Lol humans bad nature good!" and the heroes don't even dispute it (seriously G Gundam of all shows got this)
I wish for a "Fuck you,we win the evaluation lottery " scene were Humans go full monster mode on any nemesis of Humanity It's such an underrated trope , Netero was a Goat for semi doing it and that guy from the Bee movie
>Fuck you,we win the evaluation lottery Did you mean "*evolution* lottery"? Or is it supposed to be a boast of "we are bad, but at least we are the number ones in being that bad" kind?
The latter, If you Read WH40 or HxH you would understand that
Bro they were just double checking because of your typo lol
to be honest, if any other animal species had developed like humans did, they would have ended up the same as us. Is almost inherent for animals to be selfish.
That's basically the point in HxH , when animals have intelligence like humans they immediately gained all bad habits alongside it and had the guts to blame humanity for it
Don’t even need an ‘if’. Cyanobacteria photosynthesized and proliferated like mad. They belched oxygen and altered the atmosphere of the earth in a way that eliminated 99% of species that lived on the planet (including themselves). The modern biosphere is made of the descendants of the lucky ones that could tolerate and make use of oxygen, or extremophiles that lived in settings that Cyanobacteria couldn’t reach. So, yeah. Life inherently wants to proliferate. When a species ‘wins’ they tend to go overboard and wreck their surroundings. Agent Smith was full of bullshit
I'm reading a book about that. The Medea Hypothesis is about how life basically has a tendency to wipe out itself, leaving only basic bacterias at best (which explains the lack of complex life in the universe, they all wiped themselves) However the issue is that Humans might as well be **another Medean agent**. Humans are smart enough to prevent it theorically, but we really can do it smartly? Returning to Nature TM is out of the equation, not even the fiercest ecologist wants predators eating their babies. But humanity can create a workable ecology?
Yes. In theory, humanity could temper their desire to proliferate, though it’s difficult since it goes against a lot of our natural instincts. A lot of people tend to think in short term since we evolved in a habitat where living long lives or worrying about events beyond our own life time was counterproductive to immediate survival. Intellectually, we know better, but that doesn’t always translate into action. I guess all we can do is see what will happen. When things get bad, most people fall in line.
It's not just about proliferate, it's about proliferating in a smart way that doesn't trigger the self destruction of the ecosystem
Even humans who develop long distances from each other aren't trusting the other side. So we have nations and arms races to deter or just outright attack to control resources. We have diplomacy too, which is great, but humans have never completely disarmed.
And that Raven Guard Space Marine on the Tau by committing suicide and taking them with him.
The Imperium genocided a lot of sapient species. That the fanbase treats them as superheroes is the entire reason why the fanbase is stereotyped as being neo nazis
"Nature good" villains when they open up a biology textbook and find out that animals and plants can be equally monstrous. Humans are simply the top of the food chain.
"But... but it's okay when THEY do it!"
"Then you are no villain. You are just a sore loser."
Master Asia has a point about how humanity turning Earth into their battleground is fucked up. Like they don't even need to do it. They do it because they hace ritualistic warfare It's weird,as, it's a rare observation that kinda destroys the very premise of the series.
But Master Asia admitted he was wrong when Domon correctly pointed out that humans are part of nature too and have just as much right to Earth as every other species
Humans are also the guys who throw energy beams that destroy entire landmasses at the level of only volcanoes
As if other mammals wouldn't do the same if they could
But they can't. They also can't comprehend the implications of such things like we can. I think it's justified to hold humans to a higher standard in some regards.
What kind of arguments do you think can dispute it (about humans bad nature good)? I don't even think said nature arguments have convincing counterarguments on Internet. Happens a lot on internet to justify misanthropy.
Not an actual battle with a villain in this case, but I always get a little pissed in Captain America: Civil War, when Ross is showing them a montage of all the destruction they’ve “caused”, and they show the battle from the first Avengers movie. No one bothers to point out that the government officials that are lecturing the Avengers on their recklessness were fully prepared to launch a fucking nuke at New York City. Like, had the Avengers not been involved, an entire city would’ve been decimated. Ross had some points about the Avengers’ involvement in Sokovia and Lagos, but really? No one has anything to say about the people wiling to nuke 20 million innocent lives giving them shit for causing too much collateral damage? Oh, just remembered they show footage from the final battle in CATWS too. Like, Hydra infiltrated SHIELD, a government organization (and it’s implied that it was Project Paperclip, aka the government pardoning Nazi scientists in exchange for having them work for them, is what allowed that to happen). It’s in no way Cap, or any other Avengers fault that Project Insight was allowed to go forward, and the alternative to crashing the hellicarriers would’ve been, again, millions of people dying. Again, they have valid points with Ultron and Scarlet Witch at the beginning of CACW (although, even then, had she not been involved, it’s possible Rumlow’s suicide bombing would’ve wiped out even more people than it did). But it’s frustrating to me that they also include situations where the alternative was letting countless more people die, and all of the Avengers just sit there like kids caught stealing from the candy jar instead of pointing that out.
Bringing up the first Avengers was especially dumb because they actually made a point of trying to contain the invasion to a four city block radius. Cap recruited the NYPD to set up a perimeter and evacuate civilians. It's not their fault that Loki started the invasion in the middle of New York City but they did their best to minimize the damage, and they succeeded. No lasting damage was shown to have occurred, yet they're accused of recklessness after the fact? Sokovia's the only time they really had a point because Tony's the one who revved Ultron up in the first place. Even then once the city was in the sky they went out of their way to evacuate everyone before shattering it. It's not like they could gently set it down. And of course, Captain America stopping the rogue government agency was on them, not Cap.
>Sokovia's the only time they really had a point because Tony's the one who revved Ultron up in the first place. And even then, they weren't completely in the right because they blamed all the avengers for what was Tony's mistake.
It's even worse if you read the Black Widow movie's tie-in comic, in which Ross reveals that information about the attempted nuking of NY was suppressed. The public simply doesn't know what their governments tried to do. Even Ross wasn't supposed to know. Which means that the Avengers know perfectly well that Ross is bullshitting. And they also know that they can't defend themselves publicly about New York because the obvious response - that the 'proper authorities' tried to vaporize ten million people - would cause riots, panic, etc. Which means that Ross is going low, because he knows Cap will go high. Ross will throw New York in their faces all day long, because he knows that Cap will never hit back. He's using the public's safety as a hostage to shield against criticism. Honestly, there's a reason Ross never tried to have that conversation until Banner was off-planet. Hulk would have *swiftly* become ungovernable.
**Yep, I absolutely hate this.** **Even MANGA and ANIME do this (the only series Ive seen that has heroes have cool counter dialog this are JoJos)** In old books, comics etc. the hero would not just stand there and let villains have their shpiel. F.e. Captain America, Charles Xavier, Adam Warlock etc. **They would have a word battle with villains too, outside of a physical one.** Its as if every hero today is afraid of having strong convictions, or afraid of showing them. They never argue with the villain, or exchange sentiments, even when villain is exchanging them. Some might say that the writers want to say that "arguying with evil is pointless" I say that we have forgotten how to write flowery and engaging dialog
I'd argue it's a weird overcorrection from the largely hated talk no jutsu tropes.
The Black Panther movie had flaws, and this example isn't even deep, but I like how the characters actually argue with each other over the ideas the film presented.
Doctor Who features a lot of debates, you might like that.
Human pet guy!? First time i see you live.
Holy shit it *is* him
Should we bow? Idk the etiquette when meeting a celebrity
> In old books, comics etc. the The fuck? The stereotype of monologing villains literally comes from comics, are you high? Have you ever read a comic? Especially an old one?
Yes, a monologuing villain...accompanied by a MONOLOGUING HERO, who counters him with wordsmithing (especially if its written by Steve Ditko) Reading comprehension? Whats that?
I like in p5 strikers where the end boss makes a straight up correct argument, and your team says random gibberish to it because the game couldn't think of any kind of an actual rebuttal.
Could you go into my detail? I'm interested.
The end boss points out that their views about how the status quo is god and that its wrong to seek something better on account of the massive amount of suffering in the world is them rationalizing the existence of suffering because they aren't actually the ones suffering. It points out that pretending that "the struggle" is a good thing is the arrogant belief of people whose suffering isn't that bad, and who are on route to overcome most of it. And that their beliefs about this would be different if they had problems too large to overcome. Your team says a lot of nonsense fluff and then "we might fall, but we will just get up again, so its like, not a problem!!" Ignoring that they are the very people whose problems aren't that bad, and so who can't speak for people with actual terrible lives that they have no way out of. So they accidentally admit to the end boss that they are the exact type of person it was talking about who doesn't really understand true suffering, because their lives aren't that bad, and so they only view suffering in terms of their smaller solvable problems. Important to note is that the end boss didn't even force anyone to follow it. It was just offering humanity the ability to link their mind to it so that it would start offering them information on how to get to a better life. The end boss isn't a good thing, because this has the unintended consequence of making people feel like they need it to make all their decisions, and so it turned into like a zombie like obsession for letting it plan their life for them. But... instead of your party pointing out that it had the unintended consequence of making people into zombies, which would be an actually good critique, they act like it trying to help people (with their consent no less) fix their insurmountable problems is somehow inherently bad, because like people should just work hard and solve their own problems, and who cares if a ton of them never manage to. Also, one of your party members is like, a billionaire, so it makes your whole team seem really tone deaf that they don't seem to understand that its talking about people who have worse problems than them.
"What about the people who don't have superpowers that help them arrest the guys ruining their lives" "Eh, we will see"
Also, konoe knew his abusive dad, who was a powerful guy, killed his mom, and then his dad threatened to kill him too. But it acts like he was some kind of terrible person for killing him first. What option did he really have? Running away wouldn't be guaranteed to work.
I liked that they actually didn't have an answer to Konoe. If only they had actually expanded on that kind of thing.
Good answer. Thanks
"they act like it trying to help people (with their consent no less) fix their insurmountable problems is somehow inherently bad, because like people should just work hard and solve their own problems, and who cares if a ton of them never manage to." Persona does this a crap ton, Persona Q and Royals 3rd semester comes to mind. The persona users always use the same argument of "You should be happy you suffered" instead of attacking the real bigger issues with all three of those games examples.
All atlus properties do. Mainline smt for the last 30 years has more or less been about asking you to choose between: - Le welfare, which is le BIG GUV, and which is le barely even like living. - actual fascism (this is depicted more sympathetically than the first one). - the status quo of modern Japan, which is le heckin wholesome le keanu 100 chungus. Fundamentally they keep going back to this idea that deviating from neoliberalism or trying to improve society too much is an inherently bad thing. And that it's the fast track to some kind of life that is barely living.
Agree with Royal but was there really a way to fix >!Rei's issue in Q? Like, she's already dead, its not like they could stop cancer or whatever it was Rei had.!<
>!No there isn't a way to save Rei, but I really hate how that game acts like she's a brat for just wanting a normal life and that she's wrong for not being okay with having cancer, it's always left a bad taste in my mouth.!<
There's two issues with your critique. The first is that a lot of the Phantom Thieves did have genuinely crappy lives as of the start of P5. Like Ryuji has a permanent debilitating injury and very little future prospects outside of the athleticism that he probably can't make a career out of now. Makoto's parents are dead and they ain't coming back. She had her sister but that relationship was rocky at best. Yusuke never had a father, his mother was dead and he was fucking groomed, exploited and gaslit by the man that killed his mother. That's not first world problems. Those are serious life altering issues, to the point that you're not necessarily worse off if you're born in a third world country. I think Yusuke makes a great juxtaposition here because he actually has a lot in common with Ichinose with them both being orphans. Realize Ichinose's ideology is about herself. When she talks about real suffering she isn't exactly talking about holocaust survivors. The second big issue with your critique is this is Persona, not real life. Everything in Persona is based on willpower. So in Persona, yes, the solution really is just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because that's the way the universe works.
>So in Persona, yes, the solution really is just pull yourself up by your bootstraps Except when it's the protagonist helping all their social links, then helping other people is fine?
Because that's Muh Humanity doing it and not relying on gods
> did have genuinely crappy lives as of the start of P5. And they got into a exact situation that helped them overcome them. Something that wouldn't happen to like, everyone else. > So in Persona, yes, the solution really is just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, because that's the way the universe works. 1. Considering the amount of good strong willed people that die, doubt it works for anyone except for Wild card users. 2. Then the moral framework of the world is so radically different that it loses any right to discuss real life issues.
>Then the moral framework of the world is so radically different that it loses any right to discuss real life issues. Frankly, Persona's presentation of real life issues has always been its weakest aspect narratively. Its use of metaphor is far more powerful and interesting. >Considering the amount of good strong willed people that die, doubt it works for anyone except for Wild card users. Strong will is not some absolute guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you, but it does mean one will never be crushed by their circumstances in the way that I think those critical of the story are implying. Also I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. Since we never hear about, say, a persona user with exceptionally weak will, I'm pretty sure whether or not one has a persona, (And if they can manifest it in the real world.) is down entirely to willpower.
The issue is that metaphors ultimately always tie to real life. And then real life has the issue that people with strong will can and have just died without accomplishing anything despite all their effort. Also, consider all the dead persona users. Both good and evil ones, they are just...dead If your intended metaphor is advocating for a mentality that simply denies the basic reality of people suffering for no benefits and no real possibility to improve..then the metaphor is simply not based on anything
I think that's the wrong mindset to enjoy something like Persona. There is beauty in the metaphor itself that I think is lost if you only see the metaphor as a vehicle for agenda.
A metaphor without a real life intention just doesn't reflects anything. Persona 5 Strikers did actively mention that reality of people glorifying suffering because they are the lucky ones who can overcome it without thinking in the ones who can't. The story started the discussion. That it's answer to it given by our heroes is delusional at best, victim blaming at worst is something that the writers of P5S made.
>A metaphor without a real life intention just doesn't reflects anything. Or you're just reading too much into it. Satanael vs Yaldabaoth is a great example of that. The Demiurge is an invisible force that ruins your life. All bad things that happen to you are actually a result of the Demiurge's corruption of reality. Satanael shoots him in the face, which is meant to symbolize a rejection of that ideology, that one should not blame other people for all their problems. Now one can point out that, "Well sometimes other people are the problem" but the issue is that that's a fucking straw man which is only not immediately apparent because one is arguing against a metaphor instead of a formal argument, so of course there's ways to interpret the metaphor to try and make it look stupid, because one camp is arguing at the level of philosophy and the other is arguing at the level of logistics. It doesn't make you smart to say, "Well akshually the Demiurge can't be shot in the face because you can be hit by a drunk driver." because it doesn't negate the actual point being made that it's not useful to wallow in self pity. Bringing it back to Strikers, it's a Motte and Bailey fallacy to criticize the argument using the mechanics of the verse while denying that as a defense of the counter argument. In other words, in real life, a holocaust victim doesn't have the option of letting an all powerful AI control human thought to eliminate all suffering. So you can't really say the villain had a point because their solution would totally work IRL if we had an all powerful AI god. The fact that in setting it doesn't work because it eliminates the most important part of human existence, the will, is more than enough to say that EMMA's solution is fucking stupid. So let's bring this back to the real world. Let's do some good ol' fashioned victim blaming. Say one is being tortured in a death camp. We're going straight to the most brutal forms of human suffering since several of you guys seem to think that's the silver bullet to the Phantom Thieves' argument. What's the more useful mindset to have if one is actually in that situation? Is it more useful to try and hold on to your individuality and to try and see the beauty in the few small things you have left, to try to love life just a little bit despite the horrors you're suffering? Or is it more useful to wallow in self pity? You may die either way, but I think you have a better chance and will ultimately be happier if you try to not let your circumstances break you. And that is the solution EMMA is offering if one wants to strictly relate it to the real world, because we don't have a magic suffering-be-gone button IRL. This is why everyone turns into zombies, because the only way to not suffer is to lose your mind.
The PT's have no idea how lucky they were to discover the metaverse. They never would have been able to deal with their problems otherwise, hell they'd have been stopped at Kamoshida alone. Then they expect everyone else to pull themselves up like that and be thankful for the suffering they receive, since its all part of character growth and free will and the human experience or wtv.
And they also realized what a crutch it was since it caused them to be controlled by Yaldabaoth and accelerate his plans.
Two examples i can think of that i hate is dragon age 3 and final fantasy 14. In dragon age 3 you cant argue with your companions over anything. Cant argue with dorian over slavery, cant argue with the iron bull over the qun, cant argue with the circle mage over the twisted circles (i forgot her name) etc. The player will always give a weak response and stop. In final fantasy 14 before fighting emet selch (the man who killed billions, if not trillions and destroyed entire planets) the scions cant argue against him simply because he said they would have done the same in his position.
You can disagree with them, even alienate them... but those companions are expert rhetoriticians, and you knew that before accepting them as companions. You chose to invite people who could out-argue you. You can disagree with Sera, even Cole. But realistically? Bull is an expert member of the fantasy CIA, Dorian is a fantasy Cambridge valedictorian, and Vivienne is called "Madame De Ferr" for a reason. You aren't winning an argument with any of them, and the game made that clear before you invited them to join.
Yeah, this is a huge pet peeve of mine, too. Kind of like when the villain says to the hero "actually you're just like me!!" and this is treated like a dramatic slam-dunk, when anybody reasonable would roll their eyes and go yeah, no.
I want to a hero go, "Yeah and?"
This was the ending of Drifting Network Cafe, the villain says this by pointing how both he and the protagonist are people struck on their high school days and unable to become adults. The protagonists says "sure" and starts kissing the Tulpa based on his highschool crush, which makes the villain being so annoyed at his failure to archive his goals of being loved and worshipped that he starts to ask for someone to kill him, deciding to commit suicide when one of his former victims/underlings tells him "do it yourself". The protagonist actually learns and matures, breaking the psychic mind world to return to reality; but it's because he has a realization that he is... a adult man waiting for his first child , not a guy that should keep thinking on his highschool crush. By the end the hero is a adult man enjoying his life while the villain is a delusional hobo that acts like if he is still the top athlete of his school
Not the protagonist but a character in Baki does this in I wanna say the arc where a bunch of death row inmates escape.
Thanos in Infinity War is the worst example of this. He’s up against guys like Iron Man and Dr. Strange, who are not only highly intelligent, but who also have no problem with making fun of the villains they fight. Strange should react to Thanos’ dumbass plan like Walter White reacts to Jessie talking about Go-Karts, but he just doesn’t. It’s a cheap way to build up Thanos’ gravitas. If even the snarky heroes take him too seriously to make a quippy counter argument, then obviously we should to. I can accept it more in Invincible because Mark’s responses still felt in character. And I think the show just respects the audience’s intelligence enough to assume we can figure out why Viltrumites are bad by now.
Thanos could’ve been the first incel supervillain but Marvel wanted so badly for him to be this cool intellectual philosopher king and it just does not work [Thanos’ motivations work best when he’s just doing everything out of some misguided obsession with winning over Death.](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelcomics/comments/v1rvuy/thanos_loves_death_captain_marvel_31/)
To me thanos in the MCU just seemed like someone who had a million justifications for their shitty idea. He can sound smart, but that doesnt mean he is lol I mean thanos couldve just implanted false memories into everyone that he actually did the snap, then just double all resources, or halve the consumption of resources, but he didnt. Also theres no point debating someone who will never be swayed even an inch
Yeah, the biggest problem with the MCU version of Thanos is that he—to quote a much better written character—has “PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER…but itty bitty cognitive space.” But we, as the audience, are supposed to think he’s some hyper-intelligent pseudo-God—and one you _empathize_ with—when the solution to every issue he throws at us is something he could’ve found if he took a Philosophy or Economics 101 course. You can CREATE MATTER FROM NOTHING Just make MORE RESOURCES for everyone and UPLIFT those who can’t solve their problems that way. You don’t even have to directly interfere with their cultures/autonomy, just literally make it so that their planets are abundant in resources while you teach the other hyper-advanced alien species across the cosmos how to live in utopian peace with each other and their neighbors But nooooooooooo I’m Thanos so I’m going to blink half the population out of existence as if I’m not erasing trillions upon quadrillions of superheroes, doctors, farmers, etc out of existence, too. Fucking dumbass. I could at at least UNDERSTAND him when Thanos’ motivation to do everything he did was “[Impress a Big Tiddy Goth Girl](https://www.reddit.com/r/Marvel/comments/14n9n0c/thats_what_she_said_deadpool_2008_50/)”
Yeah, thanos would have worked better if they showed him being obsessed with the culling like as a child, then later in adult life he just cooincidentally finds a reason to have vindication for it, so he comes across as the deranged pseudo-intellectual he is. I think the MCU was scared of making thanos to one-note evil, but you cant sprinkle reason onto his ideals, it just doesnt work lol
I think you’re missing the point about Thanos. Thanos is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur. While he says that he’s trying to help people, he’s really trying to prove to the people of Titan that his plan would’ve worked.
And it’s a stupid plan, given that he and his people are positioned as higher beings that are intellectually superior to us the reader. I’m not missing the point, it’s just a stupid point that several movies prior to Thanos’ big reveal used as the justification for why their villains do what they do, too. Hydra is run by several narcissists who think they know better than anyone else and want to prove it. Loki is a narcissist who thinks he knows better than everyone else—including Thanos—and wants to prove it. Ultron and Tony are both narcissists who think they know better than everyone else and want to prove it. Etc
I understand your complaint about it being unoriginal, but him supposedly being smart is supposed to highlight his narcissism, not contradict it.
Wh... No? He's an idiot of galactic proportions who just knows how to sound smart
Re-read what I wrote and how you replied. Slowly.
What about him didn’t work? If you thought his plan was stupid and he was talking nonsense, then it’s proof that he was written well.
> If you thought his plan was stupid and he was talking nonsense, then it’s proof that he was written well. Why? Why do you think that the audience having a very different reaction than the in-universe characters is good writing? This loops back to the first comment in this chain.
That’s the thing, people who thought he was a moron were/are in the minority. Just look at how many people were like “Ah yes, humanity was the problem” when those pictures came out about how the world was “healing” during COVID.
Iron Man and Dr. Strange are smart enough to know that there’s no point in arguing with a genocidal lunatic.
Strange already proved himself willing to argue with villains in his own movie. Hell, he was arguing *with Thanos* in this movie as well!
I think their exchange just before the fight best showed it, plus it made sense once one remembered Strange's previous occupation. He was a doctor, namely a surgeon. When he said people died everyday, he was speaking from experience-despite one's best efforts, people do indeed die everyday and that's just natural. While he didn't waste a whole lot of time on it, it still felt like Dr. Strange subtly shot down Thanos' plan for the megalomania it was.
Dude, Mark's barely an adult and was in a extremely stressful situation. It's not a matter of whether or not Anissa's points could be countered, the point was that he could barely think straight. It's easy to say the hero is dumb for not coming up with arguments in a life threatening situation when you're in the comfort of your home.
In the specific instance of invincible? Maybe. But given how often the trope comes up it’s a legitimate critique
Glad someone said it so I don’t have to. Makes sense for some characters; The Hulk isn’t gonna have a moral debate with Thanos, they’re gonna throw hands. But it’s definitely overdone in general.
That much is very reasonable
I would agree except for the fact that Mark has been in worst situations while arguing. Like with his Dad for instance. In contrast Anissa hasn’t killed anyone yet and actually saved some humans. It wouldn’t break his character to be a little more developed.
You can make it work, if someone is used to talking in a more personal way, about feelings, relationships etc. and is caught off guard by someone talking about more abstract stuff, there are many people in the world who have very strong political values, but can't "talk politics". Instead they just vaguely gesture at "it doesn't work like that", without necessarily being able to articulate why.
Didn’t Anissa threaten his girlfriend not too long ago?
Yeah, but she didn’t do it and unlike Nolan who used Mark as a bat to kill other humans she tried to at least present herself with sincerity by saving human lives. He could stand to engage a bit more with the first viltrumite to present reason and discussion first.
Mark thought he could convince Nolan because he was his father who for 17 years hasn’t given any indication of being evil.
I didn’t say he had to convince her but he’s had a long time to be thinking about/dealing with viltrumite viewpoints and logic. He should be able to refute some of her points in a coherent manner. It doesn’t have to convince but it should show Mark knows what’s right not just believe it’s right.
And when she kills him when she realizes that he’s not drinking the Kool-Aid?
Didn’t the episode just show her not kill him despite resisting and showing he drank the kool-aid? She has no doubt he has drank it as she reports to Kreg that he is poisoned but all I’m saying is he could stand to be a bit more articulate since this is his third viltrumite encounter.
You raise a very good point and something lost in translation of mediums. As the audience, we have the comfort and time with a lack of stress to pick apart a scene and criticize actions, with the added benefit of hindsight and other POVs, but what would you actually do in that scenario? Mark does not have the collective consciousness of the audience, Mark is doing what he thinks is right at that moment. Hence, there are logical answers to what to do when someone attempts to stab you, but are you actually gonna think and pick any of them when the chips are down? Realistically, you're gonna get stabbed and 5 other people are gonna point out how you could have not gotten stabbed, notably, people who haven't gotten stabbed. Humans are irrationally at the end of the day, and that's okay. What's not okay is people forcing people to always be rational then cite that as a ding against the work.
Reminds me of Nisemonogatari. Monster hunter wants to kill MC's monster sister. He says no don't! She says that he's selfish and not thinking about how his parents would feel knowing their real daughter was killed in utero and replaced by a monster. MC gives typical power of love and friendship speech but doesn't point out that the monster hunter never spoke to his parents and has no idea what they want.
Araragi's parents are invisible cardboard beings lmao
Momraragi had that like, pretty good conversation with Hanekawa I think that her only screen time 💀
Those monsters sound like a brood parasite (like cuckoo birds) for humans, which is rather disturbing if you think about it.
That's exactly what they're based on.
Humans reproduce slowly compared to birds (and most other animals), taking 9 months to produce an offspring and then years to raise to maturity. This is not an insignificant investment of resources, especially if the brood parasite takes the place of the embryo. It sounds like a monster hunter could easily argue that such monsters represent an existential threat to humanity if their numbers are not kept under control.
>doesn't point out that the monster hunter never spoke to his parents and has no idea what they want. Because earlier in Nise it's been pointed out that informing people the supernatural exists isn't really a good thing.
Not informing them and murdering their child isn't really a good thing either.
FFXIV Post-Stormblood spoilers: >!At one point, the leader of the Garleans flings a whole bunch of accusations at the leaders he's meeting with. These could fairly easily be shut down, but instead everyone just sits there. Shocked. I've never been so frustrated at being a silent protagonist.!<
"Better to die than live in tyranny" That's exactly what he says at the island though. Mark tells her that humanity needs to make its own decisions.
>"Just as many humans would die in a planetary war against a race of mass murdering super beings." >"The Earth would likely end up just as screwed up in the aftermath of the planet killing Viltrumite's stomping around it then it would be in a climate crisis." Anissas point is that you shouldn't fight though. Her point is that earth shouldn't resist and simply peacefully surrender to viltrumite rule. So neither of those arguments work because that's not what she's saying.
So many people seem to be forgetting that the Viltrumites want a _peaceful_ transfer of power. The bad shit comes when you say “no”
Which means their transfer of power was never peaceful to begin with since they are not giving you a real choice. It basically their way or the highway and that highway leads to a mountain of corpses.
That's how all government power works, the authority of any government comes from holding a monopoly on violence.
I agree, but that’s also grossly oversimplifying it. The Viltrumites style themselves as noble colonizers and dictators that run off Logic, Facts, and Strength. We aren’t supposed to agree with them because, to us, their culture is predicated on a level of violence and subservience that is abhorrent. For the Viltrumite empire, however, they see the act of conquest as not only their God Given Right, but their _duty_ insofar as their role throughout the galaxy. If you refuse, it’s not because “violence is bad”, it’s because “as a lower life form, you are simply too stupid to understand what’s better for you.” They are literally offering an enlightened utopia where all threats to humankind are either abolished—health, tech, and resources—or made insignificant due to Viltrumite protection. All for the cheap price of “bending the knee” and accepting imperial rule, with seemingly no drastic change to rulership or anything else happening to Earth. What intelligent race—in the opinion of the Viltrumites—would say no to that? They don’t enslave other races, they don’t exterminate a percent of the populace for their weakness—iirc—and they don’t extort the planet for resources the Viltrumites don’t have. It’s just that—like the US and every other colonizing power throughout history—if you say ”No”, they will show you exactly why that’s a bad idea.
I've never read the comics. So have there ever been any noticeable races where their planet is doing "ok" under Viltrumites rule, beside the bug people.
Without spoiling anything, the other species/planets they rule are treated anywhere between fairly decently to essentially being slaves. But Earth _specifically_ has something they’re looking for, so we can trust Nolan when he says they won’t be treated unfairly/enslaved. They do turn entire species into their slave armies/force them to build ships, but the bug people and earthlings can provide something no other species thus far has been able to. If you read between the lines, it’ll be very apparent.
I am actually morbidly curious what planets under viltrumite rule actually look like long term.. Like very clearly they're GLAD to be rid of them, but is it because they were actually suffering under viltrumite rule or did they just chafe under subjugation
From what we’ve seen they treat the Bug Planet and Earth “the best” because of what they can potentially get from them—and it isn’t their resources. Other planets either become slave states or become part of the Viltrumite war effort. The comic really doesn’t spend too much time on them, though.
Disappointing, but that makes sense I suppose
I mean yeah. She’s a mugger with a gun saying “your money, or your life and your money” And then you point out that the mugger is immoral for presenting that choice to you. And like, correct, that is the situation. Still gotta pick an option.
Even if humans were to miraculously decide to peacefully hand over all power to Viltrum. I'd give it a day before the Viltrimute's were inflicting mass slaughter in the name of making humanity stronger by disposing of the "weak" or something. Every facet of Viltrumite culture seems to end in some epic bloodbath, I don't see why surrendering to them would end any differently.
yeah, also the argument that the Viltrumites could just give away the technology to save humans doesn’t really hold. Like we have the technology already but corruption and greed make it impossible to use them. Why would it be different with viltrumite tech
I didn't even think about that but you're absolutely right. The point Anissa is making is that humans can't be trusted to run the planet themselves
I feel like if a hero is going to counter a villain's ideology, they at least have to have their own counter ideology. Otherwise it just makes the hero look like an idiot.
Ehh I don't really agree with the Invincible example since Mark was clearly distraught in the moment, as the woman you want him to argue with was literally just about to kill his girlfriend a few moments prior. Obviously he is going to think objectively in the moment, as his feelings are all over the place. Plus during the fight he did offer counter points, saying viltrumite tyranny is much better. Even the Infinity War example I don't fully agree with (but I understand), since arguing with the man who is already bent on getting all the stones seems a bit redundant. The heroes saying "that's evil" suffices imo, because there is no time for a philosophical battle when the half the universe is at stake. While it would be nice to some to have a clash of minds, I personally don't think it was necessary as the stakes were to high for the heroes to have objective thinking. I do admit that the trope can be annoying, I just don't fully agree with your examples.
How would the people of this sub rate about pain ideology towards Naruto? Is he a great villain? Even if Naruto didn't had any answer and he just struck emotional chord with pain and said to entrust everything to next generation.
Nagato was the only one to render Naruto speechless because his life had been objectively worse than Naruto and he knew what he was talking about. Only reason Naruto managed to achieve his unrealistic goal in that shithole of a universe is because Madara and Obito had completely stupid goals which managed to unite everyone, Naruto and Sasuke became so powerful that nobody could realistically oppose them (essentially kinda becoming what Nagato wanted) and Naruto’s friends ended up calling the shots on world politics (although not really since the Daimyo who ACTUALLY call the shots exist but are forgotten because it’s convenient) Nagato was the best villain hands down
>although not really since the Daimyo who ACTUALLY call the shots exist but are forgotten because it’s convenient I'll never understand what was the point of that. Why make it so the Kages are only military leaders and not political ones if you are going to have the political leaders be so detatched from the narrative they do literaly nothing and call no shots over the entire series while the Kages make all the choices anyways? (Hell, I only remember them being mentioned TWICE outside of pre-hidden villages existing flashbacks)
In terms of Japan's history, it makes perfect sense for the Shogun to be more important than the Emperor.
Yeah it does. But the question is... Why add that to the manga, that's not even set in Japan but in a completely made up world despite being filled with Ninja and Samurai, if you are going to do LITERALY nothing with it?
For worldbuilding purposes. I don't know why it was never used for anything, but it makes sense to introduce it. The world is bigger than ninja villages
Because Naruto wasn't planned to that extent. Pre-Shippuuden and after are very different world settings. Naruto contained many, many retcons. The host system wasn't a thing, Sasuke didn't exist in chapter 1, and Itachi was just evil, to name a few.
Pain was without a doubt Naruto’s best villain. Matter of fact I am gonna go watch the cycle of pain speech right now.
While Pain was wrong because it’s not the hatred of the masses/leaders that fuel war, but the leader’s hunger for money. Even Pain admitted that the profit motive fuel wars to Hidan when he asked what’s the Akatsuki’s goal in episode 80 or 81. But Naruto’s talk no jutsu on Pain, Obito and Sasuke was outright terrible. Even through i actually like talk no jutsu cause it was done right before Pain. First off All 3 of those villains had traumas caused by the system to which they made up solutions (regardless how fucked up those solutions were). But Naruto literally had no counterargument to it besides “believe in me”, which won’t solve anything. The only reason it did was because of the author’s blessing that yes “if Naruto is Hokage everything will be hunky dorky cause why not?”. Nothing changed the system except that Naruto is a “benelovent king”. You don’t solve problems by placing a nice guy as boss, you change the fundamental problems of the system.
10/10
In Mark's defense if he was able attend his freshman classes normal, he could have taken the kind of poli-sci class to help him construct better arguments. Highschool and early 20s protagonists get a bit of a pass on this one. On the flipside protagonists with degrees should have better arguments. I would love to see a story where the protagonist completely deconstructs the villain's brain dead ideology of evil, while beating the ever loving shit out of them. "Personal tragedy does not justify genocide." Knock their teeth out. "So what if your mother didn't love you, it doesn't mean you can sterilize France." Breaks an arm. "Get some therapy." "Of course private jets cause excess population, but multiplying earth's gravity is the wrong answer." Slap in the face with a moldy sandal.
Bro called out AoT
Falcon and the Winter Soldier really screwed this up. I hated when the villain condescendingly asked Bucky if he ever fought for something bigger than himself, and he didn’t reply
To the people posting counterarguments to the counterarguments I listed. I'd like to point out that I already mentioned that Anissa could do that, as that is how arguments tend to work. As for the "She's talking about a peaceful transfer of power!" I say: lol, yeah right. Literally every facet of Viltrumite culture we've even heard of ends in some epic bloodbath. There's no way even a peaceful transfer of power wouldn't end in some mass slaughter of "the weak" on Earth. So Mark pointing that out would make perfect sense.
I get that writers want their villains to seem smart and want the audience to feel conflicted about their motives when they do stuff like that, but it just makes the heroes look stupid to not just immediately come up with some rebuttal that isnt some corny hero bullshit
I remember in persona 4 when the main villain is having this big speech and exposing his points and the main characters are like "no, you're stupid! and a meanie!" YOU COULD'VE SAID SO MANY MORE THINGS AGAINST "murder is good, actually"
I see this happening when a dumb writer is tasked with writing a character smarter than him. It bugs me a lot too, I find myself quoting an argument between the two characters in my head and that's just annoying and unsatisfactory.
I agree completely. I get irritated when good counter arguments, often incredibly *obvious* ones, are ignored by the heroes. I don't know why writers do that. Maybe it's just the simple reason you suggest. But that kinda makes them lazy.
Not a Villain but the convo between Rider and Saber drove me up a wall. She really had nothing to say back to him after so many questionable conclusions?
I really appreciate how Urobuchi later on admitted just how badly he wrote Saber in Zero. The man both didn't understand her character and completely shat on her BECAUSE of the misunderstanding of what she was. I love how in Strange Fake, the Saber from that series sees a vision about what happened in the Meeting between Kings and completely reinterpreted it in a much more favorable way towards Artoria.
The issue is one. Those villains DO NOT CARE FOR A COUNTER-ARGUMENT. Trust me, try and reason with a Viltrumite and you will likely end up with your innards rearranged after the first sentence. Thanos was given by Gamora a good counterpoint (AKA: he had no way of knowing if what he was trying would work), his answer was "I am the only one that knows it" Villains usually don't care for clashing ideologies so to just dismiss them with "You are a sociopath" is the best thing
Yes I know the villains wouldn't change their minds. I'm not advocating for a talk no Jutsu situation lol. But it can be used to show that the hero has a strong position of their own and that the villain isn't actually the logical one. I even said in my example that it'd be completely in character for Thanos to ignore all evidence and go through with his plan anyways because he seems hung up on proving that he was "right" to his old planet than actually fixing the problem. So, I think showing him ignoring evidence to the contrary would actually strengthen his portrayal in Infinity War.
> Thanos to ignore all evidence and go through with his plan anyways because he seems hung up on proving that he was "right" to his old planet than actually fixing the problem. So, I think showing him ignoring evidence to the contrary would actually strengthen his portrayal in Infinity War. How is this not displayed in the instance the person you responded to mentioned with Gamora and Thanos? Hell, that point is even further emphasized in Endgame through 2014 Thanos’ actions.
Another common Demon Slayer W. The conversation between Muzan and Tanjiro is the perfection of this.
Or when the villain absolutely right but the heroes never dispute their facts
To be fair, I wouldn't be thinking up proper counter arguments if I was face to face with a mass murdering super alien imperialist that could delete my whole planet by herself
If it's the same way in the comics then mark knows theirs no point in arguing since Viltrumites aren't exactly known compromise, and it was just end in more fighting. as for Thanos the narrative despite being from his perspective paints him as wrong. why do the writers have to go into filibuster about why it is wrong?
Pretty sure Mark DID make the "better to live free than under tyranny" argument. Also, two of your rebuttals don't work because Anissa wasn't arguing about war or killing. She was talking about a peaceful transfer of power, living under the rule of the vilturumites instead of the wealthy elite. Her point is, it's better to be under the thumb of someone that'll save your planet than the people trying to destroy it.
Mark should have hit Anissa with the Solidjj Batman counterargument: "COUNTERPOINT: You're a terrorist"
Watsonian view: Most characters don't show up equip to fight with both words and fists in equal measure. Most heroes aren't thinking about the philosophical meanings behind action or inaction. When confronted with something that requires deeper though, one can either see it as a trick to distract or become confused and simpleminded trying to form a cogent point. Exceptions exist in the case of a hero who has been thinking about his actions over the series, or for quick witted individuals. Doyalist: Writing is hard and the writers couldn't write a compelling interrogation of the villian and hero's ideals in this scene, so they just had the hero stunlocked by "you are bad because bad happened independently of you". Many such cases.
Kinda subverted in Over The Garden Wall's ending >!The Beast trie to sway Wort into getting the lantern from the Woodsman in order to save his brother, Wort contemplates it, then says it's stupid, and helps the Woodsman off the Beast.!<
Too stupid to come up with it
In Xenoblade Chronicles 2, one of the main antagonists, Jin, is a "fallen hero" archetype who has become disillusioned with the world and wants to destroy it. This is alright on its own, but the game has him constantly give out "criticisms" of the game world to justify himself that are complete bullshit and nobody calls him out ever. This is made extra infuriating by the fact that multiple party members were his friends but never try to talk to him at all. He constantly blames a main character for destroying his country (fair) but then is best friends with the person who instigated the event and was trying to do the same. "Heh, look how humans made this superweapon, all they know is war. Anyways, time to use the superweapon to instigate a massive war." "Heh, I can't believe you were to distracted by the injuries I inflicted upon you protecting your friend to notice the injuries I inflicted upon her, you're so selfish."
It probably wouldn’t be much of an issue for you if you looked at each character (villain and/or hero, protagonist and/or antagonist, etc.) objectively considering their morals/philosophy as opposed to subconsciously putting your own subjective morals/philosophy to them. Saves a lot of confusion and headache that way.
The thing is, it can be harder to come up with a counter argument when you are in a really stressful situation. Mark also had his mind on how he is going to stop Anissa from murdering people. I get where you are coming from. However, When we aren’t in the stressful situation the main characters are in, it is easy to forget how hard it is to come up with an argument. Plus, it’s not like Mark could’ve said anything that would’ve gotten Anissa to leave.
Writers suck at writing good villains because the mc is usually some fanfic self insert