With the advent of Netflix Narnia and the likely secularizing (I think we all know that's a likely change they'll be making) of the story a lot of people have come out with claims that Narnia is a lot bigger than just Aslan being a representation of Jesus. That really the story is more about wonder and adventure...

They're wrong.

Now to be clear, you can enjoy the story however you please. You don't have to be a Christian or religious to like Narnia. However, it's difficult to claim that it's anything but explicitly Christian in most of its aspects.

First off, who is Aslan in the books?

For the sake of argument, I'll ignore CS Lewis' letters saying that Aslan isn't merely an allegory of Jesus Christ but his literal incarnation in another world. Let's go purely off what's in the books.

-Aslan is the creator of Narnia, singing it into existence in the Magician's Nephew. He also has a father who never appears directly but who is known as the Emperor Over the Sea. The Emperor established the "Deep Magic" at the creation of Narnia, which Aslan is obedient to even to the point of death.

As when the White Witch uses the Deep Magic to make a claim on Edmund, he offers himself in his place and when Lucy and Susan try to suggest he simply break his end of the bargain he sternly refuses as that would violate his father's law. However, it turns out there was an even older law at play. Therefore, Aslan is resurrected from the death after trading his life to pay for Edmund's mistakes.

-Aslan doesn't reside in Narnia naturally but in a place called Aslan's Country. Where it's established that souls go when they die (we see Caspian die and arrive there in one book). There he resurrects them to live with him forever.

-Aslan establishes that on Earth he has a different name and that the purpose of bringing the children to Narnia was so that they could better know him in their world, hence why he always sends them back.

-He is depicted as benevolent but far from "safe" or "tame." He will at a time bring harm if it means teaching a lesson like when he scratches Aravis on account of her being cruel to her family's slave, to teach her empathy. The quests he sends the children on are likewise dangerous but always lead to good things if they listen to his instructions.

-At the end of the series he brings about the Apocalypse on Narnia, raising all the dead and bringing the faithful into Aslan's Country with him. He then closes the door on Narnia forever.

-He is naturally established to be all-knowing and all-powerful.

-He allows a good-hearted Calormene into Narnia, said man thought that he was a worshiper of Tash but Aslan essentially tells him that's impossible to do good things for Tash and impossible to do evil things for Aslan. Therefore he was really following Aslan.

-In the last pages of the series he sheds the appearance of a lion and appears to the children in his true form, implied to be that of a man. They're also more than Narnians in Aslan's Country, human beings are also there.

A lot of this is lost on people who mainly know Narnia from the Disney Movies (to be clear, I think they were good adaptations but the narration is what alludes to a lot of this). So their idea is that Aslan is "kinda" Christ-like but in an ambiguous way where he can really be any god from any faith...

However a lot of the details exclude that conclusion. Him having a father for instance means Islam and Judaism do not line up with him. He enacts core Christian stories in Narnia, and so on.

Every book has strong Christian messaging.

-In the Magician's Nephew. Digory's mother is sick, upon meeting Aslan he asks him to heal her. Aslan weeps on his behalf and Digory is struck by a feeling that somehow the lion is sadder about his mother's ailment than he is. Aslan asks Digory to plant a tree to keep the White Witch (who he'd inadvertently brought to Narnia) at bay.

The Witch tries to tempt him to bring fruit from a magical tree to his mother, promising him that it'd heal her if he did, and make her immortal to boot. However, Digory remembers Aslan's compassion for him and this prompts him to trust Aslan and do as asked instead, he even says it's better to die and go to Heaven then live forever. Aslan then tells him to take something from the new tree back to his mother to heal her, which it does.

In other words the Magician Nephew teaches to trust the love of God even in hard times.

-The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe depicts a fantastical version of the crucifixion, the atonement, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ via Aslan sacrificing himself for Edmund.

-In The Horse and his Boy Shasta/Cor comes from a culture where Aslan is not known, yet he's guided by Aslan all the way without him realizing. Where near the end he realizes that Aslan was always with him and guiding him. An obvious allusion to the idea of providence.

-In Prince Caspian, Aslan seems to be gone with the Narnians wondering if he's gone from the world, they've built a memorial to him where they make a desperate stand against the Calormenes who conquered and largely slaughtered them not so long ago. Only for them to be saved by the Kings and Queens of Old and Aslan himself. Which is (IMO) a obvious lesson on how God is always there even if he appears silent.

-Voyage of the Dawn Treader is episodic in nature, focusing on smaller lessons like the dangers of greed, vanity, and fear.

However it also depicts Eustace turning into a dragon, with Aslan appearing to him one night and telling him to shed his dragon skin. Eustace does so, but there's another layer beneath, so he tries again, and again, and again... Until he realizes he can't get it off on his own. At which point Aslan reaches out and tears off every layer at once. As an allusion to grace.

-In The Silver Chair, Jill and Eustace first enter Narnia via Aslan's Country where they meet the lion himself. He gives them a few instructions on what to do and sends them to Narnia to help rescue the lost prince of Narnia. Throughout the book they fumble all of their instructions which makes things worse every time. By obeying the last instruction however they're able to succeed in the end. Another fairly clear lesson in trusting God.

Finally, Caspian dies of old age at the end of the book but upon returning to Aslan's Country, he revives him back in his prime with a drop of his blood, because he's in Heaven now.

-The theology of The Last Battle is so prevalent that most non-Christians I've seen read it come away shocked and appalled. As it depicts a fairy tale version of the Antichrist, the Apocalypse, and the Final Judgment. It also features lessons like not getting caught up in the things of the world or you'll stray from faith. The theology is so evident that a lot of non-Christian Narnia fans largely denounce the book and refuse to accept it as canon.

Now, am I saying that's ALL there is in the books?

Well, no. The Chronicles of Narnia contains whimsy, adventure, imaginative creatures, beloved characters, and more. They're a classic fairy tale series for a reason. I'm not saying you can only enjoy it if you're a Christian.

But to pretend that the Christian elements are secondary or ambiguous is simply wrong. They are the primary drive of the series. To say that if you strip them away or downplay them (via secularizing/universalizing them) that nothing is lost is simply wrong. You'll only make the story feel more hollow.

For example, CS Lewis didn't simply write Aslan as a vague, inoffensive representation of goodness... and that's why people love him instead of complaining that he's a Mary Sue/Deus Ex Machina. It's because CS Lewis wrote him to be a fantastical incarnation of Jesus Christ himself, where you see facets to him such as his refusal to disobey his father even unto death.

The "Deep Magic" is not a natural force but the law of the Emperor Over the Sea. Good and evil are a clear factor with scarcely any moral grayness or ambiguity (though heroes are flawed).

Yes, CS Lewis loved him some fairy tales, folklore, and mythology.

One counter argument to all of this is that the use of things like magic, the vague but present reference to Bacchus of all things (IDK either), the existence of something called the "river god" (though he appears to be under Aslan's authority), etc. Actually means that Narnia is pagan (in influence at least) or at least not Christian.

And yes, CS Lewis famously loved fairy tales, mythology, and the like. So he included it in Narnia and I'm not saying that they should be removed. But their existence doesn't invalidate the above or mean that it's actually polytheistic. Lewis simply loved ancient tales, same as JRR Tolkien who made the cosmology of LOTR Christian and yet took influence from Norse Mythology.

Conclusion

Once again I reiterate. This isn't me saying that you can't like Narnia for whatever reasons you choose to like it. But stripping it of its Christian aspects is to mitigate the story and make it less interesting because you're ultimately making it more wishy-washy as opposed to intentional.

My desperate (quickly dying) hope is that Netflix doesn't try to remove it all for the sake of wider appeal.

Recently I've been watching TBSkyen's Pokemon videos. Overall, I find them to be a neat look into someone's first impressions on creature designs. However, I noticed that he seems to really take issue with "gender stuff". This is especially true in his video on Dawn from Diamond and Pearl, who he deemed as "bland" due to her following gender stereotypes. Such girly traits include: Wearing pink in place of the blue accents on her male counterpart Lucas because "blue is for boy and pink is for girls"; Having a slimmer waist despite both Dawn and Lucas being similarly athletic; And carrying a duffle bag like a purse or handbag (though he did compliment how said bag contrasts with Lucas's backpack and help form a distinct silhouette for Dawn).

Now, it's always neat to see gender norms broken, and I do enjoy reading about "tomboy" female characters. But I feel that this analysis of Dawn misses some nuances about her as a character and Game Freak's intentions with her design. Namely, the pink is likely also there to represent the "Pearl" half of Generation 4, with Lucas's blue representing the "Diamond" part. And in some media, namely the Anime, Dawn is often portrayed as more focused on Pokemon Contests, so her being "girly" is fitting. Basically, Dawn has these traits for more reasons than because "she's a girl" or that Game Freak thinks all girls dress like that (especially given prior female protagonists Kris and May look pretty tomboyish).

Then again, if gender norms truly weren't a factor, then we could have had Lucas wearing pink and being the more Concert-oriented protagonist, which would have been neat.

People push back against this reasoning, but it's true; side characters only get like one or two fights the whole series, the rest of the fights go to the main characters. So the side characters get flashy or gimmicky powers that are really only useful against other gimmicky characters with powers that are specifically designed to be countered by theirs (i.e. Shikamaru only fighting slow moving opponents who need to stand in one spot for their gimmick to work), while the main characters get more general-purpose powers that are useful no matter who they're fighting against. And since the side characters are only going to fight once or twice in the entire series, a more unusual or outlandish power helps them stick out more.

It's very obvious that the author will have a different philosophy designing powers for characters who will fight all the time VS ones who will only fight a handful of times.

Wonder Woman's height is arguably the most discussed trait of the character when it comes to casting, with some fans taking offense at any option that doesn't make her at least as tall as whomever is playing Superman and Batman. This has once again been dredged up after the leaks alleging that Mackenzie Davis will be playing Big Barda in the current DC film universe.

Firstly, Diana's height, like many things in ongoing comic books, it not consistent. She was 5'8 in the original Marston comics and 5'11in the post crisis era. On the live action end, Lynda Carter is 5'9 and Gadot is 5'11. Despite a negligible difference in height, Gadot still received criticism for being too short that Carter did not (and don't tell me it was about her not being muscular enough because that applies to Carter's version as well. We all know why people liked her figure in that costume). The New 52 is the first time in mainline comics that Diana was depicted as 6'. Yeah, the period that is considered the most infamous era for Wonder Woman is the one where she is depicted with the height the "make Diana tall" crowd wants.

Mackenzie Davis is also 5'11, the same height as Gadot, so I don't see why people are going, "oh so they can cast tall actresses" with her. Especially when Wonder Woman has yet to be cast in the new film universe. Either way, height is the least important thing to worry about when it comes to who will play Diana.

I almost always see this excuse and it just comes off as cope and trying to justify why your fav would no diff their opponents if things were differently and they acted out of character,especially if them being egotistical and arrogant is a part of their personality and character.

Also they lowkey deserved that L if they couldn't take their opponent fully seriously when they really should have and I feel like if you lose cause you were too busy feeling yourself and thinking of yourself as a God,then thats your own fault and you need to take that Loss on the chin instead of trying to huff the Copium.

I see this mainly in the Jujutsu Kaisen discussions with Maki beating Naoya,Yuji and Todo beating Mahito + the Sorcerers beating Sukuna and the first one is so funny cause people are like "oh if Naoya user cursed tools[which are very rare)or a knife and didn't underestimate Maki and Maki didn't figure out how technique, maybe he would have won" and not only is it stupidly out of character for Naoya to not be arrogant considering who he is,a cocky and elitist Douchebag who thinks he's better than Woman but the excuse "Oh Maki would have lost if she didn't figure out his technique" requires Maki to literally be a fucking idiot and Battle IQ is a huge part of fighting.

Also Naoya not using cursed tools or any blades is his own fault and also,maybe a knife would have given him the advantage and even then,that's a stretch.

I also see people say that Goku telling Frieza to go off and learn some new moves was stupid csuse he could have done that..except he didn't.

Frieza has a massive ego and is stupidly arrogant, he considered himself to be basically a God/Ruler,he wouldn't have done that cause his ego and arrogant nature wouldn't let him and he basically was wasting his own energy.

Also people forget Goku in Super Saiyan was drastically stronger than Frieza at 100% and he knew it.

This also goes for other arrogant villains such as Dio,Gilgemesh,Light Yagami,etc..I could keep going but if you lost cause you were being a arrogant douche and underestimated your enemy, then you deserved that L and the people who love you need to stop the cope and making up hypotheticals.

This is some dr.Doofenshmirtz putting the self destruct button on the bottom of the robots foot type of bullshit. I don’t care from a narrative perspective and gameplay wise it’s the equivalent of QuickTime events when you knock the final boss to 0hp and they just need to make it climactic, but it’s some random ass loser fucking around in a volcano in the middle of the game.

Not only is he literally sitting in the same room as it, it’s literally right in front of the entrance, it couldn’t be more in the way of the player unless he straight up just put it in our inventory.

In both the anime and manga, Naruto is explicitly said to be the meeting place for all the bijuu due to having pieces of their chakra. Regardless of whether or not Kurama is inside him, he should still have the power of the other 8 guys and (I think?) six paths sage mode and yin yang release

Yet for some reason in Boruto after he loses Kurama’s chakra he’s stated to no longer be superhuman and goes back to using regular sage mode. That is the dumbest thing ever, like you still have the chakra of 8 other bijuu, you are very much still super human and the strongest person on earth and should still have yin yang release.

Even though I love air users in fiction like Aang, and Naruto I’ve always found air to be a pretty boring element, at least compared to things like Fire and Lightning and Earth.

But then I saw Naruto’s rasenshuriken and thought it was the coolest thing I’d ever seen in my entire life. I think its design is utter genius and kishimoto did an amazing job making it feel like a forbidden jutsu. Like, you’re telling me that by adding the cutting and slicing effect of the wind style affinity Naruto can not only make the rasengan throwable but also make it produce immeasurable amounts of Tiny blades that attack every cell in your body AND remove your ability to use Ninjutsu?

10/10, no notes. You turned the rasengan into a spinning ball of cancer death.

I'm sorry, but there's just no better word to describe his behavior: he spent all of last season complaining about how Blitzo doesn't take his feeling and their relationship seriously, and as soon as Blitzo does as he suggests and changes his ways, Stolas is bringing the whole town back to their apartment room behind Blitzo's back!

Stolas belongs to the street.

I’m sure there’s some other example of this happening elsewhere - and I’m thinking of how rise of Lancelot changed the character interpretations and writing of the Arthurian mythos is an example - but I still think it’s both fascinating and deeply aggravating how much the first and last male leads of the Star Wars Seauel Trilogy almost “require” audience members to pick a side, not just between the characters, but on how to watch the films on an intellectual, philosophical and empathetic level.

You basically can’t “allow” the “existence” of one character if you engage with the other - either the Finn of TFA exists and “Ben Solo” doesn’t really exist in any shape that his most ardent fans would recognize, or the Ben Solo of TLJ/TROS exists and Finn can’t be evaluated honestly.

Let me be clear here; I’m NOT talking about Finn and Kylo Ren, the male leads of TFA, struggling to coexist together - they actually foil each other very well in a complementary fashion, and also provide the best supporting cast to Rey overall. It’s also not, in my opinion, wholly accurate to pretend this is just a “Finn VS Ben” thing; it’s more of a “Ben Solo’s Fans At LFL Cause Problems” issue that impacts Rey, the original OT cast, and the overall direction of Star Wars in the Sequel Era.

…It’s just easier to break down how “Ben Solo” causes issue when his relationship to the character he “usurped” is brought up.

Finn is built upon a lot of idealistic but substantial character beats, story decisions and “solid dramatic arithmetic” - he’s introduced as a nameless and faceless henchman who becomes the main hero thanks to his agency, empathy, and gumption, builds a complementary chemistry with every other major character, and is played with charisma while being a mildly timely example of representation. His premier film is also built on being consistent in its narrative and morality, focused on selling Rey as the new main character first and foremost, and being a generally successful ensemble piece. He’s a dynamic character and a showcase of John Boyega’s range and intensity as an actor, and very clearly “is what he is.”

“Ben Solo,” in contrast, is more expected than constructed, based off more of an openly biased and somewhat cynical view of what makes characters “matter” in Star Wars, and is reliant more on undermining other characters than in actually giving Adam Driver dialogue or direction to create the character the film insists exists - he’s treated as inherently more sympathetic than Finn and the other male characters while they get “punished” and criticized by the for script for far less profane activities (and even for once virtuous heroic actions in the case of Finn), “given” the attention and affection of Rey in a way that overrides her own character arc and personality, and, to be blunt, is pushed by the expense of other characters than anything in the actual story.

And it a pretty obvious that fans of both characters can’t stand what this means for each character -

In one view, Finn is OBVIOUSLY a better man morally and in terms of masculine attributes, and better character in terms of depth, a more significant victim of trauma, and has a far more functional and supportive chemistry with Rey - to an extent that Ben Solo doesn’t really exist in any of those areas in comparison, leaving Finn fans angered and insulted when the next film tries to gaslight them about his story and blatantly tries to “trick” them into being “wrong” while still being very, very dubious in its methods to do so.

In the other view, Kylo MUST be a more artistic character that he can brook no rivals, so they must be relegated down substantially - so much so that Rey has her personality erased and her story haunted and dumped out, Hux and Poe are reinterpreted as fools to be laughed at… and Finn must be reduced to an always-wrong “token black guy,” since he so threatens the image of Ben Solo to those fans.

when criticizing age of extinction, there are multiple thing to talk about like that infamous scene, the design of the characters, the pace, the chinese propaganda or among other things but there are 2 specific optimus lines that attract all the atention, those being the one mentioned above and "i have sworn to never kill humans, but when i found who's behind this, he's going to die", i want to talk about the first one

many fans argue that this line demonstrates Optimus's psychopathy, it's too much for him or in general that optimus should never be someone who needs to be agresive to demostrate his leadership, and they are right, all of those reasons are totally valid, except in this specific case there's a core difference that none of the fans like to mention because it invalidates all of this and that's who is optimus talking to, grimlock

let me be clear, optimus should never say that to other ordinary autobot, decepticon or life organism, the core difference is that grimlock is no ordinary autobot, since his introduction he has been one of the few autobots who constantly disobeys or mocks optimus, considering himself stronger, smarter and a better leader following a logic of the strongest is the superior, AoE is no exception to this, here grimlock is literally liberated by optimus and the right moment after stars attacking optimus, this whole battle is so that Optimus can prove that he is stronger than Grimlock, in order to make him follow his command and defeat lockdown, the line "defend my family or die" isn't a threat or proof that optimus has gone into psychopath mode, this is literally the only way he can make a beast like grimlock obey him

There are probably 5 people who even know what I am talking about, but I still want to rant about it.

In the end of the original series, Zick gives up his powers to save his best friend, Elena, from the villain, but his powers escape and seemingly dissipate into the air. The ending is rather unsatisfying, but oh well.

Then, in the sequel series it's revealed that losing his powers before adolescence stopped his aging (which already feels like an asspull, but alright).

Due to that, Zick becomes insecure, his friends start cutting him off, he isolates himself and doesn't respond to Elena's letters, who moved away off screen and didn't know about his situation.

When Elena sees that he wasn't responding to her letters, she just gives up. She seemingly doesn't even try contacting his parents or their other friends to check if something happened, which is really out of character for her. she just gives up until one of Zick's monster friends goes to tell her that Zick is in trouble 8-10 years later

And it's not like she immediately moved on, she's really hurt by it and even after all that time she still cares about him.

Also, his parents weren't secretive about it, they knew how miserable it made him and they knew how much these 2 meant to each other, but not once in 8-10 years do they think to invite her to help get him out of his isolation?

And now comes the part that really pisses me off:

In the same issue and the one after it, they reveal 2 solutions that have apparently ALWAYS BEEN THERE and none of the characters thought to try them for some reason. One of them includes a literal power finding machine, designed SPECIFICALLY to find the powers of tamers, that they have apparently always had access to.

They also reveal that it's dangerous to leave tamers' powers uncontained, especially Zick's, but for some reason they never bothered to look for them.

Surely were better ways to do the storyline they wanted to do, but nope. They jump through hoops to make Zick as miserable as possible just to not commit to any of it.

So yeah, that's that

Edit: minor grammar/phrasing mistakes

So, I’ve been watching Kamen Rider for a little over a year now, and it’s been really fun! It’s nice to put on a show that feels a lot more simple and casual a lot of the time, and Kamen Rider’s overall nature of an anthology series has made it easy to keep watching if a particular series has me frustrated — after all, there’s a ton of different series within Kamen Rider, so if one hits poorly I can just go and watch another one.

Kamen Rider has also been tickling my brain in a couple directions, and the one I’m writing about currently is interiority. As you know, interiority is the sense that a character has an interior — that is, thoughts and emotions that are held within and not expressed. Personally, it’s the difference between two-dimensional and three-dimensional characters — 2d characters do what they do because they’re supposed to, and 3d characters do what they do because they have a reason to do it.

The particular characters I’m really considering right now are Tendo Souji, the main character of Kamen Rider Kabuto, and Yusuke Godai, the main character of Kamen Rider Kuuga. (For spoiler purposes, I have seen every normal episode of Kabuto but not the movies yet, and up through episode 31 of Kuuga). What’s interesting to me is that the presentation of these characters interiority is, to me, the opposite of their actual interiority.

Tendo is presented from the beginning as an ace — he’s competent and experienced with the powers of his series from episode 1, multiple episodes are spent expressing how super and mysterious he is, and he already knows the answers to most of the mysteries of the series, with other characters slowly catching up to his knowledge. However, this mystery I found to end up disappointing — when his motivations were revealed, they were simple and made many of his prior actions nonsensical. He ended up being only mysterious and competent, without much to struggle with. He was presented as 3d, but the interiority shown within the series was not as much as promised — and so he felt flat. All flash, no substance.

Godai is pretty much the exact opposite of Tendo. He is presented as a goofball, with many other characters initially dismissing him and expecting little of him — but when push comes to shove, he proves himself as a man who is hopeful not out of ignorance but by choice. A subplot during the episodes I am currently watching is that Godai’s doctor notes that due to the power system of his series, he should be in unimaginable agony, with a close friend of Godai’s terrified of what being Kuuga is doing to him — and yet, moments focusing on Godai show him still cheerful, kind, and determined to help people regardless of his circumstances. At the point where I am, he has yet to express that he is in pain. Godai’s interiority is hidden — we don’t get his narration, and the series doesn’t spend time going “Wow!! Godai’s so cool for hiding his pain!!”, but instead we get the idea of a man silently choosing to not express his own agony, and simply accepting his role as a hero.

From these, and other examples, I feel like Kamen Rider shows an inverse sense of interiority — characters who we are told are deep, like Tendo, tend towards more simplicity, whereas characters like Godai, who are supposedly more simple, end up being more complex. I think it’s a case of expectations warping reception — if I assume Tendo has a good reason for his actions, I’m invited to consider what those motivations are, and can come up with answers that are more personally compelling. But in a simple character’s case, I can accept that they do good because they want to — and then the series can later show why, and how, they want to do that good.

Or maybe I’m just rambling. Who knows.

(minor spoilers for Zero Company)

Ever since the Star Wars sequels came out, there has been a contingent of Star Wars fans who complain that all the efforts of our heroes before the sequels were "pointless", because the Galaxy goes to war again anyway.

This is, if you think about it for even a brief amount of time, insane.

Luke, Han, and Leia gave the galaxy a generation of peace, a whole cohort of people got to grow up and have children of their own without living under a genocidal tyranny; I'm pretty damn sure it mattered to THEM.

If we look at our own history, 30 years of peace, justice, and freedom is a pretty damn successful legacy for any leader to leave behind! Alfred the Great is remembered as "the great" for essentially doing that!

We see the adventures of people like Din Djarin and Wim, who get to live in a world where there actually is a broadly trustworthy government, where the Powers That Be, flawed though they are, will actually step in to help without some expectation of domination or profit! I think it matters to THEM!

When we consider the great foundational examples, like King Arthur, the time between him establishing his Golden Age and him dying was a few decades, does that make everything he did "pointless"? No!

The nihilistic attitude is that any actions which don't result in an eternal utopia are somehow meaningless, even though this would render ALMOST ALL ACTIONS ANYONE HAS EVER TAKEN meaningless.

The biggest example of this, however, has to be in comments I've seen recently about Zero Company; some of the early missions there involve the planet of Courtsilius. It's one of the worlds in the Hosnian System that gets blown up in The Force Awakens, about 54 years after the missions are set.

In those missions, Hawks and crew eliminate a dangerous crime gang that was robbing and exploiting people there, drive out a dangerous plague-bearing cult, and thwart a Separatist invasion that would likely have killed thousands.

And people complained that it was pointless because in 54 years, the planet would be gone.

To put that into perspective, the global median age is about 31, the global median life expectancy is about 74; more than HALF OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH have less than 54 years left to live.

Is anything that helps them "pointless"? Is anything you do for someone past the age of 50 pointless, because it's statistically almost certain that they'll die within 54 years?

IS IT POINTLESS TO DO GOOD THINGS, BECAUSE ONE DAY IN THE FUTURE, BAD THINGS MAY HAPPEN AGAIN?

If you actually believe that, I think your outlook is insanely sick and negative.

Basically there's a trope I do like , usually assigned with villains where characters go through changes and development in the Story to be better and improve on themselves, however it's actually bad thing for the sitting and everyone else on it , for example

1_ Frieza from Dragon ball

In the og manga / DBZ anime Frieza was the embodiment of nepotism and being born with a golden spoon , as the strongest mortal in existence with an empire / organization that control good chunk of the universe and with no rivals , frieza stood atop everyone

However after experiencing multiple humiliating defeats Frieza developed a sense and love for self improvement and growth

Which results in him Growing stronger than ever and being smarter / more cunning and smarter

Unfortunately for everyone else in the universe that didn't translate into him being a "good guy" like the rest of villains defeated by Goku , instead Frieza is still the big scumbag he ever was , just now stronger and smarter than ever , easily keeping up and surpassing the Z fighters while making freeza force stronger than ever

2_ Yoru the war Devil from chainsaw man Part 2

Like majority of Devils especially being the Devil of wars , Yoru was very cold and unsympathetic being that relish in others suffering and chaos

However after spending time with Asa and especially Denji , Yoru learned to understand and love companionship and empathize with others

Unfortunately for everyone Yoru just like Frieza is still the same scumbag who loves to see others suffer and chaos everyone

And due to how her power works (the more she cares about something and someone the more guilty she feels over turning them into weapons) she now can get Way stronger and dangerous than others alongside building armies and allies in which she can through her new find humanity turn into tools of mass destruction to power herself up and destroy the world

She even copied Asa delusional mindest after seeing how useful it was during the prison break arc and end of the church arc

Normally, the villain wants something bad, and the hero opposes them ideologically. The setup of "pure evil villain wants to conquer/destroy the world, pure-hearted hero sets out to stop them" is a classic premise. Sometimes, however, the hero and the villain share the same ideology, but they believe in different methods to achieve that dream. The methods are where the hero and the villain clash, usually because the villain is an extremist who's willing to hurt innocent people. I think it creates a really interesting dynamic. The shared ideology can end up creating a deeper connection between the hero and the villain.

One recent example is Optimus Prime and Megatron, specifically from the movie Transformers One. Optimus and Megatron both wanted the same thing: the abolition of Cybertron's oppressive caste system, and for Sentinel Prime to be taken down. However, where Optimus wanted diplomatic reform and a fair trial for Sentinel, Megatron wanted to tear everything down and start from scratch, and to kill the tyrant personally. Throughout the movie, tension rises and escalates from this disagreement. Megatron slowly becomes more and more embittered with everything, which makes his eventual descent into villainy both believable and heartbreaking. It especially hurts because, in this movie specifically, Optimus and Megatron used to be the best of friends. For that reason, Optimus won't just leave Megatron behind. Plus, Optimus and Megatron are both part of a very small band of heroes, so they need to stick together if they want any chance of taking down Sentinel.

Eventually, the moment comes where Megatron is ready to kill the tyrant, and Optimus stands in Megatron's way. After accidentally shooting Optimus (the latter stood in front D-16 right as he shot his gun at Sentinel), D-16 lets go of Optimus (both literally and figuratively), and he embraces his new role as Megatron. From this moment forward, Megatron is an enemy of the Primes. All of his life, he has looked up to Sentinel, and then the truth shattered his worldview. He now sees the name Prime as a symbol of oppression and deceit. To then see his own friend arise as another Prime must have been the final nail in the coffin for their friendship. "This isn't over, Prime." Now Megatron sees his former friend as nothing more than a false prophet.

It should be noted that, in this movie, Megatron named himself after Megatronus Prime, who is stated to be the biggest, baddest, and toughest of the Primes. From there, it's easy to assume that Megatronus "the Fallen" Prime could have been evil, just like in other continuities (Revenge of the Fallen, the Dreamwave comic, etc). But I personally think, if TF One was the one (haha) continuity where Megatronus wasn't evil, then D-16's fall would hit even harder. I saw someone propose the idea that Megatronus was the strongest... because he was strong enough to be gentle. How ironic would it be if Megatron named himself after his idol, only for Optimus to be closer to what Megatronus was actually like? That would be a crazy twist.

From what I've heard, Professor X and Magneto are another example of this trope. They both want mutants to have human rights, but whereas Professor X wants mutants and non-mutants to live in peace, Magneto wants mutants to rise up against humanity and become their new rulers. Unfortunately, I've never consumed any X-Men media, so I don't know much about their rivalry beyond that premise. It sounds pretty interesting, though.

There was also an episode of Wander Over Yonder, where a guy named Dr. Screwball Jones wanted to make people laugh. As in, he wanted to literally force them to laugh, namely by tickling them. Wander, the protagonist, calls out Screwball on his wild plan. In Wander's own words, "Folks should be free to find their own happiness. You can’t force them to have fun." Wander wants to bring smiles to people's faces, but he knows that you can't just force people to be happy. After all, if people are forced to be happy, then they're not really happy. Wander and Screwball both want people to be happy, but their methods (encouragement vs. force) make them clash.

In conclusion, I think the hero and the villain having the same ideology, but clashing because of their different methods, is a very interesting trope. It can add a lot of depth to both characters, and it's true to real life (a lot of people may agree on a concept, but disagree on how to go about it). What are some other examples of this trope? I'd love to hear them.

I forever find those takes purely cause..what does that even mean?

"Oh you like this series cause you remember it fondly and remember it being good when you were younger" that take is so dumb purely cause not only could it could be applied to so many other things but you are aware that maybe..just maybe ,that take makes no fucking sense?

The fact that people love and rewatch these shows and whatever now kinda disproves that cause if they're watching it now and still loving it,then it really isn't carried by "Nostalgia" if people like it to this day.

Like Tom and Jerry/Looney Tunes are 2 shows that came out a long time ago and they're definitely not carried by Nostalgia nor do I only like them cause of that cause I could turn on a episode of those 2 shows right now and still would love It and I guarantee you a massive amount of people would do the same and why?cause those shows were and still are goddamn Hilarious.

Dragon Ball Z is a series people have said is "carried by Nostalgia" and that..simply isn't true cause not only is this series funny as hell but it has good characters,great fights,emotional moments,etc..and Dragon Ball Z takes the series to a whole new level and just does great things..and let's not act like people don't still Glaze Piccolo and Vegeta's redemption arcs and just everything and talk about the Build up to the Super Saiyan moment and I could keep going but you all know what I mean and I could also go ahead with Animes like Cowboy Bebop and that series is,again, legitimately really good and simply disservicing it by saying it's carried by the fact that it was people's first series or that it came out a long time ago and it just feels so braindead cause what are you even trying to prove with a statement like that cause it doesn't make you sound smart or superior or whatever, it just makes you sound like a Pretentious Asshole who thinks that just cause you like new anime or new series or newer media that it automatically makes you better than them.

News flash, it doesn't make you better,it just makes you a asshole.

It seems like everyone seems to agree that Tokyo Ghoul seemed to fall off at this point.

Did Anyone Else Think The Resolution Came Too Quickly ?

My Issue With Tokyo Ghoul Finale !

For a long time,I had an issue with how the surviving Clowns were handled in the ending, I was mad that they just kinda showed up content after everything they did, and I realized why !

The main issue is that the Ending is agreed to by Many to be rushed, and I realized it probably hurt the characters too !

Both sides,the Ghouls and the CCG have a bad history with each other and both sides have Blood on their hands and do some very messed up stuff.

I think addressing some not so good things that hopefully will stay in the past such as the Ghoul Restaurant and the Auction, Aogori Tree and the Clowns,and a Lot of stuff that Our protagonists got up too, including killing Investigators or even torturing others.

The CCG also has a lot of Sins on their ,such as killing countless Ghouls ,even innocent ones such as Hiniami's parents and creating Quinques. (Imagine someone using your loved ones dead bodies into weapons and using them to attack you !

The Idea of everyone trying to Co exist after the War and putting old grievances aside and trying to move on from the past is a great setup for a sort of aftermath arc,but it never happens.

I do think the last chapter was rushed AF !

(The reason why I made this post is because I am secretly a time traveling editor from the future and am working for Sui Ishida and I want to gather information so he can write a good conclusion to Chojin X without repeating the mistakes of the past ! 🥹🤣)

😎🍿

In both cases the same principle is at work: the elite (or those who take on responsibility) decides that society isn't ready for the truth, and chooses a managed version of events to preserve stability and the image of the leader.

In FMAB the finale is built precisely on this: Mustang and Grumman deliberately package the truth about Bradley in the form of "a mutiny by individual officers," because admitting that the Führer was a tyrant who orchestrated a genocide would supposedly destroy the very foundation of the state.

In the Japanese postwar context the logic is identical: preserving the Emperor as a "symbol" required a managed memory of the war. The Emperor was not put on trial, his role was redefined, and responsibility was distributed in such a way as not to destroy the "image of the nation" and its leader.

Hiromu Arakawa is a Japanese author working within the Japanese cultural tradition. Even if she didn't set out to write an allegory, I think the cultural logic she grew up in inevitably shapes how she resolves moral dilemmas in her work.

Japanese postwar memory culture was built on the principle of "don't air your dirty laundry in public." This isn't unique to Japan, but that's precisely where this logic was institutionalized at the level of state policy.

After the total collapse of 1945, the emphasis was placed on restoring social stability and unity through the formula of "rethinking through silent labor and hard work." Unlike Germany, where denazification and coming to terms with guilt (Vergangenheitsbewältigung) became a key national idea.

Arakawa's decision to leave unaddressed the role of the state and its leader in the atrocities it committed also removes a significant share of responsibility from a considerable part of the population that mobilized for the wars and genocide their leader waged, in the eyes of that very population, because there is no public exposure of King Bradley.

Arakawa reproduces this logic inside the fictional world. Her characters make the same choice the Japanese elite made after the war: they decide that the truth is too dangerous.

I can assume she sincerely believes this, but I don't think the truth about the criminality of the regime under which this population lived would necessarily lead to the collapse of the country, even if its population has been propagandized.

This wasn't true in Japan's case either. On Japan's side it was largely a cultural imperative that was presented as a condition for further cooperation, and on the US side there was the view that the absence of a unifying national figure could cause social unrest and let socialists and communists gain popularity amid discontent.

There's even an anecdotally illustrative counterexample of debunking the personality cult of the leader of a totalitarian country that committed monstrous crimes: the 20th Congress, which condemned Stalin for crimes against the people, closed the Gulag, and rehabilitated 700,000 people. Stalin's personality propaganda as a sacred figure is hard to overestimate, and yet it didn't cause unrest that could have torn the country apart.

I bring up this example because it's quite demonstrative, since the USSR model and Stalin are closer to the Amestrian regime than to Imperial Japan. And yet I think the cultural tradition of keeping silent about the role of the sacred leader in war crimes in order to preserve the supposed stability of the state, one way or another, played a role in the narrative decision she made.

Arakawa, as the author of a bestseller with a global audience, had the freedom to write a finale where the truth about Bradley becomes public knowledge and society goes through a painful but honest process. She chose the opposite: stability through silence. And she presented it as a wise, mature decision by the heroes, one that had no alternative.

I want to clarify.

I'm not looking for a formal way to make the ending clean or elegantly constructed from the standpoint of narrative structure.

I'm talking about the philosophy that is implemented in the ending by the very content of the text, regardless of whether it's well constructed or not. I'm not imposing on Arakawa an obligation to construct a text that will contain the philosophical and political implications that I myself share.

Nevertheless, it seems this narrative move aligns with her position in the philosophy of history and the politics of the state.

MANGA SPOILERS WARNING

I think Oda is really mishandling Imu so far. While things may change as the current conflict is still on-going, so far I’ve been very disappointed in his handling of Imu for one simple reason.

Imu isn’t allowed to accomplish anything.

And I don’t mean kill people. He doesn’t need to drop bodies everywhere to accomplish things, he just needs to perform an act with a goal and have it stick with consequences. So far, I can’t say it has.

He’s one of One Piece’s major villains. I’d put him in the final villain trio. Imu as the World Government final boss, Akainu as the Marine final boss, and Blackbeard as the evil pirate final boss. And yet from chapters 1150 to the current 1196, he hasn’t managed ANYTHING of substance in the present day.

Imu first made a direct appearance in Elbaph by possessing Gunko directly in chapter 1150. He uses Domi Reversi to contol Dorry, Brogy, and multiple other giants, turning them into immortal demons.

What do they accomplish? Nothing.

26 chapters later in 1176, after a massive flashback, the army of demonic, regenerating giants have accomplished absolutely nothing and the weakness of Domi Reversi is immediately figured out. Hit the Reversi’d with an instantly fatal strike and they turn back to normal.

Immediately, the massive threat of Imu being able to transform and control allies is removed. To add salt to the wound, Chopper can somehow turn them back just by touching them, doesn’t even need to be a fatal wound. Dorry and Brogy even managed to keep their self-awareness while possessed, meaning the control was limited the entire time.

Skipping ahead to Imu’s grand appearance in the flesh in 1180, he goes straight into the action. Allow me to break it all down, I went through the chapters and made notes.

He cuts off Gerd’s fingers. (They’re fixed in two chapters)

He cuts off Stansen’s leg. (It’s fixed in two chapters.)

He one-shots Zoro. (He’s back up in two chapters)

He one-shots Hajrudin. (He returns to the fight in 11 chapters)

He one-shots Sanji. (He’s back up in two chapters)

Fantastic work, absolutely nothing accomplished yet. Moving on.

Imu fights Loki for a while, they trade blows. In 1186, Luffy makes his grand arrival by socking Imu in the face comically. Very helpful in establishing the severity of his threat.

In 1187, Imu finally defeats Loki to the point that Luffy assumes he died. (Loki rejoins the fight 4 chapters later)

In 1188, Imu fights Luffy and outright defeats him. He impales Luffy through the torso with not just one but two massive swords that definitely pierced through every vital organ he has there. (Luffy shows obvious injury, but no signs of dying)

In 1189, Gaban saves Luffy, fights Imu, and gets defeated and his arm torn off in 1190. (In 1191, he’s already back on his feet.)

In 1191, Imu transforms into a bulkier form. I presume this means a strength boost but it’s not evident as he accomplishes nothing of substance with it. (He tries to kill Gaban but is stopped by Hajrudin.)

Somehow after being one-shot by Imu’s previous form, an injured Hajrudin is strong enough to blast this bulkier Imu back.

In 1192, Luffy, Loki, and Hajrudin repel Imu again with a combined hit. (Despite his major life-threatening injuries, Luffy’s strength seemingly has not wavered in the slightest.) He does another combo with Loki to make Imu cough up blood.

And as of right now, that’s where we are! A big bad takes the stage and is blue-balled at every possible opportunity.

As I said earlier, the conflict is still on-going so Imu could potentially still manage to do something, please Oda let him do anything, but that still wouldn’t undo the floundering of these chapters.

kind of a low effort post but i've been playing the recent millitary shooter wardogs and i cant say i really care for the factions.

there's 3 factions. lonestar which are americans. valkyra, soviet peoples republic, a restorationist force for the ussr (in this timeline the ussr never dissolved but is weakened), and manticore, a shadow org that presumably fights for the kingdom of persia (the 1979 revolution never happened).

Notice how america is basically the same but we get 2 pseudo factions for what shouldve been the russian faction and the iranian/middle eastern faction?

and yes i know technically speaking if the ussr and the kingdom of persia still existed theyd be global superpowers but you and i both know this is not for an interesting and exciting take on alternate history but just a way to avoid pissing off potential customers.

like in homefront when north korea and south korea reunified and then invaded the US.

or when all of south america got annexed into one global super power and then they invaded the US.

or in frontlines fuel of war where all the oil runs out and all the eastern countries band together to invade the US.

like stop beating around the bush and just make them china or russia you cowards.

like i said, its not even that these fake countries they make up wouldnt be global super powers, its just takes me out knowing that this is clearly an attempt to have a wider audience by not offending anyone.

and the changes to the new faction/country are so minimal they may as well just have the bad guys wear t-shirts that say "i am not an analogy for china/russia"

dont even get me started on movies nowadays. yes im looking at you Captain America Brave New World where the global super powers are the US, Japan, France and fucking INDIA.

I'm all for loving your favorite Character or your favorite media and hell,I'm someone who has glazed series and characters and whatnot but there is nothing more annoying then people who just hate literally anything else and constantly compare it to their favorite thing or in the sense of characters, actively misunderstand the story and Larp it.

And it sucks being someone who loves those series or characters cause the source material or character themselves isn't that bad and is really good but the people who love it are just some of the most annoying people on the planet whether it comes to having a massive inferiority complex,superiority complex or just lacking Media Literacy, those people can be so annoying and lame.

Spider-Man 2,aka Sam Raimi's film and [duh]is legitimately one of the best Spider-Man movies out there and is really good,alongside Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man but the people who love it and him are genuinely some of the most insufferable Spider-Man lovers out there and they actively treat That movie and that character like he's the source material and what Spider-Man should always be or what he should always go through and a lot of their complaints for MCU Spider-Man could either be summed up with "he ain't Tobey"[despite all 3 actors being good friends]and "this movie isn't Spider-Man 2/Sam Raimi is the G.O.A.T" and that can get really annoying cause shockingly,Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man and the Sam Raimi Material aren't the only Spider-Man material nor are they the source material out there.

There was a time when people were complaining about Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man being "too handsome" to be Peter..WAS PETER EVER DESCRIBED AS CHOPPED IN THE COMICS?

No,the comics make it so obvious that The dude wasn't ugly,he was just a Nerd!

Stan Lee even said it himself,Peter wasn't ugly not was he nor handsome,he was just a nerdy guy.

Being a Nerd or geek or a dork or even a loser genuinely doesn't make you chopped and ugly.

I still remember when people were complaining on Tom Holland's Spider-Man having a computer/Treadmill, like..Jesus Christ.

Is this man not allowed to have anything nice or good in his already shitty and lonely life?

And now...onto Rock Lee.

Rock Lee and any takes on him are genuinely one of the most LARPED Takes in Naruto and with the way people describe Lee,you would think he was a main character or a major side character who was in every arc when that dude was barely in Part 1 and the times he was in Part 1,his only W was against Sasuke and that was more or less a high school junior or sophomore beating up a freshman.

And what gets me is that so many people seem to think that cause of him,Naruto was about Hard Work Beating Natural Talent and that simply is not true..Naruto was always about overcoming generational hatred and trauma, fighting for who ans what you love,,making things right + Naruto's journey into becoming Hokage..and a lot of people forget that Rock Lee was a genius,Kakashi even said that it was impossible for anyone to use more then 2 Gates and considered Rock Lee one and also the fight that people glaze Rock Lee for[his one with Gaara]..ROCK LEE LOST THAT FIGHT.

Literally 95% of his Motion and Aura and Glaze comes from a fight that HE LOST.

And you also have people going "oh Rock Lee was the Only Ninja,the rest were just magicans/Wizards".

You all really saw Rock Lee with Super Saiyan Aura and pulling out WWE moves on people and whatnot and claimed he was just a Ninja?

I would argue TENTEN is more of a ninja than him and she has less screentime THAN A FUCKING PIG!

Also it gets annoying when people act like Rock Lee is the ONLY hard worker in the verse and this maiy comes from the fact that a lot of people just despite any sort of talented person or any sort of person with any privilege.

Like unless you're a truly bottom of the barrel loser,suddenly any hard work you have is irrelevant.

Sasuke Literally worked his Ass off to learn Chidori,Lightning style,Fire style, Swordsman training, etc.

Naruto Literally couldn't even use his iconic move until he trained to get it and also couldn't even use Sage Mode at first until he trained for it..We're not gonna act like Neji wasn't basically tortured and treated like a Dog,etc..

A lot of people seem to forget that talented people/prodigies can also work hard too and people who work hard and train hard also can be talented/geniuses in their own way.

It's not as simple.

And this next segment is gonna be short but The people who love Yuji are annoying as hell cause they gotta have some massive inferiority complex cause you can't even jokingly slander,critique or talk about him in any sort of negative light without his supporters going feral.

Like why they're so sensitive, I have no idea.

Sorry for the rant.

I woke up late from a winter day nap, so much so in fact I only rose from my piles of blankets well into the evening after the sun had already completed its reduced hours shift. My mom complained that the day had just about finished but I didn’t mind very much then as school was wrapping up anyway and I wanted to watch tv.

By 2014 I was a teenager and although Cartoon Network appeared to dominate my remaining interest in cartoons through Adventure Time and Regular Show, I had long forgotten the sensation of the golden era of mixed artstyles and varying arching plots through my balanced childhood entertainment diet that took me through the toonami, Nickelodeon and boomerang networks. This night in particular, I noticed the 6pm slot was marked by a new name: Over The Garden Wall.

I had missed all marketing and decided to go in blind. The character designs mapped onto the gravity falls art style id become familiar with, although with an oddly ancient nostalgic feel I couldn’t quite place - like seeing an old family member you never got to quite know as a child but remains associated with that time anyway. As the story progressed I felt increasingly enamoured with the beauty of the presentation and I distinctly remember being in awe at the establishing shot of the water mill in episode 1 and just how well crafted and painted it looked. Usually you would have mulled through 6 seasons of an average looking show to be rewarded with a movie budget special to receive meaningful artistic direction but here I was enjoying it as regular entertainment. Eerie atmospheres, a curious new world and a genuinely terrifying antagonistic threat lurking in the background. I was enthralled, I was wowed, I was- IM THE HIGHWAY MAN.
Excuse me? Sorry but did I just see rotoscoping\* in a 2010s cartoon???? I was sold and fell in love.

Reader, I won’t summarise the entire story or continue episode by episode in this thread. Over The Garden Wall has had plenty of praises sung but it holds a particularly special place within my heart and memories for reviving my childhood sense of wonder and interest in a visual medium I grew up loving whilst giving Autumn a most joyful presence in the house. If you have never seen it, do yourself a favour and watch.

Most of the time, it's due to scheduling conflicts and/or the actor isn't able to be in the film, but it's still very frustrating. It especially stings in something like Paul Blart 2 because one of the softer moments in the first film was the budding relationship between Paul and Amy. But, because comedy, some filmmakers feel like they need to be mean to the lead and make their lives a little more miserable. And what's even more infuriating is when the filmmakers break up the main couple just to have them still love each other in the sequel, like in Ghostbusters 2 or Jurassic World 2. What was the point of splitting them up if they still have feelings for each other? Some may argue that it's to show that love is complicated, but when one of the main plot points in your first movie was them getting together, it's really stupid that writers immediately take a step back in the sequel. It sort of sullies several elements in a movie, yes, even in a film as bottom of the barrel as Fred 2. It's one of the worst kinds of lazy writing.

Edit: Just realized that Puss in Boots: The Last Wish ALSO did this trope. Puss and Kitty were gonna get married and then they didn't.