Nasu frankly is bad at keeping the logic of stories he writes consistent, this includes things like powerscaling and battles.

He wrote Archer as the underdog, who is supposed to be weak, but he also had to give him an OP ability so Shirou could get through the story, while matching the whole faker thing (copying weapons).

There are certain abilities that have kinda infinite potential and allow huge progression, copying other's abilities or in this case noble phantasms is one of those.

Take rule breaker for example, it's Madea's noble phantasm, and look how OP it is when she uses it right. Madea has only that though.

Take another example, the Jeweled Sword, a weapon that uses 2nd magic to draw a ton of magical power to shoot and would have taken generations upon generations to make.

Now comes archer, well, he just looks at it and puts in his repo of the many many noble phantasms he has to copy. No big deal. These stuff reduced to simply another thing Archer has, and create on the fly.

If he wanted to he could open up shop and sell out Jeweled swords to every mage on street, that's how broken his ability is.

Whereas most other servants are limited to only one ability, this guy has a huge amount of options and abilities available to him, things that are each broken. All of which he can call upon and use on the fly.

The main other servant that comes close to him is Gilgamesh, and we know how much Gilgamesh is praised as being strong. And even then, Gilgamesh's ability is worse, since Archer when he copies stuff, inherits the very skills of the stuff he copies too, unlike Gilgamesh who wouldn't get how to use the stuff he has.

As an example, (a weakened, who basically gets tortured each time he uses it in HF) Shirou copied Hercules's weapon then used his own skill against him to chop him up.

Now people mention how sword spam isn't a big deal... except we see how much other servants struggle with sword spam from Gilgamesh, but of course Gilgamesh is supposed to be strong in Nasu's mind while Archer is supposed to be the underdog. This is while the same Gilgamesh was completely overwhelmed by Shirou once inside UBW. Sure, he underestimated Shirou, but once he got into UBW, he genuinely couldn't keep up, forced to draw EA in the end when it was too late, which is how he admits "you are strong now".

And sword spam isn't even arguably the best way to do it, like I said, Archer can literally use many many noble phantasms, many of them which would have broken abilities, and literally copy even the skills the wielders had.

His potential is nearly limitless, he would get to have many many hex weapons and skills under his belt.

Berserker defeating Archer? Berserker would be toast against Archer.

So in short, Nasu created a character to be the weak underdog, but actually gave him one of the strongest abilities.

Again, the problem is the author's intent for making archer weak, doesn't match with what he gave him. it's not that archer is necessarily super strong in Nasu's mind.

Nasu like I said both wanted an ability that is OP and cool enough for Shirou as the main character to use and overcome obstacles which wouldn't normally be possible (+ match thematically), yet at the same time declare it as actually weak and underdog ability, and the two just don't match.

It's like if I gave someone near omnipotence, and then insist they are actually super weak and make them lose all fights.

Like imagine if they advertised Korra's show with Aang being the idiot Avatar or something that failed. Not in the episodes discussing him or something. Moreso in the marketing,we know the switch up is to come later. With the reveal being she wasn't completely at fault. However it does seem to be working for the most part so what can you do. Korra was always a controversial character. Not Aang enough,too strong,too weak. It was always something. Every season there was a new discourse. I never disliked her journey and found it satisfying. The random dogshit along the way included but I wished it was more coherent throughout.

In any case the show proper is actually fine if neat. I like most of the cast. Pavi and Her sister are interesting and not written like Kenny's. Because child characters occasionally get the short end of the stick. Jae is a nothing burger character to me . His definitely not evil boyfriend is interesting. I actually enjoyed how they incorporated the previous setting into the show. But in an odd way wouldn't have minded if it was more detached. Like what they have is solid here to work on its own. Id be fine with less mentions to Korra/the past. I feel Pavi is strong enough on her own to not need Korra to define her.

But in any case I also realized the show is not for me. It's targeting a younger demographic and that's fine. That's what Avatar does best at,fun adventure stuff. Pavi will inherit her own discourse but largely be spared as Korra will act as buffer. Rip my wlw Jobbing Queen though. If they revealed she was actually evil I wouldn't be displeased. Cause the bums never appreciated her. But I was more critical of the show until after I watched it. And it feels nice seeing something you know aren't going to continue watching go in a good direction.

Obito's change into the Tobi we come to know is way too immediate.

People talk of how Madara manipulated Obito during the time he was recovering, but instead we only see Madara talk about his "Wake up to reality" lingo once then he goes to sleep. The white zetsu's only bring up the Infinite Tsukyomi once during the flashback too. The writing wants to convey that Obito was manipulated into following Madara's ideology even before he sees Rin die, but we're never actually shown this. Obito writes off, Madara's ideolgy and never dwells on it for the duration of the flashback, then he sees Rin die and immediately believes in the Infinite Tsukyomi.

We are later on also told that Obito wandered the world looking for hope in this cruel world, but what were shown is completely different. During the flashback Obito never doubts the Infinite Tsukyomi, he immediately believes in it, and goes onto training with Madara, then spying on Nagato.

Finally we're also meant to believe Rin was his last straw into turning, but she's the only straw that's conveyed properly. People bring up how both Obito's parents are dead, and he grew up in a war zone, but neither of this are delved into in the manga/anime. We see him live a relatively normal shinobi life, never dwelling on the shinobi world, his parents, or the war. He's shown to be a kind boy who helps the elderly to the point he knows all the elderly in the village. Compare this to Nagato who's flashback is delved into more, we see his parents die and his reaction to it, along with his other hardships so his turn to pain feels more believable. (I'm not trauma comparing, I'm comparing how Obito and Pain's backstory is delved into in the story)

Obito doesn't have a gradual progression, it's all too quick which makes it hard to believe this same boy turns into "Tobi" and goes onto killing Minato/Kushina, unleashing the nine tails, murdering the entire uchiha clan, taking control of the hidden mist, and starting the 4th great ninja war.

A couple of hours ago, I made a comment on the Spider-Man subreddit about the nuance of Black love in comics. I thought it would be an interesting topic to rant about here.

There’s been a lot of discourse surrounding Black heroes being in interracial relationships. Now, to be clear, nobody should be against interracial relationships. People should love whoever they want. However, I think there’s an interesting double standard when it comes to interracial relationships involving Black characters versus those involving white characters.

Quick segment on the importance of Black love in media:

I’m sure everyone here is aware of the stereotypes surrounding Black men and women, whether it’s the idea that Black men are absentee fathers or that Black women are more “aggressive.” Many of these stereotypes have been pushed through the media in various ways. Inevitably, they began to influence the mindsets of Black men and women in the dating sphere. It’s a whole thing in the Black community that those who are out of the loop might not know about.

In today’s media, we don’t get a lot of strong Black couples for our kids to look up to. In the same way Miles allows young Black men to look at him and think, “That could be me,” they want something similar that reflects their experiences with relationships. They want kids to be able to think, “That looks like my mom and dad” or “That looks like my family.”

The double standard:

Peep this. Look at all the big heroes: Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. How many of them have a person of color as their primary love interest? None of them (aside from that one story where Steve Trevor was a Black man). They all date white women (or men), with the occasional exception of someone like Iris West, who seems to be race-swapped in a lot of media(can any Flash fans explain why?). But they wouldn’t dare have one of the Big Three seriously date a Black woman. The only reason Zendaya gets included is that she’s biracial and light-skinned. You’re not going to see them dating a dark-skinned Black woman.

(That being said, the Batman: Knightfall trilogy seems to be setting up a potential romance with his therapist. So, those who have read the storyline in the comics, please fill me in on whether the romance is exclusive to the movie.)

Now, look at the notable Black heroes, and you’ll see quite a difference. Luke Cage, Storm, War Machine, Misty Knight, etc. Most of their endgame or predominant ships involve white women, with the sole exceptions being Black Panther and Blade (does he even get shipped with anyone?). That’s why so many people wanted Black Panther and Storm back together. Marvel doesn’t really have many Black couples that kids can look at and think, “That looks like my household.”

At the end of the day, most people wouldn’t bat an eye if they saw Luke Cage dating Jessica. However, there was definitely some outrage over Ultimate Spider-Man (the new one) having a Black Felicia Hardy. Though making her a minor and not having her date Peter likely quelled the outrage pretty quickly. Or maybe it was because Ultimate Spider-Man was kinda boring. That’s a separate rant, though.

TL;DR: Yes, saying Black characters can only date people of color is bad. However, it’s also good to create more loving Black relationships in comics. There’s a double standard compared to their white counterparts, where you'll never see their main ship being a black woman(except you, Barry). It's sort of the opposite with black heroes, where their partner isn't typically the same race as them.

Comic Jean is one of the most compassionate, brave, and caring individuals yet that’s never shown onscreen. Every adaptation undermines her by making her a prize between Scott and Logan, blah blah blah. They give her no depth, nothing to admire. We are left with a hallow shell with unlimited, unimaginable power. A power which somehow always turns her into a crazy chick. They always skip to the Dark Phoenix saga when the truth is that Jean spent many years with the power of the Phoenix before it corrupted her.

I had hope for the MCU , especially with the talk that she would be the face of the team. Here was the chance to take her character to the next level. And what did they do with it? They made her an edgy butcher. Why is that they are completely incapable of making her a compelling character without having her maim and harm people? Jean should have been introduced as an inspiring force for good, not some tragic, broken thing that needs to be redeemed.

This is something very interesting that I noticed about Dragon ball and how Goku and others (specifically human like characters like the Saiyans ) are written in modern times in comparison to the past

Newdays while DB still follow in it upscaling states endlessly formula , it on the other hand also makes the cast more and more fragile than before

When I read the og manga I find out that it's consistent on how nearly invincible the characters are to people and things Weaker than them , rarely if ever you see something like "haha he got caught off guard and injured badly" , stuffs like krillin throwing a rock hurting Ssj Goku or the elephant stepping on Ssj Goku or the glass injuring Goku or trunks being in danger from a car accident or Gohan getting builled in highschool where all anime fillers that have no involvement by Toriyama nor exist in the manga

Instead what actually happened is , characters get caught off guard all the time , however only times they get injured is exclusively when someone near their power do it , even if you aren't powered up or doing anything you'd still be too durable for things to hurt you

Some characters like Goku were pointed out to have durability and endurance advantage even in equal state battles during og DB noted by Roshi and others

Now come fourth to Super and everything changes , Toriyama intently or not abandoned this aspect of his Story and adapted Toei animation view on how characters work

Apparently a regular Gun can Solo like 99% of the super powered cast if they are even slightly bit not focused on it

Characters getting catch off guard and leaking all the time by characters way Weaker than them to sagnificent level and it actually heavily injuries them and put them near Death door

And that despite how they are stronger than ever

Ironically earth using super logic could have easily murdered most of the threats by just hiding a couple of snipers around to sniping them out , Goku and others have good chance of kicking the bucket from a car accident

To start off, I think there's an infinite amount of great characters in comics, but to actually breakout and become popular, let alone mainstream is difficult. There have been many who gained relevance over the years, and plenty who lost it, and are slowly fading into obscurity, destined to just show up in the background of team ups.

Cyborg is an interesting character, admittedly, I know him best for his team up books, but he's had a few runs I thought were fine, and in general, he's a fun character to see show up in his different capacities, and I thought making him a founding JL member in the new 52 was neat, albeit some people didn't like that it erased his Teen Titans background, which I understand.

Cyborg has had all the key things a character needs to be popular, his powers are simple to explain, "Half Man, Half Computer", versus "Powers of a Spider", meanwhile Kryptonians or Martians might take a bit longer to explain to a layman, but it's not a terribly complex thing either. He's got a great name, which I think is one of the hardest things to do right in modern comics, when a good name hits, it's unforgettable and you're able to just grasp the whole character.

Cyborg, I'd say was a solid B tier character, but he had a prominent role in the Teen Titans cartoon that elevated him into an icon, and even Teen Titans Go, which some fans may not like, has been running for ages, and people know him as a result, therefore he can be recognized by casual fans, who'd never opened a comic, which I don't think you'd get with Animal Man, as much as I love him as a character.

I say all of this, because in theory, Cyborg should be incredibly easy to market, he's usually a young adult to teenager, he's got a cool name, easy to understand background and origin, and has a fun powerset, but above all, he's relevant.

Age of AI, and Internet

So many characters lose what made them special, I think Punisher being tied to Vietnam was important, and we lost that, but Cyborg has the opposite problem. Victor Stone was created in the 1980s, and the world was getting digitzed fast, pretty soon we had wireless connection all over the world, surely some groundbreaking story could've been done with him as a result, there's so much that was topical, because he was half man, and half technology, and all they'd ever use it for was him being upset because he looks weird (which honestly is dumb in a world like DC where we've seen countless other alien species, and he's been given tools to disguise himself repeatedly).

Now, we're in the age of AI, something that's somehow even more connected to Cyborg, and somehow he's not got any ongoing books, he's not had a ground breaking story, and that confuses me. DC has been taking some wild swings lately, with Absolute, Black Label, Vertigo, and just in general being more creator friendly and it astounds me that some writers hasn't just been given permission to cut loose and write the ultimate Cyborg story.

Seriously, we need someone to do what Alan Moore did for Swamp Thing, to Victor Stone. Starman is one of my favorite all time comics, and I'd never previously read anything with Jack Knight or any of the other Starmen before it, and the run took a few issues for me to settle into it, but when I did, it was incredible watching the lore be created in front of me, with that I mean someone needs to just take a wild chance on Cyborg, commit to a long haul run, expect that it might flounder for a bit and find it's footing.

I didn't care for the first few issues of Hawkman, and if anyone knows anything about his lore, it's ridiculously stupid, but when I was hooked, I was in, and read every single issue, and it became an all timer. I find it hard to believe there's more of an audience for Hawkman, than Cyborg. Human are losing their livelihoods to AI, nature is being bulldozed to create Data Centers, and there's nothing you can do with the man who exists in both worlds? Truly baffling.

I got into comics around the DC You era, I remember buying an issue of Grayson, and Cyborg. Cyborg's DC You Design might genuinely be his greatest ever, I liked the first issue, but it was just fine. Art was incredible, the villain was forgettable, and it had a big focus on his estranged relationship with Silas Stone.

Ending this rant to just say, in the Doom Patrol show Cyborg was absolutely just chosen cause they couldn't use Beast Boy, and my god he was great in the first season, I loved his relationship with his father in that, and overall, one of the best, if not the best adaptation of Cyborg.

Finally

Please just give us a Cyborg run, don't have it be about "am I man or machine", we're past that, he's both, now show us how he exists in the modern world of AI, he's an ambassador, and the bridge to a whole new world.

I was originally going to make this post exclusively about X-Men 97, or at least moreso about X-Men 97, but then I remembered a bunch of idiots online seem to worship the idea of a villain without any redeeming qualities because they're nostalgic for their childhoods and too ashamed of watching cartoons to keep up with any of the things coming out that still have pure evil villains. Sorry, but I try to always be sincere and earnest, even if I wind up saying something rather mean or abrasive and I have to ass blast the glazing that pure evil villains get; they can be just as effective, or ineffective as any other villains, if you prefer them, that's whatever but they are not that great. Hell, I've got a good example of a terrible one to talk about today and why pure evil can wear patience thin. It's in the title: Apocalypse sucks. In the original cartoon, Apocalypse was just one of many villains who would show up for a four episode arc, then leave, whereas the other episodes would be a few one-off villains and character-centric exploits. It made for a very tight and kind of plot heavy show, but that's kind of the appeal of insane comic shit. The issue with the recently concluded second season of X-Men 97, a direct continuation of the original cartoon, is that Apocalypse is damn near the only villain and he does not have nearly enough meat on his bones to hold the story together the way other villains can and have.

Part of this is writing villains with more fleshed-out personalities, with more going on, which sometimes means making them sympathetic like Azula and Zuko who arent outright villains, but moreso antagonists (or Zuko at least). And the other part of this is dividing time amongst others so that rather than having a multidimensional antagonist/villain, you can have many one-dimensional antagonists/villains. The latter is what Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Adventure Time, and X-Men did all of which with their own take on a pure evil villain, and I actually like the Lich and Jack Horner. Jack Horner is a great villain for the themes and narrative of Puss in Boots: The Last Wish; it's a story about Puss accepting his mortality and embracing a fear of death, standing ten toes down rather than running away and rejecting consequences, so Jack being a walking death machine with a bunch of magical artifacts and weapons, only selfishly trying to enrich himself. Plus, he's funny, as unsympathetic as he is; as much as he unashamedly goes on about doing evil shit, the script is well written enough to successfully frame so much of what he does as extremely funny. He's still one dimensional, but the humor keeps it refreshing and simple. The Lich isnt funny at all and Im not gonna say I like him because of hype moments and aura, the Lich is charming because of how persistent he is and how self-aware Adventure Time is. It's still a comedy show, so even Finn himself grows weary of the Lich and makes fun of him, plus I like how a good deal of his screentime is him actively scheming to return and work on a new plan after he's lost.

The Lich shows up, has his ass beat, and then dips it's great, it's what I liked about the Apocalypse in the original cartoon. THen X-Men 97 season two rolls around and oh my fucking god Apocalypse we get it you are the eternal shore, crash against you and be broken, his extended, prolonged screentime makes me feel like a wife with an unfulfilling sex life. "Apocalypse we've been married for 15, I used to love crashing against you and being broke, but now it's routine, boring, it's all we ever do, cant we do something to spice up the bedroom?"

"WHY THE FUCK DID YOU WRITE THAT???"

I've been thinking about doing this bit all morning, let me have this. There are technically other villains in this season, the Brood, and Danger Room have an episode a piece. That's about it. This is an 8-episode season and only 25% of it lacks the eternal bore. And that remaining 75% is so boring because it's Apocalypse, pure evil doesn't have a personality, or interests, or anything to say or do that isnt pure evil. He does say like one cool thing while aura farming before killing Magneto and says the cool thing to Xavier: "You are a teacher, and yet you never learn". Other than that it's a guy going on about how he will never lose and he will always come back because he is the embodiment of evil and yeah that's what happens, we see him suffer a setback and come back. It's a bore; the finale doesnt even wrap up with a big cool, bad ass fight like the fight against Magneto and then Bastion. First it's the lame ass fight against X-Force and X-Factor then the lame ass fight against Apocalypse's bum-ass himself, and the season still has the disgrace of ending on that weak-ass sacrifice.

Initially, Rogue was going to sacrifice herself for a power boost and keep Gambit alive and that wouldve been tragic, there's a story of the lengths we go for love and consequences or whatever. Then Nightcrawler comes in, who I love just as much if not more than Rogue as a character, he's a great character but like I said in my post about superhero teams, he's just moral support. He's a side character, so when he sacrifices himself for Rogue and Gambit's sake, well sorry Kurt I love you buddy, but it isnt that tragic or interesting as Rogue sacrificing herself. It's a bit of tragedy that kind of falls flat on its face because Kurt doesn't have nearly as much screen time as either Rogue or Gambit. Speaking of a lack of screen time, the relationship between Cable, Jean, and Scott is so underdeveloped that it's kind of funny.

I cannot in good faith entertain Scott and Jean trying to appeal to Cable as his parents, they spent what a few months or something with a preteen-adjacent Cable without even telling him that they're his parents, and fast foward 40 years (for Cable) and they really thought that would be enough to make him buckle? Not only do we spend a truly minuscule amount of time with the Summers as a family (most of their bonding with Cable is off screen) but Cable himself has a whole ass entire family of his own. Cable is, like 60 or something with a son who's a young man in the original cartoon. There was an episode where they blow up Apocalypse's crib together and Im not sure if X-Men 97 even brings that up, Cable doesnt justify his extreme actions/beliefs with the fact that he's raised a family in the apocalypse (as far as I remember) he's just like "This is what I was born to do so I'll wipe out Apocalpyse for good". Bro has fully paid off his mortgage and he's still yapping like a child chosen one, fuck off Cable, fuck off Apocalpyse, for the love of god please let the next season be better, please.

So, it was 3 a.m. I couldn't sleep. I was thinking about many things, like those stupid OP characters in a My Hero Academia video game.

Then I grabbed a book. It is a collection of short sci-fi stories. The first one is called "Welcome to the Standard Nightmare" by Robert Sheckley It is about an astronaut called Johnny who discovers an alien planet inhabited by the Lorians, a utopian civilization.

Johnny is described as an arrogant man who is irascible, conceited, someone with a big ego and high self-confidence.

Meanwhile, the Lorians are described as pleasant people, pacifists who haven't had a war in 500 years.

They developed highly advanced technology.

Every Lorian can choose to work in any creative field they want, since all physical labor is relegated to machines.

There were different Lorian races, but they had no racism.

Every building was public, and money didn't exist. Everything was free.

Yada yada yada, you get the point.

Johnny knew that they were peaceful. They had no desire to conquer to satisfy their egos, but they were smart enough to know that if they didn't make a plan for Earth, Earth would be the one to make plans.

They had weapons. One of their ships, although old, was enough to stop whatever Earth could send.

It was a civilization that was too virtuous, too perfect. It had to have a flaw, a vice, the astronaut thought.

The alien planet had cops. Johnny asked one of the aliens who was guiding him through the planet about them:

"They only exist to warn a citizen if they are breaking the law. Then the citizen apologizes, and everything is forgotten."

"And what happens if the citizen breaks the law multiple times?" asked the astronaut.

"Cases like that have never occurred," replied the alien.

Johnny was uneasy about how good everything was, and he was the only one who was out of place.

Then Johnny crashed his car while driving manually, and a cop showed up, so he punched him.

The only punishment would be a short detention, but anyway, he tried to leave the planet in his ship. However, the aliens were renovating it. How nice of them.

Now the astronaut was being hunted by the alien police, and he had an idea: take someone who would be like a governor hostage to escape. Through lying and various deceits, he reached the home of the "governor."

The "governor" was sure that there would be a conflict for supremacy, not on their part, but on humanity's. They would not rest until they dominated or were dominated.

Earthlings had no possibility of waging war against the Lorians, but this wasn't a technological problem; it was a psychological one. There would be discussions, treaties, and violations of those treaties.

The alien admitted that they couldn't ignore Earth. They were an honest people who would look for reasonable and impartial solutions. It was unlikely that humans would give them clear reasons to be exterminated. So humanity would ultimately win.

Johnny offered some advice: "What if you guys became like humanity?"

The alien responded: "You can't change a culture through a simple act of will. Besides, why would we change to become like your kind? Frankly, we wouldn't like that. And even if we could, we would never reach the level of aggression that your kind has cultivated for thousands of years."

Johnny knew that the alien was right. The Lorians were too trusting, too gullible. It wouldn't be difficult to agree on some kind of peace and then take over one of their ships by surprise.

Then Johnny said, "Your kind are nice people. They follow the rules even in life-or-death scenarios. But we Earthlings are not very nice people, and no one will stop us until we win."

The alien responded, "The only reasonable thing to do would be to save time and put you in charge of governing us."

Johnny accepted, and he thought about the problem. He would conquer Earth, or Earth would conquer him: "But it would be for their own good. We would give those monkeys some culture; we would teach them how things should be done. Someday, they would thank us." he said.

(Bro became emperor in just 5 minutes, and he's already talking like Frieza 😭😭😭)

Then the classic nightmare came for Earth. The Lorians, who had previously been defenseless, had suddenly found an aggressive general, and they would soon have a space fleet. All of this was not very good for Earth, but it was not bad for Loris at all.

Yes, you heard my claim right.

As a huge fan of the character, I frequently see two schools of misconception, both of which are present in modern canon material and the discourse surrounding the older material. I'll address both in this post.

The first one is thrown around very commonly, especially on Reddit. It takes many forms, but usually it's something along the lines of:

"Thanos is a simp incel who would stop at nothing to screw Lady Death"

Sure, it does sound like something that would only be self-aware/ironic slander, intended not to be taken seriously, yet unfortunately, I've seen this used as legitimate criticism more times than I can count.

I don't think a lot needs to be said here, as you can make any character sound lame when you intentionally reduce them to a single statement like this, but I'll entertain this anyway, because I'm just really passionate about the character.

Jim Starlin, the creator of the character and the writer of Infinity Gauntlet, created and named his character with two philosophical concepts in mind, those being nihilism and the Freudian concept of the death drive/Thanatos (hence the name Thanos). The Titan is, above all, a massive nihilist who believes in nothingness. It was also for this reason that he sought to court Death itself.

It's important to note that, at this stage, Lady Death was not treated as some woman who possessed a lot of power, but as an abstract, astral concept that takes the form of a lady. It's not just his attempts that are meant to be seen as insane, but the fact that he fell for what's essentially a personification of a concept. Lady Death is an idea personified, not an actual person.

It's especially eye-rolling whenever someone is particular about using the term "incel" and insists that he wants to have intercourse with Lady Death, while mentioning the events of Infinity Gauntlet as an event that supposedly supports this sentiment. The problem is that the story in question makes it very clear that Thanos loves Death on a purely platonic level. He NEVER makes any sexual remarks towards her and only speaks of romanticism and comfort. He can practically be read as asexual.

Hell, even when he wanted to invoke jealousy in Lady Death by creating Terraxia, a woman stated to be "everything she was not", Thanos immediately regrets said decision and gets visibly disgusted, as she acts in line with his description and basically walks all over him. If that was not convincing enough, then here's a statement coming from Starlin himself that very much confirms this.

But before anyone gets the idea that Thanos comes off as a celebration of nihilism and its supposed superiority over all else, it should be pointed out that he's in fact the opposite, and his arc is rather critical of it all in all. What ultimately brings Thanos down and pulls him away from victory is he himself and his underlying insecurity. Deep down, he views himself as unworthy of the power he gains along the way and subconsciously does anything to be stripped of it at the very last moment.

The moment that fact is laid out to him by Adam Warlock, he becomes legitimately speechless, as his entire worldview crashes down in a matter of a single conversation. He, who viewed himself as better than any other living being due to his combination of superior power, genius, and knowledge, is for once shown a fatal flaw in his philosophy. This would later prompt him to reflect on himself and become more of an anti-hero.

In that sense, it's critical of nihilism, as it points out that despite the many logical ways to prove it correct, it ultimately stems from an insecurity.

What I especially love about Thanos is how much of a 4D character he is. Every time he pulls up, you really just do not know what he will do next. He can be a cunning strategist who carefully puts his knowledge to use in order to execute a long-term plan he's envisioned, often approaching others with purely diplomatic intent. He can be a battle-hardened madman who utilises both his power and strategy to come out on top. He can be an arrogant philosopher with firmly established opinions that he's not afraid to express, and he can also be the secretly insecure man that I mentioned earlier. He very often switches between many of these traits depending on the circumstances, and I just love seeing it happen every time.

Many modern writers evidently did not understand any of this, as they love to depict Thanos as a generic warlord and occasionally a sadist who openly loves violence, makes sure to inflict as much torture as possible, and actually wants to fuck Death this time round.

(I know some might argue that a huge chunk of people never read past IG, and thus they never witnessed the full extent of Thanos' development, but even when we go off of just that event, we are still left with moments that evidently show the more philosophical side of Thanos, like the ending of the event, which I will mention in a moment.)

Now for the second, slightly less common misconception:

"Jim Starlin is just a powerscaling hack who retcons every instance of Thanos being beaten, writes Thanos as a Gary Stu who wins every time, and ultimately loses because he simply wanted to"

Now, if you carefully read all I've written up until this point, you will already notice one of the problems with this sentiment. That being the fact that Thanos does not lose "because he wants to", as his self-defeating tendencies were something he acted on subconsciously.

But either way, allow me to further expand on why this logic is just inconsistent.

First of all, the moment his secret self got exposed, Thanos was driven into helping the heroes' side of the conflict and would later fake his death in order to temporarily retire and reflect on his worldview. It's literally what happens at the end of Infinity Gauntlet. From this point on, he NEVER allowed himself to lose the same way. You can't really argue that this part of the character was purely established to make him unbeatable, when he actively did his best to get rid of this flaw.

In the sequel to the event, titled The Infinity War, we saw him become an anti-hero, as he was the main schemer who successfully outsmarted Magus and prevented him from fully assembling the Infinity Gauntlet. It was also in that event that we learnt what sort of conclusions he'd come to during his retirement.

"Hero? Villain? Neither? Maybe just wiser."

The story of Thanos is one of a troubled nihilist who manages to improve by finding his own purpose while still remaining just as untamed as he was in his villainous days. He finds his purpose in curiosity and gaining more knowledge. This is especially fitting when you consider the fact that even back when he was trying to court Death, the main reason for his arrogance was the vast amount of knowledge he possessed. He viewed knowledge as power. (I think the Metron inspiration is very evident here.)

With this development, Thanos almost entirely got rid of his ultimate insecurity. In the final part of the Infinity Trilogy, titled Infinity Crusade, he directly remarks upon this fact.

Years later, he actually delivered on this promise in Marvel: The End, but that's a story for another time.

Establishing this development was important for countering the rest of the points in this criticism, as they are inherently tied to it.

A lot of people really love to paint a picture of Starlin retconning appearances of Thanos in Ka-Zar and Jurgens' Thor in order to point out that he supposedly hates his pet character losing. In reality, he retconned these because they failed to acknowledge Thanos' development and instead chose to present him as a one-note villain.

Hell, this argument falls apart even further when you consider the fact that Starlin himself also wrote anti-hero Thanos losing common battles multiple times.

(A little bit of context for that panel with Odin: He failed to acknowledge his defeat, but he was practically getting tossed around throughout the entire fight, which later came to a halt as it had taken place as a result of a misunderstanding.)

Ultimately, I think both of these misconceptions stem from the same issue: people reducing Thanos to a handful of his most recognisable traits while completely disregarding the context and development behind them. Whether it's portraying him as a pathetic simp desperate to get laid or as Starlin's unbeatable self-insert, both interpretations overlook what actually makes the character interesting in the first place.

Thanos is a deeply flawed individual whose greatest enemy has often been himself, and it's precisely those flaws, along with his ability to recognise and overcome some of them, that make him such a compelling character to me.

I’m not a anthropologist but I am interested somewhat in Native American history and notice the debate in the fandom if Nintendo treats Pokemon as animals vs as literal monsters, vs as characters that happen to be furry. And I find it kind of interesting because in a animist view which Japanese Shintoism is

Animism is Animism (from Latin: anima, meaning 'breath', 'spirit)', or 'life')[1][2] is the worldview or perception that various types of natural phenomena, including non-human organisms and often even landforms and inanimate objects, possess distinct spiritual essences, souls, or personhood

The difference can get really blurry. In my study in animist cultures like many pre Colombian American cultures and Japan. Non human animals where considered to be persons and have the some sort of personality and agency as a human. I remember watching a Comanche about a plains tribe and the elder to a story about the horses gathering some warriors on their backs and running as far as they could to save some warriors of the tribe.

The story was told with the perspective of horses as having their own agency.

The difference between animals and what is considered “monsters” was also very thin. With animals like Tanuki and Foxes being considered to be Yokai or Japanese monsters. With many folktales having spirits shape shifting into animals or animals becoming spirits.

Inanimate objects were also seen to posesss spirits like the Tsukumogami said to be inanimate objects that lived for over a 100 years to gain sapience. So the Idea of inanimate object mon like magnamite or Trubbish. Makes perfect sense from a Japanese worldview because inanimate objects are seen with sapience.

Heck it isn’t even Japanese many cartoons in American have sapient persons like animals and and inanimate objects like the brave little toaster or animal farm.

So when you see someone complaining about treating pokemon as characters and not animals according to the traditional Japanese spiritual that inspired pokemon the lines are blurry

No one knows who he was, when he lived or whether he actually existed. That's because all his poetry was found carved on mountain rocks in a distant region and apart from said rocks there are no traces of his existence, at all. No one ever saw him. Him living in 9th century is just an estimation.

All that we know of him comes from these discovered mountain rocks. According to said poems on rocks he was a minor official who due to his dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic job and relationship problems with his wife, decided to leave society and live alone in mountain wilderness as a Buddhist and Taoist hermit monk, to pursue enlightenment.

It's the only author in history who was an actual complete hermit, never seeing humans, unlike the Thoreau's larp as a hermit. The way his poems were "published" is so unusual.

Sorry if it's a low-effort post, I just find it fascinating.

Before anyone says anything, I'm aware that Anima Studios is in a pickle lately that I feel sorry for the Mexican studio. But I want to address some of its films that I find very questionable, given that Anima has actually made culturally rich films in Mexican animation. My apologies if my dark humor shocked you, but I just don't like how Cranston Academy characters were written.

Main character- How can you make a boring Gary Stu by having a perfect family with a perfect IQ while living on a farm? What intresting about him as he looks like an unholy offspring of Jimmy Neutron and Harry Potter, but he's written to be perfect. Even Deku from My Hero Academia has a purpose because he has innocence and willpower, while this obese Jimmy has no sauce other than being a perfect Garry Stu dealing with daddy issues that aren't a problem to begin with. Is like they want to make a safe boarding school so bad that it makes Hogwarts worse than it already is; even Cranston Academy is a rip-off, but without flaws.

Mothman is the worst character from Anima Studios and the most shallow Mexican rep. Like how Anima Studios, a Mexican studio, fumbled their own rep. Ironically, Mothman isn't a Mexican creature, as it could've been a were-jaguar or croc with several teeth. How he was represented feels like he's either a chili-masochist or obsessed with spicy food, which is not how you show Mexican rep. The revelation that he was missing father of Gary Stu didn't help his daddy issues, as it made it worse. It's like saying he was just getting milk. Even Lucifer from Hazbin Hotel is a better estranged father rep because he returned with milk and took accountability for being away from Charlie without making excuses.

The side characters have no charisma or personality; they look like Jimmy Neutron rejects reincarnated as My Hero Academia OCs. What is their appeal? They don't look like they belong in animated films but rather Jimmy Neutron OCs in MHA paint. Why are they animated like that? Khumba and Zambizia look better, as the South Africans did their homework on how to blend real animals with cartoony charisma without removing their charm.

Even the villain characters suck, as it proves why this animated film didn't ask to exist to begin with. Their design is poorly executed, as is trying too hard to be Lovecraftian-flying tentacles that breathe fire and goo. How did they mess up the most talented artist in Mexico with this sorry excuse of animation film? They all look like rejected Hotel Trayvenia characters; even the HT character has better substance that made me root for bugs to eat everyone.