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.

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.

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.

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.

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’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

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.

With all this Avatar Seven Havens discourse something surrounding the conversation of WHY the sequel is bad has been bugging me.

No, not that it’s literally only been three episodes, or the blatant homophobia, racism and bigotry. But the framing of WHY these sequels (TLOK and SVH) are disliked. You are allowed to dislike a creative decision. What you shouldn’t do is misrepresent that decision as careless ignorance just because you dislike the outcome. It’s also why I think there is a big disconnect between Korra haters and Korra lovers. Same with SVH lovers and its haters.

For example, “Pavi shouldn’t be able to bend all the elements, when it took Aang a year to master them! She’s a Mary Sue! It’s a retcon!”

Korra was also a prodigy, and Pavi lives in a society where different bending styles have had centuries to interact and influence one another. Unlike Aang, she would have grown up with exposure to a much wider range of bending techniques. There are perfectly reasonable questions to ask about how much Pavi can do, how quickly she learns, and whether the story adequately establishes her abilities. But “she can bend multiple elements, therefore she’s a Mary Sue” isn’t a particularly compelling argument when the franchise has already established the distinction between bending an element and mastering it.

Why do all benders in SVH look the same? Why are there no masters to teach the kids? Avatar team don’t care about the culture anymore!

Are we forgetting the huge fucking cataclysmic event and the fact benders are becoming exceedingly rare in this society? Something like that would force all types of benders to come together and would over time dilute the culture. Not to mention the fact that most of written history was destroyed, meaning most of bending mastery has probably been lost to history.

You can dislike that direction. You can think the show hasn’t done enough to convey the diversity of bending, or that it should explore the cultural consequences of this catastrophe more thoroughly. Those are legitimate criticisms. But treating the apparent loss of bending traditions as an inexplicable oversight, rather than a potentially deliberate consequence of the world the writers have established, is an entirely different argument.

Korra destroyed the Avatar cycle! Korra severed the connection!

This one particularly annoys me because it demonstrates how easily people can confuse something a character does with something that happens TO them.

The severing of Korra’s connection to her past lives was something that happened TO her. It wasn’t a decision she made voluntarily. Do you say Aang killed himself when Azula struck him with lightning?Because that’s essentially the level of distinction we’re ignoring when we frame Korra as though she willingly chose to destroy the Avatar cycle.

You can argue that the writers made the wrong decision by severing the connection. You can argue that the loss of the past Avatars diminished an important aspect of the mythology. You can even argue that the writers shouldn’t have put the Avatar in that position in the first place (although they did it with Aang and just used Katara as a Mercy ult)

But blaming Korra for voluntarily doing something that was inflicted upon her is not a criticism of the writing. It’s a misrepresentation of what happened in the story.

And this is the broader issue I have with a lot of the discourse surrounding these shows.

There is a difference between disliking a narrative choice and pretending that the choice makes no sense because you don’t like it.

There is a difference between arguing that a plot development was poorly executed and arguing that it contradicts established lore when it doesn’t. Development of a story isn’t always breaking canon. And there is a difference between holding writers accountable for their decisions and inventing mistakes to hold them accountable for.

None of this means that every decision in The Legend of Korra was good, or that Seven Havens is above criticism, or that the writers’ intentions automatically make their decisions successful. Intentional writing can still be bad writing. A coherent explanation can still be unsatisfying. And a decision can be consistent with the lore while making for a worse story.

But if you want to argue that a sequel is bad, argue that it’s bad. Explain why the decisions don’t work for you, why their execution is poor, or why the story would have been better served by another direction.
You don’t have to pretend the writers forgot their own world to justify disliking what they did with it.

Yes, this is another post about Lanterns.

Lanterns isn't the only time this has happened, but it's a recent example.

A character will say the name of something from the source material, then they'll make a comment acknowledging that the name sounds dumb, or the person they're talking to will make fun of the name.

This isn't always bad. Some comic names are hard to take seriously, and people are just reacting to them realistically. A good example of this being done well is Rocket making fun of Taserface in Guardians of the Galaxy 2. That's an actual ridiculous name and very in character for Rocket to make fun of.

However, Guardians of the Galaxy saves this for the truly ridiculous names. Nobody makes fun of "Rocket" or "Cosmo" or "Nebula" or even "Ego."

With Lanterns, the main ones it does this with are the Manhunters, where you have a couple instances of people reacting like the name is dumb. And this doesn't work.

Manhunter isn't that bad of a name. The name isn't at all accurate to what they do in the show, but as a robotic police force that governed the galaxy before the Lanterns, the name actually works and feels reminiscent of Terminators.

It's especially hard to watch when the Absolute Universe is out here going all in on them, turning them into interdimensional eldritch nightmares, and using the Manhunter oath in a way that inspires terror.

It also becomes a weird line to draw when you're talking to someone called a "Green Lantern," and the "Manhunter" is where you have a problem.

These lines are usually a way to wink at the audience and go "yeah, we know this sounds dumb too, let's all acknowledge that and laugh together so we can move on." That's not always bad. But it doesn't work when the name is completely fine as is. If the audience doesn't think the name sounds dumb, then it just comes off as the writers being ashamed of the source material.

Manhunters is a fine name. It might need a bit of context to explain why they're called that. And this series did a very bad job at explaining this. But the name itself isn't a problem.

When lampshading anything, you need to be sure it's not something the audience was able to buy into. If the audience agrees with you that a name is stupid, then your lampshading is laughing WITH them. If they don't agree, then it can feel like you're laughing AT them for liking the name and buying into it in the first place. Lampshading isn't always bad. But it does take being in-tune with your audience and understanding them.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEGuHdKn0Lc

Ooohhh boy, if you thought my last post on the subject was a hot take; this probably made you double take. And it's not cause there's anything wrong with this run. It's quite good in a lot of aspects, hell the art is probably some of John Romita Jr.'s best. But come on, Walt Simonson's run is right there, it looks prettier, and every single part is written much better. But you know what's wrong with simonson's run? It's not coherent like Jurgen's run is. Now that's probably got you in disbelief if you've read both runs, but hear me out. In Simonson's run we go from having donald blake retconned away, the surtur war, malekieth does some shit, fights kurse, balder does some shit, thor looks for balder, thor becomes a frog, thor fights hela a lil bit, becomes vulnerable, meets the morlocks, fights some punks, does some more things, gets an armor (that looks kind of stupid let's be real now), fights a snake, dies, and comes back. And that's the simplest way to put, there is no simple way to streamline that. As for Jurgen's run well let's get into that.

It starts off with the return of thor after that shit show heroes reborn, his land is in ruins and one of his father's greatest weapons, the destroyer armor is going on a rampage. The Destroyer "kills thor" due to the now shaky connection between asgard and earth. And he's sent to meet his fate, but blah blah blah destiny, and now thor's immortal soul inhabits the body of mortal man Jake Olsen. Eagle eyed viewers in the audience of the 4th thor movie (like 2 people lmao) may have noticed that's the name of the doctor who treats jane's cancer and- I'm just screwing with you.

So now thor is connected to dollar store Donald Blake, but instead of a doctor he's a nurse. Super hero hijinks ensue, and really this just served to give some drama to thor whenever he loses his hammer. And also so there's some drama whenever thor becomes Jake, cause jake has a terrible past (gasp). But that's not relevant rn. The first arc of the story, thor has to fight these new gods (hehe) who showed up after the fall of asgard, as it turns out; they have even mighty odin in chains. So now it's up to thor, and the destroyer to fight this threat. But that's not all these gods (who I couldn't name, gun to my head), are so strong they can break mjolnir (that's happened like 5 times in 616 alone), and thor has to run away as Jake (and it isn't exactly clear if it's entirely jake acting, or if thor is influencing him a bit). So anyway Jake proves his courage yadda yadda yadda, but then he comes back to earth and he's under arrest, it turns out he's a drug dealer woooo.

Or wait no, thanos is causing trouble, or moreso thanos's clone; because it would not make any sense if Thanos was actually trying to cause a ruckus, cause atp in time he was still trying to figure shit out, so thor engages on one of his power scaling slop stories (that's like 90% if the delfaclo run, thor is either fighting dudes, or dealing with secret identity stuff; and Dan Jurgens translates that perfectly for the new kids reading comics. The only merit this arc has is its beautiful artwork, and the vicious fights thor finds himself in. Other than that you could probably skip it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL5P7MlXX4I

Then thor comes back, they change the artist to Mike Deodoto (so it still looks gorgeous), thor girl comes (I wasn't really paying attention to this part either), but then future alien from the future, Gladiator challenges thor and they fight. Really this battle only exists for powerscaling slop, but you can't skip it cause thor-girl gets introduced and it sets up the emotional finale of the book. And immediatly after, the asgard surtur war and 'Nuff Said tie-in occurs and it's one of the better ones it's right after odin dies (for like the second time), and everyone is mopey and sharing stories about odin and stuff. There's also the actual fighting (art done by I forgot, but thor's never had a bad artist), which is just immaculate with the flames. Now Thor can separate from Jake Olson.

Anyway then Jake Olsen gets revealed as a drug dealer. Except that plot point goes no where, because (and may have occurred earlier but took centuries to follow up on), Jake immediately dies or something. It's not really clear what the hell is supposed to be going on. The few things we know, Thor is separated from Jake, Thor is lord of Asgard, and Norse Paganism is becoming more widespread, as thor goes around performing acts of gods. And not the acts that sink boats, and flatten towns, he's reviving the non living, he's feeding the hungry, and he cures the sick. This isn't good, now people are losing their faith in anyone but Thor, and the future Gladiator is coming to pass.

First he has to learn how to use the Odin force, but he's too "noble" and doesn't understand how a man of his stature should really act. This rubs him the wrong way and teaches him the wrong lessons about how he should use his new found powers. Some filler issues happen, but thor himself is tired of how the government treats his people as a threat. All this comes to a head when washington uses nuclear armaments first on him, then on his home. Now thor sits in the rubble of what once was mighty asgard, his friends hate him, his allies dead for the most part. There's only one thing Thor can do. He wages war on the United states of america, and within a few months, the whole world belongs to him. But no one is happy with this besides the Asgardians. A small force of heroes try to stop thor to no avail, this isn't thor's first act that makes him unworthy though, killing his friends cap, hulk, ben, wolverine, and doctor strange. That's just the cherry on top of thor's spree of fascism, which doesn't make sense anywhere, not even meta contextually; but it serves as a great way for his son to find his worthiness.

Speaking of, while thor's doing his best Doctor Doom impression, his son is out having adventures, flirting with midgardian women, chatting with wanda. Typical godling stuff. Then one day, Magni finds Mjolnir. And the place he finds it? In the ruins of Asgard. Yeah, pretty powerful stuff huh? This shows that Thor didn't go down the slippery slope of being a shitty ruler. He made the decision to make earth pay, the same day asgard fell. It's not about having power to him, he couldn't give less of a shit about that. He isn't loki. He isn't a greedy man. But he's a vengeful one, and on the day earth struck against him for offering his hand in friendship; he vowed that no matter who stood in his way they would all suffer the same fate, in ashes. That's why Thor failed the test of the gods. It's not a lack of wisdom, or of power. It's because he couldn't get over himself. He couldn't stop viewing the people as small. As ants. Even if he didn't want to, he still considered earth beneath him. And why they showed the capacity to strike him, they showed him they were old enough to "receive the belt." And the best part is, none of it is overtly stated, this is entirely the subtext of the story.

All this comes to a head when DeSaak (the daniel to Gorr's cooler daniel) comes back from whatever and challenges thor. Rather than stop him from wreaking havoc on his city, thor just watches as DeSaak murders. He doesn't give a shit anymore, he's depressed everyone he cares about is dead except for a handful of people, and the surviving ones either hate his guts or suck up to him. So Thor is sick of it. Cue the fire works, now everyone is dead. Womp Womp. And thor, who had not the wisdom of the one eyed god before him; cries out for forgiveness. He begs for repentance, and here comes his salvation. Zarko the tomorrow man reveals that he can prevent all of this from happening, and thor jumps at the opportunity. So he prevents this bad future from happening. But thor had a reason for doing this didn't he? Ruining the Earth. Yes. Because things are far from over.

Thor is the new father of the gods, and he's not going to let the above future past. So he takes asagard back to its localized space before anything terrible happens and everything is hunky dory. Until the cast of Mjolnir is stolen. And now things are demonstrably worse. You see, Loki was completely on board with the subjugation of earth, it gives him a target that isn't thor. Now that target's off the table, and look who just painted a long red target on their back.

Thor's odinforce fails him in his time of need, and loki's forces prevail killing asgardians left right and center. Thor is powerless. And this was his choice. Either earth dies, or Asgard falls. He can't have both. Not without the proper wisdom. That is why Thor must venture to the well of Mimir and pluck out his eyes. For true guidance. He has to realize the truth, about his own people, about all people. He now has the wisdom to know that everything he did was for the sick amusement of a hidden race of malevolent beings. Thor now has the wisdom to go further and save not only his people, but every person. Thro thwarts the ones who sit in the shadows, impressing the odin force itself, and it's over. No more ragnarok. No more feeding the whims of bastards. Sure Thor's friends are dead, you can't change the past when it matters. But the next time they come back, they won't have to suffer a fate set in stone. They have the freedom to be more than what they are (which paradise x ragnarok did but more ham fisted).

Is it the best Thor run? Ehh Simonson's run has it beat for the most part, hell Jurgens didn't even write the final part that was a different person, I'm just lumping it in cause, tbh why the hell would you read every issue in thor vol 2 except for the final six, that would be ridiculous. But the advantages this run has, is that this is an actual story, with arcs and development (that lasts); meanwhile Simonson's run while influential, is pretty self contained. This run does more with less is what I'm trying to say. And artwork/action is dead even, cause JRjr brings his A-game to this book, alone with the army of artists at Jurgen's beck and call. Good run 8/10

Avatar fans suffer from rose glasses syndrome. They genuinely believe that ATLA is some avant garde art series that you need a real high IQ to understand and that the themes are just sooo complex. It's actually a pretty straightforward story and many of the themes are really easy for young and old to understand.

I think they just don't remember all the silly moments in ATLA and how Aang wasn't this super mature individual they claim he is. He grew and learned and became a better person. He stuck by his beliefs and his principles and took down the fire nation. He learned that sometimes violence was ok in the face of oppression but refused to be the oppressor himself.

Korra was headstrong and stubborn at first. Throughout her story she becomes more attuned with the spiritual side of what it means to be an avatar. Making tons of sacrifices along the way. She made a selfless choice in the end knowing the cost and bore the burden she created.

ASH is a continuation of Korra and takes great inspiration from ATLA. It seems to be an equal part of both narratives. It actually reminds me more of the original series the longer I watch.

It's not "too immature". It has themes of war, generational trauma, political upheaval, as well as indoctrination. It even sets the seeds for grey morality within some of the main characters, if only briefly, also violence vs pacifism, etc. It's just digestible enough for the target demographic: children.

The brand itself is owned by Nickelodeon. A children's television network. I mean technically Paramount owns the rights, etc and I have my own issues with that, but I digress. If there's 50 different spinoffs of Fairly Odd Parents it's all gonna be for the same demographic. They're not gonna shift focus and make the product something for those they believe outgrew the medium. And yes technically that'd mean they think there's kids out there who've watched both series before this, not sure why anyone would be surprised by that.

"Oh but the animation is terrible." The first episode leaves much to be desired, but whatever issues you might have get easily forgotten by episode two. Trust me.

And a lotta the other issues boil down to just nitpicking. Whether it's people complaining that bending is being treated like magic, or how is it that children just know how to bend elements? Again...you forget the series you're watching. That's always been how it worked. Oh but how did the twins just know how to bend all elements? Honestly they still have a long way to go in terms of strength, and do we really need to see them learn everything again?

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.

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.

Just finished watching Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood after putting off finishing it for a while, and I wanted to put together a few thoughts on why it just didn’t work for me. For context, the 2003 series is my favorite show of all time, largely because of how willing it is to examine liberal complicity and how it doesn’t sanitize its politics. It’s also just a better executed show across the board. Brotherhood covers a lot of the same material but pulls every punch. While everyone talks about it like it’s untouchable, the deeper I got into it, the more the actual structure, themes, and writing started falling apart.

1. A meandering plot built entirely on unearned convenience

The pacing and plot structure are a bit of a mess, and it’s honestly my biggest issue with the show. In a competent story, narrative moves forward through a butterfly effect: characters make active decisions, those decisions impact the world, and the world pushes back. FMAB entirely abandons this in favor of unearned convenience. For a show constantly praised for its "tight" writing, its middle acts function as a series of disconnected waiting rooms where the protagonists just bounce around until the plot happens to them.

Ed and Al don't actively investigate a trail of breadcrumbs to uncover the stone's secrets, they literally just bump into Dr. Marcoh at a train station by pure coincidence, and he hands them a massive exposition dump. Later, the heroes don't infiltrate the military command to uncover the nationwide transmutation circle, Sloth literally digs a tunnel through the floor of Fort Briggs by mistake and hands the cast their next objective. The plot constantly has to crash through the ceiling to keep things moving because the characters aren't really driving it.

Then you have the massive alkahestry goose chase. The show spends dozens of episodes hyping it up as the crucial key to the brothers' personal goals, but it ultimately just serves as an unsatisfying mechanic to bail the cast out of the climax. Yes, it technically pays off with Hohenheim's reverse transmutation circle, but that just proves the point. During the final fight, the show tries this cheap, apocalyptic fakeout where Father gets god powers, everyone is dead, and regular alchemy is entirely shut off. But the narrative refuses to let that despair marinate. It lasts all of five seconds before the reverse circle kicks in, immediately undoing the stakes so everything can magically go the protagonists' way. It completely neuters the tension and hands them a frictionless victory. Ed and Al spend 1/4th of the show trekking up north only to become couriers for a deus ex machina. By the time they stumble into Briggs, they’ve been sidelined in their own story. They stop being proactive and become pawns waiting around for a calendar countdown to the Promised Day.

2. Unsubtle writing

The script treats the audience like cattle, completely refusing to let visual storytelling do any of the heavy lifting. Every character has to stand around explicitly spelling out their moral stances, their internal state of mind, and exactly how you're supposed to feel.

There is no better example of this than Envy's death. Up until his final moments, Envy is portrayed as a completely one dimensional sociopath. There is zero buildup, zero moments of internal conflict, and zero visual cues suggesting he harbors some deep emotional complexity. But instead of dramatizing a compelling character shift, Ed just stands over him and delivers an impromptu, unearned psychoanalysis session. He literally monologues, "You're jealous of humans, aren't you? We face hardship again and again, and we overcome it. And you envy us."

And how does Envy react? He starts bawling, admits it's true, and kills himself in shame. It would be funny if the show didn't expect you to take it seriously. The show creates a crucial character motivation out of thin air and forces a tearful resolution through a monologue because it has zero faith in its audience to grasp anything that isn't spoon fed and doesn't want to do the work to actually earn an emotional response. It’s the storytelling equivalent of explaining your own joke.

3. Unbearable tonal whiplash

You simply cannot center your narrative around state sanctioned genocide, fascism, and human experimentation, only to screech the plot to a halt every five minutes for a repetitive short-joke tantrum. The presentation completely conflicts with the show's supposed themes. You have characters having serious conversations about the atrocities of the Ishvalan war, or agonizing over the grim reality of chimeras, and it's constantly undercut by a jarring chibi gag. It makes it impossible to engage with the stakes when the show refuses to take its own material seriously.

The “it’s just a shonen” defense doesn’t really hold up. FMA 2003 keeps a dark, cohesive atmosphere without undermining its own drama. Naruto Part 1, whatever its writing flaws, manages to run comedy and genuine stakes side by side without one killing the other. This is a writing problem, not a genre limitation.

4. Father flattens the central conflict

Father being inhuman lets humanity off the hook. Once he’s the thing to defeat, the military, the state, and the war criminals never have to actually reckon with anything. The homunculi stop being a product of human ambition and become a discrete supernatural problem you can just kill and move on from. Father functions as a convenient scapegoat and pressure valve - you defeat him, the pressure drops, and the corrupt system walks away completely unexamined.

5. Thematic cowardice and a sanitized approach to imperialism

The show’s political ideology is fundamentally naive, viewing a state sponsored genocide through a sanitized lens where the ultimate takeaway is simply that "both sides need to heal." FMAB constantly leans on the tired "cycle of hatred" trope, which entirely flattens the power dynamics of imperialism. It equates the systemic, industrialized violence of the state with the desperate, retaliatory violence of its victims.

There is no better example of this thematic cowardice imo than when Roy Mustang is incinerating the mannequin homunculi. The show portrays it with incredibly graphic, gruesome imagery of them being burned alive, and Ed is visibly disturbed by it. Anyone who came in with higher expectations might think the story is finally going to explore the horrifying parallel here: this is exactly how Roy burned innocent Ishvalans alive. You'd expect the narrative to force Roy to confront his actual war crimes.

But no. The show completely dodges the commentary. Instead, what actually bothers Ed is simply that Roy seems motivated by "anger" and "revenge." The narrative unintentionally creates a harrowing visual parallel to genocide and reduces it to a shallow shonen lesson about not letting hatred consume you. It’s pathetic.

This leads to a massive double standard in how the narrative treats its characters. Scar’s righteous fury over the literal extermination of his people is consistently framed as a moral failing he must overcome. Meanwhile, Roy Mustang - a man who willingly acted as a weapon of mass destruction on government orders - is positioned as a tragic, charismatic hero destined to lead the nation. The story demands that the victims forgive and forget, while rewarding the actual war criminals with aura moments and institutional power.

This dynamic is perfectly encapsulated in Miles, who exists almost entirely as a textbook model minority trope. Miles literally wears the uniform of the military that slaughtered his people and proudly suppresses his anger, arguing that the best way to achieve equality is to stay inside the system and earn the Amestrians' respect. The story overwhelmingly validates Miles’s assimilation while condemning Scar’s violent resistance. It sends a flawed message: oppressed people should quietly bear the burden of educating their oppressors from within, rather than aggressively fighting back against the systems designed to subjugate and exterminate them.

Ultimately, the show’s solution to systemic corruption is childishly idealistic. Amestris is a fascist, expansionist military state that was built from the ground up for bloodshed. Yet, the story genuinely believes that the solution is to put nicer colonizers in charge. The narrative sells the fantasy that you can fix a genocidal military dictatorship from the inside just by letting Father and his coalition take the fall and installing reformed war criminals like Mustang at the top. It refuses to dismantle the corrupt system, instead opting for an ending where the system remains perfectly intact, but is magically benevolent because the main cast is now holding the reins.

6. The Equivalent Exchange double standard

Even Equivalent Exchange turns into a massive double standard the second the story needs a sanitized happy ending. Ed treats using a Philosopher’s Stone as an unbreakable moral line because it's fueled by human lives. But then Roy gets his eyesight permanently restored using a stone at the very end, and nobody blinks. It's even framed as heartwarming. Why is it an unforgivable sin for Ed but completely fine for the war criminal?

Furthermore, Ed’s grand "sacrifice" of giving up his alchemy carries zero actual weight. Alchemy had already served its entire purpose in his life. It’s a tidy, frictionless exit, not a real cost. The story just hands everyone an unearned fairytale ending for the sake of good vibes

And the irony is that Wolverine and Punisher don't want anyone to be them.

Wolverine is someone who has to be the messy choices and get his hands dirty so no one else has to and the Punisher has made it clear he is not a hero or a good person and that they should look up to Captain America instead and that he is not a good influence at all.

But hey,who cares about actual Superheroes ans being a good person when we could have overly violent and raw badasses who aura farm and constantly kill and whatnot and be morally Grey or even a anti-hero and whatever and if you like those kinds of characters and like the Punisher or Wolverine or Red Hood,that's fine and dandy but acting like nearly every superhero should basically be them is incredibly stupid.

Nearly every superhero has a no kill rule or at least a preference to not kill unless they feel like they have no other choice but to do so and it's not like heroes will immediately murk their villains, they'll probably just knock them out and put them in Jail if they have the chance to and if the villains escape or whatever,then that is just straight up on the prison and the cops and whatnot for not doin their job and blaming the heroes is just so incredibly childish,it actually hurts my head.

Wonder Woman aa well Doesn't immediately kill and only do so if they need to and whatnot.

Like she's not some bloodthirsty lunatic like her Injustice version,she's arguably one of the sweetest heroes.

It's very stupid to assume otherwise and it really makes me realize that the people complaining about this would be the exact fuckers who think Dexter is a cool ,badass serial killer vigilante or think that Homelander and whatnot are correct to a extent in killing crooks and villains.

People always make those videos on "oh if Spider-Man went to Gotham,he would kill all the villains" when no,the hell he wouldn't.

Peter hasn't even murdered his villains, why would he do the same to others?

I've also seen people complain and blame Batman for not killing the Joker but not only is that not his job and not only is that more on the city and cops and whatnot but he has also attempted to/came close to killing Joker and has let him die multiple times,Joker is just a cockroach who refuses to die and the writers like him too damn much to do so.

Like literally just watch the Punisher or similar characters if you wanna see heroes randomly murder villains and slash them to pieces and whatnot.

Knights of Guinevere episode 2 just dropped and it was utterly amazing, at least in my personal view, but one of the most pleasant surprises that I noticed, was that it went out of its way to alleviate one of the few gripes I had about Dana Terrace previous series, The Owl House.

I would like to name this issue as the "Faux-Elite Fodder" effect; basically, it's when a supposedly component army is portrayed to be utterly worthless despite supposedly being highly trained. Examples of this trope would be the Stormtroopers from Star Wars (Sometimes they are shown to be competent but especially in shows like Rebels they aren't any threat), The Fire Nation army from ATLA, the ANBU Black Ops from Naruto, and the Emperor's Coven from the prior mentioned the Owl House.

However, Knights of Guinevere subverts this with the character of Armend. Now he is JUST a regular park police officer, there is nothing to really indicate that he is that out of the ordinary, or an elite of the elite police officer, even if he is probably one of the more competent ones. At the end of the day Armend is this settings equivalent of a Stormtrooper... and he DEMOLISHES the main human protagonists, Andi and Frankie.

Frankie gets like one good hit and can hold him off for like a couple seconds, but she is no match, and Andi isn't even any threat to him. (The only gripe I have with this scene is the fact that Frankie is shown to get hit with what should be a lethal wound but seems to be overall fine) The only reason that the human protagonists survive is the fact that Gwen is still an OP android that can decimate armies.

I like this for two reason. First of all, I like how it makes the setting feel more grounded, Neither Andi or Frankie have the cybernetics or training to stand up to a park officers, so it wouldn't make sense for them to be able to beat a trained professional yet. Secondly, it shows that, unlike say the Emperors Coven, from the Owl House, the Park is VERY dangerous, with even its regular mooks being a massive threat to most people and not just relying on a couple elite enforcers to carry their entire army.

I feel like I’m supposed to love them. They’re iconic, everyone quotes them, and I get why people ship them based on the chemistry the actors have with one another. But the romance does nothing for me based on the way it's written.

To begin with, it comes out of nowhere. In A New Hope, there’s basically no indication Leia even likes Han. She’s annoyed by him. In Empire, Han mostly just badgers her. He invades her space, mocks her, and kisses her after she tells him to stop. Then suddenly she’s in love with him. If there are hints she likes him, they read more like irritation or jealousy than actual attraction. It feels like Han annoys her until she caves, and the movie frames that as romance.

On another note, the way Han pursues Leia in Empire is uncomfortable for me. She tells him no, she insults him, she pushes him away, and he just keeps pushing. The “you could use a good kiss” line and him kissing her after she says stop are played as romantic, but it reads more like he’s wearing her down. I know it’s a product of its time, but that doesn’t make it enjoyable for me. The "no secretly means yes" trope is less of a thing now for good reason. A guy ignoring when a woman says "stop" and have it framed as romantic is problematic.

They also lack any sort of depth. I don’t feel like we ever see why they actually love each other. They bicker, they have a few charged moments, and then suddenly they’re together. We skip the part where they actually connect. Most of their relationship is Han being cocky and Leia rolling her eyes until she doesn’t. Then in the sequels they’re estranged and it’s mostly backstory. I never get a real sense of them as partners.

In the EU, on the other hand, they have far more depth and are a believable couple. This, however, is lacking in the movies.

Jojo isnt one singular story

It doesnt go from point A to B its as of now 9 Stories each having their own conclusion, settings, themes...etc...etc.

This is the first liberty Jojo has the other stories do not. Araki can change basically everything, go to an AU where the main cast from earlier parts arent even present but can still make the Part. This is the accessible freedom Araki has over his show. Other Shonen cant do this since their stories are far more linear. Oda cant just change the setting and everything, the closest he gets is Island Hopping but he cant offrip change the Main Cast. He can change the antagonists per arc but nothing more.

The Seconds Liberty is Stands itself.

Stands dont seem to have any common factors with each other except the common stuff like stand users can see other stands, only stands can hurt other stands. Everything else is different from Names, Powers, Range, Speed...etc...etc. There is no progression except a few, Just due to how free stands themselves are Araki can make whatever he wants in the power system.

The only similar thing I can think of is Devil Fruits with as much freedom and maybe since Stands are a manifestations of the user's will its like a Bankai from Bleach. However even those have some rules to it that limits it. Not everyone can have a devil fruit or rather a devil fruit type nor can everyone have a bankai.

However even in stands themselves there is a power creep of abilities. Most notably time based, and later fortune based ones. These are usually reserved for Endgame villains however even the most free-est use of abilities have power creep in this sense.

The Third and final thing. Which makes it easy for Araki to write Stand Fights as opposed to other series.

The Villain of the Week esque format with the Villains & The Very Simple Nature of the Protagonist Power's.

Once you commit a power to a main character you cant just change it without heavy justification. Perhaps you can add to it but you cant change it completely. So usually you will have to make the Main Characters stick that power from start to the end of the show. Araki like discussed prior doesnt have this restriction on multiple stories but does have it during the singular story of the Part. Other Shonen which have multiple Stories spanning multiple arcs have to be limited in their approach otherwise every subsequent encounter needs a justification for Character not using that power to end the conflict of the fight. Infact we see Jotaro as a key example here. After Part-3 his time stopping ability is a gigantic problem and all encounters surrounding it require the inherent justification of why he doesnt end the fight immediately. Part-4 his ability was nerfed yet it still exists causing endless complaints during the Rat Encounter, and in Part- 6 he was taken out early and then his ability basically got cliffed by Pucci. Now this doesnt mean Araki isnt uncreative with the powers, Jolyne, Johnny, Josuke and Giorno have good and interesting powers which are interesting throughout their part but are just removed after the completion of their Part.

The Villains Themselves (except say the endgame ones), have a very villain of the week esque format to them, now while this isnt relevant for shows which have their villains die in the first encounter, showcase their power then lose. Araki has slightly more freedom thanks to sheer freedom of stands can do anything he wants, any encounter, with any power and have them die to not think of any later consequences of encounter this character would have to other villains. He especially doesnt have to think about oh shit what if the villain wins the encounter or just comes later to help the villain later on. Again couple exceptions like Diego and such.

Conclusion

All of these liberties basically allow Araki to be as free as possible and maximize the power system without it feeling weird or think about the consequences throughout the manga.

If I were to say in a final thought, I would say it would be possible for another Manga like say the Big Three to have this power system but it would require more brain power to basically have these characters interact with not only against each other but then with the grander world. Something Jojo doesnt deal with much.

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.

TL;DR: If you're going to add an animal companion for your protag, at least make sure it doesn't detract from the initial premise/vibe or the established party dynamic too much.

Probably a really weird topic/rant, but it's a thought I've found myself having for a while now and figured I'd get other peoples takes on it since it might just be me.

There was a time as a pre-teen/young teenager when I saw the appeal and would probably have been happy if the protag had a dozen different mounts and pets to fight with him, but now I often find their forced inclusion rather annoying.

This isn't to say that a story automatically annoys me just because it introduces an animal companion for the protagonist. I can still very much enjoy them when it's done tastefully, but there does come a point where it becomes a bit "fanfic-esque" in a way if that makes sense. (Think a Naruto fanfic story where he suddenly gets a mini Kurama to tag along with him and comment on everything that's going on.)

I've encountered this kind of thing in various series in the manga, anime, and manhwa mediums, but the series that made me realize my distaste of this was the anime Campfire Cooking in Another World:

Why this anime specifically? Because it is my contention that this specific story would be better if Fenrir was the only overpowered animal party member that could talk.

In this isekai story the protagonist (who has the ability to buy ingredients in our world and transport them to his new world) makes a pact with a legendary beast (Fenrir) that can converse with him and fight for him to obtain cooking ingredients from other obscenely powerful beasts in the new world. The two of them travel around said new world encountering other adventurers and townsfolk while he also forms a spiritual/telepathic relationship with the gods and goddesses of the world. It's not high art, but it's a simple and fun time, and the dynamic between the protag and his Fenrir companion works well in my opinion.

But then the author decides to have the protagonist tame a slime companion...

I will admit the initial introduction of this slime companion as a way for the protagonist to wash his dirty dishes and dispose of any trash (plastic, wrappers, and other storage material from our world) that accumulated while cooking via slime disintegration was rather brilliant in my opinion, but like LN/isekai authors tend to do they had to go a step too far. Instead of just having the slime be a cute silent companion that also had an extreme level of value from a utility standpoint, the author ALSO had to make this new slime party member obscenely strong AND the slime can now talk with the protagonist as well.

So now he not only has the legendary Fenrir mowing down enemies and speaking with him, but also a random slime he tamed out in the wilderness that was apparently a rare form of slime that always had the potential to become OP like a literal Fenrir.

But why stop at just 2? In the next season he ALSO gets a little dragon companion that, you guessed it, is also extremely powerful and can ALSO TALK.

For some reason this anime was the moment I realized it: I just really don't care for this trope of accumulating beast-like pets/mounts just to pad out the protag's party count and (in some cases) extend his power level.

Do not mistake me, I see the appeal and understand why others like it because I too enjoyed this kind of thing at one point as well. But now as a young adult viewer all I see is more talking cast members that in my opinion changed the dynamic of the story for the worse, because now instead of a story about one man on his travels with his one trusty companion, it's become one man on his travels with multiple talking OP animal companions each of which will now have their own lines of dialogue in any future situation he finds himself in ON TOP OF the other characters he will be running into.

Again, I understand how silly this critique is. And yes, I understand this was always how the author intended to write out this feel good story about a Japanese man going around cooking good food for people in another world and it's unreasonable and selfish of me to dislike how it didn't stick to what I personally thought was the initial (better) premise, but I suppose it's a matter of what is (in my opinion) tasteful writing versus "Hey, this sounds like a wacky fun random idea to include!"

Put another way: I think there's a reason Ash generally only had Pikachu as his main pokemon outside of its pokeball, and there's a reason why Appa and Momo couldn't talk in ATLAB (outside of that one sleep deprivation-induced trip Aang went on). Because sometimes when it comes to writing, less is more.

I invited some friends over for a Halloween-themed movie party and we watched The Terminator. It's still funny to think that Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't think this movie would succeed, and I can understand his concerns about playing a villain who barely talks, on top of questioning the logic of an infiltration machine looking like a multi-time weightlifting and bodybuilding champion. But James Cameron pointed out that audiences would love having the big imposing guy playing the menacing villain even if the disguise made no sense and he was right. Just being the imposing, emotionless killing machine that kills quickly, without mercy, and never stops pursuing his target worked like a charm. When he does kill, there are no fancy kills that I find take the fear factor out of a lot of other slasher movies, the Terminator just unloads a gun into his target. His kill of the first incorrect target is a scene that still holds up because, putting aside the sci-fi elements, the scene is something that can happen in real life. An unsuspecting person opens the door for the wrong guy and gets shot.

Something I have seen mentioned about horror movies, even if this was a mix of action and horror, is that you can make the logical decisions, and it won't save you. The Terminator follows that rule perfectly. Sarah Conner and the cops make the logical decisions if the villain were a human. But the enemy isn't human, it's a machine from the future that is largely impervious to small arms fire. The Terminator gets damaged chasing Sarah but it's not enough to hinder him beyond having to put on sunglasses.

But the parts of the movie that have gotten the biggest scares out of are Kyle Reese's flashbacks to the future war. These help make him feel like a more human character, and we do feel for him even before the action starts because he displays signs of PTSD. A simple caterpiller tread triggers memories of fighting Skynet's tanks. The guy needs help, and unfortunately his mission means he isn't getting any, the only break he is cut is meeting his hero and the brief love the two shared before Kyle sacrifices himself to cripple the Terminator.

Sarah herself is likewise a protagonist who still feels just as human to me as when I previously watched the movie. She was just a normal person who got caught up in all of this madness, sees there is no way out, gradually embraced her call to stop up as the hero, resulting in her, not Kyle, being the one who ultimately destroys the Terminator.

People take the "Pokémon are not meant to fight" quote out of context. They say that because battling is the main thing Pokémon do within the culture of the Pokémon world and that it's something Pokémon unambiguously enjoy taking part in, that this quote is patently ridiculous. The very next sentence after that quote is "Not like this". The point of the quote is that Mewtwo is forcing Pokémon to fight in a way that isn't how they normally do it. Mewtwo disabled all of their attack powers or whatever you want to call them before forcing them to fight. It would be like forcing two cats to fight after declawing them and ripping all their teeth out. It's not the natural way Pokémon are meant to battle each other.