|
Community Links |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
12-19-2023, 02:27 PM | #21 |
Standing By
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 2,100
|
Quote:
Two things can be awful at once, even if one of them is more bad than the other. Either all humans perish due to Helheim, or majority of humans killed off due to Project Ark. Not to mention, there's the complicated matter of deciding which people "deserve salvation" and which ones get screwed over, which is usually part of such extreme solutions. Implementing a solution where you have to decide who gets sacrificed, what gives Takatora a right to decide for the rest of humanity?
Quote:
Quote:
Even the criminal or dictator you mentioned as the example of who to oppose, can also make claim like that, where if you'd oppose their actions, they can also claim that you're meddling in other people's (their) business. What to do if the ones who you can act against is the one making claims like that? If it works they'd be free due to them feeling conflicted to intervene or not, it can be also used to gaslight and guilt trip someone.
Quote:
Both are the cases of someone trying to do good but unwittingly cause bad outcomes, doesn't mean they're doing bad stuff. For opposite case, there can be cases when someone ends up causing something good, like if someone bombs a building which explosion radius caught a criminal on the run, knocking him down and allowing him to be arrested. Doesn't mean that the bomber did something good, it's unexpectedly accomplishing good by pure chance of a criminal happening to be nearby.
The store would probably recall the line of products to check them for contamination, while the customer should keep their receipt so they can prove the time of purchase.
__________________
心 と 刃 |
12-19-2023, 02:53 PM | #22 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,920
|
Well, this approach completely justifies all sorts of berserkers, werewolves, madmen and other chaotic antagonists. And also divine entities that accidentally cause disasters by their very presence. Plus, I'm sure you can find a few cases where the main riders intentionally and knowingly did bad things, but the "three-episode-long villain" tag was avoided.
|
12-19-2023, 04:49 PM | #23 |
Standing By
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 2,100
|
Quote:
Well, this approach completely justifies all sorts of berserkers, werewolves, madmen and other chaotic antagonists. And also divine entities that accidentally cause disasters by their very presence. Plus, I'm sure you can find a few cases where the main riders intentionally and knowingly did bad things, but the "three-episode-long villain" tag was avoided.
And yeah, like my example from before of Kouta victimizing Yoko, there are definitely times when a hero does bad things. I can probably name many of them from Revice! However, when this isn't being used to challenge the hero's morality, then this is a failure of the writer, story and character for ignoring the bad deed in favor of making the villains even worse. Furthermore, I specified severe bad deeds, as this can often be another distinguishing factor between a villain/antivillain who kills and an antihero who maims. But for a hero in this position, the distinction should be their regret and willingness to repent, such as Sougo seeing his future self as the evil demon king and choosing not to become him, but the greatest kindest demon king instead. Probably the upcoming arc for Kazama Jin in Tekken 8, following his tenure as chaotic antivillain.
__________________
心 と 刃 |
12-20-2023, 08:23 PM | #24 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,290
|
Quote:
The problem is flawed from the start, as it means having to assign arbitrary quantitative value to something as inherently qualitative as human life. If Ace is wrong for playing God, then by the same logic, of course Takatora would also be wrong for making detached judgments about people he's never even met. Everybody is important to somebody, even bad people, which means there are no expendable human beings. Game theory is never a substitute for heroism. There is no substitute for heroism, ever.
Quote:
Anyone except Yoko, who he was willing to victimize personally. I still think Shinji is a better example of this kind of heroism, with his strong will to fight against the odds to do what's right, even if it ends in failure. Like his refusal to sacrifice Yui allowing monsters to continue hunting humans. There's an attempt to guilt him for this, like Atropos to Rinne, but of course the reality is that Kanzaki is the one facilitating this and only he can be held responsible for the loss of life. Even though Shinji is an idiot, he only ever does his best to protect everybody's interests, even those unworthy of his kindness like Asakura and Kitaoka. That's what makes Shinji a true hero.
Quote:
Like the conflict between Houtarou and Riku's father, with the latter claiming that it's not Houtarou's business, despite Chemy involvement. Some people are too quick to accuse of unnecessary meddling without trying to understand the reason for them getting involved. Everybody lives in the same world after all, so it's a mistake and lack of foresight for someone to assume that what started as their personal business wouldn't eventually become someone else's.
Quote:
This reminds me of your comparison between Heure saving Another Ghost's life and Shocker creating their own arch enemy, to make a good point that villains accidentally causing good outcomes doesn't make them good, as the intention to cause bad outcomes was the catalyst and so villains should be judged based on the motivation for their actions. Therefore, the "faux villainy" that Zolda keeps talking about holds no tangible value. Someone who intends to commit severe bad deeds is a villain (antivillain in Takatora's case) and will continue to be a villain until they see the error of their ways.
Quote:
Well, as far as I can judge, in the stories the heroes perceive such cases as their responsibility and strive to correct them. "The Hunted" with Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio del Toro is the first thing that comes to my mind. In real life, too many people are involved and, by and large, everything is decided individually. One teacher feels responsible for his students throughout their lives, another forgets their names immediately after graduation. But in the example with food, I am sure that if you bought the food, and a homeless person was poisoned, then the police will have complaints against you until there is evidence that the food was poisonous even before the purchase.
Quote:
Well, this approach completely justifies all sorts of berserkers, werewolves, madmen and other chaotic antagonists. And also divine entities that accidentally cause disasters by their very presence. Plus, I'm sure you can find a few cases where the main riders intentionally and knowingly did bad things, but the "three-episode-long villain" tag was avoided.
Quote:
And yeah, like my example from before of Kouta victimizing Yoko, there are definitely times when a hero does bad things. I can probably name many of them from Revice! However, when this isn't being used to challenge the hero's morality, then this is a failure of the writer, story and character for ignoring the bad deed in favor of making the villains even worse. Furthermore, I specified severe bad deeds, as this can often be another distinguishing factor between a villain/antivillain who kills and an antihero who maims. But for a hero in this position, the distinction should be their regret and willingness to repent, such as Sougo seeing his future self as the evil demon king and choosing not to become him, but the greatest kindest demon king instead. Probably the upcoming arc for Kazama Jin in Tekken 8, following his tenure as chaotic antivillain.
And of course, someone can have occassional moments when they goes against their innate nature, an aberration (though this is easier to view in fictional stories), but it wouldn't count on each people's redeeming or corrupting factors. Someone who is forced to kill at certain circumstances is different to those who regularly peform pay evil unto evil in fighting evil (actual anti-hero). And that, said anti-villain/villain who actively target innocent, isn't being redeemed or performing good in a moment where they target a "deserving" one, like another bad guy, that it'd bring benefit if they eliminate said guy. And, though there can be failure of the story not addressing those wrongdoings, it'd be a black and white view, to immediately treat even the slightest failure as a mark of terrible person at the earliest opportunity, regardless of personal disappointment, and ignoring all their huge amount of good deeds done, and that, even if not addressed, there'd be an inevitable return to the right path, if they aren't underdoing heel turn. Like, if one can have a mistake in answering test, that doesn't mean that they can't do the test atall, it can be 9/10 rather than 10/10, not that a mistake equals 0/10. This view isn't even only about morality, but can be applied on performance, like if they have one or few failures in an athlete season performance, and is otherwise outstanding, they can be mocked as "error-prone" and it's just unfair judgment. I think this'd be the place for those who are largely very kind, but has a few unaddressed wrongdoings. For disappointment, I'd also count if someone is a jerk, rude, cruel, and mean to others and mistreat them or being insensitive.
__________________
The most complete non-wiki encyclopedias for Kamen Rider series (currently only found Ryuki and OOO's). Last edited by DreadBringer; 12-20-2023 at 08:33 PM.. |
12-21-2023, 12:39 AM | #25 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
Bruh, the divine entities that accidentally cause disaster by their presence isn't doing anything bad or wrong, their power is just something beyond their control, it's an unfortunate outcome not deliberately committing severe bad deeds, like a comment said above. It's a case of a bad power, not the person. There are stories that involve bad powers in a good person, like if someone who is noble has a power that can run wild if unchecked (or even get ostracized and being targeted for murders due to having that). For KR, not exactly paragon of goodness, but in Blade there's Hajime who is Joker Undead and his very existence can threaten the world, it's nothing of his fault that his power is like that where he tries to holding on his humanity by using Human Undead.
Quote:
I think what distinguishes between a villain/anti-villain and anti-hero is that, the latter primarily only targets bad guys, they still fight against evil, though they can go a bit too dark in the methods to do so, so obviously it'd be able to involve killing too. Villains/anti-villains primarily target innocents in an attempt to reach their goal, even well-intentioned ones, treating them as just collaterl damage for greater good, they're terrorizing common folks. Context still weigh even actions like killing to either direction. I guess for example, in revenge-filled characters, anti-heroes would be those who target a primarily bad group though they'd kill anyone associated with it rather than trying to reason them for leaving said group (e.g. if they serve bad but for paycheck). Anti-villains/villains would target a normal group that isn't actually wrong other than their personal vendetta (e.g. based on species, country, stereotypes, for having power), and keep going to kill the people there even if they've known/learned that the group isn't inherently bad, thus they regularly attack innocents.
And I, as I also already wrote, believe that the prefix "anti" is a sign of increased attention to the character. Last edited by Mesnick; 12-21-2023 at 09:57 AM.. |
12-22-2023, 05:52 PM | #26 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,920
|
Since we have moved away from the discussion of Gotchard and riders in general in this topic, I’ll ask you something else. Now in my part of the world the series “The Boy’s Word. Blood on the Asphalt” is very popular (perhaps too popular?). It tells the story of teenage gangs in Kazan in 1989. And there is the character Denis (perhaps he can be considered one of the antagonists, although the structure of the series is such that the viewer chooses his favorites. In fact, all the characters are very dark), the head of the local branch of the Komsomol, decides to eliminate the threat of gangs. With his Komsomol members, he protects people from robberies and beatings, strengthens the ranks, recruiting those expelled from gangs, and pits criminals against each other. In fact, his motives, his actions, and even their results are good. Even the pitting of gangs against each other occurs without deception and simply accelerates the inevitable. But Denis and his team are shown as disgustingly as possible in character, behavior, and appearance.
Here's an example. The girlfriend of one of the main characters, Marat, was offend by guys from another gang, a showdown began, but the conflict was hushed up. After this, Marat was supposed to break up with his girlfriend, but he refused. He was kicked out of the gang and severely beaten. He lay there and actually died because no one helped him. But Denis helped. Afterwards, it was the Komsomol members who found the girl’s offender, allowed Marat to beat him, but did not allow him to kill him, instead handing him over to the police. Well, after everything that happened, Marat joined them. And everything would be fine, but this is interspersed with Komsomol members drinking, orgies, detailed scenes in the toilet and lies about and without. Moreover, everything is shown not cool or brutal, like those of the same bandits, but rather as disgusting as possible. So the whole story looks not like Marat’s salvation from a criminal path, but like a fall even lower. It's clear why this is done. First of all, there are no unsullied heroes in these shows. Secondly: the author needs to promote a certain narrative. In general, I wanted to find out if there is a name for such “correct, but vile,” characters, and where they are located in this heroic-villainous spectrum. Well, I’ll drop the theme song of the series because it’s cool: Last edited by Mesnick; 12-22-2023 at 06:02 PM.. |
12-24-2023, 03:22 AM | #27 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,290
|
Quote:
I already wrote (it seems, even in this thread) a quote: ?In a personal sense, it is very important whether they harm you from good intentions or from evil ones. But in practical terms, this does not matter.? The same applies to accidental harm. As for Hajime, it`s not just his nature. In the scene on the yacht, he says with his own lips that he wants to destroy the world. So not only is he a damn cutie, but he's still the same changed villain.
Quote:
Plus, in Blade's case we're dealing with Kenzaki, who, due to the loss of his parents, has a Jesus complex and a desire to sacrifice himself to save others. Even though this makes him better than most people in some aspects, I think it is still a bad role model. In fact, 90% of the other main riders in his place would have chosen the Tachibana`s option with Hajime captured in the card. Most likely, with the right to "take a walk" quite often.
Quote:
Quote:
Again don't get the full context about said disgusting character/behavior, or how the gang pitting is done, but someone's goodness don't take away their severe vileness if it exists, like if they're an accomplished public servant, but is abusive over their family, they'd still be abusive - it'd be how they have terrible traits outside of their successful benefit on their actions. Dunno about how extreme here, but if the outcome of an extreme measure is good, is it REALLY the only solution to achieve that? It's often what well-intentioned extremist villains claim to justify their methods as "the only way", is everyone else just supposed to shut up and fall in line, even if the solution is morally unacceptable? Just because there's a time crunch, they're just supposed to resign themselves to having to doom some to save others, without considering and trying to find another way and strive for best case scenarios regardless of how "naive" it sounds? It can be about their personal arrogance, whenever they admit or not, it's arrogant to implement a solution where you have to decide who gets sacrificed for who and that no one would beg to differ, they would simply accept the solution as "the only way", that everyone else would be alright making those sacrifices (particularly on massive scale). Why do they even think they're the ones who know best anyway?
__________________
The most complete non-wiki encyclopedias for Kamen Rider series (currently only found Ryuki and OOO's). Last edited by DreadBringer; 12-24-2023 at 03:34 AM.. |
12-24-2023, 04:29 AM | #28 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
The Jesus complex may have been overdone, but the show clearly shows that Kenzaki is burdened by false guilt over the death of his parents. So he strives, if not for sacrifice, then for feat. But as for me, even if an unhealthy tree bears healthy fruit, this is still not a reason to use its seeds. Last edited by Mesnick; 12-24-2023 at 04:41 AM.. |
12-24-2023, 04:40 AM | #29 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
I can say though that, protagonist or antagonist doesn't correlate to morality, protagonist only means main/central character, antagonist is their opposition. There can be full on villain protagonists (e.g. Joker movie, because he's the main character), and also hero antagonists (if they actually are good and do good, not someone performing monstrosity and justifying their actions as good, like ). Favorite doesn't matter about actual roles, ofc everyone can have their personal favorites in each show not just this type.
Quote:
Again don't get the full context about said disgusting character/behavior, or how the gang pitting is done, but someone's goodness don't take away their severe vileness if it exists, like if they're an accomplished public servant, but is abusive over their family, they'd still be abusive - it'd be how they have terrible traits outside of their successful benefit on their actions.
|
12-24-2023, 08:31 AM | #30 |
Standing By
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 2,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
Whataboutism though for this, I bring up Kouta because ofc Takatora is the one brought up there, and he's the main one who objected to that plan in the series (like, can't bring up Mai because she doesn't confront Takatora), regardless of similar goal. Otherwise true, I think it's one of the primary evaluation on how heroic someone is, like how wide they're going to extend their kindness for, like not having selective justice for only loved ones/certain people. Even for my example above, to have one or few people that are their "victims", it's an exception not the rule (e.g. Haruto hating Sora). And for Shinji too, if you refer to Kagawa for allowing monsters to continue by protecting Yui, Kagawa got things wrong (just saying this to not take extremist's words at face value), killing Yui doesn't stop the monsters, as at least Episode Final shows. It'd make Shiro reset the war again.
Haruto did try and see the good side of Sora, like Rinko also did for Phoenix, but that was before the serial killer reveal proving that Haruto was right to lump Phantoms together as generally evil and making sure to protect Chiaki from becoming another victim. Every Phantom in the material world has canonically killed at least once when they killed their host in despair, while Sora's persisting personality was due to him already being evil before Gremlin and thus was never truly human, as Haruto called out. Quote:
Ofc, this should be brought up more, albeit I got insulted for doing so in this case. For you bringing up Tekken below, there are some people who claim if Heihachi's T5 ending is canon, he'd do good because he's saving the world from war criminals before they can start wreaking havoc.
Quote:
And, though there can be failure of the story not addressing those wrongdoings, it'd be a black and white view, to immediately treat even the slightest failure as a mark of terrible person at the earliest opportunity, regardless of personal disappointment, and ignoring all their huge amount of good deeds done, and that, even if not addressed, there'd be an inevitable return to the right path, if they aren't underdoing heel turn. Like, if one can have a mistake in answering test, that doesn't mean that they can't do the test atall, it can be 9/10 rather than 10/10, not that a mistake equals 0/10. This view isn't even only about morality, but can be applied on performance, like if they have one or few failures in an athlete season performance, and is otherwise outstanding, they can be mocked as "error-prone" and it's just unfair judgment. I think this'd be the place for those who are largely very kind, but has a few unaddressed wrongdoings. For disappointment, I'd also count if someone is a jerk, rude, cruel, and mean to others and mistreat them or being insensitive.
Quote:
I already wrote (it seems, even in this thread) a quote: ?In a personal sense, it is very important whether they harm you from good intentions or from evil ones. But in practical terms, this does not matter.? The same applies to accidental harm. As for Hajime, it`s not just his nature. In the scene on the yacht, he says with his own lips that he wants to destroy the world. So not only is he a damn cutie, but he's still the same changed villain. Plus, in Blade's case we're dealing with Kenzaki, who, due to the loss of his parents, has a Jesus complex and a desire to sacrifice himself to save others. Even though this makes him better than most people in some aspects, I think it is still a bad role model. In fact, 90% of the other main riders in his place would have chosen the Tachibana`s option with Hajime captured in the card. Most likely, with the right to "take a walk" quite often.
Doesn't seem like Undeads can be unsealed after the winner of the Battle Royale is determined, as they tried to unseal Shima so the result would be undone, but it didn't work. So all Undeads would probably have had to stay sealed until the Sealing Stone decides to restart it in the distant future. Kenzaki's choice is tragic, but it's also quite genius, when you consider that it keeps the Battle Royale in a permanent stalemate. He couldn't change fate, so he just paused it indefinitely. The Sealing Stone can't do a damn thing about it. You estimate that 90% of Primary Riders would choose sealing, but at least in the sample of the Reiwa Era, I think only Touma might consider that, due to his "I'll decide how this story ends!" catchphrase and refusal to sacrifice either himself or Kento. Even then, he wouldn't just leave it at sealing, he'd keep going until everybody got a happy ending. However, these are different heroes with different powers. Kenzaki can't actually change fate, but Touma does it constantly. I think Kenzaki made the choice that was appropriate for him. Quote:
So the whole story looks not like Marat?s salvation from a criminal path, but like a fall even lower.
It's clear why this is done. First of all, there are no unsullied heroes in these shows. Secondly: the author needs to promote a certain narrative. In general, I wanted to find out if there is a name for such ?correct, but vile,? characters, and where they are located in this heroic-villainous spectrum.
__________________
心 と 刃 |
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.
|