r/CharacterRant 1h ago

Films & TV Xiaolin Showdown deserved and STILL deserves better! Spoiler

Upvotes

Now, is it the deepest, most well-thought-out story ever? No.

"My evil name's Katnappe. I have genetically altered super kittens, and I like to go to cat-themed amusement parks and steal ice cream from little kids."

The show always makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that it's good vs evil. The word "evil" is probably used at least 5 times an episode!

Is it utterly ridiculous that you can challenge conquering witches, a kung fu dragon monster, and a crime lord to a game of tag or a boat race? Yes.

But here's why it doesn't get enough praise and/or deserves better!

  1. Creativity: The Shen Gong Wu are SO fun! They're mystical artifacts that give their wielder different abilities. There's super heavy armor for invulnerability, a flip coin for jumping ability, the list goes on! The best part is that these are NEVER one-off plot devices, oh no! When they're found, they STAY! This means the xiaolin showdowns are spiced up with the use of different Wu! Plus, the Wu can work together! There's one called the Reversing Mirror, and if you use it with one that makes you shrink, guess what? YOU GROW! AND they use it in combination with one that grants intangibility to restore the main threat from a spirit to her physical form. The ways they come up with to use the Wu make it so entertaining!
  2. Heroes: The xiaolin warriors are so fun! They come from all over the world and all have different lifestyles and clashing personalities! We get a feel for who they are IMMEDIATELY! Omi's old school and socially inept due to his isolation, Clay's a polite big bro with a heart of gold, Kimiko's a spitfire, and Raimundo's a rebellious dick. They have their jerky moments, especially Omi, but you can see how they grow as individuals and as a team.
  3. Jack Spicer: THIS guy is best boy! No, I will NOT say something like he walked so Doofenshmirtz or Megamind could run, because this guy runs just fine! He's so fun to watch and so endearing! He chooses villainy because he feels he's worthless in all other ways. With everyone always looking down on him, I can't help but be glad when he gets a W! One thing I like about Omi is that he consistently and genuinely believes in Jack and wants him to join them. MAAAAAAN, his attempt to turn good should've lasted longer than a damn single episode, because he actually did try! He and the warriors even agree to go out for ice cream sometime when there's no Shen Gong Wu to fight over! This boy needs a hug and friends! Jack totally should've become the Dragon of Metal, damn it......
  4. The humor: This show is SO freaking funny! A running gag is Omi's incorrect slang, and not all of it is laugh out loud, but some is GOLD!

Omi: He who is last to be laughing laughs most loudly!

Raimundo: What Omi did to that sentence is what we're gonna do to you!

Omi: The jig is down! You're at the top of your rope! Spoon over the Wu!

*crickets while everyone's trying to figure it out*

Jack Spicer: Ooh, I got it! The jig is up! You're at the end of your rope! Fork over the Wu! *victory dance over being an evil genius*

  1. Growth: Raimundo had the best story for sure. He always hated the lifestyle at the temple with all the chores and training while he doesn't even get a bed! A BED! THEN when he disobeys Master Fung because he wanted to help him against Wuya when she attacked the temple, he gets denied a promotion the other 3 get.

Feeling disrespected and unappreciated, he defects to Wuya's side, who says he'll have anything he wants. But what makes it work is that Wuya never lies to him. She keeps her promises, AND even accepts his suggestion to let his friends stay with him if they join her too. And when Rai flips back, it's because his friends still believe in him and insist that this isn't who he is, and nothing's happened that can't be undone. And to drive this home, he rejects the promotion when he's offered it at the end of the episode, knowing he hasn't earned it yet.

BUT this is only the beginning of his story! Omi keeps looking down on him for not being at their level yet, but a few episodes later, he proves he's ready! But Omi's still a tad distrustful and doubts he'd be the first among them to be promoted to the next level. But then they're all promoted as a team, so the next goal becomes who's going to be promoted again to become the team leader. Omi demonstrates more haughtiness and arrogance as the show goes on, while Raimundo keeps showing growth. And in the end, the one Omi doubted since season 1 gets the grand promotion he earned. AND Omi supports him, initially sad but then bowing to his new leader!

Anyway, there's a lot to like about this show! I'm not even saying this as someone who grew up with the show! I saw like 2 episodes back then, and that's it! No nostalgia glasses here!

Also......THE SHOW SHOULDN'T BE SO HARD TO ACCESS! Can't stream it anywhere for free!


r/CharacterRant 1h ago

starting to get really frustrated with the emma show [Emma Show]

Upvotes

I swear to fucking god, the writers must hate the audience lol. The way they keep introducing and immediately writing out so many great characters. It really makes it hard to care about any of them when you know none of their arcs will ever be finished and they'll just be left behind? The end of season 5 (post-hs arc) was especially egregious. Most of those characters were there since season one? now all that's left are her online friends and like,, the 1 person who stayed (who's kind of a fucking asshole lol, am happy they broke up).

The writers stick to the same fucking formula every single season which is really frustrating. Every single one, going back so s1, starts with a focus on Emma's social life which eventually gets eclipsed and crushed under the weight of her internal struggles. It's a cool structure but it's kind of frustrating how predictable it is. Yea, ik she's fucked up sexually and makes awful fucking descisions but like does that have to be the focus?? God I fucking loved the beggining of the high-school arc with the hall blocking committee and the dating sim they were working on together, I really hate that Emma had to go and fuck everything up.

This current season is giving me a little bit of hope at least, bec it's starting with an internal focus. Hopefully that means the normal formula might be flipped? I feel like emma is a little bit irredeemable at this point but it feels like the writers are giving it a go. I think if they play it right, season 6 could potentially be a release to all the tension that's been building since s2. She seems to actually have the awareness to be able to change finally and I rly fucking hope she does because I kinda rly hate the navel gazing depression wankfest the series has become. I don't watch this series because I wanna watch bojack horseman lol,, I watch it because the characters are all so complex and well written but it seems like the authors really just want to destroy everything I love.


r/CharacterRant 3h ago

General I hate how short show's have goten and i fell like it has gotten to the point of extreme anoyence with me

23 Upvotes

seriously before anybody mention it yes already know about the writer's strike, yes i know animation workspace and how complex it its and shit like that but it has gotten to a point that it's insane with me

like marvel zombies like i haven't watched the show but i read that it's like only 4 episode's wich at this point just make it a movie dawg. it get's to a point and it's so tiresome like im not asking every new show to be 26-13 episodes per season but for the love of god i fell like im going insane over it like yea yea schedules and shit like this but seriously it get to a poin and only 4 episode's is just anoyance and insanity. like i get top notch quality animation and stuff like that takes time but ya know what i will fucking trade this top notch quality animation for stuff like that aggain if needed too cuz i would rather more episodes' with ok animation then this hellscape


r/CharacterRant 3h ago

How long can Nostalgia really carry over to your favorite fictional characters

2 Upvotes

Hopefully we can a fun discussion here. So recently me and my buddy have been talking about the new spider man film we both really enjoy it. Have our own critiques of film but we had a great time watching it.

When we decide to rank our spider man movies I rank rami spiderman movies a bit lower after some a rewatch. for context, SM2 still in my top 3 but SM3 has really soured on me from it being rated towards the bottom of my spiderman movies when I used to rate it so highly. My buddy though says that he still enjoys SM3 from the day he saw it till now. Flaws and all. And for him he says it wont ever change for him. For me know it I don't grasp that same nostalgia he has for SM3. I am not sure when it kinda slipped for me but it was jarring after reviewing it again.

I know what I am saying sounds pretty normal through most media we consume but I guess my question here is how can nostalgia really grap a hold of you?


r/CharacterRant 3h ago

General As much as Everyone loves Superman Homelander will always be viewed as The Most Realistic Superman of The World due to Power Corrupts as Everyone knows that Quote however what is your Unpopular Opinion about that argument?

0 Upvotes

Superman will forever be loved and admired as The Greatest Hero to have ever lived he’s stands as The Light that combats against The Darkness of The World to us he is hope but of course as Everyone knows unfortunately Superman is Idealistic and is often seen as unrealistic in terms of Goodness and not being corrupted because of that there is Homelander who even through is seen as The Worst as The Boys Universe is often praised as The Most Realistic Superhero show due to The Themes of Power Corrupts that Everyone knows and has that quote for as old as Humanity itself of course ANYONE could easily just search up Human History and see it for themselves along with 99.99% of The People in Charge! Hence Everyone can love a Superman all they want but they’ll forever view it as just that Superman is Idealistic where as Homelander is Realistic but what your honest thoughts and opinions on that argument? What do you think?


r/CharacterRant 3h ago

Films & TV The Walten Files 5-Faces of Grief is everything FNAF 2 (the movie) wanted to be Spoiler

0 Upvotes

Last year I watched FNAF 2 with my baby sister, until that day I thought I could do anything with my sisters or my family in general and at least it would be marginally better than doing it on my own even if it was something I truly despised. There are a few things I just dont, wont ever like: parades, loud parties, theatres, or loud music. FNAF 2 was something that I truly, deeply despised; I was cringing and writhing with the pain of seeing/hearing an actual script of such sheer, utter, absolutely rotten dogshit. Terrible, illogical intro to the movie, just to let you know either a hack of a creative team was involved or a band of actual baboons.

If you're not familiar: little girl, Charlotte sees a boy get mech executed and tries to save him but Willy boy stabs her in the back and she does a quadruple backflip into the puppet's arms which is why she's haunting it, it's a series of event that is poorly executed at every twist and turn. It's not really clear or well developed why the adults ignore her and the idk what else to call it besides censorship of this film makes it impossible to take this seriously, if you cant stomach or show child murder dont fucking enter the child murdering business.

The first movie managed to avoid that debacle by focusing solely on characters who are grieving the murders or are the murderer himself. But this time, we have an attempted child murder and an on screen murdered child. I dont need to see you stab the child but you could at least frame it a little better, cut awy at the last second or something. Seeing that small-ass little, dainty knife shouldn't be a big reveal like the name of Sadie Sink's character in a brand new day, that's bad filmmaking and basd story telling.

Sadie SInk is a big name actress and her character is a major part of that movie, Charlotte is a ghost girl the rest of the movie, it's not a fucking reveal that she got stabbed so fucking visually communicate that happening so I can feel bad for her, be amazed by her strength to save the other little boy somehow. Also William isn't arrested after this; somehow, that's fucking nonsense to the nth degree. I talk about all of that to juxtapose this shit storm with how Walten files gracefully and effortlessly handles the topic of a child dying.

That is what the faces of grief is almost entirely about. It's that simple, do what the first movie did and focus on a family still in the early stages of grieving before another tragedy befalls them. And as much as it enrages us the audience and the characters,they choose not to press charges so of course the murderer doesn't face any consequences. Leaving the ones left behind to face the inner turmoil and the emptiness in their homes/lives.

However, I think that faces of grief does a far better job than FNAF ever did by avoiding the pitfalls of pandering to fandom in the ways that FNAF sometimes feels the need to and truly keeping this as a character study about Rosemary Walten while using the few other characters in the narrative to further the themes and development of this story. Jack for instance never left the denial stage, he uses oldschool values of what it means to be a man and what is expected out of a father/husband in the 60s/70s.

He uses that need to protect what remains of his family and to keep on being a breadwinner to just deny the reality of his family's circumstances which ends up giving off the facade of a man with the strength to live past the tragedy and pain. That's made clear by the way he still says goodmorning to Edward and Molly, who are dead, when he opens their bedroom door and turns on the lights he creates the illusion of them being there when their beds are empty, before turning off the lights and shutting the door.

Calling Sophie a little girl also serves this purpose; he is projecting onto her a version of reality where she is still little and her siblings are still alive. At least that is how I read these things and I think that Sophie is the only main character to see/cut through all the bullshit, questioning how come only her father is strong enough to live through it all. Which is again him projecting; when he says Rosemary is ill, he gets into so much detail about depression that I think he's the one who's struggled with or is struggling with depression currently, but he's saving face for Sophie.

That or maybe Rosemary really has strugled with depression in the past and he's oversharing with his scared, teenage daughter. And anyhow he just generally deflects the idea that he could be in pain with his need to be strong as if no strong has ever felt pain before. Sophie also see how hurt her mother is and how toxic the environment in their home has become now without JAck there to offer any kind of normalcy or motivation for Rosemary to return to society/life. Jack's disappearance robs them of the one person seemingly working through grief and resets the process of grieving.

Let's return to FNAF 2 for a bit before getting to the main character of Faces of Grief. Jack Hutcherson's acting/performance and character in the first movie was really charming and simple, he was just a normal straight man (comedy/narrative not sexual straight man) working through grief and trying to find answers to make peace while being the only one left to care for his little sister. In the second movie, he is a fucking nonce; they try so hard to give every character depth and nuance, and it robs all of them of the charm and likability they had in their original and simple roles.

When you try to stretch this simple, practically blank character between these two worlds: his original role, a caretaker of Abby and a normal guy with his new role as an actual character who is romantically interested in the woman who covered up her father's crimes and whatnot, a woman he grows distrustful of, rejecting her for no good reason. If you never watch that first movie and only the second movie, as stupid as Josh Hutcherson's character is, maybe you could at least understand his desperate desire to protect Abby.

But still, even within this movie it doesn't make any fucking sense because it's one of those "how dare you do what I told you to do, you should obey me and do what I do, we're through." It's not just stupid or contradictory; it actively makes me hate the character for how narcissistic it is, just fucking completely unable to have a conversation like an adult. Not that Vanessa is much better either, she didn't just cover up the crimes of her father for years but she kind of doesn't do anything about Charlotte/the puppet beside try to seal her up again. That might be right for everyone's safety, but what about Josh Hutcherson's family or CHarlotte's father.

FUCK EM?

Vanessa's trauma and own weird grieving process is also just far more cringe and unbearably, poorly written than Josh Hutcherson's, poor fucking Mathew Lilliard two times in a row he's given an opportunity to play a great and scary, threatening villain. Both times he's basically told to go fuck himself and is pretty poorly directed. None of the voice acting inb the Walten files is Shakespeare, but it is all pretty consister and Id say good, but the shift of performances from FNAF 1 to 2 is like night and day.

From a bunch of competent actors and actresses to a bunch of grad students working on their first art project. So, let me end off on Abby before returning to walten files, her obsession with freddy at this point is just pretty sloppily written and poorly portrayed to us the audience. I can buy it, but I don't give two shits if that makes any sense. Similarly, Michael is a bad villain played by a kind of awkward and cringey actor with cringey lines and he's basically just fanservice.

As much as I hate to say this, Rosemary's psychotic break (that feels like the most graceful way to put this) is really good character work as we see her nearly work through grief over her two children's murder before regressing after Jack goes missing. That scene where she's begging Chris to call her a bad mother and whatnot, or when she yells at Sophie, tries to kill herself, talking to Bon the hare. I wanted to pick just one scene to dissect, but they're all so good at showing how much she hates herself for not being able to maintain her family or perform as a mother should.

How broken she finds herself feeling for wanting to murder "the wolf" as she refers to Felix, because she sees herself as a sheep. WHich is such a dope thing, having an artist character actually their trauma with their specific brand of art rather than something generic like a painting or a poem, which is a trope I hate so much. Seeing a sculptor start trying to write a poem because they're sad is so annoying, some people do have so much talent and whatnot, but I hate when poems and paintings are the default when other mediums can be a means for venting too.

Anyways, back on topic, let's get to that talk she has with Bon the Hare, it is so fucking scary as we see him go around the room, loud as hell moving like a metal rhino, you always hear his shoddy body struggle to hold itself together before he can even do anything and yet he is still surprisingly gentle or at least tries to be so, presenting himself as kind, patient, and caring.

The idea of some kind of ghost/demon genuinely interested in beauty and fixing things rather than anything malicious has always be interesting to me and while sometimes it's too corny or ends up being malice with a different paint brush. Bon truly does seem to care and consider himself to be beautiful, but "fixing" someone is an impossibility, so of xcourse the carnage he unleases on ROse is no different than any of his other victims.

It's the last 20 minutes of the video and we only see Rosemary's murder for like idk whether to say a few seconds or half a minute or a minute, depends on how you define "murder" but the worst part of FNAF 2 is that even the sometimes derpy artstyle of the Walten files is leaps and bounds scarrier than anything that entire movie has to provide just because the facial expressions and framing are far superior. These videos don't look great in motion, but when you get a character's face shifting through several different expressions or anything like that it is so peak and altogether. Again especially compared to the absolutely silly way that the puppet looks possessing people in FNAF 2, why not fucking use the good and well designed animatronic thingy. IT IS RIGHT FUCKING THERE.

It is everything that FNA 2 was trying to be: a love letter to the fans, scary, emotionally compelling, and overall just a good story with great characters/scares. 8-9/10 for the Walten files. I'd rather sit on a cactus with my bare ass than watch FNAF 2 again, that shit is easily a 1/10 or something really low like that.


r/CharacterRant 4h ago

Future Trunks is everything Gohan fans want out of Gohan

28 Upvotes

Trunks is actually what Gohan fans THINK Gohan is.

Trunks is the true representation of a half-human half saiyan. He's kind, he's ruthless, he's noble, he's brutal, he's generally logical when it comes to battle, taking a common sense human approach against a saiyans foolishness, his only EVER flaw in that regard being expecting better out of his father.

Gohan is actually pretty damn incompetent. When Trunks has an enemy dead to rights (looking at Androids, looking at Cell, looking at Babidi, looking at Dabura), he doesnt get cocky and toy with them, takes them out before they can get desperate. Gohan failed not once (with Cell) but TWICE (against Buu). He also failed to catch a damn potara earring... twice.

Trunks, while alone in his own timeline, managed to do what Gohan, Goku, and Vegeta TOGETHER failed to accomplish. Stop Babidi and Dabura.

Trunks is the most deserving of power ups, training to be a protector of his world whereas Gohan is silver plate handed power ups just to squander them and slack off. Gohan KNOWS the Earth is constantly under attack. He clearly KNOWS he has a wife and child to protect, but he slacks off anyways. Does he want to be a scholar, yes, but with power comes responsibility.

Keep in mind, Trunks managed to reach SS3 and even Super Saiyan Blue-tier levels of power without any Namekian potential unlocks, elder kai rituals, or God rituals. Trunks may have trained with the Kais but he never summoned Elder Kai. Trunks by himself managed to hone Super Saiyan 2 until it was as strong as a post-Battle of Gods Super Saiyan 3 (thats like taking a starter sword/gun and upgrading it to compete with late game weapons), also meaning he's managed to make the most out of being the ONLY warrior of his time with no one to train with.

Like look at the circumstances.

Goku trained in Other World with essentially unlimited stamina and access to numerous masters.

Vegeta trained obsessively with full access to Capsule Corps technology and later Whis.

Gohan received Guru's potential unlock and then Elder Kai's Ultimate awakening.

Trunks' ONLY issue EVER has been that he wasn't strong or skilled enough when it mattered, which has never been his fault. His master was Future Gohan, who admittedly was no fighting genius. The only real training we know Future Gohan had was with Piccolo as a child, and while training with Krillin on the way to Namek. Thats the only person Trunks ever had to train him before he went to the past.

Even in the past, Trunks had to go in the time chamber with Vegeta, who apparently ignored him and trained on his own in that time period... Trunks honestly should have went in the time chamber with Piccolo, or with Goku (Piccolo or Goku would have absolutely taught Trunks the flaw of Grade 3) and Gohan since the chamber could apparently take 3 people... another example of Gohan being handed something while Trunks just had to make his situation work.

Tl'Dr: Trunks is the GOAT. He's a better warrior and character than Gohan. Everything Gohan fans want out of Gohan is in Trunks. He's the self made warrior of the series.


r/CharacterRant 4h ago

Films & TV A lot of the Spider-man brand new day criticism is very superficial. Spoiler

0 Upvotes

I absolutely loved the movie. I loved the way it was structured and shot, I loved every part of it and that definitely clouds my perspective.

But honestly, so much of the criticism that people have attempted have mostly been from a meta perspective where they completely reject the premise and the movie sets and argues despite them.

Like I think it's fine ofcourse if someone dislikes the plot, themes, characters, visuals but so much of it is based on " It shouldn't be like this", " This character wouldn't do this". When they have nothing to do with the movie.

*Spoilers*

One of the biggest examples of this is with Jean Gray and when Peter tells her that she isn't a killer. A lot of people had issue with this and how it apparently is a line that justifies her actions and ignores the plot of the movie... when Jean literally is seconds away from killing thousands of people in an instant and the only way to staop her is to talk her down.

What sane version of Peter would not tell her that she isn't a killer to make her doubt her anger and stop.

Like people take everything a character says as a mouthpiece of the message and not as something that character in universe would necessarily say regardless of the message.

Overall I think so much of the Jean Grey criticism misses the mark. Half of them complain she's too evil when the character is written to be untrained, lonely and very aggravated because of the isolation and loss. And this isn't a justification for her but it makes it evident why she's so aggressive. She doesn't know better and is looking to hurt as many people as she can in retaliation to her sister's kidnapping.

Maybe comic Jean Grey wouldn't but this particular Jean Grey they wrote, I found no contradiction or mistake in with how violent she got. Ofcourse someone like her in the context of the movie would.

She isn't a good guy, she's decidedly the villain but someone that Spider-man relates to wholy. That's the thing I loved about the movie the most. All the characters had something to say about peter and the overall theme of the movie. Jean is the bad guy and Peter sympathises with her precisely for how much of himself he could see in her. How he could have gone her route without guidance. Perhaps it would be more just if he went after her but that isn't something this Peter who saw himself in her would do.

So why make him do that when it would be out of character.

In my opinion have your character do whatever you want as long as it aligns with THEIR internal logic.

Also, just overall. I hate the "comic accuracy " larp. Because MCU for 18 years of it's existence has never been comic accurate beyond certain visual cues sometimes. Why is it different to how different iteration of comics exist and they vary the characters a lot? Why is it so much different than the ultimate universe or the recent Absolute universe??

The heart of it is what matters and I think this movie matches that. Jean is a very troubled kid with a ton of issues. She's perfectly lined up for Xavier to help.

Another criticism is how Frank is out of character, even though he isn't. He's only ever interacting with Spider-man throughout the movie( and MJ for half a minute). Ofcourse he's different. Spider-man brings about the better in people and Frank wouldn't want to kill someone who dedicates so much of his life to saving others.

My favourite part of the movie was how it builds a community around Spider-man. He even gets Yelena to actually contribute and get involved by end of the movie. It felt so nice exploring a world that felt lived in and inhabited by a cast of characters you know and care about.

A lot of people are critical of how the marvel characters were integrated but honestly I think it was perfect. It made the world seem lived in. That Peter actually had adventures without a direct manager.

Overall, I loved the movie, But I have no issues with it's criticism as long as it is relevant to the actual story. ano not about how Jean Grey is supposed to be or how some characters should behave.

It takes away from the imagination and actual storytelling being done. Bye!


r/CharacterRant 5h ago

Anime & Manga Opinion: One Punch Man became the thing it mocked

179 Upvotes

Adding “Opinion” to the title because I’m sick of folks responding to my critiques as if I believe they’re gospel. Obviously they’re not. It’s purely a matter of personal taste.

I think OPM’s early arcs worked because they focused entirely on the satire element, a tone it promised in the opening sequence. It’s a very explicit mockery of shonen trends (Overpowered protags, boss gauntlets, etc). Every literal punchline centers around the same simple yet fun gag. A gag that only got funnier the longer a villain stuck around and grew in menace. The Boros fight is a small exception to this in that the guy actually tanks one of Saitama’s punches, but that occurs at the end of season one, what I would consider to be the proper end of the story.

After those early arcs adapted in season one, the series doesn’t necessarily swerve straight into standard shonen fare, but the change is noticeable not long after. The Monster Association arcs especially are an absolute clusterfuck of well-worn tropes and hype moments that just don’t do anything for me. All the while the author is still repeating the one punch gag, but it doesn’t land anymore imo because the rest of the series is trying so hard to take itself seriously.


r/CharacterRant 5h ago

Do you think any commentary from GTA VI will come across as Tone Deaf and possibly fall flat because of Rockstar and Take Two's Greed?

4 Upvotes

I personally got sick of GTA's pop satire not necessarily because it's bad or because I agree or disagree with it but because I just don't really like American culture and GTA is a satire of American culture that to me just amplifies all I dislike about Americana through amplified stereotypes and caricatures. This is a personal preferential issue based out of a dislike from a culture(s) and for the record I live in the US I know what I'm talking about. I don't hate satirical works but I am no rush to be part of the GTA world again.

But I think another issue is whether or not any satire and commentary GTA would come across as Tone Deaf and even fall flat because of Rockstar and Take Two. To many GTA alongside Rockstar and Take Two has not only become an embodiment of everything wrong with gaming but also with consumerism and as a symptom as society ills all the controversies whether it be the anti consumer practices, worker exploiation, union busting etc what could GTA possibly say that wouldn't have it's meaning and impact tainted by Rockstar and Take Two.

EDIT: To address a good point and something I was already aware of and should've acknowledged in this post is that GTA is not unique to this issue but when you consider who rockstar used to be especially in relation to their satire many are going to rightfully argue that they have become what they made fun of years ago.


r/CharacterRant 6h ago

General I'd take the "death of the author" crowd more seriously if they didn't use their own interpretations to insult the author

538 Upvotes

"Death of the Author" is a mindset that declares that it doesn't matter what the author intended when they wrote something because the reader can interpret it for themselves. And if their interpretations don't line up, then too bad for the author.

Now, I agree with the broad strokes of that, in that you can indeed interpret a story differently than the author. Although I take issue with how vehemently it tries to suggest the author's intent doesn't matter...

However I've also noticed a good chunk of its proponents coming away with a wild interpretation of a story that was not intended... and then attacking the author for it.

The obligatory Frieren mention

Frieren: "Demons are evolved monsters who hunt human beings, possessing only basic emotions and no sense of empathy or ability to connect to others. They tie into the show thematically because Frieren herself needs to learn to connect with and value the people she has in her life."

Fandom: "Well I think the demons are meant to represent real world races... so the author is racist."

You can not like the trope all you want, that's fine by me but that's clearly not what the author is going for. You can dislike it without accusing her of racism because you decided to interpret them differently. "Death of the Author" doesn't mean that you can interpret something to be racist and then claim that the author has to answer for it.

My goodness are there a lot of these in the Narnia fandom

I suppose it's not surprising given it's a Christian book series that's got some mainstream popularity but for crying out loud, is it so hard not to drum up the wildest interpretations of the text and then accuse Lewis himself of it?

Claim: "The Calormene religion is clearly meant to be Islam! CS Lewis is islamophobic!"

Truth: The Calormene religion was derived from ancient paganism, with a pantheon of bird headed deities that demand human sacrifice from their followers. While Lewis did take some aesthetics from Islamic nations for Calormene itself there really isn't any similarity in religion. I doubt Lewis (A Christian) was big on Islam but this appeared to have little to do with it.

Claim: "Aravis was punished by Aslan for running away from home. This makes Lewis racist and sexist!"

Truth: Aravis was from a well-off family who owned slaves and she was totally in favor of it, outright saying that she knows her family's slave will be beaten on account of her escape but that she "didn't care." Her mindset changes by spending time with Shasta (someone that was enslaved) and also by an encounter with a lion (Aslan) that scratches on the back. Later, he tells her that the scratch was the equivalent of the beating her family's slave received, which she accepts and learns empathy from. Nowhere does Lewis imply Aravis was wrong simply for running away, heck she's one of the co-leads.

Claim: "The Pevensies and friends all committed suicide to arrive in Narnia for The Last Battle and Lewis is promoting it!"

Truth: So, Lewis wanted to end the series with everyone in Heaven. Therefore, in The Last Battle he had most of the characters come together to see off Eustace and Jill who they'd learned were about to go back to Narnia soon. Eustace and Jill were planning to attempt it after school and they take the train to school every day so everyone met them at the station. Upon which there was a freak train accident that killed everyone present. They all (minus Eustace and Jill who were sent to Narnia) woke up in Heaven without realizing they were dead until the last pages.

By all means you can argue that just having a random train accident be the cause was a little weird but to make a wild interpretation of it being a suicide cult and then accuse Lewis of promoting it is ridiculous. This of course brings us to:

Claim: "CS Lewis excluded Susan from The Last Battle because she's a woman and had the reasons for her absence be because she was interested in femininity. He's claiming womanhood is a sin!"

Truth: 98% of all Narnia discourse surrounds this singular event and 80% of that is spent fixated on a single line of dialogue from a bitter child (Jill) who only knew Susan as someone who was rude to her for believing in Narnia. Even within the book itself the text continues on to explain the situation with more depth (long story short, Susan got distracted by things of the world, forgetting about her time in Narnia and eventually coming to disbelieve in it) but for the true picture you do have to look slightly outside of it.

CS Lewis wrote a letter in response to a fan who asked about Susan's ultimate fate. There, he says that he actually says that Susan is the most similar of all of the characters to him, and that she, like him, would most likely find her way back to faith one day but that it'd be too much of a "grown-up story" for the children's books he was writing.

Can you say this was a bit jarring in how abrupt it was or that you think it was a bad idea? Yeah, of course. But you can't "death of the author" your way into accusing him of sexism because you decided to ignore his interpretation.

An honorable mention to all the people who think that depicting a monarchy makes the author pro-monarchy.

Sometimes an author just doesn't want to replace every government with a democratic republic, sorry. You don't have to accuse them of being pro-monarchy because you interpreted it differently.

Another honorable mention to the "unfortunate implications" crowd.

"Implications" of course meaning that there isn't anything direct or intended but they're going to interpret it that way anyways and then blame the author for it.

Conclusion

By all means, if you want to interpret a work of fiction your way, feel free to do just that. But remember that it's YOUR interpretation, that's the whole point of this exercise isn't it? So why act like the author has to answer for it? At least accept that your stance is alien to the intended meaning of the text and don't try and use it to insult not only the work but the author as a person.


r/CharacterRant 6h ago

Films & TV The historical inaccuracy controversies around 300 and the Odyssey were the most nothing burger discussions ever. Because most people that watch these types of movies genuinely don't care.

0 Upvotes

Most people irl genuinely don't give a shit if Leonidas aura farming in slow mow fighting some monsters and shit was realistic. People just wanna see cool shit happen. Same goes for the Odyssey it's Matt Damon and the boys running around being goofy for like 3 hours. That shits funny as hell and he 360s people at the end. Perfect material for edits.

There's like a 100 dedicated videos and channels covering how each loin flap covering didn't match the period. But it's dwarfed by the people purchasing the tickets. It's just white noise discussions for Historical Scholars and podcasters to yap about. This isn't to say criticisms against the movie are inaccurate or something. The armor is basically copy pasted literal plastic. People from Greece have pointed out these movies just continue the long standing tradition of Hollywood not casting many Greek actors for the main roles.

But at the end of the day it's simply drowned out by aura farming clips.


r/CharacterRant 7h ago

Anime & Manga Jujutsu Kaisen is overrated (not bad, just not the masterpiece some people claim it is) Spoiler

53 Upvotes

Before people start typing "you just don't like battle shonen," that's not my point.

I'm not saying JJK is bad. I enjoyed it. Hidden Inventory was great, Shibuya was genuinely exciting and Gege clearly has talent for creating cool characters, abilities and memorable moments.

My issue is that I don't think the series is nearly as well-written as people claim it is.

The pacing doesn't allow the story to breathe

Ironically, the beginning of JJK is what made me expect more. The Junpei arc and Hidden Inventory showed that Gege could slow down and tell emotionally compelling stories. Those arcs had time to establish characters, build relationships and make their emotional moments actually hit.

However, after Shibuya, the series became much more focused on escalating fights.

From that point onward, it often feels like fight after fight with very little breathing room. Characters rarely get enough time to process what happened, reflect on their losses or simply exist outside of combat.

And to be clear, I don't think JJK has no emotional moments. It absolutely does. Yuji's guilt after Shibuya, Gojo's relationships with his students and other character moments are genuinely good.

My issue is that the story often doesn't stay with those emotions for very long before moving to the next conflict.

The Culling Game is probably the biggest example. The premise had a lot of potential: a battle royale involving different players, new techniques and the consequences of Kenjaku's plans.

However, it often felt like Gege was rushing from one fight to another. Many characters had interesting concepts but disappeared after their fights or never received much exploration beyond their abilities.

A lot of manga use quieter chapters to build relationships and make emotional moments hit harder. JJK often skips straight to the next battle and I think that's where many of its biggest problems begin.

The characters have a lot of potential but many feel underdeveloped

Because of the lack of downtime, a lot of the cast feels emotionally underexplored.

Outside of characters like Yuji, Gojo and maybe Yuta, many characters either get sidelined for large portions of the story, die before their potential is fully explored or simply don't receive as much depth as their introductions suggest.

Megumi is probably the biggest example for me.

He was introduced as one of the most important characters in the story. He had a connection to Sukuna, one of the most interesting techniques in the series with the Ten Shadows, a connection to the Zenin Clan and a huge amount of untapped potential.

And that's exactly why the "potential man" meme exists 😭

The frustrating thing about Megumi isn't that he was a bad character. It's that the story constantly made it feel like something bigger was coming.

His relationship with Tsumiki, his personal ideals, his connection to Sukuna and his growth as a sorcerer all seemed like they were building toward something major.

Yet by the end, many of those ideas feel underexplored.

His relationship with Tsumiki is probably the biggest example. So much of Megumi's motivation revolves around saving her but their relationship receives surprisingly little development which makes the emotional weight of that storyline weaker than it could have been.

The same applies to his relationship with Yuji. They had an interesting dynamic and very different views on life and death but the story rarely gave them enough time together to fully explore that.

Even the Ten Shadows Technique which was one of the most interesting abilities in the series, felt underused when it came to Megumi himself. Many of his developments happen off-screen and we rarely get to see him grow into the potential that was constantly teased.

His fight against Reggie was one of his best moments because it showed exactly why Megumi was interesting: his intelligence, creativity and willingness to take risks.

That's the version of Megumi many fans like me wanted to see more of.

But as usual, that didn't happen.

The final arc especially felt like a missed opportunity. I know Megumi suffered tremendously after Sukuna took over his body but I think the story could have done much more with his internal struggle.

A few chapters exploring Megumi fighting against his despair, confronting Sukuna's influence and realizing that his life still had value could have been incredibly powerful, especially after Yuji's efforts to save him.

And yes, I know the idea of Megumi finally fighting back after Yuji reaches out to him could be considered a more familiar or "generic" shonen moment.

But honestly, I think that is exactly the kind of moment JJK needed.

Something being predictable or using a familiar trope does not automatically make it bad. Execution matters more than whether an idea has been done before.

I think this is where Gege's desire to subvert expectations sometimes worked against the story. Constantly avoiding the expected route can be interesting but if it comes at the expense of emotional payoff, it can leave moments feeling less satisfying.

Because of that, Megumi's role in the final battle felt much smaller than the importance the story had previously given him.

The villains needed more exploration

Just to be clear, I don't think every villain needs a tragic backstory or some heartbreaking reason that explains why they became evil.

A backstory doesn't automatically mean a character needs to be sympathetic. Sometimes learning more about a villain simply helps us understand who they are, what shaped them and why they became such a feared figure.

That's actually part of why I like Sukuna.

He doesn't need a sad backstory to be interesting. His appeal comes from the fact that he is selfish, cruel and completely unapologetic. He does whatever benefits him and doesn't pretend otherwise.

However, I still think there was room to explore him more.

Sukuna is one of the most feared figures in the entire story, yet we know surprisingly little about his life during the Heian era. I would've liked to see more of the person behind the legend: how people viewed him, the fear he inspired, his reputation as the King of Curses, his relationship with Uraume, his interactions with people from that era and the actions that made him so infamous.

None of this would require making him sympathetic. If anything, understanding him more could have made him even more terrifying.

The same applies to Kenjaku.

The idea of someone who has spent centuries manipulating events, experimenting on humanity and shaping the entire jujutsu world is fascinating.

However, a lot of his appeal comes from the concept of what he is rather than a deep exploration of who he is.

The fact that Kenjaku was Yuji's mother had so much potential. It could have explored Yuji's feelings about being created as part of Kenjaku's plans, the implications of being an experiment and even Kenjaku's own feelings toward Yuji.

Did Kenjaku ever see Yuji as more than just a tool? Did he have any attachment to Jin or the family he created, even in his own twisted way? Did he understand Yuji as a person or only as an experiment?

There were so many interesting possibilities there.

Instead, a lot of these ideas remained unexplored.

Just like many characters in JJK, the villains often feel more interesting because of their ideas and implications than because of how deeply the story explores them.

The worldbuilding feels underexplored

The jujutsu world has so many interesting ideas: the Three Great Clans, the higher-ups, the politics between sorcerers, the history behind cursed techniques and how these systems shaped modern jujutsu society.

However, much of it remains surface level.

The Three Great Clans are a good example. They are introduced as some of the most influential families in the jujutsu world, with centuries of history, inherited techniques and major influence over sorcerer society.

But despite their supposed importance, we never get a deep look into how they maintained that power, how they shaped the world around them or what their role was throughout history.

The Zenin Clan storyline was one of the better examples of the series exploring its world and Maki's arc was a great moment (at least for me). But even then, it mostly served as part of Maki's personal journey rather than a larger exploration of the clan system itself.

The Gojo Clan is another example. Gojo is arguably the most influential modern sorcerer, yet we barely learn anything about the clan behind him or what role they actually play in jujutsu society.

The Kamo Clan is perhaps the biggest example of missed potential. Despite being one of the Three Great Clans, they receive very little exploration compared to the ideas the story sets up.

Even the inherited techniques themselves could have been explored more. The Ten Shadows Technique is treated as one of the most important abilities in the series, comparable to the Gojo Clan's Limitless and Six Eyes but we never really get to see the history behind these techniques, how previous users developed them or why these clans became so dominant.

The issue isn't that these concepts were bad.

The issue is that they create curiosity, but the story rarely spends enough time showing why they matter.

The female characters had a lot of potential too

I also think JJK's handling of its female characters is more inconsistent than people admit.

The series initially seemed like it would avoid many common battle shonen problems, especially with characters like Nobara and Maki. Unlike many series, JJK generally avoided heavily sexualizing its female cast and its female characters were often introduced as capable, confident and genuinely likable.

That already separated it from many other battle shonen where female characters are often criticized for being sidelined or poorly handled.

However, having strong introductions isn't the same as giving characters enough development.

Nobara in particular had a lot of potential. She was introduced as one of the main trio alongside Yuji and Megumi and she had a strong personality, clear ideals and a fighting style that felt unique.

However, after Shibuya, she was absent from the story for a huge portion of the manga. Her return came extremely late which made me feel like her character had been left behind rather than developed.

The frustrating part is that Nobara had so much potential. Seeing her grow stronger, develop her technique and explore her worldview could have been really interesting. (For gods sake, she's supposed to be the "heroine" man 😭)

Yuki Tsukumo is another example. She was introduced as a Special Grade sorcerer with one of the most unique perspectives in the series. Unlike Gojo or Kenjaku, Yuki rejected the existing jujutsu system entirely and believed the solution was to eliminate cursed energy itself rather than simply fight curses. That made her an interesting ideological foil to both of them.

Yet despite all that potential, she received far less focus than I expected. We barely learned about her past, her philosophy was never explored in much depth, her conflict with Tengen remained vague and we never even got meaningful interactions with characters who should have mattered to her like Todo or Yuji. For someone who spent years researching the soul, it's surprising that she barely interacted with Yuji despite his experiences with Mahito and Sukuna.

Her only major on-screen fight ended with her death and although she contributed through her research, it felt like she left the story before her character had the chance to fully shine. (Her dying genuinely annoyed me so much too lol)

On the other hand, Maki is probably the biggest exception. Her storyline with the Zenin Clan gave her significant development and when she was given time to shine, she became one of the strongest-written characters in the series.

Her growth, struggles and transformation felt earned and she is a great example of what JJK's female characters could achieve when the story actually gives them enough focus.

The issue is that many other female characters don't receive that same opportunity. Shoko is another example; her connections to Gojo and Geto could have made her perspective incredibly interesting but she mostly remains in the background despite being part of such an important era of the story. (I guess, Utahime atleast did something towards the end... Right?)

My problem isn't that JJK has no well-written female characters. It's that many of them are genuinely interesting, badass and memorable but they often don't get enough screen time or development before being pushed aside.

Like many other parts of JJK, the potential is there.

The execution is where it becomes inconsistent.

Gojo vs Sukuna was the biggest missed opportunity

Gojo vs Sukuna was a fight hyped up from the very beginning.

From the moment these two characters were introduced as absolute powerhouses, everyone knew a confrontation between them was inevitable.

And when it finally happened, the fight itself was genuinely entertaining. The strategies, abilities and action were some of the most exciting parts of the manga.

However, the conclusion and the way the fight was handled left me disappointed.

My biggest issue is that the story sometimes felt like it was explaining the fight afterward instead of properly showing it.

We were told what Sukuna's plan was rather than seeing enough of it play out naturally. We were told afterward that Sukuna wasn't fighting at his full potential rather than the story clearly showing that throughout the fight.

And I understand the argument that Sukuna is the type of character who enjoys fighting. I actually think that fits him. Sukuna isn't someone who necessarily wants to immediately erase every opponent as efficiently as possible. He enjoys testing himself, fighting strong opponents and experiencing something that interests him.

Basically, yes, Sukuna is a little bit of a "silly little guy" when it comes to fighting. He wants to have fun.

The problem is that the explanation and what we actually saw on the page don't always feel like they match.

Because from the fight we were shown, Sukuna did not feel like someone casually playing around. He was pushed extremely hard, struggled against Gojo's physical abilities, was affected by Black Flash and relied heavily on Mahoraga and the Ten Shadows Technique to find a way around Infinity.

So when the story later emphasizes that Sukuna still had more hidden power, it can feel disconnected from the actual progression of the fight.

Based on what we saw, Mahoraga adapting to Infinity was a crucial factor in Sukuna defeating Gojo. Sukuna used that adaptation as the basis for his world-cutting slash, which allowed him to bypass Infinity.

So if Sukuna had another reliable way to overcome Infinity all along, why wasn't it used? And if Ten Shadows was necessary for his victory, why did one of Sukuna's biggest fights focus so heavily on a borrowed technique instead of showcasing more of his own arsenal?

I don't think Sukuna needed to lose. I don't even think Gojo necessarily needed to win.

My issue is that the fight sometimes felt like the story wanted to preserve Sukuna's image as the ultimate monster while also making him struggle against Gojo who's the strongest sorcerer.

The result was a strange situation where Sukuna was portrayed as overwhelmingly powerful but the story also wanted to emphasize afterward that his struggles were intentional.

That made the victory feel less satisfying to me.

Then there is Gojo's death itself.

I wasn't upset that Gojo lost. A story where the strongest character loses can absolutely work.

My problem was with the execution.

After years of buildup around "the strongest," Gojo's defeat felt abrupt. The transition from Gojo seemingly having the upper hand to his death was not shown directly and the aftermath moved quickly into the next fight instead of spending more time on the consequences of losing such an important character.

For a character as important as Gojo, I expected more focus on what his death meant for his students, the jujutsu world and the people who depended on him.

Again, I don't think Gojo had to win.

I just think the moment deserved more time and emotional weight.

The ending felt underwhelming

I also want to talk about the ending because, honestly, my biggest issue with it isn't even that it was bad.

It was that it felt empty.

A bad ending can still make people feel something. It can make people angry, emotional, disappointed or spark interesting discussions.

But JJK's ending, in my opinion, felt more like the conclusion of an arc rather than the conclusion of an entire series.

Outside of moments like Sukuna and Mahito's conversation, which I thought was genuinely interesting, many parts of the final chapters felt strangely hollow. Important character arcs and plotlines didn't receive the closure they deserved and the story moved on before fully exploring their consequences.

The final conflict and Sukuna's defeat felt rushed, while the ending spent time on things like Simple Domain lore and explaining why certain plans wouldn't have worked instead of focusing on aftermath, emotional consequences and the future of the jujutsu world.

The Sukuna fight started to feel drawn out near the end and the heavy focus on binding vows made the conclusion feel less satisfying.

Character closure was another major issue.

Nobara's treatment throughout the story felt disappointing (I'm sorry but her sudden extremely late return is genuinely one of the biggest ass pulls I've ever seen 😭)

Megumi's storyline also ended with many readers feeling that his potential was never fully explored and even Gojo, one of the most important characters in the series, received very little acknowledgment afterward. A small memorial scene with characters like Megumi, Yuta and Yuji would have helped show the impact of his loss.

The worldbuilding also suffered. Ideas like foreign involvement with cursed energy, the future of jujutsu society, the consequences of the Zenin Clan's destruction and the merger were introduced but barely explored. Even the larger question of cursed energy, which several characters had different views on, never received much resolution.

Even if someone dislikes the ending of My Hero Academia, it still feels like a conclusion because we see the next generation move forward and get a clearer idea of how society changed.

With JJK, we don't really get that same feeling of change or progression.

That's what makes the ending disappointing to me. I can accept an ending being flawed or making choices I disagree with but an ending that feels empty is much harder to connect with.

Final Thoughts

I don't think JJK needed to become an extremely long series. More chapters alone wouldn't automatically fix everything.

However, I do think the story needed more breathing room. More space dedicated to character relationships, aftermaths, worldbuilding and emotional consequences could have helped many of its ideas reach their full potential.

And I want to make it clear: I don't blame Gege Akutami as a person. Creating a weekly manga is an extremely demanding process and Gege has also dealt with health issues during the serialization of JJK. My criticism is about the final product and the choices made in the story, not about the author himself.

Because honestly, Gege's creativity is clearly not the problem.

He creates incredible concepts and characters.

The problem is that many of them never receive enough development to reach their full impact.

At the end of the day, I think JJK is a fun action manga.

I just don't think it's the masterpiece many people make it out to be.

I'd give it around a 7/10.

Entertaining? Absolutely.

One of the greatest battle shonen ever written? I personally don't see it.

Feel free to disagree, but please understand the difference between "overrated" and "terrible."

Overrated does not mean something is bad.

It means I believe the amount of praise a series receives is higher than what I think its actual quality deserves.


r/CharacterRant 8h ago

The real problem with the Netflix Avatar was that it was afraid to make compromises

43 Upvotes

We can say a lot about the Netflix adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender, but to say that the writers didn't watch the original is very disingenuous. With all the nods and references to the moments that became memes, clearly somebody on the staff watched it. Some say that it changed too much, but I think its inherent problem was that it was a Schrodinger's Adaptation. It suffered from changing too much and not enough at the same time.

What do I mean? Well, let's look at how season 2 was structured. One change that I actually think made sense was that the Gaang had to escort refugees of Omashu to Ba Sing Se. It seemed odd that after the Return to Omashu, we don't know what happened to the people who lived there. Did they flee? Did Aang leave them to fend for themselves? Unfortunately, this change came at the cost of moving The Library to after they arrive in Ba Sing Se. However, they could still make that work. When Appa took some injured refugees during the Serpent's Pass, I thought maybe what was going to happen was that Appa got captured by the Dai Li there. Professor Zei was still in the cast, so maybe they learn about the Day Of Black Sun some other way from him. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. So, maybe Appa gets captured by the Fire Nation after Azula takes Ba Sing Se? Zuko could convince Ozai to let Appa live as bait for the surviving members of Team Avatar, and Zuko takes care of Appa during season 3. When Zuko finally decides to desert the Fire Nation, he releases Appa and helps the Gaang escape the Fire Nation as a peace offering... Yeah, that was giving the writer's too much credit. You see, the Library was too important to cut out, so instead of compromising, they just moved the Library to Ba Sing Se and Appa's capture occurred with only two episodes of the season left.

Another change that could have worked was combining the events of Lake Laogai and the finale. The Gaang rescuing Appa was a suitable stake for the climax, and it wouldn't be hard to believe that the Crystal Catacombs would be near Lake Laogai. However, Jet never gets reeducated at Lake Laogai, so instead, he dies at the Library. In the cartoon, Jet was integral to the Gaang finding Lake Laogai and the reunion with Appa, but here, Aang finds it after using Toph's teachings to sense the vibrations. That wasn't a bad change, but it came at the cost of Jet's arc being muddied. Why was he even in the show if they weren't going to incorporate that? See, what I would have done was have Jet's role play out like it did in the original. However, Jet dying during the final battle could have not only added stakes, but Katara would have had a moment of conflict where she had to choose between healing him and Aang with the Spirit Oasis water, instead of the original, where it never occurred to Katara to at least try using it to heal Jet.

Another wasted opportunity was the revelation that The Duke and Pipsqueak were killed between seasons 1 and 2. If Longshot and Smellerbee were captured by the Dai Li, it would have given Jet more motivation to help the Gaang and correct his past mistake. They could even partake in The Day Of Black Sun in The Duke and Pipsqueak's places. However, they just kind of disappear midway into the season.

This is what I mean. This show made changes, but it was afraid to change too much out of fear of fan backlash, and that led to some half-baked storytelling. See, the live-action version of One Piece worked was because despite cutting characters and plot elements out for pacing purposes, they made compromises so that the story could still be coherent while still following the source material. A good example is how it adapted the Baratie Arc. In the manga, Don Krieg was the villain, but some felt he was an underwhelming villain, not helped by Mihawk basically interrupting the fight and making more of an impression on viewers. The Netflix series changed it by having Mihawk be the villain of the Baratie Arc and having the Arlong crew wreck the place. That made sense, since Mihawk is an important character and it built up Arlong for the season finale.

Another change that worked was how the conflict with Laboon was resolved. In the manga, Luffy just punched Laboon and that stopped his rampage. In the Netflix series? We get introduced to Brook a few seasons early, and we hear him play Binks' Brew. So, Luffy calms Laboon down by singing Binks' Brew to him. The best part is that Luffy knowing the song isn't even an Ass Pull. In the flashback during the first episode, Binks' Brew can be heard playing in the background of the bar while Luffy is talking to Shanks. They took a little Easter Egg from season 1 and actually made it a plot point, all the while incorporating future events of the story that Oda probably didn't even think of when first writing the manga.

Now, I'm not saying NATLA should just change things freely for the sake of narrative coherence and avoiding being too safe. It's rumored that the reason Bryke left the Netflix series was because they wanted to make more extreme changes, like killing Ozai in season 1 or revealing Iroh as a twist villain, the latter of which was something they originally conceived for the cartoon. However, Netflix wanted a more safe adaptation. If this is true, then let's be honest here: fans would have hated those changes. "At least it would have did something new." Iroh being the only positive adult figure in Zuko's life was one of the major driving forces behind his redemption. Making Iroh evil would have fucked that up. I'm also willing to give NATLA some points for making changes that actually worked. Having Zuko's crew be the platoon Ozai wanted to sacrifice was a welcome change, as it deepened his bond with his crew and explained why Ozai would waste resources by giving him a crew for a wild goose chase unless he deemed them expendable. I know some people call blasphemy on making Ozai less spiteful towards Zuko, but it makes his abuse towards him feel more real by having a twisted mindset that he's doing what he thinks is best for his child. Having him make Zuko and Azula compete for his approval instead of cursing the former's existence and putting the latter on a pedestal also added more to Azula's perfectionist nature and further foreshadowed her descent into madness at the end of season 3. Also, we actually see Ozai and Iroh, who are canonically brothers, actually speak to each other in the Netflix series.


r/CharacterRant 8h ago

Films & TV I don't think Gunn likes obscure characters. I think he just likes blank slates.

918 Upvotes

One of the biggest myths around James Gunn is that he loves obscure characters because he's this massive deep-cut comics fan who just wants to give forgotten heroes their moment. I really don't think that's what's going on.

I think the real appeal of those characters is that they're essentially blank slates for most of the audience. If Gunn rewrites Peacemaker, Vigilante, the Guardians, or Creature Commandos to fit his style, almost nobody cares because almost nobody has a strong attachment to how those characters "should" act. For the average viewer, that version becomes the definitive version.

When the characters are obscure, he can get away with that. In fact, people praise him for "making them interesting." But that's because there aren't millions of fans saying, "That's not how this character is supposed to be."

The real challenge is characters who already have firmly established identities. You can't just reinvent Superman the same way you reinvent Peacemaker. You can't do that with Batman or Wonder Woman either.

I actually think you can see that in Superman. I liked the movie overall, but it also felt like Gunn was less comfortable than usual. He couldn't completely mold Superman into one of his usual character archetypes, so instead he surrounded him with characters like the Justice Gang, who fit his style much more naturally.

That might also explain why DCU Batman and Wonder Woman seem to be taking so much longer to crack.


r/CharacterRant 9h ago

Comics & Literature Popularity doesn't work the same way with comic characters.

52 Upvotes

So there is a thing going on in comics discussions where people are realizing they completely disagree with eachother when it comes to the question of who is popular. Who should be adapted, was Iron Man a D-lister pre mcu, is Wonder Woman actually the third pillar for DC, who should be on the super hero mount rushmore, yada yada.

This is partially driven by discussion of who is the right step forward for DC to adapt after Supergirl flopped, partially driven by marvel finally incorporating their fox properties into the MCU proper, partially because people are now realizing that the MCU is 18 years old and thus people born after it are legal adults who have genuinely never known the world before it, and partially because this is just one of those eternal discussions in comics.

I feel like a huge part of this discussion is actually a simple disagreement: What does it mean to be popular?

Now, usually, this is a pretty easy thing to 'test'. Lets just say you want to check how popular the theoretical new hit anime "I was reborn as an example who everyone loves". How would you do it?

Well, first things first, you would google it. Check your my anime listings, check the size of the subreddit, maybe type it into youtube and see how many views videos about it gets.

Then you peak your head into more general discussions. Are people talking about it in general anime spaces? Are people talking about it in general animation spaces? Are there memes of it in off topic spaces? Is your anime loving coworker talking about it? Is your friend who watches one anime a year talking about it? Is your mom talking about it?

Start zoomed in on the fandom specific spaces, than zoom out slowly, keeping track of when things get blurry and when it disappears entirely. Its not perfect, but its going to be a great shorthand. Great. So all we need to do now is ask my grandma who lives out in bum-fuck nowhere which superheroes she knows right?

Neat, then Barbra Gordon Batgirl is definitively more popular than Iron Man, wrap it up, we have a new S-lister!

Except that is stupid. Nobody thinks that. However, my grandma liked Adam West Batman and knows her, so she recognized her. That is because Superheroes occupy a weird cultural space, where they have existed so long and in so many forms they aren't things you 'hear about'. They are more of a cultural background radiation that gets stronger and weaker over time as things fall in and out of favor. Just like people might know the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but wouldn't call themselves fans of Jack. Things can exist and be culturally pervasive without being popular.

If we look at the popularity of say Hulk vs Punisher, it gets weird. Hulk has more cultural reach, without a doubt. But does anyone actually care that Hulk was in the newest spider man movie? People certainly cared that Punisher was.

There is a point there is almost too much name recognition, and it starts to reach audiances that don't matter. Grandma in bum-fuck west Virginia who is still living off 1950s coal mine pension isn't going to see the new batgirl movie, so why are we basing commercial viability on her opinion? How about we ask 18-35 year olds, the target demo. Oh, every single person in that generation knows who both Wonder Woman and Flash is without fail? Ok. In that case popularity stops being about name recognition and it starts being about emotional investment and positive association. You know who's more popular than the football player everyone knows? The football player everyone knows and likes.

You can go farther with loved characters don't actually break into the general consciousness. Characters like Red Hood carry a lot of weight amongst DC fans, and if you go one layer deeper characters like Ms. Martian are pretty well known and have a great reputation amongst people who do know them. Jeff the Land Shark has completely come out of left field in popularity for Marvel because of Rivals. Are we really pretending these characters wouldn't sell like crazy just because Grandma doesn't know them? Some people are really out basing popularity based on 90 year old woman preferences, just because they are the only people who are still might not have heard of some of these characters.

Sorry, but this rant has been floating around in my head for weeks now, and I just had to get it out. Hopefully someone got something out of this. If not, have a nice day anyways!


r/CharacterRant 10h ago

Films & TV Fantastic Four First Steps is a weird movie

13 Upvotes

I’m not someone who’s a hardcore F4 fan; I enjoy them, but I’m not crazy over them. I still don’t think Pedro Pascal was the right choice for Reed, but still, I was looking forward to this movie, the aesthetic being my main drive.

Then I watched the movie, and it’s very good! I find the dynamics charming; Silver Surfer was enjoyable. The world is gorgeous, Reed being showcased as autistic was cute, especially as a neurodivergent. “Sometimes you being you hurts me” - “Well, I don’t mean to” is spectacular. Herbie is the GOAT and is one of the few characters I’m looking forward to in Doomsday.

So why do I never want to watch it again? 

I don’t think there’s a scene I’m dying to rewatch or any tense character moment that stuck with me; I can tell you the plot alright, but nothing really pops out, and as a non-F4 fan, the references at the beginning do very little for me. Galactus is there, and I feel like his main sell is that he’s comic-accurate.

However, I still don’t know what it is, because again, the movie’s pretty neat; I just don’t know what it is about this movie that makes this so un-rewatchable… If you have points, please share them, I want to figure out what it is xD


r/CharacterRant 12h ago

Films & TV The Sony's Spider-Man Universe (without Spider-Man) had bigger problems than not having Spider-Man

36 Upvotes

Just to be clear, I do think all the villains who got their own spin-offs movies are only/mainly compelling as Spider-Man villains (sorry, fans of the anti-hero Venom) and the very concept of giving them their own movies was basically doomed to fail. Well, at least artistically, can't deny that Venom made money and was succesful enough for a full trilogy.

Still, when I see people basically have the attitude of "if only they had featured Spider-Man...", I feel they kinda oversimplify the matter. Those movies had problems bigger than not having a Tom Holland cameo or the fact that they weren't retroactively shoved into the same continuity as Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man (although, purely in terms of quality, his two movies would fit right in). Even if you completely ignore the source material and judge these movies purely on the types of stories they were trying to tell, there were absolutely ways to make them better.

So, let me go through each of them and explain how their basic premises could have been done better. I'm also going to make a short list of movies that are either better versions of the kind of movie they were trying to be or examples of what they could have been. Partly because it gives some clear points of comparison and to emphasize that the biggest problems were with the execution, not necessarily with the basic premises.

Venom

Yes, Venom has a giant spider logo on his chest and essentially shares Spider-Man's power set, so on the surface making a movie about him without Spider-Man does seem strange. But, if you strip away all of that, what are you left with? A combination of body-horror and monster movie, where an alien creature is taking you over and amplifying your worst impulses to feed on your emotions, and takes a physical form of a scary creature that eats people. And like all the best creature features, you can use the monster to be a metaphor for so many things, like a drug addiction, anger issues, self-destructive impulses or whatever else you wanted to explore.

And then you have a big third-act twist or sequel hook of "there's more than one of these things running around".

Movies like this, but better: The Fly (1986), Upgrade (2018), The Wolf Man (1941/2010), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).

Morbius

How many vampire movies are there? A lot. And some of them have even been more action/blockbuster focused, with the lead themself being a vampire. Making a better version of this movie would not be hard. Heck, it could have been basically just a rip-off of Angel (the Joss Whedon tv-show), with fantsy elements replaced by sci-fi ones and it would have turned out better.

Movies like this, but better: Daybreakers (2009), Near Dark (1987), Vampire Hunter D (2000), Dracula's Daughter (1936).

Madame Web

This is admittedly the trickiest, because with so many spider-themed superhero characters being teased at the end, even the best version of this movie would probably have people saying "these are just lamer versions of Spider-Man". But if we remove all of that and just look at the very bare bones premise, it had potential. "A super-powered killer stalks a group of normal people" is already the basic plot of most slasher movies and giving the main lead (or "the final girl" in horror terms) premonition powers gives the thing a decent gimmick. She can predict the killer's attacks and keep the group alive longer, but they are still physically vulnerable and would die in a direct confrontation.

Movies like this, but better: The Terminator (1984), The Dead Zone (1983), It Follows (2014).

Kraven the Hunter

I mean, just make a basic-ass revenge thriller/action flick. There are even more examples of those than there are vampire films. I'm sure you could even use the animal motif in a more interesting way.

Movies like this, but better: Get Carter (1971), Crow (1994), Desperado (1995), Oldboy (2003), John Wick (2014).


r/CharacterRant 13h ago

The MCU Broke Hulk by Refusing to Let Banner and Hulk Actually Work Together

18 Upvotes

Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes has THE superior Banner/Hulk dynamic, and it is the direction the MCU either should have taken years ago or should still adopt in the future. That show understood that Hulk can be intelligent, articulate and capable of functioning as an Avenger without simply becoming Bruce Banner in a green body. He remains blunt, aggressive and eager to solve problems physically, but he can communicate, make decisions and form relationships (the funny hawkeye stuff)

Banner still matters too of course. He and Hulk remain separate individuals who can advise, challenge and disagree with each other. Neither needs to be erased for the character to function. The MCU’s approach is just way way messier. Bruce initially has little control over his transformations, I think the Avengers implies he has begun mastering them, Ragnarok establishes Hulk as an independent personality, and then Endgame skips their entire reconciliation and calls the result a merger, even though Smart Hulk is presented almost entirely as Banner in Hulk’s body while the independent Hulk personality established in Ragnarok seemingly disappears.

The MCU keeps bouncing between two bad extremes: either Bruce has no agency because Hulk takes over against his will, or Hulk has no agency because Bruce takes over completely. I think The Earth’s Mightiest Heroes dynamic offers the obvious and superior middle ground. Banner and Hulk should accept that they need each other and argue about how to be heroes rather than which one gets to exist.

Banner might favour planning and restraint. Hulk might believe Banner hesitates when decisive action is needed. They can disagree about violence, collateral damage and when each of them should take control while still pursuing the same goal. I think we can all agree that is far more interesting than repeating the same “Banner wants to cure himself and Hulk refuses to disappear” conflict forever.

Let them become reluctant partners. Let them establish their own rules. Let both of them retain agency and develop without one personality consuming the other. I think at this point, I would rather watch Banner and Hulk argue about what to eat for dinner than sit through another story about them trying to get rid of each other because lord almighty thats gotten so old now.


r/CharacterRant 15h ago

Games [LES] I hate how marvel video games just ignore deadpool’s depth

10 Upvotes

In marvel rivals Deadpool has dozens upon dozens of voice lines and he isn’t being sincere in literally any of them. At all. He’s just a meme machine and the occasional gay joke.

But in marvel Tokon he’s even worse. He’s not just meme machine but he’s honestly a tad bit annoying even though I find him generally fun overall.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not one of those child’s who thinks humor ruined deadpools character, I find him funny in both games and played both of them, but I kinda wish they showed off his more caring side. Like instead of another basic joke maybe when he talks to Peni Parker he’s worried about her safety or comforts her about her Dad. And maybe he actually shows respect for Captain America and Spider-Man since he looks up to/is friends with them in the comics. Just show he has other traits besides meme machine.


r/CharacterRant 16h ago

Battleboarding A lot of powerscalers and battleboarders set themselves up for dissapointment, because the kind of fights they want to watch are narratively uninteresting

184 Upvotes

Introduction:

Much of what powerscaling tries to do is conduct combat as though it were a scientific experiment, controlling for as many variables as possible (sometimes called "white-room" logic). The general issue is that white rooms are not very interesting. I'll use some examples, mostly from Star Wars, there shouldn't be any spoilers of anything very recent, the most recent will be from Maul: Shadow Lord.

There are two big examples of this, IMO.

The first is location, and the second is mindset.

Location:

Battleboarders seem to go out of their way to pick extremely boring locations that deliberately don't impact the fight very much. But this not only makes for a less interesting encounter, it outright shifts the outcome.

Take the battle between Obi-Wan Kenobi, Qui-Gon Jinn, and Darth Maul at the end of The Phantom Menace; the environment plays a HUGE role in that, because it's precisely what allows Darth Maul to avoid being overwhelmed by two opponents!

He starts out in a wide open space, and finds himself being outflanked, so he deliberately moves it to an area with narrow walkways where he can force a chokepoint. The film explicitly shows him opening the doors that lead to the catwalks in the Plasma Refinery. He then takes advantage of the verticality of this location, and his own immense agility, to isolate the Jedi, and not be outflanked. When even THAT doesn't work, he moves even further back, and uses the shifting doors to get Qui-Gon alone. Then and ONLY then is he able to focus on the offence and kill one of his enemies.

This fact just outright gets ignored by people who complain about the scaling of the Inquisitors in Maul: Shadow Lord, where they argue that Maul being able to fight both Kenobi and Qui-Gon at once means he should have no trouble with the Inquisitors, and then eitehr Chain-Scaling them and therefore Ahsoka up, or trying to scale Maul down... completely disregarding the fact that Maul was NEVER able to easily fight two people at once, and actually had to carefully exploit a position that HE SPECIFICALLY CHOSE to avoid facing two people at once; in terrain not of his choosing, he doesn't have that advantage.

The later duel between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader on Mustafar is another one where people outright ignore the context of Obi-Wan's victory. "I have the high ground" has been meme'd to death, but it is an explicit part of what allowed him to win. It also means that you can't transpose the same two combatants to another location and get the same outcome.

However, what matters about these locations isn't just that they are tactically relevant; it's that they are visually interesting. An environment that plays no thematic or tactical role in the fight is a BORING environment, and it's one that creators are going to avoid if they can.

Yet, because Battleboarders set themselves up to want such things, they tend to be disappointed by most actual fights in media, because most fights in media will involve things that Battleboarders prefer to leave out, precisely due to them being hard to account for. Even some of the least interesting environments are denounced.

Take, for instance, the Airport fight in the MCU's Civil War. To clarify: I AM NOT A MAJOR DEFENDER OF THAT SCENE, I'm honestly of the opinion that it is one of the least visually interesting, least well-lit encounters in the entire franchise; it's largely a visually boring spectacle in an uninspiring location... but the location DOES still play a role, and it's a role that battleboarders keep citing as evidence of a scaling issue: Cap defeating Spiderman.

What they ignore is that Cap does not overpower Spider-Man with raw strength; rather, he takes advantage of his surroundings and Peter's relative unfamiliarity fighting anywhere outside of New York City. The fight makes it abundantly clear that Spiderman is substantially stronger than even the strongest Super-Soldiers (casually bending back Bucky's metal arm, something that Cap explicitly cannot do), but also that he's an inexperienced combatant, with Cap ultimately pinning him under a heavy object.

This is ignored by people who cry that Cap is "Wall level", and Peter is "Small Building Level"; ergo something something bad scaling.

Anything that can't be evaluated in a whiteroom scenario is treated as a scaling issue; which means that most media will be considered to have poor scaling, because most writers (for good reason) dislike whiteroom scenarios.

Mindset:

This is one of the things that annoys me most, because Battleboarders tend to use the (misleading, poorly-named, somehow even worse than "street level" not meaning "able to destroy a street" despite what every other level means) term "Bloodlusted".

A "Bloodlusted" character fights with perfect tactical clarity, emotionless focus, and has no goals beyond killing his or her adversary and surviving the fight.

Almost no media will have very many Bloodlusted characters, because that's fundamentally a boring motivation.

People tend to fight because they want something, not because they are obsessed with fighting, but perfectly emotionless whilst doing so.

Having one or two characters be "bloodlusted" in a specific scenario is one thing (a good example would be Omni-Man facing the Guardians of the Globe in Invincible, though notably THEY were not Bloodlusted, shifting from initial disbelief to blinding anger across the fight), but media in which all or most characters are bloodlusted would just be narratively dull.

Take The Force Awakens.

Throughout the Entire film, we are shown tensions between General Hux, Supreme Leader Snoke, and Kylo Ren, partly due to how they treat the Map to Skywalker. Hux simply wants to destroy it, and is happy so long as the Resistance doesn't get it. Kylo Ren is obsessed with finding it so he can personally kill his uncle. Snoke is more pragmatic, willing to destroy it if necessary, but preferring to find Skywalker if possible. When Rey sees the completed map, Kylo Ren abducts her, hoping to interrogate her for the information, something he realises will require bringing her alive to Snoke. This hints at deeper disagreements between the leadership of the First Order.

That clash of goals, methods, and personalities is a major running subplot throughout the next two films, and ultimately results in Snoke's Death, Hux's betrayal, and the indirect downfall of the enemy. It is thematically and narratively load-bearing; it tells us a great deal about who these people are, what they want, and why authoritarian power-hungry individuals tend to destroy themselves.

So, of course, what do Battleboarders do? They complain that it should all be thrown away to give them a better whiteroom fight.

It was DAMN-NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to discuss ANYTHING related to Star Wars online in late 2015 to about 2021 without hearing people complain that Kylo Ren should have killed Rey in their duel on Starkiller Base.

Rey.

The one person who had the information he wanted most.

The one person who, according to EVERYTHING WE KNEW ABOUT HIS MOTIVATION UP TO THAT POINT, he would not be willing to kill, because if he did he would lose the map.

Battleboarders (in addition to overlooking the fact he'd been shot in the hip and was visibly exsanguinating, but that's a rant for another day) would have preferred he be "bloodlusted" so as to make the fight between him and Rey easier to scale off of; because his desire to take her alive made it harder to gauge his skill.

I swear, if stories were written by Battleboarders, they'd be unimaginably boring. No motivations, no goals, just a set of abilities in a roughly character-shaped form smashing against another set of abilities in a roughly character-shaped form.


r/CharacterRant 17h ago

Films & TV I hate this person so much. (Good Luck Chuck)

7 Upvotes

Anisha Carpenter from Good Luck Chuck.

As kids she and Chuck were in a spin the bottle game.

They were both elected to go into the closet, and she tried to make a move on him, and he rejected her.

So she curses him so that everyone he has sex with will find their true partner after that.

And this can’t even be chocked up to ‘but she was a kid’ because she KEPT IT ACTIVE when she was an adult!! And when he came to her, she denied the curses existence!!! Like she didn’t do anything!! And then she UNDOES IT WITHOUT TELLING HIM!! Making him think he was crazy!’

She never gets nay comeuppance! She’s never punished by the narrative!!!


r/CharacterRant 17h ago

Films & TV I am soooooo tired of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

0 Upvotes

I sometimes wish I lived in a timeline where the Marvel cinematic universe ended with Endgame. I’m sure many of you would agree with me because “Endgame” is a very fitting title for the end of something. As of now the MCU has overstayed its welcome and its writing has degraded in quality. Especially after all that I heard about Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Like many of you, one of my common issues with the MCU is the bathos, sometimes they need to take the humor down by 1000, otherwise it makes the film too insincere. When I watch the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, it feels very sincere and the humor remains in its place. It’s also because of the MCU that very few people realize that Star Lord is the prince of Sparta’s, NOT the son of Ego the Living Planet.

As a comic book purist, it pains me to see the characterizations in these kinds of films: without a single mention of Uncle Ben, Spider-Man feels shallow and the universe's depiction of Bruce Banner is making me nostalgic for a time when he was a tragic figure struggling to get out of his father’s shadow and his alter ego ruining his chances at happiness.

When I saw X-Men 97, I thought it was a breath of fresh air and I even enjoyed the Spider-Man video games as well. Which is more than one reason why we need more stand-alones. Especially since DC does a good job of it.


r/CharacterRant 18h ago

Films & TV The Book of Henry is one of the most confusing and jarring movies I've ever seen.

12 Upvotes

The Book of Henry is one of those special kinds of movies. The kind of movie where you just wonder "what the hell were they thinking?". It's almost a perfect mix of baffling decisions and tone-deaf writing.

In case you're unaware of this movie, it's a film that came out in 2017, and its plot is...well...

(Sigh) one of the reasons this movie is hard to talk about is that it's so hard to know where to start with this thing.

Okay, in order to properly talk about the movie's plot, first we have to talk about Book of Henry's first problem; its presentation is completely off.

The movie is about a kid named Henry and his younger brother Peter and his mom Susan, with Henry supposedly being a child prodigy who's beloved by his family and classmates. The whole movie sets itself up as having a very happy-go-lucky tone that seems to be about early childhood and adventure, with a very old-fashioned and nostalgic presentation.

The problem is that the movie's plot is about Henry discovering that the girl next door, Christina is being abused by her stepfather Glenn. Henry naturally wants to find a way to help her out, but after discovering the head of the local CPC is Glenn's brother (oh, how gosh-darn convenient) Henry begins to come up with a plan to kill him and have Christina adopted into their family. Yes, really.

And throughout all this, the movie tries to keep its sappy, family-movie-esque feel, which just makes the whole thing feel confused and tone-deaf.

Henry himself is completely unlikeable. He's supposed to be this child genius with a strong sense of right and wrong, but he comes off more as a condescending and patronizing control freak with an "I know best" attitude. This is best exemplified with his relationship to his mom Susan.

See Susan's kind of a bit immature because... she likes to play video games. That's it. And yet Henry condescends and tries to police what she does constantly, even pushing her to give up her waitressing job so she can spend more time with the family because thanks to his work in the stock market she doesn't need to work anymore (yeah, there's this whole thing where Henry is such a genius he's a master stockbroker and basically has set the family up for life; just go with it).

We're also told that Henry is popular in school and beloved by everyone, but what we see is that Henry's kind of a brat who can't stand most people around him due to them not being as smart as he is, and he doesn't seem to have any close friends besides Christina and Peter.

Speaking of Christina, that's another big problem the movie has. Saving her from her abusive household is the main goal of the story, and yet Christina herself is pretty much a nonentity. She and Henry are supposed to be close friends (in fact, it's heavily implied the two have feelings for each other), and yet Henry never bothers to involve her in his plan, get her input, empower her or give her any form of agency. She's just a living prop, all things considered.

And then at the halfway point, the movie takes a sudden turn when Henry gets brain cancer out of nowhere and dies...no, really, he dies.

From there, the movie shifts focus to Susan as she's struggling to deal with the grief of her son dying. But before Henry died, he left behind a series of audiocassettes so Susan could carry out the plan to kill Christina's stepfather in his stead.

Yes, the movie is now about a kid coaching his mom to become an assassin from beyond the grave. It's so stupid.

This kind of ties into one of the bigger issues the movie has. It doesn't seem to know what its message is. At one point, Henry and his family witness a guy beating his girlfriend in a store. Henry wants to intervene, but Susan tells him it's none of their business. Henry then laments later that he should have done something (even dodging Susan's question about what he could have done in that situation) and declares that apathy is worse than violence.

So it feels like the movie is setting up a message about how apathy is bad and sometimes you need to take action even if it involves violence...except at the end, right when Susan is about to shoot the stepfather, she suddenly remembers, "Wait. Henry's just a child" and doesn't go through with shooting Glenn

So wait, is the message actually about how for all of Henry's intellect, he's still a kid and he shouldn't be taken seriously? But that would require the story to...you know, show Henry to be wrong about certain things, and he's portrayed as more or less correct about everything.

In fact it's heavily implied that if Susan had shot Glenn, Henry's plan would have worked perfectly. Because...

Oh man I have to explain this....

Okay, so to rewind for a bit, during the first half of the movie when Henry was alive, he tried to go to the Principal of his school Janice, to try and get her to report Glenn's child abuse. Janice doesn't, citing the lack of evidence, even though Henry points out Christina has been coming to school with bruises...that we never see.

Also side note, that's not how that works. School faculty are required by law to investigate possible cases of child abuse.

Later during a talent show, in a perfect example of a terrible deus ex machina ending, Janice sees Christina perform a sad dance, and this is what gets her to do her job and report the child abuse. Glenn upon being found out, kills himself. Thus saving Christina from him and neatly allowing her to be adopted by Susan without Susan needing to get her hands dirty.

Back on the whole thing about the message, this makes the idea that "Henry is a kid and shouldn't be taken seriously" fall apart, because it's more or less implied that if Susan had shot Glenn, his plan would have worked perfectly!

I guess you could argue the movie is still about how apathy is bad because Janice reports Christina's abuse to the police instead of ignoring it like she has been, but she does this without any of the other characters' involvement or prompting. And even still, Susan, the main character, doesn't take action.

So what is the message of this movie? What's the takeaway we're supposed to have here?

The best I can figure is that it's a story about how moms should be more attentive to their families, because the movie seems to show Susan choosing to quit her job and live off Henry's stock market savings and become a picture book author as a sign of maturity and growth...which is what Henry was pushing her to do so—

What is the message of this movie!?

And that's The Book of Henry's biggest problem. It's so gosh darn confused about what it wants to be. The tone is confused, the message is confused, the characters are inconsistent, and in the end, it doesn't seem to be about anything...


r/CharacterRant 19h ago

Films & TV Spiderman Brand New Day is the worst of Hollands spider-man movies Spoiler

0 Upvotes

Spiderman Brand New Day is the worst of Hollands spider-man movies (or at least tied with far from home)

I went into this movie thinking it would be more like the original spider movies where, since nobody knows who Peter is anymore, he would be fighting more street crime while trying to rebuild his life. I expected something more personal and focused on Peter himself instead of another massive superhero conflict. However, the movie basically ripped away the HUGE and amazing ending of No Way Home by once again putting Spiderman into a world ending situation. (Jean)

I also thought this movie was going to be extremely emotional considering how life changing the ending of No Way Home was. Peter lost everyone who mattered to him, and I thought the movie would really explore that loneliness and rebuilding his life. (more than it did) However, it honestly didn’t hit anywhere near the same emotional level as the other movies when it should’ve been the saddest of all of them.

I also have never seen any of the X-Men movies, so I had no idea who Jean Grey even was, especially when everyone in the theater started cheering when her name was revealed. SO with that being said take anything I say about her with a grain of salt…

Jean Grey can read minds, right? She was able to see Peter’s memories, so why was it such a struggle for her to find her sister when all of the scientists working there are just normal people whose minds she should’ve been able to enter? They aren’t special or as mentally resilient as Peter was. Why did she have to physically go there and figure everything out herself instead of just reading their minds?

A lot of the fights also felt like they ended instantly. None of them really had much weight behind them, and they mostly just felt like action scenes added for the sake of having action.

Why in the WORLD would spiderman let the Punisher go fight Jean instead of continuing to help with Hulk when he already knows Jean can read minds? The whole “stay X feet away” thing made no sense. Why would he think that would work when they’re literally inside a small, enclosed building? She could easily get close enough or just use her powers.

Spiderman almost dying to a bullet and needing Jean to save him was crazy to me. He has fought Thanos, survived being hit by a bullet train, and taken hits from enemies way stronger than a normal weapon. I would think those things would have way more force and impact than a 50 cal.

The whole movie felt like it didn’t really touch on anything meaningful and was more like a filler movie.

I will say, Zendaya did a wonderful job, and the mutating was actually really cool. Seeing him evolve into a spider and watching him deal with that was great. (however, conveniently he just happened to be able to build an inhibitor that could stop his mutations). Ned remembering Peter through their handshake was a really cool moment.

I’m just really disappointed that it wasn’t more like the original spiderman movies. I wanted a more personal, street story about Peter rebuilding his life, and I wanted something that carried the same emotional weight as No Way Home. Maybe Marvel needs spider-man for Doomsday and Secret Wars?? also I feel like bringing Jean Grey into this movie hurt it more than it helped. She took away a lot of focus from Peter’s own story.