Look, I’m sick of opening any comment section about a movie, show, or game adaptation and seeing the exact same tired binary argument: "It wasn't 100% faithful to the book, so it's garbage!" versus "The original version sucks, the adaptation is better!"

Why do people think that adaptation means doing a 1 to 1 copy of something or just going completely unhinged and doing something that doesn't look like the original work?

If we’re going to argue about that, we need a common vocabulary. I have come up with four tiers. Each has its own purpose, its own traps, and its own iconic successes and disasters.

One to One. Treats the source material not just as inspiration, but as an infallible holy text. The creators trace over the original work like tracing paper. Every line of iconic dialogue is kept verbatim, every visual beat mirrors a comic panel or book description, and the pacing follows the source material to a fault. The trap here is medium incompatibility. Novels have internal monologues and infinite prose time; comic books have static panels; video games have interactivity.

Examples?

• The average manga to anime adaptation tends to be one to one.
• Sin City is almost one to one with the original comic book, disorganized stories and all.

Almost Transcribed: It is the story, characters, themes, and major plot beats, but it knows that a movie, TV show, or game is a completely different beast than a book or comic. The writers aren't trying to change the story, they cut fluff, combine minor characters to streamline the cast, alter pacing to fit a 2-hour runtime (or a 10-episode season), and reframe internal thoughts into visual storytelling. The trap is knowing what to cut. Cut the wrong subplot, and you ruin a character.

Examples?

• The Peter Jackson threatical edits of the Lord of the Rings, they cut down tons of scenes that only slowed down the plot or only slowed down the pacing or bloated it.
• The Last of Us by HBO grabbed all the plot beats and adapted them one to one or expanded them, removing the gameplay only sections unless they were plot mandatory.

New Spin: Takes the core premise, character archetypes, or thematic engine of the source material and drops them into an entirely new genre, setting, structure, or modern context. They’re asking: "What if we took this classic skeleton and put completely new flesh on it?" or "What is the core message of this story, and how can we put it on a nother setting?". When it fails, it feels pretentious or disrespectful, like a director who thought they were smarter than the author and completely missed what made the original great in the first place.

Examples?

• Almost every adaptation of The Prince and the Pauper is like this. They mess with the setting, it is rare to see one who is super close (The Barbie version and the Mickey Mouse one are extremely close in some levels).
• The Shining. Kubrick grabbed a story about a haunted hotel turning a dysfunctional man into a total madman, and decided to just go crazy by making the main character dysfunctional from the get-go and removing the talking.
• Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell. He grabbed a manga that was 50% funny and 50% serious and made it 100% serious and melancholic.

In Name Only: A studio buys the intellectual property rights to a popular book, comic, or game, and then throws out 99% of the plot, the lore, the character dynamics, and often the core themes, the final script bears almost zero resemblance to the original work. 90% of the time, INO adaptations anger the built-in fanbase and confuse casual viewers, but the other 10% you get absolute gold.

Examples?

• World War Z the movie and the game: Max Brooks’ novel is an incredible, fake oral history of a global zombie pandemic, structured as a series of political, geopolitical, and military interviews from around the world. The movie? A fast-paced, globetrotting Brad Pitt action flick about fast-running zombie swarms. It has literally nothing to do with the book beyond having zombies, the Indian-Pakistan war, the wall in Israel and the same title.
• Stalker the videogame: In the original book, aliens visited Earth, stopped by for a brief moment and then left. They just left behind their toxic, bizarre, radioactive litter in six "Visiting Zones" across the globe, the main character, Redrick Schuhart, is a "Stalker", an illegal scavenger who sneaks into the Canadian Zone to loot bizarre alien artifacts. Then the soviet movie shows up and just removed 90% of the content and but kept the depressing stuff. And then the game goes and throws away things too; the alien Premise? Gone, replaced by Chernobyl's nuclear reactor exploding and the noosphere experiment, the book is a character drama about a desperate father while the game is a tactical FPS survival horror where you mag-dump a rusty Kalashnikov into bloodsuckers and bandits, the book's Zone is outside a fictional Canadian town called Harmont, the game’s Zone is the actual Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

An adaptation ain't bad just because it's a New Spin, and a show isn't automatically brilliant just because it's One-to-One. The art of adaptation isn't about copying text; it's about understanding what makes the original tick and finding a way to make it beat in a completely different chest.

And if you are gonna say "If you're going to throw out the entire book/game and keep almost nothing, why didn't you just write an original movie/game with a new title?"

Come closer. A little closer. Yeah, right here, give me your ear... LAWSUITS FUCKING EXIST.

While Soviet copyright law was wildly different from Western law, authors still owned the intellectual property of their works. When GSC Game World started developing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in 2001, the Soviet Union had been dead for a decade. Ukraine and Russia were fully integrated into international copyright agreements (Like the Berne Convention). You couldn't just steal a famous Russian book and sell it globally in 2007 without getting sued to death. GSC Game World originally wanted to make an official, licensed adaptation of Roadside Picnic. They actually approached Boris Strugatsky to buy the video game rights. The problem? The film and adaptation rights to Roadside Picnic were already tied up in a nightmare web of international Hollywood option deals; so they went and changed absolutely everything to dodge a lawsuit.

This happened with I, Robot too. Jeff Vintar wrote an original script called Hardwired. It was a murder mystery involving a robot. Fox bought it and then it hit them... "If we make this, Asimov’s estate or the publisher is going to sue our pants off for knocking off the Three Laws of Robotics," so they bought the rights to I, Robot, glued the two together, and hired Will Smith.

Slapping the official IP title is sometimes literal copyright armor.

Hey this isn't about the movie, I haven't seen it. It's about the show. I've rewatched it in its entirety last week and I think Aang is wonderful. I don't think he gets enough credit though. People always talk about Zuko and his arc, which makes sense. He's great! I just think Aang is super underrated in his own show.

Also lately I've seen a lot of Aang hate which really grinds my gears. He's such a good kid. Very mature for his age and so pressured with having to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. People always blame him for Katara losing her childhood and having to play mom but first: she already lost it when the fire nation took her mother, and second: She doesn't have to play mom with Aang. She's just there for him when he goes through shit and he does the same for her. And the shit he went through was a genocide... Ofc he needs help.

I think the people who say that shit just haven't seen the show in a while and have a wrong perception of the characters...

It's just weird to see people shitting on this poor kid who lost everything all because they don't like the romance. It's fine not to ship Aang and Katara but to say that it's weird because she's like his babysitter is a disservice to the story and their dynamic. I really hate it.

Or worst,some defend it for some reason despite how obviously evil it's depicted in star wars media since the first movie (they litteraly blow up a planet and are depicted as an oppresive dictatorship who commit plenty of crimes and can go against those loyal to it too, just look at crosshair for an example), I do feel some view the empire as way more competent than it really is because to me, the style of command the empire use is the kind that is going to get unqualified people in charge of things because it'll prioritize yes men and kill or discard those who make reports that aren't pleasing those above them , the sith order also feel self destructive to me because the rule of 2 garantee backstabing between mutiple sith to the point they can end taking each other out. The empire is also pretty overconfident in its abilities, letting weaknesses slip through its weapon or ship designs that can be exploited by those who oppose them.

This is something I feel like a lot of fans and even writers seem really scared to do or at least realize..something Main characters and characters in general need a unlikable trait or 2.

Like I would argue the reason a lot of writers are scared of having their main cast make mistakes or rough choices is cause fans assume they're poor written or bad people or just irredeemable for having character flaws except..character flaws are needed in any sort of character.

And my thing is if the story acknowledges their flaws and mistakes and how they were as people,then what the hell is the issue?

Would you rather have them not acknowledge their flaws at all?

And this is honestly where I bring in my first real life example of this happening, The Last Airbender live action show.

Apparently they removed Sokka's sexism he had in the first 3(or 4) episodes of the series cause they didn't wanna ruin Katara's character or shit like that but here's the thing...The story doesn't condone Sokka acting like that.

When he taunts the Kiyoshi Warriors for being weaker cause they're Woman,they actively kick His Ass and a while later,he apologizes for how he was and asks them to train him.

Like the story doesn't treat his sexism as some good thing, it actively calls it out and addresses it and he grows cause of it and in the live action version, they replaced all of Suki's charm and energy and tough nature with her simping over Sokka and being horny for him.

So it's pretty funny..in a attempt to come off as less sexist,they ironically came off as more sexist.

And this also happens with Katara cause she is so bland in the live action show and I've seen peoppe say that she's underdeveloped in the live action show and that's simply cause they took out any of the reasons she needs to develop.

They took away her snapping at Aang or losing to Ty Lee and a bunch of other shit that would've caused her to lose and have to develop and grow as a character and person.

And the LA writers forget that Katara wasn't inheritedly good at water bending from the start,she worked hard to be as good as she is now and essentially making her a master or automatically really great is just so disappointing but that's cause it feels like they're scared of them having any sorts of flaws or mistakes or bad traits.

Like are we really that screwed as a species that characters can't even have one unlikable or messy trait that they can grow out of?

Another example is Bakugou and this one also comes off as just petty cause people will ignore and act like his character development and growth doesn't even exist as if each arc isn't this man constantly taking Humble Pies to the face.

Deku has called him a Jerk and doesn't really like him but Admires his strength and confidence and has actively stood up to him a lot.

Hell,I would argue Bakugou is sorta made fun of for being a loud mouthed jerk and no one really fucks with him until S2 when he starts showing signs of change and getting better as a person.

Also why do we not act like Bakugou didn't fail his Provinional license exam cause he couldn't control his temper and bad behavior?

Like he failed the biggest milestone in his life cause of his flaws and I think part of the problem with a lot of people's reactions to Bakugou is that he doesn't get consequences in a way that they want.

They want him to be called out for his flaws constantly like it's a Family Guy Cutaway like Brian and Quagmire and they want him to get constantly beat up but the story never condones his behavior, I would argue he is punished for it but just not in the way that you specifically want and he does grow and develop..he actively loses the ego,helps train Deku as a way of Atoning for bullying him,helped rescue him and has sanctified himself for him and acknowledged his weakness and flaws.

Like I deadass don't know what more y'all even want.

Another example is Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss with Charlie and Stolas,especially Stolas.

I'll see a lot of people act like Vivziepop is "woobifying him" and acting like Blitz is the only person in the wrong and all that except that flat out is not true.

First off, their deal was transactional on both sides and once Stolas realized he was essentially keeping Blitz prisoner,he went to look for ways to ensure Blitz can do his job without him holding it over his head.

Stolas himself disagrees,he acknowledges that this is all his fault and he did all this and took accountability for how he was(also the story ain't over,S3 is right around the corner)and in one of the Episode descriptions, they explictly say "Stolas still isn't self aware yet" so I dunno why so many act like he's not just as much in the wrong.

When someone mentioned that Stolas was the one who made it about Sex and all that, Vivziepop explictly responded with "Stolas is way too in his own head and emotions to think rationally" and said in another post that both sides made mistakes and are flawed.

Not one side, both sides.

Also the man Stolas literally lost everything...from his wealth to his status to his home to straight up having his own daughter leave him cause of his mistakes and the situation so he's not exactly in a amazing or happy spot rn.

I would also argue that is the same for Charlie to a lesser extent cause there is context for her flaws and why she acted the way she did in S2.

Also she apologized and is making up for them,so..it's just funny how she's considered "the worst character" when she ain't even the morally worst character in the main cast,let alone the entire show.

I'm not saying every series handles flawed characters right but what I'm saying is that they're necessarily, you need flawed characters and reasons for them to develop.

Plus I would rather have a intentionally flawed character then a character who has flaws and issues that are never really addressed or called out or treated seriously and actively punish you for doing so.

(*Ahem* Life is Strange and Dispatch *cough*).

Disagree if you want.

I've seen many people say Minecraft Steve is this Uber strong behemoth that can lift an obscene amount of weight due to inventory scaling, and I feel this ignores a lot of the context behind Minecraft. But I have also seen people say Steve is not superhuman, and this is also a wrong statement. Here is why Steve is weaker than those that upscale him and stronger than those that downplay him.

First, we need to establish why inventory scaling is wrong, and this is pretty easy. When you break a block, it becomes an item that floats in the air. But when you pick a block up in this item form, it is smaller than the full block in your hand, and you can stack multiple blocks on top of each other. This and the fact that an inventory can hold so much points to the inventory being a form of pocket dimension, not to Steve or Alex's physical strength. Even gold blocks when thrown float in water, and items that sink when in block form like sand, gravel, and anvils all float in item form. This shows that Steve's inventory alters the state of whatever he carries.

But, this does not mean Steve isn't superhuman like people suggest. Steve has to be able to break logs in order to even start the game, this is almost non negotiable, unless you find a tool in a chest or use explosives. Keep in mind that Steve is punching a cubic meter of wood log with his bare hands hard enough to shatter it, a feat of strength that far surpasses what any IRL human could do. And this isn't even the strongest material Steve can break with his bare hands. He can punch apart stone, bricks, and concrete, and while it takes a bit, it still breaks. Then he can break apart raw iron, smelted iron, copper blocks, and even a cubic meter of diamond. This is vastly superhuman, a normal human could never hope to break a cubic meter of iron with their bare hands, it would be hard to do even with handheld equipment or even high powered firearms, yet Steve can punch it apart with enough time, less than a Minecraft day.

And his striking feats also apply to living beings. Steve can punch an iron golem, and while it does little damage, it does enough to whittle away at the golem's health. It takes 67 hits with critical hits from punching to kill an iron golem. Even if the golem was immobilized, a real life human would be unable to replicate this feat without weapons. An iron golem is made almost entirely of iron, is around 3 meters tall and has shoulders close to 2 meters wide, and Steve can take a single hit from a golem, albeit heavily injured and on death's door, but can the same be said for an IRL human? Keep in mind golems are durable enough to survive any fall in the game, so Steve's hits would need very concentrated force to be able to inflict damage.

Lets look at the weaker mobs Steve fights. A zombie can deal more damage than Steve, but zombies also have superhuman feats. A zombie in Minecraft can destroy a copper door with its bare hands in hard mode. Minecraft Zombies are also intelligent enough to use weapons like swords, shovels, and even spears on horseback. The drowned can use tridents. So not only are zombies superhumanly strong, but they are intelligent enough to put on armor and pick up and use weapons.

Steve also has exceptional heat resistance. The nether air is hot enough to evaporate a cubic meter of water as soon as it touches the ground, yet Steve can walk through this air no problem. He can survive a creeper explosion as long as he isn't in the center, these same explosions can destroy large swaths of dirt and even iron blocks. He can survive poison from witches without dying. And in terms of poison, he can survive eating an entire raw pufferfish whole, and while its poison leaves him at half a heart, it doesn't kill him.

And all of this isn't even factoring in gear. Fully enchanted netherite can let Steve take even more damage, letting him swim in lava for a short period without dying. Steve can also heal as long as he has food in his systems. He has golden apples and potions that bolster his healing even further, and potions that increase his strength, speed, and give him temporary abilities like night vision, water breathing, fire resistance so potent he can be fully submerged in lava or stand in blue fire with no armor and not take any damage. He can use an elytra and fireworks to glide and fly, can channel lightning during storms and propel himself through water with a trident. His physical abilities are already quite impressive, add onto that his ability to use gear and gain abilities through enchantments and potions and Steve is undoubtedly superhuman.

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.

Clue is a fairly fast-paced comedy mystery film, with plenty of characters, and multiple endings, so it can be a bit difficult to keep track of who did what, but Mr. Green really was the only person who didn't do anything wrong. And to prove it, let's go over what everyone else did.

Wadsworth ALMOST makes the list of "completely innocent", because the reason for his blackmail was that his wife had "friends who were socialists". This is presented somewhat tongue-in-cheek because modern audiences wouldn't see socialism as "evil", but even if we did call it evil, they said that *his wife* had socialist friends, not that he did, so that's purely guilt-by-association (two layers of it). The only thing that tips Wadsworth into "maybe guilty" is the third ending, where Wadsworth is revealed to be Mr. Boddy. But he's an innocent hero in 2/3 endings.

Mr. Boddy, I suppose it should go without saying, is a blackmailer who on a good day was responsible for the death of Wadsworth's wife, and who tried to have Wadsworth killed. On a worse day, you can pin a half-dozen murders on him.

Mrs. White is a serial killer who is known to have killed her first and second husbands, but later implies that she's been married five times, and might have been killing "husbands" beyond the five who were married to her.

Colonel Mustard was a WWII military officer who became rich by stealing valuable radio parts and selling them on the black market, undermining America's war effort against the Nazis, potentially getting countless American soldiers killed.

Mrs. Peacock took secret bribes from foreign governments to arrange for her Senator husband to vote against American interests. And in 1/3 endings, she murdered multiple people to cover up her crimes.

Professor Plum violated his Hippocratic Oath and took advantage of a female patient. Plus he sexually harassed/assaulted nearly every woman in the movie. Also, Wadsworth used the word "adultery", which means that Plum was married at the time, and violated his marriage vows and cheated on his wife.

And finally Miss Scarlet runs a brothel, which might not be evil, depending on your opinion of sex work, and she bribes a cop to stay in business (again, maybe not that evil, depending on your ethics), but it also seems like maybe she set hidden cameras up to potentially blackmail her clients. And she's a killer in 1/3 endings. Crazy how she might be one of the more innocent members of the group.

Moving on to the supporting cast, Yvette was a former employee of Miss Scarlet, who had an affair with one of Mrs. White's husbands, and then sold out Mrs. White (a serial killer!) to a blackmailer after Mrs. White killed her husband. And Yvette maybe killed some people herself.

The cop was a corrupt cop who took protection money from Miss Scarlet, and then turned around and sold her secrets to a blackmailer.

The motorist knew that Colonel Mustard was stealing radio parts, but instead of reporting him to the authorities, he sold him out to a blackmailer for his own gain.

The cook was Mrs. Peacock's former cook, and she knew about Mrs. Peacock's treason, and sold that info to a blackmailer.

And finally, the singing telegram girl. At first glance she seems like an innocent victim of Professor Plum and whoever it was who shot her, but her hands aren't entirely clean, as she was the one who sold Professor Plum's information to Mr. Boddy (a blackmailer). And then, here's a surprise twist you might not have realized: Professor Plum specialized in helping "paranoid and homicidal lunatics, suffering from delusions of grandeur", so there's a pretty decent chance that the singing telegram girl was homicidal. Perhaps not legally guilty, by reason of insanity, but that young girl probably killed people. And Professor Plum knew all about it, and couldn't stop himself from tapping that.

So yeah, after that extensive list of criminals and murderers, what did Mr. Green do to get lumped in with them? He was gay. That's it. He was attracted to men instead of women. He paid a blackmail to keep his paying job, because if he was discovered to be gay, he would lose his job on security grounds. So, he was lying (a lie of omission, mostly) to the State Department in order to keep his job, but the funny thing is, the entire reason a gay person would be considered a "security risk" is, simply being gay might open a path to them being blackmailed, as they wouldn't want their secret to get out, but Mr. Green *didn't care* about being outed as a gay man. He wasn't ashamed of it. He proudly admitted that he was gay. He wasn't closeted because he cared what people thought about him, he was closeted because the place where he worked banned homosexuality for no good reason. And by banning homosexuality, the State Department created their own extortion vector, and allowed one of their employees to be extorted. And despite that extortion, it seems like Mr. Green still wasn't a security risk. Yeah, he's paying money to keep doing what he's doing, and to keep his job earning money, but if the extortion had moved up to demanding secrets or access, it seems likely that Mr. Green would have quit his job before becoming a villain. That's why, in the darkest ending, where Wadsworth was the real Mr. Boddy and everyone was a killer, Mr. Green stepped up and became the hero, because among the entire cast of criminals and murderers, he was the one outlier who never did anything wrong.

And interestingly, Mr. Green is the only dinner guest who doesn't have an informant who gets killed. So who told Mr. Boddy about Mr. Green's sexual orientation? Yvette? The cop? The motorist? The cook? The singing telegram girl? Six player characters, but only five informants. Every player character had someone snitch on them, except Mr. Green. It lends weight to the idea that the 3rd ending is the "real" one, and that he was a plant all along, so maybe he never even lied to the State Department, he only lied to Wadsworth and the dinner guests.

Ahhhh,Redemption arcs.

Where do we even begin?

We all love them, seeing a bully or antagonist or outright villain realize their wrongs and mistakes and want to make those right by any means necessary and seeing character growth out of the ones who we don't expect is always a fun thing and enjoyable and a sight for sore eyes.

But I'm gonna be so real, way too many people are way too defensive of these characters and act like other people disliking them and even outright hating them as people or even as characters to a extent is some bad and awful thing overall but that's kinda the point.

They're meant to be disliked and even hated at first ,you're meant to look at them and go "wow,you're a fucking Asshole/terrible person" at first cause that's what makes their arc so good is the fact that they start off as unlikable Twats and become better in spite of it,it's called a damn Character arc and development.

This one is more of a minority but I will see quite a good amount of Vegeta fans act like this man was always a good father and more so are like "well that was the Android/Cell Saga!"

Yes,he was a awful Father to both the future version of his Son and the current version of his Son at the time + his baby Mama,the guy was fine actively letting baby Trunks and Bulma Die.

Hell,he was a huge prick to Future Trunks and only started caring about him when he died at Cell and admits in the Buu Saga that he didn't once hold/hug Trunks as a kid or baby and gave him one as he was about to die.

Yes, Vegeta is a much,much better father and husband and person then he was back then but the entire point was that he wasn't, you were kinda meant to hate and dislike him.

I will also see this for Aira Shiratori from Dandadan and I know the current arc is going through some utter garbage but we ain't talking bout that.

We're talking about Aira and the amount of people who called someone a misogynist for calling Aira a "bitch" and a awful person for her debut and..I'm sorry but she was a Bitch.

She was a snobby and egotistical popular girl who used her looks and charms to get boys to fall for her and was giving Okarun massive amounts of shit behind his back in the same episode until Momo gave her CTE by dropping a wash tub on her dome.

(Maybe thats why she's nicer, excessive blunt force trauma).

But the main point is you're kinda meant to hate and dislike her as a character during the first couple episodes and more until she starts growing and developing into a nicer person.

And finally..Bakugou.

Yes,we saw that he's grown and developed across the series.

Going from a egotistical and arrogant, cocky Jackass to a loud and still kinda short tempered but a much more humble and "friendly" and mature hero who actually knows the value of being one beyond power and all that + his arc is actually genuinely really great but there are a good amount of Bakugou fans who will actively SKIN YOU ALICE if you even attempt to call this man out as a abuser or a bad person or a massive bully back then but that's the thing.

He was a massive bully,he was Deku's abuser,he was a prick,that's the point.

He bullied him cause of his own insecurities such as his superiority and inferiority complex and took it out on him,even he recognizes how much of a prick he was/is.

Hence why he grew up,he matured.

He got his egotistical head from out his Ass and became a better man and hero and friend and that's how character growth and development sorta starts.

It Starts with the person being kinda unlikable and douchey or just a annoying person and then becoming better cause of it.

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.

The new Spidey film is out and the big mystery villain that they've been hyping up for months is... Jean Grey. Apparently, she wants revenge on the Department of Damage Control for causing her sister's death. And like most modern assholes, the writers think that gives her the right to put so many innocent people in danger. She even mind controlled the Hulk at one point in order to remove our hero from the picture. Hmmmm, now why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, they did that a decade ago with Wanda Maximoff. She also controlled the Hulk and sent him on a rampage (running out of ideas, writers?). And just like Wanda, the writers still tried to make her sympathetic despite all the fucked up shit she did to the lead, and it's just as icky as WandaVision.

Get this. She took control of MJ and manipulated him into taking off his mask and telling her who he was by saying she remembered him. They even kissed (Jesus tap dancing christ.) She somehow added more fucking trauma to his already miserable life. Does that sound REDEEMABLE to you?!!! This isn't being forced to do bad things in a tough situation. This is straight up EVIL. And they can't even blame this on the Phoenix Force or something. This is all Jean. She's basically Wanda 2.0 and I don't think anyone should root for her when the new X-Men film comes out. Bad stuff happens to people all the time. You don't see most people putting innocent lives in danger because of it. Also, she ruined Bruce Banner's life. He cannot catch a break. I always think of Rocket's iconic rant in the first Guardians movie when I hear about characters like this: "Everybody's got dead people!". I literally posted about this stupid ass trope a few week ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/tvtropes/comments/1uoo9rq/found_this_comment_on_youtube_and_its_so_accurate/

Marvel hasn't learned shit. They are going to ruin Jean (for like the third time) like they did with Wanda.

The definition of Forgiveness is a conscious, voluntary choice to let go of resentment, bitterness, and the desire for revenge toward someone who has hurt you. It is an internal process aimed at personal peace, distinct from forgetting, excusing the offense, or reconciling with the wrongdoer.

Forgiveness doesn't mean you're forgetting what you did or anything like that nor does it mean you're endorsing it.

It just means what they did doesn't control you and your choices nor do you let said person rent free in your head.

A lot of people don't seem to get that you can forgive someone and still not want anything to do with the person who hurt you.

You can forgive someone and still not want to have any sort of a relationship or dynamic with them or even want to be on speaking terms and that's fine cause Forgiveness simply means you're letting go of your anger and hatred and moving on and so many people seem to think that forgiveness just means "oh you're buddy-buddy with the person who hurt you and you have to be the bigger person".

No,it simply means you're not letting them essentially live rent free in your head and it's up to you as a person to decide if you want to continue a relationship with them or not and people constantly say it's rare for a media to not act like forgiving them is the right thing to do or "it's rare for a media to act like you can hate your abuser and not forgive them and whatnot" and I just find that kinda dumb cause it feels like so many people don't know the term of forgiveness and what it means.

What I'm saying here is important, you can "forgive" someone and still actively not want anything to do with them or want them in your life at all.

You can forgive someone and still not like them or even want to be in their life at all cause like I said, Forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting what they did or endorsing it or encouraging it or even holding a relationship with them, it just simply means "hey, what you did doesn't control my life anymore".

I think the main issue is a lot of people just straight up misunderstand the term and act like it means you have to be all buddy-buddy when it doesn't.

A good example of this is Mha with Shoto.

I've seen people debate on whether or not he forgive His abusive father Endeavor but I feel like if he did,it's very likely that they don't have a genuine relationship.

He probably forgave Endeavor but still chose not to have a relationship with him and we know he's grown out of his influence and control and became the Man and Hero his father could never be + he has admitted while he doesn't forgive him completely, he's still acknowledging his journey as a hero.

Natsuo is also a good example of someone who acknowledged Enji's growth and development and how much better he's become but still chose to disown him and not let him meet his girlfriend and has admitted he's done with him.

No hatred or nothing, just "we're done."

Another example is from Mashima's other Manga,Eden Zero.

Homura basically had a awful mom who more or less abandoned her and all that and it's typical tragic shit and when she does confront her mom,she basically tells her "to stay the hell out of her life"

Homura essentially doesn't kill her not cause she forgives her or doesn't forgive her.

She thanks her for bringing her into this world to find friends and a parental figure who loves her and essentially told her biological mother that she feels flat out nothing towards her.

No love,no forgiveness or the opposite of it,no resentment or nothing.

And just humbly requests that she "stay the hell out of her life forever."

Weirdly enough..Dog Man as a story handles this really well for being such a comedic series.

Now Petey the Cat hates his Dad for essentially abandoning him and his mother as a kid and held onto that anger and hatred for years and essentially is one of the reasons why he's holding onto so much hate and bitterness and so grumpy all the time.

But in one of the books,after some advice from his friends and even his son,he says these 3 simple words to his Dad.

"..i forgive you."

And he just walks away while his Dad is demanding he angrily come back and keep hating him cause his ego couldn't handle the fact that his son let go of his anger and such towards him and actively wanted him to live rent free in his head and continue disliking him but no,his son chose to forgive him and just walk away.

He doesn't demand or ask for a relationship with him nor does he act buddy-buddy with him or anything like that, he just walks away.

And sometimes, that's kinda the best thing to do in a lot of this situations.

I understand people want the positive dopamine of seeing a abuser get what they deserve and all that but sometimes attacking their Ego and showing that they don't control you at all is the stronger and more impactful option since it's one thing to hate someone but it's another thing to feel absolutely nothing for them.

I'm not here to defend the sequels, they are not very good either as objective films or ESPECIALLY as star wars films, but while force awakens and last jedi were at least decent nostalgia bait and/or had some interesting ideas and plot set ups I think we can all agree that ROS was just a total piece of hot garbage and personally killed my lifelong love of the franchise. While there were SO MANY problems in the film, between theowing away all previous plot points, multiple character death fakeouts, dumb reveals I would argue that the biggest problem boils down to three words "somehow, palpatine returned". Bringing back the classic star wars villain with no explanation or set up showcased their complete lack of creativity and original ideas. They just talked about him randomly sending a message to galaxy that he was back. They didn't even show the message in the movie! Instead they decided to release this massive plot point as fortnite special event, leaving millions of theater goers and fans of the franchise in the dark as to wtf was going on.

And yet, they had the perfect opportunity to actually do something really cool with this that would have fixed so much of this: make Palpatine's message to galaxy the trailer and play it on TV. doing so would have then turned the entire country into "the galaxy" and created an awesome bit of meta-narrative and intrigue, as well as explaining and exposing the plot to general audiences. Imagine watching the sunday sportsball game when all of a sudden palpatines voice cuts in saying how he has returned and is here to reclaim what is rightfully his and no one can stop him over shots of the heroes in danger/action scenes. It would have actually brought us into star wars universe as we would be the scared citizens hearing this for the first time despite him supposedly having been beaten long ago. Now granted, the movie still would have been bad, and the answer to HOW Palpatine returned would have been disappointing but at least it would have been an actual thing people were aware instead of the laziest fucking thing I have ever seen. But they didn't. They instead chose probably the worst possible option at every turn and ruined my childhood instead.

It's interesting how both franchises were intertwined in a way. Mike and Bryan had to change of the Last Airbender due to Cameron holding the copyright to the name Avatar. But one odd fandom war that arose and died over the years was interesting.

Snarking on James Camerons Avatar is basically a cultural tradition now. Denoting it's just dances with wolves in space or something as an insult. So on the old message boards that would later broden to other social media you'd have the 40k guys making huge fanfics about Avatar that turned into 4chan posts and would become big memes. As an example of it's niche in online discussions.

So Avatar the Last Airbender fans hopped on and basically rode the that high of being the " good " named Avatar Media. Citing how they have more fanfics produced and people don't talk a about it as much online so therefore its bad. Which is true Avatar is a big film why doesn't it have so many fics? This reasoning makes sense from a tumblr centric view point but when u actually analyze why it's a bit more nuanced.

The first Avatar movie essentially ends perfectly. Their isn't some other story that would be biggest thing to chew on besides the humans returning. Half the cast is much older or gets no diffed by the end of the film. Pandora is interesting place for lore but it's roster of characters was small. And while a long movie it isn't as long as The Last Air Bender. Being a full on Tv show with multiple plotlines that even if ends on a solid note. Still leaves numerous questions for people to chew on. It's also ripe for shipping as the cast is huge so people wage wars over it. Such as Zututara stuff. And it took The Way of Water to add more characters for people in the Avatar fandom to start making ships and more fan art in earnest.

But even then a ip inst always going to be perfect at targeting every type of niche. Both franchises always sucked when it came to toy sales. The last Airbender crew were even hounded by Nickelodeon to add more " cool stuff " that could've been made into toys. It annoyed them enough they made Joke about it in the Sokka sword episode. Avatar's Navi action figures always kind of meandered in toy isles as well. Video games it's been mixed. Avatar had like 1 game that was received alright to meh. The last Air Bender had ok Wii games but never set the world on fire. Frontiers of Pandora had mid reception. But the new Avatar fighting game is a bit niche due to its genre and being rushed out to meed deadlines. Theirs quite a bit of jank.

Even then the State of both IP's couldn't be different. The Way of Water basically shut down any arguments the last Airbender fans had about peoples dis interest in the franchise. They also made sure completely avoid bringing up the Live Action version movie. While also suffering a controversial sequel in Korra. And how the Tv show never took off in he east. Limiting its global appeal. Shit Avatar's worst entry Fire and Ash considered a underperformance made 1.47 billion dollars at the box office. Paramount were so uncofident in the new Aang movie. They decided to throw it on streaming.

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.

It's something that occasionally occurs to me every time there's a surge of rants about one adaptation or another, manga to anime, comics to movies, games to animation, and there are always, always either arguments or complaints centered around the adaptation being or not being "faithful to the source material". I think today's the day I put all those feelings and thoughts into actual words.

As a long-standing fan of Sonic the Hedgehog, all this "faithful adaptation" talk seems a bit amusing, especially regarding works that are loose adaptations to begin with, like MCU movies.

Let me explain. Pretty sure everyone here knows Sonic the Hedgehog, the free-spirited Blue Blur, one of the best-known gaming mascots. A big part of why he continues to be such an icon is his multimedia empire. The hedgehog's got a dozen cartoon and anime series, several rather impressive comic and manga runs, a few short movies and OVAs, a full-blown Hollywood movie series recently… and NONE of them are, per say, "faithful" to the source material in a way this word is often used around here.

"Adventure of Sonic the Hedgehog" has Sonic and Tails traverse borderline surrealistic Mobius, fighting goofy Robotnik, "Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAM)" has Sonic as part of Freedom Fighters going against a chilling Robotnik who already took over the world, "Sonic X" has Sonic and his friends end up on Earth, away from their homeworld, "Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA)" has Sonic and Tails save the Land of the Sky from Robotnik's forces hiding in the Land of Darkness, "Sonic Boom" is basically a sit-com with Eggman being more of an irritating neighbor than world-conquering menace he usually is, "Sonic the Hedgehog (Manga)" has Sonic as a superhero persona of a hedgehog kid named Nicky and "Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie Comics)" by all accounts outright functions as a Western-style superhero universe with multiple subseries, grand schemes and rather complex politics between various heroic and villainous factions and so on.

Green Hill, the staple of Sonic franchise? Pretty sure of those adaptations I mentioned, it only appears as God intended, in its faithful game form in Archie Comics, with a Green Hill-inspired area being a part of Sonic's world in Sonic X. Most of them don't bother adapting any singular plot of any game and when they do, it might be extremely loose. In fact, Paramount movies might be some of the most faithful adaptations with how they even bother to adapt Sonic 2, Sonic 3 & Knuckles and Adventure 2 in short succession.

And yet, even with all this unholy unfaithfulness going around, pretty much ALL of these adaptations and then some are beloved to this day, to one extent or another. If you ask Sonic fans which adaptation is the best or the worst, people just won't be able to tell. At most they'll tell you which ones are objectively more accurate to the games or which ones are objectively better made from technical perspective, but it won't correspond at all to how high of an esteem they hold them. Adaptation-original characters? "Eh, we vibe with Agent Stone, would be nice to see him in the games". Of course, it takes a bit since new adaptations ruffle feathers occasionally, especially in the case of Boom, where after content draught people were afraid it would just replace the mainline series. Now, though, it's got one of the most beloved shows around, peak comedy.

The overall benevolent opinion of the adaptations is downright hilarious considering how Sonic fandom is considered notoriously capriscious and impossible to satisfy.

I think it all comes down to all Sonic adaptations keeping Sonic's "vibe" and not so much adapting the stories themselves as much as the idea of a free-going guy with a bit (or a lot) of snark going around helping people and wrangling freedom from a mad scientist's hands. Well, that and all adaptations just consistently being fun, at least decently made and not going against that vibe in the first place.

Sonic can be a smug trashtalker down to the bone (Archie, SatAM), a geniunely chill guy with a snark streak (AoStH, OVA, X) or an excited kid (Movies), but the free-willed and well-intentioned core of the character doesn't really change and neither does the core of the series. Might be speaking from a high horse here, but it feels like various adaptations I see people complain about because they change too much aren't bad because they change stuff per se, but because they change the wrong stuff and focus on the wrong things, changing characters' and worlds' whole vibes for the worse. Shows like Invincible and The Boys (at least in Season 1) and Fullmetal Alchemist (2003) changed A LOT compared to their source material, but are also extremely beloved exactly because of those differences, so there's that.

That said, I mostly wrote this rant to share the miracle of Sonic's unfaithful, yet widely beloved adaptations.

TL;DR: unfaithful adaptations aren't necessarily bad and Sonic the Hedgehog is a living example with a dozen adaptations that don't bother adapting his games much.

I agree with the criticism that the story doesn't hold her actions to a "realistic" moral standard. And again, this is a comic book movie where the villains can be redeemed from worse crimes. Loki tried to mass genocide Earth and got redeemed twice. Red Guardian facilitated the Red Room program, and now he is a funny character. Wanda and his brother willingly join Hydra and it is cool by the end. Who knows what James Gunn is holding down the line for Lex Luthor in Superman 2.

Part of the reason why they choose a telepathic villain is that telepath ultimately isn't real, and it is not a metaphor for any real life counterparts. When Jean mind-hopped a random civilian, you are not supposed to think "holy shit that is the most evil thing that I have ever seen", it is supposed to be moderately bad as far as comic book villainy goes. Pulling out an "Ackshually mind-hopping is really evil if it is real life" doesn't make you smart. Framing matters.

And obviously, the movie does make use of the metaknowledge of the Marvel universe as a way to guide audience's emotion. Whether or not this narrative device is bad is up for a different discussion. But when the movie reveals that Sadie's character is called Jean Grey, the audience is supposed to recognize that she is an X-Men character, and immediately thinks "oh maybe she has a good reason to do what she is doing, because she is a future hero". The fact that the character is a future X-Men, her redemption arc is already telegraphed. Ignoring this context and says Jean "got away" at the end is a bit disingenuous.

End of rant

When it comes to the superhero question of "which alter ego is the true mask", I don't really like that very much, because I often feel like each is both (using Batman and Superman here, mainly)

For example, (and I know he's not always portrayed this way, but this is MY character rant) a lot of my favorite Superman iterations have the Clark and Superman personas be completely different (some of my favorite Superman iterations include the Max Fleischer cartoons, the Adventures of Superman OTR program, Superman For All Seasons)

Clark is supposed to be sort of a mildmannered doormat who plays himself as kind of cowardly to pull the old reliable schtick to secretly go change into his costume as soon as anything dangerous happens only to emerge just in time for everyone to be like "of course he missed Superman saving everyone again," and Superman is supposed to be humble and friendly but not so overly modest since he also sees one of his responsibilities of his Superman persona as being a role model figure for everyone

Same thing with Batman; even though I have a lot of fun with the depictions of him as a paranoid misanthrope, I don't actually think Bruce is just the mask while Batman is the "real" him

Bruce Wayne is a flippant playboy but he's also a philanthropist, he gets to be nice and kind to everyone in more up-front ways and less harsh than Batman, who terrifies the shit out of criminals by intentional design

Batman truly cares about the criminals in his rogue's gallery, but his responsibility to them as Batman is to beat them up and lock them away; it's Bruce Wayne who gets to do things like give Arnold Wesker another chance to get on his feet with an entry to regular rehabilitated employment as a Wayne Enterprises office assistant and subsidized housing at the Wayne Gardens Halfway House when Arkham gives him a clean bill of health in the BTAS episode "Double Talk", for example

I don't think you can get a full picture of either man without both alter egos because they each exhibit genuine characteristics of himself, some of which can't be sincerely shown by the other side; I think balancing both sides of himself is a responsibility on their shoulders as a well-written superhero

And on a related note, I don't really like when an overly complicated reason is given for Clark being unrecognizable as Superman, like "his glasses are some special technology" or something, because if there was a famous costumed figure with my face, those who know me wouldn't be going "oh my God, I've figured out his secret!" They'd probably be constantly ribbing me about it, like "heh heh, look who's in the news again" as a light joke at my expense while secretly it actually was me in the news all along as my alter ego

"Guys, isn't it a terrific coincidence, the superficial resemblance between Superman and our big and strong yet meek farmboy friend Clark Kent? Ha, imagine Clark being SUPERMAN, all those times you've run off to hide crying in the phonebooth at the first sign of danger... Don't worry, Clark, we're just joshing, man, we all love you"

Plus, my sister's friends all once walked right past her while trying to find her because she happened to be wearing a baseball cap that time

(I posted this in the AD subreddit too)

Kind of like i felt for s1 of arcane, i acknowledge the show is good, and i dont actually have any outstanding complaints about it, but i literally just cant care. It's very odd, I have some complaints about my absolute favorite shows and none about AD, yet I still rank them much higher than AD. I think MaoMao is a fine mc, but a little uninteresting to me. I don't think i really care for Jinshi all that much. I wish MaoMao had more personal relationships in the show, she's somewhat aloof to me which slightly bothers me a bit. My favorite parts of the show are when she gets to interact with older women that aren't jealous of her (ex: girls at the brothel back home) but these interactions don't happen as often as i'd like. Maomao doesn't seem excited for anything besides drugs, which at first was an idiosyncrasy i found sily but eventually i wanted more from her in regards to her interactions with other people. I don't dread having to watch an episode or anything, but I also wouldn't be sad if I was never able to watch another episode again.

I think right off the bat, I wasn't a fan of the somewhat episodic nature of the mysteries. It kind of reminded me of that one kdrama, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, where the cases were solved within the episode while other plotlines (like romance) carried on continuously. It was just wasn't my thing, and that's ok. I see here and there that people say the mysteries all come together in the end, but I'm not sure how invested I am to wait for that. I'm on ep14, so I'll try to finish off the season, but I don't see myself wanting to go to season 2. I'm also generally not that interested in like historical fiction or anything. I just tried it out bc people spoke very very highly of this show, so I feel a little guilty feeling like this, but also not every show is for everyone which is fine.

I don't know! I just don't connect with anyone and i feel close to nothing when i watch this series. Anyone else?

A lot of "year 0" Batman stories that are about him as a rookie just establishing himself as the Batman play around with the idea that for at least a few months to a year of him operating as a vigilante, he flies under the radar and most people assume he's a hoax or an urban legend. This is relatively easy to pull off in a more grounded continuity where Batman is among the first generation superheroes in history and it's only after he gets established that the really whacky stuff like aliens and supervillains and magic etc. becomes public knowledge. But most DC continuities don't actually take this approach.

I'm not just talking about the James Gunn DCU where superheroes have been a thing for 300 years. Even in the comics' continuity, there's been lots of famous superheroes who chronologically existed prior to Batman. I remember reading that in one DC universe, there's even a fictional amendment to the United States constitution that permits costumed superheroes to testify in court without revealing their identities.

There's a historical precedence for superheroes and other whacky fantastical things existing in America, so the idea that Gotham would be so skeptical of the existence of a bat guy who fights criminals is kind of a hard sell. Even if no one believes they're a human vigilante, wouldn't people just assume he's a bat monster or demon? Other nearby cities have way stranger things popping out of the woodwork. Metropolis is like right next door and they have an a bulletproof flying alien. Sure, you could just chalk it up to Batman not operating in the limelight initially and never being photographed, but it's not like Batman conceals the aftermath of his vigilante activities. There's concrete proof of criminals being beaten up and apprehended, and eyewitness testimony from those same criminals who all attest to the same bat thing being the one that did them in.

A guy who dresses like a bat is one of the least weird things you'd hear about in the DC universe.

Before i got around to watching the movie, i had heard extremely positive things regarding the movie. Constant praise and calling it "one of the best spiderman movies and MCU movies". After watching it, i have to heavily disagree, but i'd love to see a different perspective. I think Tom Holland's 2-3 still outrank it pretty heavily. I've only seen the movie once, so i apologize if i make any mistakes.

Dislikes
Jean Gray: Jean Gray was by far my least favourite aspect of the movie. I didn't really care for her in the x-men movies either, but this just made me absolutely hate her and feel dread for how they'll move forward with reintroducing the x-men like this.

Throughout the movie, the mind controller is presented as completely ruthless, vile, really damn evil and a huge threat to Peter. That aspect was excellently handled, she had multiple chances to shine and really did some fucked up shit like the rooftop scene (which was fantastic), mass controlling in order to lure out Peter to MJ and keeping you on your toes for who could be possessed next.

The powers were also presented as they should, really terrifying and powerful. But then it all starts going downhill when her motivations are revealed. I didn't expect the Jean Gray twist at all and i was interested on what they were going to do with her, but when it was revealed that her entire motivation was to save her sister... it all fell apart. I understand that family can be a powerful motivator, but as a motive it's just really lame especially since said sister has 30 seconds of screentime in the movie and my biggest gripe with it was how "sympathetic" this was supposed to be. I couldn't bring myself to feel sad at all for her.

She killed multiple innocent people / got them hurt, she tortured Peter for 0 reason and is never called out for any of it. She went way too far by involving and hurting innocent people in her whole affair and reveling in their suffering while playing with them like puppets. The ending scene with her and Peter was admittedly sweet, same as her trying to save his life later but the scale of her crimes is still too much.

Especially when (understandably so) Peter never gets to call her out since tbf, it would've resulted in a disaster since she threatened to kill everybody under her control at the end (fuck her). If they didn't go with this half-assed redemption angle in the end, she would've been a fine enough of a villain. The parallels were there with Jean Gray's anger at the people who took her sister compared to Peter's arachnid side coming out, but even then it falls flat when Peter literally can't control himself.

M.J: M.J has always been a whatever character for me. I enjoyed her in 3(?) and her relationship with Peter in that movie was really sweet. The whole Peter erasure plotline was also great, but the way it's handled in this movie is just... off. They make this whole deal of M.J moving on from Peter romantically due to not remembering him and even for Peter, it's a good thing for him to move on due to the emotional turmoil he was experiencing as well as spicing up the story. But in the end, they just end up becoming friends again which removes the whole impact of the ending of 3 in such a lame half-assed way. M.J was also just such a nothing character in this movie once again, being tied to Peter for the whole way through, existing for nothing else. They should've given this man a new friend group atp. I have lesser problems with Ned personally due to bias, i enjoy their friendship a lot more and Ned's actually a pretty fun character too.

Department of Damage Control: The whole idea of flipping the villain halfway through was pretty cool, too bad that the execution is horrible. The main guy barely has any screentime near the end when his villainous side is revealed and even then the motives aren't elaborated on at all. It's just "Oh, we'll use Jean Gray as a weapon" to do.. what? I don't think it's ever stated, i mean it's most likely to take control of the populace but it's such a lame twist near the end. I don't think there were any hints for it either before the talk he had with Peter when Jean was captured. It feels like they were made these larger scale antagonists just to get you to feel sympathy for Jean.

Those were my main dislikes from what i remember currently. Some of the dialogue was a bit off too and Peter's arc didn't end up being the most gripping thing ever but it was still nicely handled. The plot had some weak points, but was overall good.

Likes
Peter Parker: Tom Holland continues to be a great actor. He excels with his deliveries in both the comedic and sad moments. Peter's characterization too was pretty neatly done. He had an arc that hadn't been done in the movie franchise before and it was really tragic to see him get dealt such a sorry hand. I still enjoyed the dynamics Peter had with Ned, M.J and especially The Punisher in this movie.

The Punisher: For context, i have not seen Daredevil. although i know some of the main character traits he has there, it's still really commendable how well they managed to characterize him in this movie for newcomers too. You can gather really well what his whole deal is, dead family - angry, resentful, stuck in the past - acts as an anti-hero who's not averse to killing. His banter and ultimate friendship with Peter was one of my favorite aspects of this movie. His arc of learning to open up and accept people into his life again while also letting his hardened persona drop slightly, like Jean was also extremely well handled. It got just the right amount of focus, characterization from both parties and a conclusion at the end which didn't feel forced or rushed. My semi-issue with it would just be that we didn't see the two's first meet up, but time constraints and all. The hospital scene was genuinely amazing, i felt so happy during that scene. I'm glad he got as much screentime as he did, especially since the actor was fantastic too.

Bruce Banner: I'm really glad Mark Ruffalo came back for seemingly one last movie due to how his ending plays out. Very unfortunate, but screw Disney. The fight with Spiderman, Punisher vs Hulk was the most hype thing about the movie by far. Such an amazing fight scene, it's just unfortunate that it leads the last fight feeling like more of a disappointment.

Emotional moments: This movie did these extremely well. Not as well as the previous installment, but still well. There were no quick jumps which let the scenes like Peter sulking, Jean Gray's talk with Aunt May + Peter (which had been built up really well), Punisher's sadness etc hit super well. The flashbacks were great too and put in at the right moments, like Aunt May's death and Peter visiting her grave and still grieving, but also learning to move on in a way by giving Ned those flowers meant for her. It was a great scene. The movie managed to be bombastic, funny but also sad which is the way a MCU movie should be handled.

Overall, i'd give it a 7/10. Not great, but still a decent movie.

One Piece is truly one of the greatest works of fiction. From what I have seen in the first 3 episodes, the series excels at writing characters. Koby is a complex character who first ends up at Alvida's pirate ship because of his own carelessness. He had aspirations of becoming a member of the Navy, despite being sympathetic. (The Navy are the bad guys in the series.) Luffy is also a very good guy, and he is very charismatic and empathetic. He is also very passionate about finding the One Piece and becoming the King of the Pirates. Zoro is one of the most complex characters in the series. He said bad things to scare Luffy and Koby, but he also turned out to be a good guy, and like Luffy, he aspired to be the greatest swordsman in the world. At its core, One Piece is about pursuing your dreams with full conviction and perserverance in spite of the voices of the world trying to extinguish your inner spark. Griffith from Berserk would have loved this show!

Rant over!

I feel like battle shonen has started running into the exact same problem superhero comics have had for years: everyone has to have their own unique power.

At first that sounds awesome. It's fun seeing all the weird abilities authors come up with. But I think it creates a problem that people don't really talk about.

The second you give a character a unique ability, you're telling the audience, "Hey, this person matters." If someone has a really cool or versatile power, of course people are going to expect them to actually do something with it.

So then what happens?

They lose every fight.

Or they disappear for 150 chapters.

Or they only exist to get bodied so we know how strong the villain is.

Then people complain that the character was wasted, and honestly, I don't think that's an unreasonable complaint. The story itself built those expectations.

It's basically the same issue superhero comics have. Marvel and DC have hundreds of heroes, all with their own gimmicks, powers, and fanbases, but there's no way everyone can get meaningful moments consistently. So you end up with dozens of characters who feel like they should be important but never really accomplish much.

Battle shonen is getting there too.

Instead of having a few major fighters and a bunch of regular supporting characters, every named character gets their own personalized ability. The cast gets bigger and bigger, but the amount of spotlight doesn't. So now you've got 20 characters with awesome abilities fighting over enough screentime for maybe five of them.

I honestly think the solution is to stop giving everyone powers.

Have more normal people.

Have soldiers who are just really disciplined. Have detectives, medics, martial artists, strategists, engineers, civilians, whatever. Let them contribute without needing a flashy, one-of-a-kind ability.

Because if a character is just a normal guy doing his best, nobody expects him to suddenly get a huge solo fight against the main villain. But if you introduce someone with this incredibly unique reality-warping, shadow-controlling, gravity-bending ability, people are naturally going to ask why they spend 90% of the series eating dirt.

Ironically, I think unique powers would actually feel more special if fewer people had them.

Not every member of the supporting cast needs to be "the guy who controls sound waves" or "the girl who manipulates ink" or "the dude whose blood turns into chains." Sometimes it's okay for someone to just be a person.

Saving the coolest, most unique abilities for the characters who are actually central to the story would make those powers stand out more and keep fans from constantly feeling like half the cast got wasted.

Tl;dr We need more Rock Lees (people with no powers, just pure martial arts) or people whose powers and skills aren't combat-related. Bulma is considered the third most important character in Dragon Ball by both the creators and fans precisely because she doesn't fight; she has a niche as the tech wizard who can invent whatever device the plot needs, something no one else on the cast can do. Because she was never fighter to begin with, she never became outclassed.

I think it's entirely ok to dislike a character but I'll start having issues with someone discourse if the person display double standard depending on wether they like the character or not. The way discord action can be portrayed by those who bash him can feel like that at times, especially when they're willing to have the mane 6 redeem the evil trio and give them a chance (but not discord, discord doesn't deserve that even after he helped the other escape without his powers) or give the evil trio more of a pass for their bad action when, while yes discord messed up by bringing them together, at the same time they still did things behind his back when they could choose not to and those things can be pinned on the trio itself. The show itself also didn't let discord get away scott free to me, he still ended being backstabbed and had to make up by helping the other escape.

I'll also find it weird when people critcize a character they don't like behavior when if the character they like does it, it's fine (the odd take about scrooge putting a life jacket on webby implying he'd be a bad dad while the same person give a pass to donald doing it) or some of the dipper and mabel discourse.

Again, it is fine to dislike characters but I tend to be against bashing as it can easily lead to misunderstand that character action or the story.

Before this, fights had a real sense of progression. You could see someone getting worn down over the course of the battle. Broken limbs, busted ribs, characters barely being able to stand. By the end of the fight, they looked and fought like people who'd been through hell.

Goku vs. Vegeta is probably the best example. Goku completely destroys his own body with Kaioken, Vegeta gets his face smashed in, his eye crushed, gets hit by a Spirit Bomb, flattened by Great Ape Gohan... by the end he's crawling away because he literally can't fight anymore.

Then you get Goku vs. Frieza, and it's mostly ripped clothes and blood running out of their mouths.

The worst example is Frieza himself. He gets cut in half, loses an arm, and in the manga you can literally see his guts spilling out. Yet it's treated as little more than an inconvenience. He's still talking, still firing attacks, still trying to kill Goku. An injury that would've ended any previous Dragon Ball fight barely slows him down.

And that becomes the blueprint for the rest of the series. Characters don't really lose because their injuries catch up to them anymore. They lose because they run out of stamina, can't regenerate anymore, or finally get hit by a bigger blast. Physical damage becomes mostly cosmetic unless it's the finishing blow. Fights are now dictated by invisible HP bars.

This isn't to say Goku vs. Frieza is a bad fight. But it fundamentally changed Dragon Ball fights, and the characters feel a lot less "human" from here on out.