• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    6 months ago

    Shinji, from Evangelion.

    He’s 14. His mum is dead. His dad is a piece of shit and a manipulative bastard, who sees him as nothing but a pawn. “Emotionally traumatised” doesn’t even start to describe him. He’s pressured to pilot a mecha and if he fucks things up people will die, he knows that they will die, and that it’ll be his fault.

    And yet people expect him to be assertive or to not have meltdowns? Come the fucking on.

    • raldone01@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Imagine if nerv had invested some of its money in the mental health of its employees. I like to think many issues could have been solved by hiring a few therapists.

      • argarath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        A few? There are so many traumatized people that would need entire teams of therapists, it would probably increase their employee numbers by at least 50%

    • Fribbtastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I think the biggest problem that people have with NGE is that it just isn’t your typical shounen anime. All of the characters behave in a way because of their past experiences. Shinji being abandoned by his father, witnessing his mother’s death without actually understanding or realising it, asuka being neglected by her mother and Rei being a clone. And all of them in their teens, in a broken world getting told to fight and probably die or humanity is doomed.

      With how saturated anime are with flawed main characters that then use that flaw to their advantage to overcome their enemy, NGE just doesn’t do that.

      I think that viewers just expect this hero story when they watch it.

      I mean. I had a similar impression when I first watched it a long long time ago and thought that shinji was a wuss. But that was after I watched the typical shounen, DB, DBZ, Naruto and bleach. Not to mention that I didn’t understand what the fuck was going on. Only later after watching it a second time and digging into the background a bit, shinjis Oedipus complex, asukas hedgehog dilemma and the general motivation of each of the characters it made a lot more sense. Including the context of their situation made me appreciate the storytelling a lot more because it put everything into perspective.

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Didn’t realize he was hated? He is a fucked up little weirdo but so is everyone in that show. Man, I might need to rewatch, been way too long.

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Plenty anime fans hate him. Because he’s weak, indecisive, broken. He craves affection but once people offer “here’s some affection”, he turns them down. That rubs plenty people the wrong way.

    • CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      My personal theory is that jar jar is not a sith but rather a domestic terrorist that is really good at making it look like an accident

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I know this a joke theory (mostly), but given how much Star Wars rips from classic scifi works, I think looking at the Foundation books makes a good case for this being viable as more than a joke.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It’s not even viable. In canon, Jar Jar was relegated to being a shunned street performer on Theed where adults hated him but the children would laugh at his clown antics. A Sith lord wouldn’t become that, ever.

        • SSTF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I am viewing from intention as written, when written for the films. It seems plausible that “Darth Jar Jar” or something similar could have been an original, but abandoned intention.

  • delicious_justice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    6 months ago

    Willie in Temple of Doom. So what if she wasn’t cut out for the big adventure! She liked her life in Shanghai- dresses, performing, champagne, and nightlife. She didn’t ask for any of what happened next!

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    6 months ago

    Basically every character who’s worst sin is just being kinda annoying

    It makes no sense to me how an annoying person can catch so much more vitriol than a genuinely malicious person.

    Like “sure he murders puppies as a casual past time, but at least he isn’t a bother about it!”

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      I guess in a show the annoyance they cause to you is real but the puppies killed are fiction

    • Abnorc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t hate characters for being evil in fiction. Evil characters can be super entertaining. The game of thrones books really captured this potential IMO. A character being annoying to the reader/viewer directly impedes with you enjoying the show.

  • Fallenwout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Thanos; I can understand his reasoning, his solution doesn’t favor anyone either and seemed painless.

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      I thought the reasoning portrayed in the movies made a lot less sense than the reasoning in the comics.

      If his goal is to eliminate poverty and balance the resources vs consumption, why not double the resources rather than destabilize the entire universe in the process of halving the consumption of resources?

      A shortsighted and foolish plan at least makes sense when it’s in the pursuit of romance.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thanos’ reasoning is idiotic.

      People are a resource. If you eliminated half the people, not only have you wasted all resources that went into those people, but you’ve wasted everything those people could produce. Minus half of agricultural workers would probably mean way less than half production. The post-snap world would be a place of austerity and starvation. You could recover sure, but it’d be time for another snap.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      On the surface I understand, but as you dig deeper the logistics don’t make a lot of since with the “indiscriminate” part. Let’s say you had two warring factions of almost equal power. How would the snap know to take an equal amount so that there isn’t a massive power shift which could lead to a much more negative outcome. What if there was a single, very influencial person that got snapped. Things like that. His goal was to alieviate suffering but there are so many better ways he could have approached it. It’s possible I’d need to dive into the backstory more to determine what made him choose that specific action.

      • Fallenwout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        About the 2 faction problem, theoretically 50% of each faction will be gone. Chances are big that the power balance remains the same. But you can idd argue that making 1 faction completely dissappear is also 50% and statistically possible.

        About the influential people (let add geniuses to be complete). Those persons are not unique, nobody is irreplaceable. Someone else will step up to be equally influential, Someone else will figure stuff out.

        The reason he choose that action is not to be biased and give everyone an equally 50% chance of survival. In his eyes, a cleaning lady deserves an equal chance to a CEO.

        • ramble81@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think that’s where we differ in analysis. If you had a charismatic leader who was snapped and another that was ruthless who wasn’t snapped, even if you lost 50% on both sides, it could greatly cause an imbalance.

          As for a genius or such, it could set progress back by decades or more or they could have produced something that had a positive effect to change the course of their race.

          • Fallenwout@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            First point: fair enough, I see the flaw. But then we’re changing to a more ethical dilemma: does a charismatic person deserve more chance to live?

            Second point: with half the population left, there is more time to solve things (caused by humanity). Global warming, for example, will likely be solved by just the snap alone.

            Maybe he could have made it that every female can only bare 2 children, that would gradually reduce population. But that would put a huge strain on the younger generation to take care of the elder.

        • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’d argue in the marvel universe it would be inevitable with the faction problem. The marvel universe is much much larger than our own and much more heavily populated, so even if it was a small chance, there’s many more times that chance could happen.

    • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Satan as in disgruntled, restricted without being explained about reasons, Paradise Lost or Melkor in Tolkien’s works kind is pretty much righteous in rebelling. Methods used during the said rebelling is questionable, thom

    • Pronell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 months ago

      And forced a sane but disruptive man through a disabling procedure?

      No. She went way the hell too far so she could protect her little kingdom and stay in power. She was not concerned with helping her charges improve their lot in life.

      • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The movie takes place in a different time, just to be clear.

        The patient in question was faking being crazy. Acted out and challenged her every single day. He even snuck all of the patients out of the hospital, stole a bus and a boat, and went off on everyone for shits and giggles at every opportunity.

        Of course I don’t agree with the lobotomy. But he was pushing real damn hard for it.

        He was also a jail jumper. They put him in that ward to finally get rid him.

        Ratchet was fine giving them their meds every day, and being the only nurse in charge of doing meetings and everything else, until he showed up and instigated everything.

        • cam_i_am@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Completely disagree, but upvoted for having a well-argued, unpopular opinion which is kind of the point of this thread!

        • Pronell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I totally get where you’re coming from but wanted to put the counterpoint, as obvious as it was.

          She was caring for those who nobody else could for at that time, and to generally good effect day to day.

          I’ve worked in group homes and know of the challenges you face in serving those who aren’t all that stable.

          Just would never have advocated for that solution for anyone really. All that is said with historical knowledge and such.

          Yours was a good post.

          She was trying her best with that she had and knew at the time, even if she overreacted in the end, to terrible effect.

          • PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I like the discussion. Obviously I’m not dying on any hills here. I just think it’s worth looking at the movie in a different pov. Thank you.

            I’ve been on the other side, as a patient.

            Edit. I think she did want the best for everyone. Even during the climatic scene. She just didn’t know what else to do, and using his mother as a form of pressure, while definitely wrong in hindsight, was really all she had left at the time. Don’t forget that scene is the morning after they all threw a party and everyone was basically drunk, including staff.

            I also recommend reading the book. It’s really good.

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Uncle Iroh
    I know he’s a genocidal war criminal, but he lost his son and traveled a long path of tea and paisho eventually cherishing and mentoring his nephew.

    Uncle Ruckus
    He’s a simple man, tryin’ to make his way in the world. Life’s dealt him a tough hand, but he played it the best he could. He worked hard, respected the values he was raised with, and tries to bring a bit of order to this chaotic world. He ma be rough around the edges and may not make words so good, but he believes in tough love and speaking his mind.

  • AliceA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Not a character it’s actually a woman but I shouldn’t say who and for why. Ultimately she is in the wrong. But could have been prevented at least I think maybe idk

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      6 months ago

      Great contribution to the conversation. We all understand what you’re saying, and who you’re talking about. We’re all just ready to continue this conversation that we ABSOLUTELY can be a part of, and have opinions on.

      …oh wait.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 months ago

      This isn’t Facebook… vuagebooking isn’t allowed. Either name the person or go somewhere else.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I shouldn’t say who and for why.

      Why? This is anonymous. No one will judge you for your opinion. Of course, it’s also a discussion. We can’t reply if we don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And if you refuse to do that, why even post the comment?