Got a lot of film opinions i need to get off my chest. i hope you enjoy the content! please consider showing your support by liking and subscribing. Peace!!!
Hi there interesting content idea but I think you miss the point of rigid idealism and how it creates conflict in a story especially with these characters 😅 which is why they are popular
Thanks for your input! Now, I get what you're saying-rigid idealism definitely serves as a major source of conflict and can be essential to a character's arc or the overall story. The point I was trying to make is that while this idealism creates compelling tension, it can also make the character frustrating or insufferable when taken to extremes. Sometimes, the unwavering nature of their ideals can come across as stubbornness or even naivety, especially when it doesn't seem to evolve in response to the challenges they face. I think there's a fine line between a character's principles driving conflict and those same principles becoming grating or unrealistic. It’s definitely an interesting balance to consider!😁😁
@@thatsjustmyopinion772 I applaud you for taking on a tough concept but if I may offer some additional feedback and for what I think your going for please refer to the youtuber the closer look as this is similar content 1) i didn't feel that the argument here was flushed out, you provided some interesting samples but I think you spread it too far, maybe try 3 and expand those further (cap and bat are great examples) 2) acknowledge the counter argument, I love debate but I would focus on one character, probably the one to attract most attention bat or cap, then make sure to acknowledge the counter argument, I stage mine in 1 my point 2 argument against my point 3 rehashing my point while dealing with arguments from two and provide an example of a change to illustrate 3) it's an interesting idea to approach but hard to prove, I thought on it and I can't think of examples in traditional media, instead I went to gaming like witcher 3 for it and I believe that would prove your point more I still think it's a bold take and encourage you to think of more bold takes
@@thatsjustmyopinion772 oh oh oh if you want a good argument for one use the Jedi order and Jedi in star wars have a quick glance and you'll see what point you are trying to make, if you need a point in the right direction I am happy to help
Thanks so much for the detailed feedback! I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. I’ll definitely check out The Closer Look again-it’s actually one of my favorite RU-vid channels, and I aspire to create video essays like theirs. I’ll make sure to take a closer look (pun intended) at how they structure their arguments for some inspiration. I totally get your point about focusing on fewer examples and expanding on them. The reason I chose to cover multiple characters in this video is that I wanted to highlight how this pattern of idealism versus realism shows up across different kinds of heroes from different genres, not just one and how it often leads to deadly consequences. I didn’t focus solely on Batman because I had already made a separate video critiquing his main ideal of not killing, so I wanted to avoid retreading the same ground. That said, I see how going deeper into just a few characters could have allowed for a more detailed analysis. I appreciate your suggestion about including counterarguments, too. I like the structure you laid out for balancing the discussion and will aim to incorporate that approach in future videos. Thanks again for your encouragement and valuable tips! Bold takes are what I’m aiming for, and your feedback is helping me get there.
I actually have this idea to make a story where Batman is in a modern setting and not only does he still use guns but doesn't have a no kill policy. Reading through the original Detective Comics to update the older stories along with adding some later villains in between for variety.
That’s an intriguing approach! I’m curious how you’d handle Batman’s character in this version, especially since you intend to place him in a modern setting. Would he be more like the Punisher, taking a more ruthless, all-out approach to crime? Or would he only use lethal force when absolutely necessary, still trying to maintain some restraint while not being bound by the no-kill rule?
@@thatsjustmyopinion772 He only kills when he has to, which would not be very often. Also intending to have Ra's al Ghul be his father figure, stealing from Batman Begins, and the one who trains him along with explaining who is and isn't a killer.
I don't understand your point. Kokoro was never a problem from the future Malcolm came from because she didn't exist, he was developing her but he only went as far as creating Misaki. From the Terminator lore, they won the war against Skynet in 2029, which was when they sent back Kyle Reese because they realized as a last ditch effort, Skynet sent back Terminators to kill Sarah and John. So by 2045, Skynet was never a threat anymore, just the remaining uncoordinated cyborgs (since it's been already established in the franchise that the death of Skynet doesn't necessarily mean the death of all Terminators), which were easy to defeat (i mean, we even see Malcolm as a child with his friends capture one) My major point is the war had been won, and there was no reason why Malcolm had to go back in time. But him going back in time was what caused a divergent future where Kokoro was another Skynet in the future. Had he stayed put in the future, that new timeline would never have existed The issue here is that he was the one who pointed out that time traveling to change the outcome of the war was meaningless because it won't affect the future from which they traveled from, yet he went ahead to time travel, which did nothing but create another timeline where Kokoro was another Skynet This is why I make the claim that the show has only succeeded in over-complicating a simple time travel theory that James Cameron introduced in the first two films.
@@thatsjustmyopinion772 My point is that Skynet had been changing timelines so many times that the date of the Judgement Day had been changing from T1-T2 to Genesys and Dark Fate.T0 kept the 1997 doomsday date for whatever reason. So why does suddenly people has an issue with humans fighting the machine war untill 2040s? That specific timeline with John Connor defeating Skynet in 2029 maybe gone now. T0 has 3 seperate timelines where they are experiencing the 3rd timeline right now. Kokoro had been a huge problem for Skynet and humans from the 2nd timeline from which present Eiko came from. We don't even know when the Judgement day started in the 1st Macolms timeline, the evidence suggests that timeline might be corrupted by the time travelers like the prophet And T0 aknowledges that there is no such thing as Fate in Terminator world because nobody knows what will happen.
First let me address the point about the "no such thing as fate". It's BS. The show has repeated the idea that "there’s no such thing as fate," yet Judgment Day always happens on the exact same date, which is contradictory. Humanity was fated to face Judgment Day on August 29, 1997, no matter what, proving that fate does exist. Even though Malcolm went back in time and created Kokoro, Judgment Day still occurred on the exact same date. Fate exists, and the story itself confirms it! So all that talk about no such thing as fate is BS. Next, In Episode 7 of Terminator Zero, Malcolm alluded to the Resistance sending Reese and reprogrammed Terminators back in time, and the fact that Judgment Day didn’t change is evidence of the fact that, he was in the very same future in which John defeated Skynet. The problem is that a logical argument for why Malcolm goes back in time can't be made. The act of going back served no purpose, other than complicating and further ruining the closed causal loop time travel mechanics of the Terminator mythos that James Cameron had intended. Again, in the video I highlighted how going back only creates divergent timelines where Kokoro was a problem for Skynet. He did the very thing he criticized; sending guardians back in time to change the outcome of the war. The whole reason he went back and created Kokoro was to "change the outcome of the war", a war that had already been won during his time. Him doing so didn't save the future, it only created another timeline which solved nothing. That's the problem with the alternate timeline approach to time travel, there will never be a resolution to the war. It over complicates the story, making it hard to follow and completely disregards the events of the first two movies that used the closed causal loop approach. Now you have a franchise that uses two very very different theories of time travel. It can never work. This is one of the reasons why Dark Fate and Genisys are hated so much by fans. Bonus point: Skynet's attempts to change the future were all part of the closed causal loop. John sending Kyle and the t800 to save Sarah and his younger self, Kyle and Sarah creating John, John witnessing the events of T2: Judgement Day, judgement day happening, John defeating Skynet, Skynet in a last ditch effort sends both T800 and T1000 to kill John and Sarah, repeat!!!! His attempts to do so were all part of his inevitable defeat!
This is why i like other characters from different series they don't want to kill but at least they will kill a villain that is to much of a threat to people
While I thought the same.. We all laugh at serious stuff.. It’s over.. The slap happened and his life has to go on.. This was a reach.. Even Chris Rock made jokes off his own slap and got paid well for them..
Thank you for your comment. I agree that humor can be a way to cope with serious events and that life moves on. Chris Rock has indeed made jokes about the incident, and it’s a part of how we deal with such moments. However, I still believe that including that scene wasn't the best idea. While humor is important, the context and execution matter, especially in a movie. In this case, it felt like it was more about leveraging a real-life controversy rather than adding genuine value to the story.
Ridiculous in no way did I draw that connection. The scene required Mike to snap into character that he’s known for to break the state of mind he was in
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand that not everyone might draw the same connection I did. However, my criticism comes from how the scene mirrored real-life events involving Will Smith and Chris Rock. To me, it seemed like it could be interpreted as a nod to that incident. While the scene serves a purpose in the story to help Mike snap into character, the way it was executed and the timing didn't seem coincidental. It felt deliberate and came across as trivializing a serious real-life event or attempting to take the heat off Will. Considering this is Will Smith's first theatrical release since the Oscar incident, I think the filmmakers were aware of how it could affect the film's reception and decided to add that bit!
Thanks for the honest feedback. I'll make sure to address this better in future videos. That aside, what did you think about the video itself? Do you believe the LOTR trilogy is significantly superior to the POTA trilogy? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts!
Thanks for sharing your opinion! I understand that The Lord of the Rings holds a special place in many hearts and is often considered a pinnacle of fantasy cinema. However, the Planet of the Apes trilogy also offers exceptional storytelling, deep thematic exploration, and groundbreaking visual effects. The purpose of my video was to highlight the strengths and unique qualities of both trilogies, inviting a healthy discussion about their respective merits. While they have different styles, both have made significant contributions to film history. In the end, it's all about appreciating the artistry in each and understanding why they resonate with different audiences.
@@WestCoast_Joe look, Lord of the rings is fantastic. It was an amazing moment in history, and I’m glad I got to be a part of watching it unfold. Having said that it is by definition second tier, because, as I stated, tier 1 is back to the future and OG Star Wars by default.
Hello, I hope you don't mind some criticism. I don't mean to be rude. I find that you are talking too fast to understand some of your words. Other wise. Great video!
What Batman really needs to do is create his own prison in which to keep people like The Joker and Zazz.. That way he doesn't have to worry about them escaping from Arkham all the damn time.. His real crime is constantly returning these people to a prison in which he knows that it is only a matter of time before they escape again..
Very nice video, liked a lot of the points you made. I would like to point out that the Red Hood comic has more context to it than simply Bruce being mad at him for killing the penguin. Basically, Jason found out his dad worked for Penguin and got killed and wanted revenge. Getting that revenge he did it in public and set off some explosion that was also kinda near people. So I can say it's justified for Batman to be mad at Jason for doing that but beating him up is a little too far (also i don't remember if it was Jason who attacked Bruce first or nah.) But anyway, I agree with the point of him not killing because of pride and becoming a murderer is just bad. Like, it makes his character so much more worse. Batman isn't supposed to be someone who could become a bad guy by simply killing, he has too much willpower for that. It makes no sense. In my opinion, the better explanation for him not killing was from Batman: Hush (if I remember correctly) where he said "If someone can be saved, I have to try". Batman is an optimist, he tries to look for redemption in others, tries to help them. That's who Batman is supposed to be. Imo it would be better if it were simply that he won't kill because he really is trying to find a way to help people without killing them. It would also be better to simply say he has a code not because he would kill if he didn't, nut rather that he is an unstable person himself who has lots of trauma and anger inside that could surface if he didn't hold back. It would make Batman seem like he would still have his problems but still believes in people, like himself. If he can control his anger, deal with his trauma, then he could help others as well. (I feel like I failed basic grammar writing this, lol)
Thanks for your comment Sir/Mme You are 100% right. I do realize the context of the Red Hood comic I omitted. My intention was to focus more on Batman's reaction to what Jason did and to show how when his position is challenged, he responds violently without even trying to analyze the situation. It's true that there was perhaps a revenge motive on Jason's part.
@@thatsjustmyopinion772If that's the case, I completely understand why you chose this. I feel like rather than be violent towards Jason, he could have been more understanding and even stern because he did do some mistakes and killed someone out of revenge, but it's understandable why. That makes Jason human. And obviously he would want revenge for his father. Bruce should have been more understanding since he also lost his parents due to crime. I really liked the things you pointed out about Batmans no kill rule and they were the same things that were bugging me for awhile. It always made me question "Is he doing it for the greater good, or for his selfish desire"
As much as I like Batman, he comes a lot of times as hypocrite. That's the main problem with him. He enjoys lecture others claiming how wrong they are and yada yada, but he doesn't look at himself. For example, anyone who was Robin fought alongside Batman at a very young age. Sure, we have the whole sidekick stuff, but having kids fighting derangeds in fucking Gotham is irresponsible. There was a Flash comic from 2008 in which Wally called out Batman, because Bruce complained about Wally's kids fighting crime alongside him, but Wally refuted referencing what Bruce has been doing for years. Also, it's really concerning how he refuses to kill Joker, but create elaborate and deadly ways to stop the Justice League, something that caused a lot of trouble and almost killed them. And as stated, when it comes to Joker, allowing him to live just let him kill more people. But instead of solving the problem, Bruce just act higher than thou, because he obsessively needs to show he is the smartest guy in the room, even when he is not.
Just because you are not convinced, doesn't mean it's not justified. Maybe you aren't smart. I'm serious. Not even from a nerd standpoint or because we disagree or anything like that, it's pretty much spelled out. If "you are not convinced" then you are not paying attention or mentally deficient or just not very good at what you are trying to say. It would be more accurate if your argument was "I wish Batman kiIIed" or "I prefer if he did." *sigh* Here we go. 1. It's fiction. It's not real. It's a show. The show comes first. We have to keep the people entertained and entertained continuously and for as long as possible. If we kiII off characters.... they can't come back. We like Batman's villains. They are interesting. If we kiII them, then we either run out of unique ideas for new villains or the story ends. 2. Batman's villains are not based on powers and ability, but based on personality and mental illness. They are sick and need help. KiIIing them isn't the answer and it solves nothing. They need rehabilitation. They need help. 3. Batman Begins spends an ENTIRE SECOND ACT explaining why he has his rule... Batman is also mentally deranged and a day away from becoming equally as bad as the criminals he catches. It's the 1 thing seperating him from them. Bruce had a gun, was going to use it, but Rachel slapped him TWICE and said "your Father would be ashamed of you." The entire point was that kiIIing the criminal does not solve the overall problem. You kiII him, there is just gonna be another goon to take his place. Batman made himself a myth. The whisper about "what I heard he can do" is bigger than what he actually does. 3. KiIIing is too easy. Non-lethal, yet brutal, is more creative and more theatrical. A bullet to the head is not as entertaining as cracked ribs, missing teeth, ringing eardrums and short-term trauma from riot bullets to the head and torso. Writers can make interesting, yet non-lethal gadgets and weapons. 4. Batman saw his parents yeeted, understanding that is the worst pain and he wishes that on nobody. 5. It makes him unique. He can be the most brutal entity ever, yet he still values life. "Not convinced" is pretty unintelligent. Just read a Punisher comic book, then.
Point 3 is a very good (almost foolproof) argument for why Batman doesn't kill. He's deranged. There's a thin line between him and becoming a worse Joker.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I want to clarify that expressing skepticism about a particular viewpoint doesn’t imply that someone is unintelligent. It simply means that I haven’t found the arguments presented convincing enough to change my perspective. Healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential components of intellectual discourse, and it’s important to engage in thoughtful debate. Now to addressing point 1 While it’s true that characters like Batman and his rogue gallery are beloved by audiences, their narratives often explore complex themes and questions about justice, morality, and human nature. Insisting on maintaining a static status quo solely for the sake of preserving popular characters can hinder storytelling potential and limit the exploration of deeper themes. Additionally, emphasizing the need for character development and evolving narratives can lead to more engaging and thought-provoking storytelling, rather than relying on repetitive tropes or stagnant character arcs. Killing off characters like Batman’s villains would lead to a lack of creativity in storytelling is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that the only way to create compelling narratives is by keeping characters static and unchanging, which overlooks the potential for character development and evolution. By allowing characters to grow and change, writers can explore new dynamics, conflicts, and story arcs that keep audiences engaged. Second, it overlooks the rich history of storytelling where characters have faced significant changes or even met their demise, leading to new storylines and character developments. This demonstrates that well-crafted narratives can emerge from such changes, driving innovation and creativity rather than stifling it. Furthermore, it implies a lack of faith in the ability of writers to come up with fresh ideas and compelling villains. Instead of relying on the same set of characters indefinitely, writers have the opportunity to introduce new antagonists with unique motivations, powers, and personalities. This not only revitalizes the narrative but also expands the universe in which the characters exist, providing new opportunities for exploration and storytelling. Ultimately, arguing for the preservation of characters solely to avoid creative challenges overlooks the potential for growth and innovation in storytelling and underestimates the creativity of writers in crafting compelling narratives. Addressing point 3a While it’s true that removing one criminal might create an opportunity for another to take their place, it doesn’t negate the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions. By enforcing consequences for criminal behavior, we establish a deterrent that can dissuade others from following the same path. Moreover, the goal isn’t just about eliminating individual criminals; it’s about upholding justice and protecting innocent lives. Batman’s no kill rule, while well-intentioned, doesn’t always address the larger systemic issues at play. Sometimes, more decisive action is necessary to prevent further harm and promote a safer society. Addressing point 4 While it’s true that Batman’s childhood trauma shaped his worldview, it’s simplistic to attribute his entire moral code solely to that event. Many individuals experience trauma without adopting extreme moral positions. Batman’s no kill rule reflects his broader ethical beliefs about justice and the value of human life, which have been shaped by his experiences. Addressing point 2 Also, his desire to prevent others from experiencing the trauma he endured is understandable, but his refusal to deal decisively with irredeemable criminals like the Joker and Zsasz has unintended consequences. By allowing these dangerous individuals to roam free, Batman inadvertently exposes countless others, including innocent children, to the same or even worse traumas. Each time the Joker escapes or Zsasz is not permanently neutralized, the potential for more violence and suffering increases, perpetuating a cycle of trauma in Gotham. Thus, while Batman’s intentions may be noble, his actions ultimately contribute to the perpetuation of the very trauma he seeks to prevent. In the video, I presented several instances to underscore why a criminal like the Joker, for instance, has transcended the realm of redeemability. He is beyond rehabilitation, existing solely to sow chaos and destruction. Dealing with such an individual necessitates extreme measures, such as execution. It’s important to note that the video does not advocate for Batman to indiscriminately kill criminals. The focus was specifically on the Joker, recognizing him as a unique case requiring a different approach. Regarding the “just read punisher comics” everyone seems to throw around, I appreciate the recommendation! Reading comics about different characters with contrasting moral codes can definitely provide interesting perspectives. However, my critique of Batman’s no kill rule doesn’t necessarily mean I hate the character or his stories. It’s just a discussion on a specific aspect of his character. But hey, I’m always up for expanding my comic book horizons, so I might give the more recent Punisher comics a read too! Thanks for the suggestion! In conclusion, I appreciate your perspective and encourage further discussion on the topic
@thatsjustmyopinion772 Very mature and sound response. Such a breath of fresh air to meet a critic who isn't an intellectual/ highly opinionated bully
