Anti-heroes are not what you might think. 

primary protagonist

I don't mean to be rude, but by the logic that the word hero can have more then one definition, couldn't anti-hero embody both the literary definition that you described and an anti-"hero", as in an individual like Red Hood who while not villainous wouldn't be considered a hero in the traditional sense by the general public both in and out of universe?

@@aab1254 No. As it was it was said in the video, "anti-hero" is a literary term, it is strictly about the literary meaning of "hero". It is not "by my logic" either. I didn't write Cambridge's Dictionary, not did I invent the term anti-hero, nor did I invent this definition. There is no "anti-hero" that means "Not a villain but wouldn't be considered a hero" because that definition doesn't even describe anything. It pretends that in the world we only have villains, heroes, and anti-heroes. By this logic, the little kid who gets saved in Ironman 2 because he's not a villain, but you can't consider him a hero. It becomes so loose that it renders "anti-hero" completely meaningless. A person who is not considered a hero because you simply don't approve of him isn't an "anti-hero", it is just... Nothing. Are you an anti-hero? You're not a villain, but as far as I'm concerned, you're not a hero. If we make your description more specific, "a person who takes justice into his hands but in a questionable fashion" that is not an anti-hero. What you describe is a "vigilante", which has little to do with being a hero or not. Besides that, as it was said in the video, Red Hood exists as an answer to what is deemed a potential flaw with Batman's way of handling things. Many people think Batman should kill, and many characters who do what Red Hood does are called heroes. (Most heroic characters in classic literature and movies, to begin with) Red Hood is a villain in his introduction, and a hero after his development. Both in the literary sense, and in the typical sense. He meets every requirement to be so. The problem is that Marvel and DC's "moral sermons" are actually pure marketing. Killing doesn't make a hero an anti-hero, but super hero comics would like you to think so, because it would be inconvenient to not reuse the best villains whenever they can. In other words, modern morality is more driven by marketing's influence than reason, morality, or consistency. As it was said in the video, nobody says the Three Musketeers are are anti-heroes for carrying a sword. There is no consistency, logic, or even a point in trying to establish, as a definition for "anti-hero" such a nonsensical concept. If you ask me, when a word, by definition, makes no sense, it isn't a wotd, it is just misused gibberish. You paint your response as if I had decided to invent a new meaning for "hero" to make a point, as if I had decided to expand on the meaning of hero in a whim because I didn't want to be wrong, but I didn't. The definition exists, it is well known, widely used, and very well established. It's been around longer than you and me have been alive. Anti-hero, as you want to use it, is merely a misunderstanding of the term that has lead to a very wide misuse of it. I wouldn't even be surprised if marketing were behind it as well. I don't doubt many edgy teenagers just love the sound of "anti-hero". They must think "Woah... That's so badass!" Unfortunately, as a result, the understanding of "hero" has become significantly both shallows both in the literary and the trivial definitions of the use. Creating an illusion that a "hero" is some sort of inflexible concept that can only be one way. The only thing a hero, in the literary sense, had to be to, was dominantly admirable despite the possible flaws. An anti-hero is one who cannot be admired, either due to a lack of redeemable qualities, or them being too scarce. Typically, the hero of a story, even in a story where the hero isn't saving anyone from anything or fighting anything evil, is admirable in some way or another. Hence the term "anti-hero" which describes the subversion of this trope.

@@frenchbaguetteintelligenceThank you for taking the time to respond! Again, I hope I didn't come across as rude, I'm trying to understand both what makes an anti-hero and what characters could be considered an anti-hero, particularly given that the true definition is very different from what I thought I had known. However, I do feel like my misconception of the phrase is much more prevalent in peoples' minds compared to its true definition. My point wasn't to undermine Cambridge's definition, I was simply saying that given that hero has multiple definitions the term "anti-hero" could theoretically also have multiple definitions, including one akin to vigilante. Like you have said, it is supposed to only be used in the literary sense, but in recent times I feel like it has taken on a much broader, more vague meaning: however, given that this misconception is so widespread that most people believe in the incorrect dictionary definition, might it be better to have the term take on a secondary definition? It reminds me to your video about the phrase "natural", as though I think Harry was correct, changing the public perception of what the word means would be very difficult to do. (I also feel like in this case the issue would be exacerbated as many people nowadays don't think of heroes in the literary fashion but rather think of "look, a superhero!", making t antihero seem like an antonym to that definition.) I agree that the definition I posed was not clear in any sort of way. And yes, the definition that I'm thinking of aligns more with vigilante. But I wouldn't be surprised if many people (like myself before this video) have thought of anti-heroes and vigilantes as synonyms or similar in definition, due to the incorrect labeling of anti-heroes in the last decade-ish. As such, could the term not take on an ulterior definition, or am I mistaken?

@@aab1254 I understood your point, however a thing you’ll see consistently in this channel is that we defend the correct use of words, and are completely against widely practiced misuses, because while we understand language changes all the time, not all change is positive nor helpful, and in this case, changing a very instructive and interesting description for anti-hero to a definition that is so vague, so broken, and so arbitrary that it might as well not mean anything… That to me is not a positive change, so I’d rather do my best to inform a few people about the actual meaning of this term over just accepting that people love to say nonsense. Besides, I find that canonizing misunderstandings in a language is a mentality that finds that when people are confused, we should accommodate the information to better suit their nonsense instead of trying to clear up things, which I think is a very bad approach within the quality of language, and life in general. P.S: You did not come off as rude in any way.

Isnt that most regular discussions?

​@@dylanzlol7293no everytime anyone argues they disagree with literally everything.

Anti-heroe is Someone who do villainous actions because a Heroic Reason. The thing is, Heroic Reason and Villanous can be subjective depending of who are you asking, so, you can argue Batman, Wolverine and Deadpool are Anti-Heroes, and someone can say that all of them are Heroes, and both are correct and wrong at the same time It's more like a "how gray do you think they are in the scale", that's THE main factor, a anti-heroe isnt a black or white moral character, its a character that have flaws in the ethics thats involve being a superheroe

@@SapoWeonN300 or becoming a murderous thief to help other people?

@@dylanzlol7293 i rewrite my message because i was interrumped, You can read All The argument now, sorry

Wouldn't that Be anti-villianous Then? because He's doing A good Thing, for A villianous Reason, his Greed.

I just call that being based but sure

I think Wario lands 3 and 4 are the best examples of that cause in those games Wario isn't even aware of the plot until the very end after it's all over.

You could make a similar argument for Shadow tho, just replace greed with... survivor's guilt I guess. Shadow barely cares about the earth and it's inhabitants, but he made a promise to Maria so he protects everything nonetheless, and broods while he's doing it

​@@Snip216That's where you're wrong shadow doesn't brood nor does he begrudgingly saves the earth. He realized his promise and saw the beauty in earth. Him in 06 is the best characterization, he's a hero but simply more pragmatic and serious like batman.

And by far one of the most quotable.

"Moral ethics be damned! Bowl wants his neighbor to be monke!" - Bowl

I mean, The thing is that Heroic is, in the most "ancient" definition, a person that can complete a very difficult task, most of them with Strenght Odysseous was a Anti-heroe, technically

Technically, pop-culture redefined "Anti-Heros" to what both FC and Hary were arguing against; though if we have to decide or not if pop-culture redifining terms is relevant.... *cringe* ... that's a whole other can of worm. Agreed on separating it to a different word.

TV Tropes does this with "Classical Anti-Hero" (Frodo Baggins, Don Quixote, Billy Pilgrim…) and "Unscrupulous Hero."

@@autonomorantula That sounds like better terms for it.

Probably Best examples for a traditional Anti-hero would be wario

In FGO Agartha chapter, Columbus is the best character of a very mid story. He is built up as this very admirable person who never gives up on his journey to achieve his dreams. Then he backstabs you in a bid to win the whole pot for himself exactly because of all his admirable qualities. Really underappreciated man he is. Also he has a funny beard. Edit: Though now that I think of it, in this case he was more of an villainous valor kind of guy.

@Raiju2 I was also going to mention this version of Columbus, but you beat me to it.🤣

@@Raiju2 Speaking of Fate, in FSN Heaven's Feel, the term anti-hero comes up twice. The latter of the two is a description of Angra Mainyu, which yeah, if you subscribe to the narrative that everyone is absolved of guilt because it's all his fault then he's absolutely an anti-hero, and as the protagonist of FHA he definitely lacks the makings of a hero, despite taking upon that burden. But, the other time is when Kotomine is comparing Shirou and Kiritsugu as being similar to each other in that they both act like anti-heroes, and this confuses me. Kiritsugu definitely plays the role of an anti-hero in Fate/Zero, for example he uses underhanded methods to accomplish his goals, like the time with Kayneth and Diarmuid, which Kotomine _literally mentioned in the same conversation._ But Kotomine's reasoning for both him and Shirou being anti-heroes doesn't seem to have anything to do with that, despite him proceeding to go on in accurate detail about what an anti-hero is. And yet he also calls an anti-hero an unforgivable murderer. MAKE UP YOUR MIND KOTOMINE!

Isn't Christopher Columbus just a straight-up villain though?

@@tarvoc746yeah he is

I can’t handle him in IDW. He is absolutely horribly written in the comics. Prime shadow is OK but I still don’t like him.

@@hellfoxwolf14 to be fair the reason why he’s so bad in idw is because the Sega mandates force the writers to write him as a bad vegeta clone the writers desperately want to write him correctly but Sega is forcing their hand though apparently Sega is starting to ease up on the mandates on shadow so we might see shadow be properly written in the foreseeable future

@@faresalsayed9005 Yes!

Not only that, he would have been caught by Saruman, and Eru Iluvatarhas a plan

_"He did all these things with noble intentions"_ As it is said: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Being noble is good, but being an ignorant noble is counterproductive sometimes. I think this is what they try to demonstrate. I wonder if Frodo only prevent Sam from killing Gollum just because he remembered that Gandalf told him he has a role to play, either on good or bad.

@@Clemehl Gandalf said it best: Understand, Frodo ... I would use this Ring from a desire to do good ... but through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine. The point is Frodo did nothing wrong. Boromir could not have taken it, for he would've used it to try to save the white city, ironically leading it to its demise. Just look at this Quote from i dont know who Moreover, because the One Ring can corrupt anyone, it focuses more on how strong the wearer's will is, which isn't much in Boromir's case. As a result, if [Boromir] had gotten his hands on the One Ring, he would have only sped up the end of Middle-earth and the reign of Sauron.

did...did we watch the same video?

Or at the very least, his grief is clouding his judgement enough that he cant see the truth

​@@ronaldomendoza7578i think the argument that Miguel does there is "I am the example of what happens if You try to do that, kiddo, so, please, take a quick break and think, don't be the same as me" Basically, Miguel was trying to help Miles because he knows that if Miles wins...The Grief is gonna be even worse. If Miles wins, that universe is gonna be destroyed, if Miles fails, is gonna try The Same, escape to a universe where his father is alive and...The cycle goes on

​@@SapoWeonN300 So that's the reason why the FBI called Miles naive for his own selfish decisions. He doesn't deserve to be called a hero. He's just a civilian who idolizes Spider-Man but cannot comprehend his principles about how great power comes with great responsibility.

@@xxx_jim_the_reaper_xxx because he doesnt have that phrase, if i remember correctly, no One ever tells that phrase in the first movie. In that context, Miles is...Not Evil, he is just a Kid that choose something that most of us probably choose in his shoes. It's not The Bad guy, neither a Selfish Idiot, he is just...trying to be the Hero that saves everyone. It's basically Shirou Emiya VS Archer All over Again

@@SapoWeonN300in the first movie Miles tries quoting it to Peter B when they first meet. iirc mary jane said it first during the funeral speech

I would debate with you.

I know, right? Talking about things like this is super fun.

Regardless, they are correct in saying that neither Batman or Wolverine are anti heroes. I'm not an expert on the Punisher but I wanna say that he's intended to be something of an antihero whenever he appears alongside/against any other comic hero. In his own comics though he probably is supposed to be the hero of his stories and viewed as such. I think Red Hood was also probably initially intended to be an antihero of sorts, but as far as I'm aware they've more or less long moved past that

@@phoenixwright784 Yeah. In some red hood stories, batman is even portrayed as an anti-hero or at the very least given an antagonistic role that's hard to justify to the audience. Which feels like a strange decision, but I stopped reading due to other writing issues.

HOLY SHIT I JUST GOT IT WTF

So he broke up with his fridge. Expected.

@@BlindBosnianunless he took the harem route

You are absoluty right

You are absolutely wrong. there is definitely a need to be rigid with the definition of antihero considering that a lack of rigidity is correlated with a lack of *quality.*

@@christopherbravo1813 I mean, in certain contexts, sure. But I don't see why antihero being used to describe both forms of an atypical hero is detrimental. Like, both fit under the dictionary definition, it's only a pretentious adherence to the classical Greek myth definition of a hero that makes the other definition unfitting. Language is flexible enough for it to describe both without it being confusing.

@@galarstar052English is not every language on the planet. even if it were, the changing of meanings is not necessarily a good thing.

​@@christopherbravo1813 that is evry languanges problem on how they define words. You shouldn't make a change in your languange just because one other does it. How people have different opinions so have languanges dufferent reasons to be different. Problem is, most words definition change how people fews change. You can't change that. Technology changes also. Change is not always good, but change is necessary, and wirh good change so comes bad ones too. People get smarter so we need more words and exsisting words get new or more meanings attached to them. We don't need to make a new word for every little thing.

Wouldn't that make him an anti-villain instead? He's got a villainous goal, however his motives and attitude are heroic.

Wouldn't his weak moral values make him an anti hero though? His moral compass just seems to point at "whatever Maria wants" which changes to him throughout the story.

@@nef36 I think Shadow, both modern and in adventure 2, is certainly supposed to be an antihero. That was likely Sega's goal when writing him. I don't think they pull this role off super well though. His actions are almost always caused by him being misguided. He's more similar to Knuckles in this sense funnily enough. Once Knuckles and Shadow figure things out they almost always (if not always ) end up doing the right thing. Shoot, Knuckles might have worst morals then Shadow most of the time since the only thing he ever really cares about most of the time is protecting the Master Emerald.

@nef36 This is only during Sonic Adventure 2 (and Shadow The Hedgehog, kind of). By the time of Sonic 06, Shadow is very firmly a hero. He cares about humanity, and wants to do his best to protect them, and protect the people he cares about. He's even grown enough to the point where he cares about himself, for once. The plot of 06 features Mephiles attempting to sway Shadow, by telling him about what happens in the future, about how humanity turns on him in the dark history he hails from. He tries to appeal to the "anti" of Shadow's former "anti-hero" self... But it fails. Shadow has become a true hero, in his own right. He may be gruff. He may be a tad anti-social. He's absolutely edgy in his own dorky brooding red and black hedgehog way. But he is a hero, and he has virtuous morals, and he rejects Mephiles's attempts at goading him. He doesn't let selfishness or bitterness get the better of him. "If the world chooses to become my enemy... I will fight, like I always have." - Shadow the Hedgehog, Sonic 06. Honestly, I'm kind of sad Harry didn't bring up Sonic 06, because despite the travesty of the story, Shadow is written REALLY WELL in it. As for what comes after, he is definitely written as an edgelord, but not without keeping his good nature intact. All of the Twitter Takeovers he's featured in actually take care to make it clear that while he is edgy, he's still a kindhearted soul that truly is a hero, even if his personality is rough around the (h)edges.

@velvetphi I'm not disagreeing that shadow has become a full on hero. I just think that Sega still intends for shadow to be an antihero and they just... slip up and write a brooding edgelord hero instead, lol. Kinda one of the few problems I have with sonic prime, actually. Shadow's role in the cartoon just kinda annoys me 'cause he tries to act all high and mighty and give sonic the full blame for everything going to hell, but... Uh... You're kinda the reason why sonic was late to the Eggman fight in the first place. Had you not fought with sonic causing him to be massively late, things likely would have gone down much better path, or at least there's a chance they would've. Kinda think it's equally as much your fault as it is sonics. Actually, maybe sonic prime is the closest to antihero shadow that we've gotten in awhile. Still kinda fails at it though.

I'd argue that Judas as you describe him is closer to an anti-villain.

Thanos a simp, probably the biggest in comics

Misa sucks yeah, she's more of a narrative tool for the author to get things moving than anything else, and everyone liked the way things were during L and Light's stalemate.

And even then, the stalemate was not necessarily solved with Misa. Misa turned out to be another thing Light had to account for, and then the final stroke that killed L was the Yotsuba plan where he gives the Death Note away and trusts that L’s investigation of the Death Note will give Light access of the Death Note again. Misa may certainly be smarter than we think she is (and she even helps out in the Yotsuba arc, too) but she dedicates herself to a person who sees her as only the Shinigami Eyes, and even then that did not work. At least Misa just being a simp really gave a read on Light’s morality. That is, he didn’t, and Light was no extreme hero trying to solve a problem even if that was clear since the very beginning. Misa made it clear that Light could not be swayed by romantic relationships of his own.

Harry has no idea what hes talking about. Even without Eru Iluvatar, who would've wielded the ring and carried? No dwarf or elf, for the other would have angered. The man either would have been tempted or, in aragorn's case, doing so would be dangerous. The wise would have had too much power, and merry and pippin... Fool of a took! Sam was the only other person, and, as ring bearer, he would have killed gollum, thus not letting the ring be destroyed. And Boromir... If boromir had taken it, as harry suggests, the ring would have went to Saruman, for the heart of men is easily tempted, and god knows what would have happened. No, Harry doesnt know what hes talking about.

to be fair, Sauron likely isn't a military mastermind. and since the Ring is an extension of Sauron, it is possible that it simply didn't take these things into account. evil is by it's very nature self-defeating.

Thank you, I just came to say this. Frodo is very definitely a hero, even if Sam is arguably the most heroic of them all. Also, when Harry says "he has to rely on everyone to continue"... yeah, that's one of the points of The Lord of the Rings. The One was destroyed precisely because everybody was doing their best at all times.

@@mambu3630 it wasn't just a group effort. Gollum and Sauron's own arrogance played a fairly significant role.

@@christopherbravo1813 Sure! I should have said instead that everybody had their own role to play in the grand scheme of things. Gollum was essential to actually destroy the ring, like you mention. And also like you mentioned, Sauron wasn't the military mastermind he thought he was.

Nah shame the player/player character call them a gawdam 🐈

did....did we watch the same video?

Is there one for himself? One that the other members of the league have access to? Not to mention, are these contingencies made secure so that The Tower of Babel doesn't happen again? There's being prepared and sometimes there's being a paranoid loon.

​@@AmericanBrit9834 Unsurprisingly yes he does, but going into that would be spoiler territory. And no, it's not the Justice League. DC canonically confirmed that that was a lie.

@@AmericanBrit9834 Yes, Batman has a direct contingency for himself. He scanned his brain, made an AI based on it, put that AI into a super advanced robot, and then erased his memory of its existence. And the only person that can stop it after its activation is Alfred because he programmed that into it. So only if Batman goes rogue only one man could save him. Because that robot is just as smart as Batman but physically superior in very way

@@TheUncivilizedNation That sounds totally sane and not what a paranoid lunatic would do. Also, the rest of the justice league deserves to know it.

@@AmericanBrit9834 1. Batman needed to erase his memory of it so that if it ever needed to be deployed a rouge Batman would have no counter to it and his threat would be neutralized fast 2. We still don’t know when this Failsafe Robot was actually built so Batman might not have been a member of the Justice League during its creation 3. Regardless of if the League existed during Failsafe’s creation Batman didn’t trust them. He doesn’t trust them with the contingency plans he designed for them going rouge. Imagine if they turned evil and deployed a robot as smart as Batman but more knowledgeable and stronger in every way. He can’t defeat a rouge justice league if he gotta deal with that

Even then, there is edginess as an aesthetic where the person likes to look edgy but is a hero in morals and deeds (which is a type of person that can show up in lighthearted works) and actual edginess even though from a long-term view both may look similar enough and “edginess as an aesthetic” can be viewed as “the person is edgy but the world must stay lighthearted”.

With all honesty, his video on "anti-villains" was hot garbage, if only by the definition. As the video goes on, the definition of anti-villain ends up like this: "A villain with good reasons to do what it does, OR good methods to do what it does OR a good goal" That sounds fine until you realize that it's an "or", not an "and". Which means that almost any villain from any story directed at anything but toddlers will be an anti-villain, since almost any villain past that will at least have (or try to have) good motivation. There's a good reason as to why the comments are flooded with people saying "Then this character I know is an anti-villain!" because the criteria is so ridiculously easy to match that almost any minimally written villain can fit And what's worse, you cannot just change the ors for ands, because a character with good motivations who uses good methods to achieve a good goal is an antagonist, not a villain to begin with. The worst part is that it was the first video I saw from them, so my first impression was pretty awful

@@sasir2013 Well, "anti-hero" is a very blurry concept, so what ? Don't blame the one who explains that its definition is blurry, blame instead the society that created a blurry concept ! Anyway, it's true the blurriness of the anti-hero (and the anti-villain as well BTW) idea result in the term being overused, which erodes it's already fragile definition, I give you that.

@@Ante-Anima yeah, back when I wrote the comment I hadn't finished my research on the subject and didn't know that, while it's use got popularized during mid 2022, anti villain as a term wasn't created recently that being said, what I did find is that it's definition used to be much simpler "A character who takes the role of a villain but it's kind hearted. A character that does the wrong things for the right reasons" (2017) It wasn't until the last few years that people began adding more types of anti villain, making it so the term lost all meaning, by encapsulating within it almost any type of villain that isn't an unredeemable monster, sometimes even including forces of nature due to their lack of conscience/they just doing their job.

Ok I’m aware that you commented this pretty long ago, but I just felt like challenging your argument for whatever reason lol. Sorry! Hope you enjoy what I have to say. Anyways so, I disagree with your beginning point. While a little childish, I don’t think Miles is being selfish. Saving his dad is not just a matter of him caring about his parents more than everyone else in the multiverse, it’s that he doesn’t believe Miguel. Additionally, another factor in Miles’s distrust of Miguel is that generally disgusted with the idea of allowing people to die to fulfill a prophecy. Even if Miguel were to provide the audience with certain proof that canon events are real. I think even if Miguel said a random good-hearted civilian named John Doe with a family had to die, Miles would still oppose it. We’ve seen it with Captain Singh as Miles attempted to justify saving him to Miguel. So I don’t think all this makes Miles selfish, I’d prefer to describe it as perfectionism, feeling the need to take a chance to SAVE everyone no matter the potential cost. But then again, as you stated earlier, we’d most likely do the same in Miles’s situation. Edit: But THEN AGAIN, that’s just my thoughts! Let me know what you think. Anyone’s free to jump in if they want!

Deadpool is definitely a hedonist

"Yamcha is a cowardly failure" Yeah, it's not like he bravely fought alongside the heroes during the Saiyan invasion and the Cell games or anything.

@@PotatoSlices I mean, he's brave, valiant, cool, my favorite character, but he fails. A lot. And is memed on by fans and writers alike. I wouldn't call that success unless he was doing that intentionally...

@@Solesteam if he's brave, why would you call him a coward?

@@PotatoSlices A mistake, that was meant for Hercule. I was typing this out at 2 AM or something... My brain wasn't at its peak proficiency.

@@Solesteam got it. Cheers.

I suppose so, under the definition of anti-hero as “does horrible things for good reasons and is true to their values”. Genocide Clover is justice and does rescue the six souls, but she does as a person who would burn the Underground if she had her way, either for fun or because Axis made her realize every monster is irredeemable.

That's called an entitled abusive parent.

@@commanderblargh6300 So, if you created an AI learning robot that decides to cause destruction to your other creations you're *_not_* allowed to destroy it?

You might be surprised with what we’ve done with Bowl, and what we’ll do to Harry.

He’s incredibly chaotic, but I’d say he could fit into it.

Anti-hero at it’s finest.

They paid me.

Honestly, you might have a point. Bowl doesn't care what side he takes, he's just a flamboyant agent of chaos.

There's classical anti-hero then we have unscrupulous hero and then there's freaking "Bowl"

If you had paid attention to the conversation, you’d know that the discussion isn’t about whether Miguel is right or not. Miles has seen evidence that Miguel is right. If he doesn’t believe it, it’s because he doesn’t want to. We actually couldn’t care less if Miguel is right or not. The next movie could literally tell us that he is wrong about everything and it wouldn’t change a single thing about the argument, because the conversation “is Miguel right?” Is extremely boring and cowers away from the bigger and deeper question: Assuming Miguel is right, what can we say about Miles’ actions? If he does what he does “because he doesn’t believe it” then he is an idiot. A big one. You don’t risk the extinction of an entire universe “because you don’t think what Miguel says is true.” Given the stakes, you have to proof to challenge the theory. That is like pouring a potential potion on the water supply of an entire city “because you don’t believe” it’s dangerous. No, you have to prove it. And if he does it because he just doesn’t want to accept he can’t save his father, then he is simply being selfish and egotistical.

@@frenchbaguetteintelligence i paid attention to your arguement. I'm just saying that Miles could have reason to believe that he can change how all of this works. Like, he saw what happens when a Canon event is broken, but he believes that it's not the natural course of things, and that there's something he can do that will not make the universe collapse in on itself if he tries to save someone that "canonically" should die. That's what i were trying to say.

Deathstroke is a villain, so he probably wouldn't qualify as an anti-hero to begin with? Unless you refer to a specific run/adaptation. Amanda isn't an anti-hero, she's kind of similar to the Punisher in the length she goes to ensure security. Tighten is not an anti-hero, just a villain (he isn't the main character of Megamind and really is only an idiotic "nice guy" control freak) Inspector Clousseau would most likely qualify as an anti-hero, yes. (For Invincible and HP, don't remember well enough for the former and don't care for the latter)

First a quick definition of terms, because no one in the video knows what any of these words mean, lol. Protagonist: The lead character. The story is typically focused on their attempt to complete a goal. Antagonist: Someone who opposes the protagonist. Neither of those terms have anything to do with morals or beliefs. If character A wants to buy something, but character B is about to buy the last one, character B is the antagonist. Antihero: A main character in a story who may lack conventional heroic qualities and attributes, such as idealism, courage, and morality. These differ from Villainous Protagonists who are outright evil and not meant to be rooted for. As for your list: Deathstroke: A hired gun. While he may have some limits(like no kids) he is still willing to kill someone just for a paycheck. Villain. Amanda Waller: Does some very fucked up things, but deep down is trying to protect humanity, and has worked with the Justice League when shown they truly are good. Anti-Hero. Cecil Stedman: Haven't seen Invincible. Robot: Haven't seen Invincible. Snape: Complicated. On the one hand most of the "evil" stuff he did was either outright fake/misconstrued such as controlling Harry's broom, or part of a greater plan, such as killing Dumbledore only at his own request. While he was originally a follower of Voldemort, this apparently lasted for about 5 seconds before his loyalties permanently changed to full good. However, this doesn't change the fact that many of his actions were founded at least in part on more self centered intentions, and he was regularly cruel and occasionally outright abusive to his students. Anti-hero. Titan/Tighten: Had no interest in being a hero outside of potentially getting fame/a girlfriend, quickly decided being a villain was more fun. Detective from Pink Panther: Haven't seen the Pink Panther.

@@godzyllaa Thank you for explaining! With Deathstroke in a few runs he's been more of a mercenary then a complete villain: pretty sure he worked with the Titans at some point, though I might be mistaken. I see what you mean about Amanda, and I think that logic can generally be used for Cecil and Robot as they fulfill similar roles. I put Tighten because I figured because he plays a villianous role but not really in a traditional sense. Also, thoughts on Dr. Doom?

​@@aab1254Dr doom during the kirby/stan lee run but after a few rewrite I would classified him as an anti-villain. Dr. Doom goals if you ignore those awful films is to rule the world so that war, discrimination and the likes would cease and everyone would have everlasting piece. His actions to get there isn't as noble, doing some awful things to achieve said dreams. In addition, one of his most negative traits is his ego, he doesn't take responsibility of his failure and uses anyone else as a spacegoat such as blaming Reed for his disfigurement.

After reading everything, it is now cool to see how morally confusing Miguel and Miles are. If Miguel’s stuff is correct, Miles is really just a selfish kid who thinks heroism is just another easy job and can choose to save whomever. If Miles is right, Miguel is a grieving man who thinks he keeps the timelines in order. As it is in the actual movie plus other statements, Miguel is trying to do right amidst a bad mindset and him possibly causing an incursion, and Miles can see heroism as a path not necessarily fraught with misery, but things are loose enough where both are correct and wrong.