LINK TO THE SECOND CHANNEL: • The One Flaw With Spid... Support the channel on Patreon!: / savagebooks Check out my BOOKS and editing services on my website: www.savagebooks.net/my-fantas... / savagebooks47
I hate the hypocrisy of "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you." It turns the "I won't kill" into a blatant joke. I also always hated the "I killed all the minions but "I don't kill" the bad guy. That's just "I'm ok killing the poor, but the rich bad guy deserves a fair trial." ...I mean I guess that's realisitc.
There are ways to do them right. If the character is working around a loophole where they can't directly kill a character or if the character is taking away power or control from another. For the first example, imagine a villain that can not be murdered but is left to fall off a cliff. For the second, imagine a villain who loses everything their men, their influence, their money, their power and are left with nothing but the clothes on their back and their name.
@@65fireredAnd for the first example, which is most notably shown in Batman Begins, Bruce specifically draws the line at becoming an assassin, an “executioner” that would kill those who pose no threat to him or others due to his advanced capabilities. The times he does kills people, directly or indirectly, he is doing so in defense of himself and others when his usual capabilities are not enough to resolve the situation without casualties. He notably allows Ra’s to die not only to avenge his parents, whose deaths were indirectly caused by the League worsening Gotham’s poverty in a bid to destroy it, but also because he had no way to subdue or contain an individual like him in charge of an organization of similarly dangerous agents all with Bruce’s combat and espionage abilities, meaning his death was his only means of even just deterring the organization for a time. His initial attempt to pacify a deranged Harvey Dent failed, leaving him with a gut shot and, therefore, not at his full capacity while Harvey was actively holding a Gordon’s wife and children hostage, which forced Bruce to have to tackle him to get his son away from Dent, knocking off a platform. Then, of course, there’s Talia playing keep-away with a nuke she intended to let explode to destroy Gotham with, with Bruce’s only means to stop her being to crash her vehicle to get to the bomb as quickly as possible, which fatally injured her. Alternatively, Bruce spares Joker not just in defiance of his attempts to manipulate him into breaking any laws than he already does nor his own moral code, but also because he could afford to subdue him non-lethally due to his capabilities and equipment, with his many crimes against the city at even the highest levels of its local government system meaning he would have no chance to escape punishment or to bribe and extort his way out of prison with the handful of allies he had left. This interpretation of the “no-kill” rule, especially in Batman’s mythos, is one of the more nuanced takes, as it allows Bruce to retain his characterization of being merciful and idealistic, but also puts him in situations that would rationally warrant exceptions to the rule and portrays him as pragmatic enough to be able to do “what is necessary”, his more defensive killings contrasting against his enemies, who kill as an indulgence or self-righteousness.
@@mattd5240 the position that it is hypocratic is a hypocracy in itself. By that token inaction being counted as action means any time we turn on a light, any time we use our mobile phone, any time we have a hot shower, we're morally and provably responsible the destruction of the earths ecosystems. It's an untenable position.
My favorite form of Man vs Nature is Dungeon Meshi. They have to kill monsters in order to eat and survive as they navigate the dungeon. But you can feel Ryoko Kui's compassionate, scientific mind. They're enthusiastic and curious the monsters' biology, ecosystem, they use every part they can; they're respectful and reverent in the same way indigenous hunters are. Sometimes it feels less like a comedic DnD adventure, and more like a field guide written by a professor in love with nature!
Going off on a tangent here I also believe that the "redemption" of the villain, when they see the "error of their ways" or end up on the side of the "good guys" in a last hurrah and going out in a blaze of glory not only redeems them in the eyes of the viewer but also emphasises which side of the conflict are the good guys. Which can be easy at times when the Good vs. Bad plot is very black and white at times, but I think it plays an even bigger part in narratives where it might be a little more grey.
But even in the black and white narratives it really drives it in that the protagonists really are the good guys, which is easily portrayed in stories but we all know that real life is a lot more grey and nuanced. There aren't that many that are outright evil.
You can have a very good black and white plot, and you can have a bad grey plot there's other pillars that are required to be good and support the narrative. To me it's more a choice of the type of story you're trying to tell.
Ah... the last hurrah aspect of it sort of undermines the redemption at times. When you have a character doing deplorable things for a while now and then nearing the end, they choose to do good, I at times think to myself, "Why now?" Moreover, when the character gets redeemed in the eyes of their world because of that last act, after doing some really bad things, it at times leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it undermines all the harm and damage they've caused. This, however, does not include moments where the bad guy systematically begins making up for their deeds up until the point they are at the end of their life. This, in my opinion, works best because you can tell that the bad guy character is fully committed to repenting their actions instead of it being a spur of the moment decision because they know they are going to die.
My brother is a bigger nerd than me and I brought up the "Should Batman Kill?" argument up with him. His personal opinion? Yes, Batman should kill _some_ of his villains... but NOT their henchmen. He doesn't believe in the trope of the hero killing armies of henchmen and goons and letting the villain get a fair trial. It's understandable that most Henchmen are just people with a job, even if that job is harmful (that is unless there's a reason why they're all unnecessarily evil) I even brought up other Batman villains who are more sympathetic, specifically Poison Ivy and Two-Face. Yes while some versions of the characters are very sympathetic and are very possibly redeemable, their is a line that has to be drawn if Poison Ivy starts killing innocent people to use as fertilizer for man-eating, invasive plants. Even Two-Face, who is a very tragic character, if he decides to never change would have no choice but to be put down like a rabid dog. The rabid dog comparison makes sense because no matter how smart or loving a dog used to be, if they get Rabies it's all but over. There is nothing left of whatever it used to be, and ending that suffering is undoubtedly a mercy. Plus he brought up the real question of why doesn't Gotham have a Death Penalty or better prisons? The answer is obviously they don't unfortunately. Gotham is a corrupt city with no executioner and a vigilante who refuses to take a life. And despite rhe fact that I still defend certain villains and know *(DEPENDING ON THE WRITER)* that they have a chance at redemption and rehabilitation... There was absolutely no argument for Joker. The Joker has been UNIVERSALLY written to be more and more and more of a menace and it's just not fun anymore. He's so psychotically evil that I don't want to even really see him anymore, I legit just want the writers to make him die. Worst of all is the asinine edgelord nonsense logic of "If Batman kills Joker, Joker Wins!" It's just so dumb... I've heard too a really good reason why the No Kill Rule has been so argued about. The heroes of DC Marvel specifically have been portrayed in a way that their ideals are pretty much the same as they were decades ago. Meanwhile the villains have been paradoxically made MORE vile as time has gone on. It's like seeing the Lone Ranger or Zorro fight f**cking Ted Bundy or the Zodiac Killer. Sorry for the rant, but this argument has been a draining topic for a while.
joker was always physcopathic,but because in the silver age there was a comic code that toned down violence, but after Alan Moore wrote Swamp Thing nobody cared anymore and batman stories started getting darker again culminating in dark Knight Returns. Actually it was batman that remained toned down because when he was created he was a violent killer.
I personally think that the argument shouldn't be "If Batman kills the Joker, Joker wins" instead it should "If Batman kills the Joker, he stops being Batman". Or, as Red from OSP put it, _that is not Batman, is the Punisher in a furry suit_ which is pretty accurate. Batman is what you as a kid think a superhero should be, he's a protector of the innocent, the savior of the abused and an absolute nightmare for evil people. At the same time, (I do not claim this is the same with every kid) a child hardly understands what death is but knows that they should not wish that on others, therefore Batman should not kill. In addtion to this, evil should fear Batman precisely because he doesn't kill, he can get you a fate worse than death. But Bruce should let Dick and Jason take out the Joker and some other of his villians.
The only story I know of that does a compelling version of the "If I kill I'm no better than the villain" argument is Monster. The story follows a surgeon who unknowingly saved the life of a serial killer, and has resolved to track down and kill his former patient before he can claim any more lives. Every experience the hero has on his quest is an argument against murder. (spoilers) He meets terrorists who sought a understandable cause, but accidentally killed innocent people in the crossfire. He befriends the kind elderly parents of a convicted killer, and witnesses their love for their son despite their acknowledgement of the horrible thing he did. A man who seeks revenge for the family he lost gets killed on his mission and causes his newfound family to grieve the same loss he sought revenge for. A detective's life is ruined when he shoots an unarmed criminal. A man who came from the same horrible background as the villain is an incredibly kind man who rose above the circumstances that made him. An assassin who loves sweet coffee gives up his trade when he lines up the crosshairs of his sniper rifle with his target, and sees the target adding sugar to his coffee. An old man who killed during the war lives the rest of his life repenting for it. Everything the protagonist experiences reinforces the idea that violence only perpetuates suffering and that empathy and kindness are the only way to improve the world. Everything, except for the actions committed by the antagonist, who regularly kills innocent people for no apparent reason; who regularly ruins the lives of those who have nothing to do with him; who's continued existence has only caused harm and bred more violence. Surely someone who's developed the appreciation for life that our hero fosters would come to the conclusion that the villain is only destroying those invaluable lives. Monster is the only work of fiction to stump me on the whole Do We Kill The Villain dilemma. If life is too valuable to end, and life is too valuable to let others end, what's to be done with irredeemable killers?
This is pretty much my reasoning for pacifism. Since we are unable to make clear judgment from our lack of perspective. We must instead remain impartial. It becomes a lot easier to maintain when you are both content in life and no longer fear death. The ideas of states and pacifism are at odds with one another. So I’ve decided to not advocate for pacifism through policy, but to just simply practice it. And that’s enough for me.
One thing that I learned from George RR Martin is that killing to many characters, without at least exploring their ideology, backstory and function in the plot is a huge mistake, Martin made that mistake, kill to many characters, and replace them with characters that we known nothing about or he did the opposite exploit a fan theory only to promote his show to oblivion, no actually caring about continuity, characters alliances or development, only for marketing, when that character was already dead in the books, now he changed the strategy for one similar to Stephanie Meyer Twilight, putting a team against another, when his story can be basically resume as Shakespeare Hamlet. Anyone remember how nearly all the characters ended in that play?
Yeah, killing characters for shock, so you can keep the readers on their toes, is hard and more often than not bad. I have at least one case in my web novel where I set up intrigue about a couple of characters and then they die in a single large unstoppable event. Of the three, arguably four if you count a group of magical intelligent animals, all but one were also introduced not long before their deaths. I could've done stuff with them as characters, but I found killing them to be better as a means of exploring how that effects the main characters.
@@SearedBooks I already killed character in my nearly ten year story, like four years ago (counting my sabbatical) but the time is up for the next round of character, who narrative importance had lost relevance or basically was non, I really not want to give a exposition dump or reveal much before the ending of the Golden Age arc, before the truly dark part of my story really begins, I also already introduce some elements of cosmic horror, but now I want to introduce other elements like cosmic entities, but I am afraid that my story become so large that my readers lose track of the story, after all, I have been writing it for nearly ten years.
The mistake is making it your gimmick, rather than a tool to be used with precision and care. It's so obvious that such a gimmick would result in you running out of characters to kill for shock value AND the shock value would quickly diminish with each subsequent usage. It's the same problem with using obscene gore as a gimmick. If that's all you have going for you, and you just throw it around everywhere you get the opportunity for the sake of shock value, you're going to lose the effect very quickly and not any real substance to keep the story going. The Boys is a good example of this, IMO.
What do you mean? Where in asoiaf were characters just killed some got killed because of dirty war is some because of their own actions. Only in the tv show does that happen
I find that the hero who chooses not to kill because of the vast power difference between them and their charges and/or adversaries, like Superman or Invincible, are the most compelling version of the choice not to kill. Otherwise, I feel like on even ground, we let the Lord decide who lives lol
I like how superman scared the shit out of joker one time by telling him he doesnt have a no killing rule like batman, he just doesnt Feel Like killing
Invincible is a great mention of this, specifically because of the FASCINATING arc he goes through with his morality in the comics. No spoilers if you're show only, but there's a lot of interesting development that Mark goes through after Langstrom.
I just wrote a chapter with one of these cases. He grabs the guy's arm, and the MC is so fast that the other guy might as well be moving at a standstill. Then the thoughts come about the ways he could kill him. But he decides that the best thing to do is to talk the guy down instead of hurting him. The guy had a reason for what he almost did, but it didn't justify it, just like the MC wouldn't really be justifed if he did kill him. Now, if the other guy was even a little powerful, someone who he couldn't trust wasn't a real threat to him and his family, he would've dumped his body in the woods with some guilt, but that wouldn't have lasted.
44:00 this reminds me of a Midrash (Jewish tale that reinterprets a biblical story*) about the Hebrews fleeing Egypt and how the sea parted for them but then closed around the Egyptian army chasing them, leading the majority of the army to drown. The Midrash goes like this: the angels watch the escape, the parting of the sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians, and celebrate - this is it, the Hebrews are free and safe from slavery! - but God weeps. One of the angels asks, "why are you crying? This is a joyous occasion!" and God replies: "you forget, the Egyptians were my children too." *yes, fanfiction is an integral part of Jewish culture
I always like to learn more about Jewish culture, even though I myself am not Jewish, or even very super religious. :3. I find their stories to be very beautiful, at times tragic, and fascinating. I like learning about different cultures and their religions and stories. I just like learning about different people from all over the world. :3. Do you have any more stories like this? I'd love to learn and know more Jewish stories like this!! :3.
One thing I disagree with. Viewing a work of fiction as a writer’s means of communicating their personal beliefs is a dangerous fallacy. Even if they are intentionally doing so, there can be a disconnect between the author’s intention and the reader’s interpretation. As a writer myself who is working on a book with a villain protagonist, I find this as very important to point out. That’s like saying that since Walt is the protagonist of breaking bad, his morals, or even just the actions he gets away with, are justified by means of his success and fortunes. In the same vein, I could say that his initial dissatisfaction with his life was cosmic punishment for being mediocre or settling for mediocrity and assume that the writers are telling us to do whatever it takes, even immoral actions, to achieve our goals.
I don't actually think we disagree. Depictions of violent people, or even their success in such fictions, is not always an endorsement of said violence by thr author. In your example, the writers clearly didn't endorse Walter's meth making...because his life absolutely fell apart 😅. All works of art contain messaging. It's impossible not to communicate some message in a story. The difference is what is meant to be perceived and what is actually taken away.
@@savagebooks7482I haven't watched the video all the way yet so forgive me if I'm missing something, I'm just going based on what you both said here. But I would like to point out the rare times where the villain succeeds in their goal. That still doesn't mean the villain's stance is endorsed. Look at Avengers Infinity War. Thanos succeeds in that movie. That doesn't mean that the writers of the movie agree with him or that he's supposed to be seen as correct. The consequences aren't a full picture of the message being conveyed.
And yes I know that some may poijt out he dies at the beginning of Endgame, but that's a different movie. I'm pointing out that in the one piece of media that is Infinity War, Thanos succeeded, without negative repurcussions like those that a character like Walter White had.
The writer's beliefs do shape the stories they make though. Certain telltale signs can point to a compromised moral compass. For example, the usage of protagonist-centered morality, where when the protagonists do it it's okay and they suffer no repercussions but when others do it it's punishable by death.
I'd like to also point out that a disconect between the author's intention and the reader's interpretation is, according to the Death of the author essay, not something that might but will inevitably happen. That is, because each person's interpretation is going to be formed through a lens made of the cultural context (which include personal beliefs) that shapes their perception, one that also affects the writer's understanding of the world around them. Now, going beyong the essay, my understanding is that this does not only mean that each person can have the same event happen before their eyes and see different things from each other, it also means that if someone writes about the event they won't be able to tell what happened, instead showing what they saw/understood that happened. And this is why, I think, a work of fiction is always about the writer's communicating their personal beliefs, because an objective viewpoint is not a thing in real life either.
7:34 "Obviously, not all characters die after being totally complete. In fact, I would say it's quite a rarity" Attack on Titan: "hold my beer" _kills all their characters one after the other when their personal arcs are complete across the entirety of its runtime_
37:22 The reason Batman can’t kill changes a lot from writer to writer. Personally I’ve never liked the “Then I’ll just start killing everyone” angle. I prefer the idea that Batman simply values life that much. He knows the pain and loss caused by death, and Batman is his way of kinda conquering death itself. Batman values life. And there is some opportunity for nuance there. Such as Batman having to deal with someone who kills because they value life and see his villains as a threat to life. But that’s just my perspective.
two of those things can be true at the same time, he can believe life is precious and that everyone deserves a chance to do right and also believe that taking a life will lead him into a spiral of death and madness.
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually a mistranslation. The actual words in the historical language are "Thou shalt not murder", which in context of the times is "killing outside of tribal group". And make no mistake, the crime of murder was a crime in biblical times, but it wasn't a blanket statement to never kill at all.
To me the best no kill rules is when it's brought up as a potential flaw like batmam vs redhood film from 2009 the discussion that batman and jayson is so good and the film never says whose right
@@creed8712 they talk about that kind of batman says he can't cause it would cross a line he couldn't come back from and Jayson says he's not asking him to kill all of them just the joker. I think it was nuanced enough, and I think batman might believe / be afraid he's one bad day from becoming just like the joker
@@creed8712 I think thats the thing with Batman though is that he is a lunatic that keeps himself barely in check with his own rules. I think he sees himself as insane, after all his royge gallery is a reflection of himself so I think the painting was already there.
@@creed8712I always took the line “If I allow myself to go to that place, then I’ll never come back” as more of an extension of Batman’s philosophy as a whole. His whole driving motivation is that he values life above all as his whole life was shattered due to a random act of violence that took the lives of his parents. He follows that one rule strictly. To a fault even. He’s so stubborn that he won’t take a life even if it guarantees that other people will live. He just can’t do it. He doesn’t have it in him. So if he were to kill the Joker at Jason’s insistence, to “let himself go to that place”, then he’ll never be the same man from before. He’ll “never come back”. Admittedly, the explanation that “he’ll just be a violent murderer too if he kills the Joker” is probably what the writers were going for but that just never sat with me.
Between this and the video by Hello Future Me, now I feel like I need to write a story based on chosen immortality vs the consequences of the deaths left in the wake of that choice.
I used to not think too much about death in fiction, but lately I have been more and more disturbed by it. Not really in fantasy or sci fi where different societal rules apply, but more so in stories with grounded and realistic settings (Uncharted in particular unnerves me). And moreso by watching others reactions to it. Some crave the deaths of the antagonist and are annoyed that the protagonist does not want to kill. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if they’d actually be comfortable with killing if not for the fourth wall protecting them. A little unfair of me considering the point of fiction IS to experience these things we can’t in a safe way, but I still feel it’s a valid point to raise. One day I want to write a story that really plays with how death is treated in fiction and how we feel about it… And not be preachy about it.
I'm not a fan of gleeful brutality in certain contexts. Borderlands is disconnected and cartoony enough that it doesn't bother me. The enemies are a parody of a human being. Wolfenstein, The New Order at least, puts weight on death while also showing that it's terrible. It's not a joke, and the game acknowledges the horror of all of it. For kinda related example. Banshee is a show with violence, but it's much more gruesome and stomach churning. Compare that to The Boys, where the deaths are more common and bloody, but they are cartoonist and lack weight. Also, the guy who plays Homelander also plays the sheriff in Banshee, so it comes full circle.
I have always believed that killing a villain is not in the heroes best interests because in someway that will fundamentally ruin their idealism. But sadly a truly unrepentant villain will not stop until they are put down, but I believe the hero should always kill in self defense or be forced instead of killing in cold blood or rage.
I really enjoy how the Witcher like plays on the normal story conventions of death and empathy with the monsters. It makes you really think about each monster in a different way and each human in a different way that’s super fun to read
So I don't have an unhealthy obsession with characters that the writer had probably intended to be less than human, I'm apparently just ✨ahead of my time✨!
38:29 Your Koizilla example is a poor example of someone purposefully killing minions since Aang wasn't in control at the time. Aang causing an avalanche in the Northern Air Temple also is a poor example of Aang contradicting his morals because he doesn't view those actions as fatal which we know from the scene where he tells Yangchen in the finale that he doesn't think he ever killed. If Aang knew/acknowledged that he had killed people with the avalanche but then still refused to kill Ozai, then sure at that point he would be contradicting himself, but as it is, Aang is just ignorant.
So, Avatar TLA got around this by taking away Ozai's Firebending. How do we feel about characters who don't kill their enemies but do permanently disarm them (ie: remove their powers, their tools, their limbs, etc)
I know some people see that moment as a deus ex machina, but it makes perfect sense symbolically- by defeating Ozai through wisdom and trickery rather than brute force, Aang completely disproves Ozai’s “might makes right” philosophy, humiliating him, robbing him of his strength, and forcing him to face punishment for his crimes. Additionally, Aang also preserves his people’s culture and spirit. It’s the ultimate symbolic triumph.
@@chriscortez2036 I wouldn't say that Aang disapproves Might Makes Right, so much as that he demonstrates the limits of that philosophy. The way Ozai and the Fire Nation conducted themselves was worse than immoral, it was unsustainable. The Avatar didn't destroy the Fire Nation, he saved it.
@@williamfinch9858Batman doesn’t ‘allow’ anything other than the Gotham Justice system to try Joker and determine his fate for themselves. If the people of Gotham are unwilling to sentence Joker to death, then Batman must not take on the role of executioner. Doing so would be declaring himself not a supplement to the law, but above it. That’s not his place and he knows it. That’s how you get Justice Lords.
Personally I find it interesting that Aang thought that taking away Ozai's bending was better than death. Fire comes from the spirit, the benders drive. In a way, he took a part of his soul. I've never been sure that living like that is better than dying. Especially when you think about the fact that he'd never leave prison. What kind of life is that? Would it end up being kinder to just take him out? I don't think he can be a part of the picture moving forward unless he denounces his title and becomes a normie but he's too narcissistic for that. I don't know what the right answer is but it's something I ponder
Death and killing are different, very different. The protagonist is either the recipient or the instigator, for an Englishman who hasn't been to war, killing is completely unknown, but as a child who grew into an adult, death was part of my life, family/friends died, but I never had the need or the desire to kill. So as a writer I understand the passage of life to death, and understand the associated emotions because I've had the misfortune to experience it and my life experience of those deaths has meaning. The difficulty is when it comes to writing about killing, I can use my imagination but unlike dying, its a story based on others recorded experience not my own, and I suspect since I'm not a psycopath the emotions I can try to articulate are necessarily less complete than those of my own experience. That is why I suspect many literary deaths are almost emotionless, the steely eyed James Bond killer, bang, dead, move on - no emotional impact on the narrative. Yet many interviews with elderly soldiers particulary from WW1 the emotional impact was so devastating and followed them though their lives, but very few written characters are able to articulate this. Thats why I think killers in movies (in particular) are as a character lacking - killing takes life but I suspect the real fact that those killing the impact on them is significant, but for whatever reason, no character in major fiction ever demonstrates this.
Ooo, I suggest you read the manga Fullmetal Alchemist. It has a lot of conversations surrounding death, including the toll it takes when you kill someone. It’s clear that the author did her research.
I honestly really hate the argument that killing is "realistic" in fiction. It's fiction, inherently unrealistic. And even reality can surprise us sometimes; in real life, execution is a highly-contentious topic, not least because it's inefficient in matters of money, investment and legal standards, leaving only emotional closure as the linchpin for the argument, which, as we all know, are easily-understood and simple to communicate to one another. Me, personally, I'm a fan of the argument of "Sure, the bad guys deserve to die, but that doesn't mean the hero is allowed to kill them". Not in the "I don't have to save you" angle, but in the way that we want heroes to have standards the villains don't hold to. A sort of framing of the hero and villain's violence that communicates when one is allowed and the other is not. Then again, I am also a fan of Red Hood and Venom so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also, there is potential to have a hero who kills minions but doesn't kill the boss; the minions are actively trying to kill the hero, and so the violence is retaliatory rather than vindictive. I am not sure how to write that one, though.
I am making a fantasy story that does tackle that subject and that video was extremely valuable. Thank you. Basically my story tackles someone who is deathly afraid of hurting anyone because he knows he is extremely powerful with magic. On the other hand, he is dragged into trying to fight a vampire with flesh bending capabilities who is overtly showed as being pure evil and exactly what the hero fears he could become if he crossed the line. The protagonist knows that the villain is irredeemable and the story is about him contemplating if he should kill that vampire and, if he decides to, if he has the mental strength to forgive himself for breaking his morals.
This is a problem everyone has figured out already: Have a third character who's already morally compromised do the dirty work. Luke Skywalker can't kill the Emperor, Darth Vader can. Same thing with Batman, Joker, and Jason Todd.
Batman and Joker is definitely the example of this that most comes to mind for me. I don't think Batman's refusal to kill is necessarily right or wrong. The most flawed part of this eternal cycle of Joker murdering dozens or hundreds or millions of people, being captured and imprisoned, and escaping two weeks later is that it lacks creativity in retaining a nemesis. Joker is irreplaceable to the Batman franchise, and the aforementioned cycle seems to be the only direction in which the writers know to proceed. In the real world there are alternative outcomes. Criminals can be rehabilitated (most of the time). They cannot escape prison (most of the time). Criminals that commit acts so terrible or often can be executed (most of the time). Because Joker is too valuable to the franchise to ever be permanently taken out of the equation as an antagonist for Batman, none of these realistic outcomes are generally going top occur...at least in the long term. Joker always escapes, and the legal system never executes him. Or he's not really dead. Or whatever.
I feel like the joker problem is more a symptom of the never-ending nature of mainstream comics. Writers inevitably end up doing the same thing over and over again because the story potential has practically been used up years ago, but DC is never gonna stop making Batman comics.
The subversion of the disposable henchmen trope is one of my favorite things about Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Cycle. I'm rereading the books for the first time as an adult currently and I will die defending them. Paolini could easily have kept his Urgals as the "other" without a culture or individual personalities but he didn't. He chose to work them into the fabric of his story, to interrogate the problematic aspects of having an innately evil race in your fantasy world. I genuinely love him for that.
I'm a really big fan of the new Planet of the Apes series. It's noteworthy that Cesar has 1 kill, and he has nightmares about it. He lets a bunch of humans die through his actions but I don't think he directly does any of them (except Malfoy, who kinda did it to himself). He goes to lengths to avoid that until the Colonel kills his family, and feels bad about that too
Mishandling death is what turned me off of the Jurassic World Franchise, where the baby sitter somehow got the most brutal gruesome death of the movie. I was like... WHY? That was funny in the theatre, but why are you making it funny for characters to die? Isn't this supposed to be action-horror? Aren't I supposed to be scared? Later I found out that scene felt funny because the movie was using the cinematic language of the karmic death on a character who had not been established to deserve it. Creating a jarring experience.
I hadn't been to this side of the channel as the livestream one actually has a vice on my watch time. This came out two weeks ago huh? If it's strict on the two weeks timeline I understand why this video came out. You ain't slick bro. Also, thank you for making this. The like meta art around talking about art as it's own artform has a very unnique feel to me and i'm glad people like you exist.
Dude is a billionaire with magic and alien friends. Theres almost no reason anymore should have to die Send the joker to space or the phantom zone or something
This video was very thought provoking and made my analyse how i was treating death and killing in my own writing as well as in the fiction i consume. I will think for some time about this.
Hey that was one of the best video essay I watched in a long while. I was hooked the whole time. I will defitively check out the rest of your channel!!
That out group and in group thing skips a bit on that frequently those bad guy groups are trying to do something unapologetically wrong or evil. There was a reason star wars started with the empire glassing a planet :P Them just being different so we fight them is true, but then Thanos and co. is also trying to murder A LOT of people. This speaks in a lot of absolutes that rarely universally apply
To quote a certain video-game "Father. Is it always moral to kill something that's....trying to kill you" - son of war. "Yes" - Dad of war. "Well, there ya have it lad" - Uncle of war
I don't think Thor:Ragnarock shold be in "murder by inaction" section. Because Thor is not refusing to kill Hela on some moral basis. He just is not strong enough phisically. Bad example, really.
The text boxes you included in quotes, can you include the sources? I really liked some of them and I can't tell if you were quoting someone else or yourself.
Deaths can be impactful on "completed characters", but done poorly it feels so, so cheap lol And I guess that is the catch with death tropes. If the audience think it was useless or stupid in any way, you have usually cheapened your story.
Worst example of this is probably thorfinn from Vinland saga. I get he saw the worst of the worst but his inaction causes more problems than he is trying to stop especially right now in manga. His "passivism" is wrong since passivism isn't "I will never fight ever" it's "I will use violence when it's the absolute last option and every other idea is not working"
Exactly! Even his father was willing to fight; it was just the last resort when all else failed. I’m hoping that thorfinn’s arc will get there eventually
@@orochisama2514i doubt it as the manga is ending soon. He's currently filled with arrows and used some no weapon combat to take down a few people at best. Even his brother is now up for war with everyone being heated by the sneak attack of the natives so he's probably going to see the fires of war in vinland
@@ivanbluecool Isn't that like the point though? Clearly he is gettibg consequences for these actions and while what he wants is a beautiful thing, it most likely can't be achieved. He is not an idiot, but he doesn't want to go back into killing people anymore because it ruined his life and he is naturally inclines towards hatred. Dunno, but think its intentional writing.
@@smb1905 he's literally called an idiot last chapter. Plus it's not the point since he fails at that even losing his brother for not being at least somewhat prepared. Plus his dad basically mastered what he's still not understanding even now in the first chapters and now he has arrows in him. . Thorfinn just fills the straw man for what people think passivism is and the other end canut s better at how he goes with war and conquest plus plague even.
In Season 2 of Daredevil there was a great rooftop scene with Frank and Matt having an argument about killing. With some great lines like: "You hit them and they keep getting up. I hit them and they stay down" and "You are one bad day away from becoming me".
I strongly dislike "I refuse to kill" characters because they are so often hypocritical and end up harming or killing henchmen and even innocents through their actions or inactions without batting an eye while the actual person in power responsible for so much hardship and pain is treated much more fairly and respectfully. To me that's bad writing
I think there is some analysis on justice missing here. Justice for humans tends to be quite universal, and we've developed systems for dealing punishments to people for their crimes, so it's not like heroes appear in stories where society is at peak functionality but instead they appear in places that need saviors, because ending someone is required in a deeper analysis of things for the innocent to live. Batman is the best example, his rule is silly, he's a consequences of relaxed crime laws in Gotham and if justice doesn't act and defend the innocent and punish thr guilty but instead let's crime go unpunished, then the only solution becomes to deal righteous punishment, so criminals may cease out of fear or they pay the price. If Gotham as a society wishes to avoid bloodshed then they require to deal with their crime problem. It's all fiction and Batman doesn't off villains because he needs a recurrent cast still, saying "I am vengeance" when he doesn't avenge anything and hopes and prays and best wishes criminals will stop doesn't help, a bullet to the front lobe does.
your point lacks a ton of nuance. we as humans have developed a lot of different kinds of justice, not just retributive. there is also restorative or rehabilitative, for example, which focus on healing and changing for the better. 'righteous punishment' is not the only solution for the crime issue in gotham, its just part of the solution that batman as an individual landed on. And he doesnt just focus on beating people up, he also created many programs for helping victims in the aftermath of crimes and for giving past or potential criminals opportunities to move beyond crime and for trying to improve the justice system itself. he has created charities and job programs because he knows the real root of the majority of the crime in his city. people arent criminals because they are evil people, they are criminals mostly because the cruel systems they live in have made them desperate. Batman doesnt just hope and pray, and his goal is not vengeance it is justice. maybe go read a comic that isnt the dark knight returns.
@@jaycerulean9206 All other forms are failing in Gotham, that's the point, and people are paying the ultimate price, justice is about mediating revenge to prevent it, to prevent justice by one's own hand, so the punishment fits the crime, but in Gotham, crime goes unpunished. If justice continues to fail, then realistically, Dick Grayson is right to aim guns at those criminals, he's instilling fear in the criminals in ways that Bruce simply cannot. The root of crime is that it goes unpunished, it goes unsmited, no matter how "mimimimimimimimimi wahhh wahhhhhhh" cruel the system is, there are many people who are poor, who are in need, both in real life and in fiction too, who don't commit crime, and they, not the rich, not the middle class but those poor and desperate are more often than not the main victims of crime. And his credo is "I am vengeance, I am the night, I am Batman", then vengeance is what preludes justice, and to not deliver righteous deadly smite to those who commit crime is to fail at being such avatar.
@Saint_Wolf_ the root of crime isn't that it goes unpunished, if that was the case places with vigilantes or jungle justice would be utopias, batman recognises this and tries to fix the system itself, it's why helps the police and supported Harvey dent
hi savage, im an addict in recovery. i found your channel about a month ago and ive been binging all of your videos. maybe its something about your voice with lofi music in the background, but you alone have made me interested in story telling in a way no one has before. most of the videos you make are about movies/shows/books that ive seen/read. and when i see a video about something i havent consumed, i watch it before watching your video. ive been watching channels like yours for years, but none of them come even close to scratching your expertise. i guess i just want to say thank you, and i hope you keep making videos, because they inspire me.
I feel like Darth Vader or Tyler Durden having to go to prison would, realistically be a bigger and more painful punishment for them than the "sweet Release of death"
The only fictional death that ever really got to me was in Bridge to Terabithia. I think just because of how random, unfair, expected, and realistic it was. Writers/producers/studios are afraid to be too real, especially in kids movies but somehow that one got through. Probably because it was based on an already popular book, like the best movies usually are. ATLA is still one of the best written shows I've ever seen but giving Aang a way to neutralize Ozai without killing him was a deus ex machina solution to his moral resistance to killing. At least Aang struggled with this though unlike most fictional action heroes who have no problem casually killing "baddies." I also wonder if moralising in fiction and disney style storytelling has done more harm than good by giving kids totally unrealistic ideas about what life is actually like.
16:20 you talk about how "orcs aren't people" but, that isn't the message in that story AT ALL. Orcs are people... they're just people who are trying to kill you and your family. Lord of the Rings is a war story, Orcs are enemy soldiers. It's understandable to kill enemy soldiers: war is a kill or be killed situation, you can't just not kill (or aid in killing, which is morally equivalent) when there is a war on. That's not one of the available options. This is NOT the same however as killing soulless henchmen. The deaths of enemy soldiers DO matter narratively: the act of killing another person changes the hero, even when it was done out of necessity. The hero can remain likeable, if they don't graduate from killing out of necessity to killing for sport, but they cannot remain unchanged by the act of killing. Cannon Fodder have to be soulless, or your reader is 100% going to say "hey, this hero is a mass murderer". I think this also applies to Man vs. Nature stories as well, because a war story is really just another version of that. Man vs. Nature is always really Man vs. Himself: and war stories are always that as well. The animal, or the enemy is always a representation of the hero's inner darkness. Aragorn never says as much, but if you read the entire book including the Appendices, you learn that many of the enemies are his relatives: some of the Ringwraiths, the barrow-wight, and the Corsairs. They represent tastes of what he might become if he were to take the Ring, precisely because he is a killer. Him being a warrior is presented as a necessity, but a dangerous one: one that actually causes him to face certain temptations which the hobbit characters don't, because they never kill. Also, Deadpool isn't likeable because he's good. Deadpool is likeable because he's funny, raunchy and entertaining to watch. Deadpool can kill people because he's not a good guy. Don't confuse anti-heroes and heroes, it's NEVER a problem for an anti-hero to kill a person because the entire point of anti-heroes is that they do morally questionable stuff. No one is out here claiming that Deadpool is the epitome of morality, we just like watching Ryan Reynolds in a skin tight suit dual-wielding katanas and cracking jokes. The entire point of Deadpool is to remove the necessity to think about the morality behind his actions by just up-front admitting that he's not a good guy. This is also a valid strategy for a writer and one that I personally think more authors who write historical fiction and non-fantasy fiction ought to use (instead of creating characters with incongruously modern attitudes towards social issues). Like, just make it clear that these people were #problematic, but that isn't a reason to not try and understand them. Because see that's the issue with the argument that "this story's hero is problematic" outside of fantasy (even within fantasy this can be a dumb argument when the character in question was never supposed to be heroic). So what? Problematic people are still people, who can be relatable and understandable. Having an emotional attachment to a character is not a reason to twist logic in order to justify that character's actions.
Within my one web novel, there is a lot of weight put on killing and the morality related to that. But I have something specifically related to the orcs example. There are a people who have conquered most of the world, and their brutality makes the main character's stomach churn, but he's far more brutal when it comes to actually fighting, his targets are not the same. At a point, he develops a virus that could target them and then alone, but he can't bear to use it, because genocide is a step way beyond anything he can justify. Then he learns that they are basically predisposed to evil as a result of a couple of biological factors I won't get into. So he tries to actually work with one of the two leaders of the empire. But it falls through, and ultimately, after calling a council of all of his allies, he puts it to a vote and they unanimously agree to deploy the virus. This is a choice that nobody else who've suffered under them for much longer cares about, they consider them a blight that can't be fixed. So, this goes with the whole incongruous moral views for a fantasy story thing a little. But I think I justify and build up my MC as somebody who has these views for a reason. he's far from some paragon of morality that feels like he's been dropped in a world where that doesn't make sense.
The Teen Titans cartoon makes my brain hurt. I have to assume the cartoon version of Terra didn't sleep with the cartoon version of Slade. 🤪 But seriously, awesome video, excellent consideration and exploration of the subject and it different debates and aspects!
I think Red Hood had a good answeer for Batman not killing. Not because its wrong, or that it would be the right or wrong for society but bc Batman himself feels that if he crosses that line he could become a bigger threat than the monsters he refuses to kill. I don't know if I agree with it... but it feels like something he would believe.
Regarding 35:08 If you're not familiar with it, I think you should check out the anime Trigun (1998), I don't want to give away too much but the main character and the situations he finds himself in immediately came to mind.
Something I think you should've touched on a bit in your first section/subject is Hicks and Newt's deaths in _Alien 3._ Amongst other issues the movie objectively has, the main source of hatred that the audience has for the film is the abrupt deaths of Hicks and Newt; saying that it was a slap in the face to the fans of _Alien_ and _Aliens_ as the latter had set them up to be a sort of rag-tag team/family with Ripley. But the reasons why it didn't bother me are: -Of the original 4 films, _Alien 3_ was the last one I saw. So, I didn't necessarily have the same kind of investment as everyone else. -Because of the amount of personal tragedies I've had over the past 7 years, I know how sudden the death can be; especially with those whom you love. To quote _Predator 2,_ "Shit happens." -I think a lot of people forgot that, while _Aliens_ is more an action movie, it's the direct sequel to one of the most graphic horror movies ever made. And in horror, people die. -As you put in the video, characters typically have to go when they have no fundamental story purpose. And if you were to put Ripley, Hicks, and Newt together in the setting of _Alien 3_ with their family dynamic, it wouldn't have worked. And the creative team and studio realized that years in advance, since in so many of the movie's early drafts, these characters were written out of the story. Heck, in the first draft, where Hicks and Bishop were the main characters, they must've realized Hicks was not an interesting protagonist as they rejected it. -Most importantly, their quick sudden deaths at the beginning while they were in cryo sleep could've also been seen as merciful, considering EVERYONE ELSE DIES IN THE MOVIE.
Heroes are in most times vigilantes making them not the police or state hired security. By letting them off people it gives rise to vigilantism where people take the law into their own hands and cause more problems than it solves Sure batman can off joker but what's stopping him from doing that to bank robbers when it's all the same in cleaning up the streets. Superman did this in justice league tas future universe by making the villains tomatoes basically causing brain damage in a police state. Spider man gets praise when he snaps or venom takes over which is honestly horrible to see cheers when you go evil but that's media in a nutshell. Heroes shouldn't end lives unless it's the absolute last option and no other choice is left. The law should change if that's the case to trial and remove the villains through court if they want to do it then but that too would lead to more problems
Batman killed a ton of people before an editorial mandate for him to become more child friendly and have a kid sidekick. The shadow was more popular than Batman in his time and the shadow killed a ton of villains and criminals.
i mean, the difference between joker and bank robbers is that the bank robbers aren't prolific mass murderers and terrorists who are known to enjoy mutilating and massacring people for fun? batman wouldn't turn into a mindless killing machine without morals if he killed one massively evil person, and its a little disingenuous to treat joker and petty criminals as the same thing. i do agree that killing should be the last option though (which is what the joker has pushed things to imo). I think some people cheer when heroes snap and go for more permanent solutions because the endless revolving door for main villains has produced a sort of fatigue around the 'stick him in jail like thats going to fix anything' moral ending (and also it can be fun to explore a more dark side to a normally very upright character). I think thats why i personally also like seeing storylines where the hero tries and maybe succeeds at reforming villains or at least connecting to them and changing them (like batman and flash and spiderman and wonder woman in certain storylines) rather than just beat em up and toss em in jail, because its an actual attempt at a solution to the problem of people taking their issues out on society
The thing about heroes killing is that many times people forget that heroes aren't cops and They aren't there to uphold The law, They're there to help people, every life They take is more and more Trust that They lose with The Common people, and that would interfere with their ability to help, i Mean, would you really trust a superhero with your child If They have a reputation of getting into big fights and killing people? I wouldn't
@@hariman7727 counterargument to that: who is that? Having flimsy ideals and not inspiring Hope by being a great hero made The shadow forgetable Expanding on that, helping people is The most important thing for a hero, not punishing evil or even seeking justice per say but Just helping people, of course that Means The other things i listed come with It but helping people is The top priority, that's why Superman saves The cat, that's why one of The most iconic Batman moments of all time is him holding out his hand for Ace at The end JLU. Heroes don't uphold The law and They don't work for us, They Just help
One weird one where the hero actively chooses not to kill, and not just against the main villain but against ALL enemies, is Kira Yamato from Gundam Seed. Around the midway point of the first season, he's sick of all the killing. He can handle the fighting, but from that point on, he tries to avoid killing any enemy at all cost. The interesting wrinkle to that, though, is that he'd already killed dozens, and he has to reckon with that in a very personal way due to the fallout from killing the deuteragonist's best friend - notably the last death he causes before making his choice not to kill.
I guess the meaning or at least function of death is to make space for the future generations of whatever organism is doing the dying. Including humans, maybe some day we can eliminate natural death scientifically but would this be wise wholesale is another matter.
From a writing point of view, I find heroes killing just kind of lazy. In case of Batman, he is a ninja detective, it would be far more entertaining to see him take down enemies through a tactical method. If you can't imagine him getting out of the scenario without breaking bones or killing everyone then your imagination needs work. I'm not even against character killing but at least do it in a more impactful way that says something about the characters
In real life we don't kill people because we believe they have to die, even cops only shoot if there is no other way to take the person in not because this person is an unrepentant murderer that's not something a person should get to decide.
Dude I've been watching your channel for years and I don't think you've ever brought up Evangelion, and in this video you mention it like 3 times. Did you just recently watch it?
Did this twenty year old ninja just say that he "understood death and the coping that comes with it" better than the rest of us? Every video makes my eyes roll more than the last.
Still think ff14 had one of the best villains of the modern era. Spoilers for the entire game, but most people can guess what expansion I'm talking about here. Keeping it vague though. You have been warned. Emet Selch definitely makes the category of the perfect likeable villain. Theatrical and sardonic. Unpredictable and fascinating. But mostly, it's the motive. Truly incompatible with the main characters, but hard not to empathize with. We cant help him or let him win unless we want to lose everything we love, but we can relate.
I gotta say that I'm only 17 minutes in on this one and its wonderful so far, but let me tell you how much it irks me that MCU Steve Rodgers is likened to a modern, morally upstanding boyscott in the vein of Superman but he bodies dozens of faceless henchmen, and I mean outside of his first film where he's in an active war (just for the folks that'll use the wartime setting as carte blanche for taking lives) Whereas Superman, in depictions of the character that is consistent with his history, views all life as sacred. The comparison of the two bothers me and feels inconsistent with that oversight.
