Rorshach not being on there is disappointing.
We can’t fit all of the Watchmen cast, can we?
I’m not locked in here with you! You’re locked in here with me! Melts someone’s face with fryer oil. Cringe line…but kinda funny at the same time.
I mean, he pretty clearly set the record. That irrespective of his appearance, clothing, situation, or anything else, he is a severely homicidal lunatic. One of the more effective scenes. (I liked darth Vader’s “nooooo” as well)
Rorschach is basically the Punisher - it’s only luck that he likes to kill and torture “bad people”, and he shows himself that he’s pretty flexible on the definition of “bad”.
Author: Satirizes toxic masculinity via cartoonishly terrible male characters
A concerningly significant portion of men: basedbasedbasedbasedbased
Based? Based on what?
Rico wasn’t a terrible person. But he really is the exception in the list.
Rico is an officer in the war-machinery of one of the more fascist systems imagined in film. After the events of Operation Royalty he sends what basically amounts to child-soldiers to their deaths. He believes only military service should grant citizenship and shows unquestioning loyalty to the Federation.
But I’m sure he only followed orders, that’s a perfectly good excuse.
Oh, I only saw the movies.
Well, in the movies alone he’s pretty much the same thing: officer of a fascist war machine. And while he is presented as a dumb jock at the beginning, by the end of the movie (movies, too) he’s pretty much shown absolutely no character growth, besides being much more pumped about the fascist war machine.
Every time I think about Rico, I remember when he talks about citizenship. First in school, then at the funeral. Same definition, word for word. Just more conviction the second time around.
When did he become an NCO? I remember the movie ending with him as a boot.
He becomes an NCO after he kills the first tank bug and becomes a full officer after the funeral.
All that is from the movie.
I don’t remember him becoming an officer. Guess I’m just going senile. My b.
It’s the ending scene. “We have new ships, we have new weapons. Now we need soldiers…” they show Carmen as captain of her own ship with a lieutenant that looks like she didn’t even finish high school and then Rico as the lieutenant of the roughnecks, their ranks filled with new, younger recruits. “C’mon you apes, you wanna live forever?!”
Rico was a terrible person, but through experience and hardship learned the weight of being an adult comes with a high price.
Heinlein was suuuuper in favor of a colonial/martial culture. The whole reason he wrote Starship Troopers was because he was disappointed that the US suspended nuclear weapons testing which he saw as further evidence of the decline of martial culture. The book clearly advocates for the promotion of civic duty as a moral imperative as well as for things like corporal punishment. He WANTED the “toxic masculinity” culture, that was his own culture as he perceived it.
The movie is basically the complete opposite, satirically portraying colonial/martial values against the backdrop of an imperial state. It’s one of the biggest disparities in intent vs interpretation I have ever seen.
The movie rocks, by the way. Still watch it once a year
I vaguely heard that Heinlein engaged with a whole bunch of different ideologies for different books.
I believe it was Clarke that mentioned that Heinlein’s political beliefs depended on who he was having sex with that month.
Yeah, he’s the hardest to pin down of the 20th century masters of sci fi. LeGuinn wears her heart on her sleeve and while she explores ideas, she has a consistent direction. Herbert demands critical thinking (if the entire book is Paul terrified of the evil of him leading the jihad, what does it mean when he leads the jihad at the end). Asimov is out there exploring ideas, but you can figure him out (it’s been a long time since I’ve read him). And Clarke is pretty consistent in his distrust of those who desire power.
Anyone else expecting Maxwell’s equations there?
The best example of this was all the people who liked the boys, but didn’t get it was taking the piss out of them.
sometimes good men have to play the devil just to get anything done.
doesn’t justify shit, but it certainly is effective.
Maybe that thing never really needed doing, if it’s only means for operation was via evil means. Maybe that whole system just needed to be entirely dismantled.
I don’t understand why it’s bad to enjoy evil characters. I don’t want to just consume Disney forever. I wouldn’t say I like Griffith as a person, but he is a very interesting character and crucial to the plot of Berserk. The title makes it sound like there is some alternative version of Berserk where Griffith doesn’t exist and it’s somehow better. Just because I like these characters doesn’t mean I missed any point. I don’t think that’s the case for most people. These posts are r/iamverysmart material.
There is a difference between enjoying an evil character, and what a lot of people do with these specific evil characters. The ones in this meme are often looked up to by a bunch of people. There are lots of people who believe they are the correct person in the story, or otherwise the one to be idolized.
I can’t really counter your argument, I’ve just never heard of anyone who thinks Griffith, Johan or any of these characters are correct. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but I doubt it’s anywhere close to being a split position to having.
Well, TBF, you have to get deeper into the weeb side of the black pill movement to understand how many weirdos out their side with grifith’s philosophy/the godhead, or Johan from monster. However, you will absolutely see them frequently if you, for some reason, subject yourself to places that have black pillers in larger numbers, twitter, 4chan, facebook… You would probably have to been in conversation space about scifi to really see the people who unironically defend the military government of earth in starship troopers, however its pretty common when the subject comes up.
However the Joker? you really have never seen people side with the Joker? I actually have a hard time believing you are social media savvy enough to be on Lemmy, and have not experienced the armies of losers that identify with the Joker as a hero. This is like police with punisher skulls level of common. The idolization of Tyler Durden as a working class hero is also quite common.
I don’t understand why it’s bad to enjoy evil characters.
Just because I like these characters doesn’t mean I missed any point.
It’s not bad but it’s a dangerous line to tread. You may get the nuance but far too many people don’t. It’s why so many people are enchanted by Tyler Durden and Patrick Bateman. These characters are meant to be vilified, not aspired to. That is why the cults of personality and admiring strongman authoritarians still persist because many people are easily impressed by raw display of power. Yanis Varoufakis mentioned we are all susceptible to it-- and by extension fascism-- in varying degrees and we’d be lying if we don’t feel impressed. He’s not saying we all secretly admire fascists but that all of us have a dark side and containing it is really the challenge.
I know it’s just my personal experience but I see more people saying that people are enchanted by those characters than i’ve ever seen anyone actually admit to it. Maybe you have, I can’t really argue that. I also disagree that it is a dangerous line to tread. Liking evil characters isn’t anymore dangerous than liking violent video games like GTA
I see more people saying that people are enchanted by those characters than i’ve ever seen anyone actually admit to it.
I don’t know about you but i see on social media defending and glazing toxic masculine figures such as Tyler Durden and Patrick Bateman. The profile of those admirers are typically lonely and insecure men, which another user has pointed out.
I can agree that there are probably some people who severely misunderstand those two characters. I do find it kinda funny that we both picked completely different people from the post. I firmly believe no one is misunderstanding Griffith and Johan. Any posts you may have seen defending them are 100% trolls
I don’t know about Griffith and Johan. I just thought they are of the same level of asshole-ness as Patrick Bateman, Tyler Durden and Joker because they are put together in this post 😅
Any posts you may have seen defending them are 100% trolls
I even met people in real life who hinted they admire toxic male figures although they won’t say it out loud. But in social media, they are vocal what they truly believe in. Although many are trolls, some indeed admire toxic masculinity. Social media merely gave these folks a megaphone to proclaim their thoughts.
In short, Griffith turns into a God/Demon by sacrificing all of his friends and followers, then proceeds to rape his best friend’s love interest right in front of him. Johan was the product of a Nazi experiment to turn humans into super soldiers from birth.
In all honestly, I likely wouldn’t have been so critical of this post had they not been included with the likes of Tyler Durdan, Joker, and Bateman. Lots of users have used the latter 3 as examples that work with what the OP is saying. I just don’t believe Griffith and Johan fit here.
If you understand that Griffith is not someone anyone should want to emulate, I don’t think this meme is about you anyway.
This meme is about the insecure dudes who are hurt and angry and decide to channel that into some cringe edge-lord ‘I want to hurt everyone else and feel nothing but that it is my destiny to be on top’ phase.
Is this becoming a big thing somewhere? I have somehow managed to avoid those communities apparently. Or is it tied to a certain age group I don’t fall into?
Becoming? It’s not new. Plenty of people have seen Scarface as a self-made badass instead of the pathetic, neurotic mess of a man he collapses into.
This is the part I’m stuck on too lol. People see a couple of trolls online and believe there is a whole community of Griffith worshipers
I was unaware if it was that’s why I figured it was worth asking. I don’t exactly travel the world and my passport is in fact expired lol. So if it isn’t happening locally in my small town I find I may be blind to it
I have a hard time believing that those people represent a demographic larger than just a few online trolls. I think the meme is really about OP feeling smart
You cannot draw a visible Venn diagram of the coincidence of sociopathy and poor media literacy.
You are missing the point, this post proves it. Nobody said that you can’t call characters well written or interesting, where people fall short is when they think these people are anything to aspire to or emulate. If you’re doing neither then move on but if you think those guys are worth anything of human value then you’d be severely confused on what humanity is worth.
I don’t think anyone is really saying any of those things though beyond obvious trolls. At least for most of the characters in this post. Maybe the fight club guy is an exception. Who is with 100% sincerity saying that Griffith and Johan are in the right? This post is making up problems that don’t exist.
People absolutely pull that shit with the brotherhood of steel
I think that the Brotherhood of Steel at least has valid arguments for each side. It’s not an inherently evil idea, it’s certain individuals that give them a bad name. There are genuinely good people in the BoS.
Yeah the point of them is that they’re ultimately grey. They’re blocked from doing the most good and to a reasonable degree from doing the most evil. But they’re self destructive no matter what and for every group of heroes you get from them, you get similar groups of villains. They’re knights in shining armor, some gallant and heroic and others self interested bullies, trying to keep everyone else from returning to an advanced society, but also trying to protect them from the evils of it.
The biggest thing is they can’t maintain any moral character from group to group or generation to generation. They’re too insulated, too ideologically bound (in a way completely separated from morality), too focused on their goals. They hate the Enclave, sure, but in part because both see themselves as what’s left of the government, they hate Caesar, but they also hate other grey factions like the NCR and the institute, and they can’t see the good of the railroad.
Again, you’re missing the point.
Agreed. I love tons of evil characters precisely because they are more interesting or they make the world more interesting. So many have more interesting motivations, more interesting developments, and more interesting dialogue than the hero roles they counter.
Looks at Enclave patches on my jacket
I understood the messages perfectly well, I just like the bad guys in this case. If it makes it any better ive also got a Freedom patch from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and two NCR patches.
Well it’s more people who think ideologically similar or missed the message. Like BOS is just techno-feudilism.
For a brief moment I thought this was telling me my Mechanicus special interest was invalid, and then I processed the ‘ad victoriam’ and realized it was fallout.
My exwife has a large slytherin tattoo. That house in pottery is just “the bad guys”. There’s not charecter arch or deeper meaning, no complexity in writing.
They are just the bad guys, who are evil and mean. That’s it. She loves em.
Consider the alternatives:
Suicidal, stupid, trouble causing and seeking, bullying “brave” Griffindors.
Bookworm “smart”, swot grinders Ravenclaws.
Sly and cunning, “ambitious” Slytherins.
Neither brave, smart or sly, menial workers Hufflepuffs.
Idk about you, but out of those options to me speaks the most “neither”, but if I have to sleep somewhere, I’d wear green.
They weren’t particularly sly cunning or smart. Ambitious I’ll give you.
The book sets it up like slytherin and gryfindor are basically the same except one is evil.
I am quoting the books with cunning and ambitious. It also mentions resourcefulness.
It’s just that the author is not that good with her craft and she made them Evil, shallow house in practice.
Or maybe it’s the other way, and she did that on purpose, so that the early children book has visible low stake antagonist Malfoy, who does not really matter compared to BBEG.
I understand what you mean. They are said to be those traits but that is absolutely not portrayed in the book.
So if you’re reading the books or watching the movie and thinking “I relate to those guys” all there is to relate to is being “bad”
They don’t have anything else going for them in the story.
Yeah the sorting hat sorta tells Harry slitherin folks are destined for big things (not necessarily good, but big) but then there’s dumbfucks like crabbe and goyle in there who couldn’t accomplish shit.
Joanne Kowling Rowling didn’t exactly stay consistent about things in those books.
Dude, Hufflepuffs got it right. “Nobody expects us to achieve anything, so they’ll praise us if we just show up”. That’s a pro level life hack. They are the “take it easy” house. If The Dude was in Hogwarts, he’d be in Hufflepuff. If I was in Hogwarts I’d be in Hufflepuff.
hufflepuff definitely the stoner house. Entrance even located right by the kitchen
Their house teacher is the herbology teacher, definitely the stoner house.
Dude, the Hufflepuffs’ dorms are described as cozy and are located near the kitchen, that’s objectivelly the best place to sleep in.
I thought about it. But low ceiling and the fact they are described as basically background noise made me uninterested ultimately. :-)
Not because of the Snape “redemption” at the end of the movie?
She doesn’t have a snape tattoo. She has slytherin and deatheater tattoos.
deatheater tattoo
Might as well get a swastika tattoo.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned the only notable character with positive attributes.
Idk I think Malfoy gets it rough, kid was basically raised in and surrounded by a cult 24/7 with the threat of being ostracized by his family, friends and basically everyone he’d ever known if he put a foot out of line. The fact that he got any redemption arc at all even if it was late is more than a lot of indoctrinated people manage IRL.
A stalker who worshipped one woman because she talked to him as a child and he decided to abuse orphaned children caused by the very hate group he was a part of. As Voldemort is supposed to be placed during WW2, snape became a NAZI by choice… Then only decided to oppose them when Hitler decided to kill someone he cared about.
Why he is such an ass to Neville we’ll never understand.
I thought he hated Neville because who the chosen one was prophecy described either Harry or Neville, and Voldemort went after Harry, sealing who the prophecy was and sealing Harry’s mother’s fate, making Snape hate him because Neville’s parents could have died instead of a woman that would have never gotten with his shit ass.
But it’s been ages since I’ve read the books.
Nevilles parents were tortured to insanity by Snapes friend. “Not his friend” walks into his home and he doesn’t kill them. How do we know it was done before… Because they did it before Voldemort died. He was a baby who was orphaned because Snape was and will always be, worse than 99% of NAZI’s. His actions after proved it
A lot of people have Empire tattoos, Decepticon tattoos, and so on. Fictional bad guys are just cool.
They need to be more than bad guys. Darth Wader started as good guy, than became a bad guy, than redeemed himself. Nobody normal has a tattoo of nurse Ratchet.
Aside from the fact that the Empire did nothing wrong and brought peace to a galaxy living under the constant threat of the Jedi that casually kidnapped children to indoctrinate, not to mention tried to assassinate a democratically elected chancellor when things didn’t go to their liking.
I think this is the first time I’ve seen someone regularly write “than” when it’s actually supposed to be “then”. Normally it’s always the other way around.
I ain’t no native speaker typing on a phone, so sorry.
I love Zeon/Neo Zeon mobile suits. Don’t agree with the views, but damn do they have some cool designs.
I mean, spacenoid rights, which is what Zeon Diekun preached, was not the same as the as the Principality of Zeon, which is the Zabi Family dictatorship, and the ones that gassed and dropped a colony.
At last, a true Zeonic! 🫡
Warhammer 40k Chaos is also cool.
The only one i have a gripe with is the Brand of Sacrifice. Yes, in the Berserk workd, it marks one for sacrifice by the Godhand. But we dont live in the Berserk world. To me, the Brand is a sign of struggle, and a symbol of resisting fate and destiny. It’s standing up for yourself, even when the easy thing would be to lay down. It’s facing adversity and pain when the world wants to kick you and beat you down. That’s what the Brand means to me.
But fuck Griffith, i want that twink obliterated.
But fuck Griffith, i want that twink obliterated.
I have just the doujins for you.
But fuck Griffith, i want that twink obliterated.
I mean, right before he did the, uh, stuff he kinda was. A whole buncha torture stuff happened to him before he did the things.
Nah, Griffith was always about that shit that’s the point. Griffith was always about himself that was a huge plot point of the story. Given that choice again 10 times out of 10 he would pick it the same choice. He would do anything achieve his goals, he’d probably do worse if he had to.
Came here to say this, the brand of sacrifice is symbolic of mankind’s eternal struggle to survive. I think that message is pretty clear.
“I want that Twink obliterated”. I mean so do the people that like him.
Can anyone fill me in about the top three?
The first two are from berserk, the third is from monster. The first one is a mark for sacrifice, the other two are the perfect psychopath archetype. I (and someone else here) think the mark doesn’t fit because it has a great message about strugging and fighting the greater powers of the world.
is the tattoo of the brand that bad? I mean, as long as they realize what it means.
personally I always wanted one because I felt my life was forfeit to the machine that runs our world and wanted a constant memory to become a stubborn thorn in the side of the ruling class just like Gutz.
I agree. I interpret it as a form of rebellion against the throes of perdition and fighting demons that plague the human condition like greed, anger, etc. The mark makes him aware of the affliction that some men carry.
A lot of people think it means “i am big strong guts man” just like the punish supposedly means “im a cop who punishes people”
To me, it means constant struggle against a world that has forsaken you. You are a currency to be spent, and the only escape is constant effort to free yourself and your loved ones.
I love berserk.
Why did you post pictures of me? Those are all literally me, I am the alpha male they’re based on
I’m ngl I still don’t understand the ending of Monster
Uhh don’t save kids.
Not everyone participates in reading the deeper meaning of media.
Some people just turn off their brains and watch the magic smiles box and come away liking the characters and movie without thinking any further than what was portrayed on screen.
Half the characters on this list are just really awesome visual/character portrayals.
They didn’t misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media.
You watch movies to dissect their meanings, others watch movies to escape reality for a bit.
They didn’t misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media.
Hahaha no.
Their intent was not to understand the media, but to merely consume it.
… they still in fact did misunderstand it.
Yeah, its true that not everybody approaches a piece of media trying to fully comprehend and appreciate it, yeah its true that it’s fine to have media that doesn’t require much brain power to comprehend, yeah its fine to lazily enjoy things from time to time.
None of that means these movies and characters are not notorious for being basically 180 degrees misunderstood by people barely paying attention.
They didn’t misunderstand the message, you misunderstood their intent going into the media
Imagine saying the equivalent of this to a teacher who failed your creative writing paper because you wrote for a completely different prompt than the one assigned.
This is an asinine thing to say, its a non sequitir.
An explanation for why something happens is not the same as ‘that thing didn’t happen’.
That was so well-put, thank you. I’ve never had a tidy, succinct response for this sort of thing and yet you summed it up so well; I don’t disagree that many people have definitely misunderstood the character/media/etc, but it’s definitely true that some people just enjoy things anyway.
I wish these media tourists took to simple messaging like Indie’s “I punch Nazis”.
I do both. Doesn’t everyone? I love a healthy home cooked meal, a book or article so deep it feels as satisfying as sex, but also can love a bag of french fries or a repeat of Pride & Prejudice or Hot Fuzz.
Sometimes it’s relaxing to be shallow for a bit.
True, but you can taste the flavors in the fries and you should be consuming them consciously.
Some messages are really obvious and others are kinda subtle. I love Brooklyn 99, but I also acknowledge that it’s copaganda and have to watch out that I’m not letting it influence me out of positions I came to by thinking things through. In the same way that when I eat a bag of fries I have to watch out that I’m not eating myself unhealthy.
When I consume something that’s largely dumb fun, but has a pretty clear message I pick up the message. Fallout games (except 3) are openly telling you that the brotherhood of steel engage in dangerous ideological and organizational structures that lead to damage. But when my brain is off and I’m playing one of the games it just reads as “these guys have serious issues despite the good they sometimes do”.
I feel like people can think the characters are enjoyable as characters and still recognize they’re bad.
Rich frat bros at my college literally started fight clubs thinking it was about getting ripped and dangerous. Then many of them got life-changing injuries and stopped.
Both sides of the equation can be true, yet unequal.
Rich frat bros at my college literally started fight clubs … Then many of them got life-changing injuries and stopped.
Tyler would approve. In-fact, pretty sure that Angel Face (played by Letto) was a rich frat boy.
Maybe. The disaffected youth told they would become something special and they never became that? The office workers and service industry people and low-wage workers that were both the fight club and Project Mayhem? That’s not them. They’re literally the corporate stooges to be that Tyler fought against.
You watch movies to dissect their meanings, others watch movies to escape reality for a bit.
The dissecting of media (which i do a lot) isn’t something i choose - it comes pretty automatically with media literacy. As soon as you develop the skills needed to analyze subtext and themes, and start to take a critical stance regarding video content, you can’t really switch it off outside of getting wasted.
So i’d say the difference is simply in media literacy (and more broadly, general education) and level of cognitive impairment.
That’s because this is the normal flow of things. Pare the mediums away, and you’re left with the same basic core: Stories.
The storyteller always has a reason for telling a story. Even when they are only setting out to entertain.
To be able to separate one’s actual feelings, knowledge, and values in order to write a purely entertaining tale, requires that the storyteller be aware of them. At which point they must then take an extra step to insert others.
What stories are, at their heart is the passing of an abstract message or purpose encoded in a surface pattern meant to be cognitively sticky.
The reason might be to teach the young in the tribe the seasonal crop patterns as it was thousands of years ago, as it still is in some places.
Or it could be a commentary on the social state of the times. Or any other thing.
But the other thing a story must be, is engrossing.
A good story must be entertaining or funny or terrifying. It must tug at the emotions of the listener in some way.
That’s what makes it stick. That’s how stories work.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to dig deeper into the meaning of a tale, especially if it’s presented or done poorly. That turns it into a lesson.
But the best stories, it doesn’t matter if you seek out the deeper meaning or not.
It’ll be there regardless and so will the story, and if and when the listener grows, the meaning will make itself clear on the next recounting.
Thank you BBC for the one-sentence-a-paragraph formatting. But none of that explains why people fail to grok the message of the media.
You talk about cognitive impairment of others yet fail to understand the only thing you’re doing is imparting your world view and how you navigate it as how everyone else does/should. You have an extremely narrow perception of how the world works because you can only view it through your own lens.
The only one here impaired in their judgement is you.
My judgement is as follows:
If you are not able to analyze the subtext of content, repeating motives in it and why someone specifically tells a story, you will always be a fool, because you are not able to discern between people who want to lead you astray and people who are upright in their convictions.
And people who are ok with others being essentially illiterate in these times are enabling liars, abusers, scammers, thieves, fascists and dictators.
I have to add: Media made to just have a laugh are fine! I laughed my ass off over all 6 Sharknado movies. But this doesn’t mean i engage uncritically with it - in this case it was obvious that these movies are not taking themselves seriously, and therefore i was also able to go with that.
I was also able to enjoy the Marvel movies somewhat, while having concerns with some underlying themes that are pretty militaristic and disenfranchising of common people. The notion that only “special” people can enact change in a society is a harmful one in my opinion.
I think Heath Ledgers version of the Joker was interesting. I didn’t really like the other ones.
I would guess that he’s actually the “Dark Knight.” From the way the movie portrays him, it seems he’s a ex-military guy that lost his mind. Technically he does more for the city than Batman by basically pitting criminals against each other and going after corrupt officials. So I did dissect the meanings in that movie, my buddy was really into superhero movies and such but I usually got bored with them; I would say that’s the only one I enjoyed.
I will say I very much suck at picking up the message in media. Not that I end up agreeing with shitty people, but I’m always wondering like “Wait…is the creator saying this is a good thing?”
