Who (and how did they) misunderstood MGS? Kojima isn’t exactly subtle.
Big Boss used child soldiers though.
No he didn’t. He rescued child soldiers, and gave them a home. He didn’t use them in combat until they were adults who, for obvious reasons, became loyal to him.
Talking about not getting it. The people in this thread bring up points about liking things for reasons that don’t mean you agree with the evil character, and think the are to be looked up to, while simultaneously ignoring that there are massive crowds of people out their that do just that, look up to these people like hero’s, believe they are the correct ones, etc. and that this is what the meme was addressing, not someone thinking a character was a good character for story writing purposes.
What about The Wolf of Wall Street?
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.
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.
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
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?
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 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
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.
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.
I can get behind a brand of sacrifice tattoo, it says ‘I too am a struggler’ but I agree a lot of people probably don’t get that it’s literally a mark that you’re a human sacrifice that also pulls you and everything and everyone around you half way to hell
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.
A lot of people have Empire tattoos, Decepticon tattoos, and so on. Fictional bad guys are just cool.
I love Zeon/Neo Zeon mobile suits. Don’t agree with the views, but damn do they have some cool designs.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned the only notable character with positive attributes.
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.
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.
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.
“I want that Twink obliterated”. I mean so do the people that like him.
But fuck Griffith, i want that twink obliterated.
I have just the doujins for you.
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.
Why did you post pictures of me? Those are all literally me, I am the alpha male they’re based on
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.
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.
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.
Anyone else expecting Maxwell’s equations there?
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.
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.
I feel like people can think the characters are enjoyable as characters and still recognize they’re bad.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wish these media tourists took to simple messaging like Indie’s “I punch Nazis”.
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.
Rorshach not being on there is disappointing.
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.
We can’t fit all of the Watchmen cast, can we?
