Відео

Thanks for sharing your opinion! I understand that The Lord of the Rings holds a special place in many hearts and is often considered a pinnacle of fantasy cinema. However, the Planet of the Apes trilogy also offers exceptional storytelling, deep thematic exploration, and groundbreaking visual effects. The purpose of my video was to highlight the strengths and unique qualities of both trilogies, inviting a healthy discussion about their respective merits. While they have different styles, both have made significant contributions to film history. In the end, it's all about appreciating the artistry in each and understanding why they resonate with different audiences.

Thank you for your candid feedback. I genuinely appreciate it. Please feel free to share your thoughts anytime! I'll strive to improve next time 🙏🏻

Thanks for your comment Sir/Mme You are 100% right. I do realize the context of the Red Hood comic I omitted. My intention was to focus more on Batman's reaction to what Jason did and to show how when his position is challenged, he responds violently without even trying to analyze the situation. It's true that there was perhaps a revenge motive on Jason's part.

​@@thatsjustmyopinion772If that's the case, I completely understand why you chose this. I feel like rather than be violent towards Jason, he could have been more understanding and even stern because he did do some mistakes and killed someone out of revenge, but it's understandable why. That makes Jason human. And obviously he would want revenge for his father. Bruce should have been more understanding since he also lost his parents due to crime. I really liked the things you pointed out about Batmans no kill rule and they were the same things that were bugging me for awhile. It always made me question "Is he doing it for the greater good, or for his selfish desire"

Some of Batman's rogue gallery can be saved, others can't. Joker can't be saved

So Batman’s rule is only there because the writers want it to be? That’s just bad writing.

Point 3 is a very good (almost foolproof) argument for why Batman doesn't kill. He's deranged. There's a thin line between him and becoming a worse Joker.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I want to clarify that expressing skepticism about a particular viewpoint doesn’t imply that someone is unintelligent. It simply means that I haven’t found the arguments presented convincing enough to change my perspective. Healthy skepticism and critical thinking are essential components of intellectual discourse, and it’s important to engage in thoughtful debate. Now to addressing point 1 While it’s true that characters like Batman and his rogue gallery are beloved by audiences, their narratives often explore complex themes and questions about justice, morality, and human nature. Insisting on maintaining a static status quo solely for the sake of preserving popular characters can hinder storytelling potential and limit the exploration of deeper themes. Additionally, emphasizing the need for character development and evolving narratives can lead to more engaging and thought-provoking storytelling, rather than relying on repetitive tropes or stagnant character arcs. Killing off characters like Batman’s villains would lead to a lack of creativity in storytelling is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that the only way to create compelling narratives is by keeping characters static and unchanging, which overlooks the potential for character development and evolution. By allowing characters to grow and change, writers can explore new dynamics, conflicts, and story arcs that keep audiences engaged. Second, it overlooks the rich history of storytelling where characters have faced significant changes or even met their demise, leading to new storylines and character developments. This demonstrates that well-crafted narratives can emerge from such changes, driving innovation and creativity rather than stifling it. Furthermore, it implies a lack of faith in the ability of writers to come up with fresh ideas and compelling villains. Instead of relying on the same set of characters indefinitely, writers have the opportunity to introduce new antagonists with unique motivations, powers, and personalities. This not only revitalizes the narrative but also expands the universe in which the characters exist, providing new opportunities for exploration and storytelling. Ultimately, arguing for the preservation of characters solely to avoid creative challenges overlooks the potential for growth and innovation in storytelling and underestimates the creativity of writers in crafting compelling narratives. Addressing point 3a While it’s true that removing one criminal might create an opportunity for another to take their place, it doesn’t negate the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions. By enforcing consequences for criminal behavior, we establish a deterrent that can dissuade others from following the same path. Moreover, the goal isn’t just about eliminating individual criminals; it’s about upholding justice and protecting innocent lives. Batman’s no kill rule, while well-intentioned, doesn’t always address the larger systemic issues at play. Sometimes, more decisive action is necessary to prevent further harm and promote a safer society. Addressing point 4 While it’s true that Batman’s childhood trauma shaped his worldview, it’s simplistic to attribute his entire moral code solely to that event. Many individuals experience trauma without adopting extreme moral positions. Batman’s no kill rule reflects his broader ethical beliefs about justice and the value of human life, which have been shaped by his experiences. Addressing point 2 Also, his desire to prevent others from experiencing the trauma he endured is understandable, but his refusal to deal decisively with irredeemable criminals like the Joker and Zsasz has unintended consequences. By allowing these dangerous individuals to roam free, Batman inadvertently exposes countless others, including innocent children, to the same or even worse traumas. Each time the Joker escapes or Zsasz is not permanently neutralized, the potential for more violence and suffering increases, perpetuating a cycle of trauma in Gotham. Thus, while Batman’s intentions may be noble, his actions ultimately contribute to the perpetuation of the very trauma he seeks to prevent. In the video, I presented several instances to underscore why a criminal like the Joker, for instance, has transcended the realm of redeemability. He is beyond rehabilitation, existing solely to sow chaos and destruction. Dealing with such an individual necessitates extreme measures, such as execution. It’s important to note that the video does not advocate for Batman to indiscriminately kill criminals. The focus was specifically on the Joker, recognizing him as a unique case requiring a different approach. Regarding the “just read punisher comics” everyone seems to throw around, I appreciate the recommendation! Reading comics about different characters with contrasting moral codes can definitely provide interesting perspectives. However, my critique of Batman’s no kill rule doesn’t necessarily mean I hate the character or his stories. It’s just a discussion on a specific aspect of his character. But hey, I’m always up for expanding my comic book horizons, so I might give the more recent Punisher comics a read too! Thanks for the suggestion! In conclusion, I appreciate your perspective and encourage further discussion on the topic

​@thatsjustmyopinion772 Very mature and sound response. Such a breath of fresh air to meet a critic who isn't an intellectual/ highly opinionated bully