I've seen enough fair criticism in the comments to know that I've made a lot of mistakes on this one. Generally when I do a video I divide them up into either 10 to 15 minute videos, or 20 to 25 minute videos, giving around 7 days for the former and 10 days to the latter (the sad reality of youtube that you need to work to a schedule like this in order to make a living off it), and I think my big mistake here was taking a topic that was WAY too broad and trying to cover it in a shorter video, which I really regret, it led to me making a lot of ill thought out blanket statements and not backing them up properly and there's holes in my logic that people have pointed out. So yeah, I hear the criticism, I think its fair, I'm going to keep it in mind for future videos. Thanks everyone for continuing to support the channel, and thank you for the feed back.
Super Eyepatch Wolf This right here is what makes a hero feel real. Self-reflection is so important so I'm glad you took your lumps and are gonna keep going forward. You're my favorite UA-camr.
Super Eyepatch Wolf Thanks for the update, I'm happy to here that the criticism people like myself made ended up being constructive and the points came across as intended. Good luck with future content.
Super Eyepatch Wolf good lord. Humility and a desire to keep growing as a creator? You're not the hero UA-cam deserves but you're definitely the one it needs.
What makes hentai feel like real porn is a question I genuinely want to see you make a video on. Just saying it because someone commented it maybe as a joke but I can really see your style of video essays making a point on what sounds like a fascinating topic.
Super Eyepatch Wolf A UA-camr admitting his flaws and wants to improve rather than being salty and ignoring the "haters" WHAT IS THIS? I think its called honesty now thats something I havent seen in awhile
I have to heartily disagree with "Relatable -> Powerful" scale. A character can be VERY powerful, AND relatable - for example, many of us older men can definitely relate to All Might, and his concerns as shown in BNHA. I'd say "Ordinary -> Powerful" would be a better label.
I don't think this inherently discredits the relation of Relatable to Powerful. If anything, this lends credence to it. After all, All Might is really two characters in one. You relate to him when he is small, because when he is small, he is at the mercy of the world. He is barely holding onto his grip of the future - a grip that is slowly loosening. Contrast to his muscle form. This All Might is the one with all the power. He affects the world around him, and isn't fazed by danger or opposition. And quite appropriately, this All Might is 100% fake. Completely fabricated. The All Might that the public knows is about as unrelatable as a hero can possibly be, because this All Might is a complete and utter lie. So while you're correct that All Might is relatable, this isn't insoluble with the Relatable-Powerful spectrum. It simply requires noting that Tall Might and Small Might are two different characters - the former of whom is powerful and unrelatable, and the latter of whom is relatable but weak.
I dont think its fair to say that Tall Might is unrelatable just because he has a ton of power and influence. Tall Might is certainly relatable to many people. Many people hold power and peace respectively in their own lives, and have influence over people around them. Of course not on the scale as Tall Might, but in their own families, co workers, friends, and classmates respectively.
Yep, I had the same problem. It kinda annoyed me how Deku got praised while Naruto got lumped in with the characters he found boring. They're both pretty similar especially if you compare pre-timeskip Naruto to Deku so why is Deku so much more relatable than Naruto solely because he's weak? We know Deku will eventually become powerful too so does that make him unrelatable at that point?
I only watched the animes for both cases, so this is where my opinion comes from, but I do believe that you're right when saying that naruto pre time skip is praisable just as deku, unfortunately with shippuden everything started going haywire and they lost their ground and Naruto became too much of an idealistic and rose tinted story for my taste; yes there was war, yes there were deaths, but still the theme of naruto brefriending everyone and saving everyone, like when konoha was destroyed and they "deus ex machinaed" all the dead people back to life, was something that broke the suspension of disbelief for me.
Honestly I've seen so many grumpy antiheroes with traumatic pasts, what I like a lot more is taking a virtuous hero and throwing them into an unvirtuous world, and seeing how and if they keep their morals. For me at least, seeing a person struggle with being good when there isn't any real reward and it would be so much easier to be an ass, is much more relatable than another jaded antihero who thinks of optimism and happiness as "immature" and that anyone who still has morals and hope just hasn't seen enough yet. What's more interesting to me is someone who has stared into the abyss and seen the absolute worst, but instead of giving up and drowning under a tide of apathy, strives to be the absolute best and make the world at least a little bit of a better place. It ultimately does come down to preference and not all antiheroes fit into the same mold, I like Butcher from "The Boys" specifically because he's kinda an unorthodox antihero who while fighting against injustice, does it for the wrong reasons, and is proven wrong about his anti-supe prejudice towards the end. In the end, instead of fitting into the same few tropes, variety is good, but I know which variant of protagonist I enjoy the most.
You know, that's something I like about Jonathan Joestar. How he's headed in a journey in which he's forced to kill people that once were noble and pure and even his own brother. And no spoilers but it's interesting to see how the story treats his morals on a realistic way for what happens to him in the arc
the way you said it made me think about Eren Yaeger he is not pure or good-hearted, but at the beginning he is kind of a shonen "hero" who just sees the world as "good humans" and "bad titans" and wants to eradicate them, while in reality the world is a lot different and not just black and white, so he has to make moral choices, even ones we would see as "evil" in some perspective
Are you talking about Thorfinn? He lived in a cruel world that everything has to be resolved with violence, even he was once consumed by hatred yet he still pursued his dream of creating a peaceful wonderland in Vinland where no one needs to kill/fight to solve problems(yet he still faced conflicts and misunderstanding there) and realise his father's ideology. I think he fits quite well in the type of hero you are longing for the most
Saitama is a man living in a world where he's become so powerful that all of the supernatural crap going on around him doesn't matter. He's passed a line. Now that he's passed the line the crazy things going on dont matter at all to him and he just has normal human concerns. He's become so strong and unrelatable that he's been kicked back by god to the start where he's relatable again.
@@DanielHernandez-hg5ey i understand but don't agree. Even if Saitama were superinfluential to the people of the world, what makes him relatable is his ordinary behavior and look on daily life.
theres a lot of good points here, but I think the biggest flaw with the argument is that its basically just assuming super tough lawful-good guy = poorly written. As long as a character like that has a strong and well developed sense of where their ideals come from and why they fight as a hero then they dont need to have some sort of intrinsic moral flaw or something that drags them down to earth. They may not be "relatable" but if their motivations are understandable then there's not really a problem.
FhantomHed Yeah Spiderman Superman and Captain America are great examples of this. Throughout their comic history they've always proven that having a moral compass isn't a bad thing. They've still shown to be human beings which allows the audience and readers to care about the characters. They've shown the heroes "behind the mask" as he puts it
Yes but tell me a single character that got made in like 2010 that got famous coz if this idea? I honestly can’t think of any coz it got boring to see the same thing over and over.
@@LOL-tm7ek and what now? It's getting boring seeing all these protagonist "MuST HavE FLAw" too. It's becoming the new cliche, a protagonist can't do anything moraly righteous anymore because it implies poor writing.
@Tom Ffrench The point i was making didn't advocate for characters devoid of flaws. A flawed character can be as bad as a character devoid of flaws may be, that's what i defend. But the focus point of the issue wasn't that, but that the very idea that a character must have a major moral flaw or be unable to be morally righteous isn't realistisc at all, and in fact it comes to the point that characters are a gigant blob of flaws and nothing more. The "Hero" cliché as they like to despise is replaced by another cliché.
@@capivara6094 because while hes not fighting hes like the most relatable guy ever. he wants to go to the story while its on sale to get something to eat. he hates waking up. he does normal workout. and its not like everyone loves him or looks up to him in the show. most people either dont know him or dislike him through lies that have been spread.
Saitama is like the best inversion of the trope. He's become the most powerful man in existence, an unbeatable ass kicking machine. Now what? Nothing is exciting anymore. His goal becomes less "I want to get stronger" and more "man I just want a fun fight." While all the less powerful people around him are worrying "oh god we have to beat this freakin monster" he's worrying "shit can I cover my bills this week?"
Its kinda like what the best Spider-Man comics do, and even Homecoming and the new video game. Its freaking awesome to be Spider-Man, and you freaking love it, but bills are stacking, your social life is dying, grades are failing, and friends are leaving you. Contrasting how immensely strong you are with the fact that you're not immune to what every other human puts up with.
To be honest, Brad isn't a good example. He's the protagonist of Lisa, but he clearly isn't a hero. Those two can mix, but one doesn't equal the other. Besides, if anything he's an antihero. Tries to do good, but the means he uses aren't heroic in the slightest. I also don't agree with your definition of hero. What you are defining is a protagonist. A protagonist can be anything from hero, antihero, villain, antivillain or even just a background character that tells the story from his perspective. From there forwards, I can understand your points but not share them. Take a look at the protagonists of Angels of Death, a horror adventure RPG maker game and soon to be anime: Rachel Gardner and Zack. One is a teenage girl that wants to die and the other is a psycopathic serial killer. Trapped inside a building full with traps and people wanting to kill them both, they form a contract: Rachel will help Zack escape and he, once they get out, will fulfill his part of the promise and kill her. No matter how you twist the definition of hero, those two aren't heroes. The story is told through their perspective (sometimes Rachel's, sometimes Zack's), they move the plot with their struggles to escape and they face great challenges, but their goals, personalities and motivations make them unable to be heroes.
@@LuciferXFallen290 the protagonist is the leading character and antagonists are characters that oppose them. A protagonist cannot be the antagonist, but they can be the villain and the antagonist can be the heroic one.
that´s why i love jojo´s bizarre adventure part 7 so much. You have a selfish protagonist, that grows with his journey becoming more heroic and selfless, and you have a villain with a noble goal
Personally I like variety. I don't want every hero to be morally upright, but I definitely don't want everyone to be a sociopath. Although if I had to choose, I would probably go with the morally upright hero. Not just because I like watching people who are good, but because they are so hard to write well, yet amazing and uplifting when done right.
naruto is a great hero for his story cause it truely feels like his story about others belief in yourself being your true strength not a story about destiny or zero to hero the cliche power up shit..naruto learns his best move is talking
Ronald Corbin ikr. Did I miss something or does this guy pretty much just think that no hero that is powerful and virtuous can be interesting. Because if he thinks that I disagree massively
One of my favorite character is actually one who is a kindhearted sociopath. Sociopathy is actually a condition and one that character struggles with but tries to overcome. She is very cold and calculative but also tries to have friends despite her inability to relate to others.
@@tonysoprano200 not about been selfish, he just become so angry about the death of a men he just met, that he doesn't listen even he's best friend and that anger grew to the point where the transformation happened... I don't know if the manga explain the situation better, but for me that only watched the anime, It was linda weird.
@@wellingtonribeiro847 Yea I know what you mean the 2011 doesn't have this I'm pretty sure, but in the manga and 1999 version the guy gon gets mad over saved gon's life when he was younger, and he was the one who told him his father was still alive and what hunters were. Basically he was gon's father figure not to mention that gon trained under him for a couple months and had his life saved by him again in the show. I hope this makes it more believable, honestly I just found out about this a couple days ago
Aditya 17 because he isn’t a good guy he let freezer power up because he wanted to have a good fight Goku often screws the universe over due to his own ego and desire to fight
In my opinion, Luffy is a very untypical character as well, since he often tends to have egostical reasons to act. He just wants to become the pirate king to be the freest man alive. Another example is, when he willingly lets escape dozens of dangerous prisoners, just to safe his brother. Even prisoners like Buggy or Sir Crocodile, where he even experienced their bad actions. Overall he just looks like an ordinary hero, because most of the villains he faces violate the freedom of people he cares about. Well and he still has some core values he represents: Freedom and Equality
Yeah One Piece is my favorite story of all time and Luffy is one of my favorite characters, if not number 1, but i can't deny that in some way he is kinda like Griffith from Berserk.
Did Luffy actually do that? Fuck that makes me wanna continue with One Piece again even if I was heavily spoiled. Something I realized is that I like when characters are put in a extreme situation and do something that you can call morally wrong but at the same time you can understand why. I Also love to see the effect it has om the character after. If you want to make me fall in love with a show thats how you do it
I disagree a little on your criticism that older heroes of myth were perfect in all ways or seen as very virtuous; a good read through most Greek myths, for example, shows flawed humans of near godly power and stature. The good guy trope that exists nowadays is more recent in its invention, for the most part.
Schwarzwald Yeah wolf really talked about a lot of things that werent his Forte on this video. He also doesnt understand the Comic Book Characters he is talking about which tells me most of what he knows about them is from the movies. He wouldve made a better point sticking to just Anime heroes rather than comparing to other subjects that hes not super familiar with
Schwarzwald This is true. Though I think he tried to encompass the world's theme in making popular virtuous heroes, I can honestly put my money that in all mediums there's examples of Humans being unable to actually deal with their strengths. There's Gods that actually have pretty relatable factors in them; whether it be their morals or how much they actually matter. Hell, Zeus of all gods is seen as incredibly petty and he can't deal with people saying "No" to him despite his all-encompassing power. You could, if you want, call him a manipulative man-child because he knows he has the power to do what he wants.
shygirl2927 Sort of? It was more like they were very human emotionally. Greek heroes and gods have weaknesses, Zeus being a great example. The guy was wise sometimes (and definitely very powerful), but also a huge womanizer. His wife, Hera, was goddess of familial relationships but, as a result, was jealous of the women Zeus slept around with and the children that occured from such events (which is why she eventually curses her stepson Heracles / Hercules with madness to kill his family). More on the topic of -gods- EDIT: heroes, though: Odysseus was very wise and cunning but a well known coward on the battlefield (exemplified by his use of the bow which was seen as a cowardly primary weapon among many Greeks of the time). It was only later in the Odyssey that Odysseus has to start being more brave than he would otherwise like. His partner on covert missions in the Trojan War, Diomedes, was incredibly honorable and pretty much the pinnacle of what a Greek aspired to be despite the fact that he was insanely ruthless on the battlefield and took no prisoners (even killing an unarmed elderly man and Trojan priests). He was, by no means, a hero in the modern sense. Achilles was a great and powerful warrior, but pretty much sulks in his tent most of the Trojan War after a scuffle he has with another Greek warrior over who would get a slave girl (all while lamenting the fact he's fated to die young in Troy if he stays to fight until his totally heterosexual life partner gets killed and he decides to get revenge by killing Hector). Mythical heroes were not as virtuous as one might think.
You know what I love about HxH? That it doesn't try to be that cliche shonen story where the protagonist saves the day and always solves his problems through friendship and belief. That it doesn't try to shank everything for the sake of making the protagonist succeed. Gon isn't an infallible hero who can do anything because the situation demands it. He's an actual kid who can get caught up in the moment, who can get frustrated and angry like any of us. I've never seen a shonen (in a believable and well paced way) actually be realistic and have a character built on optimism and hope fall to his anger and succumb to revenge. The chimera ant arc, imo, solidified HxH as my favorite show of all time. Aside from the great villain, amazing story (not centered on the 'protagonist of the show', mind you), and lovable characters, I was amazed at how well done Gon's descent into beasthood was, and how this affected those around him. I truly believe HxH is a masterpiece, and this is just one of the reasons why.
Ritz Tan chimera arc ruined HxH for me. It was too long and focused on so many characters that killed almost all tension near the end. And Gon's shift from smiling teenage boy to the raging monster was so sudden I just could not believe in this. If they would have spent more time with Kite on their adventures, then it would make sense. Even Naruto's attitude near the end of Pain arc was much more real even though he is more like a typical hero.
I believe Saitama is powerful but relatable in that he is dead inside. Imagine getting the job of your dreams but you are still unhappy. Literally see his backstory again. He did what? Go looking for a job. What did he end up doing? Pivoting into hero'ing. He's doing it for fun but he is still on the complacent side. He just wants excitement. And there's nothing to do that because he can't find that one opponent who is powerful enough. Those subterranean things in his dreams were the closest thing he had to happiness.
i think what eyepatch wolf is talking about is relatability in the powerfulness, as in: How similar are the average person powers compared to that heroes powers, anything else doesnt really matter, if they are relatable in any other way it doesnt really matter to the graph at least
Arent anti-heroes defined as characters motivated by selfish intentions? Or at the very least some other intention besides "wanting to do good bc it's the right thing to do?" I would say that "heroes" while not ALWAYS the epitome of just are at the very least motivated by the ideals of doing right and their feats match up w those ideals even if they make mistakes (example being Gwen Stacy's death in Spiderman wasnt Peter's fault even if it was the result of his flaws). sometimes the actions dont align with the belief but i believe the intent is more the point. Good examples of anti-heroes in my opinion is most seinen main characters like Musashi from vagabond or Revy from Black lagoon, Angelo from 91 days, and Guts.... I wouldnt put Guts in the "hero" category at all bc he's a character motivated by survival not "self-righteousness" he isnt the most empathetic character either... nor does he dwell too long on the deaths he causes (except MAYBE when he killed that child, it seemed that memory haunted him for a long time afterwards) Some non-anime characters i would include are: Walter White from Breaking bad (altho one could argue he was totally the villain by the end of it), Jaime Lannister (saves Westeros from the Mad King...but also pushes boy out window bc he loves Cersei...hm....), Deadpool, Black widow, Ada Wong, Jack Sparrow, John wick, Catwoman,.
@@dianashaw9298 i think it was mainstreamed back in late 60s to early 70s where Frank Bullitt, Popeye, Dirty Harry and Mad Max will do anything even murder to get the job done for the better good
Video says "What Makes a Hero Feel Real?" >Waiting for Spider-man to appear >Spiderman doesn't appear There's something insanily wrong with this video, in my humble opinion.
Peter Parker is easily one of the most relatable and complicated protagonists I've ever experienced. "The Evil That Men Do", "Kraven's Last Hunt," "The Death of the Stacys," "The Death of Jean DeWolff," "The Birth of Venom," "Marvel Knights," "Spider-man: Blue," and even his ORIGIN story are some of the best stories in comics because Peter is such a fascinating protagonist as just a regular guy (and he almost always has some sort of disadvantage going on against him).
Dude, i couldn't agree with you more. He is by far my favorite character of all fiction, you pointed some amazing Spidey stories man, i also love the ones like "Homecoming", "Setember 11", "Back in Black", "Happy birthday", "The Kid Who Collects spider-man", "Leah", "The Child Within", "Spiderman Civil War", "The Other" among so many other amazing stories that really made me understand and feel how spetacular Peter Parker is, also i do have to admit that a lot of these stories easily made me cry hahah
@Marcus Felipy - Great choices! I think the character's in a bit of a rough patch in comics, but he still has soo many great stories to go through. And yep! There are a lot of tear-inducing stories ("Leah" is so short, and yet so impactful).
Ella Kelso Guts the Black Swordsman is not a hero, he's just a man we overwhelmingly cheer on against unfairness and odds. Guts just chose love, compassion, diligence, and friendship, not "GOOD".
Extra History has surprisingly mature intellectual comments especially considering that whats being discussed in that channel are actual events about different peoples cultures and religions.
All Star Superman had one of the best portrayals of pure heroism in any medium. No cynical reimaginings of the boy from Kansas, no great tragedies that broke him, just a genuine, thought-provoking exploration of why Superman acts the way he does, why he continues to do good in a world of evil. It's also one of the few stories where the villain receives a legitimately devastating revelation from the heroes that breaks their ideals, turning them towards heroism.
Yea I would say Edward Elric is more of a protagonist than a hero, his only goal is to get his and Al's bodies back and they just happen to get caught up in events relating to their goals.
Yeah I'd say hohenheim and Roy Mustang are pretty much hero figures in the story but the Elric brothers can be seen as more relatable, most especially in brotherhood
I feel that 'all that keeps a hero from becoming a villain is one bad day' is a deeply cynical view of humanity as a whole. Not to say that all heroes should be incorruptible - but rather that that statement implies that all people are inherently monsters. Heroes should be corruptible, but the fall of a hero should take time. Otherwise that person wasn't really heroic, they were just having a power trip.
One bad day can have devastating effects on a person in the long run. One bad day might leave someone with a serious distrust of authority figures, which they would take as a motivation to settle problems themselves. Even if they think they are helping others, that single person can never grasp the consequences of their actions on a broad scale. One bad day can lead to a series of compromises to make sure that day never happens again, even if each compromise is worse than the last on a moral standpoint. And honestly, humans are monsters on a level, but that's what makes a true hero good. Even if their nature pushes them to monstrous actions, they still make an effort to avoid those actions, they do great things in SPITE of their monstrous nature. Read the webnovel "Worm", it breaks this concept down in a fantastic way. Every "parahuman" is defined by "one bad day" and their powers are built off of that bad day, but it's what they do in spite of that underlying trauma that makes them a great person.
Like, even in the source of that quote, Alan Moore disagreed with the fundamental idea. Batman: The Killing Joke has both Barbara and Jim Gordon go through a bad day and while they both experienced trauma, they didn't fall into immorality nor insanity. Not everyone "breaks" after a bad day, Batman even says as much as he takes the Joker down.
Even DC's injustice storyline has a difficult time suspending my disbelief. Superman and the heroes on his side suddenly antagonizes everyone that he once called friends and family and he is unnecessarily cruel, heroes like Flash are so passive in the story (mostly commentating instead of actually doing something about it), and Batman didn't try to appeal to Superman's loss being as someone who was affected by tragedy and try to keep him in the right (instead kept moping about Joker of all people). The story was so black and white with no moral gray area making it unbelievable from beginning to end. Superman is clearly pitch black evil, while Batman is ultimately good with a few rough spots, the way the story is framed. Even in the end of Injustice 2, despite the fact that Superman and Batman misses working together and being part of JL, they just went back after eachother without even a word before fist were thrown. Morality isn't an on off switch.
umm... Supermans flaw isn't cryptnite. At least not as a character flaw. That's his physical weakness. His character flaw is his stubborn belief that he knows what is right and what is wrong as well as his reluctance to let others deal with things he believes he can shield them from. It's those qualities that make him a typical 'paragon' style hero, but those same things make him human as well. And taken to their most extreme they result in the "Kingdom Come" storyline from 1996 and Injustice: Gods among us.
WAY better. I think in the first movie it showed it better too. It was more of a "Shit, gotta take out whoever is behind the door, quick!" But in the 99 version he rushed Adonis because he saw his face and THEN felt bad for it. Which seemed a little off.
ehhh, i honestly don't think being morally upright and conventional can't be relatable. what's so unrelatable about wanting to be a good person? I think it's something a lot of people strive for. suggesting that the graph is 'how people should be vs. how they really are" implies that people can't possibly be that good in real life, which is a cynical perception of reality in my opinion. Nobodies perfect obviously, but by extension anybody who ACTUALLY knows Superman or Goku knows that they aren't perfect people. what people percieve as their greatest strengths can also be hindrances. Superman may be closely tight to his conventional morals but by proxy that also makes him inept when it comes to making morally questionable but ultimately necessary decisions. in the good interpretations of the character he's a very simple and down to earth guy who enjoys simple things but knows he can't ignore his responsibility to the world given how much power he has to influence good in it. Goku is highly ambitious but also courteous when it comes to fighting, but that leaves him to empower his villains a great deal of the time at the risk of the entire world. people like this DO exist, but just because they don't struggle in being moral people doesn't mean they don't struggle at all.
Exactly superman has to hold back his powers, feeling, and he has alot of pressure due to him being the hope in the dc world so basically he cant Fuck up
I guess it’s kinda like being so virtuous in the terms he’s talking about is like they can’t be that perfect without having some problems or struggles with keeping the image. They’re usually unrelatable because they don’t show that struggle. I guess that’s what I gotX
That's why Tomasi and Gleason's superman is so good. Clark is put in a relatable situation, wich humanizes the character and allow him to show both his strenghts and weaknesses as an actual person, rather than a powerful hero. Hopefully stories like that will be shown off to mainstream audiences and make people realize how cool superman actually is.
akidearest this isn't good a video. You want to see what types of heroes there are then you should check out Just To Write video of what kind hero is Batman.
To me a hero is someone that, when against all, when the situation is desperate, rushes in the fight anyway. Being a hero when everyone is on your side is easy. Doing the right thing when you're alone and the world is against you, must be one of the hardest thing ever.
At this point in my life a sad/tragic backstory is basically played out to the point eye rolling boredom. A character that is a good person and want to do good things and doesn't have some kind of sob story is almost refreshing.
The best piece of advice I've received in "giving" your characters flaws is to take their strengths and twist them, to turn them up to 11. Ex: if your character never gives up, they're probably stubborn and that can be harmful.
Great video man. But the main difference between Dr. Manhattan and Superman is the way they view humanity. The problem with Superman is that he can't be everywhere at once, he can't save everyone. The greastest Superman stories are the ones that focus on his human side, his mental state and not his physical prowess. The kriptonite is just a clutch, because Superman is more than just beating people, it's stopping to help a suicidal teenager or a stranger or even a kitty, not just beating supervillains. I highly recommend Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman, definitely one of the greatest Superman stories ever told. Dr. Manhattan is just as you said, he doesn't care about humanity anymore, so it's indifferent do him. Keep up the great work :)
I feel I'm echoing the sentiment of a lot of other comments here, but yeah... this video probably didn't need to be made. I'd figured since quite a while ago that the "meme" of the modern hero was fully re-purposed to describe the highly amoral, gritty anti-heroes that became so inescapably popular in response to the stick-up-the-ass moral bastions that've been around since the dawn of time. I can barely remember the last time I saw a work of media actually play the heroic archetype _straight_ (With the possible exception of the Marvel movies you were drawing so much footage from. No price to high for mass appeal, I guess). Hell, I'd think that a rigidly moralistic hero might even be heralded as a breath of fresh air at this point. Just, er... yeah, this really wasn't a topic I expected to be covered in earnest by a hip-and -with-it channel such as yours.
That's part of the reason the My Hero Academia series does so well, it finally gets away from the gritty antihero dynamic that's been beaten to death as of late.
Daniel Hounshell it's still exploring that in a way. But the line is pretty clearly portrayed. Someone who questions everything, and endeavors to end lives and break the rules, even with high virtues in mind, is evil. Probably. Maybe we can learn from them, but they still need to be defeated. Heroes with ego, who are jerks or twisted, are still heroes, but flawed. Ideally, they should change. Their peers and mentors should help them change, when possible. But it's still good that they keep doing good work. :) ... We think. So far. It seems like a trope reconstruction kinda deal, right?
Welll it not that it got away from honestly " The gritty action is a Western trend . The Japanese have never been attracted to that , and usually the hero have never been pure hero the way superman was . Naruto definitely wasn't he was just a ninja in a war fighting for his comrades and village. There not Evil by any stretch of the imagination but there not super heroes . If Naruto was a super hero he would of tried to stop all conflict through justice and his power . The akatsuki where a threat because they kept attacking threatening the leaf village.
"Someone from whose perspective we view the story" "Driving Motivator of that story" "Is exceptional or is in pursuit of an exceptional goal" This does not sound like a hero it sounds like a protagonist. Heck the last 2 can also apply to antagonists. Heroes in my opinion are supposed to be what we all should strive to be, not in a power sense but in a moral sense. While yes they have similar problems to our own, it's their willingess to do good despite the evil around them that seperates them from ordinary people. Firefighters are heroes but outside of their jobs they are regular everyday people. Superman is a hero not because of his powers but his good moral compass. Christopher Reeves said it best that Superman is a friend you can always rely on. Maybe you can revisit it in today's climate since we need that type of hero right now.
@@personatr3s This exactly. His definition of a "hero" is very broad and can also apply to villain protagonists. Heroes should be someone admirable, someone to aspire to, regardless of whether or not they have flaws. Doctor Manhattan is a cool character, but in no world would I call him a hero.
those are nice traits for a hero to have sure but if they go in with out a plan and get wrecked/save no one, that's a better description of a fool. it takes more than bravery to be a hero.
I don't really get this video to be honest. While that's likely because you and I perceive the definition of a hero differently, some of what's said in here seem to be a little uninformed or with messages that seem to undermine heroism. For instance, if we take a look at your description of Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, you claim he's supposed to be a deconstruction of Superman, which in some ways are true I'll concede. However, it's important to distinguish the very important difference between the two that makes it a weak comparison. Dr. Manhattan was, by all accounts, a normal human before the incident that transformed him into who he is in the story. He functioned in a specific way his entire life, like that of a human. While he was a scientist, he was still limited to the same laws and lack of universal understanding as the rest of the world. His transformation then grants him a new self that perceives things in a way the rest of the world can't even fathom and that puts him on a plane above them where they are all ignorant to the things he comprehends. This difference is what makes him see the world in a way the regular person does not and is ultimately the reason for his choice to live in isolation. Superman, on the other hand, has not experienced this. He has super powers, yes, but grew up with them steadily manifesting and being honed until he finally became his heroic self. He grew up with a great family that helped him come to grips with being different and raised him to do good based on what they believed was right, which were generally the same morals the average person would have. There was no sudden alienation between him and the rest of the world since he was always different, a literal alien, but was grounded by the Kent family and was able to love and want to protect humanity. Therein lies the reason why the two characters cannot really be accurately compared to one another. Superman isn't meant to see the world as this thing beneath him that cannot comprehend the universe as he does - his powers allow him to do incredible things, not understand reality in ways others don't. His real flaw, which you instead said was the weakness of Kryptonite, is actually still the same as Dr. Manhattan's though - I was surprised to see you not address that at any point in the comparison. Superman is alien to Earth and because of that has his own feelings of separation. He does not fully understand who he is, where he came from and what that means for his role in the universe. His flaw is the isolation Dr. Manhattan has, but they are for opposite reasons - Clark's being ignorance and Dr. Manhattan's being overwhelming knowledge. Quite honestly, I can't see how Superman's struggle with identity is unsympathetic or unrelatable. That brings me to my next point, which is the graph itself. I understand that you made the point of it being subjective and I'm sure it's mostly just a representation rather than anything concrete but the actual axes are where I have issues. The horizontal axis runs from relatable to powerful, meaning that they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. A hero cannot be both is what that tells us. To properly analyze this point, I'll focus on Gut's placement on it. He is in the 4th quadrant, making him lie with the powerful side of the graph which would, by the data's own logic, makes him less relatable. Why is he less relatable than a character like Luffy or Punisher? I don't actually mean to debate those heroes' placements to him but demonstrate how this graph is unfairly representing the connection between the powerful and relatable. In your own video, "Why You Should Watch/ Read: Berserk", you made it a point to address that he is the badass power fantasy character - reflected on the graph - but also that he's "the shy, awkward giant scared to get close to people." You acknowledge that despite his strength, "there's always a human element to his character and actions". While yes, I think - and would hope - a lot of us can't fully comprehend Gut's pain, he's very sympathetic and the ideas of loss, abandonment and ultimately being the struggler that he is are traits we can relate to. Gut's backstory in a very compressed summation would be "life is hard" and that's not something that his being massively stronger than the audience can actually take away from him. I will agree that there is a trend of power making a character less relatable though. The "Jesus-kun" Level Infinity squared Deity that is Kirito from SAO is a good example of this. He's superior to most everyone in every game he plays, regardless of how long he's played it in comparison to others, and isn't very compelling in his own. But, if you think about it, is that really the result of him being stronger? If Kirito was a sympathetic, relatable character, would it be wrong for him to win and be stronger? I think if you look at the hero Naruto, we can get some better context for this. Naruto grows up feeling isolated from everyone else and is resented by almost all of his village for things out of his control. He starts out weak and through hard work and the occasional (at least until the war arc) power-up Deus Ex Machina he's able to reach the point of being powerful. However, I wouldn't think of him as less relatable simply because he's reached the end of his journey and now is accepted by people. If that was the case, and to make a relatable character you'd have to make them fail and never reach their end goal, would they even be heroes? Gon loses a lot of his fights throughout Hunter X Hunter but still manages to get to his overall goal of meeting his father, Ging. If he failed, what was heroic? Ultimately, I think this video's weakness was that it's conflicting with itself. It seems like you wanted to discuss the idea of a protagonist more than anything else, which is why we have characters like Brad and Dr. Manhattan referenced rather than just the morally good heroes. If we were to look at the three points you used to define a hero, Light Yagami is a hero. We view the story from his perspective, he is the driving motivator of the story, and he is exceptional for being incredibly smart and having the powerful item of a death note and also has the exceptional goal of ridding the world of his definition of villainy as well as becoming the god of the new world. However, I think most people wouldn't call him a hero. Those were just the points I wanted to get out after watching this video. I don't have an issue with your content or you as a person, and I hope it does not come off that way, I've actually enjoyed a lot of your videos. This one in particular though I really disagreed with and wanted to explain why, hopefully so that a positive discussion can come out of it. I'm only speaking from what I know and my interpretation of these characters, so I think it's only fair to acknowledge my points can also be refuted after all. Great work though, I look forward to more content from you.
The graph works like that though. If it didn't, then a character could be both amoral and virtuous at the same time since they also wouldn't have a link to them. Also, it's worth noting that if you scroll through the comments he has actually said there is a link: "Yes, if Deku becomes more powerful, he becomes less relatable, he may still be likable, but less relatable." I think it's fair to say then he is stating there's a connection between the two and that the more powerful a character is, the less relatable they are. I understand the graph is just a representation of that though and is meant to be subjective, so I tried to acknowledge that in my original comment. However, the axes are something I consider worth discussing since they are what defines the visual itself. Gon's placement is just an example that demonstrates his idea loosely and does its job at face value, so debating his morality isn't all that necessary since I don't think it's the specific location relative to their quadrant that matters but what the quadrant itself is saying about these characters. Thank you for taking the time to respond though, I appreciate your insight and it made me re-watch the video and re-read my original comment to assess the critiques.
I think the relatable/powerful scale means that most people don't count with much power in this world. They can't effect changes the way they might want to. In reality, it would take someone with a vast amount of technical expertise or capital to be able to alter things to their liking. The powerful heroes in the chart SEW drew are all characters whose actions have big consequences in the story, while those to the far left are less like that. I'd argue with Shinji however, but it isn't his real power, it was more of an external thing to him in his particular case. Perhaps you are a powerful individual in reality and so you relate more with the right side of the spectrum but that might not be the majority of viewers. You can relate with Guts for example on the human side of things, but I doubt you can relate with being a badass that enters a bar and rips a bunch of hooligans a new asshole each. I wouldn't mix those two things.
Ironic how you used clips from 'Batman v Superman' when that's the Superman who is the least archetypical power-fantasy boy scout depiction of Superman in live-action.
In literary terms, I don't think you're actually describing heroes, still, I think you're describing protagonists. The lofty goal part isn't really a definer of a hero, plenty of the most famous villains have plenty lofty goals and are "exceptional." I think what really defines a hero is the thing that makes the audience cheer for them and want them to succeed in that goal. In Lisa, Brad and Buddy wouldn't be heroes. Brad acts completely and utterly selfishly, so while we can relate to him as a person, we still can't find justification for his actions. He'd technically be called an anti-hero, I suppose, but Brad seems even beyond that. Rando (and to a lesser extent Terry) is a hero because he's exceptional, yes, but he's also altruistic. Even though he's the antagonist in Brad's story, we still see Rando as "the good guy." He's doing things to help people, to help Buddy and Brad, and to prevent as much harm to others as possible. (Spoilers for Lisa Joyful but) When Rando needs to decide between letting Buddy kill the pacifist overlord so that she'll have more power and be much more safe living in the wasteland and not letting Buddy kill him because Rando sees his death as unnecessary, that's a powerful moment. That's the kind of decision a hero makes, even when they're not the protagonist. We're all rooting for Rando to do what we think is the right thing because at that point we trust him and want his success at the end. Buddy and Brad, though, have an end goal and kill almost every living thing between their starting point and their end point. To a large extent, we don't want Brad and Buddy to win, because we see the harm they're doing. They might be protagonists, but you can also say they're both villains in their respective stories. Protagonists are who the story follows and antagonists are their opposing force, but a hero is who we want to win and a villain is who we want to lose. It isn't impossible to have an amoral hero or a virtuous villain, which is why we have the term antihero, but when the audience isn't on the protagonist's side, they usually aren't considered a hero. That's my literary opinion, at least.
Megal obsterFace I think Antihero was originally a term used to describe unconventional protagonists whether they were not as typically powerful or moral as traditional heros. I think using the term "anti-hero" as a way to describe flawed heroes who are still ultimately the good guys from the audience point of view was made popular around the 80's or 90's. I remember the term used to describe protagonists like Alex from A Clockwork Orange back when the novel came out in the 60's even tho there's nothing remotely "heroic" about him.
It's good that people bring this up instead of taking everything that Super Eyepatch Wolf says as gospel in case of actual terms (which has happened many times in his other videos).
Are villains really those whom we want to loose ? And are the hero is who we want to win ? IMO heroes are just that, heroes, anyone who protects something or someone is a hero, and a villain is anyone who wants to destroy something or someone.
Megal obsterFace I would like to expound on what you said a bit. I believe the hero in the eyes of the audience is the one they believe is good or right in their moral judgement. It's not just about who we want to win. If that were the case, I sort of wanted to see Joker from the Dark Knight or Stain from MHA win. The difference was my belief that the Heroes of those stories stood for more virtuous principles than the villains. Supereyepatchwolf mentions how mainstream the "superman" persona is in our culture, but to simplify that popularity down to a theory someone had in the late 20th century leaves millennia of storytelling out of the picture. That author was making an observation about heroes from across cultures and time, and in those stories you will find many characters similar to Superman. King Arthur and Hector of Troy. I believe the reason for this isn't because the audience wants to relate to the hero, but that they want the hero to save them, or become like the hero and save others. If I were to use a comicbook analogy, I would much rather have Captain America save me than The Punisher or Deadpool. Sure, I love the latter as protagonists in their own stories, but I don't view them as heroes unless they do heroic acts. Maybe that's what should be analyzed here. A hero is defined by a heroic act, so what do we consider heroic acts?
Whilst not necessarily consistent with his portayal in all media he's been a part of, Superman's flaw is supposed to be his 'virtuous' nature. His struggles originate from being the opposite of Dr. Manhatten, that he feels so connected to humanity that he *must* save it, and all of it. His weakness is putting absolutely everyone 'first', and the logical paradox that creates. It doesn't make him feel relatable or real, but that's what his weakness is.
There is a more precise name for those limitations instead of "flaws" and it's "handicaps". A handicap is a limitation that it's depicted as something good for the character.
I think saitam is actually really relatable like his whole thing is that after you become powerful and accomplish stuff what then life becomes boring like it’s the idea of boredom and almost inverts the trope
Good video overall, but I take huge issue with the "powerful/relatable" scale, acting as if the two are opposites or mutually exclusive. Saitama may be a god among men, but I find him more relatable than Genos because of his struggle to find meaning in his life when his talent is so vast. When I went through school, I found myself pretty bored because I could get A's without effort. Furthermore, Shinji is relatable on an emotional level, but he's also EXTREMELY powerful and therefore not relatable. I can't personally relate to having a personal giant robot mecha to fight Lovecraftian nightmare creatures from outer space. So while I agree with the overall sentiment that many heroes in media are too powerful and virtuous to be considered relatable and believable as people, I don't think the way you presented it makes much sense.
LaserFace23 When you talk about Shinji being powerful, do you mean the fact that his synch ratio with his Eva is far greater than any of the others? Because that's the only way I can really think of him as powerful - because half the time he has next to no control over what he does in the story, whether that's the fact that he can't physically control his Eva or simply doesn't want to but is guilted into it against his will. Power without the means to control it is effectively meaningless. And I suppose you could say his situation isn't exactly everyday in the sense that the apocalypse is looming, but in spite of that he leads a semblance of a normal life; he goes to school like any normal kid and does his best to fit in. That's pretty relatable in my opinion.
The synch ratio with his Eva was pretty much what I was talking about, yeah, but also just the fact that the situation he finds himself in isn't relatable, even if the way he reacts to it is relatable. I was just trying to say that relatability and power shouldn't be set up on a scale like they are here. The more I try and think about it, the less sense it makes, lol.
Really? I don't find Saitama relatable at all, and I doubt even the majority of people can relate to being "too good" at something that they end up being bored with it. Just because there are exceptions doesn't make it the general rule, most people can't relate to feeling "too powerful" when you really get down to it.
Um... Iron Man is fairly powerful, almost centered, but slightly immoral. Maybe more so immoral in the comics. Wouldn't quite put him shoulder-to-shoulder with Superman and Captain America.
M. Prime He gets extremely relatable in the third movie where he has serious mental issues. The third Ironman movie is the best superhero movie I have ever seen and it left me thinking about the heavy topics it addressed for quite a while.
I poured myself a glass of southern comfort and vanilla coke just for this. Highlight of my evening and something i'll probably discuss with my dad in the morning over coffee tomorrow.
Guts is the perfect example of that "one bad day" idea. He comes so close to giving in to his inner darkness and doing horrible things all the time, but has managed to tiptoe the line and still be called a hero from our perspective
What I get from this video is "Heroes need to be more human to feel real", either more human as in less effect on the world around them or more human as in making them more grey in areas such as morals. While I agree that there is an over saturation of "good+strong"-type heroes, I don't think that these are the only ways to make them feel real. In my opinion what would make a lot more heroes feel real is to have the world they are in react to them (and how they in turn react) be natural to how the world and hero are written in the story.
@@Gadget-Walkmenit’s all subjective but some by default have more relatable qualities For example I see Superman and Spider-Man as more relatable, Superman moreso than most. However a lot of that DOES depend on the run and execution Pretty much little difference between either franchise backstory/execution wise when depending on the run, they run circles around each other depending on context It’s not what you said but I feel the only guiding line is that Marvel generally takes place in the real world and is GENERALLY grounded and cynical Meanwhile DC has places like New York but also Gotham and metropolis
@@theradionicrevival8068 I find Spider-Man VASTLY more relatable than superman and I love them both but Spider-Man deals with real everyday problems that the average person goes through and showcases that getting superpowers doesn’t make your life easier, it makes it a lot harder. That’s one of the aspects makes him so relatable and compelling in his stories.
Okay, so I like your base concept for the video, but as for the graph I don't like the 'relatable/powerful' scale. I don't find that these two are actually opposites. Because if done right, no matter how powerful a character is, they can be done in a way that is interesting and showcases their flaws, thus making them feel like a real relatable person, despite the fact that they can destroy a planet or whatever. Yes their power scale is unrelatable, but that doesn't mean the character itself is. So I understand what you were going for, but mundane/powerful would have been a better juxtaposition.
Rick from Rick and Morty is insanely powerful in his own universe, but because he's such a flawed and human character he is someone the audience can relate to on some level. Sherlock homes, in his universe similarly wields great power but is often portrayed as highly unstable as well as brilliant, showing that humans are always a dichotomy, making him more understandable despite how far away his intellect seems in comparison to the reader/viewer/player. These are just a few off the top of my head, and by no means the best examples of this sort of character development, but it does exist. Basically you have to make the character human, flawed in a way that is understandable to the reader, so that their mindset isn't so alien to our own, despite their abilities being something we can't possible imagine having ourselves. Does that make sense?
Did you miss the parts where I said I enjoyed the ideas portrayed in the video, but had a small issue with the way he did his scaling of 'relatable/powerful'? As with Mr. Manhattan, flaws do make him more relatable but on his scale he's way off toward powerful, as if that precludes him intrinsically from being at all relatable. Look at his position on the image chart. See my issue with it? Now Mr. Manhattan is far from mundane. I agree with that 100%. But that doesn't mean he's necessarily unrelatable on any level.
Maybe off topic, but I'd hardly call Hal Jordon as fucking virtuous. He'd hot headed, arrogant, and prideful. He does his best to do what's right, but his lack of fear get in the way of logical thinking at times. His selfishness regarding Earth got his entire Corp killed, and though he's gone through several arcs to counter that, he still thinks only of himself at times. Also, Superman's main flaw is that he's too trusting of people and cares about his family too much. He adopts this midwestern farm-boy mentality that everyone should be trusted unless proven otherwise, and when they have proven otherwise, that trust can never be rebuilt. This was seen when Lex Luthor had to spend an entire comic convincing Superman that he's turned over a new leaf, and even when they were on the run from hunters, they still got into a fist fight because Superman didn't even trust him to give directions (they were on a Red Sun planet at the time, and Luthor was wearing a Super suit). Another time, Batman's kid Damian, kidnapped Superman's son (Jon) to experiment on him. Batman of course figured out and told him to release him, but Superman came in and nearly killed Batman and Damian, even though Batman was trying to explain what was happening. Had a mutual friend of Jon and Damian not been there, they probably would have either killed each other, or damaged the area. So they are flawed characters and can be relatable under a good writer (examples being Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, JMS, Max Landis, Peter J Tomasi, etc.). I agree with a good chunk of your video, but in terms of comics, I don't really agree with you at all.
So basically Superman's flaw is that he can really hold a grudge... fair point, and not always used when it should be, as many authors don't utilize it.
MDoorpsy I don't think "holds grudges" is a great way to describe it. Rather, he just is bad at trust. Gives it too easily at first, and reconstructs it too poorly after. Doesn't seem great at evaluating different people's perspective, experiences, motives, incentives, psychology. How would you summarize that? "Naive farm boy" seems about right.
he doenst know much (at all) about comics, his thing is anime, i didnt even bother getting mad or even upset about this video, it had amazing points, but some flaws that ..... made me thing otherwise
Why are being relatable and being powerful polar opposites? That doesn't make much sense. Guts for example is powerful sure, but he seeks for a place in the cruel world he's in. That's something relatable because his goal feels very personal and is easily transferable into the real world, while goals like "being the best/strongest etc" feel more distant in comparison. Also since when is Gon morally right? He's one of the most ill minded shonen protagonists I've ever seen. (which makes him particularly interesting) And no, I'm not solely talking about the Chimera Ant Arc, his apathy for human life and his dangerous naivety are something that is hinted throughout the entire anime. Don't fall for his childish facade, question his actions.
Clayer Yeah. Gon's a scary kid when you really look at him. How can a kid that has spent his entire life on an island where the most interesting thing to happen is him catching a giant fish, is so chill when he sees so many people die in front of him? Scary kid.
Clayer not disagreeing w/ your overall point but Gon childishness isn't a facade, that is actually who and what his personality is, and That is why his moral is the way it is because of his childishness. It's that simple and that obvious. Its not a facade.
I would replace "childish facade" with "innocent facade" since his lack of innocence comes from being too childish to process moral situations right, or so is the way I understand Gon. Nice Lain pic.
Perfect example, actually. He has a strong sense of morality but at the same time, he is jaded and doesn't open up to people. Except for a few close friends. (Otacon, Meryl, Campbell,etc.)
Just so my stance is clear. I want my heroes to be paragons. When they stand up there and say they represent "truth and justice" people don't laugh or gawk and the absurdity of that claim, but cheer and chant or quake with fear. Give me a hero that will stand battered beaten and alone to face down the armies of hell because it is easier for them to die than to stand aside and let injustice go unchallenged. I feel you conflate "hero" and "protagonist". Heroes by definition are virtuous and not amoral, let alone immoral, unless you actually want to bring back the old school myths from Greece and heroes are just famous people. Anti-heroes, anti-villains, and villainous protagonists exist as terms for you to use to describe a protagonist that doesn't fall into the hero category. If we do take your definition at face value, then the antagonists would have to be on the chart and they are more plentiful and varied. You're also ignoring the vast majority of heroes, which I feel fall between Luffy and Arnold on your list. Keep in mind, in today's world Harley Quinn is considered a pillar of DC because of her popularity, and she is far from heroic. Superman has a couple flaws, most notably he is unwilling to "solve" problems like Lex, instead wanting humanity to grow and self-correct in some way as well as holding himself to insane standards. Something important about Superman's no kill rule: he is willing to kill but feels it should only be done in extreme circumstances and never glorified. "Superman: What's so Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way?" (comic) or Superman vs The Elite (animated movie, same story) is a good deconstruction and reconstruction of the paragon
Totally agree. I'm aghast, and ultimately dismayed that so many people turn away from true Heroism in storytelling, simply to feel dynamic and "unique" for finding a story where everyone is a tool to each other.
I'm glad to know I'm not alone in feeling this way. I used to listen to radio dramas from the 30's-50's and the sincerity in them absolutely blew me away.
Well said dude. while I do enjoy a good Antihero every now and then my heart will always be with heroes. I loves myths and I love superheroes. There's a reason charters like superman have stood the test of time while the same cannot be said for many antiheroes.
I feel like you miss understand superman.Sure superman is weak to a rock but he also has another one that is far more important to his character.And that is his overconfidence.There has been times where he would go on his own against the Justice leagues advice cause he believes he can do it on his own and does not want to have his team be in danger if he can help it.This causes trouble when it turns out he can't do it on his own and makes the situation worse or damages his relationship to the team. I feel like people do t give superman enough credit for being a good character.
Jace Beleren along with his overconfidence, it's his inherent need to sacrifice himself before anyone else. This leads to the justice league thinking he doesn't trust them at times when he really just doesn't want anyone getting hurt.
I feel like you're opening statement about heroes being generally uninteresting is kind of reductive? Like a hero doesn't need to be the anti-hero like figure you describe to work, Batman's actions are almost always strictly heroic, but in his best stories his flawed motivations, and extreme beliefs really come through to carry the story.
I think a lot people fundamentally misunderstand heroes. I think it's today's culture that's to blame. Villains are the predictable ones to me because they will always be losers. Not losers to the heroes but to themselves. They have a tragic backstory and they lost to it. They lose to their base desires, their selfish impulses, to their addictions. Heroes usually have a tragic past too you know - Luke is an orphan who then loses that family too, Neo finds out his world is fake, Superman's planet blew up and he couldn't save his role model - but heroes overcome those tragedies and "win". And after they win they still have to fight themselves every day. The Golden Rule, do unto others like you would to yourselves, is freaking hard guys. To me villains are still children that cry, hit and thrash their arms when they don't get their way - only their crying is done with guns, bombs and Death Stars.
I disagree. Firstly, I don't know what you're trying to get at. By your argument if villains "won" the tragic past led them to be villains, then well, you just won't have an antagonist at all. And if they don't have any of that tragic past at all, then they'd be one dimensional cardboard mustache twirling villains. Those also made for a ton of weak anime and comic book villains who ultimately ended up being highly forgettable. It's a no-win situation, unless you're saying that modern stories should not have an antagonist at all. Tragic past aren't a test of the villains' character, it's a device to flesh them out, to give them more "contents" to their character. A villain setting out on a path of revenge is better than a villain who simply woke up one day and thought "huh, maybe I want to be evil". I think you ultimately is basing your logic in the "stronger = better character" argument, which is ultimately wrong and misguided. Even without the planet busting powers, having a character with unyielding mentality doesn't make for a good character. If you want a character who can retain their mental state regardless of the situation, then you'd just have a robot.
toriloveSubarukun I get what you mean so many stories require the villains to be 'broken' it's why I'm so drawn to stories with the villain as the main character like death note and where the villains are just doing what they think is right like so many character in the asoif books display.
the villains are not necessarily broken, but their moral code has to be flawed. A tragic past is indeed often a good way to explain why their worldview is abnormal. A tragic past is also a good way to make us empathise with that worldview, it goes beyond just having it make logical sense. In a sense, Kira from death note is broken as well: he's a sociopath that hasn't been diagnosed, he's closed off and isolated which leads him down a terrible path. If he had seeked help around him he could have been a way better adjusted individual. It's just that how those might be tragic on a personal level are not a focus of the series.
Reito Shizaki hmm I may be wrong but I think you misunderstood his points. He wasn't critizicing villains, but expressing why he believes heroes are actually better and more interesting characters than what people think of them. He didn't say that villains shouldn't have said backstories, but that often in their past, both heroes and villains had to come accross the same decisions, and the villains often let the terrible things going on overcome them, whereas heroes are heroes simply because they chose differently. eg. Luke, who overcomes his fear to lose his beloved ones, unlike his father Anakin, who chooses evil because of that fear. Of course this doesn't apply to every villain and it can be much more complex than that.
For me, what makes a hero a great one isn't exactly his morality or his power but is a much simpler aspect about both concepts: The struggle. A hero becomes real when his struggles feel real because he stops being the character of a book and start becoming a more or less abstract representation of your own struggles are. For example: Shinji isn't relatable because he is not good enough to kill the angels on his own, but because his depression is crippling him to the point where he can do what he should be doing and that's how we relate to him. Saitama's struggle is that he tries to become what is more important to him (a hero) yet his struggle is that he doesn't know what exactly makes you a hero so he focus on searching a challenge that never appears. An inmoral character with no power doesn't neccesarily have to be a relatable hero at all if his character struggle feel out of place. For example: Sasuke at the begining feels real because although he is relatively overpowered in comparison with most of the characters the struggle of being truthful to your long term objective (which has to feel well motivated too) or leave it for a new way of life that may makes you happy feels real, but it stopped feeling real when the characters started to feel lie he was looking for excuses to continue struggling (even when in a sense, he was less moral and less powerful than his counter part, Naruto).
"Oh a Super Eyepatch Wolf video. What a lovely thing to wake up to." Is what he would have said if he hadn't spent the entire night screwing around on twitter.
As a cartoonist, and comics creator, I really like your insights into heroes and villains. It makes me think of my work now, and in the future. Nice video. THX
Also Superman has flaws. His main flaw is a question of how much he should do. He doesn't want to be seen as a God, but he also wants to help everyone. He struggles with that edge. ...... Plenty of heroes with storng morals have flaws beyond a simple Kryptonite. Percy Jackson has a fatal flaw of being unable to let people die, even if it might save everyone else. It has caused problems for him in his quests many times, and the Gods had reasons to fear it would destroy the world. Classical greek heroes had flaws. Hercules was wrathful, many had great Hubris. Not your best work I must be frank.
"I never found heroes particularly interesting" first sentence in and im already not a fan of this. I dont think just cause a hero is powerful and aspirational they cant be relatable or real. I've seen instances where they can be both. Plus, sometimes we need something that can be aspirational to be more of an ideal to strive towards. We all know we cant be superman but what he represents we can try and reach on a realistic level
Sorry, but a hero for others is just someone aspirational and powerful. There are a lot of heroes Mary sue so is natural for many to not be fan of them. Thought is true they can be relatable or real depending of the character.
If people dont like heroes because they're like mary sues then those people haven't seen a lot of heroes or followed their stories. I'm saying that just because a character is aspirational and powerful doesn't mean they cant be real or relatable. Characters like that show us what we can aspire to be in our reality
@@againstitall8964 i agree with you. however i think eyepatch was just stating is general preference. Like me personally, i've always enjoyed a well-written anti-hero as opposed to a hero. Doesnt mean i dont love characters like Deku or that I can relate to characters like Revy (black lagoon) but in terms of interest ive always liked anti-heroes more.
@@MrEvldreamr that's fine. I enjoy anti heroes too. I just believe that aspirational heroes are underrated. Anti heroes are usually ones who either don't think about doing the right thing until something bad happens to them or they do and when the bad thing happens they become more cynical and darker in some way than they used to be. Aspirational heroes are the ones like deku, superman, and captain America where they want to do the right thing before and after whatever sets them on their journey and try to live up to those ideals against the odds. I believe that it's like those three are at least the ideals they stand for that inspire those like anti heroes who try to do the right thing. Heroes who want to do the right thing because it's the right thing can still be interesting and relatable. If all there was were anti heroes, it would give the idea that you can only be truly a hero or good when something terrible happens to you. That you have be tormented or suffer to be good. That's not a bad thing as it can teach people that no matter how bad things get you can rise above it. But aspirational heroes can teach us that we all inherently possess the ability to be truly good and that you don't have to dark to be a hero. Both teach different lessons and inspire in different ways. But are good and important. I just feel like one is favored over the other because it doesn't seem realistic, relatable and interesting when it's proven that it can be if given the right writer. It's a lot harder to find these days because the world seems more cynical as of let but I'd argue that's why we need aspirational heroes and as much as we need anti heroes. To show us sometimes that the inherent desire to do good still exist and we don't need things to get worse before they can get better. That's just what I think of it
@@againstitall8964 Fantastic response. I get what youre saying. But I think for most people they have a "general" character disposition they prefer. I'm just thinking eyepatch wolf prefers his villains. I personally prefer heroes over villains but anti heroes over altruistic heroes.
I wouldn't be so quick to consider classical heroes as all virtuous and powerful. There are plenty of them who aren't that. Odysseus was a dishonest trickster. Theseus abandoned Ariadne after she saved him. Even Herakles murdered his children in a bout of madness.
Greek heroes definitely fall into the anti hero category generally. There used to be a term called the classical hero" that basucally defined a specific type of anti hero, but it's fallen out of favor.
Wolf, I think you've finally stumbled on this one - this entire analysis reads as an overly simplistic way of looking at characterization by looking at it through the lens of overly-specific and arbitrary parameters. For example: the MC of Persona 5. His character isn't ultra-distinct, but it's there, and (Depending on how you play him) he is easily the most virtuous character in the setting, and is absolutely the ultimate force of power in the game. Yet he reads nothing like Superman, despite potentially coming near to maximum on both these scales. He's a trickster, he's cocky, he easily relates to his friends and isn't above poking fun at them, and he's so very clearly doing what he loves because he loves doing it. Others might say "well, if you play him differently, than he hardly needs to be as virtuous as Superman," and I agree! But that only furthers the point I'm trying to make: Akira's specific player can land him just about anywhere on the Virtuous-Amoral scale, depending on how he's played, but his core character traits and personality - what makes him interesting - do not significantly change as a result. They may change slightly as a result of what dialogue options or choices the player makes, but again, that only furthers my point that what makes a protagonist interesting is entirely independent of how good-guy they are or how powerful they are. In addition, putting "relatable" opposite from "powerful" feels weird and wrong. Those two things have nothing to do with one another. Saitama is WAY more of a relatable guy than Shinji "I masturbate over my friend's comatose body" Ikari, despite being at the exact end of the opposite scale from Saitama in terms of his potential to affect the story around him. Not only are these descriptions arbitrary in their form, they are incorrect in their function, and thusly are poor parameters for reading the ability of a character to be interesting. What makes a character - and therefore a hero - interesting is the same thing that makes a villain interesting: a personality. Little details. Aspects of themselves that make the audience want to know more. I other words, good writing. Also, as a personal pet-peeve note, Superman's flaw is that he cannot kill, and that he ascribes to ideals that, certainly, the rest of us should reach, but we cannot yet. He is inherently the idealistic dream of a farmer from Kansas with a good heart, and so inherently does not quite fit the world around him and its necessities. It does not mean that he cannot affect any sort of real change beyond punching out supervillains, only that he will face the same obstacles in trying to affect change as anyone attempting to live up an ideal: other people and their philosophies. Just because modern comic-writing and script-writing chooses to ignore this flaw does not mean that this flaw does not exist. Justice League and its continution, Justice League Unlimited, began to delve a little into this, but weren't able to truly follow through, for an example. Your final thoughts - perhaps the last minute, minute and a half of the non-outro video - rings very true. Heroes need flaws, they need to be personable and "human", for lack of a better term. But that feels very disconnected in ideals from everything that's come before, very unrelated to the chart or the pontifications on the nature of Superman and Dr. Manhattan. IF you'd made the video based on that, I could wholeheartedly agree, but as is ... ... this feels unfortuantely lacking, compared to your usual work. I'm sorry to say.
Spider-Man is a pretty good hero. He's powerful, but not a demigod. He's relatable and also virtuous. Taking into account his huge comic history where exactly would he place on that graph?
I'll been a fan of your channel for a really long time, but I gotta admit. This is one of your weakest videos so far imo, others have mentioned your dismissal of Superman as a character, the inaccurate statements of classic mythical heroes being portrayed as virtuous, etc. But what really rubs me the wrong way is the logic of your graph and how dismissive it is. By this graph's logic, Saitama and Kirito both have the same amount of relatability. When that couldn't be further from the truth, Saitama is someone who is constantly criticized by society as a fraud and is constantly put down by other heroes and even those he rescues. Being Isolated even more by his strength, which has left him worried that he'll never find anyone with a level of power that could even rival or surpass his. Every time he thinks he's found someone close or higher than his level (Boros, Garou), it ends up being shattered because of his unrivaled strength and his hopes are crushed. Kirito, on the other hand, is capable of dual wielding, which is a skill no one else can do, has a constant group of women that fall in love with him easily, and has is very much beloved by any one who isn't a villain. What's even worst is that in the "Why you should watch One Punch Man" video. Eyepatch Wolf talks about the differences that separate Kirito and Saitama, to make Saitama a much more likable and relatable character. Yet here those differences are completely ignored for the sake of shoving certain characters in the same section of a graph without any thought what so ever. It also ignores that fact that characters in the graph don't stay same and can move places throughout the story depending on their actions. (Gon, Luffy etc.)
Again. Your thinking that Wolf is referring to one character of superman. Superman has MULTIPLE variations some written better than others. In reality, Wolf is talking about the GENERAL concept of Superman, or better yet the Mainstream version of Superman. If you ask a kid about superman your gonna get a dumb down version of what Wolf said. As for Saitama I think he did mess up his own concept kind of... not fully though. In this graph power = how you effect your world. (House vs Goku analogy). That being said, I believe Saitama doesn't have much power over his world but at the same time he can literally has saved the world multiple times against villains who could destroy it with ease. WITH One Punch. The characters around him might not acknowledge it but Samaritan DOES have effect on his world. As for the mythical heroes same thing with superman thing. When I think Odysseys I think warrior of great power and symbol of will. etc. etc.
I just personally want to thank you for all of your videos. I have always been an amateur writer and received my degree in Film Theory and production, so your academic approach to your videos lends a weight to them that other opinion-based videos do not have. I've made a few short films but have recently decided to concentrate on my writing by going back to my first love, that of comics. Your video essays have helped me create better stories, and better characters, and for that, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge your humanity by admitting that you are not always right (who is?) and, like some of the commentators, I tend to disagree with you on certain points. However, I believe you deal with these disagreements in the spirit of philosophical debate (philosophy was my personal favourite course at University), using counter arguments to strengthen and improve your own, or accepting that some of your arguments are flawed and need to be revisited, revised, or disregarded completely. I've never seen you insult someone who has disagreed with you and it seems that you are always willing to constructively debate those with criticisms. This being the internet, and humans being humans, there will always be those who resort to trolling or non-constructive criticism. Like an ideal hero, humans are flawed and we can only try our best to understand them without judging them too harshly. Despite this, you have consistently responded to such criticism in a funny and civilised manner, and for that I commend you. I apologise for the long comment but I just wanted to thank you personally and I hope you continue to do what you do, in the spirit you do it with. Not every hero wears a cape, some make really cool youtube videos. Excelsior/Plus Ultra
Yeah, I can't say I agree with the judgement on Saitama. Saitama is the most powerful guy right, but I think he is extremely relatable. His entire character seems to be a think tank on what someone with no match do with his life? Also, I disagree about the virtuous/amoral scale. I think that doing bad things for a good reason does not make one a hero in literature. If this were the case, Thanos would most definitely be a hero. I think it would be good to research what makes a good villain as I think with that you will see a lot of overlap of your assessment here. Edit: I see now that you did make a video covering villains and I see your comment so disregard that last bit
i think the point of the relatable/powerful scale was to convey that their power/influence over the world is on a more relatable scale to the average viewer (unless you have that type of power, but thats not the point) he also further elaborated on his point rignt after so unless you didnt see that i think all the comments about it are a bit unecessary
Saitama is relatable because while yes, his is overpowered, he also suffers from depression and boredom. He got to the top of the mountain and no one was there but him.
Very shallow way of looking at heroes in general. Powerful and relatable is a false dichotomy, sim0py because a character can be both powerful and powerless in the same story, even at the same time. Multiple things can constitute power in a story, and power is usually in flux. It isn't weakness that makes a character relatable, it isn't even flaws either - it's obstacles to their goal, their struggles, and how or whether they overcome them. A person isn't less relatable because they are powerful - you even say this during your "What makes a villain feel real" video - it is just that powerful people don't often have that many obstacles. Characters like Deku - and Naruto for that matter (don't know why you put him so much to the right when he started out even more powerless than Deku did), feel real because they had gone through a lot of hardship prior to the story's start - in Deku's case not having a quirk despite his dream and in Naruto's case growing up alone. This hardhsip (and other hardships they face later down the line) obstruct them from achieving their goals is something everyone can relate to. Lastly (and more pettily on my part), you grouped Naruto with Goku and Natsu? Seriously? Now I've finished or am up to date with most of the popular shounens and feel the need to point out that Naruto is far more of a 3 dimensional and relatable character than those two are, because unlike them, every aspect of his character has a believable and explained origin - he doesn't like to eat a lot simply because he's a shounen protagonist; as a poor, downtrodden toddler, Teuchi Ichiraku was the only person that would give him a hot meal free of charge - a bowl of ramen - and this became his favorite food as a result. He treasures his friends to an absurd degree, not simply because he's a shounen protagonist but because he grew up without any friends or family. He is quicker than most to forgive his enemies, not cuz he's the protagonist but because either he is empathetic towards their own hardships and struggles, or because - and this is a major plot point - he sees what revenge does to various people in his life and makes a concious effort to not to indulge in it, not just due to his own moral compass but because it was his sensei and father figure's dying wish. He's mischevous because it's the only way people would acknowledge his existence as a kid. He actually legitimately hated the people around him due to his treatment for most of his life but hid it from them. He later has a strained and heavy relationahip with his family because he puts his duty to the village above his responaibilities as a father and he is deeply conflicted about this. He stated many times hos he would have ended up like Sasuke or Gaara if one thing in his life had gone differently. He resented his friends a little because they had parents and he didn't. And you lump him in with Goku and _Natsu?_ Get the fuck out of here.
@@C4shaRaM4 Goku doesnt care for everyone, pretty sure Toriyama said this at one point, that Goku is not a hero. He doesnt fight to save everyone, but rather he fights because he likes to fight. Yeah sure he gets angry when his friends are hurt in front of him, but that doesnt mean he cares about them. It just means he lost his sparring partner. Goku only cares about the Earth because of the food and the abundance of people he can train with there. And with Earth has no one to train with, he leaves. He abandons his connection with his family and his friends so he can go get stronger elsewhere. He is a typical saiyan that trives on conflict, and even Vegeta, who wanted to destroy all life, cares more about his family than Goku. The only thing wrong with Vegeta is that he trains to become stronger than Goku, its not fair how someone with no morals is stronger than him
@@limitless_j English Dub Goku is a virtuous person who cares about protecting the weak and those he loves. Japanese dub Goku is a sociopath who cares only for his own wants and desires and whose biggest desire is his instinctual need to fight stronger opponents.
Goku can ride the nimbus because he is pure of heart. I agree generally that he causes a lot of the problems in DBZ by not optimizing his actions to kill his enemies and protect his friends. But to me, that seemed like a character who is too generous even to his enemies. He gives Frieza a bunch of chances to live for example, and only intends to kill Frieza once during their entire fight on Namek. In my view, he would do a better job protecting earth and his friends by being more brutal, but that's not DBZ's take on what it is to be good. He's like Superman in that way, his biggest flaw is he's not brutal enough for the world he lives in.
Counter point: We have too many "real" heroes. Too many times do we see writers try to turn the paragons of yesteryear into "deep" and "complex" characters. Too much focus on the "man behind the mask" and not enough on why they even WEAR the mask. Too much focus on how easy it is for them to fall, and not why they rose to the occasion in the first place. Superman today is a product of Alan Moore's influence on comics, and because of that has become a joke. Today, these days, we don't need "real" superman, we need classic Superman. We need a person of virtue and ideals, we need a symbol of hope because god damn are we in a mess right now. There is a place for deconstruction, but super heroes are symbols, they are more than the person behind the mask they are more than the petty arguments between them. I've seen too many punishers and not enough All-Mights in my media.
Alan Moore himself said that he even regrets writing Watchmen because people completely missed the point. He wasn't trying to make superheroes "realistic" unlike the numerous edgeload hacks that came after him.
Transient Tiefling you're points don't make any sense most people want a relatible hero or someone who they feel like connect. And relatible hero can still inspire and give people hope besides most people don't like a boring symbol of peace who is nothing but an unreachable ideal
Your graph/plot/what-have-you with heroes faces has many characters one would *not* label a hero in a traditional narratological class or sense - Saitama included, and its a joke series. So I don't know if this video is really satisfying, as it drifts and moves, but never really settles.
You should really read Alan Moore's "For the Man Who has Everything". It's a really amazing story that helped to turn Superman into one of my favorite super heroes.
searchoverload8 Not so much. He's supposed to take that trope to its logical conclusion and make a hilarious shounen comedy rather than a straight shounen. A good show, just not a subversive one. Just a note- to be quite honest with you, Saitama is very relatable. Not in the sense that I beat up monsters or supervillains in a single punch, but in his search for something greater than everyday life, his appreciation of a good bowl of soup with a friend, and the annoyance of trying to kill a mosquito that just won't stinkin' die.
No. Actually, the writer wanted to make a superhero story, but he didn't know how to do an underdog story and to solve this problem he created Saitama, but he knew the main character needed problems for them to solve, and he knows how to solve common problems. So the creator, ONE, made a Slice of Life with an eye candy plot, the slice of life has the strongest character as the protagonist. And that my friends, is how you do marketing. ONE created a slice of life and people still believe it is a hero story when it isn't.
Alongside all the other comments, I thing I think you must've missed about heroes being all good and all is the REASON that people want and create good heroes. If we only create "real" heroes, it'll only be a reflection of the sins and corruption and everything wrong with the world. Making a hero more relatable by making them more "human", is fine, but we want to remember that they are the HERO, not an Anti-hero, villain or any other form of main character.
>Shinji Ikari is at zero power Shinji effects Misato, Asuka, Rei, Toji, and that's almost everybody he comes into contact with. Unit 01 being available or not makes a strong difference, and at the beginning the dummy plug doesn't seem functional, later Unit 01 outright rejects anyone who isn't Shinji, Shinji kills multiple heralds of the world's end, including the last angel. Shinji has the power to chose whether or not to get into the damn robot.
I feel like there should be a 3rd slider bar for "Proactiveness," I find a lot of people like villains because they are often the ones who do things in the story, where the hero just becomes a reactive force against the villain's schemes rather than someone attempting do achieve their own goals.
Basically the hero in One Piece wants to achieve his own goals. The main villain is not even in his thoughts because he (most probably) doesn't know him/her/them.
Your definition of a 'Hero' is pretty much just 'The Main Character'.... that's why I couldn't get on board with this video, from the start of this video I think you have blurred the line between a protagonist and an actual 'Hero' like All-Might or Goku.
@@rasmusmalmberg6468 saying that "protagonist = hero" doesn't really work when villain protagonists are common enough to have their own term. there's little subjective about it
This video makes it very clear Eyepatch has a big bias towards traditional western heroes. I feel like he didn't properly research or read any comics before making this. For example, characters like Superman and Cap have gone through so many different changes the last decade, but he's so quick to dismiss them and gather them all into one little corner. And I find it weird that whenever he mentions Superman being perfect, it always goes to footage of the SNYDER MAN OF STEEL SUPERMAN, which is one of the most NON-TRADITIONAL DIVISIVE Superman we've gotten. This Superman constantly gets flack for shit he wasn't directly responsible for(bringing Zod to earth), he runs off on the people of earth because he feels he can't live up to the image that people want him to aspire to, and he even had to break a traditional Superman no-kill rule at one point and suffer because of it. And even traditional comic Supes is much more complex that he makes him out to be. He's a hard character to get right but when given to the RIGHT writer(ie Grant Morrison), you see so much more than just the caped invincible buff guy who saves kittens from trees. And so what if a hero doesn't have as many flaws or is as morally grey as someone like Guts? Protagonists should be varied and diverse. Not every protagonist needs to be brooding or kill liberally. I LOVE Guts, Wolverine, Batman, Deadpool, Punisher, but I don't think I would read comics or manga as much if EVERY protagonist was like that. With so many popular anti-heroes, its refreshing to get characters like Superman and Cap in my reading material.
Paul C agree , also relatability is a thing that people dont understand very well, there are plenty of characters who dont show their internal struggle and people love them, james bond and some spy action movies come to mind, you can have an unrelatable hero and be accepted by people, people fall into the relatability/realistic trap nowadays far too easily.
Western heroes were propaganda pieces for self insert of USA in the second world war, now they are just pop culture trash pieces for money making capitalism.
What Makes a Hero Feel Real? and what make someone a hero? They are both 100% subjective! Also there is a huge difference between a hero and a main character.
100% subjective would imply that there is literally nothing that could be talked about. A meaningless speck of dust could then be described as a hero, just as much as, say, Superman could be. This is obviously not the case. Subjectivity is always present, but never completely 100%. At the very least, your last sentence contradicts your first statement to begin with. The claim "there is a huge difference between a hero and a main character" would imply that there is at the very least a distinction between the two that can be objectively verified, implying that it isn't, in fact 100% subjective. On a different note, I do indeed think that this video described what it is to be the main character, at the beginning. It's not a fundamental criticism however, as this video is more about creating the feeling of "realness", and not so much about the semantics of heroism.
@@RedFloyd469 Well it is 100% subjective since people call any main character hero. Be the main character doesn't make the character the hero since there are anime, cartoon or video games where the main character is the villain or the anti-hero, and that just fact.
Superman does have a flaw, he holds himself to such a high standard, that no one can live up to it (not even himself) and blames himself for things that aren't really his fault. Everytime he fails to save some one, or makes a mistake, he feels that he has failed to live up to what Superman is meant to be. I don't feel that said flaw necessarily makes him relatable, but it's still a flaw.
I've seen enough fair criticism in the comments to know that I've made a lot of mistakes on this one.
Generally when I do a video I divide them up into either 10 to 15 minute videos, or 20 to 25 minute videos, giving around 7 days for the former and 10 days to the latter (the sad reality of youtube that you need to work to a schedule like this in order to make a living off it), and I think my big mistake here was taking a topic that was WAY too broad and trying to cover it in a shorter video, which I really regret, it led to me making a lot of ill thought out blanket statements and not backing them up properly and there's holes in my logic that people have pointed out.
So yeah, I hear the criticism, I think its fair, I'm going to keep it in mind for future videos. Thanks everyone for continuing to support the channel, and thank you for the feed back.
Super Eyepatch Wolf This right here is what makes a hero feel real. Self-reflection is so important so I'm glad you took your lumps and are gonna keep going forward. You're my favorite UA-camr.
Super Eyepatch Wolf Thanks for the update, I'm happy to here that the criticism people like myself made ended up being constructive and the points came across as intended. Good luck with future content.
Super Eyepatch Wolf good lord. Humility and a desire to keep growing as a creator? You're not the hero UA-cam deserves but you're definitely the one it needs.
What makes hentai feel like real porn is a question I genuinely want to see you make a video on. Just saying it because someone commented it maybe as a joke but I can really see your style of video essays making a point on what sounds like a fascinating topic.
Super Eyepatch Wolf A UA-camr admitting his flaws and wants to improve rather than being salty and ignoring the "haters" WHAT IS THIS? I think its called honesty now thats something I havent seen in awhile
5:03 I love how Batman is EXACTLY in the middle lol
I didn't notice that until now.
Exactly where a sociopath like Bruce Wayne would want to be.
killerra I wouldn’t call him a sociopath, but he definitely has some serious mental issues.
The thinker He also has extreme paranoia.
The thinker he has a contingency plan for how to defeat and imprison every Justice League member in case they turn on him.
I have to heartily disagree with "Relatable -> Powerful" scale. A character can be VERY powerful, AND relatable - for example, many of us older men can definitely relate to All Might, and his concerns as shown in BNHA. I'd say "Ordinary -> Powerful" would be a better label.
I don't think this inherently discredits the relation of Relatable to Powerful. If anything, this lends credence to it. After all, All Might is really two characters in one. You relate to him when he is small, because when he is small, he is at the mercy of the world. He is barely holding onto his grip of the future - a grip that is slowly loosening.
Contrast to his muscle form. This All Might is the one with all the power. He affects the world around him, and isn't fazed by danger or opposition. And quite appropriately, this All Might is 100% fake. Completely fabricated. The All Might that the public knows is about as unrelatable as a hero can possibly be, because this All Might is a complete and utter lie.
So while you're correct that All Might is relatable, this isn't insoluble with the Relatable-Powerful spectrum. It simply requires noting that Tall Might and Small Might are two different characters - the former of whom is powerful and unrelatable, and the latter of whom is relatable but weak.
Agreed, this is the first thing I thought of when I saw the scale.
I dont think its fair to say that Tall Might is unrelatable just because he has a ton of power and influence. Tall Might is certainly relatable to many people. Many people hold power and peace respectively in their own lives, and have influence over people around them. Of course not on the scale as Tall Might, but in their own families, co workers, friends, and classmates respectively.
Yep, I had the same problem. It kinda annoyed me how Deku got praised while Naruto got lumped in with the characters he found boring. They're both pretty similar especially if you compare pre-timeskip Naruto to Deku so why is Deku so much more relatable than Naruto solely because he's weak? We know Deku will eventually become powerful too so does that make him unrelatable at that point?
I only watched the animes for both cases, so this is where my opinion comes from, but I do believe that you're right when saying that naruto pre time skip is praisable just as deku, unfortunately with shippuden everything started going haywire and they lost their ground and Naruto became too much of an idealistic and rose tinted story for my taste; yes there was war, yes there were deaths, but still the theme of naruto brefriending everyone and saving everyone, like when konoha was destroyed and they "deus ex machinaed" all the dead people back to life, was something that broke the suspension of disbelief for me.
Honestly I've seen so many grumpy antiheroes with traumatic pasts, what I like a lot more is taking a virtuous hero and throwing them into an unvirtuous world, and seeing how and if they keep their morals. For me at least, seeing a person struggle with being good when there isn't any real reward and it would be so much easier to be an ass, is much more relatable than another jaded antihero who thinks of optimism and happiness as "immature" and that anyone who still has morals and hope just hasn't seen enough yet. What's more interesting to me is someone who has stared into the abyss and seen the absolute worst, but instead of giving up and drowning under a tide of apathy, strives to be the absolute best and make the world at least a little bit of a better place. It ultimately does come down to preference and not all antiheroes fit into the same mold, I like Butcher from "The Boys" specifically because he's kinda an unorthodox antihero who while fighting against injustice, does it for the wrong reasons, and is proven wrong about his anti-supe prejudice towards the end. In the end, instead of fitting into the same few tropes, variety is good, but I know which variant of protagonist I enjoy the most.
You know, that's something I like about Jonathan Joestar. How he's headed in a journey in which he's forced to kill people that once were noble and pure and even his own brother.
And no spoilers but it's interesting to see how the story treats his morals on a realistic way for what happens to him in the arc
the way you said it made me think about Eren Yaeger
he is not pure or good-hearted, but at the beginning he is kind of a shonen "hero" who just sees the world as "good humans" and "bad titans" and wants to eradicate them, while in reality the world is a lot different and not just black and white, so he has to make moral choices, even ones we would see as "evil" in some perspective
Tanjiro.
Are you talking about Thorfinn? He lived in a cruel world that everything has to be resolved with violence, even he was once consumed by hatred yet he still pursued his dream of creating a peaceful wonderland in Vinland where no one needs to kill/fight to solve problems(yet he still faced conflicts and misunderstanding there) and realise his father's ideology. I think he fits quite well in the type of hero you are longing for the most
Well then Guts and Butcher can have a great dialogue
Saitama is a man living in a world where he's become so powerful that all of the supernatural crap going on around him doesn't matter.
He's passed a line.
Now that he's passed the line the crazy things going on dont matter at all to him and he just has normal human concerns.
He's become so strong and unrelatable that he's been kicked back by god to the start where he's relatable again.
A man that understands me 😢
relatable is in reference to how much influence you have over the world around you, not your character
@@DanielHernandez-hg5ey i understand but don't agree. Even if Saitama were superinfluential to the people of the world, what makes him relatable is his ordinary behavior and look on daily life.
@@lucase.crusader1196 i too think super eyepatch wolf couldve used a better metric for this episode i just understand where hes coming from
@@DanielHernandez-hg5ey Then it's a really bad choice of words, innit?
theres a lot of good points here, but I think the biggest flaw with the argument is that its basically just assuming super tough lawful-good guy = poorly written. As long as a character like that has a strong and well developed sense of where their ideals come from and why they fight as a hero then they dont need to have some sort of intrinsic moral flaw or something that drags them down to earth. They may not be "relatable" but if their motivations are understandable then there's not really a problem.
FhantomHed Yeah Spiderman Superman and Captain America are great examples of this. Throughout their comic history they've always proven that having a moral compass isn't a bad thing. They've still shown to be human beings which allows the audience and readers to care about the characters. They've shown the heroes "behind the mask" as he puts it
Yes but tell me a single character that got made in like 2010 that got famous coz if this idea? I honestly can’t think of any coz it got boring to see the same thing over and over.
@@LOL-tm7ek and what now? It's getting boring seeing all these protagonist "MuST HavE FLAw" too. It's becoming the new cliche, a protagonist can't do anything moraly righteous anymore because it implies poor writing.
@@LOL-tm7ek Deku and Captain America come to mind.
@Tom Ffrench The point i was making didn't advocate for characters devoid of flaws. A flawed character can be as bad as a character devoid of flaws may be, that's what i defend. But the focus point of the issue wasn't that, but that the very idea that a character must have a major moral flaw or be unable to be morally righteous isn't realistisc at all, and in fact it comes to the point that characters are a gigant blob of flaws and nothing more. The "Hero" cliché as they like to despise is replaced by another cliché.
Saitama is extremely relatable while also being powerful though.
how?
@@capivara6094 because while hes not fighting hes like the most relatable guy ever. he wants to go to the story while its on sale to get something to eat. he hates waking up. he does normal workout. and its not like everyone loves him or looks up to him in the show. most people either dont know him or dislike him through lies that have been spread.
Saitama is like the best inversion of the trope. He's become the most powerful man in existence, an unbeatable ass kicking machine. Now what? Nothing is exciting anymore. His goal becomes less "I want to get stronger" and more "man I just want a fun fight." While all the less powerful people around him are worrying "oh god we have to beat this freakin monster" he's worrying "shit can I cover my bills this week?"
Its kinda like what the best Spider-Man comics do, and even Homecoming and the new video game. Its freaking awesome to be Spider-Man, and you freaking love it, but bills are stacking, your social life is dying, grades are failing, and friends are leaving you. Contrasting how immensely strong you are with the fact that you're not immune to what every other human puts up with.
apenas mais um usuário do google He broke af
To be honest, Brad isn't a good example. He's the protagonist of Lisa, but he clearly isn't a hero. Those two can mix, but one doesn't equal the other. Besides, if anything he's an antihero. Tries to do good, but the means he uses aren't heroic in the slightest.
I also don't agree with your definition of hero. What you are defining is a protagonist. A protagonist can be anything from hero, antihero, villain, antivillain or even just a background character that tells the story from his perspective. From there forwards, I can understand your points but not share them.
Take a look at the protagonists of Angels of Death, a horror adventure RPG maker game and soon to be anime: Rachel Gardner and Zack.
One is a teenage girl that wants to die and the other is a psycopathic serial killer. Trapped inside a building full with traps and people wanting to kill them both, they form a contract: Rachel will help Zack escape and he, once they get out, will fulfill his part of the promise and kill her.
No matter how you twist the definition of hero, those two aren't heroes. The story is told through their perspective (sometimes Rachel's, sometimes Zack's), they move the plot with their struggles to escape and they face great challenges, but their goals, personalities and motivations make them unable to be heroes.
@@LuciferXFallen290 they didn't say that though
@@Cailan_Mors if you had bothered to read, a villain or anti hero is antagonist however I am wrong on this point. A antagonist can be a protagonist.
@@LuciferXFallen290 the protagonist is the leading character and antagonists are characters that oppose them. A protagonist cannot be the antagonist, but they can be the villain and the antagonist can be the heroic one.
@@Cailan_Mors actually the meaning doesn't say that the protagonist has to be good.
@@LuciferXFallen290 that's what I just said
that´s why i love jojo´s bizarre adventure part 7 so much. You have a selfish protagonist, that grows with his journey becoming more heroic and selfless, and you have a villain with a noble goal
Johnny he just want his leg to work
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, people act like Mr President was secretly the good guy but he's no better then anyone else
Mild Monster he said the villain has a noble goal, which he does. Having a noble goal doesn’t necessarily make him a good person.
@@theholypopechodeii4367 I think you mean Lenin. Stalin was just evil.
Cripple horse man
Personally I like variety. I don't want every hero to be morally upright, but I definitely don't want everyone to be a sociopath. Although if I had to choose, I would probably go with the morally upright hero. Not just because I like watching people who are good, but because they are so hard to write well, yet amazing and uplifting when done right.
Every hero has to be morally upright by like definition.
naruto is a great hero for his story cause it truely feels like his story about others belief in yourself being your true strength not a story about destiny or zero to hero the cliche power up shit..naruto learns his best move is talking
Ronald Corbin ikr. Did I miss something or does this guy pretty much just think that no hero that is powerful and virtuous can be interesting. Because if he thinks that I disagree massively
@@razkable no cliche power up in naruto? Kurama. Or his insane sage of six path etv
One of my favorite character is actually one who is a kindhearted sociopath. Sociopathy is actually a condition and one that character struggles with but tries to overcome. She is very cold and calculative but also tries to have friends despite her inability to relate to others.
I’d say Gon’s morality is very questionable...
@Tornike Tvalchrelidze yes but that only comes as a shock for how the character was originally written and developed
@Tornike Tvalchrelidze Sadly, that was just poor writing. The only mistake I saw in this amazing piece of art called HxH.
@@wellingtonribeiro847 no it was planned, gon has always been a selfish child
@@tonysoprano200 not about been selfish, he just become so angry about the death of a men he just met, that he doesn't listen even he's best friend and that anger grew to the point where the transformation happened... I don't know if the manga explain the situation better, but for me that only watched the anime, It was linda weird.
@@wellingtonribeiro847 Yea I know what you mean the 2011 doesn't have this I'm pretty sure, but in the manga and 1999 version the guy gon gets mad over saved gon's life when he was younger, and he was the one who told him his father was still alive and what hunters were. Basically he was gon's father figure not to mention that gon trained under him for a couple months and had his life saved by him again in the show. I hope this makes it more believable, honestly I just found out about this a couple days ago
Goku shouldn't be that high up on the moral scale
I dunno why not tbh lol
Aditya 17 because he isn’t a good guy he let freezer power up because he wanted to have a good fight Goku often screws the universe over due to his own ego and desire to fight
GT Goku is the most "heroic" but even he suffers from character flaws.
@@Ad-zu8bt he's a deadbeat dad
@DeadMemes NeedToStayDead Vegeta of all people is better dad than Goku.
In my opinion, Luffy is a very untypical character as well, since he often tends to have egostical reasons to act.
He just wants to become the pirate king to be the freest man alive.
Another example is, when he willingly lets escape dozens of dangerous prisoners, just to safe his brother.
Even prisoners like Buggy or Sir Crocodile, where he even experienced their bad actions.
Overall he just looks like an ordinary hero, because most of the villains he faces violate the freedom of people he cares about.
Well and he still has some core values he represents: Freedom and Equality
Yeah One Piece is my favorite story of all time and Luffy is one of my favorite characters, if not number 1, but i can't deny that in some way he is kinda like Griffith from Berserk.
No
Did Luffy actually do that? Fuck that makes me wanna continue with One Piece again even if I was heavily spoiled. Something I realized is that I like when characters are put in a extreme situation and do something that you can call morally wrong but at the same time you can understand why. I Also love to see the effect it has om the character after. If you want to make me fall in love with a show thats how you do it
@@benjaminusplus1 Shit... there's actually a lot of similarities there I hadn't noticed...
@@Rille922 He did do that, and it's one of the best Sagas in the series. It's called the Impel Down arc, you should catch up I hope you enjoy it
I disagree a little on your criticism that older heroes of myth were perfect in all ways or seen as very virtuous; a good read through most Greek myths, for example, shows flawed humans of near godly power and stature. The good guy trope that exists nowadays is more recent in its invention, for the most part.
Schwarzwald Yeah wolf really talked about a lot of things that werent his Forte on this video. He also doesnt understand the Comic Book Characters he is talking about which tells me most of what he knows about them is from the movies. He wouldve made a better point sticking to just Anime heroes rather than comparing to other subjects that hes not super familiar with
Schwarzwald didn't the people hate the gods and make fun of them for how they behaved? I don't think the gods were meant to be good.
Schwarzwald This is true. Though I think he tried to encompass the world's theme in making popular virtuous heroes, I can honestly put my money that in all mediums there's examples of Humans being unable to actually deal with their strengths. There's Gods that actually have pretty relatable factors in them; whether it be their morals or how much they actually matter. Hell, Zeus of all gods is seen as incredibly petty and he can't deal with people saying "No" to him despite his all-encompassing power. You could, if you want, call him a manipulative man-child because he knows he has the power to do what he wants.
shygirl2927
Sort of? It was more like they were very human emotionally. Greek heroes and gods have weaknesses, Zeus being a great example. The guy was wise sometimes (and definitely very powerful), but also a huge womanizer. His wife, Hera, was goddess of familial relationships but, as a result, was jealous of the women Zeus slept around with and the children that occured from such events (which is why she eventually curses her stepson Heracles / Hercules with madness to kill his family).
More on the topic of -gods- EDIT: heroes, though: Odysseus was very wise and cunning but a well known coward on the battlefield (exemplified by his use of the bow which was seen as a cowardly primary weapon among many Greeks of the time). It was only later in the Odyssey that Odysseus has to start being more brave than he would otherwise like. His partner on covert missions in the Trojan War, Diomedes, was incredibly honorable and pretty much the pinnacle of what a Greek aspired to be despite the fact that he was insanely ruthless on the battlefield and took no prisoners (even killing an unarmed elderly man and Trojan priests). He was, by no means, a hero in the modern sense. Achilles was a great and powerful warrior, but pretty much sulks in his tent most of the Trojan War after a scuffle he has with another Greek warrior over who would get a slave girl (all while lamenting the fact he's fated to die young in Troy if he stays to fight until his totally heterosexual life partner gets killed and he decides to get revenge by killing Hector). Mythical heroes were not as virtuous as one might think.
So true. I've just started the Illiad and so far, Achilleus has been a whiny little bitch wracked by fear of an early death.
You know what I love about HxH? That it doesn't try to be that cliche shonen story where the protagonist saves the day and always solves his problems through friendship and belief. That it doesn't try to shank everything for the sake of making the protagonist succeed.
Gon isn't an infallible hero who can do anything because the situation demands it. He's an actual kid who can get caught up in the moment, who can get frustrated and angry like any of us. I've never seen a shonen (in a believable and well paced way) actually be realistic and have a character built on optimism and hope fall to his anger and succumb to revenge. The chimera ant arc, imo, solidified HxH as my favorite show of all time. Aside from the great villain, amazing story (not centered on the 'protagonist of the show', mind you), and lovable characters, I was amazed at how well done Gon's descent into beasthood was, and how this affected those around him. I truly believe HxH is a masterpiece, and this is just one of the reasons why.
Ritz Tan Its not the greatest of all time. It has flaws and sure everything has flaws but still.....
Gon defeated pitou because of lost friendship , cliche. He should of never been able to fight again and he gets heal because of killau friendship ,
Ritz Tan chimera arc ruined HxH for me. It was too long and focused on so many characters that killed almost all tension near the end.
And Gon's shift from smiling teenage boy to the raging monster was so sudden I just could not believe in this. If they would have spent more time with Kite on their adventures, then it would make sense.
Even Naruto's attitude near the end of Pain arc was much more real even though he is more like a typical hero.
Yeah, he was healed by Alluka but as of now his nen has vanished. He payed a big price for his decision.
The manga is hinting that there's a way for Gon to get his nen back.
I believe Saitama is powerful but relatable in that he is dead inside. Imagine getting the job of your dreams but you are still unhappy. Literally see his backstory again. He did what? Go looking for a job. What did he end up doing? Pivoting into hero'ing. He's doing it for fun but he is still on the complacent side. He just wants excitement. And there's nothing to do that because he can't find that one opponent who is powerful enough. Those subterranean things in his dreams were the closest thing he had to happiness.
i think what eyepatch wolf is talking about is relatability in the powerfulness, as in: How similar are the average person powers compared to that heroes powers, anything else doesnt really matter, if they are relatable in any other way it doesnt really matter to the graph at least
So basically anti hero?
But then if the anti hero becomes more mainstream would that be the new cliche?
Blaine Fiasco Weren't anti heros already main stream back in the early 2000s?
Thats honestly a problem the dc comics story "kingdom come" dealt with.
Arent anti-heroes defined as characters motivated by selfish intentions? Or at the very least some other intention besides "wanting to do good bc it's the right thing to do?" I would say that "heroes" while not ALWAYS the epitome of just are at the very least motivated by the ideals of doing right and their feats match up w those ideals even if they make mistakes (example being Gwen Stacy's death in Spiderman wasnt Peter's fault even if it was the result of his flaws). sometimes the actions dont align with the belief but i believe the intent is more the point.
Good examples of anti-heroes in my opinion is most seinen main characters like Musashi from vagabond or Revy from Black lagoon, Angelo from 91 days, and Guts.... I wouldnt put Guts in the "hero" category at all bc he's a character motivated by survival not "self-righteousness" he isnt the most empathetic character either... nor does he dwell too long on the deaths he causes (except MAYBE when he killed that child, it seemed that memory haunted him for a long time afterwards)
Some non-anime characters i would include are: Walter White from Breaking bad (altho one could argue he was totally the villain by the end of it), Jaime Lannister (saves Westeros from the Mad King...but also pushes boy out window bc he loves Cersei...hm....), Deadpool, Black widow, Ada Wong, Jack Sparrow, John wick, Catwoman,.
@@dianashaw9298 i think it was mainstreamed back in late 60s to early 70s where Frank Bullitt, Popeye, Dirty Harry and Mad Max will do anything even murder to get the job done for the better good
Berserk did it right. Guts isen't a hero, neither is he villain, he is human.
"There are no absolutes in good and evil."
Is that an absolute?
EDIT: It's a joke, lads. Please don't crucify me.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
+Chaos Draco
It's over, Anakin! I have the high ground!
Greeto AGB You underestimate my *powah*
You fail to grasp the extent of my abilities.
I don't see what the hell this guy is talking about. (the main comment) that makes no sense.
Video says "What Makes a Hero Feel Real?"
>Waiting for Spider-man to appear
>Spiderman doesn't appear
There's something insanily wrong with this video, in my humble opinion.
Peter Parker is easily one of the most relatable and complicated protagonists I've ever experienced. "The Evil That Men Do", "Kraven's Last Hunt," "The Death of the Stacys," "The Death of Jean DeWolff," "The Birth of Venom," "Marvel Knights," "Spider-man: Blue," and even his ORIGIN story are some of the best stories in comics because Peter is such a fascinating protagonist as just a regular guy (and he almost always has some sort of disadvantage going on against him).
Dude, i couldn't agree with you more. He is by far my favorite character of all fiction, you pointed some amazing Spidey stories man, i also love the ones like "Homecoming", "Setember 11", "Back in Black", "Happy birthday", "The Kid Who Collects spider-man", "Leah", "The Child Within", "Spiderman Civil War", "The Other" among so many other amazing stories that really made me understand and feel how spetacular Peter Parker is, also i do have to admit that a lot of these stories easily made me cry hahah
Peter Parker is the quintessential superhero. No other hero compares
@Marcus Felipy - Great choices! I think the character's in a bit of a rough patch in comics, but he still has soo many great stories to go through. And yep! There are a lot of tear-inducing stories ("Leah" is so short, and yet so impactful).
This is my favorite section
Guts is one of the greatest characters in manga/anime history
Why you are in every berserk video l found
Can’t argue with that.
He is
@@sirgriffith7122 GRIIIIIIFFFFIIIITHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!?
Damn straight
This is probably the nicest, most respectful, intellectual comment sections like ever.
No
Ella Kelso Guts the Black Swordsman is not a hero, he's just a man we overwhelmingly cheer on against unfairness and odds. Guts just chose love, compassion, diligence, and friendship, not "GOOD".
Extra History has surprisingly mature intellectual comments especially considering that whats being discussed in that channel are actual events about different peoples cultures and religions.
@@whathell6t Well he is trying to save people when he can and is able to do so..
I'm a simple man. I see Guts, I click and like.
Guts, my favorite protagonist of all time.
My man!
GUTSHIRO I'm a simple man.
I see SuperEyePatchWolf, I click and like
@Gutshiro so its your fault we got 2 seasons of bad CGI
GUTSHIRO Im a simple man when I see Guts I think Griffith did nothing Wrong
All Star Superman had one of the best portrayals of pure heroism in any medium. No cynical reimaginings of the boy from Kansas, no great tragedies that broke him, just a genuine, thought-provoking exploration of why Superman acts the way he does, why he continues to do good in a world of evil. It's also one of the few stories where the villain receives a legitimately devastating revelation from the heroes that breaks their ideals, turning them towards heroism.
Love all star superman
my boy Edward Elric not even mentioned in passing-
he's not really much of a hero character, he just happens to help those (kinda) when he passes.
Yea I would say Edward Elric is more of a protagonist than a hero, his only goal is to get his and Al's bodies back and they just happen to get caught up in events relating to their goals.
@@TheCyclicGamer The Hero of that story is Roy Mustang
@@lyadh0451 his mini skirt speech... man that was inspiring, best anime hero of the century
Yeah I'd say hohenheim and Roy Mustang are pretty much hero figures in the story but the Elric brothers can be seen as more relatable, most especially in brotherhood
I feel that 'all that keeps a hero from becoming a villain is one bad day' is a deeply cynical view of humanity as a whole. Not to say that all heroes should be incorruptible - but rather that that statement implies that all people are inherently monsters. Heroes should be corruptible, but the fall of a hero should take time. Otherwise that person wasn't really heroic, they were just having a power trip.
DC's Injustice storyline is the answer to all your gripes.
Wright N Desk just because you have a hero who is consistently morally good doesn't mean they can't be good characters to invest in
One bad day can have devastating effects on a person in the long run. One bad day might leave someone with a serious distrust of authority figures, which they would take as a motivation to settle problems themselves. Even if they think they are helping others, that single person can never grasp the consequences of their actions on a broad scale. One bad day can lead to a series of compromises to make sure that day never happens again, even if each compromise is worse than the last on a moral standpoint.
And honestly, humans are monsters on a level, but that's what makes a true hero good. Even if their nature pushes them to monstrous actions, they still make an effort to avoid those actions, they do great things in SPITE of their monstrous nature.
Read the webnovel "Worm", it breaks this concept down in a fantastic way. Every "parahuman" is defined by "one bad day" and their powers are built off of that bad day, but it's what they do in spite of that underlying trauma that makes them a great person.
Like, even in the source of that quote, Alan Moore disagreed with the fundamental idea. Batman: The Killing Joke has both Barbara and Jim Gordon go through a bad day and while they both experienced trauma, they didn't fall into immorality nor insanity. Not everyone "breaks" after a bad day, Batman even says as much as he takes the Joker down.
Even DC's injustice storyline has a difficult time suspending my disbelief. Superman and the heroes on his side suddenly antagonizes everyone that he once called friends and family and he is unnecessarily cruel, heroes like Flash are so passive in the story (mostly commentating instead of actually doing something about it), and Batman didn't try to appeal to Superman's loss being as someone who was affected by tragedy and try to keep him in the right (instead kept moping about Joker of all people). The story was so black and white with no moral gray area making it unbelievable from beginning to end. Superman is clearly pitch black evil, while Batman is ultimately good with a few rough spots, the way the story is framed. Even in the end of Injustice 2, despite the fact that Superman and Batman misses working together and being part of JL, they just went back after eachother without even a word before fist were thrown. Morality isn't an on off switch.
Dude, the next video MUST be answering to the comments from this one. There's a very interesting debate here.
Yeah it's crazy. I didn't know that much people would think like me about the topic
umm... Supermans flaw isn't cryptnite. At least not as a character flaw. That's his physical weakness. His character flaw is his stubborn belief that he knows what is right and what is wrong as well as his reluctance to let others deal with things he believes he can shield them from. It's those qualities that make him a typical 'paragon' style hero, but those same things make him human as well. And taken to their most extreme they result in the "Kingdom Come" storyline from 1996 and Injustice: Gods among us.
I like the term protagonist because it allows for a more nuanced interpretation rather than hero which inevitably brings to mind a flawless superhero
Hero aren’t “flawless” tho
GUTS DIDNT MEAN TO KILL THE KID. MANGA EXPLAINS THAT SCENE BETTER.
WAY better. I think in the first movie it showed it better too. It was more of a "Shit, gotta take out whoever is behind the door, quick!" But in the 99 version he rushed Adonis because he saw his face and THEN felt bad for it. Which seemed a little off.
He meant to kill the person behind the door, he just didn't mean to kill a kid, so he's not all sunshine and rainbows
Even in the anime it's really apparent that he's shocked when he sees he killed a kid. Talkin about the 1997 anime.
guts was expecting a guard and went for an instant death move.
what he got was a 9 year old, who he promptly ran through.
Is it in the manga and what chapter!?
Superman's greatest flaw and weakness is very simple. He can't save everyone.
ehhh, i honestly don't think being morally upright and conventional can't be relatable. what's so unrelatable about wanting to be a good person? I think it's something a lot of people strive for. suggesting that the graph is 'how people should be vs. how they really are" implies that people can't possibly be that good in real life, which is a cynical perception of reality in my opinion. Nobodies perfect obviously, but by extension anybody who ACTUALLY knows Superman or Goku knows that they aren't perfect people. what people percieve as their greatest strengths can also be hindrances. Superman may be closely tight to his conventional morals but by proxy that also makes him inept when it comes to making morally questionable but ultimately necessary decisions. in the good interpretations of the character he's a very simple and down to earth guy who enjoys simple things but knows he can't ignore his responsibility to the world given how much power he has to influence good in it. Goku is highly ambitious but also courteous when it comes to fighting, but that leaves him to empower his villains a great deal of the time at the risk of the entire world. people like this DO exist, but just because they don't struggle in being moral people doesn't mean they don't struggle at all.
THANK YOU.
Most people want to better the world. But none on their own can change it. And in the end personal means become more important than saving the world.
Exactly superman has to hold back his powers, feeling, and he has alot of pressure due to him being the hope in the dc world so basically he cant Fuck up
I guess it’s kinda like being so virtuous in the terms he’s talking about is like they can’t be that perfect without having some problems or struggles with keeping the image. They’re usually unrelatable because they don’t show that struggle. I guess that’s what I gotX
i´m pretty sure that is not how the scale worked...
you know superman in the movies are very unreal god like hero but in the comics he is more human than 90% of the heroes
Superman All Star, Superman Secret Identity or Superman tas are a great place to start with Superman
That's why Tomasi and Gleason's superman is so good. Clark is put in a relatable situation, wich humanizes the character and allow him to show both his strenghts and weaknesses as an actual person, rather than a powerful hero. Hopefully stories like that will be shown off to mainstream audiences and make people realize how cool superman actually is.
@@gabrielrangel4869 The run that made Superman my favorite Superhero.
@@trentm5125 Superman as a superhero had my curiosity, but Tomasi superman had my atention and more
He’s such an amazing character in the comics
That was superb
akidearest how did your comment not get likes or noticed?
I love ya videos aki.
hey aki
AKIDEAREST!!!!!!!!!!
akidearest this isn't good a video. You want to see what types of heroes there are then you should check out Just To Write video of what kind hero is Batman.
To me a hero is someone that, when against all, when the situation is desperate, rushes in the fight anyway. Being a hero when everyone is on your side is easy. Doing the right thing when you're alone and the world is against you, must be one of the hardest thing ever.
One Piece comes to mind. Main villain has full political power, Luffy is a criminal.
At this point in my life a sad/tragic backstory is basically played out to the point eye rolling boredom. A character that is a good person and want to do good things and doesn't have some kind of sob story is almost refreshing.
The best piece of advice I've received in "giving" your characters flaws is to take their strengths and twist them, to turn them up to 11. Ex: if your character never gives up, they're probably stubborn and that can be harmful.
Which is how you get Deku breaking all his limbs every fight and nearly being disabled for life
Great video man. But the main difference between Dr. Manhattan and Superman is the way they view humanity. The problem with Superman is that he can't be everywhere at once, he can't save everyone. The greastest Superman stories are the ones that focus on his human side, his mental state and not his physical prowess. The kriptonite is just a clutch, because Superman is more than just beating people, it's stopping to help a suicidal teenager or a stranger or even a kitty, not just beating supervillains. I highly recommend Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman, definitely one of the greatest Superman stories ever told. Dr. Manhattan is just as you said, he doesn't care about humanity anymore, so it's indifferent do him.
Keep up the great work :)
God this video was absolutely spectacular
I literally saw a comment of yours on a death battle video
tell your UA-cam account to stop stalking me pls
JaxBlade All of his videos are
opalhat SPOILER??? :(
opalhat oh ok thanks phew
Spider Man 😂😂😂
I feel I'm echoing the sentiment of a lot of other comments here, but yeah... this video probably didn't need to be made. I'd figured since quite a while ago that the "meme" of the modern hero was fully re-purposed to describe the highly amoral, gritty anti-heroes that became so inescapably popular in response to the stick-up-the-ass moral bastions that've been around since the dawn of time. I can barely remember the last time I saw a work of media actually play the heroic archetype _straight_ (With the possible exception of the Marvel movies you were drawing so much footage from. No price to high for mass appeal, I guess). Hell, I'd think that a rigidly moralistic hero might even be heralded as a breath of fresh air at this point. Just, er... yeah, this really wasn't a topic I expected to be covered in earnest by a hip-and -with-it channel such as yours.
That's part of the reason the My Hero Academia series does so well, it finally gets away from the gritty antihero dynamic that's been beaten to death as of late.
Daniel Hounshell it's still exploring that in a way. But the line is pretty clearly portrayed.
Someone who questions everything, and endeavors to end lives and break the rules, even with high virtues in mind, is evil. Probably. Maybe we can learn from them, but they still need to be defeated.
Heroes with ego, who are jerks or twisted, are still heroes, but flawed. Ideally, they should change. Their peers and mentors should help them change, when possible. But it's still good that they keep doing good work. :)
... We think. So far. It seems like a trope reconstruction kinda deal, right?
Welll it not that it got away from honestly " The gritty action is a Western trend . The Japanese have never been attracted to that , and usually the hero have never been pure hero the way superman was . Naruto definitely wasn't he was just a ninja in a war fighting for his comrades and village. There not Evil by any stretch of the imagination but there not super heroes . If Naruto was a super hero he would of tried to stop all conflict through justice and his power . The akatsuki where a threat because they kept attacking threatening the leaf village.
"Someone from whose perspective we view the story"
"Driving Motivator of that story"
"Is exceptional or is in pursuit of an exceptional goal"
This does not sound like a hero it sounds like a protagonist. Heck the last 2 can also apply to antagonists. Heroes in my opinion are supposed to be what we all should strive to be, not in a power sense but in a moral sense. While yes they have similar problems to our own, it's their willingess to do good despite the evil around them that seperates them from ordinary people.
Firefighters are heroes but outside of their jobs they are regular everyday people. Superman is a hero not because of his powers but his good moral compass. Christopher Reeves said it best that Superman is a friend you can always rely on.
Maybe you can revisit it in today's climate since we need that type of hero right now.
To be fair, seeing the whole story from their perspective does not fit an antagonist, but I agree with what you say
Exactly!
@@PrixtoTNT I said the last 2 points could apply to an antagonist. You're referring to the first point which I never mentioned
@@personatr3s This exactly. His definition of a "hero" is very broad and can also apply to villain protagonists. Heroes should be someone admirable, someone to aspire to, regardless of whether or not they have flaws. Doctor Manhattan is a cool character, but in no world would I call him a hero.
To me a hero is someone who is scared out of their minds of someone or a situation but still rushes head first into danger to help someone else.
In other words, a brave person.
Basically Deku from hero academia
A brave coward aka Midoriya.
those are nice traits for a hero to have sure but if they go in with out a plan and get wrecked/save no one, that's a better description of a fool. it takes more than bravery to be a hero.
Isn't that even the exact quote from My Hero Academia?
Could you make a video essay about foreshadowing too?
이종석 Man you're right!! That would be amazing!!!
이종석 I think you just foreshadowed that video....meta
great suggestion. although there's not much to teach it could still make for an interesting video
+1 to this idea.
If he does make that video, One Piece is going to need to be brought up in it.
I don't really get this video to be honest. While that's likely because you and I perceive the definition of a hero differently, some of what's said in here seem to be a little uninformed or with messages that seem to undermine heroism.
For instance, if we take a look at your description of Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, you claim he's supposed to be a deconstruction of Superman, which in some ways are true I'll concede. However, it's important to distinguish the very important difference between the two that makes it a weak comparison. Dr. Manhattan was, by all accounts, a normal human before the incident that transformed him into who he is in the story. He functioned in a specific way his entire life, like that of a human. While he was a scientist, he was still limited to the same laws and lack of universal understanding as the rest of the world. His transformation then grants him a new self that perceives things in a way the rest of the world can't even fathom and that puts him on a plane above them where they are all ignorant to the things he comprehends. This difference is what makes him see the world in a way the regular person does not and is ultimately the reason for his choice to live in isolation.
Superman, on the other hand, has not experienced this. He has super powers, yes, but grew up with them steadily manifesting and being honed until he finally became his heroic self. He grew up with a great family that helped him come to grips with being different and raised him to do good based on what they believed was right, which were generally the same morals the average person would have. There was no sudden alienation between him and the rest of the world since he was always different, a literal alien, but was grounded by the Kent family and was able to love and want to protect humanity. Therein lies the reason why the two characters cannot really be accurately compared to one another. Superman isn't meant to see the world as this thing beneath him that cannot comprehend the universe as he does - his powers allow him to do incredible things, not understand reality in ways others don't. His real flaw, which you instead said was the weakness of Kryptonite, is actually still the same as Dr. Manhattan's though - I was surprised to see you not address that at any point in the comparison. Superman is alien to Earth and because of that has his own feelings of separation. He does not fully understand who he is, where he came from and what that means for his role in the universe. His flaw is the isolation Dr. Manhattan has, but they are for opposite reasons - Clark's being ignorance and Dr. Manhattan's being overwhelming knowledge. Quite honestly, I can't see how Superman's struggle with identity is unsympathetic or unrelatable.
That brings me to my next point, which is the graph itself. I understand that you made the point of it being subjective and I'm sure it's mostly just a representation rather than anything concrete but the actual axes are where I have issues. The horizontal axis runs from relatable to powerful, meaning that they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. A hero cannot be both is what that tells us. To properly analyze this point, I'll focus on Gut's placement on it. He is in the 4th quadrant, making him lie with the powerful side of the graph which would, by the data's own logic, makes him less relatable. Why is he less relatable than a character like Luffy or Punisher? I don't actually mean to debate those heroes' placements to him but demonstrate how this graph is unfairly representing the connection between the powerful and relatable.
In your own video, "Why You Should Watch/ Read: Berserk", you made it a point to address that he is the badass power fantasy character - reflected on the graph - but also that he's "the shy, awkward giant scared to get close to people." You acknowledge that despite his strength, "there's always a human element to his character and actions". While yes, I think - and would hope - a lot of us can't fully comprehend Gut's pain, he's very sympathetic and the ideas of loss, abandonment and ultimately being the struggler that he is are traits we can relate to. Gut's backstory in a very compressed summation would be "life is hard" and that's not something that his being massively stronger than the audience can actually take away from him.
I will agree that there is a trend of power making a character less relatable though. The "Jesus-kun" Level Infinity squared Deity that is Kirito from SAO is a good example of this. He's superior to most everyone in every game he plays, regardless of how long he's played it in comparison to others, and isn't very compelling in his own. But, if you think about it, is that really the result of him being stronger? If Kirito was a sympathetic, relatable character, would it be wrong for him to win and be stronger?
I think if you look at the hero Naruto, we can get some better context for this. Naruto grows up feeling isolated from everyone else and is resented by almost all of his village for things out of his control. He starts out weak and through hard work and the occasional (at least until the war arc) power-up Deus Ex Machina he's able to reach the point of being powerful. However, I wouldn't think of him as less relatable simply because he's reached the end of his journey and now is accepted by people. If that was the case, and to make a relatable character you'd have to make them fail and never reach their end goal, would they even be heroes? Gon loses a lot of his fights throughout Hunter X Hunter but still manages to get to his overall goal of meeting his father, Ging. If he failed, what was heroic?
Ultimately, I think this video's weakness was that it's conflicting with itself. It seems like you wanted to discuss the idea of a protagonist more than anything else, which is why we have characters like Brad and Dr. Manhattan referenced rather than just the morally good heroes. If we were to look at the three points you used to define a hero, Light Yagami is a hero. We view the story from his perspective, he is the driving motivator of the story, and he is exceptional for being incredibly smart and having the powerful item of a death note and also has the exceptional goal of ridding the world of his definition of villainy as well as becoming the god of the new world. However, I think most people wouldn't call him a hero.
Those were just the points I wanted to get out after watching this video. I don't have an issue with your content or you as a person, and I hope it does not come off that way, I've actually enjoyed a lot of your videos. This one in particular though I really disagreed with and wanted to explain why, hopefully so that a positive discussion can come out of it. I'm only speaking from what I know and my interpretation of these characters, so I think it's only fair to acknowledge my points can also be refuted after all. Great work though, I look forward to more content from you.
This comment is fantastic, you took the words i wanted to write but that i didnt even have in mind. Awesome comment!
Thanks for this insightful comment, sums up my thoughts nicely.
The graph works like that though. If it didn't, then a character could be both amoral and virtuous at the same time since they also wouldn't have a link to them. Also, it's worth noting that if you scroll through the comments he has actually said there is a link: "Yes, if Deku becomes more powerful, he becomes less relatable, he may still be likable, but less relatable." I think it's fair to say then he is stating there's a connection between the two and that the more powerful a character is, the less relatable they are.
I understand the graph is just a representation of that though and is meant to be subjective, so I tried to acknowledge that in my original comment. However, the axes are something I consider worth discussing since they are what defines the visual itself. Gon's placement is just an example that demonstrates his idea loosely and does its job at face value, so debating his morality isn't all that necessary since I don't think it's the specific location relative to their quadrant that matters but what the quadrant itself is saying about these characters.
Thank you for taking the time to respond though, I appreciate your insight and it made me re-watch the video and re-read my original comment to assess the critiques.
I think the relatable/powerful scale means that most people don't count with much power in this world. They can't effect changes the way they might want to. In reality, it would take someone with a vast amount of technical expertise or capital to be able to alter things to their liking. The powerful heroes in the chart SEW drew are all characters whose actions have big consequences in the story, while those to the far left are less like that. I'd argue with Shinji however, but it isn't his real power, it was more of an external thing to him in his particular case. Perhaps you are a powerful individual in reality and so you relate more with the right side of the spectrum but that might not be the majority of viewers. You can relate with Guts for example on the human side of things, but I doubt you can relate with being a badass that enters a bar and rips a bunch of hooligans a new asshole each. I wouldn't mix those two things.
Agreed, well put and thoroughly summarizes my general thoughts with this video.
Ironic how you used clips from 'Batman v Superman' when that's the Superman who is the least archetypical power-fantasy boy scout depiction of Superman in live-action.
In literary terms, I don't think you're actually describing heroes, still, I think you're describing protagonists. The lofty goal part isn't really a definer of a hero, plenty of the most famous villains have plenty lofty goals and are "exceptional." I think what really defines a hero is the thing that makes the audience cheer for them and want them to succeed in that goal.
In Lisa, Brad and Buddy wouldn't be heroes. Brad acts completely and utterly selfishly, so while we can relate to him as a person, we still can't find justification for his actions. He'd technically be called an anti-hero, I suppose, but Brad seems even beyond that. Rando (and to a lesser extent Terry) is a hero because he's exceptional, yes, but he's also altruistic. Even though he's the antagonist in Brad's story, we still see Rando as "the good guy." He's doing things to help people, to help Buddy and Brad, and to prevent as much harm to others as possible.
(Spoilers for Lisa Joyful but) When Rando needs to decide between letting Buddy kill the pacifist overlord so that she'll have more power and be much more safe living in the wasteland and not letting Buddy kill him because Rando sees his death as unnecessary, that's a powerful moment. That's the kind of decision a hero makes, even when they're not the protagonist. We're all rooting for Rando to do what we think is the right thing because at that point we trust him and want his success at the end. Buddy and Brad, though, have an end goal and kill almost every living thing between their starting point and their end point. To a large extent, we don't want Brad and Buddy to win, because we see the harm they're doing. They might be protagonists, but you can also say they're both villains in their respective stories.
Protagonists are who the story follows and antagonists are their opposing force, but a hero is who we want to win and a villain is who we want to lose. It isn't impossible to have an amoral hero or a virtuous villain, which is why we have the term antihero, but when the audience isn't on the protagonist's side, they usually aren't considered a hero.
That's my literary opinion, at least.
Megal obsterFace I think Antihero was originally a term used to describe unconventional protagonists whether they were not as typically powerful or moral as traditional heros.
I think using the term "anti-hero" as a way to describe flawed heroes who are still ultimately the good guys from the audience point of view was made popular around the 80's or 90's. I remember the term used to describe protagonists like Alex from A Clockwork Orange back when the novel came out in the 60's even tho there's nothing remotely "heroic" about him.
Megal obsterFace I think he had to tittle it hero not protagonists because of his villain video
It's good that people bring this up instead of taking everything that Super Eyepatch Wolf says as gospel in case of actual terms (which has happened many times in his other videos).
Are villains really those whom we want to loose ? And are the hero is who we want to win ? IMO heroes are just that, heroes, anyone who protects something or someone is a hero, and a villain is anyone who wants to destroy something or someone.
Megal obsterFace I would like to expound on what you said a bit. I believe the hero in the eyes of the audience is the one they believe is good or right in their moral judgement. It's not just about who we want to win. If that were the case, I sort of wanted to see Joker from the Dark Knight or Stain from MHA win. The difference was my belief that the Heroes of those stories stood for more virtuous principles than the villains.
Supereyepatchwolf mentions how mainstream the "superman" persona is in our culture, but to simplify that popularity down to a theory someone had in the late 20th century leaves millennia of storytelling out of the picture. That author was making an observation about heroes from across cultures and time, and in those stories you will find many characters similar to Superman. King Arthur and Hector of Troy. I believe the reason for this isn't because the audience wants to relate to the hero, but that they want the hero to save them, or become like the hero and save others.
If I were to use a comicbook analogy, I would much rather have Captain America save me than The Punisher or Deadpool. Sure, I love the latter as protagonists in their own stories, but I don't view them as heroes unless they do heroic acts. Maybe that's what should be analyzed here. A hero is defined by a heroic act, so what do we consider heroic acts?
Whilst not necessarily consistent with his portayal in all media he's been a part of, Superman's flaw is supposed to be his 'virtuous' nature. His struggles originate from being the opposite of Dr. Manhatten, that he feels so connected to humanity that he *must* save it, and all of it. His weakness is putting absolutely everyone 'first', and the logical paradox that creates. It doesn't make him feel relatable or real, but that's what his weakness is.
DNeonLamp gonna disagree there. Superman actually is relatable. His compassion isn't a weakness. I would say to read his comics
There is a more precise name for those limitations instead of "flaws" and it's "handicaps". A handicap is a limitation that it's depicted as something good for the character.
King Joffrey confirmed for best and most in-depth hero of game of thrones
LOL
I think saitam is actually really relatable like his whole thing is that after you become powerful and accomplish stuff what then life becomes boring like it’s the idea of boredom and almost inverts the trope
Good video overall, but I take huge issue with the "powerful/relatable" scale, acting as if the two are opposites or mutually exclusive. Saitama may be a god among men, but I find him more relatable than Genos because of his struggle to find meaning in his life when his talent is so vast. When I went through school, I found myself pretty bored because I could get A's without effort.
Furthermore, Shinji is relatable on an emotional level, but he's also EXTREMELY powerful and therefore not relatable. I can't personally relate to having a personal giant robot mecha to fight Lovecraftian nightmare creatures from outer space.
So while I agree with the overall sentiment that many heroes in media are too powerful and virtuous to be considered relatable and believable as people, I don't think the way you presented it makes much sense.
LaserFace23 When you talk about Shinji being powerful, do you mean the fact that his synch ratio with his Eva is far greater than any of the others? Because that's the only way I can really think of him as powerful - because half the time he has next to no control over what he does in the story, whether that's the fact that he can't physically control his Eva or simply doesn't want to but is guilted into it against his will. Power without the means to control it is effectively meaningless. And I suppose you could say his situation isn't exactly everyday in the sense that the apocalypse is looming, but in spite of that he leads a semblance of a normal life; he goes to school like any normal kid and does his best to fit in. That's pretty relatable in my opinion.
The synch ratio with his Eva was pretty much what I was talking about, yeah, but also just the fact that the situation he finds himself in isn't relatable, even if the way he reacts to it is relatable. I was just trying to say that relatability and power shouldn't be set up on a scale like they are here. The more I try and think about it, the less sense it makes, lol.
Really? I don't find Saitama relatable at all, and I doubt even the majority of people can relate to being "too good" at something that they end up being bored with it. Just because there are exceptions doesn't make it the general rule, most people can't relate to feeling "too powerful" when you really get down to it.
LaserFace23 you get straight As without effort? Wow I should be asking you for help on my homework
Thebes342 what are you talking about? Saitama is actually relatable because being good at something without much challenge can be boring
Um... Iron Man is fairly powerful, almost centered, but slightly immoral. Maybe more so immoral in the comics. Wouldn't quite put him shoulder-to-shoulder with Superman and Captain America.
M. Prime He gets extremely relatable in the third movie where he has serious mental issues. The third Ironman movie is the best superhero movie I have ever seen and it left me thinking about the heavy topics it addressed for quite a while.
I love your videos whenever i see a new one i prepare food and lay back i love your work
I poured myself a glass of southern comfort and vanilla coke just for this. Highlight of my evening and something i'll probably discuss with my dad in the morning over coffee tomorrow.
Guts is the perfect example of that "one bad day" idea. He comes so close to giving in to his inner darkness and doing horrible things all the time, but has managed to tiptoe the line and still be called a hero from our perspective
I've been waiting for this one, thanks Eyepatch!
Leberator
M A T T E R O F L A W
What I get from this video is "Heroes need to be more human to feel real", either more human as in less effect on the world around them or more human as in making them more grey in areas such as morals. While I agree that there is an over saturation of "good+strong"-type heroes, I don't think that these are the only ways to make them feel real.
In my opinion what would make a lot more heroes feel real is to have the world they are in react to them (and how they in turn react) be natural to how the world and hero are written in the story.
I love that Batman's at 0'0 on your graph.
It's good to see what I an others have felt for so many years laid barr.
I think someone like Spider-Man makes a real hero. He’s a hero, but he’s human too. That’s why I like marvel backstories than dc
Yea and Batman is also human too. Their all REAL heroes. It’s just whether or not you find them relatable is the question.
@@Gadget-Walkmenit’s all subjective but some by default have more relatable qualities
For example I see Superman and Spider-Man as more relatable, Superman moreso than most.
However a lot of that DOES depend on the run and execution
Pretty much little difference between either franchise backstory/execution wise when depending on the run, they run circles around each other depending on context
It’s not what you said but I feel the only guiding line is that Marvel generally takes place in the real world and is GENERALLY grounded and cynical
Meanwhile DC has places like New York but also Gotham and metropolis
@@theradionicrevival8068 I find Spider-Man VASTLY more relatable than superman and I love them both but Spider-Man deals with real everyday problems that the average person goes through and showcases that getting superpowers doesn’t make your life easier, it makes it a lot harder. That’s one of the aspects makes him so relatable and compelling in his stories.
Okay, so I like your base concept for the video, but as for the graph I don't like the 'relatable/powerful' scale. I don't find that these two are actually opposites. Because if done right, no matter how powerful a character is, they can be done in a way that is interesting and showcases their flaws, thus making them feel like a real relatable person, despite the fact that they can destroy a planet or whatever. Yes their power scale is unrelatable, but that doesn't mean the character itself is. So I understand what you were going for, but mundane/powerful would have been a better juxtaposition.
Could you give some examples of powerful yet very relatable characters ?
Rick from Rick and Morty is insanely powerful in his own universe, but because he's such a flawed and human character he is someone the audience can relate to on some level. Sherlock homes, in his universe similarly wields great power but is often portrayed as highly unstable as well as brilliant, showing that humans are always a dichotomy, making him more understandable despite how far away his intellect seems in comparison to the reader/viewer/player. These are just a few off the top of my head, and by no means the best examples of this sort of character development, but it does exist. Basically you have to make the character human, flawed in a way that is understandable to the reader, so that their mindset isn't so alien to our own, despite their abilities being something we can't possible imagine having ourselves. Does that make sense?
Bacae Strife isn't that exactly what he was describing Dr. Manhattan to be? An overpowered but flawed hero.
Did you miss the parts where I said I enjoyed the ideas portrayed in the video, but had a small issue with the way he did his scaling of 'relatable/powerful'? As with Mr. Manhattan, flaws do make him more relatable but on his scale he's way off toward powerful, as if that precludes him intrinsically from being at all relatable. Look at his position on the image chart. See my issue with it? Now Mr. Manhattan is far from mundane. I agree with that 100%. But that doesn't mean he's necessarily unrelatable on any level.
Bacae Strife I agree
Maybe off topic, but I'd hardly call Hal Jordon as fucking virtuous. He'd hot headed, arrogant, and prideful. He does his best to do what's right, but his lack of fear get in the way of logical thinking at times. His selfishness regarding Earth got his entire Corp killed, and though he's gone through several arcs to counter that, he still thinks only of himself at times.
Also, Superman's main flaw is that he's too trusting of people and cares about his family too much. He adopts this midwestern farm-boy mentality that everyone should be trusted unless proven otherwise, and when they have proven otherwise, that trust can never be rebuilt. This was seen when Lex Luthor had to spend an entire comic convincing Superman that he's turned over a new leaf, and even when they were on the run from hunters, they still got into a fist fight because Superman didn't even trust him to give directions (they were on a Red Sun planet at the time, and Luthor was wearing a Super suit).
Another time, Batman's kid Damian, kidnapped Superman's son (Jon) to experiment on him. Batman of course figured out and told him to release him, but Superman came in and nearly killed Batman and Damian, even though Batman was trying to explain what was happening. Had a mutual friend of Jon and Damian not been there, they probably would have either killed each other, or damaged the area.
So they are flawed characters and can be relatable under a good writer (examples being Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, JMS, Max Landis, Peter J Tomasi, etc.).
I agree with a good chunk of your video, but in terms of comics, I don't really agree with you at all.
So basically Superman's flaw is that he can really hold a grudge... fair point, and not always used when it should be, as many authors don't utilize it.
MDoorpsy I don't think "holds grudges" is a great way to describe it. Rather, he just is bad at trust. Gives it too easily at first, and reconstructs it too poorly after. Doesn't seem great at evaluating different people's perspective, experiences, motives, incentives, psychology. How would you summarize that?
"Naive farm boy" seems about right.
Superman's flaws aren't enough for me. Anime make their heroes so vulnerable as to where mcu makes their's so one dimensional.
he doenst know much (at all) about comics, his thing is anime, i didnt even bother getting mad or even upset about this video, it had amazing points, but some flaws that ..... made me thing otherwise
Hot headed pride, and being a total saint, are two most commonly used behaviors, with little nuance to it other than face value stuff.
Why are being relatable and being powerful polar opposites? That doesn't make much sense. Guts for example is powerful sure, but he seeks for a place in the cruel world he's in. That's something relatable because his goal feels very personal and is easily transferable into the real world, while goals like "being the best/strongest etc" feel more distant in comparison.
Also since when is Gon morally right? He's one of the most ill minded shonen protagonists I've ever seen. (which makes him particularly interesting) And no, I'm not solely talking about the Chimera Ant Arc, his apathy for human life and his dangerous naivety are something that is hinted throughout the entire anime. Don't fall for his childish facade, question his actions.
Clayer Yeah. Gon's a scary kid when you really look at him. How can a kid that has spent his entire life on an island where the most interesting thing to happen is him catching a giant fish, is so chill when he sees so many people die in front of him? Scary kid.
WonderingSoul why do ppl always single out Gon. Killua, Kurapika and Leorio don't react to so many ppl dying too.
Clayer not disagreeing w/ your overall point but Gon childishness isn't a facade, that is actually who and what his personality is, and That is why his moral is the way it is because of his childishness. It's that simple and that obvious. Its not a facade.
I would replace "childish facade" with "innocent facade" since his lack of innocence comes from being too childish to process moral situations right, or so is the way I understand Gon. Nice Lain pic.
Just Someone Gon doesn't lack innocence, if anything he is too innocent. That is who he is and part of the problem about him.
We all can make the world around us better, we have power to do it. It takes effort. I think Roy Mustang is a great representative of this.
Someone who is vulnerable and takes punishment for being selfless. Solid Snake comes into mind when I think of a Hero.
Perfect example, actually. He has a strong sense of morality but at the same time, he is jaded and doesn't open up to people. Except for a few close friends. (Otacon, Meryl, Campbell,etc.)
Just so my stance is clear. I want my heroes to be paragons. When they stand up there and say they represent "truth and justice" people don't laugh or gawk and the absurdity of that claim, but cheer and chant or quake with fear. Give me a hero that will stand battered beaten and alone to face down the armies of hell because it is easier for them to die than to stand aside and let injustice go unchallenged.
I feel you conflate "hero" and "protagonist". Heroes by definition are virtuous and not amoral, let alone immoral, unless you actually want to bring back the old school myths from Greece and heroes are just famous people. Anti-heroes, anti-villains, and villainous protagonists exist as terms for you to use to describe a protagonist that doesn't fall into the hero category. If we do take your definition at face value, then the antagonists would have to be on the chart and they are more plentiful and varied. You're also ignoring the vast majority of heroes, which I feel fall between Luffy and Arnold on your list. Keep in mind, in today's world Harley Quinn is considered a pillar of DC because of her popularity, and she is far from heroic.
Superman has a couple flaws, most notably he is unwilling to "solve" problems like Lex, instead wanting humanity to grow and self-correct in some way as well as holding himself to insane standards. Something important about Superman's no kill rule: he is willing to kill but feels it should only be done in extreme circumstances and never glorified. "Superman: What's so Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way?" (comic) or Superman vs The Elite (animated movie, same story) is a good deconstruction and reconstruction of the paragon
Totally agree. I'm aghast, and ultimately dismayed that so many people turn away from true Heroism in storytelling, simply to feel dynamic and "unique" for finding a story where everyone is a tool to each other.
I'm glad to know I'm not alone in feeling this way. I used to listen to radio dramas from the 30's-50's and the sincerity in them absolutely blew me away.
Well said dude. while I do enjoy a good Antihero every now and then my heart will always be with heroes. I loves myths and I love superheroes. There's a reason charters like superman have stood the test of time while the same cannot be said for many antiheroes.
I feel like you miss understand superman.Sure superman is weak to a rock but he also has another one that is far more important to his character.And that is his overconfidence.There has been times where he would go on his own against the Justice leagues advice cause he believes he can do it on his own and does not want to have his team be in danger if he can help it.This causes trouble when it turns out he can't do it on his own and makes the situation worse or damages his relationship to the team.
I feel like people do t give superman enough credit for being a good character.
Jace Beleren along with his overconfidence, it's his inherent need to sacrifice himself before anyone else. This leads to the justice league thinking he doesn't trust them at times when he really just doesn't want anyone getting hurt.
I feel like you're opening statement about heroes being generally uninteresting is kind of reductive? Like a hero doesn't need to be the anti-hero like figure you describe to work, Batman's actions are almost always strictly heroic, but in his best stories his flawed motivations, and extreme beliefs really come through to carry the story.
I’m pretty sure this guy just equates edginess to likability.
I think a lot people fundamentally misunderstand heroes. I think it's today's culture that's to blame. Villains are the predictable ones to me because they will always be losers. Not losers to the heroes but to themselves. They have a tragic backstory and they lost to it. They lose to their base desires, their selfish impulses, to their addictions. Heroes usually have a tragic past too you know - Luke is an orphan who then loses that family too, Neo finds out his world is fake, Superman's planet blew up and he couldn't save his role model - but heroes overcome those tragedies and "win". And after they win they still have to fight themselves every day. The Golden Rule, do unto others like you would to yourselves, is freaking hard guys.
To me villains are still children that cry, hit and thrash their arms when they don't get their way - only their crying is done with guns, bombs and Death Stars.
I disagree. Firstly, I don't know what you're trying to get at. By your argument if villains "won" the tragic past led them to be villains, then well, you just won't have an antagonist at all. And if they don't have any of that tragic past at all, then they'd be one dimensional cardboard mustache twirling villains. Those also made for a ton of weak anime and comic book villains who ultimately ended up being highly forgettable. It's a no-win situation, unless you're saying that modern stories should not have an antagonist at all.
Tragic past aren't a test of the villains' character, it's a device to flesh them out, to give them more "contents" to their character. A villain setting out on a path of revenge is better than a villain who simply woke up one day and thought "huh, maybe I want to be evil".
I think you ultimately is basing your logic in the "stronger = better character" argument, which is ultimately wrong and misguided. Even without the planet busting powers, having a character with unyielding mentality doesn't make for a good character. If you want a character who can retain their mental state regardless of the situation, then you'd just have a robot.
Well, Kefka Palazzo successfully destroyed the world, so it's a win in my book. But he loses himself to his base desire of destruction.
toriloveSubarukun I get what you mean so many stories require the villains to be 'broken' it's why I'm so drawn to stories with the villain as the main character like death note and where the villains are just doing what they think is right like so many character in the asoif books display.
the villains are not necessarily broken, but their moral code has to be flawed. A tragic past is indeed often a good way to explain why their worldview is abnormal.
A tragic past is also a good way to make us empathise with that worldview, it goes beyond just having it make logical sense.
In a sense, Kira from death note is broken as well: he's a sociopath that hasn't been diagnosed, he's closed off and isolated which leads him down a terrible path. If he had seeked help around him he could have been a way better adjusted individual.
It's just that how those might be tragic on a personal level are not a focus of the series.
Reito Shizaki hmm I may be wrong but I think you misunderstood his points. He wasn't critizicing villains, but expressing why he believes heroes are actually better and more interesting characters than what people think of them. He didn't say that villains shouldn't have said backstories, but that often in their past, both heroes and villains had to come accross the same decisions, and the villains often let the terrible things going on overcome them, whereas heroes are heroes simply because they chose differently. eg. Luke, who overcomes his fear to lose his beloved ones, unlike his father Anakin, who chooses evil because of that fear. Of course this doesn't apply to every villain and it can be much more complex than that.
For me, what makes a hero a great one isn't exactly his morality or his power but is a much simpler aspect about both concepts: The struggle. A hero becomes real when his struggles feel real because he stops being the character of a book and start becoming a more or less abstract representation of your own struggles are.
For example: Shinji isn't relatable because he is not good enough to kill the angels on his own, but because his depression is crippling him to the point where he can do what he should be doing and that's how we relate to him. Saitama's struggle is that he tries to become what is more important to him (a hero) yet his struggle is that he doesn't know what exactly makes you a hero so he focus on searching a challenge that never appears.
An inmoral character with no power doesn't neccesarily have to be a relatable hero at all if his character struggle feel out of place. For example: Sasuke at the begining feels real because although he is relatively overpowered in comparison with most of the characters the struggle of being truthful to your long term objective (which has to feel well motivated too) or leave it for a new way of life that may makes you happy feels real, but it stopped feeling real when the characters started to feel lie he was looking for excuses to continue struggling (even when in a sense, he was less moral and less powerful than his counter part, Naruto).
"Oh a Super Eyepatch Wolf video. What a lovely thing to wake up to."
Is what he would have said if he hadn't spent the entire night screwing around on twitter.
Marche800 :0
Marche800 I actually just woke up lol
As a cartoonist, and comics creator, I really like your insights into heroes and villains. It makes me think of my work now, and in the future. Nice video. THX
Also Superman has flaws. His main flaw is a question of how much he should do. He doesn't want to be seen as a God, but he also wants to help everyone.
He struggles with that edge.
......
Plenty of heroes with storng morals have flaws beyond a simple Kryptonite. Percy Jackson has a fatal flaw of being unable to let people die, even if it might save everyone else. It has caused problems for him in his quests many times, and the Gods had reasons to fear it would destroy the world.
Classical greek heroes had flaws. Hercules was wrathful, many had great Hubris.
Not your best work I must be frank.
GUTS : the hero we need but the we don't deserve...
@ unlike the apostles, he doesn't kill people indiscriminately and there's some lines even he won't cross
Hurricane going through a country i don't even live in
*I SLEEP*
Super Eyepatch Wolf uploads
*ASCENDED*
REAL SHIT
"I never found heroes particularly interesting"
first sentence in and im already not a fan of this. I dont think just cause a hero is powerful and aspirational they cant be relatable or real. I've seen instances where they can be both. Plus, sometimes we need something that can be aspirational to be more of an ideal to strive towards. We all know we cant be superman but what he represents we can try and reach on a realistic level
Sorry, but a hero for others is just someone aspirational and powerful. There are a lot of heroes Mary sue so is natural for many to not be fan of them. Thought is true they can be relatable or real depending of the character.
If people dont like heroes because they're like mary sues then those people haven't seen a lot of heroes or followed their stories. I'm saying that just because a character is aspirational and powerful doesn't mean they cant be real or relatable. Characters like that show us what we can aspire to be in our reality
@@againstitall8964 i agree with you. however i think eyepatch was just stating is general preference. Like me personally, i've always enjoyed a well-written anti-hero as opposed to a hero. Doesnt mean i dont love characters like Deku or that I can relate to characters like Revy (black lagoon) but in terms of interest ive always liked anti-heroes more.
@@MrEvldreamr that's fine. I enjoy anti heroes too. I just believe that aspirational heroes are underrated.
Anti heroes are usually ones who either don't think about doing the right thing until something bad happens to them or they do and when the bad thing happens they become more cynical and darker in some way than they used to be.
Aspirational heroes are the ones like deku, superman, and captain America where they want to do the right thing before and after whatever sets them on their journey and try to live up to those ideals against the odds. I believe that it's like those three are at least the ideals they stand for that inspire those like anti heroes who try to do the right thing. Heroes who want to do the right thing because it's the right thing can still be interesting and relatable. If all there was were anti heroes, it would give the idea that you can only be truly a hero or good when something terrible happens to you. That you have be tormented or suffer to be good. That's not a bad thing as it can teach people that no matter how bad things get you can rise above it.
But aspirational heroes can teach us that we all inherently possess the ability to be truly good and that you don't have to dark to be a hero. Both teach different lessons and inspire in different ways. But are good and important. I just feel like one is favored over the other because it doesn't seem realistic, relatable and interesting when it's proven that it can be if given the right writer.
It's a lot harder to find these days because the world seems more cynical as of let but I'd argue that's why we need aspirational heroes and as much as we need anti heroes. To show us sometimes that the inherent desire to do good still exist and we don't need things to get worse before they can get better. That's just what I think of it
@@againstitall8964
Fantastic response. I get what youre saying. But I think for most people they have a "general" character disposition they prefer. I'm just thinking eyepatch wolf prefers his villains. I personally prefer heroes over villains but anti heroes over altruistic heroes.
I wouldn't be so quick to consider classical heroes as all virtuous and powerful. There are plenty of them who aren't that. Odysseus was a dishonest trickster. Theseus abandoned Ariadne after she saved him. Even Herakles murdered his children in a bout of madness.
Greek heroes definitely fall into the anti hero category generally. There used to be a term called
the classical hero" that basucally defined a specific type of anti hero, but it's fallen out of favor.
That wasn't Heracles' fault. Hera made him mad.
I agree with you though.
Indeed, but it shows his lack of power and it is a scarring and traumatic event for him.
Wolf, I think you've finally stumbled on this one - this entire analysis reads as an overly simplistic way of looking at characterization by looking at it through the lens of overly-specific and arbitrary parameters.
For example: the MC of Persona 5. His character isn't ultra-distinct, but it's there, and (Depending on how you play him) he is easily the most virtuous character in the setting, and is absolutely the ultimate force of power in the game. Yet he reads nothing like Superman, despite potentially coming near to maximum on both these scales. He's a trickster, he's cocky, he easily relates to his friends and isn't above poking fun at them, and he's so very clearly doing what he loves because he loves doing it.
Others might say "well, if you play him differently, than he hardly needs to be as virtuous as Superman," and I agree! But that only furthers the point I'm trying to make: Akira's specific player can land him just about anywhere on the Virtuous-Amoral scale, depending on how he's played, but his core character traits and personality - what makes him interesting - do not significantly change as a result. They may change slightly as a result of what dialogue options or choices the player makes, but again, that only furthers my point that what makes a protagonist interesting is entirely independent of how good-guy they are or how powerful they are.
In addition, putting "relatable" opposite from "powerful" feels weird and wrong. Those two things have nothing to do with one another. Saitama is WAY more of a relatable guy than Shinji "I masturbate over my friend's comatose body" Ikari, despite being at the exact end of the opposite scale from Saitama in terms of his potential to affect the story around him.
Not only are these descriptions arbitrary in their form, they are incorrect in their function, and thusly are poor parameters for reading the ability of a character to be interesting. What makes a character - and therefore a hero - interesting is the same thing that makes a villain interesting: a personality. Little details. Aspects of themselves that make the audience want to know more. I other words, good writing.
Also, as a personal pet-peeve note, Superman's flaw is that he cannot kill, and that he ascribes to ideals that, certainly, the rest of us should reach, but we cannot yet. He is inherently the idealistic dream of a farmer from Kansas with a good heart, and so inherently does not quite fit the world around him and its necessities. It does not mean that he cannot affect any sort of real change beyond punching out supervillains, only that he will face the same obstacles in trying to affect change as anyone attempting to live up an ideal: other people and their philosophies. Just because modern comic-writing and script-writing chooses to ignore this flaw does not mean that this flaw does not exist. Justice League and its continution, Justice League Unlimited, began to delve a little into this, but weren't able to truly follow through, for an example.
Your final thoughts - perhaps the last minute, minute and a half of the non-outro video - rings very true. Heroes need flaws, they need to be personable and "human", for lack of a better term. But that feels very disconnected in ideals from everything that's come before, very unrelated to the chart or the pontifications on the nature of Superman and Dr. Manhattan. IF you'd made the video based on that, I could wholeheartedly agree, but as is ...
... this feels unfortuantely lacking, compared to your usual work. I'm sorry to say.
Jared Haworth I wouldn't say JLU didn't do it well
88 people read this essay?
Your videos make my day Super Eyepatch Wolf ♥
Spider-Man is a pretty good hero. He's powerful, but not a demigod. He's relatable and also virtuous. Taking into account his huge comic history where exactly would he place on that graph?
Superman's weakness is that hes ultimately "good". And when the best choice for the situation isn't inherently "good" hes fucked.
I'll been a fan of your channel for a really long time, but I gotta admit. This is one of your weakest videos so far imo, others have mentioned your dismissal of Superman as a character, the inaccurate statements of classic mythical heroes being portrayed as virtuous, etc. But what really rubs me the wrong way is the logic of your graph and how dismissive it is. By this graph's logic, Saitama and Kirito both have the same amount of relatability. When that couldn't be further from the truth, Saitama is someone who is constantly criticized by society as a fraud and is constantly put down by other heroes and even those he rescues. Being Isolated even more by his strength, which has left him worried that he'll never find anyone with a level of power that could even rival or surpass his. Every time he thinks he's found someone close or higher than his level (Boros, Garou), it ends up being shattered because of his unrivaled strength and his hopes are crushed.
Kirito, on the other hand, is capable of dual wielding, which is a skill no one else can do, has a constant group of women that fall in love with him easily, and has is very much beloved by any one who isn't a villain. What's even worst is that in the "Why you should watch One Punch Man" video. Eyepatch Wolf talks about the differences that separate Kirito and Saitama, to make Saitama a much more likable and relatable character. Yet here those differences are completely ignored for the sake of shoving certain characters in the same section of a graph without any thought what so ever.
It also ignores that fact that characters in the graph don't stay same and can move places throughout the story depending on their actions. (Gon, Luffy etc.)
holy shit ppl really out here writing essays to this vid, fucking no lifes LMAO youtube comments truly are the cesspool of discussion
+LG93X, and your here reading them...
LG93X What's wrong with discussion ?
LG93X Amazing isn't! It's almost liKe people actually THINK and QUESTION what they hear and see! Truly an utter cesspool! (SARCASM)
Again. Your thinking that Wolf is referring to one character of superman. Superman has MULTIPLE variations some written better than others. In reality, Wolf is talking about the GENERAL concept of Superman, or better yet the Mainstream version of Superman. If you ask a kid about superman your gonna get a dumb down version of what Wolf said.
As for Saitama I think he did mess up his own concept kind of... not fully though. In this graph power = how you effect your world. (House vs Goku analogy). That being said, I believe Saitama doesn't have much power over his world but at the same time he can literally has saved the world multiple times against villains who could destroy it with ease. WITH One Punch. The characters around him might not acknowledge it but Samaritan DOES have effect on his world.
As for the mythical heroes same thing with superman thing. When I think Odysseys I think warrior of great power and symbol of will. etc. etc.
I just personally want to thank you for all of your videos. I have always been an amateur writer and received my degree in Film Theory and production, so your academic approach to your videos lends a weight to them that other opinion-based videos do not have. I've made a few short films but have recently decided to concentrate on my writing by going back to my first love, that of comics. Your video essays have helped me create better stories, and better characters, and for that, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge your humanity by admitting that you are not always right (who is?) and, like some of the commentators, I tend to disagree with you on certain points. However, I believe you deal with these disagreements in the spirit of philosophical debate (philosophy was my personal favourite course at University), using counter arguments to strengthen and improve your own, or accepting that some of your arguments are flawed and need to be revisited, revised, or disregarded completely. I've never seen you insult someone who has disagreed with you and it seems that you are always willing to constructively debate those with criticisms. This being the internet, and humans being humans, there will always be those who resort to trolling or non-constructive criticism. Like an ideal hero, humans are flawed and we can only try our best to understand them without judging them too harshly. Despite this, you have consistently responded to such criticism in a funny and civilised manner, and for that I commend you.
I apologise for the long comment but I just wanted to thank you personally and I hope you continue to do what you do, in the spirit you do it with.
Not every hero wears a cape, some make really cool youtube videos.
Excelsior/Plus Ultra
Yeah, I can't say I agree with the judgement on Saitama. Saitama is the most powerful guy right, but I think he is extremely relatable. His entire character seems to be a think tank on what someone with no match do with his life? Also, I disagree about the virtuous/amoral scale. I think that doing bad things for a good reason does not make one a hero in literature. If this were the case, Thanos would most definitely be a hero. I think it would be good to research what makes a good villain as I think with that you will see a lot of overlap of your assessment here.
Edit: I see now that you did make a video covering villains and I see your comment so disregard that last bit
i think the point of the relatable/powerful scale was to convey that their power/influence over the world is on a more relatable scale to the average viewer (unless you have that type of power, but thats not the point)
he also further elaborated on his point rignt after so unless you didnt see that i think all the comments about it are a bit unecessary
Saitama is relatable because while yes, his is overpowered, he also suffers from depression and boredom. He got to the top of the mountain and no one was there but him.
I'm surprised you didn't touch on the mostly lackluster attempts in the 90's to make "gritty heroes", when everyone wanted to imitate The Watchmen.
Very shallow way of looking at heroes in general.
Powerful and relatable is a false dichotomy, sim0py because a character can be both powerful and powerless in the same story, even at the same time. Multiple things can constitute power in a story, and power is usually in flux.
It isn't weakness that makes a character relatable, it isn't even flaws either - it's obstacles to their goal, their struggles, and how or whether they overcome them. A person isn't less relatable because they are powerful - you even say this during your "What makes a villain feel real" video - it is just that powerful people don't often have that many obstacles.
Characters like Deku - and Naruto for that matter (don't know why you put him so much to the right when he started out even more powerless than Deku did), feel real because they had gone through a lot of hardship prior to the story's start - in Deku's case not having a quirk despite his dream and in Naruto's case growing up alone. This hardhsip (and other hardships they face later down the line) obstruct them from achieving their goals is something everyone can relate to.
Lastly (and more pettily on my part), you grouped Naruto with Goku and Natsu? Seriously? Now I've finished or am up to date with most of the popular shounens and feel the need to point out that Naruto is far more of a 3 dimensional and relatable character than those two are, because unlike them, every aspect of his character has a believable and explained origin - he doesn't like to eat a lot simply because he's a shounen protagonist; as a poor, downtrodden toddler, Teuchi Ichiraku was the only person that would give him a hot meal free of charge - a bowl of ramen - and this became his favorite food as a result. He treasures his friends to an absurd degree, not simply because he's a shounen protagonist but because he grew up without any friends or family. He is quicker than most to forgive his enemies, not cuz he's the protagonist but because either he is empathetic towards their own hardships and struggles, or because - and this is a major plot point - he sees what revenge does to various people in his life and makes a concious effort to not to indulge in it, not just due to his own moral compass but because it was his sensei and father figure's dying wish. He's mischevous because it's the only way people would acknowledge his existence as a kid. He actually legitimately hated the people around him due to his treatment for most of his life but hid it from them. He later has a strained and heavy relationahip with his family because he puts his duty to the village above his responaibilities as a father and he is deeply conflicted about this. He stated many times hos he would have ended up like Sasuke or Gaara if one thing in his life had gone differently. He resented his friends a little because they had parents and he didn't.
And you lump him in with Goku and _Natsu?_ Get the fuck out of here.
Why is your voice so perfect holy shit.
Because he's Irish???
The perfect Irish voice.
Batman is always in the center of every hero characters, one the best characters of modern literature of all time
Thanks for great videos. Your videos're always help me to learn about story and characters.
Goku is virtuous? Hes literally the cause and deliberate starter of every problem in dbz
Vegeta is the one responsible most of the problems in dbz.
And he cares for everyone too
@@C4shaRaM4 Goku doesnt care for everyone, pretty sure Toriyama said this at one point, that Goku is not a hero. He doesnt fight to save everyone, but rather he fights because he likes to fight. Yeah sure he gets angry when his friends are hurt in front of him, but that doesnt mean he cares about them. It just means he lost his sparring partner. Goku only cares about the Earth because of the food and the abundance of people he can train with there. And with Earth has no one to train with, he leaves. He abandons his connection with his family and his friends so he can go get stronger elsewhere. He is a typical saiyan that trives on conflict, and even Vegeta, who wanted to destroy all life, cares more about his family than Goku. The only thing wrong with Vegeta is that he trains to become stronger than Goku, its not fair how someone with no morals is stronger than him
@@limitless_j English Dub Goku is a virtuous person who cares about protecting the weak and those he loves. Japanese dub Goku is a sociopath who cares only for his own wants and desires and whose biggest desire is his instinctual need to fight stronger opponents.
Goku can ride the nimbus because he is pure of heart. I agree generally that he causes a lot of the problems in DBZ by not optimizing his actions to kill his enemies and protect his friends. But to me, that seemed like a character who is too generous even to his enemies. He gives Frieza a bunch of chances to live for example, and only intends to kill Frieza once during their entire fight on Namek. In my view, he would do a better job protecting earth and his friends by being more brutal, but that's not DBZ's take on what it is to be good. He's like Superman in that way, his biggest flaw is he's not brutal enough for the world he lives in.
Counter point: We have too many "real" heroes.
Too many times do we see writers try to turn the paragons of yesteryear into "deep" and "complex" characters. Too much focus on the "man behind the mask" and not enough on why they even WEAR the mask. Too much focus on how easy it is for them to fall, and not why they rose to the occasion in the first place.
Superman today is a product of Alan Moore's influence on comics, and because of that has become a joke. Today, these days, we don't need "real" superman, we need classic Superman. We need a person of virtue and ideals, we need a symbol of hope because god damn are we in a mess right now. There is a place for deconstruction, but super heroes are symbols, they are more than the person behind the mask they are more than the petty arguments between them.
I've seen too many punishers and not enough All-Mights in my media.
Alan Moore himself said that he even regrets writing Watchmen because people completely missed the point. He wasn't trying to make superheroes "realistic" unlike the numerous edgeload hacks that came after him.
ReasonForNo that last comment though
Transient Tiefling While I still enjoy today’s Superman I agree with you. We need more character like All Might and less Punisher.
Transient Tiefling you're points don't make any sense most people want a relatible hero or someone who they feel like connect. And relatible hero can still inspire and give people hope besides most people don't like a boring symbol of peace who is nothing but an unreachable ideal
I don't think many can relate to the Punisher, and the ones who can probably don't read comic books.
"weakening the characters ability to affect the world around them"
Shinji: literally was given godlike powers to decided the faith of humankind.
Your graph/plot/what-have-you with heroes faces has many characters one would *not* label a hero in a traditional narratological class or sense - Saitama included, and its a joke series.
So I don't know if this video is really satisfying, as it drifts and moves, but never really settles.
You should really read Alan Moore's "For the Man Who has Everything".
It's a really amazing story that helped to turn Superman into one of my favorite super heroes.
Isn't Saitama supposed to be a parody/subversion of virtuous power fantasies and the hero's journey?
searchoverload8 yea
searchoverload8 Not so much. He's supposed to take that trope to its logical conclusion and make a hilarious shounen comedy rather than a straight shounen. A good show, just not a subversive one.
Just a note- to be quite honest with you, Saitama is very relatable. Not in the sense that I beat up monsters or supervillains in a single punch, but in his search for something greater than everyday life, his appreciation of a good bowl of soup with a friend, and the annoyance of trying to kill a mosquito that just won't stinkin' die.
No. Actually, the writer wanted to make a superhero story, but he didn't know how to do an underdog story and to solve this problem he created Saitama, but he knew the main character needed problems for them to solve, and he knows how to solve common problems. So the creator, ONE, made a Slice of Life with an eye candy plot, the slice of life has the strongest character as the protagonist. And that my friends, is how you do marketing. ONE created a slice of life and people still believe it is a hero story when it isn't.
Fate Howls Nothing wrong with how YOU view it, but when you try to make it so your opinion is the answer you should kindly fuck off with your BS.
It's not my opinion. That's what the creator said.
Alongside all the other comments, I thing I think you must've missed about heroes being all good and all is the REASON that people want and create good heroes.
If we only create "real" heroes, it'll only be a reflection of the sins and corruption and everything wrong with the world.
Making a hero more relatable by making them more "human", is fine, but we want to remember that they are the HERO, not an Anti-hero, villain or any other form of main character.
That Berserk music in the background at 7:00 tho
Shroomboy this music just starts and every fan begins to have Vietnam flashbacks
I agree, I mean I love the music but it really fills me with memories... not necessarily good ones
>Shinji Ikari is at zero power
Shinji effects Misato, Asuka, Rei, Toji, and that's almost everybody he comes into contact with. Unit 01 being available or not makes a strong difference, and at the beginning the dummy plug doesn't seem functional, later Unit 01 outright rejects anyone who isn't Shinji, Shinji kills multiple heralds of the world's end, including the last angel.
Shinji has the power to chose whether or not to get into the damn robot.
I feel like there should be a 3rd slider bar for "Proactiveness," I find a lot of people like villains because they are often the ones who do things in the story, where the hero just becomes a reactive force against the villain's schemes rather than someone attempting do achieve their own goals.
Basically the hero in One Piece wants to achieve his own goals. The main villain is not even in his thoughts because he (most probably) doesn't know him/her/them.
Your definition of a 'Hero' is pretty much just 'The Main Character'.... that's why I couldn't get on board with this video, from the start of this video I think you have blurred the line between a protagonist and an actual 'Hero' like All-Might or Goku.
Well yes, but this is all very subjective. There isn't really any way to truly define it.
@@rasmusmalmberg6468 saying that "protagonist = hero" doesn't really work when villain protagonists are common enough to have their own term. there's little subjective about it
@@Vapor817 Imagine thinking morality isn't subjective
@@rasmusmalmberg6468 real life morality almost never aligns with black and white superhero stories.
Yes there are clear definitions between protagonist and hero. The video got a plain FACT wrong and thats what this commenter is saying.
This video makes it very clear Eyepatch has a big bias towards traditional western heroes. I feel like he didn't properly research or read any comics before making this.
For example, characters like Superman and Cap have gone through so many different changes the last decade, but he's so quick to dismiss them and gather them all into one little corner.
And I find it weird that whenever he mentions Superman being perfect, it always goes to footage of the SNYDER MAN OF STEEL SUPERMAN, which is one of the most NON-TRADITIONAL DIVISIVE Superman we've gotten. This Superman constantly gets flack for shit he wasn't directly responsible for(bringing Zod to earth), he runs off on the people of earth because he feels he can't live up to the image that people want him to aspire to, and he even had to break a traditional Superman no-kill rule at one point and suffer because of it.
And even traditional comic Supes is much more complex that he makes him out to be. He's a hard character to get right but when given to the RIGHT writer(ie Grant Morrison), you see so much more than just the caped invincible buff guy who saves kittens from trees.
And so what if a hero doesn't have as many flaws or is as morally grey as someone like Guts? Protagonists should be varied and diverse. Not every protagonist needs to be brooding or kill liberally. I LOVE Guts, Wolverine, Batman, Deadpool, Punisher, but I don't think I would read comics or manga as much if EVERY protagonist was like that. With so many popular anti-heroes, its refreshing to get characters like Superman and Cap in my reading material.
Paul C agree , also relatability is a thing that people dont understand very well, there are plenty of characters who dont show their internal struggle and people love them, james bond and some spy action movies come to mind, you can have an unrelatable hero and be accepted by people, people fall into the relatability/realistic trap nowadays far too easily.
Western heroes were propaganda pieces for self insert of USA in the second world war, now they are just pop culture trash pieces for money making capitalism.
Jack Johnson
Stop being a salty dipshit weeb
SuperJYLS You first :P
Yeap... Because that's the most famous part of Superman and that's what most audience think Superman is... The current pop culture is killing america
What Makes a Hero Feel Real? and what make someone a hero? They are both 100% subjective! Also there is a huge difference between a hero and a main character.
100% subjective would imply that there is literally nothing that could be talked about. A meaningless speck of dust could then be described as a hero, just as much as, say, Superman could be.
This is obviously not the case. Subjectivity is always present, but never completely 100%.
At the very least, your last sentence contradicts your first statement to begin with. The claim "there is a huge difference between a hero and a main character" would imply that there is at the very least a distinction between the two that can be objectively verified, implying that it isn't, in fact 100% subjective.
On a different note, I do indeed think that this video described what it is to be the main character, at the beginning. It's not a fundamental criticism however, as this video is more about creating the feeling of "realness", and not so much about the semantics of heroism.
@@RedFloyd469 Well it is 100% subjective since people call any main character hero. Be the main character doesn't make the character the hero since there are anime, cartoon or video games where the main character is the villain or the anti-hero, and that just fact.
Superman does have a flaw, he holds himself to such a high standard, that no one can live up to it (not even himself) and blames himself for things that aren't really his fault. Everytime he fails to save some one, or makes a mistake, he feels that he has failed to live up to what Superman is meant to be. I don't feel that said flaw necessarily makes him relatable, but it's still a flaw.
"with abilities and powers that more closely resemble the average human"
*shows gon*
uhhhhhhhhhh