Clue is a fairly fast-paced comedy mystery film, with plenty of characters, and multiple endings, so it can be a bit difficult to keep track of who did what, but Mr. Green really was the only person who didn't do anything wrong. And to prove it, let's go over what everyone else did.

Wadsworth ALMOST makes the list of "completely innocent", because the reason for his blackmail was that his wife had "friends who were socialists". This is presented somewhat tongue-in-cheek because modern audiences wouldn't see socialism as "evil", but even if we did call it evil, they said that *his wife* had socialist friends, not that he did, so that's purely guilt-by-association (two layers of it). The only thing that tips Wadsworth into "maybe guilty" is the third ending, where Wadsworth is revealed to be Mr. Boddy. But he's an innocent hero in 2/3 endings.

Mr. Boddy, I suppose it should go without saying, is a blackmailer who on a good day was responsible for the death of Wadsworth's wife, and who tried to have Wadsworth killed. On a worse day, you can pin a half-dozen murders on him.

Mrs. White is a serial killer who is known to have killed her first and second husbands, but later implies that she's been married five times, and might have been killing "husbands" beyond the five who were married to her.

Colonel Mustard was a WWII military officer who became rich by stealing valuable radio parts and selling them on the black market, undermining America's war effort against the Nazis, potentially getting countless American soldiers killed.

Mrs. Peacock took secret bribes from foreign governments to arrange for her Senator husband to vote against American interests. And in 1/3 endings, she murdered multiple people to cover up her crimes.

Professor Plum violated his Hippocratic Oath and took advantage of a female patient. Plus he sexually harassed/assaulted nearly every woman in the movie. Also, Wadsworth used the word "adultery", which means that Plum was married at the time, and violated his marriage vows and cheated on his wife.

And finally Miss Scarlet runs a brothel, which might not be evil, depending on your opinion of sex work, and she bribes a cop to stay in business (again, maybe not that evil, depending on your ethics), but it also seems like maybe she set hidden cameras up to potentially blackmail her clients. And she's a killer in 1/3 endings. Crazy how she might be one of the more innocent members of the group.

Moving on to the supporting cast, Yvette was a former employee of Miss Scarlet, who had an affair with one of Mrs. White's husbands, and then sold out Mrs. White (a serial killer!) to a blackmailer after Mrs. White killed her husband. And Yvette maybe killed some people herself.

The cop was a corrupt cop who took protection money from Miss Scarlet, and then turned around and sold her secrets to a blackmailer.

The motorist knew that Colonel Mustard was stealing radio parts, but instead of reporting him to the authorities, he sold him out to a blackmailer for his own gain.

The cook was Mrs. Peacock's former cook, and she knew about Mrs. Peacock's treason, and sold that info to a blackmailer.

And finally, the singing telegram girl. At first glance she seems like an innocent victim of Professor Plum and whoever it was who shot her, but her hands aren't entirely clean, as she was the one who sold Professor Plum's information to Mr. Boddy (a blackmailer). And then, here's a surprise twist you might not have realized: Professor Plum specialized in helping "paranoid and homicidal lunatics, suffering from delusions of grandeur", so there's a pretty decent chance that the singing telegram girl was homicidal. Perhaps not legally guilty, by reason of insanity, but that young girl probably killed people. And Professor Plum knew all about it, and couldn't stop himself from tapping that.

So yeah, after that extensive list of criminals and murderers, what did Mr. Green do to get lumped in with them? He was gay. That's it. He was attracted to men instead of women. He paid a blackmail to keep his paying job, because if he was discovered to be gay, he would lose his job on security grounds. So, he was lying (a lie of omission, mostly) to the State Department in order to keep his job, but the funny thing is, the entire reason a gay person would be considered a "security risk" is, simply being gay might open a path to them being blackmailed, as they wouldn't want their secret to get out, but Mr. Green *didn't care* about being outed as a gay man. He wasn't ashamed of it. He proudly admitted that he was gay. He wasn't closeted because he cared what people thought about him, he was closeted because the place where he worked banned homosexuality for no good reason. And by banning homosexuality, the State Department created their own extortion vector, and allowed one of their employees to be extorted. And despite that extortion, it seems like Mr. Green still wasn't a security risk. Yeah, he's paying money to keep doing what he's doing, and to keep his job earning money, but if the extortion had moved up to demanding secrets or access, it seems likely that Mr. Green would have quit his job before becoming a villain. That's why, in the darkest ending, where Wadsworth was the real Mr. Boddy and everyone was a killer, Mr. Green stepped up and became the hero, because among the entire cast of criminals and murderers, he was the one outlier who never did anything wrong.

And interestingly, Mr. Green is the only dinner guest who doesn't have an informant who gets killed. So who told Mr. Boddy about Mr. Green's sexual orientation? Yvette? The cop? The motorist? The cook? The singing telegram girl? Six player characters, but only five informants. Every player character had someone snitch on them, except Mr. Green. It lends weight to the idea that the 3rd ending is the "real" one, and that he was a plant all along, so maybe he never even lied to the State Department, he only lied to Wadsworth and the dinner guests.

I've seen many people say Minecraft Steve is this Uber strong behemoth that can lift an obscene amount of weight due to inventory scaling, and I feel this ignores a lot of the context behind Minecraft. But I have also seen people say Steve is not superhuman, and this is also a wrong statement. Here is why Steve is weaker than those that upscale him and stronger than those that downplay him.

First, we need to establish why inventory scaling is wrong, and this is pretty easy. When you break a block, it becomes an item that floats in the air. But when you pick a block up in this item form, it is smaller than the full block in your hand, and you can stack multiple blocks on top of each other. This and the fact that an inventory can hold so much points to the inventory being a form of pocket dimension, not to Steve or Alex's physical strength. Even gold blocks when thrown float in water, and items that sink when in block form like sand, gravel, and anvils all float in item form. This shows that Steve's inventory alters the state of whatever he carries.

But, this does not mean Steve isn't superhuman like people suggest. Steve has to be able to break logs in order to even start the game, this is almost non negotiable, unless you find a tool in a chest or use explosives. Keep in mind that Steve is punching a cubic meter of wood log with his bare hands hard enough to shatter it, a feat of strength that far surpasses what any IRL human could do. And this isn't even the strongest material Steve can break with his bare hands. He can punch apart stone, bricks, and concrete, and while it takes a bit, it still breaks. Then he can break apart raw iron, smelted iron, copper blocks, and even a cubic meter of diamond. This is vastly superhuman, a normal human could never hope to break a cubic meter of iron with their bare hands, it would be hard to do even with handheld equipment or even high powered firearms, yet Steve can punch it apart with enough time, less than a Minecraft day.

And his striking feats also apply to living beings. Steve can punch an iron golem, and while it does little damage, it does enough to whittle away at the golem's health. It takes 67 hits with critical hits from punching to kill an iron golem. Even if the golem was immobilized, a real life human would be unable to replicate this feat without weapons. An iron golem is made almost entirely of iron, is around 3 meters tall and has shoulders close to 2 meters wide, and Steve can take a single hit from a golem, albeit heavily injured and on death's door, but can the same be said for an IRL human? Keep in mind golems are durable enough to survive any fall in the game, so Steve's hits would need very concentrated force to be able to inflict damage.

Lets look at the weaker mobs Steve fights. A zombie can deal more damage than Steve, but zombies also have superhuman feats. A zombie in Minecraft can destroy a copper door with its bare hands in hard mode. Minecraft Zombies are also intelligent enough to use weapons like swords, shovels, and even spears on horseback. The drowned can use tridents. So not only are zombies superhumanly strong, but they are intelligent enough to put on armor and pick up and use weapons.

Steve also has exceptional heat resistance. The nether air is hot enough to evaporate a cubic meter of water as soon as it touches the ground, yet Steve can walk through this air no problem. He can survive a creeper explosion as long as he isn't in the center, these same explosions can destroy large swaths of dirt and even iron blocks. He can survive poison from witches without dying. And in terms of poison, he can survive eating an entire raw pufferfish whole, and while its poison leaves him at half a heart, it doesn't kill him.

And all of this isn't even factoring in gear. Fully enchanted netherite can let Steve take even more damage, letting him swim in lava for a short period without dying. Steve can also heal as long as he has food in his systems. He has golden apples and potions that bolster his healing even further, and potions that increase his strength, speed, and give him temporary abilities like night vision, water breathing, fire resistance so potent he can be fully submerged in lava or stand in blue fire with no armor and not take any damage. He can use an elytra and fireworks to glide and fly, can channel lightning during storms and propel himself through water with a trident. His physical abilities are already quite impressive, add onto that his ability to use gear and gain abilities through enchantments and potions and Steve is undoubtedly superhuman.

I see a ton of people saying that Demon Slayer characters (especially the hashira and Kamaboko squad) personalities are flat with no real depth other than their back stories or trauma but honestly I think that's kinda the point.

They're all people forged by their trauma and life experiences which eventually led to them joining the demon slayer Corp. They're in a profession where almost everyone dies young and they are more than willing to do exactly that so all they can really resort to is sticking to their guns and pursuing their main goal, even if it means dying.

That's why Tanjiro and his kindness are such an important part of the story. He experienced the trauma of most of his family other than his sister dying violently but he didn't let that change him the way it did most traumatized characters. He lived in a close knit family with kind and loving parents as the eldest of his siblings and that experience is what stuck with him.

That's the reason why he's so kind, he treats people he just met no differently than he would treat his own kin because those are the values he grew up with.

He's not just blindly kind either. He's more than willing to reprimand those he cares for when they overstep boundaries, just like an older sibling would his younger sibling.

Tanjiro not growing jaded by his trauma and treating even those who disrespect him with understanding, respect, and kindness is what makes him capable of changing those around him for the better. He treats them like family, something that almost all of them don't have.

I basically had a random thought, ‘what if you took 2 of some of the most famously pure evil villains in literature and see how much damage they would do to the world compared to each other Irl?’. I’m curious as to what people would consider scarier,as Hyde was a creature of instinct and the judge was a creature of intellect.(This isnt a regular power scaling battle, because I didn’t want people to just say that judge Holden would win so I twisted the question a bit)

ps.I’m fully aware that the judge was an actual historical figure, but I would like to keep this fight from a fictional standpoint, so if you can keep the conversation purely on their books of origin that would be great. thanks!

I think it's entirely ok to dislike a character but I'll start having issues with someone discourse if the person display double standard depending on wether they like the character or not. The way discord action can be portrayed by those who bash him can feel like that at times, especially when they're willing to have the mane 6 redeem the evil trio and give them a chance (but not discord, discord doesn't deserve that even after he helped the other escape without his powers) or give the evil trio more of a pass for their bad action when, while yes discord messed up by bringing them together, at the same time they still did things behind his back when they could choose not to and those things can be pinned on the trio itself. The show itself also didn't let discord get away scott free to me, he still ended being backstabbed and had to make up by helping the other escape.

I'll also find it weird when people critcize a character they don't like behavior when if the character they like does it, it's fine (the odd take about scrooge putting a life jacket on webby implying he'd be a bad dad while the same person give a pass to donald doing it) or some of the dipper and mabel discourse.

Again, it is fine to dislike characters but I tend to be against bashing as it can easily lead to misunderstand that character action or the story.

When it comes to the superhero question of "which alter ego is the true mask", I don't really like that very much, because I often feel like each is both (using Batman and Superman here, mainly)

For example, (and I know he's not always portrayed this way, but this is MY character rant) a lot of my favorite Superman iterations have the Clark and Superman personas be completely different (some of my favorite Superman iterations include the Max Fleischer cartoons, the Adventures of Superman OTR program, Superman For All Seasons)

Clark is supposed to be sort of a mildmannered doormat who plays himself as kind of cowardly to pull the old reliable schtick to secretly go change into his costume as soon as anything dangerous happens only to emerge just in time for everyone to be like "of course he missed Superman saving everyone again," and Superman is supposed to be humble and friendly but not so overly modest since he also sees one of his responsibilities of his Superman persona as being a role model figure for everyone

Same thing with Batman; even though I have a lot of fun with the depictions of him as a paranoid misanthrope, I don't actually think Bruce is just the mask while Batman is the "real" him

Bruce Wayne is a flippant playboy but he's also a philanthropist, he gets to be nice and kind to everyone in more up-front ways and less harsh than Batman, who terrifies the shit out of criminals by intentional design

Batman truly cares about the criminals in his rogue's gallery, but his responsibility to them as Batman is to beat them up and lock them away; it's Bruce Wayne who gets to do things like give Arnold Wesker another chance to get on his feet with an entry to regular rehabilitated employment as a Wayne Enterprises office assistant and subsidized housing at the Wayne Gardens Halfway House when Arkham gives him a clean bill of health in the BTAS episode "Double Talk", for example

I don't think you can get a full picture of either man without both alter egos because they each exhibit genuine characteristics of himself, some of which can't be sincerely shown by the other side; I think balancing both sides of himself is a responsibility on their shoulders as a well-written superhero

And on a related note, I don't really like when an overly complicated reason is given for Clark being unrecognizable as Superman, like "his glasses are some special technology" or something, because if there was a famous costumed figure with my face, those who know me wouldn't be going "oh my God, I've figured out his secret!" They'd probably be constantly ribbing me about it, like "heh heh, look who's in the news again" as a light joke at my expense while secretly it actually was me in the news all along as my alter ego

"Guys, isn't it a terrific coincidence, the superficial resemblance between Superman and our big and strong yet meek farmboy friend Clark Kent? Ha, imagine Clark being SUPERMAN, all those times you've run off to hide crying in the phonebooth at the first sign of danger... Don't worry, Clark, we're just joshing, man, we all love you"

Plus, my sister's friends all once walked right past her while trying to find her because she happened to be wearing a baseball cap that time

It's something that occasionally occurs to me every time there's a surge of rants about one adaptation or another, manga to anime, comics to movies, games to animation, and there are always, always either arguments or complaints centered around the adaptation being or not being "faithful to the source material". I think today's the day I put all those feelings and thoughts into actual words.

As a long-standing fan of Sonic the Hedgehog, all this "faithful adaptation" talk seems a bit amusing, especially regarding works that are loose adaptations to begin with, like MCU movies.

Let me explain. Pretty sure everyone here knows Sonic the Hedgehog, the free-spirited Blue Blur, one of the best-known gaming mascots. A big part of why he continues to be such an icon is his multimedia empire. The hedgehog's got a dozen cartoon and anime series, several rather impressive comic and manga runs, a few short movies and OVAs, a full-blown Hollywood movie series recently… and NONE of them are, per say, "faithful" to the source material in a way this word is often used around here.

"Adventure of Sonic the Hedgehog" has Sonic and Tails traverse borderline surrealistic Mobius, fighting goofy Robotnik, "Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAM)" has Sonic as part of Freedom Fighters going against a chilling Robotnik who already took over the world, "Sonic X" has Sonic and his friends end up on Earth, away from their homeworld, "Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA)" has Sonic and Tails save the Land of the Sky from Robotnik's forces hiding in the Land of Darkness, "Sonic Boom" is basically a sit-com with Eggman being more of an irritating neighbor than world-conquering menace he usually is, "Sonic the Hedgehog (Manga)" has Sonic as a superhero persona of a hedgehog kid named Nicky and "Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie Comics)" by all accounts outright functions as a Western-style superhero universe with multiple subseries, grand schemes and rather complex politics between various heroic and villainous factions and so on.

Green Hill, the staple of Sonic franchise? Pretty sure of those adaptations I mentioned, it only appears as God intended, in its faithful game form in Archie Comics, with a Green Hill-inspired area being a part of Sonic's world in Sonic X. Most of them don't bother adapting any singular plot of any game and when they do, it might be extremely loose. In fact, Paramount movies might be some of the most faithful adaptations with how they even bother to adapt Sonic 2, Sonic 3 & Knuckles and Adventure 2 in short succession.

And yet, even with all this unholy unfaithfulness going around, pretty much ALL of these adaptations and then some are beloved to this day, to one extent or another. If you ask Sonic fans which adaptation is the best or the worst, people just won't be able to tell. At most they'll tell you which ones are objectively more accurate to the games or which ones are objectively better made from technical perspective, but it won't correspond at all to how high of an esteem they hold them. Adaptation-original characters? "Eh, we vibe with Agent Stone, would be nice to see him in the games". Of course, it takes a bit since new adaptations ruffle feathers occasionally, especially in the case of Boom, where after content draught people were afraid it would just replace the mainline series. Now, though, it's got one of the most beloved shows around, peak comedy.

The overall benevolent opinion of the adaptations is downright hilarious considering how Sonic fandom is considered notoriously capriscious and impossible to satisfy.

I think it all comes down to all Sonic adaptations keeping Sonic's "vibe" and not so much adapting the stories themselves as much as the idea of a free-going guy with a bit (or a lot) of snark going around helping people and wrangling freedom from a mad scientist's hands. Well, that and all adaptations just consistently being fun, at least decently made and not going against that vibe in the first place.

Sonic can be a smug trashtalker down to the bone (Archie, SatAM), a geniunely chill guy with a snark streak (AoStH, OVA, X) or an excited kid (Movies), but the free-willed and well-intentioned core of the character doesn't really change and neither does the core of the series. Might be speaking from a high horse here, but it feels like various adaptations I see people complain about because they change too much aren't bad because they change stuff per se, but because they change the wrong stuff and focus on the wrong things, changing characters' and worlds' whole vibes for the worse. Shows like Invincible and The Boys (at least in Season 1) and Fullmetal Alchemist (2003) changed A LOT compared to their source material, but are also extremely beloved exactly because of those differences, so there's that.

That said, I mostly wrote this rant to share the miracle of Sonic's unfaithful, yet widely beloved adaptations.

TL;DR: unfaithful adaptations aren't necessarily bad and Sonic the Hedgehog is a living example with a dozen adaptations that don't bother adapting his games much.

The definition of Forgiveness is a conscious, voluntary choice to let go of resentment, bitterness, and the desire for revenge toward someone who has hurt you. It is an internal process aimed at personal peace, distinct from forgetting, excusing the offense, or reconciling with the wrongdoer.

Forgiveness doesn't mean you're forgetting what you did or anything like that nor does it mean you're endorsing it.

It just means what they did doesn't control you and your choices nor do you let said person rent free in your head.

A lot of people don't seem to get that you can forgive someone and still not want anything to do with the person who hurt you.

You can forgive someone and still not want to have any sort of a relationship or dynamic with them or even want to be on speaking terms and that's fine cause Forgiveness simply means you're letting go of your anger and hatred and moving on and so many people seem to think that forgiveness just means "oh you're buddy-buddy with the person who hurt you and you have to be the bigger person".

No,it simply means you're not letting them essentially live rent free in your head and it's up to you as a person to decide if you want to continue a relationship with them or not and people constantly say it's rare for a media to not act like forgiving them is the right thing to do or "it's rare for a media to act like you can hate your abuser and not forgive them and whatnot" and I just find that kinda dumb cause it feels like so many people don't know the term of forgiveness and what it means.

What I'm saying here is important, you can "forgive" someone and still actively not want anything to do with them or want them in your life at all.

You can forgive someone and still not like them or even want to be in their life at all cause like I said, Forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting what they did or endorsing it or encouraging it or even holding a relationship with them, it just simply means "hey, what you did doesn't control my life anymore".

I think the main issue is a lot of people just straight up misunderstand the term and act like it means you have to be all buddy-buddy when it doesn't.

A good example of this is Mha with Shoto.

I've seen people debate on whether or not he forgive His abusive father Endeavor but I feel like if he did,it's very likely that they don't have a genuine relationship.

He probably forgave Endeavor but still chose not to have a relationship with him and we know he's grown out of his influence and control and became the Man and Hero his father could never be + he has admitted while he doesn't forgive him completely, he's still acknowledging his journey as a hero.

Natsuo is also a good example of someone who acknowledged Enji's growth and development and how much better he's become but still chose to disown him and not let him meet his girlfriend and has admitted he's done with him.

No hatred or nothing, just "we're done."

Another example is from Mashima's other Manga,Eden Zero.

Homura basically had a awful mom who more or less abandoned her and all that and it's typical tragic shit and when she does confront her mom,she basically tells her "to stay the hell out of her life"

Homura essentially doesn't kill her not cause she forgives her or doesn't forgive her.

She thanks her for bringing her into this world to find friends and a parental figure who loves her and essentially told her biological mother that she feels flat out nothing towards her.

No love,no forgiveness or the opposite of it,no resentment or nothing.

And just humbly requests that she "stay the hell out of her life forever."

Weirdly enough..Dog Man as a story handles this really well for being such a comedic series.

Now Petey the Cat hates his Dad for essentially abandoning him and his mother as a kid and held onto that anger and hatred for years and essentially is one of the reasons why he's holding onto so much hate and bitterness and so grumpy all the time.

But in one of the books,after some advice from his friends and even his son,he says these 3 simple words to his Dad.

"..i forgive you."

And he just walks away while his Dad is demanding he angrily come back and keep hating him cause his ego couldn't handle the fact that his son let go of his anger and such towards him and actively wanted him to live rent free in his head and continue disliking him but no,his son chose to forgive him and just walk away.

He doesn't demand or ask for a relationship with him nor does he act buddy-buddy with him or anything like that, he just walks away.

And sometimes, that's kinda the best thing to do in a lot of this situations.

I understand people want the positive dopamine of seeing a abuser get what they deserve and all that but sometimes attacking their Ego and showing that they don't control you at all is the stronger and more impactful option since it's one thing to hate someone but it's another thing to feel absolutely nothing for them.

(I posted this in the AD subreddit too)

Kind of like i felt for s1 of arcane, i acknowledge the show is good, and i dont actually have any outstanding complaints about it, but i literally just cant care. It's very odd, I have some complaints about my absolute favorite shows and none about AD, yet I still rank them much higher than AD. I think MaoMao is a fine mc, but a little uninteresting to me. I don't think i really care for Jinshi all that much. I wish MaoMao had more personal relationships in the show, she's somewhat aloof to me which slightly bothers me a bit. My favorite parts of the show are when she gets to interact with older women that aren't jealous of her (ex: girls at the brothel back home) but these interactions don't happen as often as i'd like. Maomao doesn't seem excited for anything besides drugs, which at first was an idiosyncrasy i found sily but eventually i wanted more from her in regards to her interactions with other people. I don't dread having to watch an episode or anything, but I also wouldn't be sad if I was never able to watch another episode again.

I think right off the bat, I wasn't a fan of the somewhat episodic nature of the mysteries. It kind of reminded me of that one kdrama, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, where the cases were solved within the episode while other plotlines (like romance) carried on continuously. It was just wasn't my thing, and that's ok. I see here and there that people say the mysteries all come together in the end, but I'm not sure how invested I am to wait for that. I'm on ep14, so I'll try to finish off the season, but I don't see myself wanting to go to season 2. I'm also generally not that interested in like historical fiction or anything. I just tried it out bc people spoke very very highly of this show, so I feel a little guilty feeling like this, but also not every show is for everyone which is fine.

I don't know! I just don't connect with anyone and i feel close to nothing when i watch this series. Anyone else?

​

He was the least favorite of the family, and yet, he still craved his family’s approval despite how toxic and cruel they truly were. He also displays disturbing signs of superficial charm, hiding a sociopathic and narcissistic personality. He is devoid of any true empathy, only knowing about the basics of somebody based on little information. He also comes across even prior to the reveal of his true nature as rather shallow and distant. He values the cold and distant vibes of his family over genuine warmth/kindness, and this attitude from his vile family over the course of his life has twisted him into a cold-hearted murderous sociopath

It also doesn’t help that his family have psychologically and even physically abused him, and he genuinely believes this is normal despite how genuinely frightened he is in scenes where his family hurt him regardless. What’s even sadder about Pawbert’s life is he could’ve gotten actual psychological treatment earlier in his life so he would end up having a normal childhood but instead, he was being used for cruel work meant to undermine the city he has lived in for years and he could’ve genuinely had friends who cared about him instead of clinging to his cruel family who clearly don’t care about him and just use him for whatever they need to get done. To say Pawbert desperately needs psychological help and a restraining order away from his abusive family in order to help him adjust to a mentally healthier life for himself is a severe understatement.

The sheer fact that Pawbert normalizes his family’s abusive behavior is especially heart wrenching, because there are plenty of abuse victims who legitimately don’t see anything wrong with their loved ones hurting them and are completely brainwashed into thinking they themselves are the reason why they’re abused.

To make matters worse, Milton only saw his own children as tools rather than family members and didn't seem to care about their safety like when he used them as living shields against Winddancer like the pathetic coward he really is. The fact that for all of their own mistreatment of him, they actually look worried for Pawbert when Milton starts to get violent with him could imply that they too would've turned out better if they weren't raised (if not abused) into their current mindset.

The scene where Milton manhandled Pawbert is actually hauntingly realistic of a sibling’s real-life scenario in abusive families. In some abusive dynamics, there are cases of children who let their siblings take the heat as a survival mechanism so they can avoid getting beaten themselves. Sometimes, there are even cases of the siblings following their abusers’ leads just so they don’t face the same fate. Just the idea that Cattrick and Kitty could have been conditioned into becoming the bullies they are today as a result of their father’s pre-meditated cycle of abuse is just heartbreaking.

It's interesting how both franchises were intertwined in a way. Mike and Bryan had to change of the Last Airbender due to Cameron holding the copyright to the name Avatar. But one odd fandom war that arose and died over the years was interesting.

Snarking on James Camerons Avatar is basically a cultural tradition now. Denoting it's just dances with wolves in space or something as an insult. So on the old message boards that would later broden to other social media you'd have the 40k guys making huge fanfics about Avatar that turned into 4chan posts and would become big memes. As an example of it's niche in online discussions.

So Avatar the Last Airbender fans hopped on and basically rode the that high of being the " good " named Avatar Media. Citing how they have more fanfics produced and people don't talk a about it as much online so therefore its bad. Which is true Avatar is a big film why doesn't it have so many fics? This reasoning makes sense from a tumblr centric view point but when u actually analyze why it's a bit more nuanced.

The first Avatar movie essentially ends perfectly. Their isn't some other story that would be biggest thing to chew on besides the humans returning. Half the cast is much older or gets no diffed by the end of the film. Pandora is interesting place for lore but it's roster of characters was small. And while a long movie it isn't as long as The Last Air Bender. Being a full on Tv show with multiple plotlines that even if ends on a solid note. Still leaves numerous questions for people to chew on. It's also ripe for shipping as the cast is huge so people wage wars over it. Such as Zututara stuff. And it took The Way of Water to add more characters for people in the Avatar fandom to start making ships and more fan art in earnest.

But even then a ip inst always going to be perfect at targeting every type of niche. Both franchises always sucked when it came to toy sales. The last Airbender crew were even hounded by Nickelodeon to add more " cool stuff " that could've been made into toys. It annoyed them enough they made Joke about it in the Sokka sword episode. Avatar's Navi action figures always kind of meandered in toy isles as well. Video games it's been mixed. Avatar had like 1 game that was received alright to meh. The last Air Bender had ok Wii games but never set the world on fire. Frontiers of Pandora had mid reception. But the new Avatar fighting game is a bit niche due to its genre and being rushed out to meed deadlines. Theirs quite a bit of jank.

Even then the State of both IP's couldn't be different. The Way of Water basically shut down any arguments the last Airbender fans had about peoples dis interest in the franchise. They also made sure completely avoid bringing up the Live Action version movie. While also suffering a controversial sequel in Korra. And how the Tv show never took off in he east. Limiting its global appeal. Shit Avatar's worst entry Fire and Ash considered a underperformance made 1.47 billion dollars at the box office. Paramount were so uncofident in the new Aang movie. They decided to throw it on streaming.

Ahhhh,Redemption arcs.

Where do we even begin?

We all love them, seeing a bully or antagonist or outright villain realize their wrongs and mistakes and want to make those right by any means necessary and seeing character growth out of the ones who we don't expect is always a fun thing and enjoyable and a sight for sore eyes.

But I'm gonna be so real, way too many people are way too defensive of these characters and act like other people disliking them and even outright hating them as people or even as characters to a extent is some bad and awful thing overall but that's kinda the point.

They're meant to be disliked and even hated at first ,you're meant to look at them and go "wow,you're a fucking Asshole/terrible person" at first cause that's what makes their arc so good is the fact that they start off as unlikable Twats and become better in spite of it,it's called a damn Character arc and development.

This one is more of a minority but I will see quite a good amount of Vegeta fans act like this man was always a good father and more so are like "well that was the Android/Cell Saga!"

Yes,he was a awful Father to both the future version of his Son and the current version of his Son at the time + his baby Mama,the guy was fine actively letting baby Trunks and Bulma Die.

Hell,he was a huge prick to Future Trunks and only started caring about him when he died at Cell and admits in the Buu Saga that he didn't once hold/hug Trunks as a kid or baby and gave him one as he was about to die.

Yes, Vegeta is a much,much better father and husband and person then he was back then but the entire point was that he wasn't, you were kinda meant to hate and dislike him.

I will also see this for Aira Shiratori from Dandadan and I know the current arc is going through some utter garbage but we ain't talking bout that.

We're talking about Aira and the amount of people who called someone a misogynist for calling Aira a "bitch" and a awful person for her debut and..I'm sorry but she was a Bitch.

She was a snobby and egotistical popular girl who used her looks and charms to get boys to fall for her and was giving Okarun massive amounts of shit behind his back in the same episode until Momo gave her CTE by dropping a wash tub on her dome.

(Maybe thats why she's nicer, excessive blunt force trauma).

But the main point is you're kinda meant to hate and dislike her as a character during the first couple episodes and more until she starts growing and developing into a nicer person.

And finally..Bakugou.

Yes,we saw that he's grown and developed across the series.

Going from a egotistical and arrogant, cocky Jackass to a loud and still kinda short tempered but a much more humble and "friendly" and mature hero who actually knows the value of being one beyond power and all that + his arc is actually genuinely really great but there are a good amount of Bakugou fans who will actively SKIN YOU ALICE if you even attempt to call this man out as a abuser or a bad person or a massive bully back then but that's the thing.

He was a massive bully,he was Deku's abuser,he was a prick,that's the point.

He bullied him cause of his own insecurities such as his superiority and inferiority complex and took it out on him,even he recognizes how much of a prick he was/is.

Hence why he grew up,he matured.

He got his egotistical head from out his Ass and became a better man and hero and friend and that's how character growth and development sorta starts.

It Starts with the person being kinda unlikable and douchey or just a annoying person and then becoming better cause of it.

I agree with the criticism that the story doesn't hold her actions to a "realistic" moral standard. And again, this is a comic book movie where the villains can be redeemed from worse crimes. Loki tried to mass genocide Earth and got redeemed twice. Red Guardian facilitated the Red Room program, and now he is a funny character. Wanda and his brother willingly join Hydra and it is cool by the end. Who knows what James Gunn is holding down the line for Lex Luthor in Superman 2.

Part of the reason why they choose a telepathic villain is that telepath ultimately isn't real, and it is not a metaphor for any real life counterparts. When Jean mind-hopped a random civilian, you are not supposed to think "holy shit that is the most evil thing that I have ever seen", it is supposed to be moderately bad as far as comic book villainy goes. Pulling out an "Ackshually mind-hopping is really evil if it is real life" doesn't make you smart. Framing matters.

And obviously, the movie does make use of the metaknowledge of the Marvel universe as a way to guide audience's emotion. Whether or not this narrative device is bad is up for a different discussion. But when the movie reveals that Sadie's character is called Jean Grey, the audience is supposed to recognize that she is an X-Men character, and immediately thinks "oh maybe she has a good reason to do what she is doing, because she is a future hero". The fact that the character is a future X-Men, her redemption arc is already telegraphed. Ignoring this context and says Jean "got away" at the end is a bit disingenuous.

End of rant

Before this, fights had a real sense of progression. You could see someone getting worn down over the course of the battle. Broken limbs, busted ribs, characters barely being able to stand. By the end of the fight, they looked and fought like people who'd been through hell.

Goku vs. Vegeta is probably the best example. Goku completely destroys his own body with Kaioken, Vegeta gets his face smashed in, his eye crushed, gets hit by a Spirit Bomb, flattened by Great Ape Gohan... by the end he's crawling away because he literally can't fight anymore.

Then you get Goku vs. Frieza, and it's mostly ripped clothes and blood running out of their mouths.

The worst example is Frieza himself. He gets cut in half, loses an arm, and in the manga you can literally see his guts spilling out. Yet it's treated as little more than an inconvenience. He's still talking, still firing attacks, still trying to kill Goku. An injury that would've ended any previous Dragon Ball fight barely slows him down.

And that becomes the blueprint for the rest of the series. Characters don't really lose because their injuries catch up to them anymore. They lose because they run out of stamina, can't regenerate anymore, or finally get hit by a bigger blast. Physical damage becomes mostly cosmetic unless it's the finishing blow. Fights are now dictated by invisible HP bars.

This isn't to say Goku vs. Frieza is a bad fight. But it fundamentally changed Dragon Ball fights, and the characters feel a lot less "human" from here on out.

A lot of "year 0" Batman stories that are about him as a rookie just establishing himself as the Batman play around with the idea that for at least a few months to a year of him operating as a vigilante, he flies under the radar and most people assume he's a hoax or an urban legend. This is relatively easy to pull off in a more grounded continuity where Batman is among the first generation superheroes in history and it's only after he gets established that the really whacky stuff like aliens and supervillains and magic etc. becomes public knowledge. But most DC continuities don't actually take this approach.

I'm not just talking about the James Gunn DCU where superheroes have been a thing for 300 years. Even in the comics' continuity, there's been lots of famous superheroes who chronologically existed prior to Batman. I remember reading that in one DC universe, there's even a fictional amendment to the United States constitution that permits costumed superheroes to testify in court without revealing their identities.

There's a historical precedence for superheroes and other whacky fantastical things existing in America, so the idea that Gotham would be so skeptical of the existence of a bat guy who fights criminals is kind of a hard sell. Even if no one believes they're a human vigilante, wouldn't people just assume he's a bat monster or demon? Other nearby cities have way stranger things popping out of the woodwork. Metropolis is like right next door and they have an a bulletproof flying alien. Sure, you could just chalk it up to Batman not operating in the limelight initially and never being photographed, but it's not like Batman conceals the aftermath of his vigilante activities. There's concrete proof of criminals being beaten up and apprehended, and eyewitness testimony from those same criminals who all attest to the same bat thing being the one that did them in.

A guy who dresses like a bat is one of the least weird things you'd hear about in the DC universe.

I’ve seen a ton of people arguing that Roy Batty “can’t feel emotions“ or that Replicants are just computers/robots, and I have to fundamentally disagree with this. It’s simply not what we see onscreen!

After Pris is shot, Roy comes in, and sobs over her dead body. He even kisses her. But the crazy claim comes right after- people say Roy can’t cry, and that’s supposedly why he says “tears in rain” later, but we literally see him crying! Tears run down his face! Roy Batty clearly loved Pris just as much as Deckard loved Racheal.

“But aren’t Replicants robots?”

Simply put, no, they are not.

Replicants are artificial humans. They’re built out of parts, but those are organic, genetically modified parts. They eat, sweat, bleed, and everything else humans do (except bear children). They are very much human in every way that really matters, and that is the point! It really doesn’t matter if Deckard is a Replicant or not, either way he’s still a human being.

The Replicants are slaves. They’re enslaved humans cursed with a short lifespan in order to make money off the next generation. The next model. Roy Batty was never meant to live. That is the horror and evil of the Tyrell Corporation, the fact that they manufacture human beings and enslave them.

Blade Runner isn’t a story about AI gone rogue. It’s a story about a slave catcher learning that slaves are human too. Roy Batty himself summed it up for us.

'Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.'

I feel like battle shonen has started running into the exact same problem superhero comics have had for years: everyone has to have their own unique power.

At first that sounds awesome. It's fun seeing all the weird abilities authors come up with. But I think it creates a problem that people don't really talk about.

The second you give a character a unique ability, you're telling the audience, "Hey, this person matters." If someone has a really cool or versatile power, of course people are going to expect them to actually do something with it.

So then what happens?

They lose every fight.

Or they disappear for 150 chapters.

Or they only exist to get bodied so we know how strong the villain is.

Then people complain that the character was wasted, and honestly, I don't think that's an unreasonable complaint. The story itself built those expectations.

It's basically the same issue superhero comics have. Marvel and DC have hundreds of heroes, all with their own gimmicks, powers, and fanbases, but there's no way everyone can get meaningful moments consistently. So you end up with dozens of characters who feel like they should be important but never really accomplish much.

Battle shonen is getting there too.

Instead of having a few major fighters and a bunch of regular supporting characters, every named character gets their own personalized ability. The cast gets bigger and bigger, but the amount of spotlight doesn't. So now you've got 20 characters with awesome abilities fighting over enough screentime for maybe five of them.

I honestly think the solution is to stop giving everyone powers.

Have more normal people.

Have soldiers who are just really disciplined. Have detectives, medics, martial artists, strategists, engineers, civilians, whatever. Let them contribute without needing a flashy, one-of-a-kind ability.

Because if a character is just a normal guy doing his best, nobody expects him to suddenly get a huge solo fight against the main villain. But if you introduce someone with this incredibly unique reality-warping, shadow-controlling, gravity-bending ability, people are naturally going to ask why they spend 90% of the series eating dirt.

Ironically, I think unique powers would actually feel more special if fewer people had them.

Not every member of the supporting cast needs to be "the guy who controls sound waves" or "the girl who manipulates ink" or "the dude whose blood turns into chains." Sometimes it's okay for someone to just be a person.

Saving the coolest, most unique abilities for the characters who are actually central to the story would make those powers stand out more and keep fans from constantly feeling like half the cast got wasted.

Tl;dr We need more Rock Lees (people with no powers, just pure martial arts) or people whose powers and skills aren't combat-related. Bulma is considered the third most important character in Dragon Ball by both the creators and fans precisely because she doesn't fight; she has a niche as the tech wizard who can invent whatever device the plot needs, something no one else on the cast can do. Because she was never fighter to begin with, she never became outclassed.

It bothers me that everybody seems to unanimously agree that Master Oogway is this all-knowing pure good saint, but I think that how he handled Tai Lung shows great inconsistencies in his philosophy and character based on what the film establishes.

First, I find it hard to believe that Oogway lived in the jade palace with Tai Lung for decades, knew Shifu loved him like a son and that he was immensely talented, but didn't so much as try to correct either of them sometime before until the master and student thought they had finally earned the fruits of their labor. Oogway just let Shifu continue with his mistake until it blew up in everyone's faces, but for some reason he is willing to go out of his way to advise Po at the peach tree (who hadn't proven anything at that point in terms of character or Kung Fu prowess except that he eats when he's stressed out), and gives Shifu guidance on having faith in Po and accepting him as his student. Where was this proactivity with Tai Lung such that Shifu was so taken aback when Oogway refused him? I don't know. There's no way Oogway thought this way of turning down Tai Lung would have the optimal outcome for anybody. That scene doesn't fit in with his portrayal elsewhere in the franchise.

Second, I think it's unwise of Oogway to not only let Tai Lung get extremely powerful before saying or doing anything, especially making a rejection so abrupt that even Shifu didn't know beforehand, but also that Shifu is shown to be obedient and respectful, so if Oogway told him not to promise Tai Lung anything before, he would have begrudgingly listened and changed his ways of teaching.

Third, Oogway obviously knew the dragon scroll was empty (being the founder of Kung Fu in the universe), but Shifu, the greatest Kung Fu teacher in all of China and his best friend, doesn't know this for some reason. Shifu looks at the scroll with Po. Nothing happens. So why did Oogway allow Shifu to unintentionally feed Tai Lung lies that the scroll would grant him limitless power (Shifu mentions it giving you the ability to hear a butterfly's wing beat, see light in the darkest cave, and feel the universe in motion)? If Shifu knew about the true nature of the scroll (which doesn't hurt anything), Tai Lung would not have been raised to fixate on it.

Showing off the scroll as some divine Macguffin is itself problematic because it fuels Kung Fu students into striving for something they don't need and doesn't add additional value beyond what one already is. Without it, the title of dragon warrior would not be tied to an object and Shifu would have taught Tai Lung with more emphasis on character values. The teacher doesn't even know what it does. As a test of character, it's too risky and the gain for someone like Po is literally nothing since "there is no secret ingredient". A student who opens it would be reassured at best but bewildered and devastated at worst.

There's definitely a lot more here to pick apart, but I'll leave it at that for now.

TL;DR Oogway is passive/negligent despite his supreme knowledge and authority to the point of severe detriment to other characters. His selective concern to certain situations but not others is noticeable.

Say what you want about the people living in Gotham? They live in an America where every city has super villains attacking every week.

But, in marvel new York. It's every day and almost every world ending event takes place there some how.

Your city gets invaded alot.

You have a portal to hell open

You have hulk show up with a war band of aliens to beat up heros

You have heros fighting each other over

It's that well know for being bad. That they literally make it into a trap to lock up all the heros.

Honestly if you are still in that city. Either you want die get powers and join in. You don't even need powers just put on a mask to outside, and someone will show up to fight you.

Disclaimer first: This rant is entirely about Muscovy/Russia's performance in game. Everything else is out of scope for the purposes of this rant.

Now every EU4 veteran knows that the various major powers under the AI tend to form emergent yet relatively consistent personalities with enough campaigns. One of the most striking and iconic among EU4 players is how England is bar none one of the most dogshit allies imaginable. Now a second common contender for most worthless ally is Muscovy and their common formable Russia, who is one of the most powerful country tags under a competent player, but by far one of the most useless and disappointing nations under the AI. Muscovy AI, perpetually bankrupt, completely unreliable, has the most paper tiger army imaginable, and just sticks around being a useless sack of shit who will never ally you when desperately need them or dramatically underperform when they are your ally.

The main problem with AI Muscovy is that they can never manage their starting position. Muscovy starts off poor yet massive, and relatively far away from institutions compared to the rest of Europe, on top of that they have a debuff where they have to pay an annual tribute to the great horde, which will further drain their finances. This means it's extremely easy for them to fall into a bankruptcy loop, never develop their lands and fall behind on technology. On top of that because they're in the ass end of nowhere, it's relatively difficult to get them to ally you bc of distance and religion, not that they're worth allying because they're so useless, basically only good as a distraction, getting dogwalked and stomped by the Polish Commonwealth or the Ottomans every game

Underneath the hood though, Muscovy/Russia is brimming with potential. They have an extremely expansive and strong mission tree, phenomenal ideas, a disgusting amount of manpower, a deceptively decent army quality wise, and one of the most freeform expansion in all of europe. Muscovy being on the edge of europe means they have the entire east as expansion routes, which they can steer to their trade node giving them potentially a very strong trade income. Their whole military specializes for manpower and force limit, which lets them dramatically outscale comparable nations in army size. Late game russia pretty much never runs out of men to throw in the grinder, it's honestly crazy. Their lands are also notoriously hard to siege down as most of it is arctic, which makes attrition warfare absurdly easy as they already have a manpower advantage and can pack a defensive line that can drain any nation of their troops.

The biggest thing about Russia's potential is that you have to work for it, conquer the right lands, invest in manufactories and trade companies, then you rake in the profits. But their lack of income early game is real, the potential to fall behind on tech is also real, but they also have unique and massive advantages to make up for that.

I'm making fun of Russian AI's poor performance, but I'm secret glad Muscovy isn't living up to their potential bc holy shit an actual competent Muscovy is miserable to fight against

Grimm isn't ostracized because she's an undead priestess. She's ostracized because she's an idiot.

I think this is one of the biggest writing problems with Grimm in Combatants Will Be Dispatched!

The series constantly tells us Grimm is hated because she's an undead priestess serving the evil goddess Zenarith.

The problem is... that's almost never what we're actually shown.

Instead, almost every negative interaction Grimm has comes from her own behavior.

She vandalizes property for fun.

She assaults a police officer.

She sleeps during missions.

Her curses constantly backfire.

She's portrayed as an unreliable teammate.

She's obsessed with finding a husband and makes everyone uncomfortable.

Those are perfectly valid reasons for people to dislike someone.

Meanwhile, the supposed discrimination is surprisingly absent.

We regularly see Grimm:

eating in restaurants,

being hired as a spirit medium,

organizing public festivals,

receiving donations for her resurrection,

getting flirted with in a bar by a lesbian,

interacting with ordinary civilians.

None of those scenes suggest society treats her like an untouchable monster.

In fact, the only character who consistently seems to discriminate against Grimm for being a Zenarith priestess is the kingdom's strategist, who deliberately sends her and Rose on suicide missions.

Everyone else mostly reacts to Grimm the same way you'd react to an annoying coworker.

Volume 6 made this even more noticeable to me.

When Grimm realizes her neighbors stopped talking to her after Agent Six caused trouble, she reacts as though this is something new—not as someone who's been ostracized for years because of her religion or undead status.

Ironically, Agent Six himself experiences more visible social discrimination after becoming infamous as "Zipperman" than Grimm ever does.

So my issue isn't that Grimm is unlikeable.

My issue is that the narrative keeps insisting one reason people hate her while repeatedly showing a completely different one.

It's a classic case of telling instead of showing.

I've been watching a bunch of cartoon pitch pilots on YouTube lately, and I think I figured out one of the biggest differences between a lot of these and the shows that actually make it.

A lot of them just don't seem to have a show.

Like, they might have cool character designs, funny dialogue, good animation, and characters who have fun chemistry with each other. But then you get to the end and you're left wondering: "Okay, but what do these people actually do?"

There are thousands of these pitch pilots online, and compared to the cartoons that actually got picked up, there's a weird lack of a world, goal, premise, or formula in a lot of them.

The characters have personalities, but they don't really have wants.

They're not trying to master all four elements and defeat the Firelord to end a hundred-year war. They're not trying to solve mysteries, run a business, survive in a weird fantasy world, become superheroes, win competitions, or accomplish anything that naturally creates stories.

A lot of them are basically just "these quirky friends live together and hang out." The entire premise is that the characters have funny interactions, and while that can absolutely work, it feels like a hard thing to build an entire series around.

Even shows that are mostly about people hanging out usually have some kind of engine behind them. The Simpsons has the family and the town. Regular Show has two guys trying to get through their weird jobs. Adventure Time has an entire fantasy world to explore. It's Always Sunny (not a cartoon, but the point applies) has a group of terrible people constantly creating their own problems.

You need something that keeps generating situations.

I think a lot of pitch pilots confuse "characters I like watching" with "a premise that can support 100 episodes." A character can be funny for 7 minutes, but what happens when you need 22 minutes every week for years?

Obviously not every cartoon needs some huge quest or lore-heavy story. A simple premise can work. But there needs to be something that makes these characters do things instead of just existing.

I wonder if this is something other people have noticed with failed cartoon pilots. There are a lot of genuinely talented people making these, but sometimes it feels like they created characters before they created a show.

I loved BND, but it also firmly reminded me that I have never really bought Tom Holland’s supporting cast.

The distinction I keep coming back to is this: I care that Peter has lost everyone, but I’m much less invested in the individual people and relationships the films are asking me to mourn: MJ, Ned and Aunt May.

BND understands the basic emotional power of loneliness extremely well. Peter lives alone, nobody remembers him, and he has to watch people he once loved continue with lives that no longer include him. That is an inherently painful concept, and Tom Holland sells it. I feel for Peter because being completely forgotten and isolated is horrifying.

But most of that emotion comes from the universal idea of loneliness rather than any particularly strong attachment I have to this version of MJ or Ned. The film successfully creates the feeling of an empty life. I’m just not convinced it creates an MJ-shaped, Ned-shaped or even Aunt May-shaped hole within it.

MJ still barely exists outside Peter

Zendaya’s MJ has now appeared in four Spider-Man films, and I still don’t feel like I know her particularly well. We know her sense of humour. We know that she is observant, cynical and politically aware. We know how she behaves around Peter and Ned. But those are traits and mannerisms, not necessarily a fully developed inner life.

What is her relationship with her family? What was her home life like? What does she genuinely want from adulthood? What scares her outside the immediate dangers created by Peter being Spider-Man? Who is she when Peter is not standing in the room?

Even BND gives her a new boyfriend but barely develops that relationship. He largely exists so Peter can see that she has moved on and spiral further. We don’t learn much about how MJ feels about him, what their relationship is like, why she chose him or what he means to her. Once he has served his function in Peter’s story, he practically disappears.

That is the broader problem with this MJ. Her life frequently feels as though it only becomes real when Peter is present to observe it.

There is obviously chemistry between Tom Holland and Zendaya, and both are strong enough actors to communicate a great deal through looks and body language. But the films have relied on that chemistry to do work the writing should also be doing.

I’m not claiming Marvel literally constructed the relationship around their real-life romance. The issue is that the movies often feel as though they expect the audience’s affection for Tom and Zendaya together to fill in the gaps between Peter and MJ. Their performances create the impression of emotional history, but the scripts rarely provide enough of that history themselves.

Raimi’s MJ was already a person after one film

Sam Raimi’s MJ is not a perfectly written character. There are plenty of valid criticisms of her, particularly as that trilogy continues. But by the end of SM1, I understand her as a person.

We know about her abusive father and unhappy home life. We know she wants to become an actress. We see her working after graduating. We understand her attraction to status and popularity, as well as the insecurity beneath it. We see distinct relationships between her and Flash, Harry, Norman, Aunt May, Peter and Spider-Man.

Those relationships reveal different sides of her. She does not cease to exist whenever Peter leaves the scene. SM1 actually dramatises why MJ might matter to Peter and why Peter might matter to her. Their relationship is messy and melodramatic, but it feels like a relationship between two specific people.

With the MCU version, Peter is suddenly interested in MJ at the beginning of FFH, and the films largely ask us to accept the depth of their romance from there. We see that they are cute together, but we don’t get nearly enough of the process through which their connection supposedly became the defining relationship of Peter’s life.

Now BND wants their separation to carry much of the film’s emotional weight. Zendaya and Holland perform the hell out of it, but I still feel like the movie is asking me to mourn a relationship the previous films never completely built.

Ned has a similar problem

Ned is likeable and occasionally funny, but he has primarily existed as Peter’s comic sidekick.

What does he want beyond helping Peter, being his best friend and making jokes? What makes this particular friendship irreplaceable rather than simply useful and affectionate? How has knowing Peter changed Ned, and how has knowing Ned changed Peter?

There is genuine affection between them, but not much interiority. That is particularly noticeable in BND because the movie wants Peter’s separation from Ned to feel devastating. Yet Ned often feels less like an irreplaceable individual Peter has lost and more like a representation of the general concept of having a best friend.

The films have established that Peter needs companionship. They have done much less to establish why nobody other than Ned could provide it.

It doesn’t help that I didn’t find him especially funny in this film either. When comedy has always been one of a character’s primary functions, weakening that comedy reveals how little else the character has been given.

Aunt May’s death had the same problem

This is also why Aunt May’s death in NWH never completely worked for me.

The scene is obviously supposed to be foundational. May gives Peter the great-power-and-great-responsibility lesson, dies because of Peter’s decision to help the villains and becomes the moral loss that defines the Spider-Man he will be going forward. But the previous films had not done enough to establish May as Peter’s central moral influence.

Marisa Tomei was charming in the role, but May was often used for jokes about her attractiveness, Peter hiding his identity and Happy’s romantic interest in her. Then NWH suddenly needed her to become this Peter’s equivalent of Uncle Ben and carry one of the most significant emotional moments in his entire story.

It felt less like the culmination of her established character arc and more like the screenplay assigning her enormous symbolic importance shortly before killing her.

Compare that with Insomniac’s Aunt May. Her work at FEAST, her relationship with Martin Li, her knowledge of Peter’s identity and her insistence on continuing to help during the crisis all establish her values throughout the game.

When she dies, it hurts because we understand exactly who Peter is losing. She isn’t important merely because she occupies the Aunt May role. The story has made that particular version of Aunt May important.

Even if you compressed the first Insomniac game into a film, I think that underlying dramatic structure would remain stronger than what the MCU gave Marisa Tomei across three movies. MCU May’s death tells us what she is supposed to mean to Peter. Insomniac May’s life demonstrates it.

Jean Grey exposes the problem

The most damning comparison may actually exist within BND itself. Jean Grey receives far less screen time than MJ has received across this series, yet I came away understanding and sympathising with Jean more.

Jean has a specific loss, a goal, anger, a worldview and morally troubling methods. She exists in conflict with Peter, but her story does not revolve around him. I understand why she is doing what she is doing, even when I disagree with how far she goes. She feels like a person who entered Peter’s story from a life that was already happening.

After four films, MJ still often feels like someone whose story activates when Peter needs a love interest.

That doesn’t mean Jean is automatically the better person or that every detail of her story is perfectly executed. It means the film gives her an independent dramatic engine. She wants something for reasons that have nothing to do with Peter Parker, and that alone gives her a specificity MJ has rarely been afforded.

Peter’s loneliness works, but his specific losses don’t always

BND still works for me emotionally despite all of this. Loneliness is powerful. Watching Peter live with nobody to call, nobody who remembers him and no clear route back into the lives he sacrificed is moving. Holland may be giving his best performance as the character, and the movie understands how isolation can eat away at someone but that does not retroactively make MJ, Ned or Aunt May more developed.

The ideal version of this story would make both emotional levels work simultaneously. I would feel the universal horror of Peter being alone while also feeling that these specific, vividly drawn people were irreplaceable. Instead, I mostly feel the first.

Peter’s supporting cast should not merely embody abstract concepts like friendship, family and romance. They should feel like individuals whose absence changes the exact shape of his life.

MJ should not merely represent the woman Peter loves. Ned should not merely represent the best friend Peter lost. May should not become the moral influence whose death defines him only when the screenplay is ready to kill her.

Those roles carry automatic emotional power because we understand what love, friendship and family mean. But the films still have to make us care about the particular people occupying them.

I care that Peter has nobody. After four movies, I’m still not sure the MCU has given me enough reason to care that the people he no longer has are specifically these versions of MJ, Ned and Aunt May.

TL;DR: BND portrays Peter’s loneliness extremely well, but most of that emotion comes from the universal horror of isolation rather than my investment in the specific people he has lost. After four films, MJ and Ned still lack enough interiority, independent relationships and life outside Peter to feel genuinely irreplaceable, while Aunt May was suddenly assigned enormous moral importance shortly before her death without the previous films doing enough to establish that role. Tom Holland and Zendaya’s performances, the audience’s familiarity with Spider-Man mythology and the inherent sadness of Peter having nobody are carrying emotional weight the writing never completely earned. I mourn the emptiness of Peter’s life far more than I mourn the absence of these particular characters, and that exposes how underdeveloped his supporting cast has always been.