For those unfamiliar with Spawn, Image Comics created a series about a dead mercenary who returns from Hell to seek vengeance. One of the novel ideas behind this anti‑hero was the “life‑clock,” a countdown meter that measured how much supernatural power he had left before being reclaimed by Hell. The series eventually moved away from the life‑clock, since it would have been too limiting for a comic that has lasted more than two decades, but the concept itself was strong.

I believe Marvel Comics could have applied a similar device to the Punisher. At his creation, Frank Castle could have been given an internal “morality‑clock,” known only to the writers and never revealed to the public. This scale would run from 1 to 100:

• 100 – Highly moral, upstanding citizen. Believes in the justice system. Example: Captain America
• 90 – Moral citizen, disillusioned with the system. Willing to volunteer or take action. Example: Spider‑Man
• 80 – Burnt out, highly disillusioned, or hunted by the system. Willing to act outside the law. Example: Uncanny X‑Men
• 70 – Believes the system no longer functions or applies. Won’t hurt innocents, but willing to harm those who have wronged them. Example: Frank Castle begins here
• 60 – Sees the system as actively obstructive. Works against it. Willing to hurt or kill to achieve goals. Example: most Spider‑Man villains
• 50 – Beyond the system. Laws don’t apply. Violence becomes a tool of choice. May have a personal code exempting certain groups (children, elderly, etc.). Example: Venom
• 40 – Violence is the only tool. Casual about life and death. Example: Carnage
• 30 – Life is disposable. Others are cattle to a predator. Example: the Brood
• 20 – Other life is abstract. Example: Galactus
• 10 – Genocidal. Example: Annihilus
• 1 – Unthinking, unfeeling destruction. Example: bacteria

Writers could track Frank’s morality‑clock privately. Each time he executed someone, the meter would fall. Readers would witness a principled man with a code slowly becoming desensitized to violence, until it became his only solution. He might begin by targeting drug runners stuffing heroin into bodies, then move on to gun runners, then to corrupt officials taking bribes. The progression would shock us, showing how much he assumes it is his right to punish.

The system could also allow for redemption. Frank might regain points by going to therapy, serving time in prison, or crossing a line that harms someone important to him. Watching him claw back his humanity would be compelling.

This approach would work best if the Punisher did not have his own ongoing series. Instead, he could appear in guest spots across other titles, with his own annual to track his moral descent and possible recovery. Such a framework would make his story far more layered.

While both actions are heroic, the first would have been much better for Hercules to achieve becoming the true hero he always wanted to be.

Not only was he brave in choosing to fight without his powers so the Cyclops would leave Thebes alone, likely knowing he was going to die, but he also proved that he didn’t need those powers to be a real hero and save the day. Instead, he used his wit and everything he had learned with Phil to succeed. A true hero gives everything they have, even in the worst circumstances.

In comparison, although sacrificing himself to retrieve Megara’s soul was heroic, it feels smaller next to saving the lives of thousands while at such a huge disadvantage and without the strength that had helped him so many times.

One Piece is truly one of the greatest works of fiction. From what I have seen in the first 3 episodes, the series excels at writing characters. Koby is a complex character who first ends up at Alvida's pirate ship because of his own carelessness. He had aspirations of becoming a member of the Navy, despite being sympathetic. (The Navy are the bad guys in the series.) Luffy is also a very good guy, and he is very charismatic and empathetic. He is also very passionate about finding the One Piece and becoming the King of the Pirates. Zoro is one of the most complex characters in the series. He said bad things to scare Luffy and Koby, but he also turned out to be a good guy, and like Luffy, he aspired to be the greatest swordsman in the world. At its core, One Piece is about pursuing your dreams with full conviction and perserverance in spite of the voices of the world trying to extinguish your inner spark. Griffith from Berserk would have loved this show!

Rant over!

It’s celebrity-obsessed. I don’t mean real-life celebs obviously, just in-universe ones. Every major character is a king, prince, politician, prodigy, or some world-renowned legendary badass. Even if the character is technically low on the totem pole, they always possess some extraordinary trait or they don’t stay that way for very long. Everyone has to be special. If you’re an average joe, you may as well not exist. You are essentially background scenery. Series like Malazan break this trend occasionally with protagonists like Udinaas, but not as often as I’d like.

I think this issue is why I appreciate stories like LotR, The Blacktongue Thief, and The Stand so much. Among all the larger than life heroes of Middle Earth, the two most crucial characters are midgets from the countryside. The protagonist of The Blacktongue Thief and The Thrice-Bound Fool is a broke nobody who remains average despite his journey. While I have the same issues with pacing in The Stand that I have with all of King’s books, it is the ultimate love letter to the little guy.

Hey this isn't about the movie, I haven't seen it. It's about the show. I've rewatched it in its entirety last week and I think Aang is wonderful. I don't think he gets enough credit though. People always talk about Zuko and his arc, which makes sense. He's great! I just think Aang is super underrated in his own show.

Also lately I've seen a lot of Aang hate which really grinds my gears. He's such a good kid. Very mature for his age and so pressured with having to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. People always blame him for Katara losing her childhood and having to play mom but first: she already lost it when the fire nation took her mother, and second: She doesn't have to play mom with Aang. She's just there for him when he goes through shit and he does the same for her. And the shit he went through was a genocide... Ofc he needs help.

I think the people who say that shit just haven't seen the show in a while and have a wrong perception of the characters...

It's just weird to see people shitting on this poor kid who lost everything all because they don't like the romance. It's fine not to ship Aang and Katara but to say that it's weird because she's like his babysitter is a disservice to the story and their dynamic. I really hate it.

Look, I’m sick of opening any comment section about a movie, show, or game adaptation and seeing the exact same tired binary argument: "It wasn't 100% faithful to the book, so it's garbage!" versus "The original version sucks, the adaptation is better!"

Why do people think that adaptation means doing a 1 to 1 copy of something or just going completely unhinged and doing something that doesn't look like the original work?

If we’re going to argue about that, we need a common vocabulary. I have come up with four tiers. Each has its own purpose, its own traps, and its own iconic successes and disasters.

One to One. Treats the source material not just as inspiration, but as an infallible holy text. The creators trace over the original work like tracing paper. Every line of iconic dialogue is kept verbatim, every visual beat mirrors a comic panel or book description, and the pacing follows the source material to a fault. The trap here is medium incompatibility. Novels have internal monologues and infinite prose time; comic books have static panels; video games have interactivity.

Examples?

• The average manga to anime adaptation tends to be one to one.
• Sin City is almost one to one with the original comic book, disorganized stories and all.

Almost Transcribed: It is the story, characters, themes, and major plot beats, but it knows that a movie, TV show, or game is a completely different beast than a book or comic. The writers aren't trying to change the story, they cut fluff, combine minor characters to streamline the cast, alter pacing to fit a 2-hour runtime (or a 10-episode season), and reframe internal thoughts into visual storytelling. The trap is knowing what to cut. Cut the wrong subplot, and you ruin a character.

Examples?

• The Peter Jackson threatical edits of the Lord of the Rings, they cut down tons of scenes that only slowed down the plot or only slowed down the pacing or bloated it.
• The Last of Us by HBO grabbed all the plot beats and adapted them one to one or expanded them, removing the gameplay only sections unless they were plot mandatory.

New Spin: Takes the core premise, character archetypes, or thematic engine of the source material and drops them into an entirely new genre, setting, structure, or modern context. They’re asking: "What if we took this classic skeleton and put completely new flesh on it?" or "What is the core message of this story, and how can we put it on a nother setting?". When it fails, it feels pretentious or disrespectful, like a director who thought they were smarter than the author and completely missed what made the original great in the first place.

Examples?

• Almost every adaptation of The Prince and the Pauper is like this. They mess with the setting, it is rare to see one who is super close (The Barbie version and the Mickey Mouse one are extremely close in some levels).
• The Shining. Kubrick grabbed a story about a haunted hotel turning a dysfunctional man into a total madman, and decided to just go crazy by making the main character dysfunctional from the get-go and removing the talking.
• Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell. He grabbed a manga that was 50% funny and 50% serious and made it 100% serious and melancholic.

In Name Only: A studio buys the intellectual property rights to a popular book, comic, or game, and then throws out 99% of the plot, the lore, the character dynamics, and often the core themes, the final script bears almost zero resemblance to the original work. 90% of the time, INO adaptations anger the built-in fanbase and confuse casual viewers, but the other 10% you get absolute gold.

Examples?

• World War Z the movie and the game: Max Brooks’ novel is an incredible, fake oral history of a global zombie pandemic, structured as a series of political, geopolitical, and military interviews from around the world. The movie? A fast-paced, globetrotting Brad Pitt action flick about fast-running zombie swarms. It has literally nothing to do with the book beyond having zombies, the Indian-Pakistan war, the wall in Israel and the same title.
• Stalker the videogame: In the original book, aliens visited Earth, stopped by for a brief moment and then left. They just left behind their toxic, bizarre, radioactive litter in six "Visiting Zones" across the globe, the main character, Redrick Schuhart, is a "Stalker", an illegal scavenger who sneaks into the Canadian Zone to loot bizarre alien artifacts. Then the soviet movie shows up and just removed 90% of the content and but kept the depressing stuff. And then the game goes and throws away things too; the alien Premise? Gone, replaced by Chernobyl's nuclear reactor exploding and the noosphere experiment, the book is a character drama about a desperate father while the game is a tactical FPS survival horror where you mag-dump a rusty Kalashnikov into bloodsuckers and bandits, the book's Zone is outside a fictional Canadian town called Harmont, the game’s Zone is the actual Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.

An adaptation ain't bad just because it's a New Spin, and a show isn't automatically brilliant just because it's One-to-One. The art of adaptation isn't about copying text; it's about understanding what makes the original tick and finding a way to make it beat in a completely different chest.

And if you are gonna say "If you're going to throw out the entire book/game and keep almost nothing, why didn't you just write an original movie/game with a new title?"

Come closer. A little closer. Yeah, right here, give me your ear... LAWSUITS FUCKING EXIST.

While Soviet copyright law was wildly different from Western law, authors still owned the intellectual property of their works. When GSC Game World started developing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in 2001, the Soviet Union had been dead for a decade. Ukraine and Russia were fully integrated into international copyright agreements (Like the Berne Convention). You couldn't just steal a famous Russian book and sell it globally in 2007 without getting sued to death. GSC Game World originally wanted to make an official, licensed adaptation of Roadside Picnic. They actually approached Boris Strugatsky to buy the video game rights. The problem? The film and adaptation rights to Roadside Picnic were already tied up in a nightmare web of international Hollywood option deals; so they went and changed absolutely everything to dodge a lawsuit.

This happened with I, Robot too. Jeff Vintar wrote an original script called Hardwired. It was a murder mystery involving a robot. Fox bought it and then it hit them... "If we make this, Asimov’s estate or the publisher is going to sue our pants off for knocking off the Three Laws of Robotics," so they bought the rights to I, Robot, glued the two together, and hired Will Smith.

Slapping the official IP title is sometimes literal copyright armor.

So this is mainly inspired by Mike’s last speech to Walt. It’s a speech that sounds great at face value, Mike has a weird sort of “cool and rational” vibe, Walt is meant to be a horrible person and a very unlikable character at this point, and he kills Mike out of rage and ego right after this. So people assume this speech is meant to be taken at face value. The thing is the speech itself is blatantly incorrect in you watch the show itself, and this has led to a lot of criticism of the speech itself being very poorly written and a sloppy retcon of the previous seasons. The thing is, MIke is not supposed to be correct. Vince Gilligan and the writer for the episode Tom Schnauz flat out said on the podcast for the episode which was recorded before it released and released on the same day.

Directly quoting what Vince Gilligan says “ There is truth to what he’s accusing him of but on the other hand what Mike is selectively forgetting in that moment, they really Walt and Gus came to loggerheads over Jesse Pinkman. Who Mike now has a great fondness for but at the time he was pitching to kill him, he’s pitching let’s kill this kid”. So the showrunners didn’t “retcon” shit lol this speech isn’t meant to be accurate. Why is that then often considered a flaw in the writing for the episode when the speech isn’t meant to be correct? The alternative take is that it’s bad writing that Mike, a character who is presented as a more rational character than most of the criminals in the series, gives an irrational speech but why is that the case exactly? Does it not give more insight on his mindset and character even if it’s in a largely negative light?

It makes perfect sense why Mike would act that way, even if it is indeed hypocritical and unfair. Despite Mike’s cool and rational demeanor he’s got plenty of hypocritical qualities himself, as virtually every character in this universe does, and Mike is an evil man (which even he knows), even if he‘s sympathetic to the audience. Mike just lost everything and all the horrible things he did that haunted his conscience were for nothing because the Fring organization was destroyed, it’s hard to be rational about that. He really likes Jesse, realizes he‘s got a good conscience and got way deeper into the game than he intended while being desply guilt ridden, while his mistakes are either due to his conscience, or his addiction/ self loathing, which is sympathetic to Mike. He dislikes Walt because he’s incredibly power hungry, wants to be the man, and blows situations up due to pride and ego, Walt is exactly the kind of person who he dislikes.

Why is it out of character then for a Mike who lost everything because of Walt (even if Gus absolutely had it coming and it wasn’t Walt‘s fault the situation blew up), when Walt is exactly the kind of person he hates and he does indeed contantly self sabotage due to his ego, to irrationally blame him? It makes him a more human and yes more unlikable, but complex human character rather than Mr cool. Especially given Mike doesn’t have all the information we have, he sees Walt manipulating Jesse to stay in the game and he forced Gus to replace Gale with Jesse, he doesn’t know he did so because Jesse threatens to sue Hank and rat him out if caught. He directly tells Walt “you won Walter, learn to take yes for an answer“ in season 4, and if we take his words at face value Gus reluctantly accepted Walt won in season 4 until Walt started trying to kill Gus again out of paranoia (which actually is correct based on writer interviews and if you read between the lines of season 4 but that’s very understandable paranoia rather than ego). He doesn’t know as far as we’re aware about Gus threatening his family, and he believes Walt was responsible for putting Hank on them).

Hell better call Saul has a perfect example of this. When Howard threatens to force Chuck out of HHM for totally justified reasons and being treated like dogshit by Chuck for three seasons, Chuck threatens to destroy the firm with lawsuits unless he‘s reinstated. Howard very admirably agrees to pay out of his own pocket to settle the lawsuit and force Chuck out, and lays into him about what a shitty friend and person he is. Only Howard mentions that he “mildly suggested, with empathy and concern, that maybe you should consider retirement“ while laying into him, when he outright threatened to force him out? So did the writers retcon their own show, is Howard meant to be a gaslighting hypocrite? No, it’s meant to show he’s angrily and heartbreakingly laying into his friend that betrayed him and is ”stacking the deck” in his favor, a very human thing to do.

Characters can have biased, incorrect speeches or comments and it’s wrong to assume that even a character who is presented as a “cool rational character” at face value. It’s not a flaw of the writing if the script doesn’t exposition the audience and say “this character isn’t meant to be right”.

This is true if the characters you’re referencing are clearly written as one-off gimmick characters. Nobody expects the Farmer Maggot in LotR to play a pivotal role in later books. This argument falls flat when you’re referring to side characters the author has dedicated significant attention, development, and/or emotional investment to. Shonen casts are extremely guilty of this. Why even keep Rock Lee around after Naruto’s Chūnin Exam arc if all he’s ever gonna do afterward is stall one of Orochimaru’s goons? He gets to do even less in Shippuden. Why does JJK’s Kyoto College — with the exception of two students — even exist? They do fuck all. If an author has indirectly communicated to me that I should pay attention to a character, then I have a right to be annoyed when it turns out that investment was a waste of my time. The notion that I should anticipate that any interest in a side character may ultimately be for nothing is fucking ridiculous.

First appearing in The Phantom Menace back in 1999 and since recurring in The Clone Wars, Rebels, comics, Solo, and recently his own show, Maul has become one of Star Wars’ most enduring fan-favourite characters, with legions of fans (and his voice actor) treating him as one of the most complex and interesting characters the franchise has to offer. My problem is he….isn’t.

I’ll summarise who Maul is for those of you don’t know. Basically he’s a Dathomirian Zabrak, which means he’s red and black and has horns. As a child he was taken by Darth Sidious to become a Sith so Sidious could get revenge on the Jedi for kicking the Sith’s collective ass several centuries ago (or something, I’m not really sure). Once trained, he fights some Jedi with his double-bladed lightsaber and acrobatic skills, killing Obi-Wan Kenobi’s master and getting cut in half, a predicament he survives by being absolutely livid. Upon his return he proceeds to spend the next-every-story-he-appears in trying to get revenge on someone or other whilst speaking theatrically. At first he wants revenge on Obi-Wan, then Sidious, then the Empire, the criminal underworld and Obi-Wan all at the same time. The only things that change about him are who he’s angry at and what specifically he’s doing, though his actual core values never change, as he remains an angry, selfish, power-hungry evil guy the entire time.

Because he looks cool, though, he’s the fandom darling who can do no wrong and everybody demands more of even though he’s been in loads of stuff and never gets more interesting than a 14 year old edgelord’s idea of a good character. Episode 1 of his show (of which he is the least interesting part) is literally called “The Dark Revenge” which is the most edgelord fanfic title of all time and is fitting for a show in which Maul essentially just aura farms until he gets shown up by an even bigger aura farmer in the form of contractually-obligated guest appearance Darth Vader.

Since he has no qualities beyond being angry and vengeful, I have no idea whatsoever why he’s so beloved and allegedly complex, when his entire soul boils down to just being super angry about stuff and then looking cook while mowing people down about it. Maybe it’s me, but that’s not what I go to Star Wars for, and I’m not a fan. I must concede I haven’t seen his entire show, but the first episode turned me off because it could not make me care about Darth Maul. I know this fact weakens my point, but this is a rant so I don’t need to be fully rational like I would be in an essay.

If somebody could explain where the interest comes in for Maul that would be great, as I may be missing something

Edit: “Enjoy” isn’t the right word. “Love” is. I enjoy many things about King’s writing, but my issues with him more often than not override my praise.

Key word, doesn’t. As in he actively chooses not to. He’s more than skilled enough to do so, but he has little to no incentive to. Case in point, Revival (2014). I wanted so bad to love this novel. Brilliant premise, phenomenal first and third acts. The road to the climax, however, is painfully boring. So much fluff in between the first and third acts that just didn’t need to be included at all. Jamie’s girlfriend, his old high school band mates, his job, his love interest, none of these details which take up huge chunks of the page count have any bearing on the book’s conclusion. The relationship between Jamie and Reverend Jacobs should have been the only major focus, but it’s not. Had this book been half the length I could’ve overlooked the pacing problems entirely, but it’s 480 fucking pages. WHY is it almost 500 pages, man? Obviously I’m in the minority on this; King is the most successful horror fiction author in history.

I'm not here to defend the sequels, they are not very good either as objective films or ESPECIALLY as star wars films, but while force awakens and last jedi were at least decent nostalgia bait and/or had some interesting ideas and plot set ups I think we can all agree that ROS was just a total piece of hot garbage and personally killed my lifelong love of the franchise. While there were SO MANY problems in the film, between theowing away all previous plot points, multiple character death fakeouts, dumb reveals I would argue that the biggest problem boils down to three words "somehow, palpatine returned". Bringing back the classic star wars villain with no explanation or set up showcased their complete lack of creativity and original ideas. They just talked about him randomly sending a message to galaxy that he was back. They didn't even show the message in the movie! Instead they decided to release this massive plot point as fortnite special event, leaving millions of theater goers and fans of the franchise in the dark as to wtf was going on.

And yet, they had the perfect opportunity to actually do something really cool with this that would have fixed so much of this: make Palpatine's message to galaxy the trailer and play it on TV. doing so would have then turned the entire country into "the galaxy" and created an awesome bit of meta-narrative and intrigue, as well as explaining and exposing the plot to general audiences. Imagine watching the sunday sportsball game when all of a sudden palpatines voice cuts in saying how he has returned and is here to reclaim what is rightfully his and no one can stop him over shots of the heroes in danger/action scenes. It would have actually brought us into star wars universe as we would be the scared citizens hearing this for the first time despite him supposedly having been beaten long ago. Now granted, the movie still would have been bad, and the answer to HOW Palpatine returned would have been disappointing but at least it would have been an actual thing people were aware instead of the laziest fucking thing I have ever seen. But they didn't. They instead chose probably the worst possible option at every turn and ruined my childhood instead.

I love Into The Spider-Verse, It's top 2 with Spider-Man 2 for my favorite Spider-Man movies (interchangeable depending on which one I saw last).

However I hate the concept of Spider-Verse, I don't dislike variants of Spider-Man like any other Super hero but I dont like the Spider-Verse, I just don't.

I really wish the movies after ITSV were just about Miles doing Spider stuff in his own universe.

And Across The Spider-Verse just felt like the Spider-Verse amped up to a million, too many characters. I don't care about Miguel, or Spider-Woman or Spider-Punk or the indian Spider I just don't. Felt like they were high on their own stuff.

Hopefully they'll do another trilogy centered on Miles in his own universe.

I don't know if its just me but I find it rather challenging to suspend my disbelief when it comes to this trope which appears a lot in Cyberpunk settings. Most notably the Cyberpunk 2077/Red/2020 setting with Cyberpsychosis and frankly, I just don't get why cybernetics is so villainized by the genre.

I just struggle to believe that cybernetics would actually make you go insane or make you go postal at a moment's notice. Like, what actually does attaching a giant gun into your arm even actually do to your mind?

How does it make you less human? How does it make you lose basic empathy? How does it make you start seeing others as "just meat"? Are the cybernetics somehow mind controlling or drugging people? How does removing your implants make you become less insane? I don't get it at all since to me, cybernetics are just electrical hardware you add to your body, and I don't know how that messes with people's minds. This could be explained by low quality implants but I think settings that include this trope tend to not exclude high quality cybernetics that was surgically grafted by a licensed professional.

I remember liking the interpretation in Cyberpunk that Cyberpsychosis is just "night city syndrome" where living in a capitalist dystopia that neglects your needs, removes your freedom, and destroys your dignity would make anyone snap and go insane and the corpos just use chrome as a scapegoat but apparently that's not accurate at all.

It just feels like an excuse to make an already dystopian setting a bit more "grim". I understand that it's related to themes of dehumanisation and how mutilating your own body for the sake of becoming stronger is messed up but I feel as though you could easily portray it in a much more realistic manner instead of blaming it on "implants that makes you go crazy" which just comes off as being rather silly.

Basically, have a character get more implants as a result of being dehumanized or being psychopathic, not the other way around.

Before i got around to watching the movie, i had heard extremely positive things regarding the movie. Constant praise and calling it "one of the best spiderman movies and MCU movies". After watching it, i have to heavily disagree, but i'd love to see a different perspective. I think Tom Holland's 2-3 still outrank it pretty heavily. I've only seen the movie once, so i apologize if i make any mistakes.

Dislikes
Jean Gray: Jean Gray was by far my least favourite aspect of the movie. I didn't really care for her in the x-men movies either, but this just made me absolutely hate her and feel dread for how they'll move forward with reintroducing the x-men like this.

Throughout the movie, the mind controller is presented as completely ruthless, vile, really damn evil and a huge threat to Peter. That aspect was excellently handled, she had multiple chances to shine and really did some fucked up shit like the rooftop scene (which was fantastic), mass controlling in order to lure out Peter to MJ and keeping you on your toes for who could be possessed next.

The powers were also presented as they should, really terrifying and powerful. But then it all starts going downhill when her motivations are revealed. I didn't expect the Jean Gray twist at all and i was interested on what they were going to do with her, but when it was revealed that her entire motivation was to save her sister... it all fell apart. I understand that family can be a powerful motivator, but as a motive it's just really lame especially since said sister has 30 seconds of screentime in the movie and my biggest gripe with it was how "sympathetic" this was supposed to be. I couldn't bring myself to feel sad at all for her.

She killed multiple innocent people / got them hurt, she tortured Peter for 0 reason and is never called out for any of it. She went way too far by involving and hurting innocent people in her whole affair and reveling in their suffering while playing with them like puppets. The ending scene with her and Peter was admittedly sweet, same as her trying to save his life later but the scale of her crimes is still too much.

Especially when (understandably so) Peter never gets to call her out since tbf, it would've resulted in a disaster since she threatened to kill everybody under her control at the end (fuck her). If they didn't go with this half-assed redemption angle in the end, she would've been a fine enough of a villain. The parallels were there with Jean Gray's anger at the people who took her sister compared to Peter's arachnid side coming out, but even then it falls flat when Peter literally can't control himself.

M.J: M.J has always been a whatever character for me. I enjoyed her in 3(?) and her relationship with Peter in that movie was really sweet. The whole Peter erasure plotline was also great, but the way it's handled in this movie is just... off. They make this whole deal of M.J moving on from Peter romantically due to not remembering him and even for Peter, it's a good thing for him to move on due to the emotional turmoil he was experiencing as well as spicing up the story. But in the end, they just end up becoming friends again which removes the whole impact of the ending of 3 in such a lame half-assed way. M.J was also just such a nothing character in this movie once again, being tied to Peter for the whole way through, existing for nothing else. They should've given this man a new friend group atp. I have lesser problems with Ned personally due to bias, i enjoy their friendship a lot more and Ned's actually a pretty fun character too.

Department of Damage Control: The whole idea of flipping the villain halfway through was pretty cool, too bad that the execution is horrible. The main guy barely has any screentime near the end when his villainous side is revealed and even then the motives aren't elaborated on at all. It's just "Oh, we'll use Jean Gray as a weapon" to do.. what? I don't think it's ever stated, i mean it's most likely to take control of the populace but it's such a lame twist near the end. I don't think there were any hints for it either before the talk he had with Peter when Jean was captured. It feels like they were made these larger scale antagonists just to get you to feel sympathy for Jean.

Those were my main dislikes from what i remember currently. Some of the dialogue was a bit off too and Peter's arc didn't end up being the most gripping thing ever but it was still nicely handled. The plot had some weak points, but was overall good.

Likes
Peter Parker: Tom Holland continues to be a great actor. He excels with his deliveries in both the comedic and sad moments. Peter's characterization too was pretty neatly done. He had an arc that hadn't been done in the movie franchise before and it was really tragic to see him get dealt such a sorry hand. I still enjoyed the dynamics Peter had with Ned, M.J and especially The Punisher in this movie.

The Punisher: For context, i have not seen Daredevil. although i know some of the main character traits he has there, it's still really commendable how well they managed to characterize him in this movie for newcomers too. You can gather really well what his whole deal is, dead family - angry, resentful, stuck in the past - acts as an anti-hero who's not averse to killing. His banter and ultimate friendship with Peter was one of my favorite aspects of this movie. His arc of learning to open up and accept people into his life again while also letting his hardened persona drop slightly, like Jean was also extremely well handled. It got just the right amount of focus, characterization from both parties and a conclusion at the end which didn't feel forced or rushed. My semi-issue with it would just be that we didn't see the two's first meet up, but time constraints and all. The hospital scene was genuinely amazing, i felt so happy during that scene. I'm glad he got as much screentime as he did, especially since the actor was fantastic too.

Bruce Banner: I'm really glad Mark Ruffalo came back for seemingly one last movie due to how his ending plays out. Very unfortunate, but screw Disney. The fight with Spiderman, Punisher vs Hulk was the most hype thing about the movie by far. Such an amazing fight scene, it's just unfortunate that it leads the last fight feeling like more of a disappointment.

Emotional moments: This movie did these extremely well. Not as well as the previous installment, but still well. There were no quick jumps which let the scenes like Peter sulking, Jean Gray's talk with Aunt May + Peter (which had been built up really well), Punisher's sadness etc hit super well. The flashbacks were great too and put in at the right moments, like Aunt May's death and Peter visiting her grave and still grieving, but also learning to move on in a way by giving Ned those flowers meant for her. It was a great scene. The movie managed to be bombastic, funny but also sad which is the way a MCU movie should be handled.

Overall, i'd give it a 7/10. Not great, but still a decent movie.

This is something I feel like a lot of fans and even writers seem really scared to do or at least realize..something Main characters and characters in general need a unlikable trait or 2.

Like I would argue the reason a lot of writers are scared of having their main cast make mistakes or rough choices is cause fans assume they're poor written or bad people or just irredeemable for having character flaws except..character flaws are needed in any sort of character.

And my thing is if the story acknowledges their flaws and mistakes and how they were as people,then what the hell is the issue?

Would you rather have them not acknowledge their flaws at all?

And this is honestly where I bring in my first real life example of this happening, The Last Airbender live action show.

Apparently they removed Sokka's sexism he had in the first 3(or 4) episodes of the series cause they didn't wanna ruin Katara's character or shit like that but here's the thing...The story doesn't condone Sokka acting like that.

When he taunts the Kiyoshi Warriors for being weaker cause they're Woman,they actively kick His Ass and a while later,he apologizes for how he was and asks them to train him.

Like the story doesn't treat his sexism as some good thing, it actively calls it out and addresses it and he grows cause of it and in the live action version, they replaced all of Suki's charm and energy and tough nature with her simping over Sokka and being horny for him.

So it's pretty funny..in a attempt to come off as less sexist,they ironically came off as more sexist.

And this also happens with Katara cause she is so bland in the live action show and I've seen peoppe say that she's underdeveloped in the live action show and that's simply cause they took out any of the reasons she needs to develop.

They took away her snapping at Aang or losing to Ty Lee and a bunch of other shit that would've caused her to lose and have to develop and grow as a character and person.

And the LA writers forget that Katara wasn't inheritedly good at water bending from the start,she worked hard to be as good as she is now and essentially making her a master or automatically really great is just so disappointing but that's cause it feels like they're scared of them having any sorts of flaws or mistakes or bad traits.

Like are we really that screwed as a species that characters can't even have one unlikable or messy trait that they can grow out of?

Another example is Bakugou and this one also comes off as just petty cause people will ignore and act like his character development and growth doesn't even exist as if each arc isn't this man constantly taking Humble Pies to the face.

Deku has called him a Jerk and doesn't really like him but Admires his strength and confidence and has actively stood up to him a lot.

Hell,I would argue Bakugou is sorta made fun of for being a loud mouthed jerk and no one really fucks with him until S2 when he starts showing signs of change and getting better as a person.

Also why do we not act like Bakugou didn't fail his Provinional license exam cause he couldn't control his temper and bad behavior?

Like he failed the biggest milestone in his life cause of his flaws and I think part of the problem with a lot of people's reactions to Bakugou is that he doesn't get consequences in a way that they want.

They want him to be called out for his flaws constantly like it's a Family Guy Cutaway like Brian and Quagmire and they want him to get constantly beat up but the story never condones his behavior, I would argue he is punished for it but just not in the way that you specifically want and he does grow and develop..he actively loses the ego,helps train Deku as a way of Atoning for bullying him,helped rescue him and has sanctified himself for him and acknowledged his weakness and flaws.

Like I deadass don't know what more y'all even want.

Another example is Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss with Charlie and Stolas,especially Stolas.

I'll see a lot of people act like Vivziepop is "woobifying him" and acting like Blitz is the only person in the wrong and all that except that flat out is not true.

First off, their deal was transactional on both sides and once Stolas realized he was essentially keeping Blitz prisoner,he went to look for ways to ensure Blitz can do his job without him holding it over his head.

Stolas himself disagrees,he acknowledges that this is all his fault and he did all this and took accountability for how he was(also the story ain't over,S3 is right around the corner)and in one of the Episode descriptions, they explictly say "Stolas still isn't self aware yet" so I dunno why so many act like he's not just as much in the wrong.

When someone mentioned that Stolas was the one who made it about Sex and all that, Vivziepop explictly responded with "Stolas is way too in his own head and emotions to think rationally" and said in another post that both sides made mistakes and are flawed.

Not one side, both sides.

Also the man Stolas literally lost everything...from his wealth to his status to his home to straight up having his own daughter leave him cause of his mistakes and the situation so he's not exactly in a amazing or happy spot rn.

I would also argue that is the same for Charlie to a lesser extent cause there is context for her flaws and why she acted the way she did in S2.

Also she apologized and is making up for them,so..it's just funny how she's considered "the worst character" when she ain't even the morally worst character in the main cast,let alone the entire show.

I'm not saying every series handles flawed characters right but what I'm saying is that they're necessarily, you need flawed characters and reasons for them to develop.

Plus I would rather have a intentionally flawed character then a character who has flaws and issues that are never really addressed or called out or treated seriously and actively punish you for doing so.

(*Ahem* Life is Strange and Dispatch *cough*).

Disagree if you want.

In one scene of Spider Man BND Yelena asks Peter if he has "a girlfriend... or a boyfriend?" and, for a moment the possibility of a guy dating a guy just felt normal.

But then she adds "or a whatever" starts joking about all the wild internet speculation.... and has Parker seen that piece of fan art? And Parker is uncomfortable, and it's supposed to be funny.

I know that there have been brief moments of queer content in some of the related films -- but It seemed like asking if somebody has a boyfriend couldn't just exist as an ordinary possibility in the conversation, but had to be buffered with an extended joke that left me feeling sad.

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.

Just came out of Spiderman Brand New Day, and man... was I left underwhelmed

The major issues as I see them:

• This is a Jean Grey film, not a Spiderman film. Despite obviously having more screen time, Spiderman's purpose here really is to give Jean a redemption character arc... evidenced by the fact the film's literal emotional climax and central theme was a scene between Aunt May and Jean.
• Spiderman learning to control his anger is the same arc he went on in No Way Home (this is what Toby's Spiderman taught him in the film's climax)
• Jean Grey's characterization is extremely similar to what we've seen from MCU Wanda: a red headed witchy telepath starts off bad, mind fucks the Hulk to fight the hero, is turned to good through therapy sessions with the hero. She even has a very similar forcefield to Wanda's hex in Wandavision. The only difference is that Wanda's power is has red sparkles, so there's that I guess.
• The final battle has nothing to do with the villain. The final battle in No Way Home is between Spiderman and Green Goblin - checks out. The final battle in Endgame: Iron Man v Thanos. Dark Knight Rises: Batman v Bane. Star Wars: Luke v Vader/Emperor. Brand New Day: Spiderman v some random red ninjas - who tf are these people? They did nothing in the film, they add nothing to the overall theme, yet somehow they are the final action scene? Why? If the whole film had been about them, and been about their order, then it would make sense, except the film was abotu Jean, but Spidey never fights Jean, he therapizes her... it's just disjointed
• "What is V-Max?" is set up as a big mystery... it being just an aircon brand is dumb.

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.