Jar Jar Binks. He’s my favorite Sith
My personal theory is that jar jar is not a sith but rather a domestic terrorist that is really good at making it look like an accident
I know this a joke theory (mostly), but given how much Star Wars rips from classic scifi works, I think looking at the Foundation books makes a good case for this being viable as more than a joke.
It’s not even viable. In canon, Jar Jar was relegated to being a shunned street performer on Theed where adults hated him but the children would laugh at his clown antics. A Sith lord wouldn’t become that, ever.
I am viewing from intention as written, when written for the films. It seems plausible that “Darth Jar Jar” or something similar could have been an original, but abandoned intention.
“Jar Jar is the key to all of this.” – George Lucas, during filming of The Phantom Menace
Shinji, from Evangelion.
He’s 14. His mum is dead. His dad is a piece of shit and a manipulative bastard, who sees him as nothing but a pawn. “Emotionally traumatised” doesn’t even start to describe him. He’s pressured to pilot a mecha and if he fucks things up people will die, he knows that they will die, and that it’ll be his fault.
And yet people expect him to be assertive or to not have meltdowns? Come the fucking on.
Cool story, now get in the fucking robot.
… that was created using your mother’s soul!
Or some shit. Lol
I think the biggest problem that people have with NGE is that it just isn’t your typical shounen anime. All of the characters behave in a way because of their past experiences. Shinji being abandoned by his father, witnessing his mother’s death without actually understanding or realising it, asuka being neglected by her mother and Rei being a clone. And all of them in their teens, in a broken world getting told to fight and probably die or humanity is doomed.
With how saturated anime are with flawed main characters that then use that flaw to their advantage to overcome their enemy, NGE just doesn’t do that.
I think that viewers just expect this hero story when they watch it.
I mean. I had a similar impression when I first watched it a long long time ago and thought that shinji was a wuss. But that was after I watched the typical shounen, DB, DBZ, Naruto and bleach. Not to mention that I didn’t understand what the fuck was going on. Only later after watching it a second time and digging into the background a bit, shinjis Oedipus complex, asukas hedgehog dilemma and the general motivation of each of the characters it made a lot more sense. Including the context of their situation made me appreciate the storytelling a lot more because it put everything into perspective.
I really thought the idea was, “You like mecha? You like kids piloting mecha? This is how it’d go down.” I loved it so much. Shinji’s a broken, abused shell child. He lives with a broken human who drowns her sorrows in drink. His father is just evil. He’d have to be to let his kid pilot the mecha.
The only real father figure we ever see for shinji is a spy. Who gets killed. He’s in love with a girl that hates him. Because he’s broken. But he has no one else. Except those friends at school who I think they take away. Don’t remember. And that angel who he has to kill or something. Damn, it’s been like 25 years. I have no idea what happened. But in my memory it’s terrible. Wonderful stuff.
Didn’t realize he was hated? He is a fucked up little weirdo but so is everyone in that show. Man, I might need to rewatch, been way too long.
Plenty anime fans hate him. Because he’s weak, indecisive, broken. He craves affection but once people offer “here’s some affection”, he turns them down. That rubs plenty people the wrong way.
Willie in Temple of Doom. So what if she wasn’t cut out for the big adventure! She liked her life in Shanghai- dresses, performing, champagne, and nightlife. She didn’t ask for any of what happened next!
Is there some secret internet community of Willie haters?
Lesbians maybe
Growing up I would hear people hating on her. But this was pre-internet so perhaps the World Wide Web has lessened the Willie bashing?
It was the shrieking that I wasn’t a fan of
Skyler White. I didn’t even know that she was hated quite a lot. I always thought she is actually the most sane person given the situation she’s in.
She is hated because she is acting sanely in this situation and is constantly trying to stop Walter’s insanity.
Same, and I suspect that not many people ever did hate Skylar… But the narrative makes for good content, so the few that did hate on Skylar got portrayed as the majority.
IIRC, though, Anna Gunn mentioned having a lot of negative interactions with the audience conflating her with her character… So who knows.
She’s hated because Walt turned everyone against her - including the viewer, it seems
I like how these conversations always ignore the wrong things Skylar did, such as cheating with Ted. It’s always “well Walter was the devil, so anything she did was ok”. She still begins the show by showing very little care for his birthday and making it feel like a chore. She’s literally part of why he feels he’s in a hum drum boring life with no control. His character ark is largely about him going from a meek high school professor afraid to do anything into a completely fearless kingpin who finally has control over his life. Yes, the point is that he goes too far. But it’s also shown pretty clearly early on that he feels powerless and like his life is out of control(you know, like a sudden terminal cancer diagnosis might do).
Was Walter a bad person? Yes. Was Skylar also a bad person who didn’t truly see him as an equal and who, when given the chance, cheats on him remorselessly? Also yup.
Multiple people can be bad. Even Hank, arguably one of the most moral characters, suffers from major blindspots and is a dismissive dick to Marie.
People defending Skylar are the kind of people that say “I can do what I want because it’s a free country” and get shocked when they learn there are consequences to their actions, even if justified.
Basically every character who’s worst sin is just being kinda annoying
It makes no sense to me how an annoying person can catch so much more vitriol than a genuinely malicious person.
Like “sure he murders puppies as a casual past time, but at least he isn’t a bother about it!”
I guess in a show the annoyance they cause to you is real but the puppies killed are fiction
Grandpa Joe, but not by much.
I’ll bite. Why doesn’t that freeloader who can suddenly jump up and dance, not deserve so much hate.
I think the hate around grandpa Joe is entirely misdirected…
This 96 year old man (that’s his actual age) hasn’t been working himself to death every day and people are upset about that? Sure he spent the last 20 years in retirement but also that means he retired at 76!
Most of the hate around Grandpa Joe seems to just be “why can’t the poor just work harder and then they won’t be poor?” THE MAN WAS 76 WHEN HE RETIRED! LET HIM RETIRE!
Everything he did while in the chocolate factory was fucked tho I can agree with that…
Edit: nvm I thought about it more and I have no issues with him stealing food given how intensely food insecure his home is.
There must be some backstory that I either missed in the movie or isn’t said.
I was listening to a football podcast (they go off topic in the offseason because there isn’t a lot to talk about), and they had a whole rant about how Pam Beasley is a monster.
Because she was friends with Jim while dating Roy. (Yeah him having feelings for her wasn’t exactly a shocker, but it’s different when it’s you. And she shut him down clearly when he actually made a move.)
Because she did the art school thing, I guess?
Because she was sad when Jim was dating Karen. (She did genuinely try to be her friend despite that, and went to cry in a corner alone.)
And because there was tension when Jim did Athlead. (Which if you actually watch, was him biting her head off when she messed up with a video of a recital, and him instigating a couple other times, presumably because of the stress of the situation, while she was being run ragged as almost a single mother at home.)
And because apparently chasing your dreams going to New York to go to art school while in a relationship is the same as doing it when you’re actually married and have kids. But she didn’t bend over backward enough to support him I guess?
It’s just really weird to me, and he’s not the only one with that weird twist on the character. (No she’s not perfect. Sitcoms are all characters who are kind of monsters. But her as the bad guy doesn’t make sense.)
Yeah. I also find the relationship has a lot more dysfunction on Jim’s part than fans want to admit. Jim wouldn’t cheat on Pam, but Jim makes several life changing decisions without Pam and gets angry if Pam doesn’t go along with them.
To be fair, I don’t think he’s actually a bad dude either. Again, flawed, but reasonably well intentioned.
The “worst” thing they did was definitely developing feelings while she’s engaged to Roy, but most of that was the nature of working in close proximity. It’s inherently different than sneaking around to spend “platonic” time together for a bunch of hours by choice. He had feelings, but mostly didn’t cross the line. I don’t think he’s a terrible person for laying his feelings on the line when she’s engaged to someone he doesn’t like either. Actually married is the line where it moves to completely not OK.
But yeah, the whole end thing really wasn’t anyone being awful. He unilaterally made some decisions that should have been a partnership, and he was wrong to put that much stress on her without talking to her and hearing her. Because they had kids, primarily. But he did recognize that and came back and made the commitment to their family. Then, once she had time to actually breathe again, she was ready to take the leap with him.
That was longer than I meant it to be again lol. But I was surprised to hear the take (and that it was more popular than I’d guess) because it genuinely never occurred to me. She was in pretty deep and he was lashing out from the stress of the situation before she even vocalized her problems with it. (At least from what we see.)
Thanos; I can understand his reasoning, his solution doesn’t favor anyone either and seemed painless.
Except for his solution is basically, “Let’s put the population back a whole 40 years or so, while massively disrupting society and the economy and being guaranteed to traumatize virtually everyone remaining. That will fix everything!” The only person who could think that was at all reasonable would have to have a grade school understanding of how the world works and no interpersonal connections, or what they mean to most people.
And then he destroys the stones, so it’s not he planned for the snap to be the first of an every-few-decades population culling. This dork actually thought he had a permanent fix and threw away his tools in confidence that it was.
The next generations will bounce back. They will not have experienced the thanos snap.
So at best this turned the population clock back 40 or 50 years. How is that a solution to anything? This is like pining about the good old days. Also, I suggest you read a little about generational trauma, because I’m pretty sure having half of everyone you know disappearing, and that applying to everyone, is going to have a little of that.
Painless? Even accepting that emotional pain doesn’t count (which I don’t agree with) 50% of every person involved in operating a piece of dangerous machinery just suddenly disappearing absolutely caused widespread injury and death among those left behind.
I thought the reasoning portrayed in the movies made a lot less sense than the reasoning in the comics.
If his goal is to eliminate poverty and balance the resources vs consumption, why not double the resources rather than destabilize the entire universe in the process of halving the consumption of resources?
A shortsighted and foolish plan at least makes sense when it’s in the pursuit of romance.
Thanos’ reasoning is idiotic.
People are a resource. If you eliminated half the people, not only have you wasted all resources that went into those people, but you’ve wasted everything those people could produce. Minus half of agricultural workers would probably mean way less than half production. The post-snap world would be a place of austerity and starvation. You could recover sure, but it’d be time for another snap.
On the surface I understand, but as you dig deeper the logistics don’t make a lot of since with the “indiscriminate” part. Let’s say you had two warring factions of almost equal power. How would the snap know to take an equal amount so that there isn’t a massive power shift which could lead to a much more negative outcome. What if there was a single, very influencial person that got snapped. Things like that. His goal was to alieviate suffering but there are so many better ways he could have approached it. It’s possible I’d need to dive into the backstory more to determine what made him choose that specific action.
About the 2 faction problem, theoretically 50% of each faction will be gone. Chances are big that the power balance remains the same. But you can idd argue that making 1 faction completely dissappear is also 50% and statistically possible.
About the influential people (let add geniuses to be complete). Those persons are not unique, nobody is irreplaceable. Someone else will step up to be equally influential, Someone else will figure stuff out.
The reason he choose that action is not to be biased and give everyone an equally 50% chance of survival. In his eyes, a cleaning lady deserves an equal chance to a CEO.
I think that’s where we differ in analysis. If you had a charismatic leader who was snapped and another that was ruthless who wasn’t snapped, even if you lost 50% on both sides, it could greatly cause an imbalance.
As for a genius or such, it could set progress back by decades or more or they could have produced something that had a positive effect to change the course of their race.
First point: fair enough, I see the flaw. But then we’re changing to a more ethical dilemma: does a charismatic person deserve more chance to live?
Second point: with half the population left, there is more time to solve things (caused by humanity). Global warming, for example, will likely be solved by just the snap alone.
Maybe he could have made it that every female can only bare 2 children, that would gradually reduce population. But that would put a huge strain on the younger generation to take care of the elder.
I’d argue in the marvel universe it would be inevitable with the faction problem. The marvel universe is much much larger than our own and much more heavily populated, so even if it was a small chance, there’s many more times that chance could happen.
In the 90s there was this purple dinosaur from a children’s TV show that everyone seemed to hate. I don’t know anything about him or why we were supposed to hate him. To know anything about him you would have to have watched a show for 3 year olds, so if you did that then you deserve to be annoyed by it. Right?
It was because he sang the “I Love You” song. It was uncool.
And there were constant commercials where he did that. Any sane adult would be quickly driven crazy by how ubiquitous, how repetitive and sappy it was.
- Many of the best children’s shows could be quite watchable
- No, you didn’t have to have chosen your own hell, the commercials were all over kids TV. It was horrible, you couldn’t avoid that hideous song
Nurse Ratchet. Lady was just trying to do her job.
sure, and Kai Winn was just some priest…
🤮
Well, she was manipulative towards the patients. The worst part was when the young suicidal patient was with the girl and she reprimanded him, saying she was going to tell his mom. And she let him of her sight. It was just a power trip.
I think she was just extremely fed up with the bullshit by the time that happened. Obviously it was a bad decision, I’m not going to defend the belittling.
Not a character it’s actually a woman but I shouldn’t say who and for why. Ultimately she is in the wrong. But could have been prevented at least I think maybe idk
Great contribution to the conversation. We all understand what you’re saying, and who you’re talking about. We’re all just ready to continue this conversation that we ABSOLUTELY can be a part of, and have opinions on.
…oh wait.
I refuse to believe he isn’t trolling for sake of my brittle sanity
Wait I mean he definitely is trolling
I haven’t had enough coffee for double negatives
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
That would have been devastating to me in middle school
This isn’t Facebook… vuagebooking isn’t allowed. Either name the person or go somewhere else.
I shouldn’t say who and for why.
Why? This is anonymous. No one will judge you for your opinion. Of course, it’s also a discussion. We can’t reply if we don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And if you refuse to do that, why even post the comment?
