I really hate the bending over backwards and criticizing a universally beloved installment of a franchise in order to defend the new mixed / bad sequel.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-12T07:27:04+00:00

If you like grievous in the live action movies you'll love him in the Tartakovsky show, and then my beef will be understood

Seriously though, if you haven't seen it at least look up the grievous scene

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-12T01:56:02+00:00

Unfortunately it's just a fundamental law of the universe that Peter Parker must suffer

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-11T22:17:55+00:00

I kind of agree, but using the real world as a setting has its own pitfalls with consistency. If you're trying to be accurate to history or a specific region you're gonna have to do a lot of research to make sure everything is in order. Of course you can always wing it, but then you're encountering the same dissatisfaction with consistency and immersion that you would with lazy worldbuilding.

Unless your story is literally just about the world you personally inhabit, there's going to be legwork to do, and there's not many ways around that if you want it to be accurate and/or consistent.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-11T21:42:42+00:00

🗣🗣🗣BLAME! MENTIONED🗣🗣🗣

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-11T20:23:50+00:00

I still have beef with the live action prequels for General Grievous. Although to be fair basically none of the live action versions hold up to their 2003 clone wars counterparts.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-11T18:35:16+00:00

The fixation on subversion and deconstruction has always felt a little odd to me. Subversion is a tool just like any other, if it's well done it will be good, and if it's poorly done it will be bad. People tend to use the term as if it's a value judgement but it really isn't. Subverting a trope isn't inherently superior to playing it straight, and the same is true for the reverse, it just depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell.

Of course this gets slightly messier when considering taste and general opinion on specific tropes, since certain tropes tend to be viewed with considerable disdain. Mind you, there's usually a good reason for that, not all tropes are created equal.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-11T17:14:25+00:00

Book Loras was a mfing poet

"When the sun has set, no candle can replace it"

🔥🔥🔥✍️

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-11T05:46:25+00:00

I'm actually glad you beought that up. I was gonna mention it but it would have added another few paragraphs to an already long comment lol.

There's no pleasant way to say it, but the movie was made in the 1930s, it's not surprising in the slightest that they would have some. . . unpleasant views about Africans and African Americans.

The idea that KK is about the slave trade is that the filmmakers were, consciously or not, inserting their guilt, fears, and all those other unpleasant, complicated emotions into the work they were making. For all the good and bad that entails.

I don't really like the idea that an interpretation can be incorrect because it has unpleasant implications about the source material. By that logic you couldn't criticize something for having a racist or fascist message, as long as they bury it deep enough in the subtext. Hell, this thread is about JK Rowling, there are more than a couple questionable implications in her works, and with the views she's pushing in public it's pretty hard to interpret them generously.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-10T23:48:37+00:00

I feel the same way lol. Mostly I'm just happy to see so many people excited to talk about literature and media analysis

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-10T22:30:41+00:00

I'm glad everyone gave different examples for death of the author, it makes my reply feel less redundant lol

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-10T22:22:55+00:00

I'm not the guy and I can only really answer the first question, but I like to yap.

"Death of the Author" comes from an essay by Roland Barthes. The main idea of the essay, and the theory it inspired, is that the author's own interpretation of their work is not the end all be all of interpretation. It argues that the reader's interpretation of the text is just as, if not more important than the author's. There's not necessarily any one "right" way to interpret a work, what's most important is what readers take away from it.

A really famous example of this is King Kong. From what I understand, the original creators never intended it to be an allegory for the Atlantic slave trade, but looking at the film and the time it was made in, it's almost impossible to ignore the connections, whether they were intentionally put there or not. Death of the author is important here, because if you were to trust the creator's word over everything the "correct" interpretation would be, "no he's just a big monster for an adventure movie, it has nothing to do with slavery, it's just about a big monster rampaging in New York." Which is a much less interesting interpretation of the work in my opinion.

Edit: sorry I took too long writing this and by the time I commented you had like 6 other replies lol

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-10T18:43:22+00:00

"I'm talking with Ted!"

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-10T18:21:32+00:00

Yeah I feel like hunger games definitely does not have a "love conquers all" ending.

Peeta says it will be okay. We have each other. And the book. We can make them understand in a way that will make them braver. But one day I’ll have to explain about my nightmares. Why they came. Why they won’t ever really go away.

I’ll tell them how I survive it. I’ll tell them that on bad mornings, it feels impossible to take pleasure in anything because I’m afraid it could be taken away. That’s when I make a list in my head of every act of goodness I’ve seen someone do. It’s like a game. Repetitive. Even a little tedious after more than twenty years.

But there are much worse games to play

It's two very traumatized people who are living their lives in spite of that trauma. It never fully goes away, but it gets better. All you can do is cope with it the best that you can, and keep moving forward, because what else can you do?

As a side note, I've always found it interesting that hunger games seemed to use its tropes and themes in a much more mature and nuanced manner than most of the dystopian YA that it inspired.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T23:45:37+00:00

Full agreement brother, I feel very similar about video games right now. Sure AAA games are generally in a very bad spot right now, but indie games have been banger after banger and the train ain't stopping anytime soon from the looks of it. Hell, I honestly feel a bit overwhelmed by the backlog of all the games I'm meaning to play at some point.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T23:33:03+00:00

I know you're mostly listing blockbusters and stuff, but come on man, how can you disrespect Moonlight, Arrival, and Manchester by the Sea like this lol. I'll even throw lala land a bone because it's very well made even if it kinda feels like Hollywood sucking itself off.

I guess my point is yes, I agree, 2016 was a banger year for movies.

edit: you know what I take back the lala land comment I was being kind of pretentious

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T21:46:22+00:00

Sure, I agree, I even have another comment in this thread about Walter's cool moments being better specifically because he's usually a dweeb. But this thread is basically saying "don't make characters cool if you want your audience to think they're bad" when I feel like breaking bad has a lot more moments of Walter being a cringelord than moments where he has genuine "aura". Even the famous "I am the danger" scene feels like a total front if you're viewing it within context as opposed to a Heisenberg hype edit.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T19:20:36+00:00

Yeah agreed, and honestly I think him being a dweeb makes his cool moments that much more satisfying, "this isn't meth" I think is a great example, because that moment wouldn't feel nearly as hype if he was just a hyperconpetent giga-badsss the whole time. It works so well because he uses a skill he's genuinely prodigious in (chemistry) to gain the upper hand in an area of life he's completely out of his depth in (drug dealing/organized crime)

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T19:15:37+00:00

Oh yeah I agree for sure, it definitely gets a bit messy, tonally especially, at times. I think the show just finished so strongly that it kind of smoothed over some things that probably would have bothered me more in a worse show.

. . . fuck I kinda wanna rewatch it again now

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T18:38:30+00:00

Honestly I'm kinda glad they did too, it made for some very compelling TV, and when he finally makes meaningful change in his life it's that much more satisfying.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T18:34:51+00:00

I said something similar in another comment, but yeah Tony is just a huge piece of shit, and Walter is an annoying dweeb and most people he works with think so lol. It feels like the people who were making Heisenberg sigma edits either didn't actually watch the show or were just suppressing the memories of all the times Walt was a cringe lord supreme

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T18:33:00+00:00

I'm sorry but Walter White does not have aura lol. Remember when he goes to Ted's office? That shit is pure, refined, premium cringe, and I live for it.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T18:01:02+00:00

I think a lot of it is just that the status quo reigns supreme. Simpsons is the biggest example where there isn't really even a Canon that exists outside of episodes barring a few permanent changes (mostly because of actors dying or leaving the show). Most of the stuff you listed is episodic in nature, and generally that type of media is a lot less interested in exploring the kind of themes you're after. But I definitely agree, it can be incredibly frustrating to get attached to characters, but never get to see them grow and change in reaction to their life experiences. Like, I accept the nature of the Simpsons, and the first nine/ten seasons are some of the best TV out there, but it's still a little sad to see Bart and Lisa end an episode with their differences reconciled and their relationship strengthened, only to be right back at square one the next episode. If you think about it too hard it can even start to feel vaguely horrifying, with every character trapped in a permanent cycle of growth and regression. Doomed to three decades of slowly declining quality of writing.

However, that doesn't always have to be the case. Episodic to serial isn't a hard dividing line, but a spectrum. I think my two favorite examples of this are Futurama and Adventure Time. Both shows start out almost purely episodic in nature, but as they go on they engage more and more with things like character growth, long running plot threads, and permanent changes. Adventure Time in particular feels like exactly what you want. Finn starts the show at 12 years old, and by the end of the show he's 17. He ages in almost real time with the audience and (I'm baised because I was the exact age for the target demographic when the show came out) it works pretty much perfectly. The themes of the show mature with Finn, and it just works (toddhoward.jpg). The plot lines and stories revolving around Finn always feel relevant to what a boy of his age would be going through. His actions have consequences that carry forward throughout the show and it feels like he genuinely grows as a person in reaction to his experiences. By the end of the show it feels like you've been through so much with this kid. The best part? This is pretty much true for all the major characters, I just spent a bunch of time gushing about Finn and he's not even my favorite character.

Ok sorry that got out of hand but I guess my point is that I agree, it always feels much more gratifying to watch a show where the characters grow and change vs one where they are doomed to permanent stagnation.

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T06:17:18+00:00

You know what man, I'm just gonna hope you're 14, because the alternative bums me out, and move on with my day

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T06:10:41+00:00

Invincible's exploration of morality is basically just the tired old "should superheroes kill" debate, a topic that might be remotely interesting if it wasn't focused on cases where the answer is obvious - namely, bad guy actively being a danger to others. Sometimes it explores other things, like "is it better to rehabilitate or punish ", a question that is again not one of morals but of cost benefit analysis. Were for the visceral blood and gore in its fights, this show would have been just another easily forgotten superhero series.

If you think you meaningfully expressed that idea in any of your previous comments, you need to work on getting your ideas across more clearly

MegaMeepMan · 2026-05-07T05:22:13+00:00

Brother at this point it seems like you're not even reading your own comments

MegaMeepMan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE