I totally agree. Hollywood doesn't really know how to make proper moral characters. They are so degenerate and nihilistic themselves; that they actually can't understand how to make a deep moral character, or even how to challenge him. Fundamentally, they don't really even believe in good characters, and don't think that it's realistic for a good character to succeed in a poisoned world.
Fundamentally, they don't really even believe in good characters, and don't think that it's realistic for a good character to succeed in a poisoned world.
I'd agree there. And, honestly, a good character doesn't even need to succeed - he just needs to keep trying. To me, a character standing up for what is right to the point of ridicule, imprisonment, death, or some other negative outcome is a lot more inspiring than Edgy Antihero #516 winning and/or receiving his comeuppance. Inspiring others to carry on the fight (like at the end of Serenity), making a bad guy actually reconsider things (like Vader did at the end of Return of the Jedi), or even just saving one or two people and letting hope carry on (Aragorn and Co at the Black Gate) can all be a win for the good guys. Sure, it's better when the good guy survives too (Luke did get off the Death Star, and Aragorn and Co [at least the named characters] survived the battle), but it's not always necessary.
I think a truly good character builds in a fallen world.
We either get the anti-hero types that are damaged by the world and try to make something nice happen.
Or we get the heroes who effectively have to destroy themselves to preserve some minor victory.
Or we see a miraculous victory against a horde of enemies, and everything goes back to the way it was, and the poisoned world is gone.
These are all, in and of themselves stories that are a bit cynical. Even the last one that just kind of gives up and says "then magic happened and they all lived happily ever after". But that's not what a good victory looks like in the face of darkness.
We almost never see the hero build a community, family, society, or friendship that forges a good world, and pushes the boundaries of evil back, slowly & steadily over time. We don't see a good world forged by the heroes good actions; only saved. And I think that's a huge problem for our time, because we live in a world so ravaged by degeneracy, cynicism, and nihilism, that most people don't have anything to save. Our hero's story has to be about how to build something to save first, and keep it preserved in the face of evil, because no one is going to just straight up defeat the evil; just repel it for a while longer.
It is honestly part of why I have been burned out on Antiheros these days and just want ultimate good characters and mustache twirling villain's. We have had so many cases of jaded, nihilistic antiheros that I can stand them anymore. Although I do still like some of the more classic examples such as Judge Dredd.
Incidentally, this is probably why it is so hard for modern creatives to create a good Superman story. Superman is supposed to be the ultimate paragon of a moral character, who has absolute power and through sheer force of will refuses to let it corrupt him, because it is the right thing to do.
Most modern creatives consider such a notion to be both laughable and impossible.
I'd say even Captain America struggles with maintaining a strong morality in the face of implacable, really truly evil forces.
But Superman is a character of near moral perfection and is only fighting the equivalent of just ultra-powerful madmen. A lot of Superman's character ends up around the fringes of that. He's super-powerful, to a laughable extreme, but then doesn't have to face deep moral questions because of his nearly limitless powers, so they play with the idea "what happens if he loses control or cuts lose" which is not actually the point of Superman.
Superman's not supposed to do either of those things. Those are already extremes. You'd have to tell the story of Superman's greatest strength is not his power, but his wisdom.
The horrible truth is that Superman is supposed to be the character that a child sees when he looks at his dad. Yeah, crazy, unthinkable powers that you don't really understand... frankly because you're not wise enough to get it. But then he also has a seemingly unlimited patience, with a deeply personal touch. Yes, Super Dad can "save your world" with the work he does that you don't understand; but he will also rescue your kitty from a tree, and will impart deep wisdom and a life lesson.
Tragically, that is why no one in any blue state will ever write a single proper superman story. They don't have any dad's worthy of that title.
I think your first sentence shows the most important point. Superman is an inspirational figure to a weak world. Trying to save the world properly, is about trying to inspire the world to save itself.
Most of the big names in the Justice League are that way. They're good by choice. Batman does dirty stuff, but always for the greater good. Superman respects him for that. It's how they choose to be good that's their differences.
There's a great comic called Huck. At first you think he's stupid until you realize his powers mean he doesn't see the world the same. He chooses to do good, and the entire town respects him for that.
Hollywood promoting anti-White anti-male Wokeshevism is a bigger problem than morally grey anti-heroes. Also all the shows/movies this guy is complaining about in the video are made for adults, I could understand his concern better if such media was aimed at small children, as they can't properly process nuance and absolutely need 100% righteous heroes in their media.
Want to know something annoying about this? The mob started Hollywood. It was a bunch of money laundering schemes with movies as cover. It's a well known fact in the business and talked about in books without actually saying it.
The mob came from immigrants who were basically illegal and used their own networks to get by. This is also well known, and talked about a ton. The fact that Jews were in those same neighborhoods and part of the mob is even talked about in Goodfellas. The main character is Jewish and based on a real guy.
There are museums dedicated to mob influence in all sorts of stuff. My favorite one is in Las Vegas Nevada. It talks about how the mob created Vegas casinos.
But mention that silicon valley, Hollywood today, or even General Electric are run by the mob and you are silenced. Mention the obvious signs, and that there are a lot of Jews in them and you are put down hard.
I don't think Jews are the source. It's a side bet that specific Jewish groups run the mob. Most Jewish people don't even know about it.
Comment Approved: "Jews run Hollywood" in and of itself, wouldn't violate the rule. "Jews run Hollywood to degenerate western civilization" would violate the rule. But OC never said any of these thing. The closest thing he could have said was: "Jews largely run Hollywood", and that's an opinion that isn't an attack on an identity group.
An oldie but a goodie.
I totally agree. Hollywood doesn't really know how to make proper moral characters. They are so degenerate and nihilistic themselves; that they actually can't understand how to make a deep moral character, or even how to challenge him. Fundamentally, they don't really even believe in good characters, and don't think that it's realistic for a good character to succeed in a poisoned world.
I'd agree there. And, honestly, a good character doesn't even need to succeed - he just needs to keep trying. To me, a character standing up for what is right to the point of ridicule, imprisonment, death, or some other negative outcome is a lot more inspiring than Edgy Antihero #516 winning and/or receiving his comeuppance. Inspiring others to carry on the fight (like at the end of Serenity), making a bad guy actually reconsider things (like Vader did at the end of Return of the Jedi), or even just saving one or two people and letting hope carry on (Aragorn and Co at the Black Gate) can all be a win for the good guys. Sure, it's better when the good guy survives too (Luke did get off the Death Star, and Aragorn and Co [at least the named characters] survived the battle), but it's not always necessary.
I think a truly good character builds in a fallen world.
We either get the anti-hero types that are damaged by the world and try to make something nice happen.
Or we get the heroes who effectively have to destroy themselves to preserve some minor victory.
Or we see a miraculous victory against a horde of enemies, and everything goes back to the way it was, and the poisoned world is gone.
These are all, in and of themselves stories that are a bit cynical. Even the last one that just kind of gives up and says "then magic happened and they all lived happily ever after". But that's not what a good victory looks like in the face of darkness.
We almost never see the hero build a community, family, society, or friendship that forges a good world, and pushes the boundaries of evil back, slowly & steadily over time. We don't see a good world forged by the heroes good actions; only saved. And I think that's a huge problem for our time, because we live in a world so ravaged by degeneracy, cynicism, and nihilism, that most people don't have anything to save. Our hero's story has to be about how to build something to save first, and keep it preserved in the face of evil, because no one is going to just straight up defeat the evil; just repel it for a while longer.
who dat
Try wheel of time if you like fantasy. It's quite long, but it has to be to do what you describe effectively, and it works well.
It is honestly part of why I have been burned out on Antiheros these days and just want ultimate good characters and mustache twirling villain's. We have had so many cases of jaded, nihilistic antiheros that I can stand them anymore. Although I do still like some of the more classic examples such as Judge Dredd.
Incidentally, this is probably why it is so hard for modern creatives to create a good Superman story. Superman is supposed to be the ultimate paragon of a moral character, who has absolute power and through sheer force of will refuses to let it corrupt him, because it is the right thing to do.
Most modern creatives consider such a notion to be both laughable and impossible.
I'd say even Captain America struggles with maintaining a strong morality in the face of implacable, really truly evil forces.
But Superman is a character of near moral perfection and is only fighting the equivalent of just ultra-powerful madmen. A lot of Superman's character ends up around the fringes of that. He's super-powerful, to a laughable extreme, but then doesn't have to face deep moral questions because of his nearly limitless powers, so they play with the idea "what happens if he loses control or cuts lose" which is not actually the point of Superman.
Superman's not supposed to do either of those things. Those are already extremes. You'd have to tell the story of Superman's greatest strength is not his power, but his wisdom.
The horrible truth is that Superman is supposed to be the character that a child sees when he looks at his dad. Yeah, crazy, unthinkable powers that you don't really understand... frankly because you're not wise enough to get it. But then he also has a seemingly unlimited patience, with a deeply personal touch. Yes, Super Dad can "save your world" with the work he does that you don't understand; but he will also rescue your kitty from a tree, and will impart deep wisdom and a life lesson.
Tragically, that is why no one in any blue state will ever write a single proper superman story. They don't have any dad's worthy of that title.
Almost none at all. At least not in comics.
I think your first sentence shows the most important point. Superman is an inspirational figure to a weak world. Trying to save the world properly, is about trying to inspire the world to save itself.
Most of the big names in the Justice League are that way. They're good by choice. Batman does dirty stuff, but always for the greater good. Superman respects him for that. It's how they choose to be good that's their differences.
There's a great comic called Huck. At first you think he's stupid until you realize his powers mean he doesn't see the world the same. He chooses to do good, and the entire town respects him for that.
To be fair, this is a problem throughout the western world in all facets of life, especially in America. Businesses, governments, education, etc.
Agreed. Society, socially, has degenerated. But the effect is magnified in Hollywood because it's so particularly bad.
Hollywood promoting anti-White anti-male Wokeshevism is a bigger problem than morally grey anti-heroes. Also all the shows/movies this guy is complaining about in the video are made for adults, I could understand his concern better if such media was aimed at small children, as they can't properly process nuance and absolutely need 100% righteous heroes in their media.
Want to know something annoying about this? The mob started Hollywood. It was a bunch of money laundering schemes with movies as cover. It's a well known fact in the business and talked about in books without actually saying it.
The mob came from immigrants who were basically illegal and used their own networks to get by. This is also well known, and talked about a ton. The fact that Jews were in those same neighborhoods and part of the mob is even talked about in Goodfellas. The main character is Jewish and based on a real guy.
There are museums dedicated to mob influence in all sorts of stuff. My favorite one is in Las Vegas Nevada. It talks about how the mob created Vegas casinos.
But mention that silicon valley, Hollywood today, or even General Electric are run by the mob and you are silenced. Mention the obvious signs, and that there are a lot of Jews in them and you are put down hard.
I don't think Jews are the source. It's a side bet that specific Jewish groups run the mob. Most Jewish people don't even know about it.
Everyone talks about that
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: "Jews run Hollywood" in and of itself, wouldn't violate the rule. "Jews run Hollywood to degenerate western civilization" would violate the rule. But OC never said any of these thing. The closest thing he could have said was: "Jews largely run Hollywood", and that's an opinion that isn't an attack on an identity group.