• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Dec 16, 2017
2,035
I haven't seen the episode since being a kid, but there's a Batman the Animated Series episode called Mudslide where Clayface is trying to cure himself by stealing technology from Wayne Enterprises. Batman basically kills him rather than let him steal some technology and cure himself.
 

Altazor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,208
Chile
Chuck McGill (Better Call Saul)

Chuck's actions are framed as those of a man who both looks down on and is jealous of his brother. We see Chuck keeping Jimmy in his place, patronizing him, and resenting that he'd become a lawyer (by means of which he clearly didn't approve). His core belief being that Jimmy doesn't acknowledge the damage he causes others by taking (unethical) shortcuts to further his own ends. In the early seasons, he is the main antagonist for our budding anti-hero. And #FuckChuck was a common fan reaction.

But as the series progressed, it became clear… Chuck was right. While we can argue that Chuck's own actions may have played a part in fulfilling that specific prophecy, that maybe taking a different tack with his brother might have led him down a different path, it's also possible that Chuck really had Jimmy pegged from the start, that all his fears were justified.

Chuck's a case of "you're not wrong, you're just an asshole" but also mixed with a bit of Greek Tragedy. We, as viewers, know Jimmy's path leads to Saul Goodman even if part of us wants him to prove everyone wrong and succeed. Chuck doesn't *know* as we do, but he's sure about it. We, with our actual knowledge of the future, are unable to influence the path the story takes, we can only watch; Chuck, with his imperfect knowledge and hubris, might be one of the biggest factors in influencing how Jimmy ended up becoming Saul.

He was right, sure, but only because future events demanded he was. And he went the worst possible way about it - let's not forget the man was absolutely seething the brother he resented managed to make his own wife laugh with jokes while he couldn't. The amount of hatred the man had for his own brother was too much, and I honestly don't buy his "if you would've taken any other career path but the law, I would've been fine" spiel: Chuck always had a black, twisted, bitter and jealous core towards Jimmy because he felt life rewarded his law-breaking ways and received love in spite of them. Even if Jimmy had remained stuck in that mail room job Chuck would've looked down upon him and would've expected him to "do bad things" and then go all "SEE? I TOLD EVERYBODY YOU CAN'T CHANGE AND NOBODY BELIEVED ME! YOU'RE JUST CRIMINAL SCUM!"

But BCS is a (well done) prequel and that means it absolutely plays and considers those future events and can find beauty and tragedy and pathos from referencing them, bending them and making you believe the anti-hero can succeed in his fight against the fate that has been preordained for him.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Jimmy's a saint either. In the end, both McGill brothers deserved each other: Chuck was a righteous, pompous asshole who believed he was above everyone due to how (supposedly) strict his adherence to the law was and how much he loved his career, but was willing to perfectly sabotage his brother to keep him down "where he deserved" and gaslight him for a time until he could take no more and just had to blurt it out in the most damaging way possible; Jimmy was a charismatic grifter who was more than willing to break the law to further his own ends and had repeatedly gotten involved in ridiculous/damaging schemes only to be bailed out by Chuck, and despite him trying to keep on the straight and narrow he *still* allowed his worst tendencies to get the better of him and do things "bending the law" even when he was trying to be "clean".
 
Last edited:

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,728
Chuck's a case of "you're not wrong, you're just an asshole" but also mixed with a bit of Greek Tragedy. We, as viewers, know Jimmy's path leads to Saul Goodman even if part of us wants him to prove everyone wrong and succeed. Chuck doesn't *know* as we do, but he's sure about it. We, with our actual knowledge of the future, are unable to influence the path the story takes, we can only watch; Chuck, with his imperfect knowledge and hubris, might be one of the biggest factors in influencing how Jimmy ended up becoming Saul.

He was right, sure, but only because future events demanded he was. And he went the worst possible way about it - let's not forget the man was absolutely seething the brother he resented managed to make his own life laugh with jokes while he couldn't. The amount of hatred the man had for his own brother was too much, and I honestly don't buy his "if you would've taken any other career path but the law, I would've been fine" spiel: Chuck always had a black, twisted, bitter and jealous core towards Jimmy because he felt life rewarded his law-breaking ways and received love in spite of them. Even if Jimmy had remained stuck in that mail room job Chuck would've looked down upon him and would've expected him to "do bad things" and then go all "SEE? I TOLD EVERYBODY YOU CAN'T CHANGE AND NOBODY BELIEVED ME! YOU'RE JUST CRIMINAL SCUM!"

But BCS is a (well done) prequel and that means it absolutely plays and considers those future events and can find beauty and tragedy and pathos from referencing them, bending them and making you believe the anti-hero can succeed in his fight against the fate that has been preordained for him.
Great post, but I'd also like to add in that Jimmy isn't....well, he isn't normal, I guess is the best way to put it. By which, I mean he has a fundamentally different perspective on the idea of lies and truth than most people, in that he doesn't see anything wrong with lying if it gets you something. We talk about Jimmy and how his path was influenced by Chuck's hatred of him, but I think it ignores that Jimmy is pathologically wired to be a scammer.

Like, there are numerous occasions where, upon being forced to be honest with people, he seems genuinely baffled by them not wanting to be in on his scheme, or the idea that honesty has any value to people. The obvious example is that video tape incident with Cliff Main, where upon being discovered, he kept trying to explain how it worked to bring in phone calls or how it was cost effective, and since it was technically legal, and it meant that it was basically a clean scheme where he and Cliff's company benefit and he literally couldn't comprehend what his bosses problem with his lies is.

It even happens with Kim. At this point, he is basically an honest boyfriend, but there was that one scene where he basically forces himself to explain to Kim his predicament (I believe it was him working with the cartel), and you can see in his face that every cell in his body is screaming at him to lie to Kim because the core of his being thinks it's better for him to control her with lies than work with her with truth. He tells the truth to her because she asked him to and because he's basically trying to be a good boyfriend, but it literally goes against the core of his being to just be honest when it seems like lying will be more beneficial.

And that's what I think Chuck saw in Jimmy. That's why Jimmy doing what he does is more or less inevitable. You're 100% right about the other motivating factors, but all that aside, Jimmy lies and schemes and scams because he just...loves doing it. It's passion, it's how he likes to work, and he's existentially miserable whenever he's forced to play by the rules he doesn't see the point in abiding by.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,705
Whenever Doctor Who tries to frame killing Daleks as morally questionable, or as an objectionable act. These creatures are irredeemably evil, incapable of change* and exist only to spread death and pain. Yet, time and time again the show has tried to frame the Doctor considering just wiping them all out as some unspeakable act of horror. That killing them would somehow make the Doctor just as bad...despite that clearly not being true.

Killing something that is biologically incapable of being good can't reasonably be equated to killing things indiscriminately just for being different. That's insane.

It also doesn't help that the show is inconsistent on this. The Doctor frequently kills Daleks and other baddies all the time. It's only an issue when they want it to be.


*Except for that one story that showed Daleks could change, but in the spirit of Doctor Who I'm ignoring continuity to make a point.
 

Altazor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,208
Chile
Great post, but I'd also like to add in that Jimmy isn't....well, he isn't normal, I guess is the best way to put it. By which, I mean he has a fundamentally different perspective on the idea of lies and truth than most people, in that he doesn't see anything wrong with lying if it gets you something. We talk about Jimmy and how his path was influenced by Chuck's hatred of him, but I think it ignores that Jimmy is pathologically wired to be a scammer.

Like, there are numerous occasions where, upon being forced to be honest with people, he seems genuinely baffled by them not wanting to be in on his scheme, or the idea that honesty has any value to people. The obvious example is that video tape incident with Cliff Main, where upon being discovered, he kept trying to explain how it worked to bring in phone calls or how it was cost effective, and since it was technically legal, and it meant that it was basically a clean scheme to him and he literally couldn't comprehend what his bosses problem with him is.

It even happens with Kim. At this point, he is basically an honest boyfriend, but there was that one scene where he basically forces himself to explain to Kim his predicament (I believe it was him working with the cartel), and you can see in his face that every cell in his body is screaming at him to lie to Kim because the core of his being thinks it's better for him to control her with lies than work with her with truth. He tells the truth to her because she asked him to and because he's basically trying to be a good boyfriend, but it literally goes against the core of his being to just be honest when it seems like lying will be more beneficial.

And that's what I think Chuck saw in Jimmy. That's why Jimmy doing what he does is more or less inevitable. You're 100% right about the other motivating factors, but all that aside, Jimmy lies and schemes and scams because he just...loves doing it. It's passion, it's how he likes to work, and he's existentially miserable whenever he's forced to play by the rules he doesn't see the point in abiding by.


yup, I can't disagree with the assertion that Jimmy's basically wired to be a conman. He lives by the con and will probably die by the con, so that's why even when he tried to be "the good boyfriend" and "the clean lawyer" he still felt the need he *had* to do shifty stuff and ridiculous stunts. So that's why, by the end, I said both brothers kinda deserved each other in a very twisted way: Chuck being the law-loving guy who did everything by the book and yet could basically never make people around him laugh and feel relaxed near him (feeling mostly respect and admiration for him true friendship, I think) while Jimmy 's the law-hating guy who almost never did *anything* by the book and yet made almost everybody around him root for him, being the "funny guy" but also scrappy and willing to fight back, and also knowing actual friendship and love. Almost mirror images but with (I assume) tragic endings for both.
 

Xterrian

Member
Apr 20, 2018
2,826
I thought about it some more and while it's not really justified in the episode, SpongeBob skipping work at the Krusty Krab to hang with Patrick isn't too much of an asshole move. Krabs is shown time and time again to abuse his employees. Hell in the episode he goes after SpongeBob because Squidward said "he took a break." Then Krabs leaves Squidward alone to get mogged by angry customers.

That episode should've painted Krabs in the wrong as well tbh. Would've made it more satisfying.

Weirdly enough there was an episode in Hey Arnold that centered around hooky. They spend the day worrying about getting caught and it turns out the school had a surprise carnival for some absurd reason.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,705
It's not even a quandary. The better question is "if it's moral for Joker to be killed, why does he ever make it back to the station alive in the first place?" Batman hands him over to GCPD. GCPD knows Batman doesn't kill and is corrupt as fuck. If you, as a reader, believe that Joker should be extrajudicially then you should be asking why the GCPD and Gordon don't murder him the first chance they get.
This is what the "Batman should just kill the Joker" people always overlook. It's not actually Batman's place to kill the Joker. He is not the judge, jury and executioner of Gotham's criminal populace. He, like most superheroes, is a consultant allowed to assist on certain issues within certain parameters.

The real questions should be "Does Gotham exist in a state with the death penalty? If so, why hasn't the Joker been sentenced to death by the courts?"

Which is really interesting and could be a great jumping-off point for a deconstructionist story. If Batman did kill the Joker, so Gordon and GCPD had to bring him in for murder, so they put Bats on trial and the whole thing becomes a legal issue around superhero rights & responsibilities, etc. That could be great.

But people (including writers) instead sidestep the legal issue and present it as just a moral one. That the only reason the Joker is still alive is that Batman allows it, despite that not at all being true. Batman does not have the legal right to kill anyone.
 

SigmasonicX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,567
Whenever Doctor Who tries to frame killing Daleks as morally questionable, or as an objectionable act. These creatures are irredeemably evil, incapable of change* and exist only to spread death and pain. Yet, time and time again the show has tried to frame the Doctor considering just wiping them all out as some unspeakable act of horror. That killing them would somehow make the Doctor just as bad...despite that clearly not being true.

Killing something that is biologically incapable of being good can't reasonably be equated to killing things indiscriminately just for being different. That's insane.

It also doesn't help that the show is inconsistent on this. The Doctor frequently kills Daleks and other baddies all the time. It's only an issue when they want it to be.


*Except for that one story that showed Daleks could change, but in the spirit of Doctor Who I'm ignoring continuity to make a point.
Even with the Good Dalek, that was only due to one in a million brain damage, and "good" just meant he wanted to kill other Daleks more than everything else.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,301
Haven't watched in years but IIRC he just left her as she was. He's under no legal duty to save her.
No. She set herself and Jesse up so neither would choke on their own vomit if they threw up in the night. Walter knocked her onto her back and then, when she started to choke, let her.

That's murder.

(Moreover, Jane didn't do shit wrong. Jesse dragged her off the wagon. All she did was try to get him the money Walter owed him).
 

Calamari41

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,128
Regarding The Last Jedi and keeping the plan a secret, aren't there like 30 members left in the entire Resistance at this point? I get the idea that a Private can't expect to question the Supreme Allied Commander at the height if WWII... But if you're in a lifeboat with a double digit number of people who are all that remain of your side... Maybe clue people in, especially if you see that they're panicking and losing hope? It's like you're asking for a mutiny at that point.

Please disregard if I don't have the facts right. I haven't seen the movie since it was in theaters.
 

Huey

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,324
Bumping this thread cuz I just discovered it and it's fantastic. Many discussions in here worth having and people worth replying to. I'll choose this one:
I haven't seen the episode since being a kid, but there's a Batman the Animated Series episode called Mudslide where Clayface is trying to cure himself by stealing technology from Wayne Enterprises. Batman basically kills him rather than let him steal some technology and cure himself.
If you're talking about the two parter, definitely rewatch - that's not what happens. He's genuinely trying to help Matt, and Batman hates Roland Dagget, who is unequivocally framed as the villain. Matt is just so far gone that he can't come back, and ends up "ending" himself (though not definitively).

It's a fantastically written episode with a classically tragic Batman villain.
 
Dec 16, 2017
2,035
Bumping this thread cuz I just discovered it and it's fantastic. Many discussions in here worth having and people worth replying to. I'll choose this one:

If you're talking about the two parter, definitely rewatch - that's not what happens. He's genuinely trying to help Matt, and Batman hates Roland Dagget, who is unequivocally framed as the villain. Matt is just so far gone that he can't come back, and ends up "ending" himself (though not definitively).

It's a fantastically written episode with a classically tragic Batman villain.

It's the Clayface episode after that. See season 2 episode 3.
 

Leafshield

Member
Nov 22, 2019
2,934
Finally saw the original Top Gun and Iceman is a) right about Maverick and b) a better pilot.
I think the same goes for a lot of action films where the message is 'it's more important to be cool, fearless, reckless, unpredictable and individual than to handle things reasonably alongside other people'. Kinda understandable for stuff aimed at teenagers about minor stakes, pretty shitty for adults flying massive weapons platforms or carrying guns around.,
 
Oct 26, 2017
735
New York
Rewatching The Simpsons episode "Make Room for Lisa", after not seeing it in years, I couldn't believe just how awful the moral was in ep.

It's basically one long story of Homer being a complete asshole to Lisa the entire time. He starts off promising Bart and Lisa that he'd take them out one Saturday a month, and when that Saturday shows up, he bitches and moans about having to spend time with them. It's even worse when he finds out that it's Lisa's pick for where they'll be going, basically complaining about every idea she has in mind because it's not something that he would enjoy. They visit a Smithsonian exhibition where he ruins the bill of rights and is forced to pay for the damages. To do so, he let's the cellular company that sponsored the exhibition put a giant transmitter on top of the house, and chooses Lisa's fucking room to host all the control equipment without even asking her. Homer then shoves her in Bart's room where she's treated like crap, distracts her from doing her homework when she goes to the living room to focus, and when she actually gets stomach cramps from all the stress, he initially refuses to try some sensible methods to reduce stress over "harsh antacids". It's only after Lisa finally snaps at him that he's willing to try something of Lisa's choosing to help out: a sensory deprivation tank. Lisa has an out of body experience of being in Homer's shoes while spending time with his kids. After coming out of the tank she apologizes to him about being angry with his actions because she learns that he has taken her to plenty of places that he doesn't enjoy.

Wow. Just fucking WOW. After an entire episode of Homer thoroughly being shit to Lisa, SHE'S in the wrong for having been angry at him?!!! That's the take they went with?!

I know I shouldn't be surprised at a Scully era episode of The Simpsons having Homer be in the right for acting like a total asshole, but after rewatching this episode after so long, this is probably one of the worst examples I can recall. Just awful.
 

THErest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,140
Rewatching The Simpsons episode "Make Room for Lisa", after not seeing it in years, I couldn't believe just how awful the moral was in ep.

It's basically one long story of Homer being a complete asshole to Lisa the entire time. He starts off promising Bart and Lisa that he'd take them out one Saturday a month, and when that Saturday shows up, he bitches and moans about having to spend time with them. It's even worse when he finds out that it's Lisa's pick for where they'll be going, basically complaining about every idea she has in mind because it's not something that he would enjoy. They visit a Smithsonian exhibition where he ruins the bill of rights and is forced to pay for the damages. To do so, he let's the cellular company that sponsored the exhibition put a giant transmitter on top of the house, and chooses Lisa's fucking room to host all the control equipment without even asking her. Homer then shoves her in Bart's room where she's treated like crap, distracts her from doing her homework when she goes to the living room to focus, and when she actually gets stomach cramps from all the stress, he initially refuses to try some sensible methods to reduce stress over "harsh antacids". It's only after Lisa finally snaps at him that he's willing to try something of Lisa's choosing to help out: a sensory deprivation tank. Lisa has an out of body experience of being in Homer's shoes while spending time with his kids. After coming out of the tank she apologizes to him about being angry with his actions because she learns that he has taken her to plenty of places that he doesn't enjoy.

Wow. Just fucking WOW. After an entire episode of Homer thoroughly being shit to Lisa, SHE'S in the wrong for having been angry at him?!!! That's the take they went with?!

I know I shouldn't be surprised at a Scully era episode of The Simpsons having Homer be in the right for acting like a total asshole, but after rewatching this episode after so long, this is probably one of the worst examples I can recall. Just awful.

I fell off the show pretty soon after Maude fell off the bleachers. However, my wife still puts the show on, both new and old episodes, to fall asleep to. And Homer, in the majority of episodes, is an asshole beyond the point of being funny. I can't fucking stand him. It's like they half-heartedly tried to rope in the Family Guy crowd or something (also not funny).
 

Lunar Wolf

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
16,237
Los Angeles
There's not a misreading. The intended ending(Fireflies can create and distribute a cure, Joel stops them and dooms humanity because he can't lose another daughter) has the subtlety of a shotgun to the face. But the fact remains that at no point did Naughty Dog show humans having the capability of doing anything other then survive on the scraps of what remains. Not to mention a 14 year old saying "what we've been through, it can't be for nothing" is not the same as "I consent to die". Ellie was willing to risk her life, she never said she was willing to sacrifice it. The surgery had a 100% death rate. It wasn't 50/50 or something. The plot has holes you can drive an 18 wheeler through.

Joel did nothing wrong is clearly not the authors intent, but it is the only sane interpretation of what actually happened.

Not at all. You can read that ending as both parties having done things wrong but Joel goes on a wholesale massacre throughout that hospital. What Joel did was fucked up. I can sympathize but the sequel makes the decision to let Ellie go slightly more correct as Ellie explains that she would've consented to die for the cure.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
735
New York
I fell off the show pretty soon after Maude fell off the bleachers. However, my wife still puts the show on, both new and old episodes, to fall asleep to. And Homer, in the majority of episodes, is an asshole beyond the point of being funny. I can't fucking stand him. It's like they half-heartedly tried to rope in the Family Guy crowd or something (also not funny).

Definitely another episode that's pure garbage. Mean spirited on top of it. The late 90's set this horrible standard for Homer that still hasn't been shaken off entirely.
 

grand

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,200
It's the Clayface episode after that. See season 2 episode 3.
Mudslide? Batman offers to help Clayface multiple times but he's too prideful and hates Batman too much to accept. And even when Batman busts in, he states that it's time for the lab professionals to take over Clayface's treatment. Batman's goal the whole episode is to get Clayface to accept real help rather than his crazy plan of manipulating a doctor and taking risky & untested drugs in secret. But Clayface hates Batman too much so he attacks and tries to suffocate Batman. And even when Batman escapes, Clayface chases after him into the rain despite being warned that the rain would kill him. The purpose of the episode was to show that Clayface had become too hateful & bitter to allow himself to be saved.

Rewatching The Simpsons episode "Make Room for Lisa", after not seeing it in years, I couldn't believe just how awful the moral was in ep.

It's basically one long story of Homer being a complete asshole to Lisa the entire time. He starts off promising Bart and Lisa that he'd take them out one Saturday a month, and when that Saturday shows up, he bitches and moans about having to spend time with them. It's even worse when he finds out that it's Lisa's pick for where they'll be going, basically complaining about every idea she has in mind because it's not something that he would enjoy. They visit a Smithsonian exhibition where he ruins the bill of rights and is forced to pay for the damages. To do so, he let's the cellular company that sponsored the exhibition put a giant transmitter on top of the house, and chooses Lisa's fucking room to host all the control equipment without even asking her. Homer then shoves her in Bart's room where she's treated like crap, distracts her from doing her homework when she goes to the living room to focus, and when she actually gets stomach cramps from all the stress, he initially refuses to try some sensible methods to reduce stress over "harsh antacids". It's only after Lisa finally snaps at him that he's willing to try something of Lisa's choosing to help out: a sensory deprivation tank. Lisa has an out of body experience of being in Homer's shoes while spending time with his kids. After coming out of the tank she apologizes to him about being angry with his actions because she learns that he has taken her to plenty of places that he doesn't enjoy.

Wow. Just fucking WOW. After an entire episode of Homer thoroughly being shit to Lisa, SHE'S in the wrong for having been angry at him?!!! That's the take they went with?!

I know I shouldn't be surprised at a Scully era episode of The Simpsons having Homer be in the right for acting like a total asshole, but after rewatching this episode after so long, this is probably one of the worst examples I can recall. Just awful.
Hilariously, the episode was written by Scully's brother Brian Scully. Though Brian Scully's previous episode, Lost Our Lisa, accomplishes the same Lisa & Homer themes way more effectively. I always felt Make Room for Lisa was his attempt at striking gold twice since they were the only episodes written by him (hard to tell whether he pitched them or not with how old Simpsons worked. He might've been given the second episode and told to write it. I'd have to rewatch the commentary)
 

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,406
Not only did Walt let Jane die, but upon hearing of her father's suicide, he changes the radio station.

He doesn't think what he does was right, so much so that it bothers him to confront it.
 

Tavernade

Tavernade
Moderator
Sep 18, 2018
8,735
My first thought was the Flagsmashers in Falcon/Winter Soldier but I guess they are eventually written to be bad people.

My second thought was Kaede in Ran, who's entire family gets murdered so she plots revenge against the family responsible, but the film is from their perspective so she's the villain (it's been a few years since I last saw it, so she 'may' have been a bit extra villainous, but still).
 

ConVito

Member
Oct 16, 2018
3,103
My first thought was the Flagsmashers in Falcon/Winter Soldier but I guess they are eventually written to be bad people.
I hated that so much. "Oh shit, the bad guys are literally 100% in the right here about challenging the status quo. We don't want to support anything remotely progressive, so now they kill civilians for no reason."
 
Jun 9, 2022
17
Roderick Spode. He's played up as pompous bully and dictator in waiting, but most of his rhetoric revolves around growing crops and giving people free shit.
 

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
21,055
Hermione trying to free the slave elves.

What the fuck, Rowling?
 

Tavernade

Tavernade
Moderator
Sep 18, 2018
8,735
I hated that so much. "Oh shit, the bad guys are literally 100% in the right here about challenging the status quo. We don't want to support anything remotely progressive, so now they kill civilians for no reason."

This happens a lot in modern fiction, I feel like. A variant even briefly happened in Moon Knight (though there it was more swiftly shown to be a murderous cult so it wasn't as bad), and you could argue it was the downfall of GoT too. It's incredibly frustrating, since it's rare that the heroes are fighting for anything more morally right than the villains are.
 

Temascos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,590
"Empty Places" in Buffy.

So Buffy and the Slayers In Waiting raid a place and get curbstomped by Caleb, with lots of deaths and Xander losing an eye. In this episode Buffy discovers that they need to go back to the place they attacked before but EVERYONE turns against her, including Dawn and Giles (!) all because she was a bit harsh on some of them. Only Spike treats her with some damn respect.

For me this was like watching "The Bells" as a Game Of Thrones fan. Character motivations completely thrown out the window for the sake of drama.
 

Deleted member 22750

Oct 28, 2017
13,267
Chuck McGill (Better Call Saul)

Chuck's actions are framed as those of a man who both looks down on and is jealous of his brother. We see Chuck keeping Jimmy in his place, patronizing him, and resenting that he'd become a lawyer (by means of which he clearly didn't approve). His core belief being that Jimmy doesn't acknowledge the damage he causes others by taking (unethical) shortcuts to further his own ends. In the early seasons, he is the main antagonist for our budding anti-hero. And #FuckChuck was a common fan reaction.

But as the series progressed, it became clear… Chuck was right. While we can argue that Chuck's own actions may have played a part in fulfilling that specific prophecy, that maybe taking a different tack with his brother might have led him down a different path, it's also possible that Chuck really had Jimmy pegged from the start, that all his fears were justified.
I see where you are going but seriously fuck chuck

For all we know he was the thing to push slipping jimmy over the edge and just simply not care anymore. Jimmy may have never slipped that far down had it not been for his hateful brother. I agree with some of what you wrote btw
 

BobLablow

Member
Apr 18, 2018
2,497
Remind me again what MJF said about Cody?

Basically that good guy Cody was all a facade for the cameras and fans, and deep down Cody was a selfish, egotistical piece of shit.

Then Cody would lean into it with his Homelander cosplay but was too chickenshit to ever fully turn heel then left for the WWE.

Cody leaving might even have made MJF a little directionless since you would have to think another match between them was on the table with a possible double turn as the outcome.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,746
Not only did Walt let Jane die, but upon hearing of her father's suicide, he changes the radio station.

He doesn't think what he does was right, so much so that it bothers him to confront it.

When Walt let Jane die, I stopped watching for a while. When I came back to it, I a) viewed Walt as a villain outright and b) treating BB like a black comedy of sorts. Jane's death reframed the entire show for me.
 
Feb 24, 2018
5,324
My one is a bit obscure but one that has irked me since I was a kid.

it's from the Advanced era of the Pokemon anime; the episode, "Brave the Wave" where they introduce the Gym Leader Brawly (and the dub obnoxious really fake surfer dude accent for him). The thing that bothers me about is that episode constantly tries so hard to make Ash in the wrong and jarkarse and Brawly in the right that it has to break its own rules to do it.

When we first meet Brawly, it's when Ash is about to enter his Gym when he suddenly he runs out with his buddies and refuses to accept the match or even give a reason WHY he won't other than "I'm going to hit the waves during work hours!". This is despite that the anime bashed us over the head before (and still over on Pokemon Chronicles) that Gym Leaders HAD to expect any and all Gym Challenges when given yet here Brawly doesn't... Yet the episode makes it out that Ash is in the wrong for wanting to know and asking for one again.

While the anime had Gym Leaders refuse before, they at least all had reasons and explained why like Jasmine and her sick Ampharos which meant the lighthouse wasn't working or just the previous Gym Leader Roxanne who was busy teaching. Hell the fandom will let down Erika actions for her assistants refusing Ash into the Gym to battle because he didn't like their perfume yet Brawly? NOPE, he's the exception to the rule! He can skive from work to surf all he wants and doesn't need to explain himself! Sucks to be you trainers who need the badges!

Now at the end (after Ash FINALLY got his match and then got curb stomped by Brawly and then the rest cast berate Ash because of the episode is as bad and subtle as being stabbed with a rusty Magnimite) we learn that the surfing is part of his training with his Pokemon which... Doesn't explain why Brawly just SAY this beforehand, why he doesn't have you know a schedule or ANYTHING that would let Trainers know this or why that makes it okay to skip work.

As a kid this episode annoyed me so much because as I said, it tries so hard to paint Ash in the wrong at every step that they need to break all logic and established rules to do it.
 

Carnby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,256
Basically that good guy Cody was all a facade for the cameras and fans, and deep down Cody was a selfish, egotistical piece of shit.

Then Cody would lean into it with his Homelander cosplay but was too chickenshit to ever fully turn heel then left for the WWE.

Cody leaving might even have made MJF a little directionless since you would have to think another match between them was on the table with a possible double turn as the outcome.

Well said.

I like to think that CM Punk is MJF's archrival. In reality MJF will follow Cody to WWE. ...or will he?
 

crimsonECHIDNA

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,636
Florida


I kid, I know the point of the show is how Peacemaker's extremism was self-destructive and making himself miserable.

Walder Frey in general

Absolutely not lol

I'm currently reading the books so all this shit is fresh in my head. Robb breaking his promise to marry Walder's daughter didn't justify any of what happened at the Red Wedding. The series itself repeatedly reiterates that fact.
 
Last edited: