>>116865938 You look at anything that the faggot that wrote Elfen Lied ever made, and you have your answer.
It's more about tone. It's about a puerile fixation on trying to impress or shock you with "mature" elements of violence, sex, and nihilism. It won't have context, it won't have reason. Everyone in the whole world's going to be a dick for no reason, rape just happens because everyone is scum, and nobody is going to have the shred of decency or humanity to add meaning to the events occurring.
Edgy is what happens when you take the discretion out of tragedy.
Something like Elfen Lied irks me because the tragedy it tries portray isn't done in a convincing manner, characters act in an unnatural way simply to facilitate the tragedy happening and to tug at the heartstrings of the viewer. I wouldn't care about the gore if it wasn't just blatant sideshow pandering on top of a plot without integrity that pretends to be deep and meaningful.
>>116865938 Edgy is where there is violence, hate, sex and in general "mature themes" just for the sake of having "mature themes" i.e somebody randomly getting a blowjob while on the phone in a parking lot for no good reason and he or she is never seen again or killing and torturing side characters just emphasize how evil or hated that character should be. Grimdark is forcing tragedy and sadness into the story by either just killing off characters in an unnecessarily brutal or traumatic ways or making everybody broody and dark.
>>116867164 >or killing and torturing side characters just to show how evil or hated that character should be
Then how do you do it? If I were to write a villain I wanted people to push as pure evil without any sympathetic motives, I'd show them completing a rampage before even meeting the heroes just for shits and giggles. How else am I going to make everyone think they're absolutely no good besides a cheesy monologue about sadism? I want people to think they're an absolute monster without having to resort to shit like rape or torture and showing blatant absence of value for life is the best way to go.
>>116867851 It's not really wrong per se, but neither can it be used as a credible source to explain the meaning of different terms, since the articles are almost exclusively built on original research by the autists active at the site.
>>116867947 If you by all means want a villain that is evil for the sake of being evil, there is no other way to write them than by doing evil things. They just have no room for growth, and are thus boring.
>>116867944 It's not the case. Edginess and grimdark often are closely related to poor writing as people who have skill know better to avoid such elements so as not to turn their work into an unintentional comedy.
That's not a character; it's a cardboard cutout. There isn't anyone who's older than 12 years old that thinks that sort of villain is cool or interesting. For that matter, it's not even an appropriate way to handle villains whose whole deal is that they're "pure evil" or whatever.
Look at Kirei from FSN. If he was your generic evil priest (like his predecessor in Prototype), he would be an extremely forgettable character. It's precisely because he has a conflict between his inborn nature and his acquired sense of morality that he's interesting and compelling.
>>116868238 That's because a lot of the terms and tropes featured on the site aren't rigidly defined and determined. Thus, you should present your own opinion instead of referring people to tvtropes as source, since it's not.
>>116868292 If they have any sympathetic motives, they stop being a character that the audience will hate. If the audience can't hate the character, there is far less desire to see that "villain" be defeated, whether it be ideologically or physically.
Giving a "villain" sympathy is actually more boring. You think it's not but that's just because you've been watching/reading too many stories that have an unsympathetic villain. If it was reversed, you'd find sympathetic villains boring.
Sympathetic and unsympathetic villains aren't inherently well or badly written characters. It entirely depends on the execution.
>>116869091 Villain =/= antagonist. A villain HAS to be evil, wheres the same does not apply to an antagonist.
It may be difficult not to sympathise with a character who does things of questionable morality due to emotional reasons, so designating the said character to be the villain in the story is like shooting yourself in the foot on the part of the creator.
>>116869716 Reason can be formed from emotions. Any premise could be rationalized. But they are often circular. They end right where they begin so there isn't much reasoning to emotions and urges.
>can't sympathies You're not supposed to. If you can sympathize with a villain, you stop hating them. If you stop hating them, you lose the gratification of seeing them defeated.
If the main character was "I like blood and violence",then I can understand your criticism. Besides, it's very stupid to assume that "can't sympathize =/= bad writing". Maybe you can't but other people could. "Good writing" is subjective.
>If it's also done for shock value And if it's done for "TEARS" it's retarded. See? I can't say stupid things as well.
I believe a lot of it comes down to what is the motivation behind how a character acts.
Take Character A and B, they both are High School Grads and they both "Hate Humanity" to use an cliche term.
Character A hate humanity because he either read it in a book or on the internet but has no personal reason for that hate, he has never been bullied, he has a decent home life, etc.
Character B Hates Humanity for some personal reasons, say in high school the captian of the baseball team and his flunkies beat the shit out of character B after school and the School Admins gave them a slap on the wrist because the Baseball captain was also the star player and the school was going to regionals.
In these cases I would say Character A is Edgy, Character B is not.
Looking at THE KING example of Edge, Sasuke, I would not have called him Edgy until after his fight with Itachi when he learned the truth of his family's death. Before then he was just an asshole, but he had a real reason to be dark and unhappy, but once he learned the truth and largely lost that reason but persisted on THEN he because Edgy, at least for me.
>>116866167 Shamo was so fucking dark. >Goes to the mountain to train with some old guy and a qt grill >Think hes finally going to find love and end up defending the girl or something and become his waifu >SHE DIES A VIRGIN
>>116866870 >Edgy is what happens when you take the discretion out of tragedy. Alright, I can get behind this. Makes it a bit less of a meaningless buzzwords only used by retards. Now explain "grimdark".
>>116866955 Sea God "fight" is one of my most loved ones in the series, Miura really portrayed the intense struggle, overwhelming situation, and powerfully claustrophobic feeling of trying to walk up to the building-sized heart of a gargantuan beast. If there was any situation that I thought was hopeless for Guts, it was that one, trying to push against a steady beat that released vibrations strong enough to nearly kill you each time.
>>116867641 >pure evil without any sympathetic motives Well there's your first mistake, never write a villian like that because that's fucking retarded an literally no real person ever is like that. Even the most psychotic mass-murdering rapist have motives. Maybe they're insane and believe killing will help the world or help them? Maybe rape is the only way they can get the voices in their head to stop? Maybe they have some moral code where everyone that he can take advantage of deserves it because they're too weak to stop him. ect, ect, ect. There is always a way to give even the worst, most dispicable villian a motive and explanation.
>>116868960 Villians don't have to be sympathetic, but they sure as hell do need to have motives and reasons for their actions. There are tons of villians an audience will hate despite having some sympathetic parts. Look at Griffith, probably one of the most hated anime/manga characters ever, when really it was an entire year's worth of horrendous torture, so that even when his old friends broke him out of the dungeon, he was happy, but quickly realised that despite all of his ambitions, all of his success, everything, just because Guts leaving made him unstable and vulnerable for one night, leading to one mistake, because of that one simple thing, he's crippled for life and can't even so much as stand on his own. Even sitting upright was damaging his body if he put too much effort into it. He couldn't control his limbs, he would never talk again, the list goes on. He would never accomplish anything ever again, and then a bunch of gods show up talking about fate and how he's destined to sacrifice his friends for them. Griffith had so much sympathy to him, and now look at the fan perception of him.
>>116870298 You have an extremely jevenile view of storytelling, particularly villians. I'm not even trying to be rude. >If you stop hating them, you lose the gratification of seeing them defeated. >If you can sympathize with a villain, you stop hating them >there isn't much reasoning to emotions and urges.
>not understanding shock value >See? I can't say stupid things as well. Yes, yes you can say stupid things.
>>116874210 Big E is still technically alive though, you need at least a couple of cells to be alive so that he can power the big space beacon and it all comes at the bargain price of a thousand dudes every day.
>>116874130 >>116874488 It's like you don't know what marketing is Making a huge shitstorm about your game gives it attention, and there is no such thing as bad attention when you're trying to sell something
Edgy means new and unusual in a provocative way and it's not linked to violence or tragedy at all. On here though, it just means violent + "I don't like it", so basically it's lost almost all meaning and is not even worth it's own term anymore. People just use it to sound less subjective than "I don't like it".
it's just a term coined by faggots who can't handle seeing a little bit of blood. violence and rape happen on a daily basis for next to no reason in the real world. try leaving the basement and you will see that the real world isn't all moe school girls
>>116867746 >>116867848 >>116867858 >>116868292 >>116872876 What if it was not that the villain in question had no reason, but that their motives are completely impossible to sympathize with? Enjoying despair and suffering is just part of showing how lacking in decency or compassion they are before anyone gets the wrong idea that they're just misunderstood.
>>116875753 If you don't sympathize with the villain even a little bit there is no internal conflict for the viewer to go through.
It just becomes a moment of cheap catharsis when he gets fucked in the end.
This is a boring story that doesn't go anywhere and if it tires it falls flat because all it has to show you is "Look how evil this guy is. Man he's so evil. It's going to be so great when he gets corked isn't it?"
>>116870298 >not supposed to sympathize with the villain I think it's the exact opposite of that. Making a sympathetic character the villain, someone with reasonable, if twisted, motivations is much more entertaining in a story. I don't watch that much anime, but to go for a common one: Frieza in DBZ, makes a good momentary villain, you can understand he's a conqueror and if he can't get what he wants he throws a tantrum and kills things. Our hero will fight him and win, it will be satisfying only through the execution of that. I don't care that Frieza is dead, he only had this one path. Cut and dry, give me a cool fight and we're done. Vegeta on the other hand, during the babidi arc, going back to being a villain is more satisfying. He's been working with and living in the shadow of the hero. He was always jaded but he thinks he's got a chance to become superior now. This creates a moral conflict for our hero, who sees him as a friend. We can sympathize with Vegeta, because we all know someone who's better than us in some way, and if it were to pushed in our faces our whole lives, sure we'd all want to take them down a peg.
I'd take 1 great Vegeta-style story over 100 Frieza's any day.
>>116876085 You're thinking with only absolutes. You have to have a perfect mix of alot of aspects. Make the villian unlikeable, yet sympathiseable and understandable. Look at Gargantia, the antagonist is sympathisable and understandable because their logic runs completely on reason, yet they're doing horrible things and everything the show has done so far has built up this understanding of the value of an easy-going, non-idealised society. Because of this, even though some might agree with the villian's ideologies, they still want him to die and be defeated.
>>116867641 >>116867746 I've grown rather tired of "sympathetic" villains with "complex" motivations. I don't think evil "for the sake of evil" villains are good, but I don't think every villain needs to be some tragic powerful asshole who just has the wrong methods. I am fond of a villain who simply enjoys carnage, or does bad things but doesn't really have higher reasons. Maybe they're just greedy or maybe they get a kick out of it. I find that refreshing in this day and age.
>>116865938 Well, edgy has been twisted, as others have said, into being "I don't like it". But in terms of shows it was usually used to say something was shocking, or at least pushing the envelope towards realism (i.e. you get shot, you bleed and maybe die). But grimdark is from /tg/, as I know it, and is a setting description, stemming from Warhammer 40k's 'brutal' future of violence and crazy stuff.
>>116876902 This is what people mean when they say deep btw.
It's about what questions a story asks of it's readers. If the only possible question that can be asked is, "Is that guy a baddie?" And the only possible answer is, "Yes" then you have a shallow story.
It's okay to like shallow garbage every once in a while because you just want some cheap catharsis and tits/explosions. But that kind of story is never going to be remembered as great.
This is why Rebellion is "deep". You have almost daily threads hitting the bump limit arguing whether Homura did the right thing or not.
>>116876902 It's all about the execution of the villian's tactics and their personality if you ask me. Well, there's a lot of important factors, but these two are the main things that set one villian apart from another in my opinion. I like villians with a higher motivation who resort to "evil" because they feel its necessary, but its true that not everyone can be that way. A simple villian, say someone who is just consumed by greed for cash, can also be very good so long as they have a great personality that makes you enjoy the moments when they're on screen, especially if they work their evil with clever methods that you make you excited when they fuck someone else over. You'll like the villian simply because their behavior and rational, but still see why the protagonist needs to get rid of them. It's not like there is only one way to make a good antagonist.
>>116874742 you say it like you're some sort of serious person living in the cold, dark and unforgiving real world, where you battle everyday just to get by.
first off,it's no news that fucked up shit goes on everyday, but what's the point of obsessing over it or to spending your day hearing stories of murder and rape if you can do nothing about it? it'll only make you mad at humanity or make you depressed. instead you could try to get money or power to actually do something about it and if you can't then you might as well watch anime or some other shit.
second, you're not any more special than anyone on this site, you're just as bad, which is why you're browsing.
>>116877216 I think people keep overanalyzing Madoka and Rebellion because it begs for overanalysis, even when in the end everything is really pretty easy to understand. It borders on pretension, in my opinion.
Homura has complicated motivations but they're the sort that make me roll my eyes. Not every villain, within or without fiction, is a misguided hero. I am frankly much more fascinated with the twisted minds of "real villains", who do what they do out of compulsion or utter apathy.
>>116876902 well, you could go for something like madness or corruption a la DS1/2 then. the "villain" isn't a villain because he's a cruel asshole, but rather because he's lost his mind but still stands in the way of the hero's objective. thus he must be defeated but he doesn't really have any higher goals, he just seeks endlessly for souls/blood/death whatever.
a "twist" i'd find interesting is a villain who's lost his mind, but not in that he went crazy but rather that he kinda entered his own little world of delusions, where he genuinely believes he's helping people out and saving the day when in fact he's murdering people left and right.
>>116877219 This is why I liked Death Note. It got a little silly near the end, but it was a good "...paved with good intentions" story. Guy tries to better the world with this new power/gift, and it changes him further and further from what most people would consider good. To go into /tv/, this is why Breaking Bad was great as well. A good person, with the best intentions, doing evil acts and becoming more corrupted by their actions, while still being able to justify their decisions. That's a good villain.
>>116877721 In the end, Walter White just did it because he enjoyed it, though.
Which, in my opinion, makes everything that came before that even better. Light, however, was a little stupid... He basically lost my support once he killed his first innocent (was it a cop? an fbi agent? I forget).
Light didn't even have time to sink into corruption, though. By the end of the first episode he already planned to rule over a new world filled only with people he decided were good. He should have iust stuck with killing criminals to make him more morally gray and possible to actually root for. The fact that he thought he was doing the right thing when he also eliminated everyone in his way or dared to challenge him is what makes him sickening and a menace.
Something like Evangelion 3.0, where the protagonist didn't actually save his girlfriend, but actually caused an apocalypse and destroyed the entire world and his friends who survived now hate him for it. So he tries to fix the world but ends up almost destroying the world again, and in the process his friend who tried to help him gets decapitated by an explosion and it's all the protagonists fault.
>>116877721 i highly dislike deathnote mainly because light is a retard and because the whole L thing only exists because otherwise there wouldn't be a plot.
first off, Light could have avoided it all by not killing everyone with heart attacks. if he was smart he would have made the deaths all be different from one another and possibly freak accidents. a bus driver losing control, a rock or object falling, a maniac in the crowd or a cop going apeshit and shooting the criminal, hell he could have made it so all criminals in the world caught a super violent virus or some shit, which would then be justified as some sort of pandemic.
second, sure they might have wanted to interrogate certain criminals, but create a fucking team to track a supposed criminal killer, really? if anything it would save space in the jails.
light was also very fucking dumb for not killing people worldwide rather than focusing on japan.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.