I wish there were more cartoons that were morally ambiguous.
Especially in the action genre where you find a nauseating overabundance of the very simple guideline of Manichean Good vs. Evil. The good guys are actuated by a desire to save the world from the bad guys who always personify some vile dimension of humanity. Greed. Avarice. Pride. Vengeance.
The good guys are always good, except maybe the one episode where they're not and in a cliche redemption story they learn the error of their ways and are accepted back into the fold to fight for justice, freedom, liberty and all things GOOD. At least once I'd like see a series where there is no definitive GOOD guys. Where both sides are fallible to vice and self-interest. Both sides have some reason to claim the righteousness of their convictions. Both sides must sacrifice principles in the abstract when faced by cold reality.
It doesn't mean that GOOD can't exist. Or that nobody can be a downright vile being, but to see that those qualities exist on both sides, like they do in real life.
I wish Kaneoya Sachiko had more stuff that was easily available for Americans to buy.
You've got adult cartoons like Bojack Horseman, Moral Orel, and Venture Brothers that examine morality a lot. What makes a good person, what makes a good person with flaws, and what makes a complete dickbag (damage optional) that likes to think he's one of the other two is a big subject in more pensive shows.
How many cartoons have you actually watched? There are more than you remember, not all of them are "good" or famous. The Legend of Prince Valiant, a show made for The Family Channel in the early 90's, is pretty good about morality, but there is a definite right and wrong side for most of the conflicts. Liberty's Kids is probably better for this, because it depicts actual historical events from a relentlessly evenhanded perspective and thus has to actually acknowledge the real scope of human psychology.
Cadillacs and Dinosaurs has a little conflict over the acceptable scope and pace of development, but it's a very small part of a show that didn't last very long or have a well-developed central theme.
Don't give me that educational junk. That's made for kids who can't be arsed to read books.
Seen all of them. Don't have good things to say about Bojack except that it at least incorporated overarching narratives and mature themes.
VB is arguably the best original [as] show ever produced, and MO could arguably hold that spot as well, even though its first two seasons (barring Nature) are largely bland, formulaic and forgettable as well as heavyhanded with its scathing judgements.
There is nothing inherently bad about Liberty's Kids. History is important, and dramatizing it makes it more alive than books, which are available quite abundantly if the show sparks an interest in history.
Or do only shows made solely for their entertainment value by conglomerates count to you?
>History is important
I agree, that's why I like reading non-fiction. I'm not exactly the target audience of an ADHD riddled child or a lazy educator so it's not really up my alley.
Something notable about all the clips you've chosen is that they either aren't really about moral ambiguity, or otherwise approach their issues with a fundamentally cynical attitude.
The Bojack example takes the form of apology for not previously being willing to compromise, simultaneous shame for admitting they were wrong and desire to know if the other party sees them as being forgiveable. This unwillingness to see other points of view, until the last minute, is a very American attitude towards drama, and something that causes it to lack appeal to me.
On the whole, the clips in question are more about portraying the world as a cruel, unideal place, rather then throwing genuine virtue into fundamental conflict, which is far more interesting.
>There is nothing inherently bad about Liberty's Kids.
I was actually quite surprised by how it didn't exactly whitewash the American side. I was mainly actually bothered by how the kids didn't age; I recall the whole reason the main character didn't enlist was that he wasn't old enough, but he would have been latter down in the series.
Anyhow, just Watch more anime, OP
The central conceit of the show are the two main characters presenting the viewpoints of the opposing sides of the Revolutionary War. It is literally about presenting all sides as human, and about the toll the war takes on everyone - they do not gloss over British tyranny or the horrors of slavery or the treatment of Native Americans. It is everything you want in a show. The Bunker Hill episode is particularly good about the theme of common humanity, but the entire show is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEtKZxoGie0
I don't know about action cartoons, for that you'll probably have to switch to anime. A lot of older comedy cartoons were somewhat morally ambiguous though, like Pinky and the Brain, Invader Zim, Ren and Stimpy, Ed Edd n Eddy, Aaah real monsters, Grim adventures, etc.
I kinda miss that, today cartoon main characters are almost always good and nice and generically likable.
You can't see the imperfections on a drawing's face, the light is always in his favor, "hair" doesn't actually looks like hair, and so on. The only reason why it looks good is because it's generic, imagination fills he gap and that's why it looks "good".
This is exactly the 'American' attitude I was talking about. Rather than seeing moral ambiguity as a fundamental, natural aspect of reality, like the passing of the seasons, and capable of as much beauty, it is seen as a specific choice to portray the world as less then some imagined pure ideal where heroes are good and win because they are good. They 'grey' is treated as something lower, a place where anything is permitted and people do cruel dirty things because the horrible world makes them lesser people.
As such, in this worldview, tragic heroes are seen merely as people who have fallen short of some objectively positive trait in a lamentable way, as opposed to someone gloriously caring and independent of spirit to the point that they are able to test and warp the very nature of virtue. I feel sorry for those who have been raised to see things this way.
Yeah and guys like Super Pochaco and Tomoko but wouldn't into a 3D girl anything like that.
News flash: 2D is infinitely better-looking and more attractive than 3D, especially for features that would be gross. Chubbies are perfectly proportioned and bags under eyes are endearing.
3D is overdesigned and flawed.
Honestly I never understood why people with insane amounts of personal power pay any attention to the common vermin, yet alone follow their slave morality.
Yeah I know how it sounds but consider you have actual power like Superman or the PPG's or any character that truly towers over humanity. You wouldn't give two fucks about them.
then why do faggots by 3D shitty figures of them for hundreds of dollars to jerk off on to
CHECK AND MATE
2D is a lot better, but I'm into girls with the qualities you've listed
unfortunately even the lowest-tier girls have the highest standards when it comes to a partner's looks
because not everybody is a psychopath and in general really like helping.others.
it's not an american thing, it's a human thing. Read Hero with a thousand faces. Then stop acting like you're better than everybody else.
>I wish there were more cartoons that were morally ambiguous.
I've just watched a bunch of Gundam and it's pretty exhausting.
Thing is, morally ambiguous is what we have in real life.
I think I get what you mean, and why people keep telling you to better look for anime. Even in something as mainstream as One Piece you can see that. The protagonist's morals are a bit off when compared to a more abstract, greater scope sense of good, only doing good deeds for those that directly affect his life, and only acting in response to his friends and close ones. He didn't even give a fuck about releasing dangerous criminals to the world.
Because they were raised that way, duh. It actually makes me wonder about a world were Supes is raised with today's spechul snowflake, everything-you-do-is-perfect mentality.
I can see what you mean, but consider the effects knowing and having power like that would have on your mental state. You can't project us into them so to speak.
I think he'd become a true tyrant to be honest.
The problem is Americans are overwhelmingly cynical and mistrusting.
We don't want to see a depiction of reality and choose to see happy, simple things because we don't think they exist in real life, yet are still idealistic enough to pine for it.
Having to lock your door is reality everywhere. Americans are safer than most of the world, yet would prefer another bolt on that door.
But Americans want to live in a place where you don't have to use locks. Americans want to turn on the TV and have neighbors just stroll into the story on a sitcom.
But that's exactly what the book is about, not myths, stories. We've been telling the same story around the world in different cultures for a millennium and it's not going to stop anytime soon. Robocop or Die hard share similarities with stories like Siegfried or Perseus.
Good vs evil or Man vs Challenge will never go away, it's what humans like hearing and writing about. To say it's an american thing is uneducated as fuck.
Superman was created by two depressed Jewish guys who were sick of reading about bad things happening in the newspaper and wished some awesome dude could swoop in and make everything right.
The entire point of superheroes is a normal person given insane amounts of personal power continues to be a normal person while making the world a better place when they can.
I seriously hope you aren't claiming no culture in the history of man chose to portray and instill lofty ideals via fictional characters before some colonists got really butthurt at their overlords.
>Thing is, morally ambiguous is what we have in real life.
Yes and no.
The problem with Japanese moral ambiguity is its about a passive character who is forced into a heroe's place but actually giving no fucks/too messed up to take control of their lives, or a complete dick/literal monster who's there for the gain and just happens to be working for the moral side.
Americans love Walter White moral ambiguity, the fall of the hero into the neutral. Alucard is awesome but not what anyone thinks about when they want their perspective challenged, and Shinji is a character so weak he crosses from pitiable to someone Americans root for the death of.
Americans will take amorality only to a certain extent. Then there's a gap in the bell curve before they become love to hate characters like the little shit from GoT.
>Americans love Walter White moral ambiguity, the fall of the hero into the neutral.
I'm pretty sure Walter White was the fall of the hero into the straight up evil, not neutral, man. Like, by the end there wasn't a lot of moral ambiguity left. Just pity.
>Shinji is a character so weak he crosses from pitiable to someone Americans root for the death of.
The Japanese fans also hated him. Because he wasn't a badass like Ryouma and Gai and other Super Robot mains, mostly. People want their main characters, be they good or evil, to be badass and "cool", they want the traumatized teenager to kick ass and take names and spout one-liners. But Shinji was outrageously uncool on purpose, because he was just a messed up teenager.
Amusingly, on the whole, if you actually pay attention to what's happening, Shinji actually does pretty ok until like the very ending when everything goes to shit. But he's not smirking while doing it and he feels like shit from a lifetime of emotional distance and abandonment he has no idea how to get out of (because child psychologists are not a thing in Evangelion's universe), so he's just a useless whiner in the eyes of the audience.
Okay, fair, more like the fall of the well-intentioned person into the straight up evil. Walter starts the series with the intention of providing for his family after he's gone, which is a very understandable and fairly noble motivation that most people can empathize with. And then he goes WAY off the rails.
If I remember right didn't he know some super rich science guy in season 1 who offered to give him enough money to solve all his problems but he said no out of pride? I think he was always kind of a dick
Can't say I remember much, but I think that was after he was already in somewhat deep? Basically if he accepted that he'd be admitting that all the wrong shit he'd done had been all sorts of useless and unnecessary.
People are known to do some seriously retarded shit out of sunken cost fallacy. Prideful, uncompromising people like Walter even more so.
A large number of stories sharing similarities in structure doesn't mean everything should be seen as cape hero style antics, regardless of the world view it portrays.
Of course not. Simply that this doesn't need to be done by reducing things to a pure fight between the good and the monstrous.
>A large number of stories sharing similarities in structure doesn't mean everything should be seen as cape hero style antics, regardless of the world view it portrays
you're right, but that wasn't the original argument.
>This is exactly the 'American' attitude I was talking about. Rather than seeing moral ambiguity as a fundamental, natural aspect of reality, like the passing of the seasons, and capable of as much beauty, it is seen as a specific choice to portray the world as less then some imagined pure ideal where heroes are good and win because they are good
you just moved the goal posts.