Had a discussion recently that I'd like to run past you.

>>86778302
I'm with her on this. The idea that characters need to be "relatable" is absurd.

Also, there's nothing wrong with preferring popcorn flicks.

>>86778302
It's not a new trend or against cape comics nature, but it can get annoying, yes.

>>86778302
You should have fucked her instead of coming here to tell us about the conversation.

File: 1456478192150.png (120KB, 769x863px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 769x863px

>>86778326
I disagree, everything has to relate to me. As long as they have small crimes, like stealing candy from stores owned by white men and such.

Trying to make people "relate" to the Squad was silly. Maybe Killer Croc and Diablo should be relatable, but not Deadshot or Harley.

Denaturing?

Anyway, characters should not be relateable. But they should be understandable. You don't have to agree with them or like them, but being able to see where did they come from and where they go, as opposed to being a pile of tropes is a good thing.

>>86778302
I'm at least with her on the villain front. A villain should have a good motivation, but they don't need to be sympathetic.

>>86778446
Weak people want to pity their enemies. It costs nothing to pity someone and it gives one illusion of superiority. This is why movies want to make villains symthatic, that is, pitiful.

>>86778431
This, mostly. You should be able to understand most villains' motivations (Joker and others who are just crazy are an exception) because most people see themselves as being in the right. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, as does ISIS, Kim-Jong Un and pretty much every other "evil" person you can think of.

>>86778302
Marvel's done this since the beginning of time.
While the villian might've been a normal guy before he went crazy, it doesn't change the fact that they fucking murder people without a second thought.

Power hungry, crazy villains are my favorite. I don't mind if they are relatable -- but I vastly prefer when it seems like they are having fun being evil.

>>86778626
This, I don't get why people don't see that. "Did nothing wrong [because he had good intentions/a sobstory/I agree with his motivations]" is just a meme.

>>86778326
>>86778302
>"movies are denaturing comic characters"

You know what pisses me off? Your milquetoast bitch friend and her asinine, unthought opinions. That's not something deeply considered or original, it's reactionary crap she spouted because she had a bad time at a movie and couldn't accept that she'd gone to see a bad movie, her, who would NEVER go do something stupid like that.

But guess what. Movies - all movies - are fiction. Fiction is supposed to move you. It is supposed to make you think, and feel, and put yourself in the place of those characters. If your straight up sole reaction to disparate characters having disparate problems and progressing through a story is that they're not just wailing on each other for three hours in the rain instead of trying to humanize them, your choices are three: go fap to Fight Club until your fingers bleed, go watch BvS until you've convinced yourself that it's not garbage, or go play with dolls, then with small animals, then work your way up to entrapping and murdering humans, because you're a psychopath with no ability to understand the real world.

If a fiction doesn't move you, fine. Not everything works for everyone. Some people find Forrest Gump mawkish and manipulative, others think it's got a naive honesty that cuts corners to tell a long and complex story in a few hours without losing the sense or purpose of it. Both reactions to that are fine.

"movies are denaturing comic characters" doesn't mean anything but "I like my characters as flat and emotionless as I've always imagined them to be, because I'm a psychopath and even psychopaths fixate on their heroes".

If you don't have anything for a character to be driven by, or limited by, or to overcome, then you have no story to tell, and it's literally just a couple of hours of flashing lights and loud noises because you're really not gaining any kind of other stimulus from it.

>>86779205
Hey now, what's wrong with Fight Club?
I mean it's edgy as shit but it has characterization and is pretty well made.

>>86778302
Has she been hanging out on /tg/ recently?

>>86779360
I don't think so.

>>86778431
>denaturing?
She implied that movies were changing the characters to make them into sissies with compelling backstories.

I personally disagree with her whole point. She wants them to be cardboard action characters that blow stuff up with no emotion. She complained about how Iron Man "denatured" Tony with his PTSD and made him weak, but I think you need stuff like that because otherwise what would he do as a person in the course of the movie?

>>86778302
Yeah, I more or less agree. Possibly for different reasons, but i only want to know why a character became who they are if I have already grown to like that character.

I don't want to see a tragic origin story for some unknown loser. And in a two hour movie I'd rather not a single second be wasted on something that's not really important.

>>86778326
>The idea that characters need to be "relatable" is absurd.
Also this. I don't even want to be able to relate to some whackjob.

>>86778358
Oh god, this poor retarded """"""""human adults""""""""""""

>>86778302
It's and its a shit movie because of it, the dying of the potential, some can be relatable but i need balance i need to have something worth thinking off, some have to be shits and some have to be relatable in this side of fiction and all of them were the worst most boring non-daring versions to ever exist.

there's nothing in this film that can be seen as USED potential is all fucking waste.

File: image.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

She's right on the villain thing but I don't think they gave Tony PTSD to make him relatable. It's just what would probably happen. He's not Thor or Hulk, he's only human and seeing that much alien bullshit (coupled with his own problems) just broke him a little.

Your friend should read a book.

>>86778446
I'd like to see some villains written in the Stephen King style where they're incredibly intimidating and fearsome, but ultimately turn out to be weak and pathetic at their core. It doesnt make them sympathetic so Tumblr fangirls can call them "the real hero" it actually tends to make them even more revolting, because you can't even respect their strength.

>>86778652
Also a lot of people seem to forget that "power hungry" is a realistic motivation. Millions of real people are motivated solely by the desire for power and control and that's been part of humanity forever. Someone can just want to rule the world because they feel the human impulse to control.

>>86779205
/thread

>>86779416
She sounds like she's never read a comic book. If anything, the comic versions of the characters tend to have a lot more depth just from the sheer amount of history they have.

>>86779498
I disagree with her, but I agree with the idea that digging into a character's history is only worthwhile if they're already established to be interesting. You can't open with the childhood trauma. You have to show us the result for long enough that we wonder about it ourselves.

>>86779841
Lex Luthor counts, right?

It depends on the villain.Some villains work better as complete monsters but other villains work better as sympathetic.

>>86779907
Not coincidentally plenty of heroes were introduced in comics as established heroes, and their origin story only came up later.
Which, oddly enough, Fox did (and botched) with Wolverine, and sort of (really sort of) with Deadpool.

Gees you guys, can't we all simmer down a bit

Let's talk about something everyone agrees about.

Like, Arch-Warhammer being a massive shit or something.

>>86779205
While you're right, there is something to be said for the current trend of trying to turn every villain into a tragic villain.

>>86778302
Movies where flat characters punch each other can't hold interest for more than a few minutes.

>>86780548
>current trend
Prove it.