All posts by Reval95

Uh, this stuff is pretty old. I agree, the concept and idea were very good, but it quickly went in a rather bad direction, because very emotionally based articles were created, zero sources, and slowly the one with a pimple on his face was also included. I don't necessarily agree that things would be superior here, but I respect your opinion.

Finally, a really interesting topic!

Honestly, I don't completely agree. I agree that in people's eyes, cats and sharks, or other animals such as tigers, rhinoceroses and especially snakes, appear as negative, evil, very insidious and corrupt creatures, in some aspects in brutal and bloodthirsty depictions, but I think excessive belief in this is human prejudice, gullibility and manipulability.

The bad examples given are just a few films or works out of the many. If I want to be really mainstream (which I don't like), there's The Lion King. The lion, the "big cat", there are evil ones (Scar, Zira) and good ones (Simba, Mufasa). As for sharks, there's is the Shark Tale, where Lenny is a rare friendly shark that doesn't eat fish (the point here is not reality or reality mania, but the depiction of his personality, his "side"). Or the big mainstream here is, the Kung Fu Panda, where the tiger and the snake are heroes on the good side, but there are also negative depictions (such as The Jungle Book, Shere Khan and Kaa).

This is just my opinion: So, just because people think that certain animals are portrayed as evil or negative in big or well-known movies, stories, books, arts, games means absolutely nothing. Animals are just like people, but they are different, they are also different, they are not all the same. And yes, it bothers me a lot when a certain animal species is believed to be exclusively negative based on a single work of art. This shows very limited thinking and is unfortunately not uncommon.

I apologize in advance and I know it's absolutely none of my business, but this is not really a good way to go.

Since everything about the given event is visible, what I write is based on reality. On the one hand, it's not very nice of the particular user to not be able to answer what you asked him on the message board, I understand that. However, what you are doing is not a solution either. From your history, it appears that you shout, scream, demand in capital letters, and speak to him a very disrespectful and interesting style, and your current post for the admins is similar to this. I'll tell you in advance that they will absolutely won't take you seriously, just like no one else will, they'll see you as a lunatic clown, with whom normal communication is not possible. That's not how it works.

Ask someone on the message wall politely and leave this aggressive trench warfare style. I can tell you from experience that if you continue, you will lose. The problem isn't that you have a problem, but how you want to solve it and how you tried to deal with it. And I'll add that what I described is absolutely not mandatory, you do things the way you want, I just made a suggestion and described another direction.

The question is good, but unfortunately the list would be very long.

Both.

All of them.

Np =No

I accidentally wrote that.

Forgive me, maybe I'm a little stupid, but could you explain the problem in more detail + write examples?

"Not quite my tempo!

Rushing or Dragging?"

The scope is quite blurry.

Oh, not again...

I have 2 problems.

First, you contradict yourself. You write that murder isn't justice and then that John got justice. So murder is not justice, but killing fake doctors (which is murder) is justice.

The other is that it doesn't make him a hero. This is a very difficult topic, that there are evildoers whose death is only good for the world and certain well-meaning or affably villains hate them and want to save others from them. Kramer did the same, these people truly deserved their punishment from him, but it left him the same delusional Jigsaw he was.

I think there could be many villains, not just a some. It would be really cool to see the origins, rise, or past of many of the villains. But unfortunately, this is not possible, because it would lead to the "no one cares", "no money or time" cards and the endless excuses.

I agree with what you wrote, as it was previously stated, it sounds great on paper, but the implementation wasn't very good.

It was natural that it was funny, as one of the main elements of Kung Fu Panda is humor, but in moderation, and here it was taken a bit too far in some places.

I understand your frustration, unfortunately (as you have seen) few people understand or react to sensible and logically expressed things in a way that the dissent is calm, logical and not aggressive, arrogant, mocking and belittling. All I can suggest is that you don't worry about these memes and mocks, they have no significance, you need to deal with those who understand and pay attention to what you write, regardless of whether they agree with you or not. I was like that too, but I've gotten used to the fact that not everyone will react or respond to an analysis or explanation the way we expect.

As Terry Silver said: There's a difference between being heard and being listened to. In writing, there is aa difference between that someone not only reads it, but also understands what you write.

He started out extremely well, ended very badly. One of Kishimoto's biggest mistake, practically the same thing happened to Madara as to Aizen or Yhwach, they were so strong that they needed a lame "twist" that ruined the rest of the story and them.

You may not agree with me, but I see that Madara is an interesting and deep character, but unfortunately he was too much of a pushover in Orochimaru's place, just like Naruto, he gets his abilities out of nowhere, just like Palpatine "everything is going according to plan", thus disproving his own way of thinking and unfortunately the Kaguya twist ruined him and the Naruto story. He also became a wasted potential, like Orochimaru, the writer was able to use some of him and he was very good up until then, but after that he fell into the "let's leave it alone" category. It's a great pity.

Hello!

I would respond to a few things. As I can see, you are a big Chameleon fan, which is absolutely not a problem and I partially agree with what you wrote, but I would like to add a few things. First, I'll start with a few things that are just a little extra.

*You don't have to write that it's an unpopular opinion, as I've seen lately, serious content, analysis and not silly, ultra-mainstream, individual thoughts or polls are so unpopular.

*People's "hate" mostly came from the way I saw that the entire Panda franchise had gone in the wrong direction and they thought Chameleon was the weakest link in it.

But then let's look at the more important things:

*Kai is typically a "decorative rag" villain. This means that the visual effects, the very good music, his fighting skills and the exciting atmosphere make him a great villain in the eyes of others, but without them, he is not much. A villain can be terrifying, commanding respect, and brilliant just by talking. Kai has some good sentences and what he says can be really interesting in a few places, but it is minimal.

*Yes, Chameleon and Po are really very similar in some things, opposites of each other, but in some things they have nothing in common (for example, processing their failures).

"Yes, there are some connections like Po gives chi and Kai takes chi but there isn't really much thematic contrasts between them." I don't think this is true, on the contrary, there is a great contrast between them. Kai's mindset is that he lost Oogway as a friend and brother because of the pandas (which is a pretty hypocritical notion since he started taking their power away from them) and hates them and especially Po for that. Because he also comes from the race that caused him to lose his best friend, and wants to carry on the legacy of the master who defeated him and banished him to the spirit realm. In Po's eyes, Kai is a really main enemy because he wants to do almost the same on the mountain, in the village as Shen did in the past, to kill everyone, in a different, "jade way", and he is also his master's main rival, who destroyed almost everything except him. So yes, there was a very serious conflict between them.

*Kai could have been better if he was more like Thai Lung. It is an understandable goal, we understand his character and there is no hypocrisy in him, but honest and legitimate revenge.

*"I am not gonna into much depth because I know this post would either be ignored or bombarded with disagreements but I am gonna remain firm in my opinion." You have honest and own thoughts and opinions, I think there must be someone here who would be interested. Disagreement comes with that, we can't agree on everything.

Never again this disgusting year...

This, in my own opinion, depends greatly on the power, influence, and strength of the henchman or minion.

The evil leader doesn't always know what they are doing, as they may be given great freedom, influence, and time with soldiers, followers, or useful items to them. Two good examples of this:

*Charles Lee from Assassins Creed III, who abused Connor without Haytam knowing about it, but Lee was accompanied by other Templars who also did not tell the leader about the incident.

*Bloodwyn and Bullit from Gothic: Both are loyal guards of the ultra-cool, megalomaniacal tyrant Gomez, yet they are carrying out their own operations without his knowledge. Bloodwyn blackmails the convicts into giving him a daily tax, otherwise he will force other convicts to beat anyone who resists, because if they don't, he and the other guards will beat any convict how involved in the case. Bullit "baptizes" the new convects who fall into the water from the barrier of the colony, by having him and his men beat them, sometimes until the victim dies. And Gomez knows nothing about these things.

*Or one extra example: Woo Lenh Hoang and The Five Vengeful North Vietnamese Soldier from Men of War: Vietnam. They were once Vietcong fighters and corrupt South Vietnamese soldiers who eventually became members of the People's Army and wanted revenge for always being defeated by an American platoon. Unbeknownst to their superiors, Woo Lenh Hoang uses his influence as an officer in the army to take eight prisoners out of a prison camp, four of whom he wants to kill and the other four to the five vengful soldiers.

*And a last little extra example: William Tavington from the the 2000 historical war film The Patriot. Tavington kills Thomas Martin, forces others into slavery, and intends to hang enemy prisoners, all without Cornwallis' knowledge. The fact is that Cornwallis wants to treat rebels and enemy soldiers alike, but he rejects the violence against civilians and innocents, or as he put it, "brutal tactics" that Tavington committed without his knowledge.

So no, there are cases when the main villain or the leader, the tyrant, is not involved in the cases and he/she/it is not responsible, but without his/her/it knowledge or using the power and soldiers, the minions and henchmen commit atrocities or ugly things.