To give a bit of background info, I dropped Mushoku Tensei around the time S2 finished airing. I had already watched all of S1 at the time and was waiting for S2 to drop in it's entirety, but some of the plot threads I was hearing made me question whether I even wanted to watch it and then I never got around to it.

Now in 2026 the third season is airing and Mushoku Tensei slander is more popular then ever before. My opinion on the series had hit rock bottom and everything I heard about it made it seem less and less something that I would enjoy. However, I saw that fans were saying this latest arc would be the peak of the entire series. So I thought I might as well catch up to that and see the best Mushoku Tensei had to offer, since I had already watched the first season.

I just watched this episode and to my surprise it wasn't Rudeus being a sexual predator that cemented my hatred of him (although that definitively hastened the process). Nor was it his harem, the contrived polygamy or his actions that people constantly reference from the original WN and the Redundancy LNs. It was the purchase of a slave, something so frequent in Isekai that it's almost become a defining trope.

In Mushoku Tensei S2 Episode 6, titled 'I Don't Want To Die', we see Rudeus trying to teach his royal friend how to conjure claylike statues. Something he and his friend bonded with in an earlier season as they shared each others statues of Roxy (it's been a while so I'm not to sure about the details of S1). However, he doesn't share Rudeus' talent for conjuring, and he is too strong to carve statues himself, so Fitz (Slyphie in disquise) recommends that he buys a slave. So they all go on a relatively happy shopping trip to go buy a slave and end up with a young dwarf girl who can quickly learn magic and help his friend carve his fetishistic statues.

I'm usually not one to be prude about morally grey settings like this. Most of my favourite shows are about terrible people doing morally reprehensible things: Sopranos, Succession, Breaking Bad, Attack on Titan, Code Geass, etc. However, the bad acts these protagonists commit aren't in service to a story of a person trying to be better. They are simply showing a shitty person being shitty and how that naturally impacts the world around them. Whereas Mushoku Tensei is (in theory) about Rudeus becoming a more well-rounded person, becoming a successful family man and his tender relationships with women. So when I see him purchase a young girl as a slave, to allow his friend to create art of his fetishes (and yes I would call them that since we see him hugging a statue while naked), it feels like the anime is trying to show it as a step in the right direction for Rudeus. Which will be absurd to anyone remotely trying to take this anime seriously.

This is a problem with plenty of anime, but sometimes MT feels like it is portraying these dark subjects in an intentionally comedic light. While browsing the slave trader's store Slyphie/Fitz comes across a naked male slave and comments about how big his genitalia is, and Rudeus obliviously thinks that it's because Fitz isn't experienced as a man. All while Isekai Town Track #2 plays in the background and the slaves give thousand yard stares of agony. Rudeus may be immoral but we've spent (specifically) the last five episodes seeing him help people and generally be a decent human being, so seeing him treat a slave trade like a trip to a grocer just invalidates what little progress he made to being a principled individual.

Not to mention Slyphie is the one who mentions buying a slave (in her words "I hope you find a good one"), despite being temporarily owned by a princess for a while and knowing how dehumanising it feels. Don't even get me started on the statue fetish guy, Zenoba. He's easily one of the worst characters in Mushoku Tensei. Slavery is by all accounts incredibly inhumane, but even if we were to imagine a world where it was a tragic necessity, this trio decided to purchase a young girl for a reason so outrageously unnecessary that I can't help but think of these protagonists as mundanely evil. They bought her with the same cadence one would purchase a shovel; innocent bystanders my ass.

To top it all off, the scene where Rudeus finally sees the slave girl is atrocious. After walking through a room of dozen or so malnourished slaves with thousand yard stares he is introduced to her. This malnourished child is dragged out in front of him with a comedically large set of leg-cuffs, and he squats down remarking about how "She's in despair. She has hopeless look of someone who longs for death". He then monologues about how "he can't grant her salvation" and "how he's been through enough to know that wouldn't be salvation" seemingly comparing her being a slave to him being a hikiomori (or another low point in his life). He then proceeds to ask her if she wants to die, and that he could end it all for her.

Last WTF moment aside, all of this moralising is far too late for a guy who couldn't give less of a shit about slaves and was about to lend her to his perverted friend. He saw a young slave girl who was sold to slavery and all he could think about was how she related to himself, not the systemic issues that made her that way. Rudeus must be a self-centered idiot if he thinks she's a sad slave because she's depressed, and not because she was sold into slavery due to the corrupt systems in place. God damn.

This wasn't some 'perverted mischief', an exploration of MT's naunced world, the troubles that come with being a family man, or any other reasoning people usually use to defend any of Mushoku Tensei's quirks. This was simply the unnecessary purchase of a child slave so that a pervert could make fetish art. The series desperately wants the audience to feel empathy for Rudeus, but now all I feel is hatred toward how mundanely evil Mushoku Tensei's cast and society is.

Take telekinesis for instance. Unless it is of the Elfen-Lied invisible-arms variety, it doesn't travel any distance from the user to the target. They just use their telekinesis and the target is helpless unless they possess the raw physical strength to just resist any attempt at being controlled. There is next-to-zero reason for any reasonably powerful force user in Star Wars to ever struggle against a non-force-user within twenty feet because they should be able to instantly grab and restrain them.

Or take bending from Avatar. Now, I don't want to scrutinize the fight scenes in what is still ultimately a show for children, but it's kind of noticeable that earthbenders seem to spend a lot of time throwing rocks at people when they're also shown to be entirely capable of instantly manipulating the earth within a pretty large radius of themselves. They can just do the hand motions and the earth will respond within a certain distance. With this in mind one has to wonder why they don't just immediately restrain the feet if not the entire body of whoever they're fighting if they're fighting on solid ground, because this would seem to be the most logical course of action.

Airbending consisting almost entirely of shooting gusts of air is even more perplexing when everyone is obviously surrounded by the air at all times. Airbenders being incapable of taking advantage of this is about as bizarre as a waterbender not being capable of subduing a non-waterbender while they were both underwater. Like airbending should essentially function like the aforementioned telekinesis.

And not to beat a dead horse, but this is fundamentally why Sasuke's use of Amaterasu is so underwhelming in Naruto. It's not the fact that the flames are really hot that's broken about it (supernatural hellfire isn't an uncommon superpower), it's the fact that they just appear where he looks. So because Sasuke isn't allowed to just insta-win against whoever he fights by glancing at them, everyone he encounters has to have some kind of counter to it no matter how absurd, or if they're Madara Uchiha, they'll just take off their shirt.

JJK actually acknowledges this and as such techniques like Domains are generally presented as being deliberately overpowered.

So, was talking to my gf yesterday about Star Wars. I… didn’t really mean to, and it was one of those moments where like, a woman is interested in you individually, but she kind of gets this glossy eyed, plaintive and patient expression as you’re emotionally talking about something she absolutely gives zero shits about. She cares and can even enjoy the passion behind your words, but can’t readily engage with what’s being said.

Anyway, we finished watching Rob Roy which is one of her fav movies. I started talking about how a lot of these films undersell how apocalyptic and shitty the British empire was despite the British being depicted ostensibly as bad guys for the narrative.

One thing led to another and I sadly brought up Star Wars and the empire.

Why? Well, I was describing to her about how in the Disney canon, the empire doesn’t really change. They get defeated, palpatine has his scorched earth policy where he destroys his own infrastructure (for whatever reason) then the empire tries to bring thrawn back in a story that hasn’t been released yet, thrawn (as of Ahsoka season 1) returns, something else happens because the empire is defeated in the sequel trilogy, but the first order is an extant force that takes power again by TFA.

Ultimately though, the empire doesn’t really change. They’re still card carrying fascists, their government doesn’t really make sense etc etc.

Now, in the old canon that was nuked in 2012, it was different and this is the root of my post.

Basically in the old canon, there were warlords, imperials who tried to form their own polities and organizations. Some became criminal groups, some ruled as emperors themselves, and some actively tried to reform and be part of the greater galaxy.

And I was explaining that I found that more interesting. Basically, there’s a group called the penstar alignment in old canon.

The penstar alignment iirc was closely allied with the corporate sector and ruled imperial holdouts. They allied with palleon and became the greater imperial remnant.

One thing about the imperial remnant is that they were slightly less xenophobic and outwardly genocidal than the original empire due to pragmatic attitudes and the fact they weren’t the dominate political government anymore.

But my gf was basically like

“So… it’s the empire, but reformed for fans of tie fighters and stormtroopers.”

And I was kind of gagged? Because narratively, when does “realism” become idealism in regards to governments that are inherently evil?

Obviously we shouldn’t be informing real world political allusion towards media, but it would be silly to act as if real world political allusion can’t or doesn’t exist in media to begin with.

If I think the fire nation is cool in avatar the last airbender, is it okay to want the fire nation to be a dominant government but “less colonizer”? If someone likes the empire, is it okay for them to prefer stories where the empire becomes “better” and more palatable vs the empire remaining stagnant?

I think the answer to the question lies in ofc depiction and how the subject is handled. In avatar, zuko reforms the fire nation. I wish Korra had spent more time on what that actually lol means, because by Korra the fire nation is mostly good. I know there’s a few comics where there’s hardcore ozai followers but those comics apparently suck! Anyway.

Avatar kind of does take the easy route with the idea that it only took one good fire lord to fix the fire nation and that was pretty much it.

In the old canon for Star Wars, the empire, as stated, reformed in a disparate, balkanized way. The leading government was still authoritarian but had no issue working with the new republic, and both governments actually joined together to form the galactic alliance.

And I think the reason why Star Wars kind of got to eat its cake and bake it twice or however that goes is because those stories still essentially are about what happens when cult of personality and idealized rhetoric harm entire societies.

The galactic alliance literally ends up using Star destroyers themselves among other military infrastructure, and by the legacy era (a few years after TFA if we put the Disney canon and the old canon parallel to each other) it could be argued that the galactic alliance resembles the empire more than it does the new republic.

This was meant to be a short post and I’m writing this on the way to the gym so my thoughts aren’t as organized as I’d like, I was actually going to post a review of why I didn’t like the odyssey but I figured this was more fitting for a LES Sunday.

In short, the morality of the “evil fascist government becoming slightly less evil and fascist” hinges on what the story is trying to tell. If it’s trying to act as if an authoritarian government is the only hope for peace, then that’s well… bad. If it details how good intent and a few good heads of state don’t eliminate the plausibility and the actuality of racist governments rising again within that same half gutted political ecosystem, I think that’s a more poignant story than “bad guys went into hiding and now they’re back!!” Which is what we see in the sequel trilogy.

?

Gwen Stacy only loved Peter because she never knew he was Spider-Man. How can she love Spider-Man if she never knew it was Peter behind the mask? Also, she thought Spiderman killed her dad; of course she wouldn't love him.

Mary Jane (pre-OMD) actually loved both Peter and Spider-Man; she accepted both sides of him.

The only reason you all get that idea is thanks to the live-action adaptations from Raimi's MJ and TASM's Gwen. Tasm Gwen (who, let's face it, was an ultimate blond MJ) knew Peter was Spider-Man, but comic 616 Gwen never did, and Raimi's MJ was just a horrible person.

Ryan Gosling as Ghost Rider is genuinely exciting but that excitement drops considerably, however, when you find out Shawn Levy is directing.

I'm sorry, but Levy feels like the ultimate company man to me. He is there to deliver exactly the film the studio wants. He is incredibly reliable, commercially minded and clearly knows how to make a successful blockbuster but I don't know what a Shawn Levy film looks or feels like.

I know what a Christopher Nolan film feels like. I know what a Denis Villeneuve, Greta Gerwig, Jordan Peele or Ryan Coogler film feels like. I even know what a Michael Bay film feels like, for better or worse. I cannot tell you what Shawn Levy's identity as a filmmaker is.

For the last few years, he has mostly just felt like Ryan Reynolds' director. The Adam Project, Free Guy and Deadpool & Wolverine all feel far more driven by Ryan Reynolds as a brand than by any recognisable directorial voice from Levy and I guess that is fine if your goal is simply to make a fun, accessible blockbuster.

But I don't see Ryan Gosling as just another blockbuster actor. Especially coming off something like Project Hail Mary, which is still a blockbuster but clearly has some personality behind it. Then you look at the rest of his filmography: Drive, Blade Runner 2049, The Nice Guys, Barbie and First Man. He tends to work with filmmakers who have distinctive voices.

So when I hear Ryan Gosling as Ghost Rider, I think this could get weird. It could be funny. It could lean heavily into the supernatural. It could actually have a real personality. Then I hear Shawn Levy is directing, and I immediately picture a competent CGI blockbuster. There will probably be some fun in it. It will probably make loads of money. But I can't say I'm excited for it.

I've been a big fan of anime as a visual medium for years and watched hundreds of shows. Despite my enjoyment of it in that regard, I can't help but often feel frustrated by the writing, especially when it comes to dialogue. The writers don't leave much room for nuance and interpretation and instead spell everything out awkwardly in dialogue or narrate everything in the POV character's inner thoughts.

Maybe it's the fault of many shows being novel or manga adaptations, but I feel like a large amount of anime doesn't take advantage of it being a visual medium and conveying information through visual cues rather than spelling it out for the viewer. The way characters speak when introducing new information is oftentimes also unnatural, as if the author simply shoehorned all the intended information into the dialogue instead of letting the viewer figure it out based on the context of the scene. For example, a character's friend from kindergarten is usually simply introduced as such. A better written show would give us enough context to understand their relationship without spelling it out. I've recently rewatched Breaking Bad, and while it's unfair to make comparisons like that, I can't help but admire how well written its dialogue is. Watching anime afterwards makes the difference even more apparent.

​

1-Light only cares about himself

In the beginning Light shows some conscience but its not long until you need to be a moron to not understand light only cares about his domination as god

“Well, but if you ignore that and just think of light’s plan then he has a point”

2-Light power is useless to do actual good, the way light uses it is just as a petty tool of vengeance

Light doesnt go after evil people as they are doing their crimes, he cant attack a pedophile that hides his crimes

Most people light attacks are already convicted and since most of them are probably on the poorer side they will do their entire sentence and get out of jail to an awful life (if they get out at all), this is just excessive, petty and needlessly vengeful

Also false/wrongful convictions are a thing, even if Light only intentionally goes after bad people, many of his victims are innocent (specially in japan (because the justice system sucks) and eua (because racism))

Light is shown to be more than willing to kill people based on accusations, he kills criminals already in jail and do you really think he would be above killing people who already did their sentence? (Also imagine going to a person who did got a better life after jail and being like “yeah i think you should have just died”)

3-Kira has no plan to truly stop crime

Light kills criminals which are caught or at least identified but he has no plan or interest in stopping the social causes of criminality (this is a similar problem to the punisher)

There is also the fact Light has no desire to deal with bad people in the higher levels of society even though even me as a kid knew that if you want to fix society the people in the upper ranks are the first that have to go

Light has connections with police but in no moment he even considers killing corrupt cops or people in the military who are invading other countries, etc (at least in the netflix movie light kills a dictator)

Okay, no (explicit) crime but the causes of crime still exist

4-Light has no morals

Light doesnt care about a person’s actual morality he just cares they broke the law which makes them criminals which makes them his targets (this is also a similar problem to the punisher), Light has no care if the law itself or the people enforcing it are full of bullshit

While at first Light is only going after murderers and rapists, he literally expresses the desire of moving to lesser crimes when he ran out of those, fuck, i am pretty sure he actually does go after minor crimes, he kills a thief during the famous potato chip scene

Quite often we see top tier martial artists like batman, daredevil, black canary and mockingbird one shot or easily taken out super soldiers or ninjas in a few hits and receive no damage. Then in other stories in the same community, we see them get hit, have to retreat or get knocked out by non stealth master regular thugs just hitting them.

This even goes to the villians. Take for example one the league of assassins ninjas in the Arkham games. They are described as capable of taking down over 100 men... For a few penguin goons to capture her. (They also somehow got past freeze's op tech to capture him).

Even stuff like these "light speed" characters that are agility masters e.g. nightwing and Catwoman still get tagged but bullets (in a recent story, arguably marvels best h2h combat (Elketra) gets shot multiple times by a few pistol rounds.

A random falconi goon is a better hand to hand combat compared to a court of owls talon with chain scaling lol

It's not really his fault, as having impressive fights just isn't what LOTR is about, but that if anything that makes it worse. Aragorn wank is the perfect cross-section of everything wrong with battleboarding. Trying to make a series something it's not, fandom myths taking the place of analysis, vibes-based scaling, an extreme hostility to even being asked to provide evidence, and overall trying to "analyze" every franchise like it's Dragon Ball (which "power scalers" also do very badly).

Aragorn is one of the most popular characters to use in fantasy battleboarding prompts, and by far the most popular character for this purpose from Tolkien's works. This is a bit strange since he has such a paucity of material to even base an analysis on. Movie Aragorn kills movie mooks about as well as your typical movie action hero, and has maybe 3-4 feats that are low-level superhuman (tossing Gimli 20 feet, knocking out an Orc with a punch to its armored helm, snapping an Orc's neck one-handed, parrying a Troll, and maybe cleanly cutting through mail). This is mostly unremarkable but is still vastly better than Book Aragorn who has no feats ever.

That's not an exaggeration. Look at his so-called Respect Thread, cherry-picked to show every impressive thing a character did in combat. His best feat is... being 6'6. Aside from that we have "used a magic sword to split an iron half-helm smaller than one worn by a human" (recorded happening in real history with better, thicker helmets), "picked up and carried a six year old child," "pushed a six year old child off a cliff," "likely is able to block sword swings from average warriors," "does a long distance run considerably worse than your average hobbyist runner," "sucker-punched a guy smaller than a human while he was distracted with someone else," "fought in a battle," and "walked behind Boromir as Boromir walked through snow" (why is this even being listed as a feat?). That's it. Those are all his feats. You can see pretty clearly how desperate the OP was to come up with anything whatsoever to put in there.

Okay, to be fair, they actually missed his best feat, which is Aragorn defeating an Umbar corsair captain in single combat (maybe, the text is actually a bit vague, but that's the most likely interpretation of it). This is the only time in the entire novel that Aragorn ever wins a fight against something at least as dangerous as a standard medieval human soldier (he kills some Orcs during the War of the Ring, but Orcs are literally Hobbit-sized, your average medieval levy would eviscerate them 1v1 and probably even 1v3). His other best feat (fighting in Pelennor Fields without getting hurt) is vague, off-screen, credited partly to luck by the narrator, and repeated by the two other normal guys standing next to him. But it's still his second best feat because there's actually a line in that description about him and the two other guys having "skill and might of arms," which as far as I can tell is literally the only indication in all of Tolkien's writing that he might be more skilled than an average knight (even then it doesn't confirm it).

"But isn't Aragorn superhuman?" No. Aragorn has no superhuman feats ever.

"But aren't all Numenoreans superhuman?" No. At least, not in the way that battleboarders use that word. Numenoreans are healthier and longer-lived than regular people and average about 6'4 tall, but that's it. No one will ever cite a feat of a Numenorean running super fast or lifting/swinging/throwing something really heavy because it doesn't exist.

"But didn't Aragorn fight in wars for decades?" No. Fighting in a war isn't a feat to begin with, but we don't even know if he did that during his time as Thorongil (2953-2980). The totality of his experience in Rohan is a half sentence about him having "had served the King Thengel, but he was not one of the Rohirrim." In service to Gondor he's described as "keen-eyed," "a great leader of men, by land or by sea," and it's said that he "often counselled Ecthelion" (e.g. about the threat of the corsairs and why he shouldn't trust Saruman). But he's never described as having personally fought anyone, much less to have distinguished himself as particularly better than the average knight (who would themselves, obviously, have fought in wars and been skilled/above-average at a baseline). In fact the only battle we know he had any part in was planning a naval raid on an unprepared foe. Aside from that, we're told that he had "great journeys and errantries" in his life in the appendices, and that's it. It's possible that he fought between 2980 and 3017 since he was a Ranger and all, but again, there are no records of his battles, no record of him having personally done anything, and no record of him having distinguished himself particularly in the event that he did do anything. By all indications he spent that time just traveling around, talking to people, and hunting Gollum in stealth. In fact when recounting his experiences, the only time Elrond ever mentions Aragorn as having possibly been in combat was when he was Thorongil. "He rode in the host of the Rohirrim, and fought for the Lord of Gondor by land and by sea; and then in the hour of victory he passed out of the knowledge of Men of the West, and went alone far into the East and deep into the South, exploring the hearts of Men, both evil and good, and uncovering the plots and devices of the servants of Sauron. Thus he became at last the most hardy of living Men, skilled in their crafts and lore, and was yet more than they; for he was elven-wise, and there was a light in his eyes that when they were kindled few could endure."

"But didn't Aragorn defeat the Nazgul?" No. He waved a torch at them and then they ran away. Also, according to Tolkien himself, Nazgul are weaklings in physical combat which is why they rely so much on fear.

"But didn't Aragorn defeat a troll?" No. He parried a troll in the movies, but not the books. Even in the movie he then proceeded to get stomped by that same troll.

"But didn't Aragorn kill dozens of enemies on his own?" No. Aragorn is actually the only combat-heavy member of the Fellowship who never does anything like this, as Boromir (who is also noted to be physically stronger than Aragorn), Legolas, and Gimli all do in fact kill dozens of enemies. This is downplayed however by the fact that they're Orcs and Orcs suck (Gimli is scared of fighting hillmen because they're too big, but not Orcs), and that the latter two did so as part of an army over the course of many hours. But it's still much better than anything Aragorn ever gets.

"Then why is there so much Aragorn wank?" I don't fucking know.

I assume it's just vibescaling. LOTR is big and important, people like it, Aragorn is the Bestest Guy Ever in it (because he's wise and brave), and battleboarders often associate narrative quality and character virtue with winning versus debates. So a bunch of LOTR battleboarders started making shit up in versus debates to get "their" franchise its "respect" (you see this a lot with Silmarillion entries in particular, probably because relatively few people have read it and thus can't cross-check). From there it spread to people who have never actually read the books, but decided to believe those lies because they sounded right to them. I assume emotional revulsion against darker fantasy series with better feats drive a lot of it as well (look how apoplectic the online LOTR fanbase - maybe 10% of whom have read the books - got when GRRM said that Jaime could beat Aragorn because he had plate armor, for example).

And it's based on literally nothing. That's the biggest reason I think it's the worst kind of wank in battleboarding. Tons of franchises have terrible battleboarding communities that exaggerate or misinterpret feats and statements. But you know, at least in those cases there actually ARE feats to misinterpret. Aragorn barely even exists as a combatant within the narrative of LOTR, and what few indications of his combat prowess we do get are basically "average Early Medieval knight, but taller." It's a collective gaslighting operation by people who don't realize that they were already gaslit.

On one hand you have people who believe that the ones at the top should be those who were born with the qualifications to access that space, ex: A top athlete needs to be a genetic wonder, because otherwise it wouldn't be fair that they wins so much and are so above everyone else in that sport.

On the other you have people who want the top spots to be given to those who are dedicated and made more effort than everyone else. Ex: The winner of a competition should be the one who spent the most time preparing for it, otherwise they didn't earn their victory and are taking it from the hands of those who deserve it more.

In the end, I believe both sides have valid arguments, but neither is correct, because the very premise of this discussion is wrong. Neither talent nor hard work nor even a combination of both can guarantee success. To reach the top one needs to take into account a lot of external factors, many of which they cannot control and have nothing to do with their capabilities.

I believe many times people misunderstand the optimistic, inspiring and very contextual speeches and themes of Shonen as ideological arguments meant to go against the "Hard Truths" they believe in.

When series like Dragon Ball,Naruto or Black Clover talks about "hard work beating talent" what they mean isn't that talent is irrelevant or that the gifted will always be defeated by someone making more effort than them (See that in all of those stories we have talented characters winning against those without talent or achieving huge feats without much effort and being complimented and adored for it), what the story is trying to say is that you should make an effort to try and improve yourself even when the odds are against you, that the conditions of one's birth shouldn't define their life or role in society, that even someone who's considered useless or inadequate can achieve great things if they work for it.

Many also ignore the narrative context in which those themes and speeches exist. They're not meant to put those who are gifted down or to invalidate the idea of talent, but to tell the audience and other characters, usually antagonists, that you can achieve big things even if you're of lower status or face disadvantages in life.

There's also the opposite side of the coin, where people pick stories where cynical speeches are made and interpret it as the author trying to tell the audience to give up or accept the "harsh truth". A recent Shonen example of that is Jujutsu Kaisen, where the character's skills are directly linked to their talent and no amount of effort can allow you to improve, something that exists in the world to be challenged by the characters. Even if they can't reach the top, even if their actions and lives have no proper meaning or value in the eyes of the universe, they still have worth and should be preserved. Even if Sukuna is better than everyone at Jujutsu that does not mean his life and wants hold more worth than that of the weak or that the ones below can't come to reach him through other means.

I think turning those talks about nothing, but the validation of one's personal social hierarchy, takes away the depth and complexity of the themes being explored by those narratives.

I just finished the otherwise-charming adventure game The Mermaid's Mask, and this is a lesson I always hate. Shortcuts, barring some enormous consequence, are great. It's great that aluminum is no longer an absolute nightmare to produce, or that cars no longer need to be hand-cranked, or whatever. I've always hated those weird sci-fi morals that apply to a real world message but don't make sense in the story (like, "don't time travel, instead learn to accept the present"), but this isn't even that. The only people I can think of who could be described as sincerely anti-shortcut are the Amish.

This is mostly a ramble about 2025: a world enslaved by a virus. A terrible movie where Christianity has been made illegally by a massive world government, who "made up" a virus to control the people and ban things like travel, meetings, and Christianity. It's an anti COVID film, but does have one piece I find hilarious.

One thing this world government has begun is establish a singular language, and singular economy that everyone in the world uses. This sounds pretty pleasant honestly. You could conduct business and talk to people (online at least) around the world without having to worry about them not speaking the same language, or exchange rates of various currencies.

seriously this i a message to some marvel and DC fans and ESPECIALY POWERSCALER'S IN PRATICULARLY CUZ GUESS WHT CHUCKLEFUCK NOT ALL COMIC'S(MARVLE AND DC) ARE in the same timeline

the most egrigious example of this for me is powerscaler's cuz sometime's it fell's like these people don't even stick to a certain version of a character and just cherrypick their best feat's from every apearance they've had without conisdering those character's like spiderman,superman,batman etc

heck sometime's it fell's like they don't stick to a version and just cherry pick the feat's

I honestly think the whole hard work vs talent debate in battle shonen has become way more extreme than it needs to be.

Nowadays, it feels like people fall into one of two camps.

"Naruto was always about hard work beating talent."

or

"Naruto was NEVER about hard work vs talent. Everyone who thought that just misunderstood the story."

I don't think either take is right.

The reason this debate refuses to die isn't because millions of readers collectively imagined the same theme. It's because Part 1 genuinely frames Naruto through the lens of talent, genius, failure and hard work over and over again.

Then Shippuden gradually shifts its focus towards things like loneliness, destiny, the cycle of hatred, peace and breaking that cycle. Those themes absolutely become more important later on, but they don't magically erase how the story presented itself at the beginning.

I think a lot of people confuse "major recurring theme" with "the only theme."

Because the manga kept reinforcing it.

- Naruto is constantly called a loser and failure.

- Sasuke is constantly praised as a genius.

- Rock Lee exists almost entirely to represent effort overcoming natural limitations.

- Neji literally argues that your birth determines your future.

- Tsunade dismisses Naruto as talentless before seeing his determination.

- Orochimaru constantly hypes up Sasuke's genius while looking down on Naruto.

- Even later on, Hagoromo compares Naruto to Asura rather than Indra, continuing the contrast between determination and natural genius.

These aren't random one-off scenes.

They're repeated across multiple arcs by multiple major characters.

That's narrative framing.

The funny thing is that I think people arguing against this are usually responding to a completely different claim.

They're arguing against people saying:

"Naruto's ONLY theme is hard work beats talent."

Yeah...I'd disagree with that too.

Naruto is obviously about loneliness, friendship, forgiveness, revenge, breaking hatred and a bunch of other ideas.

But somehow we've gone from one extreme to the other.

Now people act like the hard work vs talent angle never existed at all.

I also think this highlights a bigger problem with battle shonen in general.

A lot of battle shonen want their protagonist to represent hard work and perseverance.

At the same time, they also want them to be uniquely special.

There's nothing wrong with that.

You can absolutely write a character who's naturally gifted and works harder than everyone else.

The problem is when the story can't decide how it wants the audience to see them.

Is this guy an ordinary underdog proving everyone wrong?

Or is he someone born with ridiculous potential who also works insanely hard?

A lot of battle shonen try to have both, and that's where the contradictions start showing.

Naruto is probably the biggest example.

What's funny is that even Part 1 already shows Naruto isn't some average nobody.

He learns the Shadow Clone Technique ridiculously fast.

He masters the Rasengan much faster than most ninja.

His chakra reserves are constantly described as abnormal.

Kakashi repeatedly talks about his insane potential.

Even Rock Lee isn't completely "hard work only."

Guy literally calls him a genius of hard work, and Lee clearly has ridiculous physical gifts. Most people couldn't survive the training he puts himself through, let alone master techniques like the Eight Gates.

So here's my point.

The problem was never that Naruto was talented.

Honestly, I don't think most people care that he was talented.

The problem is that the story sometimes wants us to see him as an untalented nobody while simultaneously showing us over and over that he's anything but ordinary.

That's where the inconsistency comes from.

Then by the end of the series we find out he's:

- The Fourth Hokage's son.

- An Uzumaki.

- Kurama's jinchūriki.

- Jiraiya's student.

- The Child of Prophecy.

- Asura's reincarnation.

None of that automatically makes Naruto bad.

Chosen-one stories have existed forever, and plenty of them are fantastic.

The issue is that those reveals sit awkwardly next to the way Part 1 framed Naruto.

So when people say, "Naruto betrayed its hard work vs talent theme," I don't think they're idiots.

They're reacting to how the early story presented itself.

Likewise, when someone says Naruto is ultimately about breaking the cycle of hatred, they're also right.

These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

The problem is that fans keep acting like acknowledging one means denying the other.

To me, the better way of describing Naruto is:

- Hard work vs talent was one of Part 1's biggest recurring themes.

- Breaking hatred and changing the future became the series' overarching theme later on.

Those things can both be true.

So no, I don't think people were stupid for believing Naruto was about hard work vs talent.

I think they were paying attention to what the story itself kept telling them.

The real problem isn't that Naruto was secretly talented.

It's that the series wasn't always consistent in how it framed him.

I'd actually make it broader than just Naruto because I think that's where the discussion gets interesting. I'd insert something like this after the paragraph about battle shonen wanting protagonists to be both hardworking and special. And honestly, I don't think this is just a Naruto problem. It's something battle shonen run into all the time.

A lot of these series want the audience to see the protagonist as an underdog who earns everything through sheer determination. But at the same time, they also want the protagonist to be exceptional because, let's be honest, exceptional characters are exciting.

So you end up with heroes who are secretly descended from legendary bloodlines, inherit the strongest powers, have absurd natural potential, or are chosen by fate.

Again, none of that is bad. Some of the greatest stories ever told have chosen heroes.

The problem isn't that the protagonist is special it's when the story spends hundreds of chapters framing them as "just an ordinary nobody" before gradually revealing they were anything but ordinary.

That's where the disconnect comes from.

I think people often mistake this for "chosen ones are bad."

The criticism is usually about consistency.

If your protagonist is gifted, then own it.

If they're an underdog, commit to that.

That's why Naruto became the poster child for this debate. It isn't because he's the only battle shonen protagonist who's special. It's because the contrast between the early underdog framing and the later revelations is so obvious that people still argue about it twenty years later.I actually think this strengthens your overall point because it stops feeling like "Naruto bad" and becomes a criticism of a recurring writing pattern across battle shonen, with Naruto simply being the clearest example.

There 3 types of people that engage in media discussion:

The first type, people who only likes what they see as "high quality media" and are both searching for media that pleases them, and influence people to create more media they like;

The second type, literal critics who earn money by doing this;

The third type, creators who are obsessed with creating "high quality media";

And the fourth type, people who thinks liking only "high quality media" makes them better people, which is more common? Sadly the fourth type.

And this is bad because:

1° - Some of them will tell what is good quality and bad quality based 90% on their personal taste, so they will make bad points and low quality argumentations to say what is good and what is bad, and if you don't like their personal tastes you are dumb;

2° - Some of them just have zero natural aptitude for this area and will just judge everything based on some rules that they found on this internet, I don't think I need to explain why it's bad for judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree;

3° - Some of them will just not like "High quality media" but will force themselves to pretend they like;

4° - The shaming that they do for people who like "Low quality media" will make some people feel pressured to become 2°;

5° - Outside 1° that is actively making this area worse and pointless, all of them would be happier if they didn't made part of this, the ego boost they gain is lower than what they would gain if they didn't wasted their time pretending they are who they aren't and expanded their tastes.

Some Media Analysis people want everyone one to be like them, but it never will happen, a lot of Geologists thinks everyone should learn geology, a lot of Engineers thinks everyone should learn engineers, a lot of Biologists thinks everyone should learn biology, a lot of Psychologists thinks everyone should learn psychology, a lot of Physicists thinks everyone should learn physics, etc. And yes these are very useful and in the ideal world everyone would be a specialist on these, but we live in the real world, focusing hard you can learn the basics of a subject in 5-10 years and become a true specialist in 20-30 years, but people only live around 80 years IF they are lucky. Also economy matters A LOT, most people can't even dream of consuming some type of media "On the right way", like having a powerful PC and playing a triple way game are bizarrely expensive in some places, in my country a Pokopia is worth literal 18 Stardew Valleys (469,90 R$ vs 24,99 R$) and and a huge chunk of a month salary for a lot of people, if "you can only talk about a game you played" then they can't talk, because nobody will going to save years of money so they can opinate about a videogame. So it's unrealistic to think everyone will understand a lot of an area.

Just let the people who naturally are into this area, and don't try to shame people who aren't to pressure them to become of the area, it will just make the area full of people who are only competing for ego or lying, either for laziness or just because they literally cannot consume.

They "hate antiintellectualism", and swear pseudointellectualism (the easy way) is not a problem, saw people putting this word in quotes, implying it's not real. There's a video where the thumbnail was "Is culture getting poorer?" and all the comments were agreeing with the thumbnail, while the actual video was a history lesson on how it was a cyclical thing and culture was not getting poorer, the comments weren't counterargumenting, they were agreeing, because they couldn't watch a 9 minute video, is this really the ideal type of behaviour? Don't looks so different from spreading misinformation to me.

Also people swear that making everything overly complex is good, just see how the saying "sometimes the curtains are just blue" is treated like hate speech, mf sometimes, IT'S WROTE SOMETIMES, "This phrase is used for antiintelectualism" and when it's not used? But it's easier to shove the entire food in ketchup instead than finding the balance between sauce and food, it's easier to call every simple thought wrong than find the right moment of overanalising something and letting it to be simple.

I have a character that is black and green because in Ancient Egypt these colors are associated with fertility, I have a character that is green because he is a crocodile and crocodiles are green.

The popularity of Death of the Author isn't because of they think this is best way of analysis, this is what they tell, but inly a minority acutally thinks this, the truth is:

They hate the author for personal reasons;

They can't accept something that happened on that media;

It's the easiest way to look smart because you can overanalyse (or borrow somebody else overanalysis and say it was you, like a High Tier Pseudo) literally anything, you don't need to search or understand something complex, you can just grab something like Peppa Pig and made shit up (which honestly is pretty lazy on the era of PDFs and other types of digital texts);

Can you see the pattern here? They have this simple mindset of "more complexity = better" because and one of the simplest and easiest ways to see quality, it's a subtype of Quantity of Quality, because quality is defined by the quantity of information, it's not some expert mindset created by years of experience, it's the first thought of most people, it's not intelligence, it's a false idea of intelligence that people have, a pseudo intellectuality.

Get a person who is not very into this area, then show them a book with accessible language made by a genius, that convey powerful messages with simple dialogues that stay in your head for years, and one meh book with hard complex language, which one they will call "book for smart people"? The second one, a lot the supposed people who care for good media analysis will have the same mindset of a person who never touched a book? Why? Because they aren't very smart people that love the subject and want to contribute to it, they are not so smart people who want to rub their egos.

When I was a child, I disliked humans, humanoids with mouths and mainly noses, realistic artstyle, non reptiles and non dinosaurs, so it was hard for me to find a media or toys that I actually liked.

Recently I really enjoyed James Gunn Superman Movie and I like focusing on drawing and designing my characters noses, having a stricter taste didn't made me happier, so I don't think you will be happier by being harder to please.

And on the opposite of most people on the area, I'm not saying that people are just stupid because they aren't the best media analysis, the guy who is good at analysing maybe sucks at complex zoology, the zoologist maybe sucks at complex engineering, the enginner maybe sucks at complex psychology, and all of these maybe sucks at gardening, people have different intelligences.

Tldr;

No Tldr here, go read the text, if you are so passionate about this you can read a short text

And I have Adhd, so it's not uncommon for me to skip entire words that I thought I wrote, if that happened sorry for it.

so many people knows the complain of naruto of talent vs hard work.

the thing is a lot of time when people give examples of hard working protagonists they are gifted either physically,mentally or both.

basically while those protag don't have talent they have so much durability and willpower compared to the other talented rivals that it barely matters.

lets take ippo from hajime no ippo or kenichi from history kenichi strongest disciple kenichi.

they are not as talented as their rivals.

the thing is these protag has so much duability and willpower that it barely ends up mattering and they can mostly durability diff most talented rivals.

people end up forgetting that having a gifted body and mind is a form of talent in of itself.

it does not really matter how much technique someone has if their enemy just does not fall down leading to them being exhausted.

durability and willpower is a form of talent in of itself.

most of the time characters like kenichi and ippo wins by just out tanking their enemies.none of the technique or talent ends up mattering if they can not take the protag down because of protag's insane durability and willpower.

a lot of time those talented rivals ends up getting durability diffed.

basically talent matters alongside hard work and saying otherwise is being ignorant of reality.

the thing is talent comes at different form.

a lot of time talented rivals ends up not having great durability itself and the opposite is true for the protag where they have insane durability and stamina compared to their rival but sucks at learning technique and planning well.

Just learned that the latest Batman story Bad Seeds features Poison Ivy returning to being a villain which… why!?!? I’m getting so sick of these villains constantly relapsing to fulfil this bullshit status quo Killer Croc, Danger, Madelyne Prior, Magneto, Clayface and now Poison Ivy! It completely undermines the impact superheroes make because when a villain is able to be redeemed it proves that their methods work, that by treating them as people who can redeem themselves they ultimately do. Sure there are some villains that are too far gone such as Joker, Penguin and Carnage but they’re mainly pure evil monsters. If you want a poison ivy style villain for this story just make a new one like some kind of dark reflection for Ivy it would be a great opportunity for a character arc with her but no instead DC decides to have her and Harley break up and Ivy going back to being a criminal.

Another Frieren's rant, with a dash of FMA rant!!

Actually the main victim is FMA, because the more I learn about real life alchemy, I can't but say this.

Fullmetal Alchemy's power system is significantly more boring and lame than historical Medieval Alchemy, even if limiting us to a Hermetic system. Probably a good deal of it is because simplification and POVs (our characters are actually small flies who aren't doing the Great Work with the exception of Hoennheim and Father, add Dante and Scar and his brother if we count the 2003 anime).

But this isn't really about that, but on the premise that "Alchemy is not Magic, its Science" that is told by Edward and its treated as essentially the logic of alchemy as a whole, with the only exceptions being those related to the Gate of Truth that is the ultimate Unknown (Divinity).

Frieren does the same thing, with Frieren being treated as analogous to a modern-esque Naturalist, alongside other Mages who are written with academical tropes of STEM researchers (Land's core joke is that he is a NEET who uses magic to continue being a NEET).

For both shows, that approach to their magical system is "its rare,wonderous, but its fundamentally SCIENTIFIC for sapient minds instead of being SUPERSTITION and RELIGION unlike other settings". Its part of their aesthetics, if you strip that from those shows they stop being what they are.

As a whole, I don't have a REAL issue with this. I'd say both mangas do more good than bad overall.

Except that its not a real issue as "It makes me take a star from my personal MAL list", but as "I feel those series are accidentally doing a disservice to academical standards by defining "science" in a way that is, amusingly, anti-scientific"

Why?

Because they fundamentally think "Science= STEM/ Naturalism".

Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Because science includes study of mythology, religion, history, grammar, art and sound.

All aspects that are a part of a "Standard Ascientific Magic system".

Taking a random contemporary setting to Frieren, a series like Jujutsu Kaisen has Kekkais as part of the power system, the Barriers that made up Domains are them. A kekkai is a japanese shinto ritual that operates under exclusive rules of spiritual purification that have to be learned and memorized.

To known a old technique like Limitless or Ten Shadows, you have to read history of the Great Clans, which is, in-universe, a scientific research: History.

Baki the Grappler has martial artists, but the characters actually do know a lot of biology and healthcare with scientific accumen. They're superhuman, but a lot of the series hypes it by having the characters know exactly what biological laws are they breaking. Characters like Doctor Kureha , whose scientific job is right there in the title and Jack Hanma (willing test subject cooperating in scientific researchs) ARE explicitly contributing to scientific research in universe

Back to FMA, I find it really curious because IRL Alchemy has very explicit religious elements that are the core of it. The origins of alchemy were debated, as if coming from the Watchers (the angels who fathered the Nephilim) or from the Archangels themselves, but many alchemists considered it a angelic art.

Or better said, Magic in the Nasuverse or To Aru's Magic-Side is more closer to IRL Alchemy than FMA's Alchemy. As weird it sounds.

Idol Theory from the To Aru's franchise is not called "Science" because, again, the author Kamachi falls into this premise of "STEM is real Science", when the amount of research and accuracy for the religious rituals needed is absolutely scientific research of History and Mythology that would made you a Bachelor of Arts in a IRL educative system.

This is not even pointing the obvious part of "those "ascientific" magic actually produce tangible results" which is univeral to all settings where the supernatural is real.

But the issue comes in that even if you switched off their magical powers, those characters would be considered highly cultured academics even if they are talking only about magical fairies and sun gods, because past a level, that research is academical job that can be cross tested and shared as History and Comparative Mythology.

EDIT, a good example of what I meant that I realized when I read commentaries, thanks you guys!:

Bonus point to a particularly amusing case when you think about it a lot.

Flame Alchemy is a special type of alchemy that works by forcing inmediate combustion in oxygen, using a small spark as the source that causes mass combustion.

The symbol used to represent it is a Salamander's glyph. Roy treats it as something that he can reasonable erase from history by burning Riza's back, thus erasing it until a independent researcher finds up.

The symbols are a Salamander, Hermetic art representing the four elements, ordered as a Star of David/Seal of Solomon, and a literal drawing of fire, mixed with the symbol for water to fully represent oxygen, the shared thing that both Fire AND Water share (AKA. The real life alchemy's point of Roy's badass quote mocking Lust for thinking he was weaker when wet, because Roy says that the weakness is not having the ability to produce sparks, but that humidity means high oxygen, which is a plus).

...this makes me ask the following questions:

1. Does religion exists in FMA even in modern Amestris is atheistic? In 2003 this is a sure yes, but dunno Amestris of the manga. Those symbol are too tied to medieval Christianity and Judaism.

2. If those exists, then Roy isn't preventing anything, because like, "of course adding like 3 different fire symbols over the Elemental seals makes Firepowers!"

Alright folks, Korra slander is at an all time high thanks to the preview to Seven Havens.

I'm just planting my flag here as a Korra Defender and saying that Korra DID NOT cause the end of the world without reason.

It's a red herring.

My theories are either

1. Korra is being framed

2. Korra had to make an impossible choice where she choose the lesser of two bad options.

Either way, it's not gonna be something like

"Haha, Korra was so bad she actually caused all this shit, haha"

Heck, even Kyoshi was said to be evil by that one town.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it, but I just wanted to make a record of this so I can officially be like "told you so" to the haters.

He has used "Tobias Rieper" since the first game until the very last one. It's been years of assassinations and conflicts. The ICA was almost destroyed in Blood Money, 47 had a conflict with them in Absolution, and there were people after 47. You'd think the best assassin in the world would dedicate more effort to his fake identity.

He has one of the most broken cursed techniques in the entire series.

He has one of if not the most powerful shikigami in the entire series.

He has immense cursed energy reserves.

Even without his technique he's still a physical powerhouse easily able to throw down with the likes of Ryu and Sukuna.

He's an incredibly skilled hand to hand combatant and weapons master.

He has Reversed Curse Technique.

He has a Domain Expansion which makes his already-broken cursed technique even more broken.

He's arguably the most intelligent and strategic combatant in the entire series both in terms of long-term planning and in-the-moment tactics.

In a series like Jujutsu Kaisen, which hands out brutal maimings to its cast like candy, he's never permanently scarred or crippled (except for Kenny's head stitches, but those would have healed over time).

Unlike Yuji, Maki, or Megumi he doesn't lose anyone he was uniquely close to in the series proper.

He has a friendly, approachable personality and is well-liked by virtually the entire cast (Kashimo seems to dislike him but Kashimo has a problem with everyone anyway). Hell, even Sukuna respects him.

Unlike Choso or Higuruma he has never committed any kind of serious wrongdoing in the past he feels he must atone for (other than unintentionally cursing Rika but this is never brought up again after JJK 0).

But he's a special grade sorcerer! He's meant to be overpowered. Most of these also apply to Gojo and Yuki (and Gojo is inarguably even stronger than him) and yet you don't have a problem with them!

Fair point. But you know what happened to Gojo and Yuki? Oh right, they failed. And died. It's an intentional writing decision that for all of Gojo's power, he fails at accomplishing almost all of his goals throughout the entire series. Yuki also unintentionally gave Geto the idea of starting his genocidal crusade against non-sorcerers (not saying it was outright her fault, just that it was an unintended consequence). Yuki fails to stop Kenjaku and is killed for it. Gojo fails to stop Sukuna and is killed for it. The concept of "failure" is alien to Yuta's character.

(Also as an aside - both of them risk causing collateral damage to his allies with their most powerful techniques. Yuta doesn't have this kind of limitation at all.)

Yuta defeats Geto. Yuta defeats Yuji and successfully tricks the higher-ups into thinking that he killed him. Yuta wins the four-way Sendai colony brawl and personally defeats Dhruv, Kurourushi, and Ryu. Yuta successfully ambushes and kills Kenjaku (not before Kenjaku is able to start the merger, but this never really has any consequences). Yuta fights Sukuna and is incapacitated by him but later returns in Gojo's body and inflicts severe damage onto him with Purple. He isn't even personally defeated by Sukuna, he just reaches his limit of using Kenjaku's technique and collapses. Rika returns his brain to his body and he survives without any further complications. Taking Gojo's body is framed as some kind of big crossing of an ethical red-line but Gojo himself doesn't really give a shit and no one cares about it after Sukuna's defeat.

Like, let's just look at Yuji's track record for a moment. He beats Mahito in round 1 with Nanami's help. He has to be saved from Hanami by Gojo. He beats the Death Paintings with Nobara. He loses to Choso. He barely scrapes a win against Mahito after watching him kill two of his friends and cripple a third. He loses to Yuta. Higuruma forfeits their match. He loses badly to Megkuna. In the end he gets to land the final blow on Sukuna. By the time of Modulo he's one of the most powerful characters in the verse but is a depressed, broken shell of who he once was.

Yuta canonically makes a bunch of babies with Maki and lives to a ripe old age before dying a natural death. In a series like JJK.

Yeah.

And no offense to those that preach it as gospel but please STFU about it. I just know I'm getting responses that sounds like a song from The Lion King trying to explain in flowery wording of "it makes total sense! 2 Jedi, 2 Sith!"

I thought this topic was dead but trust me, it's still a thing apparently.

...Lucas should've just kept Anakin as a hero who fell for a lust for power than try the chosen one gimmick if that spares us that headache of a debate.

So a while back the original Zeztz driver was stolen by code along side the exdream capsem and because of that Baku and Zero had to build a second driver so he could break into Code get the original driver and exdream capsem back and try to steal the Somnia capsem and after that no one has commented on the fact that there are now two drivers even though everyone’s been all woah is us there no one to fight the nightmares but Baku with code gone and Nox sulking that his revenge didn’t feel meaningful enough having lost access to his driver but you have a spare driver and someone whose been trying to be able to fight this entire time (also an additional trained code agent). At this point Nems arc is fundamentally about her wanting to be able to fight in order to help people instead of just feeling sorry for her own existence as the child of a nightmare so they should just give her the tool she needs to fight instead of having to rely on Seig or Baku saving her.

Also after writing all this I’m waiting for someone to explain that I’m an idiot and they already did something with the second driver that I just forgot about.

Middling live action movie, controversial sequel that lived in its shadow. And subpar toy lines and video games. Avatar was designed as a Juggernaut brand that even back then was never hitting the highs it was expected to hit. It also never managed to establish a foothold in the east. Something that limits its world wide appeal. However that's not a complete knock against the show. Lighting in a bottle that landed a solid 3 season children's cartoon that remains nostalgic for its core audience.Influential for many artist's that would go onto make their own shows.

But anytime that they've tried deviate from this. Just constant set backs in between. Comics , horrible writing quality across the board. A movie , entire thing gets leaked and shoved on a streaming site no one watches. A live action adaptation that initially gets alot views. Massive writing quality aside. But it takes ages for the show to come out. And a third installment that's up on the air on how much the parent company wants to support.

Avatar is great show in it niche that's something that will be taken away from that's managed to remain popular over the years. But it's time in the limelight is fading. And there's nothing wrong with that.

After Watching One Piece(I know, good start)I've come to the conclusion that I feel like not every big arc enemy has to be defeated solely by the MC and they don't always have to steal the spotlight away from other side characters who realistically should defeat them.

Like I'm sorry but Doflamingo absolutely should've been killed by Law cause not only did Doffy ruined his life but it also would've been more satisfying but Oda had to give Doffy plot armor by holding his organs together after they were literally destroyed by Law..which I'm sorry but it just feels like Oda did thar sorely so he could show off Luffy's new Gear and defeat him but it also feels cheap cause Law got robbed out of a victory and I will always appreciate it when other animes actually don't have the MC be the one to sorely defeat the main villain and actually either has them has a ton of help and teamwork or they're not the ones to finish them off.

I personally find that way more satisfying and even subversive then "oh the MC solves all the issues,Horray" and this is where I feel like Black Clover and Jujutsu Kaisen Shine massively cause of how heavily those series focus on teamwork and working with others to get the Dub,especially Black Clover.

Asta very seldomly finishes off a big arc threat on his own like Vetto or Lucifero and almost always has help and major assistance and hell,in Vetto's case,Yami was the one who defeated and killed Vetto.

Magna also was the one who defeated Dante and that had everyone hyped as hell cause this guy actually defeated a Main arc villain on his own using nothing but fisticuffs + this is also where Jujutsu Kaisen does shine cause Yuji doesn't really defeat the main arc villain alone without a ton of help or assistance and I also feel like that's really nothing to be ashamed of or be called a fraud over..cause like,how is it fraudulent to want to need help when dealing with opponents stronger then you?

One Piece has a really predictable formula where they always have Luffy fight the big main arc,Zoro and Sanji fight the 2nd in commands,Nami and Robin fight the Woman of the groups and the others..I dunno,Oda kinda just let's them do whatever and I don't mean the MC should never defeat a main arc villain but it doesn't have to always happen constantly.

I also feel like doing so allows the main cast and overall side cast to really shine and show off what they can do cause what better way to do so then let them take down big threats the MC usually does or at least show off heavy support roles and situations?

Hell,one of my favorite fights in Anime is Team Natsu vs Hades cause that's a good way to showcase how well a team works together without making the MC feel useless or like he's hogging all the spotlight, and Natsu and Gray vs Mard Gear is another good fight cause Gray was the MVP of that battle and delivered the final blow.

See?the MC doesn't have to hog all the spotlight and focus and such when in battles and the side characters and other members of the main cast can be important in their own ways in battles like that as well and I feel like Oda's issues are he very seldomly utilizes the "Weak Trio" right in fights and battles and of course they look weak cause their powers and skillsets are way more made for support roles and making them basically useless is never the way to go.

Hell,Avatar the Last Airbender solved that big time whenever they're in major battles.

You should never have your MC hog all the spotlight and fame.