I never agreed with this statement. If everyone is special, then everyone is. In example in game Overwatch everyone has special abilities and are nothing alike anyone else. Everyone is a specialist in their own field. Everyone is special.
I mean he said “super” not special, he was trying to sell superpowers to level the playing field and reduce the general public’s perception of super heroes.
This isn’t necessarily true. A good villain is often written to make a good point that is to some degree or another true. Its just that they go try to achieve their noble goal in the worst way possible.
Ganondorf in The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker is a pretty good example. Even though I didn’t like a lot about that game, the writing of his character was great. He wanted to see the peaceful wind Hyrule had, for in his own land “the wind always brought death.” Which itself is a pretty noble cause. The problem is his way of achieving it: taking it away from Hyrule.
Another one that could be argued is Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker: his desire is better social support for people that are socially marginalized (well, one of them at least), a point I genuinely agree with, socially awkward people should have access to better social support. However, he tries to achieve it in literally the worst possible way, and I don’t agree with the way the character goes about it.
It makes the villain more believable. No person does something evil just for the sake of being evil. Well, maybe some do, but most don’t. They usually believe what they are doing is a noble cause, and it usually is (like, providing better for my family says the thief, or ridding the world of bad people says the assassin, etc). They just use awful ways to do it, instead of better, less deadly and injurious ways.
Obviously there are exceptions, but that’s doesn’t mean all villains are evil just for the love of the game.
I never agreed with it in all context I read it. I can’t disagree with a context I never read. I don’t know why you make it this complicated. I simply do not agree with it. Nothing to discuss about it.
I’m not trying to make anything complicated mate, just tried to give context to why I said what I said to you. If you weren’t aware, you are now that it’s a quote from a villain.
I watched the film. But the source doesn’t matter to our discussion. I talk about the statement on its own with context to our discussion. It doesn’t matter to me who said it. I was very clear about this.
As said, I don’t care where the quote comes from and what reasons they present in 2 hour movie. I apply the logic of the quote to the discussion we have here, and decided to not agree. It is my personal opinion independent from the film. BTW I watched the film too.
The context does not matter for our discussion. I evaluate the quote by itself, not as a quote, but as a standalone statement. There is nothing wrong with that approach. Why? Because the quote is used in context of OUR discussion, not in context of the film. It is applied as reasoning to our topic that has nothing to do with the film or its origin. And I disagree with that reasoning.
I don’t know how to explain it else. Edit: Simply, I don’t care what the comic character has a reason for to say that. It has 0 impact on what I believe is right or wrong.
This is like saying Sony is losing exclusives to PC because PS emulators exist lol.
With that logic, Nintendo doesn’t have any exclusives too. Maybe besides Switch 2, but that console losing exclusives too.
I mean yes, that’s exactly what people are saying with this? And it’s kind of true?
It’s kinda like what Syndrome said: “when everyone’s special; no one will be.”
Little offtopic incoming:
I never agreed with this statement. If everyone is special, then everyone is. In example in game Overwatch everyone has special abilities and are nothing alike anyone else. Everyone is a specialist in their own field. Everyone is special.
I mean he said “super” not special, he was trying to sell superpowers to level the playing field and reduce the general public’s perception of super heroes.
It’s a quote from a villain. You’re not supposed agree with it or him.
This isn’t necessarily true. A good villain is often written to make a good point that is to some degree or another true. Its just that they go try to achieve their noble goal in the worst way possible.
Ganondorf in The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker is a pretty good example. Even though I didn’t like a lot about that game, the writing of his character was great. He wanted to see the peaceful wind Hyrule had, for in his own land “the wind always brought death.” Which itself is a pretty noble cause. The problem is his way of achieving it: taking it away from Hyrule.
Another one that could be argued is Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker: his desire is better social support for people that are socially marginalized (well, one of them at least), a point I genuinely agree with, socially awkward people should have access to better social support. However, he tries to achieve it in literally the worst possible way, and I don’t agree with the way the character goes about it.
It makes the villain more believable. No person does something evil just for the sake of being evil. Well, maybe some do, but most don’t. They usually believe what they are doing is a noble cause, and it usually is (like, providing better for my family says the thief, or ridding the world of bad people says the assassin, etc). They just use awful ways to do it, instead of better, less deadly and injurious ways.
Obviously there are exceptions, but that’s doesn’t mean all villains are evil just for the love of the game.
I’m not using the quote for the source, I’m using the quote for what it says.
The source of the quote actually doesn’t matter to me. I judge the quote itself.
You said you “never agreed” with it, past tense. I assumed you meant in all contexts, including its original context.
I never agreed with it in all context I read it. I can’t disagree with a context I never read. I don’t know why you make it this complicated. I simply do not agree with it. Nothing to discuss about it.
I’m not trying to make anything complicated mate, just tried to give context to why I said what I said to you. If you weren’t aware, you are now that it’s a quote from a villain.
I watched the film. But the source doesn’t matter to our discussion. I talk about the statement on its own with context to our discussion. It doesn’t matter to me who said it. I was very clear about this.
But in the source of the quote, there’s a 1h55m parable to go along with it and why you shouldn’t agree with it.
As said, I don’t care where the quote comes from and what reasons they present in 2 hour movie. I apply the logic of the quote to the discussion we have here, and decided to not agree. It is my personal opinion independent from the film. BTW I watched the film too.
But if you don’t care about the context that it comes from, you may as well say you don’t agree with “Greed is good” from Wall Street either.
The context does not matter for our discussion. I evaluate the quote by itself, not as a quote, but as a standalone statement. There is nothing wrong with that approach. Why? Because the quote is used in context of OUR discussion, not in context of the film. It is applied as reasoning to our topic that has nothing to do with the film or its origin. And I disagree with that reasoning.
I don’t know how to explain it else. Edit: Simply, I don’t care what the comic character has a reason for to say that. It has 0 impact on what I believe is right or wrong.
Yes it would be so terrible if everyone could be the best at whatever they wanted to be or even feel valued for whatever they excelled in.
Context clues are huge. Maybe you should try to pick up on some.