Видео

It takes a smart man to write a smart man

L and Lelouch are great examples of smart characters. Both explain their thought processes and both get bamboozled by things beyond their control and knowledge. Well, this is true for Lelouch before his resurrection, at least.

Aizen from Bleach is absolutely guilty of being a "retroactive genius", but given the nature of shounen action manga in general - that is, the plots are usually fairly superficial and act more like an excuse to have bombastic fights - I think that's a sin that's forgivable.

There's actually a great example of Sherlock's deduction going wrong in Guy Ritchie's movies, when he tries to expose Watson's fiancee as a golddigger, hoping on marriages to thrive socially, only to ofend her because she was just a widow. I like that it show cracks in his deductive method as a means to humble his abilities (which furthers the stakes on the actual plot mistery) and also shows character flaw, since he went out of his way to chose the deduction that would validate his dislike of Watson getting married, out of jealousy.

Here is a thought. Characters who have to demonstrate their intelligence through careful planning are highly intelligent, but not super intelligent. Sister Sage cured cancer overnnight as a child. I would assume, that level of ontelligence is impossible to write. Why? Is anyone that intelligence. To us, it would look like someone is making incredible logical leaps because we cannot see nor understand the connections. Have you ever tried to explain how you reached a conclusion to someone and they have no idea how you went from A to D no matter how many times you explain it? Well extrapolate that to super intelligence goong from A to -4. How would we possibly understand what was in between. Also, you are comparing smart people, so SUPER geniuses. Thats like comparing a stick to a nuke. Yes, both can be used as weapons. But one is so far advanced that if you explained how a nuke worked to someone who only unferstood sticks, it would look like magic.

Good video I agree with you on a lot, I would like to say I think that Sherlock is more of a he goes with whatever is most probable to explain the events given the situation and context that it was presented in, not to mention at least to me just looking at John screams Army to me just the way he carries himself it reminds me a lot of my cousin and uncle who both were in the army, so to me it does make sense oh also I just remembered the guy that introduced John to Sherlock was known by Sherlock and the entire reason for them to be introduced was because Sherlock said something like "Who's want to live with me" and John said the same thing so no doubt Sherlock had that going for him too xD some of the random stuff he does tho... yeah no I got nothing on those XD

The scratches in Watson's phone are clearly due to the fact that he keeps it on him while gardening in case someone from the foundation where he volunteers needs him. Come on, man, this is basic

"The writers were guilty of bad because they made Sage a black woman": The comment section. She didn't know the shifter would get the footage, but if Singer died she wins too. She didn't know butcher would kill Neuman, but if he didn't then she'd pin Singers death on her/had evidence shed betrayed homelander. She did lie to Homelander, but homelander has never killed anyone that wasn't afraid of him (how else is butcher still alive) and she knew that.

party pooper

Sokka

point 1 you mentioned: even if the character doesn't violate the world's internal logic, if they get lucky far too many times, it is plot armor. It is like you won the lottery of highest value possible on earth 10 times in a year, making you a billionaire instantly. Actually, nevermind, most fictions where the character was weak from the start of the story to the end when the character was the most powerful being in the universe have those kind of extreme luck too often.

is giving them glasses not enough??

Shit video

the issue is, you can't write a character smarter than yourself. this is a problem because most modern writers are retarded

Thank you for this video. It really summarizes what I’ve been saying for a while now. I hate those “smart” characters that just know everything. Good examples of real intelligent characters can be seen in Attack on Titan and Death Note. These characters make inferences based on information that the audience has access to, but they’re quick conclusions are still entertaining

I am just sad that Sherlock Holmes is being represented by that godawful BBC series.

I HATED how Sista Sage was written. She didn't seem smart at all and came across as just mildly more intelligent than the idiots in the Seven. Her plans were dumb and unimaginative and pretty easy to figure out before their reveals. And I couldn't for the life of me understand how the so called smartest person in the world was 1. So evil yet wasn't a billionaire super villain like Lex Luther 2. Was poor and not one of the richest people in the world through both savvy investments and patents for miriad inventions 3. Wasn't solving all the world's problems either due to altruism, just to prove she can die to ego, or to become the most powerful and richest person on the planet. (Imagine you own all the fusion power plants in the world) 4. Agreed to be the lacky/sidekick of the biggest man baby on the planet subject to his whims and emotional instability 5. Was outsmarted at one point or another by pretty much everyone in the show. 6. Agreed to/supposedly came up with a plan that basically put white nationalist in full control of every aspect of the government and military.

Interesting analysis. But in regards to The Boys Season 4, I think Sage works as a character, regardless. First because we do see her plotting and conniving, with cause and effect, just like you describe. I'm thinking of the plot at "Truthcon", for example. Also, Sage isn't a main character of the show and I don't believe the writers meant for her to be more than a plot device. She could have been interesting as a more developed character (and we might get this in the next season), but the show is juggling a lot of balls and would have had to take time away from the main players if they wanted Sage to be something. But, most significantly, what made Sage work for me, is that the show never actually tells you that this outcome is the result of Sage's plan. Sage tells Homelander this was her plan all along when she hands him a solution at the end. But she never really backs it up. I think you can totally interpret the scene as her worming her way back in by finding a last minute solve amidst a chaotic dumpster fire. That doesn't undermine her "smart person" status. But I believe you could read it like a chest master walking in on two amateurs playing badly, glancing at the board, and then leaning over to one whispering in his ear: "checkmate in 3 moves". Anyway, I believe the writers have plenty of room to go in that direction if they want in season 5, but we'll see. Let's remember that The Boys is a show that revels in having characters come up with brilliant plans, just to have those plans go up in flames and gore in the next scene. I don't believe the show would make Sage immune to this dramatic fatality... But maybe the show just means for her to be the best at navigating the chaos. It would also fit well with her tendency to self lobotomise. I don't see her as a character that has her shit together. She looks to me like a character that takes needless risk because she is overly confident that her smarts can get her out of any situation.

FANTASTIC video, brother. Thanks.

the trouble is writing super smart characters is really hard as they can only think of things the writer thought of and the writer is just a normal person

Another really good example of a well written intelligent character is micheal scolfield from prison break, the entire series is basically centered around his intelligence and ability to plan

I think one of the issues with intelligence as a power is how strong the character is compared to the universe. Shikimaru and Dazai work because the powers in their universe are insanely broken but with the boys and the Dc/marvel, character have to have insane amounts of intelligence to keep up.

Keep in mind, smart people can get lucky too. And they can take risks. Smart does not necessarily equal wise. The only thing you gotta make sure of when writing there characters, is that you are not passing luck off as intelligence, and that if you character gets lucky at times, he must also get unlucky at times (unless this luck is sorta like a theme you specifically chose, e.g. a plot point that makes the character believe they are "chosen by fate" or something)

Lex luthor is Superman's joker. He's not insane. He's obsessive.

Great take. I’d summarize Joker’s philosophy as believing that everyone is secretly a monster. He therefore loves Batman bc Batman is the only other person who’s embraced his inner monster. Their debate is sometimes about the soul of Gotham, but ultimately about Bruce’s soul - Bruce believes that (thru Batman) he’s taken control of his inner demons… while Joker thinks that’s just what Bruce’s inner demons want him to believe.

The Joker tells you what he represents. He tells Batman that it is the rules that are the problem. He represents Game Theory. We are only as good as the rules let us be. Batman represents Choice Theory. People can choose to be good even when The Joker sets the rules of the game. That's why the Ferry Scene is the climax of the movie. If you don't study psychology, it's very easy to miss. Most people do.

a great example of a smart character written well is scofield from prison break , he planned every little detail before going into prison (they even show us how he was able to do so and how he collected the information) , and even after all that , his plans meets roadblocks like a dozen times and he keeps coming up (adapting) with solutions to these road blocks to overcome them. another good example is peter beylish from GOT

Another perfect example of intelligent characters written in an intelligent way is the villain of Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder". He's smart, plans things ahead and adapt to unexpected in situation, and you see all of this with him couse the spectator is aware of his plans all along.

The boys is a satire and sister sage drifting through life and saying "all according to play" is making fun of the retroactive genius trope.

Vince Gillian is great at writing smart characters. Watching Mike, Saul, Gus, or any other character slowly unfold their plan without ever explicitly explaining it while still making it so that the result is surprising but makes sense given what the characters had set up.

One trope i'm really tired of is, when the showrunners think knowledge is intelligence

Awesome video ❤ This is the reason why I always preferred the Sherlock Holmes in Elementary rather than the one in Sherlock. Elementary sherlock portrayed a better form of intelligence. He did experiment to prove his deductions. He reached out to experts to help solve his case. He was wrong at times, too. Best of all, he was able to teach Watson his thought process, which enabled her to be a detective like him. This showed how his intelligence has a process that can be observed and learnt rather than it being an unknown force.

I've long held that this version of the Joker was Military Psy-Ops before he became the Joker. He understands the psychology of individuals and groups well enough to manipulate both. He can organize and run terrorist, criminal, and guerrilla groups for specific goals, independent of each other. He knows how to use media and minimal resources to destabilize a government. I think he was a VERY valuable military/espionage asset, doing what we see in the movie to third world countries long before whatever happened, happened. (Probably where he REALLY got those scars.) The other interesting question about Ledger's Joker was if he was an agent for the League of Shadows, and if so, for how long?

In the end it's all about good vs evil, The other stories tries to make Villains look good but In The Batman Stories the fans themselves demand the villains to be good despite being evil and terible person even though thier tragic villains but joker isn't one of them, the story tells how people support evil and chaos of joker's society while The Batman still protects despite getting all hate!

My issues with the divinci code smh

So basically, hes a master manipulator. Theres a reason that Gotham is a city. Studies prove that being in a large crowd does not make people feel safe. On the contrary, it increases stress. Animals that are densely packed in a cage will show aggression, self harm, and will stop reproducing. This is the problem with modernity. People are pushed into cities, begin to act irrational, humanity is deemed uncivilized, and more and more laws are written to control the population and push them more and more into cities to control them. So whatever Joker is, he is an agent of evil.

Your argument holds to a point but begins to break down when we consider the difficulty with portraying characters who are not only smart on the ordinary human scale but hyperintelligent. Take a futuristic AI or an intelligent deity (albeit not omniscient) deity for example. The difficulty with writing such characters is that no human writer can comprehend their intelligence and thought process and plans. For the extent of their most complex plans to be comprehensible to us would be a watering down of their attributes. In short, with such characters, their intelligence SHOULD feel like magic when written well. Because the gap between our intelligence and theirs is so wide that a realistic portayal of their abilities would be as inexplicable to us as a wizard's magic.

no

My only problem with Snape in the books is that there was no personal closure and no closure of his view of Harry. Although technically in the memories it is said that Snape could not see Harry as a unique person (but only as a copy of James), there are signs that he eventually accepted Harry as he was, with the chapter of the silver doe being that moment of recognition, but Rowling does not point this out. I wish the chapter of the prince's tale had been longer, to give closure to the character once and for all and explain his morality better so that we could forgive him, which would justify Harry naming his son Albus Severus.

This is why Batman vs Superman is underrated. Lex... okay. Goal - kill Superman. Method - get the Greenlight to weaponise kryptonite to kill metas... no problem if they wont grant it, batman can be relied upon. Plan - use batman as the button man. Turn public against Superman. Batman kills Superman. Failsafe 1- Superman won't comply? Kidnap Martha & Lois. Failsafe 2 - should batman loose, then Superman is still a threat? Then doomsday. It's a simple plan. It's not overly complicated.

Great video: Along with Joker NOT being chaotic. I always thought the movie was saying Batman was the true Hope not Dent. But in Rises Gotham was actually better. AND… Batman quits at the end. So Clearly I was completely interpreting this movie wrong.

The qualities you're conflating with intelligence are simply intellectual discipline, which anyone can benefit from. There just isn't a comprehensive definition of intelligence, which kind of invites everyone to share their own self-flattering definition. But there is a definition for an Asspull, a plot twist unsupported by foreshadowing, which is what you're describing. Or more precisely when writers expect audiences to accept an Asspull from a character they've been informed is phenomenally intelligent.

He was accurate and he was intelligent Joaquin Phoenix's joker is not intelligent, it's a different thing

Arya not having elven ears was one the worst but I would think most easily fixed things if they cared cosplayers will have elf ears for elf characters but for some reason she did not?!

Watch code geas, Lelouch is written very well.

Sherlock has, without a doubt, moments of non-sense. And they aren't as much. It comes from a misunderstanding and mainly starts making sense when we notice: - it's not that the deductions are baseless, it's that he doesn't highlight ALL of the evidence he has. Only the one that people would usually overlook. Obviously Watson was wounded in combat because of his posture, his haircut, his demeanour. But we don't need him to explain that to us, because we can see it. But the scratches on the phone, we couldn't. It had to be shown for us to be aware of them which ties up to the next point. - Sherlock usually has information that we don't have and that is very accurate to the creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock would send John on errands when he already knew what he would find. Partly to comfirm what he already pressuposes or simply to give him more time to assess the remaining facts. In summary, it's not always that it is baseless or unrealistic (other times, rare ones, there is clear bs), but it's that we are looking for evidence that it is superhuman

Sherlock is not just intelligent bruh.... He is supernaturally intelligent..

Easiest way to write a smart character: 1) cast a minority, anyone except white straight male 2) write something 3) if you dont like the plot you are racist

I haven't watched the full video yet, paused to leave this comment. I hope you mention the new suicide squad game as an example of characters having horrible plot armor. A group of street level criminals being able to kill Superman, Batman and Flash is just ridiculous.

Imo the most realistic genies is Senku from Dr. Stone