"The point is to resist" is what a lot of people miss about the static character. When a character starts out good but is pushed to break and go bad, but they don't, that can be very cool.
This is exactly why i love superman so much. He has ALL the power, but uses it purely for good. Even when things get really bad, he reminds himself that to give into that negative emotion, that anger, is to be no better than the for hes facing
@@sandalloveromg And it's something you verify, in real life - when you 'have power' over someone, and you abuse it, you always end up regretting it. If you tell someone their work is trash, if you over-punish someone for a mistake and hold it against them forever, they'll shut off from you, lose faith in themselves and their potential.
I have seen way too many authors bait this exact question before making mc an unlikeable pos and then act like it was cool and badass. Like, this removes so much possible conflict from the story just to act like it was cool
Boyscout masculinity gets a bad wrap bc it's not very advantageous to the individual using it. It's best employed in servitude, but is without a doubt the best form of masculinity for saviors. It retains practicality while still being hopeful & just. Warlord masculinity (Shao Kahn, Darkseid etc.) is the polar opposite; the best for the individual. Physical dominance & aggression tempered with ruthless cunning & leadership acumen; it's primed to come out on top in most arenas of life. "Toxic Masculinity" is a pale, fake imitation of Warlord masculinity in much the same way that "Nice Guys" seem to be a pale, fake imitation of Boyscouts.
I'm glad you brought up "nice guys" and how they're weak, sleazy opportunists in disguise, echoing Jordan Peterson's own thoughts on em. And great categorization of the selfless vs self-driven masculine styles and their faux versions. Boy Scout masculinity actually *is* advantageous to the individual - the guy who's always jovial and never judgmental is the one who makes the most friends; the guy who's honest is trusted; the guy who's positive instead of a bitchy Debbie Downer is the guy people feel comfortable around and want to hang out with. It's the kind of person you want to have in your life. And from that comes opportunity. Once you've made a bunch of friends, contacts, and built a solid reputation, you are now lightyears ahead of someone who knows no one or has a bad reputation. Success is not what you do, it's who you know. The problem with Boy Scouts is they tend to just help people and never ask for help back, and they also leave themselves open to abusers, takers and opportunists. I also think that, competent as they are, warlords who enslaved their home realms and devoted their lives to conquering and/or killing anything that is not them qualify as toxically masculine.
@@CynicalWarlock I think it's more accurate to say boy scout can be advantageous to the individual, much like warlord can actually be disadvantageous. By your own admittance being a boy scout is only beneficial when there's something to gain from companionship. On a similar note being a warlord is only "toxic" when they willingly choose to reject companionship as a possible option in the first place. Both of these things are fair to say in our current society, but not necessarily in every scenario. A problem I have with using warlord as the opposite of boy scout is it's only more "beneficial" when the individual alone already has enough power to do what they consider necessary. (Warlord also has a generally negative connation) If the spectrum is intended to be Idealism/kindness over realism/efficiency the word I'd choose is tactician. Much like how a boy scout should have an understanding that morals alone can't always solve problems, a tactician should understand that a society with a strong foundation is ultimately more efficient in the long run. Both have more positive connotations, and they're likely to align for the most part. When there's choice between morals and actually getting the job done is when they start to converge. A boy scout would obviously be a better choice in a perfect world(or as a being with powers necessary to reach their ideals), but that doesn't necessarily mean a tactician is completely "bad" for willingness to sacrifice "goodness" for what they perceive as a "greater good". On a similar note, by nature of tacticians already being partially "corrupted" there's less focus on being the example to live by, and more about being able to keep a healthy vision without losing their way. tactician isn't any better of a comparison as warlord for "toxic masculinity" to be a negative imitation for, but that's more because it's too complex of a concept for this spectrum.(arguably being suicidally selfless and being destructively selfish are both toxic and displays of masculinity) I guess a negative imitation of a tactician...would in itself be a warlord? At least if the implication is that a selfless society will always ultimately overcome a selfish one.
Absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely; it shows us who we are. In the case of Superman specifically, I once heard someone say that the prospect of a man with ultimate power who chooses good is much more interesting than a powerful man who chooses evil. To expand on that, we have countless examples of powerful characters who choose to do evil with their gifts. Clark’s choice to use his powers to serve humanity (despite being able to control or destroy Earth in one fell swoop) makes him much more compelling than if he gave into his vices and turned into another Homelander or Omniman. It’s ultimately why he’s the face of all superheroes.
Absolutely, and the proof is in real life: as you attain more power, the temptation to misuse it grows exponentially - to cheapen the product to get more sales, to take sponsorships from companies you don't believe in, to play favorites with your employees or children, to lie to your audience, to support a certain interested party during the next election - a powerful man who chooses evil isn't interesting an interesting story, it's the most boring, expected fucking thing on the planet. Struggling to not give into temptation, that's the interesting story.
Давайте будем честными-сейчас и на протяжении всей истории человечества,люди имеющие власть,чаще совершали плохое чем хорошее.Возьмем даже 21 век:правительства стран создают искусственные войны,на которых будут погибать люди,ради идей придуманных этими «властьимущими»,но в которых сами «властьимущие»не верят.Думаю власть никогда не будет принадлежать хорошим людям,а если и будет,то единицам из общего числа.
It's for precisely those reason why Superman and Captain America are my favorite superheroes. That unshakable integrity, is something I can both relate to, and inspires me to be a better man.
@@CynicalWarlock Hold up, hold up. In the case of Kang Liu(Liu Kang is not the right pronunciation in Chinese names. His surname is Kang, his name is Liu, so the right way to pronounce it should be Kang Liu), he did not always win. In fact, he lost, and got humiliated as well. Check Mortal Kombat again. Even in the movie Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion's Revenge, Kang Liu was almost killed by Goro, before he got saved by Hasashi Hanzo. Kang Liu did not always win, buddy. Superman did.
@@dinhlien980 Ohh, forgive me for forgetting about Scorpion's Revenge, the bastion of authority on all things canon, that absolutely all the games, comics, and fanbases respect.
I've never liked the Evil Superman archetype. It's the most obvious thing an amoral person with power to become. A moral amd righteous person with the person who constantly being attacked in all kinds of physical and mental ways and still choosing to do the right thing is far more interesting.
Precisely. The temptation to evil is valid, that's the one thing Injustice got right. But Sups actually going bad is what makes him uninteresting, not the other way around, because as soon as he becomes a tyrant, it's either game over (as it would be, in real life), or, now, the emphasis is completely shifted to the resistance who's trying to take him down, and what an impossible task that is.
@@eddisonwilde4699 and technically Injustice wasn't the first time DC did it, I don't know when Red Son was first published but I do know the DCAU did it twice
@jc500 thanks, haven't read Red Son, cause when I first heard about it, it was seeing the cover for the film adaptation, and I thought "Really? They're gonna turn Superman into a communist?"
People wont want to hear it but Batman is actually a boyscout masculine type character. He doesn't kill no matter what. He's impartial. He'll turn on his own people if he thinks they're doing wrong. Like when it was revealed he had a plan to take out each member of the Justice League if needed. He stands on his morals and doesn't budge.
Pretty much correct. I see Bats as a hybrid archetype, because he both goes through a kind of origin story/hero's journey, in many interpretations, but also ends up with a no-kill rule (again, in most interpretations), so he's very similar to Sups, in this respect. And the temptation element is present in Batman stories more so than in any other - he's always tempted yo fall to the dark side, to kill, to misuse his power, and all the femme fatales tempting him and out to get him are like the cherry on top.
No joke, Adam West's Batman portrayal fit the archetype perfectly. Unfortunately he tends to get forgotten in the face of the darker takes on the character that used getting as far away from West as possible as a measure of quality.
@@olliehearton I think there's a way to revive that style of Batman that makes sense. That's what they tried with Clooney's Batman and failed, miserably, so it's admittedly a tough task.
I think Batman is one of the most pure hearted heroes out there in my opinion. The fact that he still believes anyone can change, even the Joker despite everything he did says a lot about him. And the fact that he gives petty criminals a home or a job opportunity at Wayne Enterprises shows how boundless his compassion is. He knows what it’s like to be lonely, lost, and have your world be taken away so violently. So he’s willing to give them what he wished he had as a boy.
I think a lot of the bad faith criticism of boyscout characters is from the mistaken belief that they're largely reactionary: They don't move the plot forward, the plot moves them forward. This is completely wrong. They're not static, they're disciplined and know not to take their problems out on others. That's a good thing since they're not going to make things worse like angry folks (like Scorpion killing Quan-Chi in X, thus ending all chance to save the Revenants).
A hero should not seek needless conflict anyways. now people say Goku isn't a hero because he loves conflict, but he clearly only wants a one on one fight, he absolutely hates it when his friends, family and home are threatened.
Well yeah, you could say that them being static is what moves the plot forward. The rest of the world pulls itself down, everybody landing in the same pool of muck, perpetually, and so that becomes static, because it's an endless, expected cycle. In that context, the boy scout becomes the 'dynamic' character, by not letting themselves get dragged into the muck.
@CynicalWarlock in fact they were the characters holding out a limb or rod for the people in the muck to grab so the hero can pull them out of the muck
Boy scout masculinity is the purist and healthiest form of masculinity that everyone man should aspire to live up to. Being a boy scout, being a good man may not get you appreciated but it will get you respected. As the late James Earl Jones once said:"There is no greater purpose in life for a man, then to serve his fellow man."
"Before we go... let us remember our code. Let us strive every moment of our lives to make ourselves better and better to the best of our ability so that all may profit by it. Let us think of the right and lend our assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice. Let us take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage. Let us be considerate of our country, our fellow citizens, and our associates in everything we say and do. Let us do right to all - and wrong no man." - Doc Savage - Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)
The idea that these characters are faced with corruption but resist it even when most people will scumb to is very interesting and compelling to me. They stand tall and strong when most would fall. And that is something, know that I think about, is something I really admire and hits close to home. I don't understand why some people see this as boring. Maybe its just different live experience or expectations but I think it is interesting. Anyways thank you for the video. It really touches on something that isn't discussed much.
This is just a theory, but I suspect people who have endured a lot of hardship and betrayal have a deep appreciation for this archetype. Conversely, people who lived mostly sheltered lives crave more exciting, antihero-style archetypes, and find the boy scout boring.
@@CynicalWarlock that does make sense. people who struggled most likely appreciate seeing people who are struggling but made it through. While people who haven't experienced that don't really get it. Which is fine but they lack a bit of perspective.
It's not boring at all, it's the story of my life. I think because so many people are either lost souls, morally grey, or just don't bother resisting they don't find this to be an interesting story element.
@@CynicalWarlock While interesting in theory, my personal experience is rather opposite, I grew up very sheltered in the middle class home, to the point of being homeschooled, and while I've had some drama in my life I can't claim to any great tragedies. Yet even as a teenager and young adult I was always more drawn to these types of heroes than the antiheros and edgy heroes. I always wanted to be Luke, Superman was better than Batman, and the famous Captain America speech regarding being the immoveable moral tree resonated with me. Further, my experience has been opposite too, people who have faced hardship and betrayal in their lives have often expressed the most distaste for this archetype, claiming it is "unrealistic" and believing that nobody can truly be like this.
@@cygnusprime6728 that does make sense. People who find these kind of stories boring often have no experience similar to the trope. Which does suck that they let it inform them. Its an interesting story element as you said.
This is exactly why I love true good characters and like writing them . Seeing someone be corrupted , break, and or redeem themselves after being unable to handle stress has a place and can be done very well. But i always find it more satisfying to see someone successfully resist and keep their morality. Also showing people that you can resist you can fight back against temptation and win? Is inspiring. Its also why I love writing stuff for my true good character.
@@CynicalWarlock oh yeah. Like you bringing up the cardboard speech (goated scene btw) was amazing like yeah thats an exaggeration of what we have to do every day, keep emotions ubder control, stay calm dont give in to temptation. None of us have to worry bout nuking the planet if we step too hard but we do have to worry about the temptation of going nucleur
This is how Michael Bay ruined Optimus Prime, by not understanding he is supposed to be the father figure type hero, not the war criminal because it is cooler.
@CynicalWarlock I will be the first to admit the 1st had potential. And yes it suffered from Typical Hollywood problems but you have to wonder at the fact the they got worse the more creative control Bay got. Then Bumblebee took it completely out of his hands and it was wonderful. I can't say this is causality over correlation....
@CynicalWarlock I can shut off the mind and enjoy the films but I feel bad for Peter, who made the character so iconic only to have Bay turn him into everything Peter promised his brother the character wouldn't be.
I remember there was a moment in Simon Furman's run in the Marvel comics where it states that every night Optimus would ask his computer to recite every life lost in the war, an abbreviation on the ones who's life he took, and he would just sit there, meditating on if the war was worth it or not. To me that's Optimus, a man who does something he hates but does it because he must.
Not quite the same thing, but something that came to kind when watching your video is the Teen Titans episode: Troq. Just about every protagonist on that show is some kind of moral paragon, and Starfire really shines through that episode despite being tested, belittled, and hated the whole episode through, and having no support for half of it. "You may not value my life, but I still value yours!"
Another thing I forgot to say, regarding the title of the video, is that people often call these characters "boy scouts" as an insult. But I don't know if the same people realise how many useful skills and values one learns from the scouts. It's a lot more than tying knots lol. So yeah, I'd rather be a scout than not tbh.
In a similar vein, people would use the phrase "bleeding-heart" as an insult when the term was originally used to describe Jesus and his compassion for others.
I’m glad you made this by the way. Fun fact: Fans compares Captain America and Superman to each others morally because they both fight for truth, justice and the American way. Both wear blue and red.Both are the symbol of hope
@@TheEditWiz_edits If either of them existed in real life I would literally die for them. I'm not even American. That's a character I can get behind. Boring my eye.
People like you always want to take something away from men wether it be the self less ones or the individualistic ones, all these qualities are based in masculinity, are based in manhood, stop trying to disregard men and masculinity by bringing in oh it’s just good humans, people like you need to just stop
@@edsonvieira7389probably just triggered because some of these traits aren't the first things you think of when you think of female qualities. Doesn't mean there can't be some women who have them, but being stoic, having self control, and selflessly and thanklessly sacrificing yourself for others are usually masculine traits.
12:59 - 13:13 1st of all agree with that whole sentence. But thank you for putting some respect on my boys Liu, Cap, and Supes, it gets genuinely tiresome seeing people say they are boring cause no development when there are ways to make them interesting even without developing them and sometimes it's good to have a character that's just a nice just to be nice person and not have everyone be a brooding dark anti hero all the time, as much as I love Batman if everyone was like him it'd get boring.
That's actually when Cap/Sup/Kang shine - when everyone else is an asshole. They're like a breath of fresh air in a polluted megalopolis. Now that I think about it, that may be part of why Liu Kang is more appreciated than the other 2 - because almost everyone in MK-land is some kind of evil, devious, sleazy, comically megalomaniacal piece of shit. 12:59 - 13:13 - And yeah, that phrase shouldn't be controversial, but here we are.
@@CynicalWarlock also forgot to mention but cyclops from X-Men can apply here as well. And yeah your statement shouldn't be controversial or a hot take even but unfortunately it is.
Another boyscout character that people misunderstand is cyclops. I don't know how to explain here myself, but there's videos you can see, just type, "why cyclops is underrated".
Because you know how true it is. It's wild how people dicked on him for years. Only to meat ride him when he's all anti hero/magneto like. I've always loved boy scout cyclops and 97 did it right and then some
As a fighting game fans, I always like Liu Kang since day one. Out all of the protagonist in fighting games, Liu Kang is the only one who truly has a character development (second to him is probably Jin Kazama from Tekken).
"...[not] mortal danger, but moral danger." What a fantastic sentence for summarizing this concept of the "boy scout" hero. This perfectly encapsulates the core of the conflict with these types. Absolutely genius.
You really nailed this archetype, it's to resist, and being the pure hearted good person, it probably is the oldest hero trope and most basic moral of all. These heroes are the beacon of light that people gather. Just a real one that people can get behind. While I always prefer the more interesting anti-heroes because they are more fun (like I always relate to Han Solo better than Luke), there is no denying the boy-scout is ultimately the real hero of the story.
19:31 That punchline had me dyin' bro. 💀 On a more serious note, this is an argument that I, myself, am tempted to engage in as well, because of just how many people, friends included, who I see disliking and trash-talking Superman, Captain America, and characters like them. Sure, Superman is bloody overpowered in many stories. Fine, Cap can maybe be a bit preachy. Yes, sometimes we see these characters doing dumb things (especially when written by those who don't comprehend the essence of the character in the first place.) They're not necessarily supposed to be directly relatable; they're supposed to inspire. It's because they're not like us, because they're so much better than a lot of us, that we aspire to be even a little bit more like them. Even just that can make the world a slightly better place. And young people need to see positive archetypes of masculinity too.
Absolutely, they're meant to inspire. Even more than that, the average person would be surprised to learn just how much power and influence they have over other people. They generally don't know, because they don't see the effects of their influence, just being encouraging to someone who's trying to get a business off the ground, when everyone else told him he couldn't do it, or telling a girl she's pretty when, unbeknownst to you, she's havig the worst day of her life and feels the ugliest - it goes a long way. You tell someone they're a very jovial person, even though they never saw themselves that way, next thing you know, they start acting twice as jovial as normal, just because you told them that. It's not just other people that inspire us, we do it too. So yes, these superheroes are absolute avatars of goodness that are far beyond us, but they're not meant to be very different from us, at all. That's the point of Superman that cinema writers don't get. Superman's great not because of his powers, but because he's an honest, well-raised dude from Kansas.. with powers. Damn that was way too long.
@@CynicalWarlock No, that was beautifully said and the perfect length. ♥️ I always believed that Superman's true power wasn't super strength or super toughness, but super *goodness.* A lot of people do forget his humble good Christian farm boi upbringing and focus on the part where he's a god with more power than anyone... And I believe you're right about these heroes' influence being underestimated... I guess you really do take for granted what's been a part of modern culture for so long. I feel Goku and DBZ are in a similar spot these days. Not as many people realize that the legacy of Dragon Ball is the legacy of all Shounen anime that followed, especially the big ones inspired by it, like Naruto. Plenty of the newer ones we have today wouldn't exist without Son Goku blazing trails first. And the same can be said of the likes of Clark Kent, Steve Rogers and Liu Kang.
@@robertminnie782 Well said. Yeah, I mean most Shonen follow the same framework laid out by DBZ.. It's just a question of which flavor you prefer - ninja, high-school, pirates etc.
out of topic maybe but it's even better when these characters actually "break", the revenants from mk are a concept that I really love and sadly, poorly explored/executed, specifically Liu Kang who went against Raiden's orders (MK9 events) because every single vision Raiden had and tried changing the outcome of the future another incident or worse situation happened by consequence, and when he finally figures it out you could say that a grieving Liu is right in not trusting him after back to back disasters and mistakes they commited due to Raiden's visions, Revenant Liu Kang made out of his anger, grief, despair, hate and frustration he had to supress while being earthrealm's champion all twisted into one being with only a tiny spark of good within his consciousness that could lead him into doing the right thing once again, or lead him into a path of taking earthrealm for himself so that he could protect it better than ever before, or as yet another character influenced by the one being, setting out on a conquest of all the realms so he can avoid any threats to earthrealm in his newly twisted way, while his grudge against Raiden would come into play in this kind of story, with Liu not realizing that he himself is now a threat to the realm he seeks to protect. Goddamn so many words, anyways revenant Liu and Kitana definetely banged
It is so unfortunate just how nonexistent the revenant plot was in MKX and 11, along with where they eventually ended up. The share amount of wasted potential is simply astounding.
@@NoName-ym5zj Yes, but in my case I like to see them at their lowest only to see them get back up, you could say I'm addicted to glorified redemption arcs and the fall and reemergence. Good example would be Zuko from Avatar.
You just described Dark Raiden, to a T. Also, Liu and Kitana did *not* bang, because 1) they were too bitter about getting killed, 2) they were undead and likely had no reproductive function, and 3) because they were under Quan Chi's control, who probably didn't allow them to do it, cause he's a stinker.
Superman and Captain America are two my of favorite characters in all of fiction. In third place is Francis Regan from Blue Bloods. Wish there were more writers like you who could do justice for these comic and videogame characters.
As a kid I saw Man of Steel and the scene where Clark was getting bullied resonated with me a lot because I was a social outcast and had few friends. Still a special movie to me to this day
I also love the scenes with him as a kid. The kids they cast were just perfect, and they showcased the unique challenges of growing up that way. Too bad it was just a taste.
@CynicalWarlock agreed. Tbh I'm so used to Man of Steel getting bashed I was ready to click off but it's nice to see someone see all the things I saw as a kid. I haven't watched in years but it left an impact. Despite Zack's storytelling flaws, I think he makes compelling movies. And I wish some people were willing to see it.
@@Neros_light There's definitely a lot to criticize and question about his films, but I get what he was going for, with them. The one part about Man of Steel that loses me, is Johnathan Kent's death scene. I get what they were going for there, too, but there were better ways to execute it, I think. On the other hand, the production values on that film are out of this world, pun not intended. Even the music - Hans' score somehow manages to create something more iconic than the original theme. It is for me, at least.
@@CynicalWarlock Hans Zimmerman is pretty good at what he does. I was surprised to find out relatively recently that he did the music for Modern Warfare 2 (2009)
Superman & Captain America are in my top 3 favorite characters in fiction and for good reason. They taught me how to be a good person and the importance of integrity in a world riddled with a lack thereof. It's not an easy struggle, but following their example doesn’t make it impossible🦸🏻♂️.
I think one of the reasons women prod and poke like you described is to figure out if someone is actually a good man or if he is iust putting on a public front to make himself look good. The risk that a man is only pretending to be good and will put the people he loves through hell behind closed doors is a reality with potentially dangerous consequences.
I never thought I would see a video discussing red pill and masculine/feminine energy new age beliefs in Mortal Kombat. The state of western mainstream entertainment is incredible.
What makes a knight in shining armor interesting isn’t that his armor is clean. It’s how he manages to keep it that way in a world of filled with blood.
Love this archetype, and it feels good to root for someone truly just. Loved Liu Kang since the 95 movie and I’ve felt like his Liu Kang is the MODEL. Mk11’s Aftermath showed me truly how much I enjoyed Liu Kang, especially with the nuance of HAVING to do something Shang Tsung would do in the end to win. When any other time, I believe Liu Kang would never be willing to sacrifice his friends. But he saw the bigger picture of being The God of Time and saw a better future ahead for everyone. Which is why I instantly chose Liu Kangs ending first. I mean, I just felt an overwhelming feeling of wanting the heroes to win. Not only that but I could beat the hell out of Cary Tagawa’s Shang Tsung?? Sign me up. Just my scattered thoughts.
11:11 Thank you! BvS is... deeply flawed, to put it nicely. It's story is a total mess, but the reason it frustrates me so much is that in spite of all its problems, it has so much going for it, so much good intent that had such incredible potential, most of which went wasted. While I can't deny that the plot and handling of characters was frequently infuriating, to those who fault the movie for making Superman struggle with backlash for his good intentions or for making Batman angry and cynical, I have to say you haven't looked deeply enough at the characters. It's such a shame WB rushed Zack's plans and kept meddling with his vision, clumsily forcing him to rush into a cinematic universe, and it probably would've helped if Christopher Nolan stuck around behind the scenes as well. Alas, we'll probably have to wait a couple decades before someone tries again at what Zack was going for, but hopefully next time it works.
Yeah I use this analogy a lot, but Zack really was tasked with making a chef's dish out of a microwave. People forget that. Whatever vision he had, had to conform with WB's idiotic desires to catch up to Marvel. And then they *further* rushed him, even more. Which is not to say his movies wouldn't have still been controversial - Zack's inherently a controversial guy. But at least we might not have had to contend with The Dark Knight Returns, Justice League teasing, Doomsday *and* the death of Superman all in one movie. And you're right, making Superman struggle with people turning on him and Batman struggle with cynicism is actually the way to challenge these characters to their max. Again, we can argue whether or not Zack did it well (there's an element of boredom and longwindedness in BvS too, which is another thing), but the intent wasn't all together stupid.
Not sure about some of the comments on women in the video, but I'll still give it a like because I agree with the overall video sentiment and a lot of it was well said. Another aspect of this I find is the idea of a Utopia, if you look at old and 90s Star Trek for example you have a VERY different "world" and show outlook than the 'modern' Trek's almost-dystopian, gritty, version. There's something really interesting and great about, to use your words, Lawful Good characters and stories that I've always been sad popular media seems to have rejected the last 20 years.
Good point. Everything is a cycle. A few decades ago, everything was hopeful, romantic, and just. The hero always won, your path in life was clear, the world was small, there were few people to compare yourself to, and you would find the love of your life. But whatever's popular inevitably goes out of fashion, sooner or later, and so the dark age of antiheros, noir stories and subversion dawned. But the pendulum will swing once more, as it always does.
Fantastic video! I'm always glad to see one of my favorite archetypes getting some love! It was brought up a bit when elseworlds were mentioned but i wanna talk about when these types of characters mess up. *a lot*. Cap, Superman and even Liu (someone might argue) mess up ofc but i don't think there's a more famous "boy scout" more impacted by his mistakes the Scott Summers. Cyclops fucks up a lot and it gets bad. He's been a bad husband, a bad father and a bad friend (and terrorist) at different times to the point it's debatable if he even *fits* the archetype, which is why I think he's such a great example of it. Especially of when a character falls short of it. Like the others, Scott is constantly tempted; towards infidelity or saying "fuck it" and going full Magneto, or even just from his powers! He's decades of self-control and a pair of aviators away from killing everyone around him.And he's succumbed to all three of them (some of them more than once 👀) which should be grounds to kick him out of the club; he should have more in common with Iron Man or somebody! And yet... Basically since he ditched his wife and kid he's been trying to make up for it and SUCCEEDING and his relationship with his wife (the one he cheated on, not the one he ditched) is as strong as ever. Nearly the entire population of his people look to him for what's right. Time and time again his steadfastness and heroism is recognized, he's mentioned in the same breath with the same* reverence as Captain America; he shares a mutual respect with the man even if they don't see eye-to-eye and their goals don't seem to align perfectly. Scott in the rest will stumble but what sets them apart is how out of character it is for them (no matter how common it may seem to us)
Gods.. DAMN it. Now I *have* to make a part 2. People kept going "Cyclops too, Scott's a boy scout too", and I'm like yeah, cool. Not enough for a 'sequel', but then I read your comment and synapses and ideas started firing. It's enough for a sequel.
Hey man! It's been a while, but I'm gkad to see your channel grow not only in numbers, but in quality as well. By the way, I must say I totally agree with every point you made on the heroes. Having their character misunderstood by the people who write them has done great famage to the public perception of them so much that it leads to a vivius circle of shorts. In addition, I think a lot of people are so used to watching the "unstoppable forces" ethically, the guys who never stop to progress, that they don't necessarily get the appeal of the "immovable objects".
My Kiiiiing! How've you been? I shit you not, just the other day, a friend of mine saw your name in my Discord app and was like "Who's Cow King?". Yeah, the immovable object seems boring to people, because writers don't focus enough on all the stuff that goes into *becoming* and *staying* immovable. It always seems easy and straightforward, and that's boring. Sorry for the long streak of MK content; had to be done. The plan is to gradually (re)include more franchises that I then 'specialize' in, like Diablo and Mass Effect, it just takes a shit-ton of time/work. Glad to hear from you, hope you're doing well.
First of all, excellent dissection of the archetype. I really enjoy genuine "boy scout" characters and there are scant things more emotionally uplifting than seeing a paragon remain just in the face of all the temptation in the world. These characters aren't necessarily static, either; they just never go below a certain moral point. As you said in the video, the fact that they *could* be tempted but actively choose not to - and have to figure out *how* not to - is what makes them compelling. There is character development in that, even if morally they say relatively on the same level. (I do think the evil superman trope has its place in reminding us that not everyone who wants us to think they're a boy scout actually is one, which is a very necessary role, but it's wildly overused outside that context.) Secondly, I have seen many comments make vague allusions to disagreeing with certain things in the video's handling of sex and/or gender without actually saying what they mean. I'll give my own perspective of this and perhaps elaborate more on how I see it. You were somewhat vague in your video on defining whether your statements on gender are "weres", "ares" or "oughts". From my own point of view, honor, integrity, mercy, courage and stalwart morality are just traits any heroic character should have regardless of gender. It's not wrong to call these masculine virtues, because masculinity is what they have been and are often associated with in our culture. But if we speak of compassion, caring, emotional intelligence and acceptance, these are "feminine" virtues that not only are also necessary for good men and good fathers, but also that many boy scout characters also embody. In that sense, it becomes a bit weird when there is constant hammering about masculinity when talking about traits that are good for all genders to possess. On a small side tangent, I don't think self-sacrifice to protect others is, even traditionally speaking, a gendered value. Yes, the way it manifests may be slightly different, but especially in the context of family, the woman is expected to make at least as great a sacrifice as the man. But to continue on the main point, I think the part that raised the most eyebrows was the mention of the redpill stuff. You are not wrong that men's and women's anger is often treated differently, but at the end of the day, in this framework, neither is taken seriously. Men are not allowed to complain; women always complain, so their complaints are probably nothing serious. Now, in an ideal world, everyone's concerns and worries would be taken seriously, but given that we don't live in one, I think this is actually where gendering moral ideals becomes dangerous. When taken from the men's side, since masculine virtue is, as you mentioned, often also seen as having too great a responsibility fail, it becomes incredibly easy for men to think they *have* failed at the smallest mistake and become either the embodiment of masculine vice instead (i.e "toxic masculinity"), or become delusional in refusal to accept their own mortality and think they are always behaving correctly (i.e "nice guys"). Also, the lack of introspection, room for self-doubt or emotional expression in this value set can very much leave men emotionally stunted. (It should again be noted that the best of moral paragon characters like Steve Rogers or Aragorn do actually display these "feminine" virtues as well; this is often framed as the "masculine" ideal including those virtues too, which I don't disagree with in the sense that men should strive to embody those virtues, but I find kind of silly because again, why call something "masculine" when it really is a moral ideal for all characters regardless of gender. At that point it genuinely becomes a question of "if one's worldview sees masculine virtue as being all but synonymous with all virtue, does that mean it also sees women as being less virtuous?") Meanwhile, the way women are treated because of the lack of agency in the traditionally feminine character can be suffocating and even reductive to women who strive for or have achieved masculine virtues, but it can also enable certain women, as you mentioned, to get away with blatantly shitty behaviour because it isn't seen as that big of a deal when a woman acts out, even if the results are genuinely significant in the negative sense. All this long, meandering talk is to say that moral paragons should be something for all genders to look up to, and I think the issue some people had with your video is that it was unclear whether you think some of these virtues are or should be only for some people, plus that comment about red pill logic getting something right when showcasing an example of a problem red pill logic basically creates for itself (since trying to insist on this disparity of virtues between genders is what creates this disparity of moral results).
There’s still a problem with this theorem of Boy Scout characters(which I would say something like Zack snyder’s take on Superman or the MCU’s captain America attempt to address) which is that there’s something metaphysically fallacious about the concept of a person whose approach to the world just so happens to be *right* from the jumping off point, a person who is born “good”. There should be something not only asinine but insidious feeling about a perfect person who can only ever be sidelined or crippled by the people around them. It invalidates the basic notion that life must be lived, that “perfection” is evolved, and that moral principles must come from somewhere they do not simply manifest sublime and incontrovertible.
Well, to clarify, Sups and Cap aren't born perfectly moral - Sups learned morals from his parents, and Cap learned it from being bullied - so when I say that they start out as moral, I mean in the story, not in the womb. In the context of the story, they begin more or less good and maintain that value, whereas other heroes (Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man) have to attain it first. I'm glad you touched on this because making a "perfect character" isn't the point; it shouldn't be the point. Perfection is the one term that is the most abstract and doesn't actually have any rooting in reality. If the hero is perfect, he is wholly unrelatable to those he's meant to inspire, so that's definitely *not* the point of Sups or Cap. The point is, as I tried to outline in the video, is that they are very much as fallible as the rest of us. And that's the part that films have failed to capture. Sups is either infallible, or he devolves into his evil Injustice version. Those are the only 2 extremes Hollywood understands, and they both miss the mark.
I really enjoyed this video, people always write off Boy Scouts but I love them because they don’t really change but they change their environment and other people for the better. I think it’s something that never truly goes out of style or gets old because trying your best to be the best person you can be is simply a part of being a human being. However there are a few things I took issue with, mostly with your views on women. Women are able to show more emotion and express them sometimes but the way you worded it sounded like this was a woman’s fault when in reality it’s because of misogynistic stereotypes of femininity, generally speaking men view women as a weaker, lesser and more emotional sex, and by proxy that means that they find it more socially acceptable for them to show said emotion. And the opposite is true for men, men are just as emotional as women however due to toxic masculinity many men need to hide their feelings becuase they are afraid of being looked down on by other men and showing emotion is almost a sign of femininity (which again they view as lesser). Also saying that a woman is seen as valued couldn’t be more wrong, if they stray away from stereotypical feminine archetype like growing body hair, wearing men’s clothes, being strong willed, or losing or gaining weight or muscle, they’re immediately attacked for it!
Anyway I’m terribly sorry for the extremely long comment, it’s just that I really enjoyed your video but your red pill stuff kinda took me out of it for a second there
One long comment deserves another.😋 It's not a "fault". I wasn't blaming women for being, on average, more emotional than men; it's a feature not a bug. And it's more than stereotypes - women birth and take care of infants, so biology evolved women to express their needs more often and men to be more inclined to listen to said needs. And I think you're very right, both men and women benefit from expressing their emotions, but past a certain point, it becomes a bit counterproductive (like you're wallowing in them more than working through them), or rather, less productive than taking action. And, once again, on average, men tend to cap out on the utility of emotional expression faster than women, because they're problem-solvers by nature. That's how they work through their emotions.
I'm actually curious as to how Bruce Banner/ Hulk would fit in the representation of masculinity discussion. Because as you stated a man cannot afford to lose control and must remain as composed as possible, BUT what if you are a man who is pushed, stressed and angered to the point where it can get really ugly, to the point where you end up driving away generally good people and attract unwanted bad attention, however you have the desire to change, to be better and be respected yet you have that ONE problem that needs to be dealt with before thinking of going that route? I don't know, just a thought. Hulk is my favorite Avenger BTW.
Yeah, I'm still salty Hulk never got a proper franchise, like the rest of em. And Endgame did him dirty. Hulk, by definition, can't be the Boy Scout masculine, despite Banner's predilection for it, because he has no or limited control over the Hulk, so whenever he morphs, it's a complete gamble. There are 2 extremes to masculinity (both of them harmful) - one is the feeble, ultra-nice guy who tries to be nice to everyone at his own expense, and the predatory, rage-filled, sociopathic monster that destroys anything and anyone in his path. Usually, guys are either one of these 2 extremes, or anywhere between, in this spectrum (dead center would be healthiest), but Jekyll and Hyde characters like Banner/Hulk are in the unique position of being both. And it mirrors real life, once again - guys who are too soft, too nice, too weak, too lazy, tend to become passive-aggressive, spiteful, prone to drinking, or bullying, in spite of themselves, because they snuff their own masculinity and it bursts out in ugly ways. Or something like that. That was longer than I'd have liked.
@@CynicalWarlock honestly, I feel the reason "boy scout" characters are annoying has nothing to do with the characters, but with the writers. They're meant to be monk's/ samurai like character's and whenever it's done in said way the character becomes beloved(Examples include: Samurai jack, Shaolin monks liu Kang, katana in Practically every version of the story, superman doomsday(2007) etc.) They have bad thought's, they aren't perfect, the thought to do evil is there, superman wanted to hit lex, he wanted to kill toymaker(and his clone did), jack wanted to lash out, but they take a moment to purge the thought, and do the right thing.
@@CynicalWarlockin summary, a boy scout character is always boring unless we see they have pure unwavering loyalty to their ideas but not their intrusive thoughts. Their emotion must be kept under control. They're a monk, and a monk isn't perfect. But they'll refuse to break their loyalties regardless.
@@almessasorrow4950 Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say - it's a writing issue. If you see these characters as perfect, stoic beings, you're missing the point. In fact, the more down-to-earth and fallible you make them, the better, because then, there's inner conflict, constant temptation, rage, weakness. This way, they can keep being the symbols that inspire us to be better, but they also become extremely relatable, instead of being distant gods.
@@fishertheadore6095 Yeah, that's the charitable interpretation. The non-charitable one is they wanted to give the female characters more importance; make it seem like Peggy inspired Steve.
Nah, not really. That movie doesn't diminish Cap or anybody much, if at all. It's one of my top MCU movies just because it does a great job of showing how these characters work.
Hm, I didn’t like the naming convention. But wanted to hear you out, and I have to say I like essay here. Because, yes the term for masculinity has been abused by our newer generation, forgetting what it’s like to have that “Old skool masculinity.” Lately it has been misunderstood how these characters are VERY compelling. But many don’t realize that
@@CynicalWarlock if you're going to add another video game character into the mix, may I suggest Leon from Resident Evil 2 and 4. Definitely a Boy scout archetype, though he does get seduced by the "bad girl" in Ada.
Such a great video dude, you’ve explained these kinds of characters so well. I’d love to see a series from you on the different archetypes in popular media, with three different characters every video could really be awesome.
One thing I find interesting is the way that some creators tend to try and approach a typical 'boy scout' character when given the opportunity to put a new reinterpretation on a established character (Usually done so in remakes and reboots). The most prominent one I can think of is Leonardo from TMNT. In the (2003?) TMNT movie he is the boy scout leader who has to deal primarily with his reckless and insubordinate brothers, but in Rise of the TMNT he is is not initially the leader, and instead is a seemingly vain, egotistical joker who uses humor to mask his insecurities and fears. His arcs are no longer about him BEING the leader, the rock, the glue holding things together but BECOMING it. Then in Mutant Mayhem the creators need the group to defy their father while not undermining Leonardo's authority as the leader of the group so they have Leonardo develop a crush on a girl as his motivation of bending/breaking the rules. Keith from Voltron Legendary Defender is one, where he is the distant loner but due to his relationship with the leader of the group, when the leader leaves, he is tasked with taking his place and him dealing with the weight of that responsibility. In my opinion that didn't work (but in my opinion a LOT of Legendary Defender didn't work) These approaches, while interesting, I feel don't ALWAYS work , it seems like they try to bypass people's opinions that Boy Scout characters are 'boring' by having these characters BE something else and them becoming the boy scout is 'meant to be' is more interesting then actually BEING the boy scout, and I don't feel that should be the case.
i liked these choices of 'boy scout' archetype characters, especially Liu Kang, one of my favorite MK characters. i feel he's very overlooked for video topics like this. Cyclops/ Scott Summers is also another i feel would be a good character to dissect if you were to make another similar video. great video!
10:35 this is pretty good psychology for how mobs operate. A very concise explanation. You know, I’ve never actually seen this channel before, but I’m surprised you’re at 9.31K subscribers! What would not surprise me, however, would be if your channel reached 20K very soon. I just subscribed!
Dude, 9k subs is legendary for me. Been stuck on a few hundred subs for the longest time. Appreciate yours, though, and the kind words. Thanks, Sasuke.
This is one of the best descriptions of why these characters work and what makes them relatable plus special. Loved the way you explained and described them. Especially when you said that their call for responsabilty lies in their desire to do good and be of service to others. In my mind I believe thats what makes a man. Their ability to say no when the world want them to kneel and to remain true to their goals. A desire to first lay down their life than to betray themselves, what they stand for and for who they stand for. Leaders eat last by Simon Sinek explains and says this in way more detail. It also explains why it works in our society. He says that we follow leaders because a true leaders cares, is capable and most of all is willing to do the things everyone is afraid of for the sake of everyone. Its why we fill inspire when a starving human with zero things to eat finds a cookie and instead of eating it, he gives it to the boy looking at him. Even knowing he may die or when a man is willing to go through strong river currents and dangerous obstacles to provide water for their home. Some characters that inspired me are actually this sort of way: Jake Sully from Avatar, Cesar from the planets of the apes, and Spiderman. They all are powerful and capable but when all seems to fail they become beacons of hope. They overcome abuse and create a world for their people in ceasars case and forgives the one that killed his family, Jake realized that its the humans that are wrong and are abusing its power and decides to create an army and go to war against machine guns, grenades and nuclear weapons with nothing but bows and arrows. In spidermans case its when he is injured, broken and has nothing but refuses to quit for the sake of another. When people push him to the limits of his sanity and he just refuses to give in. Insomniacs Marvels Spiderman showcased this when he after suffering many injuries and pain decided to let May died to save a city that paints him in a negative light. In a way it's why Anakin Skywalker is one of the most amazing characters ever. He is in many ways all these heroes. He has a life full of pain and still manages to become an excellent hero throughout the clone wars and at his most powerful self he falls and loses his way. Anakin who was known for his bravery, his desire to help his loved ones, and his "unusual"care for his fellow soldiers became his complete opposite in Vader. Narrative speaking Vader works as a great villian because we at first didnt know him. he was just lukes father, it was when the prequels came and we saw the boy, then the teen, and in the animated show the man and his values where we kinda rooted against him becoming Vader and when he did the actions that came with it was what destroyed the noble blue boy scout that we enjoyed.
Traditional storytelling abounded in this type of character: Robin Hood, the Lone Ranger, Aragorn and Faramir (not in the movies--the real Aragorn and Faramir) etc. Seems to me that if our culture doesn't understand or value this type of character, the problem is with our culture.
Everything is a trend. Traditional heroism was more widely recognized in the 90s, then it became boring and the antihero took over. Now we've reached the peak of that era, with the Homelanders and the Injustice Supermen and the satire, and I'd wager we're just about ready to come full circle back to the boy scout.
13:27 funny thing that is the main Reason in The Dark knight (graphic novel) Superman is a miserable pile of insecurities. broken by the pressure of responsibility.
@@PK-MegaLolCaT Which is why The Dark Knight Returns is such a compelling story - it shows you where these characters (and the world) risk ending up, if they fail and lose sight of who they are.
I just built in D&D what was supposed to be a big goofy farmer boy in D&D but ended at the table i fell into the big blue boyscout archetype and honestly im here for it lol.
Bro we are living in a great superman era the current comics is awesome maws is outstanding, superman and lois have been a real fateful verison to character. I think it the best time to be a superman fan right.
There is a quote from Skyrim that perfectly sums it up, "What is better? To be born good or to dedicate yourself to fighting the evil within?" Boyscout male and female heroes struggle with the darkness within them, but don't allow it to consume them. THAT'S THE POINT!
What is better, than to hear the lamentations of the women.. Yeah, jokes aside, that is raw truth - people think these heroes are boring cause they're incapable of evil, which is just wrong. They struggle with it all the time, which is the interesting part; it's just that their stories don't show that properly.
Thank you for this I often shit for not drinking. But what they don't know is that all the men my mom ever dated were alcoholics; I made a promise to myself. I'd never put those I care about through that.
The paragon character is about integrity. He is to be the incorruptible example of virtue. The story's conflict for such a character is all about the temptation to give in and take the easy road. The real story with Superman is about Clark Kent and his struggles being the paragon. The real story with Captain America is him standing up for the best of American values, even when it is against his own government.
Good emphasis: it's about Clark, the human, not the alien god. Cause to us, he is a god, but to himself, he's just a guy. It's the same with any figurehead, and remembering that they're just mortals (Marcus Aurelius-style) is a key part of not becoming corrupted.
I'd say the best way to bring to light the more compelling aspects of liu Kangs story is to take cues from cyclops rather than superman or Captain America; since scotts story not only shares details with the other three, but there are details in liu Kangs journey that also appear for cyclops but not the other two heroes. Also people didn't make fun snyders version superman for trying to explore what that character woulf be like in an mistrusting and judgmental society.
I was not a fan of Cap until Winter Soldier. I am Australian, the idea of the Star Spangled hero seemed ridiculous to me. The idea of a character who was always trying to do what was right, even when his friends were walking morally ambiguous paths… and watching those friends choose better paths because of his influence. It spoke to me in the way few things have. Now Steve Rogers is one of my favourite characters, and I am hoping that there are some stories still to come with that character in the MCU… I mean just because he and Peggy got their dance, they don’t stop being Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter - neither one is going to sit quietly on the sidelines.
Well Evans is a bit reticent to return as the character cause he doesn't wanna fuck up his own legacy, rightly so, so you'd probably have to reboot the whole thing and recast the role.
@@CynicalWarlock what Evans has said is that he would do it if they could find a script that was good that doesn’t screw things up. To me, the most appropriate place to do that is between him getting his dance with Peggy Carter and when he delivers the shield to Sam Wilson at the funeral. We got a tease that it might happen from the Red Guardian in Black Widow… Red Guardian kept asking if Steve talked about him and was obviously annoyed when she said Steve never mentioned him… but the time period was when Steve was in the ice, but also when he went back in time with Peggy Carter. It would also be a good way to introduce the wolverine.
@@CynicalWarlock indeed, that’s what I hope they do. It would be a really good way for them to introduce new ideas and world build. I am thinking Wolverine, the entire weapons+ project, Nathaniel Essex and Essex corp, plus also groups like Alpha flight and the Soviet team that Red Guardian was part of. I will note that I am assuming that Hugh Jackman is becoming old man Logan for the MCU, and that there will be a different James Howlett in the MCU.
Did not think about it this way, thank you for the new perspective on heroism. And the end about women getting crazy if they cannot budge these guys... priceless 😀
You hit a lot of nails right on the head with this video. The one issue I take with it, ironically enough, is when you slightly stray from the point. As such, what I’m about to say will probably feel tangentially-related at best, but I hope you can bear with me. 1) Yes, the role of men in a patriarchal society is to obtain “demonstrated value,” while the role of women is to retain “intrinsic value.” However, too many men see the intrinsic value of women as a kind of privilege, without truly realizing how much it sucks to be thought of as a commodity, not a person (which s all the more confusing when your labor, which is also a commodity, seems to be all you’re good for). That’s why many women fight to break out of that role, to achieve “demonstrated value.” Meanwhile, many men in the men’s liberation movement try to support each other, to acknowledge each others’ “intrinsic value” as human beings. No one really has it “easy,” and the sooner people realize this and work together to break out of this insane social structure that tells women to shut up and look pretty and tells men to shut up and work, the better. 2) Regarding your point about women being allowed to lose control: yes and no. Women are allowed to have emotions, but only the pretty ones-joy, sadness, quiet fear, motherly care. They’re not allowed to have more ugly emotions such as anger-these are reserved for men. A woman who loses control and goes on a passionate rant or punches someone is seen as “hysterical,” losing any respect she’s managed to earn amongst her peers, because that’s not her job under our gender system. Her job is to be quiet, pretty, and maintain her “intrinsic value.” As such, I think your point about “Boy Scout masculinity” being closer to women’s role in society than most masculine tropes is right on the head. The Punisher shoots people in a rage, and that’s what he’s supposed to do. Iron Man yells and punches another guy in a burst of anger, and it’s seen as natural. However, Superman loses control and lunches someone-he’s not allowed to do that. He has his moral value he must retain. Anyways, those are my only real qualms with your video. Overall, it was a fantastic breakdown of Boy Scout masculinity!
And that's all fine and dandy - men obviously have *some* intrinsic value and women obviously have capacity for labor and acquired value, and comforting each gender with this fact and that it's not supposed to be such a black and white thing is a very healthy thing to do, never said I was against that. I would, however, opine that people try to steer things too far in the other direction, trading one extreme for the other, which is just as unhealthy. A movement that turns women into pure labor beings is not empowering, just as a movement that overemphasizes feelings and glorification of the self at the expense of working on the future self is detrimental to them. Men being more aggressive is seen as more natural because men have more testosterone than women, so it's accepted as kind of a given, just like protecting women is accepted as a given. But that doesn't mean that men get a pass for it and women don't. Far from it. Both lose respect when they lose their temper, and men are incarcerated way more than women because they're more destructive. So the world is more weary of male anger than female anger; rightfully so. At the same time though, the world is more weary of female manipulation than male manipulation, because women learned to be better at it, because of the discrepancy in physical strength and aggression, so it balances out. Great points and worth talking about and clarifying. Very glad you enjoyed the video.
@@CynicalWarlock I do agree that trading one extreme for another is a bad idea, but most movements regarding this aren’t trying to turn women into labor machines or men into glorified man-candy so much as to achieve equity, that each may not be limited by the roles thrust upon them by society. And yes, men aren’t given a free pass on anger and acting out by any means; I simply meant that we don’t experience the same level of social punishment for it. However, to go into that would require an in-depth analysis of gender-based socialization and how that affects everything from worldview to expressions of neurodivergencies, and I don’t have time rn, so I’ll leave it here. It was good discussing this, though!
I think gon is the best example, because on paper he seems like the pinacle of a boyscout steriotype. . . Then you actually pay attention to the story and realize the moral dilemas have changed him in many many ways. His best friend is an assasin, he began seeking out revenge, and he spared murderers because he has no personal beef with them. Not because they are good or bad. He lets the bad guys persist so long as they sta out of his way, and somewhere along the way you realize the story doesn't care about good or evil.
I had to read that twice to make sure you were actually referencing Hunter x Hunter. Wonderful anime. It's funny you mention Gon as a boy scout, cause there's this running gag in the community that he's a sociopath, because of the way he handled some situations. But I agree with you, there are plenty of scenes that show him as a true.. well, let's call it a childish boy scout; the kiddie version that hasn't fully matured yet. He spares enemies, he converts people to his cause, he dates the almost literal incarnation of negative femininity, and successfully tames her, he inspires an assassin to be a better person, he's a trooper.
I really like this discussion of the Boy Scout masculinity and masculinity as a whole. Although I don’t fully agree with the idea are ‘born with value and do not need to prove it’ though. I think woman are born with a specific power which brings a completely different list of responsibilities. It’s very minor and not the main point of the video. Either way, this was an excellent listen
Yes, there's a bit of a trick there - women *are* born with (more) value (than men) but they have to cultivate traits like warmth, humility, and self-respect, in order to not lose that value. So both men and women need to develop in their own way.
One character that I think of that also embodies this archetype is Lucy MacLean from the Fallout tv series. In fact it's a rare example of a female character having boy scout morality. Throughout the entirety of that show, in a world in which everything is fucked up, and just about everyone is an asshole, she still maintains her morality, even referencing the golden rule in an episode. If you haven't seen the show, I highly recommend. It's freakin great!
Here is a thought about a heroic main character. No need for tragic backstory (optional but no essential). No need for complicated psychology and personality (also optional but not essential). Just keep the motivation simple. They want to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Compassion, empathy and helping others is the driving force. This creates conflict in our complicated and nuanced world. You have all the ingredients right there for a compelling story.
How does he or she *know* what's the right thing to do? You need some kind of thing that instilled that value in the hero, even if it's as simple as Captain America having gotten bullied as a child. Then again, this could make for an interesting story - an environment littered with shady, conniving, lying terrible people that all get inspired and swayed to be better by the hero, who's good for no reason. You never explain it, but have him imply something to the effect of "it's not me who's better than everyone else, it's everyone else that's just lashing out because they're suffering".
@@CynicalWarlockI was actually thinking of Paddington Bear. Immigrant who comes to Britain, as a warm hearted good natured, uncomplicated individual. He finds his place in society by filling a void. He is the good guy that our cynical world needs. He inspires others to be better.
This is the exact reason i dont understand Henry Cavill superman haters. He is consistently tested, he is a great person inside but is constantly forced to make the difficult decision, living with it is his conflict. Saving his father is the easy thing, listening to him as he watched him die is the hard decision, killing zod is easy, so he does his best to stop him without killing him (taking out the ships first) Then he realizes there is no end without killing him, in the end he realizes that the easy decision was actually the hardest as any sense of his previous life (which he spends most of the movie searching for) is now gone. In BVS we get an amazing version where superman is the best he’s been and yet he faces controversy for doing so, he slowly begins to lose faith in the world and it takes Batman sparing him and saving martha to bring him back, eventually realizing that the world is worth more than his life as he sacrifices himself. In JL he gets revived and realizes that the world needs a superman whether they like it or not and decides to do the right thing in the face of people who dont trust him and shame him. And it makes me really upset because this is one of the best arcs i’ve seen for a “boy scout” archetype and people dont care because they only take a surface-level look at everything and deem it incorrect
They hate his Superman because Snyder deliberately sucked out most of the joy of being Superman, as he wanted to focus on the difficult parts of it. Good point about Zod; people kind of skirt around the idea of Superman having to kill the last of his kind, and how that's the difficult, moral choice - cause Zod and his crew were never gonna stop attacking Earth. People hate it cause they get hung up on no-kill rules, which is fine, except, in a real world scenario, no-kill rules sometimes go out the window, as it did in that scene. And Zack is very much interested in the real world scenario. BvS Sups is the one I've warmed up to the most, because that film shows what it's actually like to attain power (especially in the form of fame/notoriety) - people adore you at first, but eventually, you "fall off". Every celebrity, public figure, government official, content creator eventually "falls off", and you wind up with the Green Goblin quote, whereby people subconsciously want to see you fail, fall, die trying, get off the spotlight. BvS Superman explores that to its ultimate conclusion. It could've done it way better - especially the Doomsday part - but it still gets the job done. The father death scene is where Man of Steel loses me, though. I get what they were going for (finally), but there were better ways to do such a scene. And indeed this is a boy scout arc, which is rare, given how static these characters are.
@@CynicalWarlock that's a lie , Zack Snyder and modern writers can't write a character like superman without making the general audience hate him or think he's boring
@@dukeheavens9990 Strange considering Zack’s movies are Superman’s highest grossing movies by a landslide. I think the issue is that you genuinely believe that and thereby apply that thinking to everything he does as if it were true. This is what I mean when i say people took the movies at face value and said they understood them when in reality they didn’t. Just because the colors are dark doesn’t mean the message is, its very much a story of hope and determination
They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son. - Jor-El - Superman
You had me until you started yapping about this bitter vision of gender dynamics. There was a distinction that you were drawing between masculinity and femininity and their self control, but I'd argue that in a modern context, wielding your resources in service of others is a much more feminine trait. After all, male influencers online are largely teaching men to take for themselves. Find a wife that lives in service for you, have some kids to mold into your image, start a business that benefits you above the others working for or buying from you. I agree that it's very masculine to be a community leader and use that to protect and lift up others around you, but to contrast that from a woman's potential in society is parallel with the Andrew Tates of the world, even if you find their portrayal of masculinity disagreeable. Your lines about untested men being cast aside come from a chronically online viewpoint. Untested in what way? You showed pictures of skinny Steve Rogers, but there are plenty of "low value" men who get good jobs, start families, and gain respect purely by virtue of their character, which is the core of the archetype you're talking about. Also, your comment about how a man can't afford to inflict violence on a woman rubbed me the wrong way. It's not like sparing a woman your abuse is some honorable act of self control. These characters have great power and aren't temped by outside forces, but it's their character that defines them. Not the fact that they don't just slaughter anyone who opposes then
You know what, to a degree. You're right. But I don't think you understand what he was trying to convey. Superman's struggle isn't that hes better than Woman because he's has more responsibility as a Man... Its that his powers result he have self restraint ... But it compares to the dichotomy of the struggles of a Man and Woman. It ISN'T GOOD for Men OR Women to Hit EACH OTHER, but in ALL honesty who are you going to emphasize With More ; "The Woman hitting the man" or "the Man hitting the woman ." restraint is a natural human emotion. What's a differs for both genders. We all make different choices based on our upbringing rather than our sex. However, we still are influenced by it. Although both genders have inheritant responsibilities. It is GENERALLY more accepting for a woman to be more empathize from the general public. Due to their emotional sensitivity. In contrast, Men are held up to a higher level of responsibility. Due to the natural traits to provide, protect and contributing to their status. Of course, there are Woman show more restraint than Man due to understanding and compassion out of empathy. And with that compassion, the Man is able to uphold his own responsibility by his own choice in life but This differs from person to person. But in general. The struggles of woman capture more emotional empathy in comparison. But the responsibility of both isn't to compete for it, but to show it to others in need of it.... Kinda like Superman..
"I'd argue that in a modern context, wielding your resources in service of others is a much more feminine trait. After all, male influencers online are largely teaching men to take for themselves. Find a wife that lives in service for you, have some kids to mold into your image, start a business that benefits you above the others working for or buying from you." - And female influencers use their sexuality and OnlyFans accounts to pray on ugly, weak, emotionally vulnerable men and grab their money. They're modern vampires. So I don't see how male influencers are worse than female ones. "Your lines about untested men being cast aside come from a chronically online viewpoint." - They come from real life. In the environment I grew up in, men are expected to work, provide, get a driver's license, get a house, marry early, have kids early, make as much money as possible, and any deviation from that is seen as peculiar weakness, whereas a woman is just expected to find a good man to take care of her and give her kids. This is not an artificially constructed online viewpoint, it's deep-seated beliefs cultivated over very long periods of time, that stem from the natural aptitudes and proclivities of each gender. Men who are unskilled, out of work, passive, and unambitious are deemed useless, and women who exhibit the same traits are not. And that's ok; we answer to different hierarchies of value. It's not a competition. "there are plenty of 'low value' men who get good jobs, start families, and gain respect purely by virtue of their character, which is the core of the archetype you're talking about." - You're proving my point for me - men who get jobs at all, let alone good ones, manage to start families and are virtuous are *not* low-value men. They couldn't be further from concept. A low-value man is one who has none of those; who has no skills, no responsibility, nothing to offer the world. Such a man should, indeed, be dismissed. "Also, your comment about how a man can't afford to inflict violence on a woman rubbed me the wrong way. It's not like sparing a woman your abuse is some honorable act of self control. These characters have great power and aren't temped by outside forces, but it's their character that defines them. Not the fact that they don't just slaughter anyone who opposes then" - They absolutely are tempted by outside forces, as well as by their inner thoughts. Why not just kill a supervillain who's causing trouble? And why stop there? Why not kill any petty thief, while we're at it? Why not force the nations of the world to make peace and do things my way? Why not use our star-spangled popularity and cultivate an army of crazed fanatics, enamored by our influencer-worthy speeches? Where do you draw the line? The utility of spoofs like Injustice Superman and The Boys is to teach this exact lesson. So long as you have power - over anything or anyone - you will always be tempted to misuse it. And in that same way, your average man, who has physical, and sometimes verbal, or authoritative power over a woman, will always need to temper that power with grace, humility, steadfastness, and a level head, lest he abuse that power. Just like how women need to temper their own seductive power, lest they abuse that. Hope I filled in some of the blanks, a little bit. Thanks for the comment, this was stimulating.
Great video! Gave me a lot to think about with this character archetype I love so much. Also made me look at the Snyder DC films in a new light for sure, although I don't think I could ever really like them. I find it supremely boring how prevalent the "Evil Superman" archetype is (although it seems to me like maybe there's starting to be a downtrend?). Like the goal of it is to make them more interesting by taking them from being a stock hero archetype and making them a stock villain archetype...? Like, don't get me wrong, I love very traditional character archetypes, but taking Liu Kang from typical zen martial arts monk hero and then making him the literal devil doesn't make him more interesting, it just swaps him to the other extreme. On a related note, I find it interesting that the pure good heroes are often considered boring, but pure evil villains (like Darkseid and Shao Khan) are often loved.
Amazingly put - that's exactly why Injustice Superman and revenant Liu Kang and all those don't work. Hit the nail on the head. And yes, there is a clear bias toward villains, in the public's eyes, probably because villains represent everything that people cannot do, but sometimes wish they could. Break all the rules, indulge in all the dark urges. Meanwhile, the ultimate good guys are 'boring', because they have to respect every rule.
18:12~18:35 a crowning achievement for why the pre-Phase 4 MCU was so entertaining and fun to watch even if when it all started w/a (*Paramount*) produced Iron Man we were skeptical about how things would pan out (we anxiously still are in a way) without say the prevalent angst that 90's highlighted mutants and X-men have to put up with. We did good on highlighting a character (Steve Rodgers) who many like myself worried wouldn't work beyond being a maudlin cornball with antiquated and arguably jingoistic undercurrents and the part about 'a man born with a significant ability (like say prodigious intelligence) who'll have to resist a world swaying them to use it less scrupulously' is something we might well see upcoming with Reed Richards and the F4. That point about 'born with..power but learns moral power along the way'.. :) ..I'm hoping to see the mutant community highlight upcoming ;) .
Yeah well the jingoistic Captain America arguably wouldn't have worked as well (or at all) without a good enough roster of characters to interact with - his polar opposite in Iron Man, the devious Black Widow, the funny goofy Scandinavian uncle that is Thor - so it's an important lesson to learn, the fact that sometimes, the way to improve a character or highlight their strengths isn't really about the character at all, it's about placing them in the right environment.
The problem with MoS was not that Snyder depicted Superman as detached but Snyder depicted Superman as an objectivist he will help when it fits him He should do this multiple times in the movie - Kissing Lois while hundreds-thousands are still under the ruble dying or at the end of the movie he says: "I will help but it has to be on my terms." That is not sacrificing yourself for a higher purpose or for others but no sacrifice at all. Yes, Superman helps and saves but only when it fits him. This is a Superman that will turn it's back at humanity when humanity is no longer gives him something.
Not sure which kissing you're referring to, but a smooch takes like 2 seconds and is done for the cameras, not sure that's relevant. "I will help but it has to be on my terms" likely refers to his secret identity, as the government was tryna track his movements with satellites.
@@CynicalWarlock 1. The kiss is far longer then 2 seconds 2. No the it has to be on my terms is not about the satalite or privacy this is about his attitude in general this is the whole movie obligation, destiny vs free will with Snyders solution of objectivism reflected in view points also in BvS (Martha K. You don't own them anything, comment to Lois: You, are my world. Even Snyder in his interviews said this. We would get the trad. Superman in the end. Why? Because death changes you. Which makes Superman being good not a decision or a principle formed by his parents or which was his nature but Supernatural because service an never lead to satisfaction. = Snyder not understanding the characters
I think “Hidalgo” and “Quigley Down Under” are two of the best examples of this archetype in film. Book Aragorn is written this way also, but his movie counterpart strays into the Heroes Journey archetype.
Aragorn is an interesting topic for discussion. Book Aragorn is cut and dry, yeah, he has Anduril from the start, he plans to become king from the beginning etc. Movie Aragorn is still every bit as good and dedicated, but he doesn't want to be king; he's a reluctant hero. But he's never tempted by the ring, he never has outbursts, there's no stain on his morality apart from refusing his birthright which can be seen as calousness or cowardice. So it's an interesting thing, he almost blurs the line between Boy Scout and non-Boy Scout.
@@CynicalWarlock Right. I think it’s another case of the writers not being “comfortable(?)” with the “Boy Scout”, and feeling like they have to try and give him a “becoming a hero” arc rather than letting him be the leader that he was written to be in the book.
@@LaVidaAwesome Fair point, although I can see where Peter Jackson was coming from; recently discussed this with my brother actually. The hero's journey stuff translates to film way better.
@@CynicalWarlock For sure. Master Samwise does a deeper dive into the differences between LotR book and movie characters. I put the link to his video on Aragorn in case you haven’t seen it. ruclips.net/video/GruFzUsKddI/видео.html
"The point is to resist" is what a lot of people miss about the static character. When a character starts out good but is pushed to break and go bad, but they don't, that can be very cool.
This is exactly why i love superman so much. He has ALL the power, but uses it purely for good. Even when things get really bad, he reminds himself that to give into that negative emotion, that anger, is to be no better than the for hes facing
@@sandalloveromg And it's something you verify, in real life - when you 'have power' over someone, and you abuse it, you always end up regretting it. If you tell someone their work is trash, if you over-punish someone for a mistake and hold it against them forever, they'll shut off from you, lose faith in themselves and their potential.
Officer Nolan from the Rookie is also a good example.
Specifically the moment Rosalin realized she couldn't do it.
She couldn't break him.
I have seen way too many authors bait this exact question before making mc an unlikeable pos and then act like it was cool and badass. Like, this removes so much possible conflict from the story just to act like it was cool
Captain America in the MCU is the perfect execution of that.
Boyscout masculinity gets a bad wrap bc it's not very advantageous to the individual using it. It's best employed in servitude, but is without a doubt the best form of masculinity for saviors. It retains practicality while still being hopeful & just. Warlord masculinity (Shao Kahn, Darkseid etc.) is the polar opposite; the best for the individual. Physical dominance & aggression tempered with ruthless cunning & leadership acumen; it's primed to come out on top in most arenas of life.
"Toxic Masculinity" is a pale, fake imitation of Warlord masculinity in much the same way that "Nice Guys" seem to be a pale, fake imitation of Boyscouts.
^ nailed it.
Damn.....I'd love to buy you a drink
Best comment yet..
I'm glad you brought up "nice guys" and how they're weak, sleazy opportunists in disguise, echoing Jordan Peterson's own thoughts on em. And great categorization of the selfless vs self-driven masculine styles and their faux versions.
Boy Scout masculinity actually *is* advantageous to the individual - the guy who's always jovial and never judgmental is the one who makes the most friends; the guy who's honest is trusted; the guy who's positive instead of a bitchy Debbie Downer is the guy people feel comfortable around and want to hang out with. It's the kind of person you want to have in your life. And from that comes opportunity. Once you've made a bunch of friends, contacts, and built a solid reputation, you are now lightyears ahead of someone who knows no one or has a bad reputation. Success is not what you do, it's who you know. The problem with Boy Scouts is they tend to just help people and never ask for help back, and they also leave themselves open to abusers, takers and opportunists.
I also think that, competent as they are, warlords who enslaved their home realms and devoted their lives to conquering and/or killing anything that is not them qualify as toxically masculine.
@@CynicalWarlock I think it's more accurate to say boy scout can be advantageous to the individual, much like warlord can actually be disadvantageous. By your own admittance being a boy scout is only beneficial when there's something to gain from companionship. On a similar note being a warlord is only "toxic" when they willingly choose to reject companionship as a possible option in the first place. Both of these things are fair to say in our current society, but not necessarily in every scenario.
A problem I have with using warlord as the opposite of boy scout is it's only more "beneficial" when the individual alone already has enough power to do what they consider necessary. (Warlord also has a generally negative connation) If the spectrum is intended to be Idealism/kindness over realism/efficiency the word I'd choose is tactician.
Much like how a boy scout should have an understanding that morals alone can't always solve problems, a tactician should understand that a society with a strong foundation is ultimately more efficient in the long run. Both have more positive connotations, and they're likely to align for the most part. When there's choice between morals and actually getting the job done is when they start to converge.
A boy scout would obviously be a better choice in a perfect world(or as a being with powers necessary to reach their ideals), but that doesn't necessarily mean a tactician is completely "bad" for willingness to sacrifice "goodness" for what they perceive as a "greater good". On a similar note, by nature of tacticians already being partially "corrupted" there's less focus on being the example to live by, and more about being able to keep a healthy vision without losing their way.
tactician isn't any better of a comparison as warlord for "toxic masculinity" to be a negative imitation for, but that's more because it's too complex of a concept for this spectrum.(arguably being suicidally selfless and being destructively selfish are both toxic and displays of masculinity) I guess a negative imitation of a tactician...would in itself be a warlord? At least if the implication is that a selfless society will always ultimately overcome a selfish one.
Absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely; it shows us who we are. In the case of Superman specifically, I once heard someone say that the prospect of a man with ultimate power who chooses good is much more interesting than a powerful man who chooses evil. To expand on that, we have countless examples of powerful characters who choose to do evil with their gifts. Clark’s choice to use his powers to serve humanity (despite being able to control or destroy Earth in one fell swoop) makes him much more compelling than if he gave into his vices and turned into another Homelander or Omniman. It’s ultimately why he’s the face of all superheroes.
Absolutely, and the proof is in real life: as you attain more power, the temptation to misuse it grows exponentially - to cheapen the product to get more sales, to take sponsorships from companies you don't believe in, to play favorites with your employees or children, to lie to your audience, to support a certain interested party during the next election - a powerful man who chooses evil isn't interesting an interesting story, it's the most boring, expected fucking thing on the planet. Struggling to not give into temptation, that's the interesting story.
@@CynicalWarlock A-freaking-men
@@swolecapybara I just noticed your name; gave me a good chuckle.
@@CynicalWarlock Haha I made it on an impulse. 😂 Glad you like it.
Давайте будем честными-сейчас и на протяжении всей истории человечества,люди имеющие власть,чаще совершали плохое чем хорошее.Возьмем даже 21 век:правительства стран создают искусственные войны,на которых будут погибать люди,ради идей придуманных этими «властьимущими»,но в которых сами «властьимущие»не верят.Думаю власть никогда не будет принадлежать хорошим людям,а если и будет,то единицам из общего числа.
It's for precisely those reason why Superman and Captain America are my favorite superheroes. That unshakable integrity, is something I can both relate to, and inspires me to be a better man.
As it should.
@@CynicalWarlock
Hold up, hold up.
In the case of Kang Liu(Liu Kang is not the right pronunciation in Chinese names. His surname is Kang, his name is Liu, so the right way to pronounce it should be Kang Liu), he did not always win.
In fact, he lost, and got humiliated as well. Check Mortal Kombat again.
Even in the movie Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion's Revenge, Kang Liu was almost killed by Goro, before he got saved by Hasashi Hanzo.
Kang Liu did not always win, buddy. Superman did.
@@dinhlien980 Ohh, forgive me for forgetting about Scorpion's Revenge, the bastion of authority on all things canon, that absolutely all the games, comics, and fanbases respect.
But captain America starts out as a weak, normal human
@@jadacampbell9331 He starts out weak physically. Morally, he's sound, from the first frame.
I've never liked the Evil Superman archetype. It's the most obvious thing an amoral person with power to become. A moral amd righteous person with the person who constantly being attacked in all kinds of physical and mental ways and still choosing to do the right thing is far more interesting.
Precisely. The temptation to evil is valid, that's the one thing Injustice got right. But Sups actually going bad is what makes him uninteresting, not the other way around, because as soon as he becomes a tyrant, it's either game over (as it would be, in real life), or, now, the emphasis is completely shifted to the resistance who's trying to take him down, and what an impossible task that is.
It was interesting the first time it happened, but now it’s literally just the same thing over and over again
@@eddisonwilde4699 and technically Injustice wasn't the first time DC did it, I don't know when Red Son was first published but I do know the DCAU did it twice
@jc500 thanks, haven't read Red Son, cause when I first heard about it, it was seeing the cover for the film adaptation, and I thought "Really? They're gonna turn Superman into a communist?"
Injustice Superman was an interesting take on the character because he didn’t think himself as the villain
People wont want to hear it but Batman is actually a boyscout masculine type character. He doesn't kill no matter what. He's impartial. He'll turn on his own people if he thinks they're doing wrong. Like when it was revealed he had a plan to take out each member of the Justice League if needed. He stands on his morals and doesn't budge.
Pretty much correct. I see Bats as a hybrid archetype, because he both goes through a kind of origin story/hero's journey, in many interpretations, but also ends up with a no-kill rule (again, in most interpretations), so he's very similar to Sups, in this respect. And the temptation element is present in Batman stories more so than in any other - he's always tempted yo fall to the dark side, to kill, to misuse his power, and all the femme fatales tempting him and out to get him are like the cherry on top.
No joke, Adam West's Batman portrayal fit the archetype perfectly. Unfortunately he tends to get forgotten in the face of the darker takes on the character that used getting as far away from West as possible as a measure of quality.
@@olliehearton I think there's a way to revive that style of Batman that makes sense. That's what they tried with Clooney's Batman and failed, miserably, so it's admittedly a tough task.
Except he does
I think Batman is one of the most pure hearted heroes out there in my opinion. The fact that he still believes anyone can change, even the Joker despite everything he did says a lot about him. And the fact that he gives petty criminals a home or a job opportunity at Wayne Enterprises shows how boundless his compassion is. He knows what it’s like to be lonely, lost, and have your world be taken away so violently. So he’s willing to give them what he wished he had as a boy.
Spider-Man: "Wow, I'm like him"
Superman: "Wow, I want to be like him."
Exactly.
I think spider-man whould be like i wish i could be like him
I think a lot of the bad faith criticism of boyscout characters is from the mistaken belief that they're largely reactionary: They don't move the plot forward, the plot moves them forward. This is completely wrong. They're not static, they're disciplined and know not to take their problems out on others. That's a good thing since they're not going to make things worse like angry folks (like Scorpion killing Quan-Chi in X, thus ending all chance to save the Revenants).
Its crazy how many people call Luke Skywalker boring when he's the base of star wars and its themes. Luke and other characters like them are awesome.
A hero should not seek needless conflict anyways.
now people say Goku isn't a hero because he loves conflict, but he clearly only wants a one on one fight, he absolutely hates it when his friends, family and home are threatened.
@@josesosa3337 Yeah, Luke is George Lucas' entire thesis on heroes and family.
And Disney killed him.
Well yeah, you could say that them being static is what moves the plot forward. The rest of the world pulls itself down, everybody landing in the same pool of muck, perpetually, and so that becomes static, because it's an endless, expected cycle. In that context, the boy scout becomes the 'dynamic' character, by not letting themselves get dragged into the muck.
@CynicalWarlock in fact they were the characters holding out a limb or rod for the people in the muck to grab so the hero can pull them out of the muck
Boy scout masculinity is the purist and healthiest form of masculinity that everyone man should aspire to live up to. Being a boy scout, being a good man may not get you appreciated but it will get you respected. As the late James Earl Jones once said:"There is no greater purpose in life for a man, then to serve his fellow man."
That last part is so true.
I’d like to appreciated but I understand what you mean
@@Theloststranger-jg5kn It often ends up getting you appreciated too.
"Before we go... let us remember our code. Let us strive every moment of our lives to make ourselves better and better to the best of our ability so that all may profit by it. Let us think of the right and lend our assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice. Let us take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage. Let us be considerate of our country, our fellow citizens, and our associates in everything we say and do. Let us do right to all - and wrong no man." - Doc Savage - Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)
The idea that these characters are faced with corruption but resist it even when most people will scumb to is very interesting and compelling to me. They stand tall and strong when most would fall. And that is something, know that I think about, is something I really admire and hits close to home.
I don't understand why some people see this as boring. Maybe its just different live experience or expectations but I think it is interesting.
Anyways thank you for the video. It really touches on something that isn't discussed much.
This is just a theory, but I suspect people who have endured a lot of hardship and betrayal have a deep appreciation for this archetype. Conversely, people who lived mostly sheltered lives crave more exciting, antihero-style archetypes, and find the boy scout boring.
@@CynicalWarlock that does make sense. people who struggled most likely appreciate seeing people who are struggling but made it through. While people who haven't experienced that don't really get it. Which is fine but they lack a bit of perspective.
It's not boring at all, it's the story of my life.
I think because so many people are either lost souls, morally grey, or just don't bother resisting they don't find this to be an interesting story element.
@@CynicalWarlock While interesting in theory, my personal experience is rather opposite, I grew up very sheltered in the middle class home, to the point of being homeschooled, and while I've had some drama in my life I can't claim to any great tragedies. Yet even as a teenager and young adult I was always more drawn to these types of heroes than the antiheros and edgy heroes. I always wanted to be Luke, Superman was better than Batman, and the famous Captain America speech regarding being the immoveable moral tree resonated with me.
Further, my experience has been opposite too, people who have faced hardship and betrayal in their lives have often expressed the most distaste for this archetype, claiming it is "unrealistic" and believing that nobody can truly be like this.
@@cygnusprime6728 that does make sense. People who find these kind of stories boring often have no experience similar to the trope.
Which does suck that they let it inform them. Its an interesting story element as you said.
This is exactly why I love true good characters and like writing them . Seeing someone be corrupted , break, and or redeem themselves after being unable to handle stress has a place and can be done very well. But i always find it more satisfying to see someone successfully resist and keep their morality. Also showing people that you can resist you can fight back against temptation and win? Is inspiring. Its also why I love writing stuff for my true good character.
@@longthornhenderson331 Yes, the struggle is the interesting part. The guys who are fearless, for instance, can't be brave. There's no struggle there.
@@CynicalWarlock oh yeah. Like you bringing up the cardboard speech (goated scene btw) was amazing like yeah thats an exaggeration of what we have to do every day, keep emotions ubder control, stay calm dont give in to temptation. None of us have to worry bout nuking the planet if we step too hard but we do have to worry about the temptation of going nucleur
Emiya Shirou
This is how Michael Bay ruined Optimus Prime, by not understanding he is supposed to be the father figure type hero, not the war criminal because it is cooler.
@@Atomicsaurian I really should've stopped watching, after Revenge of the Fallen.
But I didn't.
Fml.
@CynicalWarlock I will be the first to admit the 1st had potential. And yes it suffered from Typical Hollywood problems but you have to wonder at the fact the they got worse the more creative control Bay got. Then Bumblebee took it completely out of his hands and it was wonderful. I can't say this is causality over correlation....
@@Atomicsaurian The intro of the first Transformers film was godlike. If the rest of the film/franchise kept that tone, it might have been seminal.
@CynicalWarlock I can shut off the mind and enjoy the films but I feel bad for Peter, who made the character so iconic only to have Bay turn him into everything Peter promised his brother the character wouldn't be.
I remember there was a moment in Simon Furman's run in the Marvel comics where it states that every night Optimus would ask his computer to recite every life lost in the war, an abbreviation on the ones who's life he took, and he would just sit there, meditating on if the war was worth it or not.
To me that's Optimus, a man who does something he hates but does it because he must.
Not quite the same thing, but something that came to kind when watching your video is the Teen Titans episode: Troq. Just about every protagonist on that show is some kind of moral paragon, and Starfire really shines through that episode despite being tested, belittled, and hated the whole episode through, and having no support for half of it.
"You may not value my life, but I still value yours!"
Sounds like exactly what I'm talking about.
Another thing I forgot to say, regarding the title of the video, is that people often call these characters "boy scouts" as an insult.
But I don't know if the same people realise how many useful skills and values one learns from the scouts.
It's a lot more than tying knots lol.
So yeah, I'd rather be a scout than not tbh.
Great point. When shit hits the fan, you'd much rather have a boy scout next to you, than the cool kid.
Boy Scouts do not teach moral lessons
In a similar vein, people would use the phrase "bleeding-heart" as an insult when the term was originally used to describe Jesus and his compassion for others.
@@dragodadragon Interesting! I did not know that lol. Thanks!
#TheMoreYouKnow
@@ExpertContrarian Neither do superhero boy scouts, technically, they just do cool shit and inspire people.
A real man-defined not by gender, but by character and status. Well said.
You need to be a man to be a real man
I’m glad you made this by the way.
Fun fact: Fans compares Captain America and Superman to each others morally because they both fight for truth, justice and the American way. Both wear blue and red.Both are the symbol of hope
@@TheEditWiz_edits If either of them existed in real life I would literally die for them. I'm not even American. That's a character I can get behind. Boring my eye.
If they lived in the same universe, they'd be great friends.
@@LegendStormcrow other then the fact cap will kill without mercy but yeah besides that they would be good friends
Why?@@alastairolson3226
For me that's the best character archetype
Probably objectively, too.
Any man can have power
It’s what you do with that power that makes a good man
100%.
You call it "Masculinity." I call it "being a decent human being."
A most basic prerequisite of masculinity.
People like you always want to take something away from men wether it be the self less ones or the individualistic ones, all these qualities are based in masculinity, are based in manhood, stop trying to disregard men and masculinity by bringing in oh it’s just good humans, people like you need to just stop
What's wrong with masculinity? You act as if being masculine is a bad thing.
@@edsonvieira7389 Nah he just meant that people should strive for these kinds of values by default, regardless of the labels we put on them.
@@edsonvieira7389probably just triggered because some of these traits aren't the first things you think of when you think of female qualities. Doesn't mean there can't be some women who have them, but being stoic, having self control, and selflessly and thanklessly sacrificing yourself for others are usually masculine traits.
And this is why Steve Rogers, not Tony Stark, has always been my favorite Avenger.
@@MrEffectfilms He's definitely the tougher character to understand and get right.
@@CynicalWarlock Yup, all Tony has to do is be funny and people will love him.
12:59 - 13:13 1st of all agree with that whole sentence. But thank you for putting some respect on my boys Liu, Cap, and Supes, it gets genuinely tiresome seeing people say they are boring cause no development when there are ways to make them interesting even without developing them and sometimes it's good to have a character that's just a nice just to be nice person and not have everyone be a brooding dark anti hero all the time, as much as I love Batman if everyone was like him it'd get boring.
That's actually when Cap/Sup/Kang shine - when everyone else is an asshole. They're like a breath of fresh air in a polluted megalopolis. Now that I think about it, that may be part of why Liu Kang is more appreciated than the other 2 - because almost everyone in MK-land is some kind of evil, devious, sleazy, comically megalomaniacal piece of shit.
12:59 - 13:13 - And yeah, that phrase shouldn't be controversial, but here we are.
@@CynicalWarlock also forgot to mention but cyclops from X-Men can apply here as well. And yeah your statement shouldn't be controversial or a hot take even but unfortunately it is.
@@welchrebooted4739 Oh yeah, Cyclops definitely qualifies, minus perhaps his relationship antics in the comics.
Another boyscout character that people misunderstand is cyclops.
I don't know how to explain here myself, but there's videos you can see, just type, "why cyclops is underrated".
Oh, you don't need to explain yourself. Cyclops is that leader that everyone complains to and about, yet that everyone would crumble without.
Because you know how true it is. It's wild how people dicked on him for years. Only to meat ride him when he's all anti hero/magneto like. I've always loved boy scout cyclops and 97 did it right and then some
As a fighting game fans, I always like Liu Kang since day one. Out all of the protagonist in fighting games, Liu Kang is the only one who truly has a character development (second to him is probably Jin Kazama from Tekken).
И оба в данный момент возможно являются сильнейшими персонажами своих вселенных.
He's definitely slowly growing out of the Bruce Lee clone that he started off as.
"...[not] mortal danger, but moral danger."
What a fantastic sentence for summarizing this concept of the "boy scout" hero. This perfectly encapsulates the core of the conflict with these types. Absolutely genius.
Thank you. Guess I should make a #short out of that part, then.
You really nailed this archetype, it's to resist, and being the pure hearted good person, it probably is the oldest hero trope and most basic moral of all. These heroes are the beacon of light that people gather. Just a real one that people can get behind. While I always prefer the more interesting anti-heroes because they are more fun (like I always relate to Han Solo better than Luke), there is no denying the boy-scout is ultimately the real hero of the story.
Ah, finally, an appreciator of both archetypes.
19:31 That punchline had me dyin' bro. 💀
On a more serious note, this is an argument that I, myself, am tempted to engage in as well, because of just how many people, friends included, who I see disliking and trash-talking Superman, Captain America, and characters like them.
Sure, Superman is bloody overpowered in many stories.
Fine, Cap can maybe be a bit preachy.
Yes, sometimes we see these characters doing dumb things (especially when written by those who don't comprehend the essence of the character in the first place.)
They're not necessarily supposed to be directly relatable; they're supposed to inspire.
It's because they're not like us, because they're so much better than a lot of us, that we aspire to be even a little bit more like them. Even just that can make the world a slightly better place.
And young people need to see positive archetypes of masculinity too.
Absolutely, they're meant to inspire. Even more than that, the average person would be surprised to learn just how much power and influence they have over other people. They generally don't know, because they don't see the effects of their influence, just being encouraging to someone who's trying to get a business off the ground, when everyone else told him he couldn't do it, or telling a girl she's pretty when, unbeknownst to you, she's havig the worst day of her life and feels the ugliest - it goes a long way. You tell someone they're a very jovial person, even though they never saw themselves that way, next thing you know, they start acting twice as jovial as normal, just because you told them that. It's not just other people that inspire us, we do it too. So yes, these superheroes are absolute avatars of goodness that are far beyond us, but they're not meant to be very different from us, at all. That's the point of Superman that cinema writers don't get. Superman's great not because of his powers, but because he's an honest, well-raised dude from Kansas.. with powers. Damn that was way too long.
@@CynicalWarlock No, that was beautifully said and the perfect length. ♥️
I always believed that Superman's true power wasn't super strength or super toughness, but super *goodness.*
A lot of people do forget his humble good Christian farm boi upbringing and focus on the part where he's a god with more power than anyone...
And I believe you're right about these heroes' influence being underestimated... I guess you really do take for granted what's been a part of modern culture for so long. I feel Goku and DBZ are in a similar spot these days. Not as many people realize that the legacy of Dragon Ball is the legacy of all Shounen anime that followed, especially the big ones inspired by it, like Naruto. Plenty of the newer ones we have today wouldn't exist without Son Goku blazing trails first. And the same can be said of the likes of Clark Kent, Steve Rogers and Liu Kang.
@@robertminnie782 Well said. Yeah, I mean most Shonen follow the same framework laid out by DBZ.. It's just a question of which flavor you prefer - ninja, high-school, pirates etc.
out of topic maybe but it's even better when these characters actually "break", the revenants from mk are a concept that I really love and sadly, poorly explored/executed, specifically Liu Kang who went against Raiden's orders (MK9 events) because every single vision Raiden had and tried changing the outcome of the future another incident or worse situation happened by consequence, and when he finally figures it out you could say that a grieving Liu is right in not trusting him after back to back disasters and mistakes they commited due to Raiden's visions, Revenant Liu Kang made out of his anger, grief, despair, hate and frustration he had to supress while being earthrealm's champion all twisted into one being with only a tiny spark of good within his consciousness that could lead him into doing the right thing once again, or lead him into a path of taking earthrealm for himself so that he could protect it better than ever before, or as yet another character influenced by the one being, setting out on a conquest of all the realms so he can avoid any threats to earthrealm in his newly twisted way, while his grudge against Raiden would come into play in this kind of story, with Liu not realizing that he himself is now a threat to the realm he seeks to protect.
Goddamn so many words, anyways revenant Liu and Kitana definetely banged
Nice
It is so unfortunate just how nonexistent the revenant plot was in MKX and 11, along with where they eventually ended up. The share amount of wasted potential is simply astounding.
"... But the one thing they love more than the hero, is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying." - Green Goblin knew what he was talking about ngl
@@NoName-ym5zj Yes, but in my case I like to see them at their lowest only to see them get back up, you could say I'm addicted to glorified redemption arcs and the fall and reemergence.
Good example would be Zuko from Avatar.
You just described Dark Raiden, to a T.
Also, Liu and Kitana did *not* bang, because 1) they were too bitter about getting killed, 2) they were undead and likely had no reproductive function, and 3) because they were under Quan Chi's control, who probably didn't allow them to do it, cause he's a stinker.
Superman and Captain America are two my of favorite characters in all of fiction. In third place is Francis Regan from Blue Bloods. Wish there were more writers like you who could do justice for these comic and videogame characters.
Yeey, I'm a writer.
I’ve been saying for the past couple of years that we need more “unbreakably good & incorruptible” heroes.
I foresee they'll see a resurgence. Everything is cyclical.
@@CynicalWarlock Probably. But edginess is very popular right now, so I’m not sure how long it’ll take to get back to that.
@@thehale_ Depends a lot on what James Gunn does with Superman.
As a kid I saw Man of Steel and the scene where Clark was getting bullied resonated with me a lot because I was a social outcast and had few friends. Still a special movie to me to this day
I also love the scenes with him as a kid. The kids they cast were just perfect, and they showcased the unique challenges of growing up that way. Too bad it was just a taste.
@CynicalWarlock agreed. Tbh I'm so used to Man of Steel getting bashed I was ready to click off but it's nice to see someone see all the things I saw as a kid. I haven't watched in years but it left an impact.
Despite Zack's storytelling flaws, I think he makes compelling movies. And I wish some people were willing to see it.
@@Neros_light There's definitely a lot to criticize and question about his films, but I get what he was going for, with them.
The one part about Man of Steel that loses me, is Johnathan Kent's death scene. I get what they were going for there, too, but there were better ways to execute it, I think.
On the other hand, the production values on that film are out of this world, pun not intended. Even the music - Hans' score somehow manages to create something more iconic than the original theme. It is for me, at least.
@@CynicalWarlock Hans Zimmerman is pretty good at what he does. I was surprised to find out relatively recently that he did the music for Modern Warfare 2 (2009)
Superman & Captain America are in my top 3 favorite characters in fiction and for good reason. They taught me how to be a good person and the importance of integrity in a world riddled with a lack thereof. It's not an easy struggle, but following their example doesn’t make it impossible🦸🏻♂️.
Facts.
Superman The Elite does very well to show the importance of this kind of character and how to write it
You're the second person to mention it; guess I should watch it.
@@CynicalWarlock by all means man, watch it and do a retrospect/review on it. Then maybe read the comic too!
I think one of the reasons women prod and poke like you described is to figure out if someone is actually a good man or if he is iust putting on a public front to make himself look good. The risk that a man is only pretending to be good and will put the people he loves through hell behind closed doors is a reality with potentially dangerous consequences.
Yes, that's the purpose of it, for sure. Women take a lot of risks, when choosing a man.
I never thought I would see a video discussing red pill and masculine/feminine energy new age beliefs in Mortal Kombat. The state of western mainstream entertainment is incredible.
I'll take that as a compliment.
What makes a knight in shining armor interesting isn’t that his armor is clean. It’s how he manages to keep it that way in a world of filled with blood.
@@howdoichangemyusername9802 Splendid summary.
Love this archetype, and it feels good to root for someone truly just. Loved Liu Kang since the 95 movie and I’ve felt like his Liu Kang is the MODEL. Mk11’s Aftermath showed me truly how much I enjoyed Liu Kang, especially with the nuance of HAVING to do something Shang Tsung would do in the end to win. When any other time, I believe Liu Kang would never be willing to sacrifice his friends. But he saw the bigger picture of being The God of Time and saw a better future ahead for everyone. Which is why I instantly chose Liu Kangs ending first. I mean, I just felt an overwhelming feeling of wanting the heroes to win. Not only that but I could beat the hell out of Cary Tagawa’s Shang Tsung?? Sign me up. Just my scattered thoughts.
Yeah, that was a pretty cool scene, the way he outsmarted Shang.
11:11 Thank you! BvS is... deeply flawed, to put it nicely. It's story is a total mess, but the reason it frustrates me so much is that in spite of all its problems, it has so much going for it, so much good intent that had such incredible potential, most of which went wasted. While I can't deny that the plot and handling of characters was frequently infuriating, to those who fault the movie for making Superman struggle with backlash for his good intentions or for making Batman angry and cynical, I have to say you haven't looked deeply enough at the characters.
It's such a shame WB rushed Zack's plans and kept meddling with his vision, clumsily forcing him to rush into a cinematic universe, and it probably would've helped if Christopher Nolan stuck around behind the scenes as well. Alas, we'll probably have to wait a couple decades before someone tries again at what Zack was going for, but hopefully next time it works.
Yeah I use this analogy a lot, but Zack really was tasked with making a chef's dish out of a microwave. People forget that. Whatever vision he had, had to conform with WB's idiotic desires to catch up to Marvel. And then they *further* rushed him, even more.
Which is not to say his movies wouldn't have still been controversial - Zack's inherently a controversial guy. But at least we might not have had to contend with The Dark Knight Returns, Justice League teasing, Doomsday *and* the death of Superman all in one movie.
And you're right, making Superman struggle with people turning on him and Batman struggle with cynicism is actually the way to challenge these characters to their max. Again, we can argue whether or not Zack did it well (there's an element of boredom and longwindedness in BvS too, which is another thing), but the intent wasn't all together stupid.
Not sure about some of the comments on women in the video, but I'll still give it a like because I agree with the overall video sentiment and a lot of it was well said.
Another aspect of this I find is the idea of a Utopia, if you look at old and 90s Star Trek for example you have a VERY different "world" and show outlook than the 'modern' Trek's almost-dystopian, gritty, version.
There's something really interesting and great about, to use your words, Lawful Good characters and stories that I've always been sad popular media seems to have rejected the last 20 years.
Good point. Everything is a cycle. A few decades ago, everything was hopeful, romantic, and just. The hero always won, your path in life was clear, the world was small, there were few people to compare yourself to, and you would find the love of your life.
But whatever's popular inevitably goes out of fashion, sooner or later, and so the dark age of antiheros, noir stories and subversion dawned.
But the pendulum will swing once more, as it always does.
Fantastic video! I'm always glad to see one of my favorite archetypes getting some love! It was brought up a bit when elseworlds were mentioned but i wanna talk about when these types of characters mess up. *a lot*. Cap, Superman and even Liu (someone might argue) mess up ofc but i don't think there's a more famous "boy scout" more impacted by his mistakes the Scott Summers. Cyclops fucks up a lot and it gets bad. He's been a bad husband, a bad father and a bad friend (and terrorist) at different times to the point it's debatable if he even *fits* the archetype, which is why I think he's such a great example of it. Especially of when a character falls short of it. Like the others, Scott is constantly tempted; towards infidelity or saying "fuck it" and going full Magneto, or even just from his powers! He's decades of self-control and a pair of aviators away from killing everyone around him.And he's succumbed to all three of them (some of them more than once 👀) which should be grounds to kick him out of the club; he should have more in common with Iron Man or somebody! And yet... Basically since he ditched his wife and kid he's been trying to make up for it and SUCCEEDING and his relationship with his wife (the one he cheated on, not the one he ditched) is as strong as ever. Nearly the entire population of his people look to him for what's right. Time and time again his steadfastness and heroism is recognized, he's mentioned in the same breath with the same* reverence as Captain America; he shares a mutual respect with the man even if they don't see eye-to-eye and their goals don't seem to align perfectly. Scott in the rest will stumble but what sets them apart is how out of character it is for them (no matter how common it may seem to us)
Gods.. DAMN it. Now I *have* to make a part 2.
People kept going "Cyclops too, Scott's a boy scout too", and I'm like yeah, cool. Not enough for a 'sequel', but then I read your comment and synapses and ideas started firing.
It's enough for a sequel.
@@CynicalWarlock MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Hey man! It's been a while, but I'm gkad to see your channel grow not only in numbers, but in quality as well. By the way, I must say I totally agree with every point you made on the heroes. Having their character misunderstood by the people who write them has done great famage to the public perception of them so much that it leads to a vivius circle of shorts. In addition, I think a lot of people are so used to watching the "unstoppable forces" ethically, the guys who never stop to progress, that they don't necessarily get the appeal of the "immovable objects".
My Kiiiiing! How've you been?
I shit you not, just the other day, a friend of mine saw your name in my Discord app and was like "Who's Cow King?".
Yeah, the immovable object seems boring to people, because writers don't focus enough on all the stuff that goes into *becoming* and *staying* immovable. It always seems easy and straightforward, and that's boring.
Sorry for the long streak of MK content; had to be done. The plan is to gradually (re)include more franchises that I then 'specialize' in, like Diablo and Mass Effect, it just takes a shit-ton of time/work.
Glad to hear from you, hope you're doing well.
You're a coward for not even acknowledging Scott Summers.
Rightclops 😎
Eeeeehhhhh
Scott has done some pretty jacked up things even before the 90s
Glares at the madlyn prior situation in comics
I acknowledge Scott Summers.
@@Brandonweifu - **writer's fault. IT IS THE POWER OF THE WRITINGS THAT MAKES THE CHARACTER** >:3
First of all, excellent dissection of the archetype. I really enjoy genuine "boy scout" characters and there are scant things more emotionally uplifting than seeing a paragon remain just in the face of all the temptation in the world. These characters aren't necessarily static, either; they just never go below a certain moral point. As you said in the video, the fact that they *could* be tempted but actively choose not to - and have to figure out *how* not to - is what makes them compelling. There is character development in that, even if morally they say relatively on the same level. (I do think the evil superman trope has its place in reminding us that not everyone who wants us to think they're a boy scout actually is one, which is a very necessary role, but it's wildly overused outside that context.)
Secondly, I have seen many comments make vague allusions to disagreeing with certain things in the video's handling of sex and/or gender without actually saying what they mean. I'll give my own perspective of this and perhaps elaborate more on how I see it. You were somewhat vague in your video on defining whether your statements on gender are "weres", "ares" or "oughts". From my own point of view, honor, integrity, mercy, courage and stalwart morality are just traits any heroic character should have regardless of gender. It's not wrong to call these masculine virtues, because masculinity is what they have been and are often associated with in our culture. But if we speak of compassion, caring, emotional intelligence and acceptance, these are "feminine" virtues that not only are also necessary for good men and good fathers, but also that many boy scout characters also embody. In that sense, it becomes a bit weird when there is constant hammering about masculinity when talking about traits that are good for all genders to possess. On a small side tangent, I don't think self-sacrifice to protect others is, even traditionally speaking, a gendered value. Yes, the way it manifests may be slightly different, but especially in the context of family, the woman is expected to make at least as great a sacrifice as the man.
But to continue on the main point, I think the part that raised the most eyebrows was the mention of the redpill stuff. You are not wrong that men's and women's anger is often treated differently, but at the end of the day, in this framework, neither is taken seriously. Men are not allowed to complain; women always complain, so their complaints are probably nothing serious. Now, in an ideal world, everyone's concerns and worries would be taken seriously, but given that we don't live in one, I think this is actually where gendering moral ideals becomes dangerous. When taken from the men's side, since masculine virtue is, as you mentioned, often also seen as having too great a responsibility fail, it becomes incredibly easy for men to think they *have* failed at the smallest mistake and become either the embodiment of masculine vice instead (i.e "toxic masculinity"), or become delusional in refusal to accept their own mortality and think they are always behaving correctly (i.e "nice guys"). Also, the lack of introspection, room for self-doubt or emotional expression in this value set can very much leave men emotionally stunted. (It should again be noted that the best of moral paragon characters like Steve Rogers or Aragorn do actually display these "feminine" virtues as well; this is often framed as the "masculine" ideal including those virtues too, which I don't disagree with in the sense that men should strive to embody those virtues, but I find kind of silly because again, why call something "masculine" when it really is a moral ideal for all characters regardless of gender. At that point it genuinely becomes a question of "if one's worldview sees masculine virtue as being all but synonymous with all virtue, does that mean it also sees women as being less virtuous?") Meanwhile, the way women are treated because of the lack of agency in the traditionally feminine character can be suffocating and even reductive to women who strive for or have achieved masculine virtues, but it can also enable certain women, as you mentioned, to get away with blatantly shitty behaviour because it isn't seen as that big of a deal when a woman acts out, even if the results are genuinely significant in the negative sense.
All this long, meandering talk is to say that moral paragons should be something for all genders to look up to, and I think the issue some people had with your video is that it was unclear whether you think some of these virtues are or should be only for some people, plus that comment about red pill logic getting something right when showcasing an example of a problem red pill logic basically creates for itself (since trying to insist on this disparity of virtues between genders is what creates this disparity of moral results).
There’s still a problem with this theorem of Boy Scout characters(which I would say something like Zack snyder’s take on Superman or the MCU’s captain America attempt to address) which is that there’s something metaphysically fallacious about the concept of a person whose approach to the world just so happens to be *right* from the jumping off point, a person who is born “good”. There should be something not only asinine but insidious feeling about a perfect person who can only ever be sidelined or crippled by the people around them. It invalidates the basic notion that life must be lived, that “perfection” is evolved, and that moral principles must come from somewhere they do not simply manifest sublime and incontrovertible.
It’s not that *no change* makes these characters boring, it’s that it makes them into unfathomable abstractions
Well, to clarify, Sups and Cap aren't born perfectly moral - Sups learned morals from his parents, and Cap learned it from being bullied - so when I say that they start out as moral, I mean in the story, not in the womb. In the context of the story, they begin more or less good and maintain that value, whereas other heroes (Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man) have to attain it first.
I'm glad you touched on this because making a "perfect character" isn't the point; it shouldn't be the point. Perfection is the one term that is the most abstract and doesn't actually have any rooting in reality. If the hero is perfect, he is wholly unrelatable to those he's meant to inspire, so that's definitely *not* the point of Sups or Cap. The point is, as I tried to outline in the video, is that they are very much as fallible as the rest of us. And that's the part that films have failed to capture. Sups is either infallible, or he devolves into his evil Injustice version. Those are the only 2 extremes Hollywood understands, and they both miss the mark.
Zack Snyder idolizes selfishness, for him superman is something to be deconstructed
I really enjoyed this video, people always write off Boy Scouts but I love them because they don’t really change but they change their environment and other people for the better. I think it’s something that never truly goes out of style or gets old because trying your best to be the best person you can be is simply a part of being a human being. However there are a few things I took issue with, mostly with your views on women. Women are able to show more emotion and express them sometimes but the way you worded it sounded like this was a woman’s fault when in reality it’s because of misogynistic stereotypes of femininity, generally speaking men view women as a weaker, lesser and more emotional sex, and by proxy that means that they find it more socially acceptable for them to show said emotion. And the opposite is true for men, men are just as emotional as women however due to toxic masculinity many men need to hide their feelings becuase they are afraid of being looked down on by other men and showing emotion is almost a sign of femininity (which again they view as lesser). Also saying that a woman is seen as valued couldn’t be more wrong, if they stray away from stereotypical feminine archetype like growing body hair, wearing men’s clothes, being strong willed, or losing or gaining weight or muscle, they’re immediately attacked for it!
Anyway I’m terribly sorry for the extremely long comment, it’s just that I really enjoyed your video but your red pill stuff kinda took me out of it for a second there
One long comment deserves another.😋 It's not a "fault". I wasn't blaming women for being, on average, more emotional than men; it's a feature not a bug. And it's more than stereotypes - women birth and take care of infants, so biology evolved women to express their needs more often and men to be more inclined to listen to said needs.
And I think you're very right, both men and women benefit from expressing their emotions, but past a certain point, it becomes a bit counterproductive (like you're wallowing in them more than working through them), or rather, less productive than taking action. And, once again, on average, men tend to cap out on the utility of emotional expression faster than women, because they're problem-solvers by nature. That's how they work through their emotions.
I'm actually curious as to how Bruce Banner/ Hulk would fit in the representation of masculinity discussion. Because as you stated a man cannot afford to lose control and must remain as composed as possible, BUT what if you are a man who is pushed, stressed and angered to the point where it can get really ugly, to the point where you end up driving away generally good people and attract unwanted bad attention, however you have the desire to change, to be better and be respected yet you have that ONE problem that needs to be dealt with before thinking of going that route?
I don't know, just a thought. Hulk is my favorite Avenger BTW.
Yeah, I'm still salty Hulk never got a proper franchise, like the rest of em. And Endgame did him dirty.
Hulk, by definition, can't be the Boy Scout masculine, despite Banner's predilection for it, because he has no or limited control over the Hulk, so whenever he morphs, it's a complete gamble.
There are 2 extremes to masculinity (both of them harmful) - one is the feeble, ultra-nice guy who tries to be nice to everyone at his own expense, and the predatory, rage-filled, sociopathic monster that destroys anything and anyone in his path. Usually, guys are either one of these 2 extremes, or anywhere between, in this spectrum (dead center would be healthiest), but Jekyll and Hyde characters like Banner/Hulk are in the unique position of being both.
And it mirrors real life, once again - guys who are too soft, too nice, too weak, too lazy, tend to become passive-aggressive, spiteful, prone to drinking, or bullying, in spite of themselves, because they snuff their own masculinity and it bursts out in ugly ways.
Or something like that. That was longer than I'd have liked.
@@CynicalWarlock That's interesting. Thanks for your insight.👍
And what you said about Luke Skywalker, he also lets himself burst into anger.
Yeah, especially early on. It's important to the story, to show the dangers of the Dark Side.
Would "Superman vs. The Elite" (the 2012 animated movie) count as a good example of exploring this subject? Or does it miss the mark?
We need a live action Superman like that
Haven't seen it.
@@CynicalWarlock honestly, I feel the reason "boy scout" characters are annoying has nothing to do with the characters, but with the writers. They're meant to be monk's/ samurai like character's and whenever it's done in said way the character becomes beloved(Examples include: Samurai jack, Shaolin monks liu Kang, katana in Practically every version of the story, superman doomsday(2007) etc.)
They have bad thought's, they aren't perfect, the thought to do evil is there, superman wanted to hit lex, he wanted to kill toymaker(and his clone did), jack wanted to lash out, but they take a moment to purge the thought, and do the right thing.
@@CynicalWarlockin summary, a boy scout character is always boring unless we see they have pure unwavering loyalty to their ideas but not their intrusive thoughts. Their emotion must be kept under control.
They're a monk, and a monk isn't perfect. But they'll refuse to break their loyalties regardless.
@@almessasorrow4950 Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say - it's a writing issue. If you see these characters as perfect, stoic beings, you're missing the point. In fact, the more down-to-earth and fallible you make them, the better, because then, there's inner conflict, constant temptation, rage, weakness. This way, they can keep being the symbols that inspire us to be better, but they also become extremely relatable, instead of being distant gods.
16:42
Damn this was Captain America's quote, the Fact that they Attributed to peggy carter in the MCU is like a Slap in the Face.
I was legit curious if fans are mad about that, because it seems the kind of thing that would make them mad.
@CynicalWarlock
peggy did spend some Time with Steve, so there's a possibility she got it from Him.
@@fishertheadore6095 Yeah, that's the charitable interpretation. The non-charitable one is they wanted to give the female characters more importance; make it seem like Peggy inspired Steve.
Nah, not really. That movie doesn't diminish Cap or anybody much, if at all. It's one of my top MCU movies just because it does a great job of showing how these characters work.
Bro… perhaps the best video essay I’ve seen all year. And I watch a lot of them. Keep it up.
That's high praise. Thanks.
This reminds me Bowen's vow to the Knights of the Old Code. Always gives me shivers, but in a good way.
From Dragonheart? Fuck yes.
A knight is sworn to valor
Hm, I didn’t like the naming convention. But wanted to hear you out, and I have to say I like essay here.
Because, yes the term for masculinity has been abused by our newer generation, forgetting what it’s like to have that “Old skool masculinity.”
Lately it has been misunderstood how these characters are VERY compelling. But many don’t realize that
I obviously didn't like the naming convention either, given how I kept changing it.
Most important example: Paddington
Many people say that.
Excellent video. Subscribed.
Captain America and Superman are my two favourite Superheroes and you've expertly articulated why.
@@Glasgowliam Thanks a lot.
Gotta do one on Batman too.
Cyclops too.
@@CynicalWarlock if you're going to add another video game character into the mix, may I suggest Leon from Resident Evil 2 and 4. Definitely a Boy scout archetype, though he does get seduced by the "bad girl" in Ada.
@@Glasgowliam Interesting, I'll look into that. Never got into Resident Evil.
Wonderful video, every point dissected extremely well. I tip my hat to you sir, for doing the Boy Scout Masculinity archetype justice.
Thank you, Mr. Doom, glad I did not disappoint.
It's relatively rare for someone to agree with every single point.
Superb video. It's a very misunderstood and powerful archetype.
Thank you, glad you liked it.
Such a great video dude, you’ve explained these kinds of characters so well. I’d love to see a series from you on the different archetypes in popular media, with three different characters every video could really be awesome.
Not a bad idea. I'll consider it.
Thanks for the suggestion.
They are blue
If they were green they would die?
They would beat up a guy?
They would heat up a pie?
They would pee on a fly?
They would be on a High?
Yoo listen up, here's a story..
One thing I find interesting is the way that some creators tend to try and approach a typical 'boy scout' character when given the opportunity to put a new reinterpretation on a established character (Usually done so in remakes and reboots). The most prominent one I can think of is Leonardo from TMNT. In the (2003?) TMNT movie he is the boy scout leader who has to deal primarily with his reckless and insubordinate brothers, but in Rise of the TMNT he is is not initially the leader, and instead is a seemingly vain, egotistical joker who uses humor to mask his insecurities and fears. His arcs are no longer about him BEING the leader, the rock, the glue holding things together but BECOMING it. Then in Mutant Mayhem the creators need the group to defy their father while not undermining Leonardo's authority as the leader of the group so they have Leonardo develop a crush on a girl as his motivation of bending/breaking the rules.
Keith from Voltron Legendary Defender is one, where he is the distant loner but due to his relationship with the leader of the group, when the leader leaves, he is tasked with taking his place and him dealing with the weight of that responsibility. In my opinion that didn't work (but in my opinion a LOT of Legendary Defender didn't work)
These approaches, while interesting, I feel don't ALWAYS work , it seems like they try to bypass people's opinions that Boy Scout characters are 'boring' by having these characters BE something else and them becoming the boy scout is 'meant to be' is more interesting then actually BEING the boy scout, and I don't feel that should be the case.
i liked these choices of 'boy scout' archetype characters, especially Liu Kang, one of my favorite MK characters. i feel he's very overlooked for video topics like this. Cyclops/ Scott Summers is also another i feel would be a good character to dissect if you were to make another similar video. great video!
Yes, many people have suggested Scott, and I think he fits the bill too. Minus his relationship antics from the comics, perhaps.
They can never make me hate Paddington 😤
Based bear.
10:35 this is pretty good psychology for how mobs operate. A very concise explanation. You know, I’ve never actually seen this channel before, but I’m surprised you’re at 9.31K subscribers! What would not surprise me, however, would be if your channel reached 20K very soon. I just subscribed!
Dude, 9k subs is legendary for me. Been stuck on a few hundred subs for the longest time.
Appreciate yours, though, and the kind words. Thanks, Sasuke.
This is one of the best descriptions of why these characters work and what makes them relatable plus special. Loved the way you explained and described them. Especially when you said that their call for responsabilty lies in their desire to do good and be of service to others. In my mind I believe thats what makes a man. Their ability to say no when the world want them to kneel and to remain true to their goals. A desire to first lay down their life than to betray themselves, what they stand for and for who they stand for. Leaders eat last by Simon Sinek explains and says this in way more detail. It also explains why it works in our society. He says that we follow leaders because a true leaders cares, is capable and most of all is willing to do the things everyone is afraid of for the sake of everyone. Its why we fill inspire when a starving human with zero things to eat finds a cookie and instead of eating it, he gives it to the boy looking at him. Even knowing he may die or when a man is willing to go through strong river currents and dangerous obstacles to provide water for their home. Some characters that inspired me are actually this sort of way: Jake Sully from Avatar, Cesar from the planets of the apes, and Spiderman. They all are powerful and capable but when all seems to fail they become beacons of hope. They overcome abuse and create a world for their people in ceasars case and forgives the one that killed his family, Jake realized that its the humans that are wrong and are abusing its power and decides to create an army and go to war against machine guns, grenades and nuclear weapons with nothing but bows and arrows. In spidermans case its when he is injured, broken and has nothing but refuses to quit for the sake of another. When people push him to the limits of his sanity and he just refuses to give in. Insomniacs Marvels Spiderman showcased this when he after suffering many injuries and pain decided to let May died to save a city that paints him in a negative light.
In a way it's why Anakin Skywalker is one of the most amazing characters ever. He is in many ways all these heroes. He has a life full of pain and still manages to become an excellent hero throughout the clone wars and at his most powerful self he falls and loses his way. Anakin who was known for his bravery, his desire to help his loved ones, and his "unusual"care for his fellow soldiers became his complete opposite in Vader. Narrative speaking Vader works as a great villian because we at first didnt know him. he was just lukes father, it was when the prequels came and we saw the boy, then the teen, and in the animated show the man and his values where we kinda rooted against him becoming Vader and when he did the actions that came with it was what destroyed the noble blue boy scout that we enjoyed.
‘Tall poppy syndrome’ is what the kids call it today… no one can stand to see paragons of principle win, they always want to see them on their level
Yeah, I heard that one from Chris Williamson, in relation to Americans and how they're so (over)confident, compared to British people.
@@CynicalWarlockprobably started with the English… they are so passively pompous
Ps - I don’t who Chris is… gotta channel?
@@rortys.kierkegaard9980 This is he:
www.youtube.com/@ChrisWillx
And this is the tall poppy part I referenced:
ruclips.net/user/shortsJyISjMYDKKc
Great video. Well thought out out and delivered. 👍🏻
Thank you very much. Clearly, I should do more.
This video was perfect ! Thank you for doing this !
You're very welcome.
Love your content keep up the great work
Perfection. 🤌
Traditional storytelling abounded in this type of character: Robin Hood, the Lone Ranger, Aragorn and Faramir (not in the movies--the real Aragorn and Faramir) etc. Seems to me that if our culture doesn't understand or value this type of character, the problem is with our culture.
Everything is a trend. Traditional heroism was more widely recognized in the 90s, then it became boring and the antihero took over. Now we've reached the peak of that era, with the Homelanders and the Injustice Supermen and the satire, and I'd wager we're just about ready to come full circle back to the boy scout.
Well done. Great character exploration
Appreciate it.
13:27 funny thing that is the main Reason in The Dark knight (graphic novel) Superman is a miserable pile of insecurities. broken by the pressure of responsibility.
@@PK-MegaLolCaT Which is why The Dark Knight Returns is such a compelling story - it shows you where these characters (and the world) risk ending up, if they fail and lose sight of who they are.
I just built in D&D what was supposed to be a big goofy farmer boy in D&D but ended at the table i fell into the big blue boyscout archetype and honestly im here for it lol.
Huge W for for that, and for playing D&D.
Double-W.
Bro we are living in a great superman era the current comics is awesome maws is outstanding, superman and lois have been a real fateful verison to character. I think it the best time to be a superman fan right.
It's the natural, cosmic cycle - every bad period (Injustice Sups, all the other dopplegangers) must be followed up by a good period.
I think the MCU captain America portrayed the boy scout masculinity the best.
It's a top contender, in the live-action space, for sure.
There is a quote from Skyrim that perfectly sums it up, "What is better? To be born good or to dedicate yourself to fighting the evil within?" Boyscout male and female heroes struggle with the darkness within them, but don't allow it to consume them. THAT'S THE POINT!
What is better, than to hear the lamentations of the women.. Yeah, jokes aside, that is raw truth - people think these heroes are boring cause they're incapable of evil, which is just wrong. They struggle with it all the time, which is the interesting part; it's just that their stories don't show that properly.
Thank you for this I often shit for not drinking. But what they don't know is that all the men my mom ever dated were alcoholics; I made a promise to myself. I'd never put those I care about through that.
Yeah, I've been around plenty alcoholics myself, it's a real shit show and shits on everyone's day.
Fuck the peer pressure.
The paragon character is about integrity. He is to be the incorruptible example of virtue. The story's conflict for such a character is all about the temptation to give in and take the easy road. The real story with Superman is about Clark Kent and his struggles being the paragon. The real story with Captain America is him standing up for the best of American values, even when it is against his own government.
Good emphasis: it's about Clark, the human, not the alien god. Cause to us, he is a god, but to himself, he's just a guy. It's the same with any figurehead, and remembering that they're just mortals (Marcus Aurelius-style) is a key part of not becoming corrupted.
“I won’t let fear compromise who I am” -Commander Shepard
Made my day with this comment. Always a pleasure to meet a fellow N7.🫡
To make static characters interesting, make their world fcked up. Challenge how they can still find hope in desperate situations.
Yesss. This one gets it.
This was a random masterpiece. If this was a final term paper for AP English writing you'd get an A++
I can finally pass 2nd grade.
@@CynicalWarlock Get ready to learn cursive. It's a hard one bro.
@@HighStakesBBall Fuck.
I'd say the best way to bring to light the more compelling aspects of liu Kangs story is to take cues from cyclops rather than superman or Captain America; since scotts story not only shares details with the other three, but there are details in liu Kangs journey that also appear for cyclops but not the other two heroes.
Also people didn't make fun snyders version superman for trying to explore what that character woulf be like in an mistrusting and judgmental society.
Yeah, many people brought up Cyclops. There's so much to talk about there I might have to do a part 2.
Excellent video!
Thanks.
I was not a fan of Cap until Winter Soldier. I am Australian, the idea of the Star Spangled hero seemed ridiculous to me. The idea of a character who was always trying to do what was right, even when his friends were walking morally ambiguous paths… and watching those friends choose better paths because of his influence. It spoke to me in the way few things have.
Now Steve Rogers is one of my favourite characters, and I am hoping that there are some stories still to come with that character in the MCU… I mean just because he and Peggy got their dance, they don’t stop being Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter - neither one is going to sit quietly on the sidelines.
Well Evans is a bit reticent to return as the character cause he doesn't wanna fuck up his own legacy, rightly so, so you'd probably have to reboot the whole thing and recast the role.
@@CynicalWarlock what Evans has said is that he would do it if they could find a script that was good that doesn’t screw things up. To me, the most appropriate place to do that is between him getting his dance with Peggy Carter and when he delivers the shield to Sam Wilson at the funeral. We got a tease that it might happen from the Red Guardian in Black Widow… Red Guardian kept asking if Steve talked about him and was obviously annoyed when she said Steve never mentioned him… but the time period was when Steve was in the ice, but also when he went back in time with Peggy Carter.
It would also be a good way to introduce the wolverine.
@@aidancampbell5644 Yeah, you could write 5 films-worth of adventures in that time period, and have free reign of an alternate reality.
@@CynicalWarlock indeed, that’s what I hope they do. It would be a really good way for them to introduce new ideas and world build. I am thinking Wolverine, the entire weapons+ project, Nathaniel Essex and Essex corp, plus also groups like Alpha flight and the Soviet team that Red Guardian was part of.
I will note that I am assuming that Hugh Jackman is becoming old man Logan for the MCU, and that there will be a different James Howlett in the MCU.
@@aidancampbell5644 Yeah Mr. Sinister is ambitious. They almost tried the Essex thing once or twice, but keep getting cold feet.
Did not think about it this way, thank you for the new perspective on heroism. And the end about women getting crazy if they cannot budge these guys... priceless 😀
Heey, finally, someone gets that ending. Cheers.
You hit a lot of nails right on the head with this video. The one issue I take with it, ironically enough, is when you slightly stray from the point. As such, what I’m about to say will probably feel tangentially-related at best, but I hope you can bear with me.
1) Yes, the role of men in a patriarchal society is to obtain “demonstrated value,” while the role of women is to retain “intrinsic value.” However, too many men see the intrinsic value of women as a kind of privilege, without truly realizing how much it sucks to be thought of as a commodity, not a person (which s all the more confusing when your labor, which is also a commodity, seems to be all you’re good for). That’s why many women fight to break out of that role, to achieve “demonstrated value.” Meanwhile, many men in the men’s liberation movement try to support each other, to acknowledge each others’ “intrinsic value” as human beings. No one really has it “easy,” and the sooner people realize this and work together to break out of this insane social structure that tells women to shut up and look pretty and tells men to shut up and work, the better.
2) Regarding your point about women being allowed to lose control: yes and no. Women are allowed to have emotions, but only the pretty ones-joy, sadness, quiet fear, motherly care. They’re not allowed to have more ugly emotions such as anger-these are reserved for men. A woman who loses control and goes on a passionate rant or punches someone is seen as “hysterical,” losing any respect she’s managed to earn amongst her peers, because that’s not her job under our gender system. Her job is to be quiet, pretty, and maintain her “intrinsic value.”
As such, I think your point about “Boy Scout masculinity” being closer to women’s role in society than most masculine tropes is right on the head. The Punisher shoots people in a rage, and that’s what he’s supposed to do. Iron Man yells and punches another guy in a burst of anger, and it’s seen as natural. However, Superman loses control and lunches someone-he’s not allowed to do that. He has his moral value he must retain.
Anyways, those are my only real qualms with your video. Overall, it was a fantastic breakdown of Boy Scout masculinity!
And that's all fine and dandy - men obviously have *some* intrinsic value and women obviously have capacity for labor and acquired value, and comforting each gender with this fact and that it's not supposed to be such a black and white thing is a very healthy thing to do, never said I was against that.
I would, however, opine that people try to steer things too far in the other direction, trading one extreme for the other, which is just as unhealthy. A movement that turns women into pure labor beings is not empowering, just as a movement that overemphasizes feelings and glorification of the self at the expense of working on the future self is detrimental to them.
Men being more aggressive is seen as more natural because men have more testosterone than women, so it's accepted as kind of a given, just like protecting women is accepted as a given. But that doesn't mean that men get a pass for it and women don't. Far from it. Both lose respect when they lose their temper, and men are incarcerated way more than women because they're more destructive. So the world is more weary of male anger than female anger; rightfully so. At the same time though, the world is more weary of female manipulation than male manipulation, because women learned to be better at it, because of the discrepancy in physical strength and aggression, so it balances out.
Great points and worth talking about and clarifying. Very glad you enjoyed the video.
@@CynicalWarlock I do agree that trading one extreme for another is a bad idea, but most movements regarding this aren’t trying to turn women into labor machines or men into glorified man-candy so much as to achieve equity, that each may not be limited by the roles thrust upon them by society.
And yes, men aren’t given a free pass on anger and acting out by any means; I simply meant that we don’t experience the same level of social punishment for it. However, to go into that would require an in-depth analysis of gender-based socialization and how that affects everything from worldview to expressions of neurodivergencies, and I don’t have time rn, so I’ll leave it here. It was good discussing this, though!
@@_somerandomguyontheinternet_ Yes, it was quite stimulating.🤝
Being good, actively good in this world is hard.
But in doing so you inspire more people than you know.
@@TRAVELLEROFWORLDS Yeah, most of the people you inspire, you'll be oblivious to.
I think gon is the best example, because on paper he seems like the pinacle of a boyscout steriotype. . . Then you actually pay attention to the story and realize the moral dilemas have changed him in many many ways. His best friend is an assasin, he began seeking out revenge, and he spared murderers because he has no personal beef with them. Not because they are good or bad. He lets the bad guys persist so long as they sta out of his way, and somewhere along the way you realize the story doesn't care about good or evil.
I had to read that twice to make sure you were actually referencing Hunter x Hunter. Wonderful anime. It's funny you mention Gon as a boy scout, cause there's this running gag in the community that he's a sociopath, because of the way he handled some situations. But I agree with you, there are plenty of scenes that show him as a true.. well, let's call it a childish boy scout; the kiddie version that hasn't fully matured yet. He spares enemies, he converts people to his cause, he dates the almost literal incarnation of negative femininity, and successfully tames her, he inspires an assassin to be a better person, he's a trooper.
I really like this discussion of the Boy Scout masculinity and masculinity as a whole. Although I don’t fully agree with the idea are ‘born with value and do not need to prove it’ though. I think woman are born with a specific power which brings a completely different list of responsibilities. It’s very minor and not the main point of the video.
Either way, this was an excellent listen
Yes, there's a bit of a trick there - women *are* born with (more) value (than men) but they have to cultivate traits like warmth, humility, and self-respect, in order to not lose that value.
So both men and women need to develop in their own way.
My favorite take on this character/trope is Trigun (the comics); if you're not familiar, give it a read!
A surprising number of anime/manga have been referenced by people, actually, in relation to this archetype.
One character that I think of that also embodies this archetype is Lucy MacLean from the Fallout tv series. In fact it's a rare example of a female character having boy scout morality. Throughout the entirety of that show, in a world in which everything is fucked up, and just about everyone is an asshole, she still maintains her morality, even referencing the golden rule in an episode. If you haven't seen the show, I highly recommend. It's freakin great!
I haven't but I've heard a lot of good things like these.
And yes, a Girl Scout is even rarer than a Boy Scout.
Here is a thought about a heroic main character. No need for tragic backstory (optional but no essential). No need for complicated psychology and personality (also optional but not essential).
Just keep the motivation simple. They want to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Compassion, empathy and helping others is the driving force. This creates conflict in our complicated and nuanced world. You have all the ingredients right there for a compelling story.
How does he or she *know* what's the right thing to do? You need some kind of thing that instilled that value in the hero, even if it's as simple as Captain America having gotten bullied as a child.
Then again, this could make for an interesting story - an environment littered with shady, conniving, lying terrible people that all get inspired and swayed to be better by the hero, who's good for no reason. You never explain it, but have him imply something to the effect of "it's not me who's better than everyone else, it's everyone else that's just lashing out because they're suffering".
@@CynicalWarlockI was actually thinking of Paddington Bear. Immigrant who comes to Britain, as a warm hearted good natured, uncomplicated individual. He finds his place in society by filling a void. He is the good guy that our cynical world needs. He inspires others to be better.
This was a fricking masterpiece. Absolutely brilliant.
Thank you thank you, you're too kind.
This is the exact reason i dont understand Henry Cavill superman haters. He is consistently tested, he is a great person inside but is constantly forced to make the difficult decision, living with it is his conflict.
Saving his father is the easy thing, listening to him as he watched him die is the hard decision, killing zod is easy, so he does his best to stop him without killing him (taking out the ships first) Then he realizes there is no end without killing him, in the end he realizes that the easy decision was actually the hardest as any sense of his previous life (which he spends most of the movie searching for) is now gone.
In BVS we get an amazing version where superman is the best he’s been and yet he faces controversy for doing so, he slowly begins to lose faith in the world and it takes Batman sparing him and saving martha to bring him back, eventually realizing that the world is worth more than his life as he sacrifices himself.
In JL he gets revived and realizes that the world needs a superman whether they like it or not and decides to do the right thing in the face of people who dont trust him and shame him.
And it makes me really upset because this is one of the best arcs i’ve seen for a “boy scout” archetype and people dont care because they only take a surface-level look at everything and deem it incorrect
They hate his Superman because Snyder deliberately sucked out most of the joy of being Superman, as he wanted to focus on the difficult parts of it.
Good point about Zod; people kind of skirt around the idea of Superman having to kill the last of his kind, and how that's the difficult, moral choice - cause Zod and his crew were never gonna stop attacking Earth. People hate it cause they get hung up on no-kill rules, which is fine, except, in a real world scenario, no-kill rules sometimes go out the window, as it did in that scene. And Zack is very much interested in the real world scenario.
BvS Sups is the one I've warmed up to the most, because that film shows what it's actually like to attain power (especially in the form of fame/notoriety) - people adore you at first, but eventually, you "fall off". Every celebrity, public figure, government official, content creator eventually "falls off", and you wind up with the Green Goblin quote, whereby people subconsciously want to see you fail, fall, die trying, get off the spotlight. BvS Superman explores that to its ultimate conclusion. It could've done it way better - especially the Doomsday part - but it still gets the job done.
The father death scene is where Man of Steel loses me, though. I get what they were going for (finally), but there were better ways to do such a scene.
And indeed this is a boy scout arc, which is rare, given how static these characters are.
Henry cavill Superman was very edge lord and dark for no reason
@@dukeheavens9990 It wasn't him that was dark, it was the world he was in.
@@CynicalWarlock that's a lie , Zack Snyder and modern writers can't write a character like superman without making the general audience hate him or think he's boring
@@dukeheavens9990 Strange considering Zack’s movies are Superman’s highest grossing movies by a landslide. I think the issue is that you genuinely believe that and thereby apply that thinking to everything he does as if it were true.
This is what I mean when i say people took the movies at face value and said they understood them when in reality they didn’t.
Just because the colors are dark doesn’t mean the message is, its very much a story of hope and determination
They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son. - Jor-El - Superman
Desmond Doss ("Hacksaw Ridge"), Andy Dufresne ("The Shawshank Redemption") are good examples of static "boy scout" characters.
Still haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, but I'll take your word for it.
You had me until you started yapping about this bitter vision of gender dynamics. There was a distinction that you were drawing between masculinity and femininity and their self control, but I'd argue that in a modern context, wielding your resources in service of others is a much more feminine trait. After all, male influencers online are largely teaching men to take for themselves. Find a wife that lives in service for you, have some kids to mold into your image, start a business that benefits you above the others working for or buying from you. I agree that it's very masculine to be a community leader and use that to protect and lift up others around you, but to contrast that from a woman's potential in society is parallel with the Andrew Tates of the world, even if you find their portrayal of masculinity disagreeable.
Your lines about untested men being cast aside come from a chronically online viewpoint. Untested in what way? You showed pictures of skinny Steve Rogers, but there are plenty of "low value" men who get good jobs, start families, and gain respect purely by virtue of their character, which is the core of the archetype you're talking about.
Also, your comment about how a man can't afford to inflict violence on a woman rubbed me the wrong way. It's not like sparing a woman your abuse is some honorable act of self control. These characters have great power and aren't temped by outside forces, but it's their character that defines them. Not the fact that they don't just slaughter anyone who opposes then
You know what, to a degree. You're right. But I don't think you understand what he was trying to convey.
Superman's struggle isn't that hes better than Woman because he's has more responsibility as a Man...
Its that his powers result he have self restraint ... But it compares to the dichotomy of the struggles of a Man and Woman.
It ISN'T GOOD for Men OR Women to Hit EACH OTHER, but in ALL honesty who are you going to emphasize With More ;
"The Woman hitting the man" or "the Man hitting the woman ."
restraint is a natural human emotion. What's a differs for both genders.
We all make different choices based on our upbringing rather than our sex. However, we still are influenced by it.
Although both genders have inheritant responsibilities. It is GENERALLY more accepting for a woman to be more empathize from the general public. Due to their emotional sensitivity.
In contrast, Men are held up to a higher level of responsibility. Due to the natural traits to provide, protect and contributing to their status.
Of course, there are Woman show more restraint than Man due to understanding and compassion out of empathy.
And with that compassion, the Man is able to uphold his own responsibility by his own choice in life
but This differs from person to person.
But in general. The struggles of woman capture more emotional empathy in comparison.
But the responsibility of both isn't to compete for it, but to show it to others in need of it.... Kinda like Superman..
"I'd argue that in a modern context, wielding your resources in service of others is a much more feminine trait. After all, male influencers online are largely teaching men to take for themselves. Find a wife that lives in service for you, have some kids to mold into your image, start a business that benefits you above the others working for or buying from you." - And female influencers use their sexuality and OnlyFans accounts to pray on ugly, weak, emotionally vulnerable men and grab their money. They're modern vampires. So I don't see how male influencers are worse than female ones.
"Your lines about untested men being cast aside come from a chronically online viewpoint." - They come from real life. In the environment I grew up in, men are expected to work, provide, get a driver's license, get a house, marry early, have kids early, make as much money as possible, and any deviation from that is seen as peculiar weakness, whereas a woman is just expected to find a good man to take care of her and give her kids. This is not an artificially constructed online viewpoint, it's deep-seated beliefs cultivated over very long periods of time, that stem from the natural aptitudes and proclivities of each gender. Men who are unskilled, out of work, passive, and unambitious are deemed useless, and women who exhibit the same traits are not. And that's ok; we answer to different hierarchies of value. It's not a competition.
"there are plenty of 'low value' men who get good jobs, start families, and gain respect purely by virtue of their character, which is the core of the archetype you're talking about." - You're proving my point for me - men who get jobs at all, let alone good ones, manage to start families and are virtuous are *not* low-value men. They couldn't be further from concept. A low-value man is one who has none of those; who has no skills, no responsibility, nothing to offer the world. Such a man should, indeed, be dismissed.
"Also, your comment about how a man can't afford to inflict violence on a woman rubbed me the wrong way. It's not like sparing a woman your abuse is some honorable act of self control. These characters have great power and aren't temped by outside forces, but it's their character that defines them. Not the fact that they don't just slaughter anyone who opposes then" - They absolutely are tempted by outside forces, as well as by their inner thoughts. Why not just kill a supervillain who's causing trouble? And why stop there? Why not kill any petty thief, while we're at it? Why not force the nations of the world to make peace and do things my way? Why not use our star-spangled popularity and cultivate an army of crazed fanatics, enamored by our influencer-worthy speeches? Where do you draw the line? The utility of spoofs like Injustice Superman and The Boys is to teach this exact lesson. So long as you have power - over anything or anyone - you will always be tempted to misuse it. And in that same way, your average man, who has physical, and sometimes verbal, or authoritative power over a woman, will always need to temper that power with grace, humility, steadfastness, and a level head, lest he abuse that power. Just like how women need to temper their own seductive power, lest they abuse that.
Hope I filled in some of the blanks, a little bit. Thanks for the comment, this was stimulating.
Wow! Great video
@@willd4686 Thank you.
Thanks for reminding me why Cap and his films are my favorites in the MCU.
Anytime.
Great video! Gave me a lot to think about with this character archetype I love so much. Also made me look at the Snyder DC films in a new light for sure, although I don't think I could ever really like them.
I find it supremely boring how prevalent the "Evil Superman" archetype is (although it seems to me like maybe there's starting to be a downtrend?). Like the goal of it is to make them more interesting by taking them from being a stock hero archetype and making them a stock villain archetype...? Like, don't get me wrong, I love very traditional character archetypes, but taking Liu Kang from typical zen martial arts monk hero and then making him the literal devil doesn't make him more interesting, it just swaps him to the other extreme.
On a related note, I find it interesting that the pure good heroes are often considered boring, but pure evil villains (like Darkseid and Shao Khan) are often loved.
Amazingly put - that's exactly why Injustice Superman and revenant Liu Kang and all those don't work. Hit the nail on the head.
And yes, there is a clear bias toward villains, in the public's eyes, probably because villains represent everything that people cannot do, but sometimes wish they could. Break all the rules, indulge in all the dark urges. Meanwhile, the ultimate good guys are 'boring', because they have to respect every rule.
18:12~18:35 a crowning achievement for why the pre-Phase 4 MCU was so entertaining and fun to watch even if when it all started w/a (*Paramount*) produced Iron Man we were skeptical about how things would pan out (we anxiously still are in a way) without say the prevalent angst that 90's highlighted mutants and X-men have to put up with. We did good on highlighting a character (Steve Rodgers) who many like myself worried wouldn't work beyond being a maudlin cornball with antiquated and arguably jingoistic undercurrents and the part about 'a man born with a significant ability (like say prodigious intelligence) who'll have to resist a world swaying them to use it less scrupulously' is something we might well see upcoming with Reed Richards and the F4.
That point about 'born with..power but learns moral power along the way'.. :) ..I'm hoping to see the mutant community highlight upcoming ;) .
Yeah well the jingoistic Captain America arguably wouldn't have worked as well (or at all) without a good enough roster of characters to interact with - his polar opposite in Iron Man, the devious Black Widow, the funny goofy Scandinavian uncle that is Thor - so it's an important lesson to learn, the fact that sometimes, the way to improve a character or highlight their strengths isn't really about the character at all, it's about placing them in the right environment.
The problem with MoS was not that Snyder depicted Superman as detached but Snyder depicted Superman as an objectivist he will help when it fits him
He should do this multiple times in the movie - Kissing Lois while hundreds-thousands are still under the ruble dying or at the end of the movie he says: "I will help but it has to be on my terms." That is not sacrificing yourself for a higher purpose or for others but no sacrifice at all. Yes, Superman helps and saves but only when it fits him. This is a Superman that will turn it's back at humanity when humanity is no longer gives him something.
Not sure which kissing you're referring to, but a smooch takes like 2 seconds and is done for the cameras, not sure that's relevant. "I will help but it has to be on my terms" likely refers to his secret identity, as the government was tryna track his movements with satellites.
@@CynicalWarlock 1. The kiss is far longer then 2 seconds
2. No the it has to be on my terms is not about the satalite or privacy this is about his attitude in general this is the whole movie obligation, destiny vs free will with Snyders solution of objectivism reflected in view points also in BvS (Martha K. You don't own them anything, comment to Lois: You, are my world. Even Snyder in his interviews said this. We would get the trad. Superman in the end. Why? Because death changes you. Which makes Superman being good not a decision or a principle formed by his parents or which was his nature but Supernatural because service an never lead to satisfaction.
= Snyder not understanding the characters
I think “Hidalgo” and “Quigley Down Under” are two of the best examples of this archetype in film.
Book Aragorn is written this way also, but his movie counterpart strays into the Heroes Journey archetype.
Aragorn is an interesting topic for discussion. Book Aragorn is cut and dry, yeah, he has Anduril from the start, he plans to become king from the beginning etc. Movie Aragorn is still every bit as good and dedicated, but he doesn't want to be king; he's a reluctant hero. But he's never tempted by the ring, he never has outbursts, there's no stain on his morality apart from refusing his birthright which can be seen as calousness or cowardice. So it's an interesting thing, he almost blurs the line between Boy Scout and non-Boy Scout.
@@CynicalWarlock
Right. I think it’s another case of the writers not being “comfortable(?)” with the “Boy Scout”, and feeling like they have to try and give him a “becoming a hero” arc rather than letting him be the leader that he was written to be in the book.
@@LaVidaAwesome Fair point, although I can see where Peter Jackson was coming from; recently discussed this with my brother actually. The hero's journey stuff translates to film way better.
@@CynicalWarlock
For sure. Master Samwise does a deeper dive into the differences between LotR book and movie characters. I put the link to his video on Aragorn in case you haven’t seen it.
ruclips.net/video/GruFzUsKddI/видео.html
@@LaVidaAwesome I haven't. Thanks.