I enjoyed talking about the morals of the characters in this show with my brother. We talked about what we thought were good ideas and the different flaws the other ideologies presented. It's a shame that Netflix went and cancelled it just as things were ramping up
I much preferred the backstory set in the 20's,all the modern day stuff was a bit meh and the fight scenes were pretty terrible. Specifically as for the values, I think the line I hated the most was how they jumped straight from not getting involved in WW2, to the obvious reference for the capitol riots. I'm sorry, but there was a ton of stuff inbetween arguably worse or equal to the holocaust. To name but a few, Mao's cultural revolution and great leap forwards, millions dead, the reign of Pol Pot, the proxy war between East and west, the rewandan genocide, but no, a few capitol Hill rioters set him off.
I'm sorry I did try and like the show but I couldn't really get into Jupiter. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but he wasn't a great father, and I understand why his daughter had cut ties with him. If your parent wasn't around because there was always some bad guy, or world ending threat, and the only time your parent gave you attention was to lecture you. I'd feel pretty bitter as well. When my daughters were born I asked my father what's some of the most important things a father can do. He told me "Talk less, listen more, admit when you made a bad call or choice, and just show up once in a while"
@@JensHove True, but I think Stewart was assuming that these values would be timeless ones like those of The Code. If that is the case, then it would be moral consistency and virtue not zealotry.
@@JensHove That is the first step to having no values and rationalizing everything. If you want an excuse to be an hypocrite you can always find one. Zealotry is not necessarily bad and it may as well be the only thing capable of keeping oneself in line actually as the human capacity to rationalize and create excuses is almost infinite.
“Whenever you can, act as a liberator. Freedom, dignity, wealth - these three together constitute the greatest happiness of humanity. If you bequeath all three to your people, their love for you will never die.” -- Cyrus the Great
Out of frame should do Netflix's 'sweet tooth' next. That was actually a well made show with good acting and a well used budget. Good to talk about individual liberty in the context of a post apocalyptic society.
@@Borderose Definitely more than some punk, who only took on one empire, capitalized off his father's death, and was handed victory thanks to military tactics devised by other Greeks mostly his father. Cyrus came from a backwater, that most great powers didn't even know existed, until he showed up.
@@k_tess Alexander worked hard for his name. He led from the front and shared in his men's suffering. Sure, the more you know about history the more one realizes how much of his success he truly owed his father Philip. But given how many stories we have of empires being undone by fuckwad sons? Alex the Pretty-All-Right did a great job.
@@k_tess Cyrus on the other hand was the Mr. Rogers of conquerors. Given what we know about him, it seemed that he genuinely gave a shit about people and not just his own ego. He wanted everyone who followed him as well as those who lost to him to live well and gave them laws and systems that allowed them the most amount of happiness and freedom to be had in the Ancient World.
"If the badguys don't have any moral restrictions, then why should (we)?" The answer is right there in the question. BADGUYS don't have moral restrictions. If we don't have any moral restrictions, then we're no different than the bad guys.
Ikr it's one of those the ends justify the means debates, at some point you cross the line between being moral and right and you wind up just doing evil acts to get to your means. i think of it like this "If you lose your soul/humanity while on the journey did you really gain anything? Or did you just lose everything?"
@@jamescollinge5043 I haven't seen the show, so I am unable to directly respond to your question. Short answer: I think morals trump ethics. No matter what the bad guys do there are bounds we should not cross. Long answer: any discussion concerning concepts of good and bad I have been part of always have boiled down to one thing: do you believe there are moral absolutes? If a person lacks belief in any moral absolutes, then there can be no good or bad for them. At most they can have personal or societal ethics, and ethics change depending on society and setting. In other words, the ends justify the means, and nothing you do is ever improper so long as you can either justify it or change society to accept it. If we hold moral absolutes however, then the ends cannot justify any means that go against those morals. There will be lines that we do not cross and things we will not do because they are wrong even if they are ethical. Now, obviously it's more complicated than that, but that's the jist of it. (Edit: spelling)
@@CowCommando you should watch the show because it's at least interesting. There's a great discussion in the 5th episode about the extent to which 'The Code' is self-serving. Think about Batman or Superman. We're told that their refusal to kill is what makes them noble. To what extent is that no-kill rule there so they can tell themselves they're different or superior to their villains? Does it actually save lives when you have villains like Joker or Darkseid who have no hope of rehabilitation? It's not an easy question, and why i feel 'What's So Funny About Truth and Justice?' presented a bit of a straw man argument in comparison to something like The Authority or Injustice
@@jamescollinge5043 a no kill rule combined with capital punishment for things like murder works pretty well in my opinion. If you've got characters like Superman who can pretty reliably bring villains to trial without much risk to themselves, I suspect it would work even better. I'm also in agreement with FEE's argument in the video that killing the villain to stop him was justified even if it wasn't ideal. In other words, Joker should have gotten executed after his first proven instance of murder, but doesn't give Batman the right to kill every two-bit criminal he comes across either. If you let your law enforcement kill freely, then you've given them permission to be tyrants.
Honestly, this video now makes me mad we’re not getting a Season 2. There were some things I didn’t like about the show, but a good deal of stuff I did like. With the amount of dumb shows Netflix continues, it’s a shame they cancel shows with potential.
@Hamaa7 it's merchandising and selling other stuff. I haven't watched this show, Jupiter's Legacy, yet but it may be hard to merchandise but yea I know nothing fam.
@Hamaa7 I get that about super girl, it's really going for too long now, alll the CW shows are. I watched everything and i don't even know whats going on xD I think 3 seasons for daredevil was good tho, not for me, but at least the wigs were great XD
“Success should always call for showing greater kindness, generosity, and justice; only people lost in the darkness treat it as an occasion for greater greed.” ― Cyrus the Great
Cyrus was wrong. Success is winning the fight to survive. If you win, you can always claim to have done so with greater kindness, generosity, and justice, after the fact. History is written by the winners and warcrimes are only committed by the side that lost.
@@adolfwasrite7009 Because the concept of war crimes isn't that coherent. We think of it as intentionally killing civilians for instance, but even if the losing side only kills soldiers and follows what was set up in the Geneva convention then they're still going to be punishment for them. If not for the soldiers then for the society like in the US civil war.
When his son was about to be killed, The Utopian told him afterwards that he would have broken the code to save him. Their vision is very simplistic and i'm surprised that they never faced complex choices in the 90 years of them being superheroes.
"If the bad guys don't have any moral restrictions, why should they?" Because it's the thing that separates the good guys from the bad guy. If they abandon their morals on one issue, who's to say that they won't abandon them on something that could end up with a worse scenario.
Indeed. Abd even if I think the particular killing in that scene was justified, I think it should be treated as an exception instead of a new rule, because for a lot of people it gets easier and can escalate tensions. It's horryfying how people act as if they could be judge jury and executioner and play with the lives for people who has done stuff that wouldnt warran death in due process.
Exactly. Any death is tragic, even when unavoidable. When you begin down the road of making exceptions to morality then you risk opening up more paths to making exceptions.
This is a cute ideal which works when its just a human with a gun that has a limited amount of damage they can deal and can reasonably be stopped by another human because we're all mostly on the same level but when you tout yourself as defenders of humanity and allow super powered monsters to kill thousands at a time its because that monster doesn't present such a grave threat to "your in group," that being super powered beings, and not because you actually have some deeper moral code about not killing. You see him as an equal and therefore just another average level threat to you. Its an entirely different ballgame for humans who have far more to lose and far less to defend themselves with who see him as a force of nature backed by malevolence. They have 0 chance to stop him and him getting free means cowering in fear until someone else shows up to help.
I can't help but take a more practical tack. The Utopian's code is a paradox. If everyone voluntarily obeys the Code, then Utopian IS A RULER in all but name because he's the one who interprets it. Which violates the code. Which means the Code is inherently self-defeating. As are all "purely voluntary" systems of morality.
@@omnitroph1501 -- The meaning of the Code isn't so plain as you might think. The show states that the Code started with just 2 rules: - We don't govern - We don't kill Yet Utopian is mad at Chloe throughout the first season _for using her power for personal gain_ and _for being too apathetic._ That doesn't really violate either rule. Also, every system of rules has edge cases where things start to break down - I believe there's a line where Utopian calls leaving a bad guy alive but brain-dead or a quadriplegic is "the same" as killing them. That's not the "plain meaning" of the word "kill" at all. It's clear that Utopian alone is the one who decides what "killing" and "governing" and "personal gain" actually mean. He also clearly is the one who assigns the punishments when people break the Code. Utopian's stated goal is to create a positive example that people around the world will willingly follow. That's called "soft power" and it's a kind of political action. Utopian is pushing a specific set of moral beliefs through his actions. That may not be day-to-day "government", but it _is_ a form of "governance". I really wish this show had gotten a season 2. It would have been a great way to teach Civics.
It may not be as good as Invincible but it's got a plot worth following and a concept that rings fresh even though it's just one of the many superhero shows popping up in the last few years. But yeah, I already had a feeling Netflix was going to cancel it. Netflix has done that plenty enough in the past with other shows I've been following...
If hurting someone is done within the Boundaries/Laws of Morality, like in order to defend themselves or others, then it is not using "violence" it's using FORCE. And when taking a life is done to protect someone from an evil person who is knowingly/aware that he or she is about to do something evil/harmful to someone else then is not murder is Killing and yes there is a difference between the two.
So like the utopian said, an execution without due process is unacceptable as while you may claim the person you murdered in self defense was guilty and presumably would get charged of crimes severe enough for the death penalty, another person may not agree. Which is the point of having the ideal of an impartial judicial system (not commenting on whether it's still corruption free or not, but in terms of ideals, one must respect the "villains" human rights too, even if they violate another's, right? Besides it's very easy to label someone evil or a villain, which complicates the problem of making these decisions unilaterally, right?
The reason why characters like The Punisher are so refreshing in comics is many characters go to the EXTREME reverse where they won't kill someone who keeps murdering millions, and a lot of comic writers love to jerk themselves off over how moral that makes the characters (see: Kingdom Come) when in reality it makes them absolutely terrible people that could fix things and won't. I find the MCU struck a perfect balance over just comics, though. Captain America is clearly the good guy, but he will absolutely shoot a bad guy if he has to.
@@Dinoslay I would contest that anyone volunteering as a policeman should be like Utopian from JL because it's better to die than to kill. I know I will do the same if the time came, but sadly I can't be a policeman in a country I'm not a citizen of and the Indian police force is too rampant with corruption and bigotry for me to join. But I genuinely think it's better to die honorably than live longer as a dishonorable man (unless your inner voices don't haunt you for all the bad things you did, because then it's very easy to sleep at night)
And even then, we should always question if other courses of action would be posible. Having the power to kill most times also means you have the power to restrain, that should always be the goal whenever possible.
Really sad that self defence and the non aggression principle never came up in the series. Talking about the code non stop while not talking about self defence was like a splinter in my mind and reduced my enjoyment of the series. Although i would like to see it continue.
@@sneezyrider1 They basically told to get killed instead of killing in such a situation as well. His daddy was very sad when he saved all of them instead of getting killed.
The show has some nice ideas, but those ideas are far more interesting than the story told. Not surprised it was cancelled, a good textbook doesn’t make a good novel.
I'd say that's the reason it was actually cancelled, they (Netflix) wanted it to portray morality as an outdated concept that should be thrown aside for modern efficiency and the producers did the opposite.
@@riastradh I kind of agree with that. When watching the show I didn't think about the any of the moral code stuff. I watched good guys vs bad guys and the story line. I didn't think about the code stuff till I watched this breakdown. I liked the show. I thought the acting was far better than any of the B movies on NF. Maybe the budget just didn't work for the viewership.
@@reaperrac190 the flashbacks had me way more invested than any of the modern day segments and I kept wishing I was watching some old timey lovecraft show
14:46 i swear this is the real reason the canceled the show, and they are gonna make a "sequel" from the villians perspective, we know what is the popuse of that . .
@@jellyfishi_ lol are you talking about some devil worshipping characters in the comic or are you one of those nuts who thinks all elite are devil worshippers?
The exact same purpose. To give more perspective. Not everyone is total evil. In fact most of the people in prison are not evil , they just did the wrong thing. That was like entire point of why dont kill rule is there. Humans have freedom to do good, and we have right to fix our mistakes. We can learn from “badguys’” perspective, what not to do. Many reasons.
A show full of white actors were the Utopian is basicly a middle American conservitve with the show explaining how such thinking is great.. It showed how BIM thinking etc.. Is bad.. It showed how even though his thinking was different than other he never thought about forcing them to his way of life..
I don't understand the hate for this show, I thought it was great. It's philosiphy, like you pointed out, was refreshing to see, especially since The Boys is basically the complete opposite of what The Utopian stands for. I'm all for shows being dark, but it's nice to see an original theme. Also, the writing was fucking hilarious. Like when the old man jumped off the building, and he said I'll see you at the bottom, or something to that effect, I laughed so hard! So in that regard, I liked the comedic level of darkness this show had.
and it took him one hour, not one season for the setup and another season for the payoff. We've seen this story before many times in comics, so the idea isn't too novel.
@@queazy03 It was a cartoon, sdoesn't mean it wasn't talked about throughout the show. There's only so much time in a cartoon to devote to the discussion. In Jupiter's Legacy, its the Entire theme! "Does Might make Right?"
Jupiter's legacy : " my daddy will never love me I can never live up to my daddy's expectations. " Invincible : " my daddy beat me like a rag doll telling me that my mother was nothing but a pet. And proceed to go to a subway station and stand in front of a subway train with him using me as a shield as bodies were splattered against me like a bug on the windshield. " Jupiter's legacy : " that's rough buddy "
invincible should have been done in the art style of baki or berserk to make it even more gruesome but i guess netflix made it super cartoony so the brain matter and blood and organ splatter wouldnt bother veiwers too much, such a missed opportunity
@@timetraveler0002 I think it was done for the opposite purpose, actually. To create a clear dichotomy and contrast between the bright/cartoony view Mark had about superheroes with the brutal and bloody reality. The saturday morning cartoon art style was meant to lull you into a false sense of comfort before the gore yanked you out of it.
I really love this channel because you actually make me see the "ideal" side of libertarianism and capitalism so that I can compare it to the ideal "socialism". Both ideals are sadly not present anywhere today.
There will never be an ideal socialism though, it's about centralisation, that only leeds to one thing, absolute Government control. Marxism isn't the only socialist theory, before Marxism it was Utopianism, Marxism evolved into Communism (which itself splintered into different thought schools) and after Marx it was Fascism alongside National Socialism. There is no ideal, even philosophically. The only one worth considering being an ideal is Star Trek's vision, because even if Gene didn't intend it, it is somewhat libertarian in the aspect of self improvement where you still have individual freedom (Plus, DS9 added very insightful and realistic critique thus not letting the ideal get away with being idealistic, it needs to have levels of pragmatism). But even then, we are nowhere near technologically close to post-scarcity, so it's just too unrealistic. In any "ideal" where you centralize and freedom, privacy and liberty all become at risk, then it is no longer an ideal, at least in my belief.
@@Garry_Combine That's not what socialism actually is. In fact, socialism, actual socialism, has no government involvement whatsoever. Socialism is a workplace democracy, where you, the worker, vote on who your leader is, instead of having a boss who owns the factory where you work. Instead of selling your labor to another person and getting a small amount of monetary compensation, you partly own the place where you work, and are entitled to the fruits of your labor. I'm not saying I support such a system. But your idea of what socialism is is very limited.
@@minutemansam1214 socialism is the group ownership of the means of production. If I form clay with my hands what it is the means of production? I am. And this is always the failure of socialism. Your description of socialism is called cooperative ownership and is completely achievable in a free capitalist society. Hence why co-ops exist. I recommend you do some research on your local businesses. I guarantee you will find some.
@@thefool8224 It actually depends, because there are different renditions as I listed above. However there is one commonality and it's not economic centralisation. It's that their all collectivist, so no version is ideal because we are all individuals even if some wish to strip that away from us, that's the simple truth. "the opposite of individualism"- Alexandre Vinet, the first person (that we know of) to use and define the term socialism (this was during the 1830s. It is inherently not ideal, I just made a really poor case before. I do agree with you btw, I am just fleshing out my stuff for others that may read this. Economically and ethically it is not ideal.
I get how the wife stopped hero's from killing someone who was already down, but why do they care so much that the son hit someone hard enough to kill him when that man was strong enough to kill them? Imagine if the cops never used their guns? Could you see them trying to tackle a guy with a gun who already shot three of them? I totally understand no murder, but pulling your punches with someone who has the power (and is trying) to kill you is just insane.
Because despite his self defense being justified, there is always a precedent set that can lead down some very dark roads without proper understanding of the circumstances.
I actually just watched this the other day, I really liked it, I'd never even heard of it before, just saw it on Netflix and thought I'd give it a watch. Shame it's not getting a continuation though...
This really makes me wish I still had a Netflix account so that I could watch this show. I was wondering why everyone was talking about this show in a negative context (media), and now I think I can see why. There are so many good Superman clone comics for various reasons and this really seems up my alley. Maybe I'll just invest in the comic books
The original "Jupiter's Legacy " comics by Millar are amazing, I highly recommend them. But even with such rich source material, I was quite disappointed on the poor TV adaptation.
I think we also need to remember that the role of Government is to guarantee fair competition in the market: enforce that everyone is playing under the same rules and that your economic power won't undermine these rules.
@@rolnesc2459 yeah I think there were some great ideas in there, but how it was handled was just awful in my opinion. Plus, they poured so much money into it and it still felt cheap!
I'm getting the feeling that this is the same reason why the Dark Crystal Age of Resistance was cancelled. It was about the different Gelfling clans uniting for their freedoms by fighting the hedonistic control freaks that are the Skeksis.
Me and my friends were watching this show together and we really enjoyed it. Everybody finished it thinking Utopian was in the wrong, but after talking about it, we realized that he is the voice of reason and that what people are demanding of him is just unreasonable. It is a shame that it was cancelled, I'm all for more superhero stories - the world can aways use some more hope and inspiration.
@L 024 it's ok to execute him if we try him with appropriate legal ways that put him on trial for crimes and then have him publicly executed for valid reasons so that the society viewing it understands why the masses agreed to execute him. We can ofc talk about how functional the justice system is, as many find flaws in it and I see some too. But there should be a certain consistency with a reason behind it when it comes to the execution of highly evil criminals. Like joker from Batman. I think he should be arrested by Batman and Batman shouldn't kill, but when the joker is tried for his crimes, I don't see any outcome where he doesn't get the electric chair once the jury and masses judge him. And the reason of the trial would be to have a fair representation of his case for the public and jury to decide whether he should die, which is why I disagree with one man choosing who is called a villain or criminal who is so beyond humanitt that they deserve to die etc
@L 024 I fully disagree there. I believe every living being deserves the compassion of equality and thus the basic human rights given to members or progressive societies and all
Everyone has this idea that, if the world were in their vision, the world would be a better place. But as we’ve seen time and time again, most ideas we have don’t succeed the first, second, or even 15th try. If a small businesses can’t get it right the first 4 tries, why do we allow the government to make such radical changes and decisions?
@@NicoleKisa Forcing visions (moral, economic, religious, etc.) onto other people is bad, not just because it’s tyranny but because most visions fail when the rubber meets the road.
In the Golden Age of Comics, superheroes like Superman and Batman killed. The no-kill rule was censorship. When Batman could no longer kill, Bob Kane the creator Batman said, "he is no longer the dark knight." And let's not forget that every time Batman does not kill the Joker, knowing full well that the Joker escaping Arkham is not a matter of if but when, he is partly responsible for all the people the Joker kills.
That’s always been my problem with Batman’s no kill policy. Fine use that policy when you are taking out normal punks but when you are battling super villains kill them who knows how many lives your are saving (cough Jason Todd cough cough).
The problem with that stance is that who gets to determine whether a person needs to be stopped by killing? Do you want a police force who gets to decide which person to execute as a matter of course?
@@tomascorona71 I’m fine with any super humans (or non-human super villains) who step out of line being executed by Batman (or potentially his real life counterpart Elon Musk.) Doubly fine if they have already escaped prison once. What’s ironic about your comment is that while Batman doesn’t kill there’s no reason to believe that the Gotham PD doesn’t. I’m not saying Batman should hunt down and execute these guys (although the Red Hood has some compelling arguments). If bad guys want to surrender peacefully they should have that option. But once the fight is on Bats should take them out permanently.
Gotham PD, at least under James Gordon, is required to follow the rules of engagement, as with any decent police force. This is part of the restraints to the punitive power given to them. Miranda is not a frippery, it is there because of previous unfortunate incidents. Batman knows this and he has no official standing with Gotham PD, despite Adam West 😁
@@tomascorona71 I’m going to assume that even under “rules of engagement” Gotham PD can use deadly force. I don’t read the comics but I base this off the fact that Gotham PD carries guns, you don’t carry guns unless you are going to use them and if you use them, you are planning on killing someone with them. (Thus the reason Batman doesn’t carry a gun.) I am well aware that Batman isn’t a part of Gotham PD, that was kind of my point. I don’t want a police force who gets to decide who lives or dies but I am fine with a Batman who does, that said the police force does get to decide who lives or dies. Normal officers attempt to use deadly force against super villains all the time, they are just unsuccessful at it. I am basically advocating for Batman to use the same rules of engagement of the police, if a bad guy uses deadly force against him, he can use it against them. (My exception is if they’ve escaped prison, then I’m fine with having them be Wanted: Dead or Alive.)
Jupiter's Legacy has the commentary to be good but just lacks the acting, writing, and production. 😂 I'd rather watch the Out of Frame episode than the actual show!
I watched it and I found those things to be decent I like it better than I thought I would mostly because of the things FEE pointed out. One of the more new enjoyable shows I watched recently. I wish they would make more.
The writing and acting were perfectly fine, and the 1930s timeline was some of the best “superpower origin story” stuff I’ve seen in a long while. The effects were fine as well tbh. People just don’t have the patience to enjoy a slower paced story anymore
Excellent. I would add that in a self defense or defense of others situation, the goal is to stop the threat, not to kill. The killing of the attacker is a byproduct. In other words, the young hero's intent was to use enough force to stop the villain; it just so happened that he had to kill him. In a way it is similar to real life situations where someone has to, say, shoot a criminal who is attacking them. Their intent is to stop the attack. The criminal may die, or he may be incapacitated, but either is within the scope of the goal; it is not the intent to kill, simply to neutralize the immediate threat. This may seem to be splitting hairs, but since our entire justice system is based on the intent of an act, I think it is important to point out. In a superhero vs. common man situation it is very unlikely the hero would have to use such a level of force since he has the advantage, unlike a real life situation where the criminal usually is evenly matched with the good guy and may even have an advantage in strength, or be on drugs, or be more prepared to do harm due to lack of scruples; however in the Paragon's example, vs. a powerful super villain, it becomes much more likely the level of force needed may risk the attacker's life.
Utopian is correct in most respects. One iota I would add is that deadly force is required to save lives, albeit your own or innocent civilians. Not to execute someone out of anger, but to kill in self defense. The Utopian is very powerful but if a villain is too strong, he would need to kill them. What I like is that he had the grace to consider adding these iotas to the code. He fired up his eyes to kill Blackstar in episode 8, but stopped when he didn’t need to. He also said, “I need to listen to the younger generation more so I can better understand them”. This ability to realize his small errors makes him a true hero. If season 2 happened he would probably amend the code and then he would have to kill Brainwave to save himself or his family. Walter is the ultimate villain because he represents everything Sheldon stands against. He is a scheming snake who is disguised as a close friend. He wants to rule with an iron fist and return America to its “glory days”, unified under one ruler (himself). His power, (mind control), even is an illustration of this. He pretends to be weak but his power actually rivals (if not surpasses) his brother’s. If Sheldon wasn’t immune to his control Walter would’ve killed him long ago. If Sheldon was killed, Walter would be unstoppable, being able to mind control even the strongest heroes (Grace, Brandon, George, Petra, Chloe, Sierra, and everyone else). Sheldon needs to find out who his brother really is fast before he succeeds in killing him.
It's kinda crazy to think that this story feels like what happens when you take Superman's ideals and turn it into a story concept that is up front and center. I had been trying to think of how I wanted to go about telling my own story that delves more into the dilemmas of a hero and such. Guess I didn't realize just how perfect this was as inspiration. I only just found this channel and I can tell you put a lot of effort into this video. You really know you stuff and I'll definitely be checking out more videos over time.
I think the code was "We do not kill..." in order to provide conflict in the name of narrative. A more realistic, and principled code would be "We do not murder..."
So it sounds like this show was basically an allegory about younger generations breaking away from traditional values, superimposed onto a superhero story. Probably interesting, but my goodness, just from these clips it would appear that the effects work wasn't quite up to par.
the idea of fighting (evil) without killing is the most unrealistic thing ever especially if that evil is some galactic powerful being or even a normal human like the joker
This is one of the many reasons I cancelled my Netflix account, constantly cancelling good shows while pumping out a constant stream of hot garbage and then hiking monthly prices for the privilege. I really enjoyed Messiah and wanted to find out where it was going, nope, cancelled, Travellers? Cancelled. The Dark Crystal? Cancelled. Fuck Netflix.
@@devlinX haha it's okay. So I haven't seen the show in and of itself (it wasn't my cup of tea) but from what I gather it left off on whether the Messiah was the antichrist or not. In Islam it is believed a individual will come who claims he is the Messiah (in the show he didn't directly claim this but he didn't dissuade the idea either) and he will perform miracles. Like the show he will also travel the world and be seen everywhere,people will follow him and hail him the next coming of Christ. It is revealed however he is just a powerful magician (whom God has sent to test mankind) and he has no intention of saving the world or its people. Rather,he wishes to lead them astray. Unlike the show,in Islam it is said he will have a marking on his forehead that says "Dajjal" in Arabic. The Dajjal means "false prophet"/Antichrist. Now after Dajjal is revealed it is said a real Mehdi will surface and will take his people to safety (this not only being Muslims but anyone whom follows the Mehdi). With him comes the true coming of Jesus(who is believed to have not died in Islam). Jesus will be the one to kill the antichrist and resolve the sorrows he brings. During the time it is believed that a single day will feel stretched as is if it's a month and a year as if it's 10. There will be death,sorrow and hate. There are many signs of this time but I can't list them all rn (if you want it then I'd be happy to 😊). I hope this helped a bit(?) But I do hope they make a season 2 so you can enjoy the story.
Man, I really liked this show, this wasn’t the best way to find out it was cancelled, but at least there’s other people who saw good in the show and in both the message of and debate on Utopian’s code, and that’s at least some consolation.
It is almost certainly a cost issue, and unlike Netflix at the very height of its success and profitability before 50 gazillion other streaming services came onto the scene, they have to count their pennies now.. If "Jupiter's Legacy" had come out a few years ago, back when Netflix was smack dab in the middle of it say yes to anything no matter how much it cost phase, they probably would have gotten at least two or three seasons out of it. I agree with you, it's not only very good (relatively speaking) given the standard fare in most superhero series, it also mostly avoided woke politics which would be a real problem for me to watch in cinema these days even if I were a left-winger.
Look at the world, violent riots are called peaceful protests, people on social media take joy in getting people fired and ruining future prospects. People vote for politicians who promise privileges as rights and to crush people who disagree. Combine ideology with costs and it was doomed from the start.
I think the code should be: We do not govern. We do not murder. Murder has intent behind it, killing can happen by accident or occur as a result of self defense. Still a good code though, and I'll be checking this show out.
@@tomascorona71 with some thought, I agree. It's impossible to know the intent without sufficient evidence and so forth. So it's best expressed as do not kill.
Maybe Paragon should have just said “oops” afterward. I mean who knows what kind of lethal force it takes to take out a giant whatever he was? He just miscalculated.
I would really like to see this series continue! With that said, you are raising good points and we should raise these questions. I do not agree with Sheldon’s code on one BIG part, though. A moral code that forbids killing in self defense is a code for the victims of murderers. A libertarian social order requires the use of force in response to force. It is not pacifism.
A couple things I didn’t quite agree with, but the main one is at 20:00 The rise in inflation that we are experiencing is in large part due to economic, industrial, and innovative stagnation caused by government taxes, subsidization, and regulation. Consumer electronics have become far more affordable while also providing us with things like the internet, while the cost of “education” has skyrocketed. The main factor in that dichotomy is government subsidization.
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that change is a universal constant, and not anticipating it is dangerously naive. The Utopian's ideals are noble and should be upheld, but that being said, it is short-sighted to think that one can apply their rigid conduct across all instances. To me, the problem all comes down to the fact that the Utopian is an Extremist. He may not be a God who decides who lives and who dies and control what people should and shouldn't do but he is still an extremist in the sense that he believes that he and his Union are powerful enough to overcome any challenge while adhering to their Code, and like any Extremist, he never anticipated, or even thinks to anticipate, that he would inevitably face a situation like Blackstar for which the only options are to compromise their beliefs or allow their loved ones to suffer. As hard as it is to do the right thing, the right thing must be upheld whenever possible, but at the same time, you have to be open to the possibility that not every trial you face can be overcome without sacrificing something dear to you, be it an object, person, or an abstract belief. The story of Jupiter's Legacy is best seen as a case study for why Extremism, regardless of intent, is a bad thing: on the one hand, you can have a Tyrant with a God-Complex who rules through fear and control; but on the other hand, you can have a well-intentioned, honourable, but inflexible person who believes that he can never face a moral dilemma in his life, and is frustrated when reality inevitably presents him with a scenario that puts his worldview into question and which reminds him that, no matter what, he cannot control or contain everything, superpowered or not.
Mad respect for keeping the conversation balanced, level headed, and realistic while dabbling in politics and society. I was totally anticipating pandering and finger wagging towards an ideological leaning and left gleefully incorrect.
It's too bad the show was discontinued. It didn't have a great execution, but the questions it tackled with were far more interesting than many other hero shows. The idea of checks and balances is rearely touched when it comes to power fantasies and I feel is extremely necessary when people's impatience and thirst for the power of the state is so high. Everyone wants to change the world, but no one thinks they could be wrong or misguided. They're just like the children of the old guard heroes.
It's easy for Superman (and superman equivalents) to make these no kill rules when their own lives are rarely on the line. To force less resilient heroes to live by them as well is unfair. An interesting story arc would have been to have the Utopian become a lot more vulnerable, either due to age or some sort of accident. And then have him see how difficult things have been for the other heroes. Would he still stand by his no kill rule when villains could now realistically kill him?
Gonna point out that the subtitles are just perfect, they change color as other characters talk to help identify better what is hapenning, what the narrator talks and that is in the text are the exact same thing and the timing don't fail a single frame. Also, great video and really make us think.
I loved the show! The moral dilemma presented in the series is definitely one of its best features. I truly hope they'll reconsider green lighting season 2.
This is a simple matter of boundary setting. In society, without boundary setting, nothing works as it's supposed to. Simply put, if you break or cross someone's boundaries, you get punished accordingly. Let's put it this way, you wouldn't execute a pick-pocket. However, if there's someone hell bent on killing everyone, then you will put them down with prejudice. Both broke some sort of social boundaries. But one of them was a greater threat. So, the greater the threat to that boundary, the greater the punishment for it. No one is equal. And their actions make them even more different. The reason those two different types of individuals would get different punishment is because of the levels of damage they would do with their actions. So, in this case, being too idealistic, is what gets people killed, i.e. The under-enforcement of boundaries. But being too authoritarian also gets people killed, I.E. The over-enforcement of boundaries. Basically, the balance lies in "punishment should fit the crime" idiom. The moment someone chooses to violate the set boundaries of someone or a group of someones, is the moment they lose the right to ask anyone to respect or obey their own boundaries. And they will get what they wanted to impose on someone else, even if it is death. The same concept of boundary setting applies to all. It's a very under-talked concept. So people don't even understand where it all stems from. Boundaries are often determined by a common ground when individuals create a group and decide as a community what would and wouldn't be a violation. Boundaries are often not decided by individuals when we're talking about a society. Individual boundaries only extend to one individual. But often times, individual boundaries are also a commonality in a society. For example, not wanting to get hurt or robbed is a common boundary set by all.
They cancelled it already?? Rofl i was actually excited about this show. Given the origin was the most interesting, but i was looking forward to exploring the world and characters further.
Just stumbled upon your channel. Great analysis and commentary. Very refreshing perspective. You gained a subscriber today. During the show I often found myself relating more to Sheldon’s Code. I could see how people would find him as tone deaf or out of touch. They are gravely mistaken. “If you don’t STAND for something, you will FALL for anything.” Sheldon stands for something and it made him unflinching in the face of his harshest critics, even if they were his own family. He refused to compromise on his values and ethics. Great character and ideal to aspire too.
A utopia is an imaginary society with favorable ideals. Focussing on equality, freedom, and justice.... How is that different that libertarian ideas? It's not ironic at all.
@@chiefgully9353 Libertarians have always been, and will always be, at a disadvantage against the utopians of the Left and the utopians of the Right in that conservatives believe that it very often is the case that there is nothing to be done, or not much to be done, that most problems are to be managed rather than solved, that we should aim at mitigation rather than transformation, that we are better positioned to assuage than to conquer, that things are what they are and must be dealt which on that basis. DO try and keep up, yah?
@@johnvannewhouse keep up with what there budy. The definition of a utopia in bases is independent of political veiw. You can have a libertarian utopia, just as much as a progressive, conservative utopia. The irony here is your condensention while being fundamentally off base. Dont worry I'll wait, comming down of that horse might take you a bit.
@@chiefgully9353 Dude.... you need to proofread your shit. I get that English may be your second language...but you are borderline incoherent. Get your shit together. "Condensation"? I am laughing my ass off....
True Freedom requires responsibility - not only taking responsibility for one's self but taking responsibility for those who won't take care of themselves -> that is why "true freedom" is feared, because you would have to be responsible for your fellow man as well as your own actions (or inactions).
Thanks for introducing me to this awesome show today. I just binged the whole season directly after your video and I have to say it was so uplifting to have a "Good" Superhero show after SO LONG! I liked The Boys, but it was really nihilistic and I don't have Amazon Prime anymore. And don't get me started on the Marvel Shows. X(
What was so brilliant about our founding fathers and the way they wrote our constitution was that it was written as a limitation on government, not a granting of rights. The 1st amendment does not "grant" us the right to free speech, it restricts the government from making laws that would limit that freedom. You see that very same principle applied with "The Code", it is a deliberate restriction on what these superhumans are allowed to do because they are very easily capable of going too far. It's very much is a perfect allegory of the US constitution, where politicians, whether well intentioned or otherwise, will use the guise of "needing to modernize to address modern solutions". How often have you heard the tired and flawed argument against 2A that, "it only applied to muskets, no ARs", when that couldn't be further from the truth. 2A was never about the weapon, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is about restricting the government.
@@centipedekid9824 Invincible is the story of the proverbial HAPA. His father is an aryan ubermensch and his mother is a beautiful asian woman. He should have been taught better when he was young by Nolan to side with his own people. Imagine being the kid who abandoned a galactic empire because he was filled with neoliberal propaganda.
@@edwarddickson7026 The point (as always for modern garbage media) is an ode to post-enlightenment humanism. This "magical human spirit" nonsense is the basis for all forms of humanism, some how justifying all people being fundamentally equal and supporting (proven false) ideals of tabula raza. I do understand the point of the comics, the point is wrong. Mark should side with his ancestry, with Viltrum, with an obviously superior people.
Pacifism is only an option, when you hold the position of strength. If you're not strong enough to defend yourself, then you lose the privilege of deciding whether to get involved or not. I agree that the code should apply to fighting normal criminals, who don't have even a fraction of the power that the heroes do. But when you're facing a super powered threat, who is strong enough to threaten or even kill multiple heroes in combat, refusing to use lethal force is just blatant insanity.
It will be interesting to see your thoughts on AOT , especially the new season. It contains many important ideas , is extremely well made and has more than enough food for thought. You have already discussed some of the ideas and it will give you the chance to expand on them and other , that you still haven't examined , but probably should .
Hey, if you haven't checked out Money Heist on Netflix, I think it could make a great topic for Out of Frame. Essentially it is where a group of robbers take the royal mint of Spain hostage and use it to print themselves billions of euros. A theme throughout the show is that they aren't really stealing, since they are just printing new money instead of taking money that other people own. This really reveals how the average person just thinks there is no problem with just printing as much money as you like and don't understand the effect of money printing on everyone's savings and how the gov excessively printing money is effectively stealing money from people with savings.
Rebuttal to never killing: “Gohan, let it go. It is not a sin to fight for the right cause. There are those who words alone will not reach. Cell is such a being. You are gentle. You do not like to hurt. I know because I too have learned these feelings. But it is because you cherish life that you must protect it. Please drop your restraints. Protect the life I loved. You have the strength, my scanners sensed it. Just... let it go.”
Thank you for making this video,I would've never even heard of this show if it wasn't for this video. One of the best super hero shows I've seen in a while,Netflix is insane to cancel it.(and not properly advertise it!) It's not afraid to be serious, while also not being an edgelord fest. I really loved this show,and Sheldon is an amazing superhero with a wonderful story.
I mean both probably, it didn't do as well because it was so politically charged (yes it was, it was freedom toting pretty hard) and those who believe the government should have more power didn't like the show very much lol.
@@HiddenOcelot in the right network it would have made a killing being on Netflix meant the show had an expiration date as it railed against the authoritarian left. Hollywood hates American values,traditions, Americans.... I hope somebody else picks it up if Gina Carano could get uncancelled and get her own movie on daily wire hopefully jupiters legacy survives too
2 questions: 1. How do you do your subtitles for your videos? I do them manually and it takes a whole lot of time. 2. Where do you generally get movie scenes for your videos?
"We do not kill, we do not govern" - The (solely) Utopian's code that GOVERNS the other Supers! That's why Chloe was the most interesting character in the show, she did not bend to the Utopian's will. The only other storyline worth watching was the origin of their powers, which was dragged out (purposely) all the way to the final episode.
OK, I didn't see the show, but punching someone hard when they're in the process of trying to kill someone is not an execution, even if you know you are going to kill them, but given the super powers of the bad guy, I can't see how he'd have known the outcome. As for not ruling, I can see not seizing power by force, but I would not rule out running for office.
Netflix gave them 200million budget for Jupiter's Legacy and it looked like it was made for 2 million in total. And the show was boring af whenever they showed the current day life. Good riddance. The daughter Chloe looks like a ray of sunshine and everything that's joyful and good in the world and they turned her into a emo drug addict and nothing else. They should fire the casting directors and writers.
Never heard of your channel or seen it, and I know it means nothing, but my "like" and comment are given in true appreciation of your content on this video, not a mindless click. Very insightful!
Thought the flashback parts were fairly good, and some of the characters struggles with the code, but it was mostly just a poorly made show. Hence why it was canceled. Not saying that Netflix doesn't sometimes cancel a decent show, this show wasn't it. Definitely too groan-worthy in too many parts.
@@RS-ub3we Should of saved the flashbacks for season 2 and pushed the end of volume one. Imagine if invincible didn't have the climax fight between Invincible and his dad. Same thing.
Mister Rogers gave graciousness for pride, returned generosity for greed, and Love for hate. Hero’s return Good for evil and Love to do it. We should take time and remember all the people who helped us along the way.
I see you missed the entire premise of why the utopian was ranting about the greatness of capitalism before he got his powers. He lost his father and saw his country suffer from capitalism (which he believed to be the greatest system ever devised), leading him to eventually question it when gaining his powers and then creating "The Code" to circumvent the selfishness he once believed in. He literally decided to believe in a greater ideal above capitalism once he gains his powers, which is why he's then called "The Utopian", which demonstrates how the desire to do better things with better ideals is worth more than just giving into a flawed system (capitalism) that cynically sneers at any attempt at "utopian" ideals. Just because you're trying to push libertarian economics and "classical liberalism" with this show (which is now just libertarian conservatism today), it doesn't mean capitalism is suddenly "vindicated" from all its excessive abuses and irrational functions.
What you call "excessive abuses and irrational functions" isn't capitalism. It's greed from bad people who are abusing a system, which can happen to any system. And while nothing is every perfect, that doesn't mean we can't improve it and make it better, nor that a system isn't good in the first place. And every case of "evil capitalism" I've seen someone bring up, if you actually look under the surface level and get down to the details, it's more of a case of someone abusing a law or a careless person who didn't care to think. No system will ever be foolproof enough to protect these people.
Commonly, anti-capitalists operate under the assumption that the other 'isms' do away with commerce, leading humanity away from the evils of money and power. But it never seems to strike that commerce exists in every '-ism,' and that some of them only accomplish a distancing of the individual from their own stake in commercial practice. Rather than empowerment by leveling the playing field, people experience subjugation at the hands of whoever is in charge of dispersing resources, while the executive decides for that individual what it is they need. Commerce is what creates inequality, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system developed with the awareness that the evils of commerce cannot be eliminated, and as such must be contained within its domain, while the boons of commerce are allowed to express freely. In short, anti-capitalists conflate commerce for capitalism, and that is why the discourse always follows, "You hate that, but that's not capitalism."
Under capitalism, exploitation can be committed by some people. Under socialism, exploitation is prescribed to all people. This is the key difference between the two systems. What you need to understand is that exploitation of others is an element of human nature. Capitalism doesn't stop human nature, and so it also doesn't stop exploitation. But socialism is much worse: it not only allows for exploitation, it not only incentivizes exploitation - it actually prescribes exploitation. Under socialism, exploitation is a basic requirement.
A big force in the original story was how George became disillusioned by the team's blind acceptance of American corporatist policies when those policies were doing an incredible amount of damage to normal people. He tried to fight the system and ended up getting the shit kicked out of him by literally every other hero for it.
This also makes me wonder about "the Dark Crystal" Netflix series and how that series was willingly cancelled after SO MUCH praise and development! A Legit Amazing series....tossed to the wayside with No DVDs or any other access to it. What a Fucking piece of Sh*t Netflix has become.
Violence is the initiation of force, hence Vio, as in violation. Defensive force is not an act of violence, even if that force has to be lethal to stop the aggressor..
I think the real reason it was cancelled was Netflix's double whammy that ensures their series go unnoticed: it was released in one shot, and without marketing. If each episode was released weekly, with some marketing behind it, people might have noticed.
Choosing not to do something is still choosing. Seriously, what would the code be if the fake Blackstar killed everyone on that hill that day? They have just become the judge, jury, and execution of everyone the villains victimize with impunity.
I didn’t understand the thing where the code has served us well through all those crisis. Who exactly follows the code? And who is trying to subvert it?
I full notifications turned on for your channel and I have missed several videos. I'm not sure why RUclips would throttle this content. The content in Your videos is never sensationalized or vulgar. Your points are always stated in a calm logical manner.
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
I enjoyed talking about the morals of the characters in this show with my brother. We talked about what we thought were good ideas and the different flaws the other ideologies presented. It's a shame that Netflix went and cancelled it just as things were ramping up
@UCcuSBc01tXp3P5R21s2kqag I liked it, despite it's short comings. However my standards have gotten pretty low so it's still probably not good
@@logantidwell7698 ok
I much preferred the backstory set in the 20's,all the modern day stuff was a bit meh and the fight scenes were pretty terrible.
Specifically as for the values, I think the line I hated the most was how they jumped straight from not getting involved in WW2, to the obvious reference for the capitol riots. I'm sorry, but there was a ton of stuff inbetween arguably worse or equal to the holocaust. To name but a few, Mao's cultural revolution and great leap forwards, millions dead, the reign of Pol Pot, the proxy war between East and west, the rewandan genocide, but no, a few capitol Hill rioters set him off.
This show was a dumpster fire despite mentioning interesting ideas.
The ideas it explores aren't the problem, its horrible delivery is.
I really liked Jupiter's Legacy. It was a complete surprise being pretty decent in spite of being funded by Netflix.
Even more surprising when they didn't try to through all the white-male characters under the proverbial bus to show how much they love diversity.
I'm sorry I did try and like the show but I couldn't really get into Jupiter. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but he wasn't a great father, and I understand why his daughter had cut ties with him. If your parent wasn't around because there was always some bad guy, or world ending threat, and the only time your parent gave you attention was to lecture you. I'd feel pretty bitter as well. When my daughters were born I asked my father what's some of the most important things a father can do. He told me
"Talk less, listen more, admit when you made a bad call or choice, and just show up once in a while"
"If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies."
-Jon Stewart.
If you're unwilling to constantly evaluate your values, you're a zealot.
@@JensHove True, but I think Stewart was assuming that these values would be timeless ones like those of The Code. If that is the case, then it would be moral consistency and virtue not zealotry.
@@JensHove That is the first step to having no values and rationalizing everything. If you want an excuse to be an hypocrite you can always find one. Zealotry is not necessarily bad and it may as well be the only thing capable of keeping oneself in line actually as the human capacity to rationalize and create excuses is almost infinite.
@@JensHove i think in context of being enforced on people vs enforce on yourself
@@JensHove Some values are worth being zealous for. Like the ones that bring freedom, prosperity, and happiness to the most people possible
“Whenever you can, act as a liberator. Freedom, dignity, wealth - these three together constitute the greatest happiness of humanity. If you bequeath all three to your people, their love for you will never die.”
-- Cyrus the Great
Out of frame should do Netflix's 'sweet tooth' next. That was actually a well made show with good acting and a well used budget. Good to talk about individual liberty in the context of a post apocalyptic society.
Cyrus deserved to be called "Great".
@@Borderose Definitely more than some punk, who only took on one empire, capitalized off his father's death, and was handed victory thanks to military tactics devised by other Greeks mostly his father.
Cyrus came from a backwater, that most great powers didn't even know existed, until he showed up.
@@k_tess Alexander worked hard for his name. He led from the front and shared in his men's suffering. Sure, the more you know about history the more one realizes how much of his success he truly owed his father Philip. But given how many stories we have of empires being undone by fuckwad sons? Alex the Pretty-All-Right did a great job.
@@k_tess Cyrus on the other hand was the Mr. Rogers of conquerors. Given what we know about him, it seemed that he genuinely gave a shit about people and not just his own ego. He wanted everyone who followed him as well as those who lost to him to live well and gave them laws and systems that allowed them the most amount of happiness and freedom to be had in the Ancient World.
"If the badguys don't have any moral restrictions, then why should (we)?" The answer is right there in the question. BADGUYS don't have moral restrictions. If we don't have any moral restrictions, then we're no different than the bad guys.
Ikr it's one of those the ends justify the means debates, at some point you cross the line between being moral and right and you wind up just doing evil acts to get to your means. i think of it like this "If you lose your soul/humanity while on the journey did you really gain anything? Or did you just lose everything?"
Youre missing the point. What actual good does being a 'good guy' get you in the show's present day?
@@jamescollinge5043 I haven't seen the show, so I am unable to directly respond to your question. Short answer: I think morals trump ethics. No matter what the bad guys do there are bounds we should not cross.
Long answer: any discussion concerning concepts of good and bad I have been part of always have boiled down to one thing: do you believe there are moral absolutes? If a person lacks belief in any moral absolutes, then there can be no good or bad for them. At most they can have personal or societal ethics, and ethics change depending on society and setting. In other words, the ends justify the means, and nothing you do is ever improper so long as you can either justify it or change society to accept it. If we hold moral absolutes however, then the ends cannot justify any means that go against those morals. There will be lines that we do not cross and things we will not do because they are wrong even if they are ethical. Now, obviously it's more complicated than that, but that's the jist of it. (Edit: spelling)
@@CowCommando you should watch the show because it's at least interesting. There's a great discussion in the 5th episode about the extent to which 'The Code' is self-serving.
Think about Batman or Superman. We're told that their refusal to kill is what makes them noble. To what extent is that no-kill rule there so they can tell themselves they're different or superior to their villains? Does it actually save lives when you have villains like Joker or Darkseid who have no hope of rehabilitation? It's not an easy question, and why i feel 'What's So Funny About Truth and Justice?' presented a bit of a straw man argument in comparison to something like The Authority or Injustice
@@jamescollinge5043 a no kill rule combined with capital punishment for things like murder works pretty well in my opinion. If you've got characters like Superman who can pretty reliably bring villains to trial without much risk to themselves, I suspect it would work even better. I'm also in agreement with FEE's argument in the video that killing the villain to stop him was justified even if it wasn't ideal. In other words, Joker should have gotten executed after his first proven instance of murder, but doesn't give Batman the right to kill every two-bit criminal he comes across either. If you let your law enforcement kill freely, then you've given them permission to be tyrants.
Honestly, this video now makes me mad we’re not getting a Season 2. There were some things I didn’t like about the show, but a good deal of stuff I did like. With the amount of dumb shows Netflix continues, it’s a shame they cancel shows with potential.
@Hamaa7 it's merchandising and selling other stuff. I haven't watched this show, Jupiter's Legacy, yet but it may be hard to merchandise but yea I know nothing fam.
Me too, man. I was really hyped for a second season.
Agreed. The amount of absolute dross on Netflix and they cancel the decent shows. Same with Altered Carbon and a few others.
I might cancel it.
It was against wokeflix political agenda.
@Hamaa7 I get that about super girl, it's really going for too long now, alll the CW shows are. I watched everything and i don't even know whats going on xD
I think 3 seasons for daredevil was good tho, not for me, but at least the wigs were great XD
“Success should always call for showing greater kindness, generosity, and justice; only people lost in the darkness treat it as an occasion for greater greed.”
― Cyrus the Great
Cyrus was wrong. Success is winning the fight to survive. If you win, you can always claim to have done so with greater kindness, generosity, and justice, after the fact. History is written by the winners and warcrimes are only committed by the side that lost.
@@adolfwasrite7009 Because the concept of war crimes isn't that coherent. We think of it as intentionally killing civilians for instance, but even if the losing side only kills soldiers and follows what was set up in the Geneva convention then they're still going to be punishment for them. If not for the soldiers then for the society like in the US civil war.
@@adolfwasrite7009 yeah Bill gates will get his place of honour in the hall of fame in about 20 years
When his son was about to be killed, The Utopian told him afterwards that he would have broken the code to save him. Their vision is very simplistic and i'm surprised that they never faced complex choices in the 90 years of them being superheroes.
"If the bad guys don't have any moral restrictions, why should they?" Because it's the thing that separates the good guys from the bad guy. If they abandon their morals on one issue, who's to say that they won't abandon them on something that could end up with a worse scenario.
Indeed.
Abd even if I think the particular killing in that scene was justified, I think it should be treated as an exception instead of a new rule, because for a lot of people it gets easier and can escalate tensions. It's horryfying how people act as if they could be judge jury and executioner and play with the lives for people who has done stuff that wouldnt warran death in due process.
Exactly. Any death is tragic, even when unavoidable. When you begin down the road of making exceptions to morality then you risk opening up more paths to making exceptions.
@@AstrobotJones isn’t this a fallacy that tho?
This is a cute ideal which works when its just a human with a gun that has a limited amount of damage they can deal and can reasonably be stopped by another human because we're all mostly on the same level but when you tout yourself as defenders of humanity and allow super powered monsters to kill thousands at a time its because that monster doesn't present such a grave threat to "your in group," that being super powered beings, and not because you actually have some deeper moral code about not killing. You see him as an equal and therefore just another average level threat to you.
Its an entirely different ballgame for humans who have far more to lose and far less to defend themselves with who see him as a force of nature backed by malevolence. They have 0 chance to stop him and him getting free means cowering in fear until someone else shows up to help.
@@urinternetsytlistbestie815 it is a fallacy, slippery slope.
"Good principles are worth upholding in the worst of times most of all."
Thanks mate, it might sound silly but I really needed to hear that tonight.
I can't help but take a more practical tack.
The Utopian's code is a paradox. If everyone voluntarily obeys the Code, then Utopian IS A RULER in all but name because he's the one who interprets it. Which violates the code.
Which means the Code is inherently self-defeating. As are all "purely voluntary" systems of morality.
@@Grizabeebles Except he's not: he doesn't dictate what does or does not violate it, the plain meaning is clear.
@@omnitroph1501 -- The meaning of the Code isn't so plain as you might think. The show states that the Code started with just 2 rules:
- We don't govern
- We don't kill
Yet Utopian is mad at Chloe throughout the first season _for using her power for personal gain_ and _for being too apathetic._ That doesn't really violate either rule.
Also, every system of rules has edge cases where things start to break down - I believe there's a line where Utopian calls leaving a bad guy alive but brain-dead or a quadriplegic is "the same" as killing them. That's not the "plain meaning" of the word "kill" at all.
It's clear that Utopian alone is the one who decides what "killing" and "governing" and "personal gain" actually mean. He also clearly is the one who assigns the punishments when people break the Code.
Utopian's stated goal is to create a positive example that people around the world will willingly follow. That's called "soft power" and it's a kind of political action. Utopian is pushing a specific set of moral beliefs through his actions. That may not be day-to-day "government", but it _is_ a form of "governance".
I really wish this show had gotten a season 2. It would have been a great way to teach Civics.
Didn't even know it got cancelled til I saw this. Genuinely disappointed. I actually enjoyed the show.
same
It may not be as good as Invincible but it's got a plot worth following and a concept that rings fresh even though it's just one of the many superhero shows popping up in the last few years.
But yeah, I already had a feeling Netflix was going to cancel it. Netflix has done that plenty enough in the past with other shows I've been following...
Luckily you can read the comics if you want an idea of how the show would have gone and ended
I was looking forward to the second season, thanks for raining on my parade again Netflix.
@Mackenzie Bauroth careful you are touching uncharted territory
If hurting someone is done within the Boundaries/Laws of Morality, like in order to defend themselves or others, then it is not using "violence" it's using FORCE. And when taking a life is done to protect someone from an evil person who is knowingly/aware that he or she is about to do something evil/harmful to someone else then is not murder is Killing and yes there is a difference between the two.
So like the utopian said, an execution without due process is unacceptable as while you may claim the person you murdered in self defense was guilty and presumably would get charged of crimes severe enough for the death penalty, another person may not agree. Which is the point of having the ideal of an impartial judicial system (not commenting on whether it's still corruption free or not, but in terms of ideals, one must respect the "villains" human rights too, even if they violate another's, right? Besides it's very easy to label someone evil or a villain, which complicates the problem of making these decisions unilaterally, right?
The reason why characters like The Punisher are so refreshing in comics is many characters go to the EXTREME reverse where they won't kill someone who keeps murdering millions, and a lot of comic writers love to jerk themselves off over how moral that makes the characters (see: Kingdom Come) when in reality it makes them absolutely terrible people that could fix things and won't. I find the MCU struck a perfect balance over just comics, though. Captain America is clearly the good guy, but he will absolutely shoot a bad guy if he has to.
Killing should always be the VERY LAST OPTION if everything else fails.
@@Dinoslay I would contest that anyone volunteering as a policeman should be like Utopian from JL because it's better to die than to kill. I know I will do the same if the time came, but sadly I can't be a policeman in a country I'm not a citizen of and the Indian police force is too rampant with corruption and bigotry for me to join. But I genuinely think it's better to die honorably than live longer as a dishonorable man (unless your inner voices don't haunt you for all the bad things you did, because then it's very easy to sleep at night)
And even then, we should always question if other courses of action would be posible. Having the power to kill most times also means you have the power to restrain, that should always be the goal whenever possible.
Really sad that self defence and the non aggression principle never came up in the series.
Talking about the code non stop while not talking about self defence was like a splinter in my mind and reduced my enjoyment of the series.
Although i would like to see it continue.
They did talk about self defense and legitimate use of violent force though. Maybe go back and watch it again.
@@sneezyrider1 They basically told to get killed instead of killing in such a situation as well. His daddy was very sad when he saved all of them instead of getting killed.
I feel like they would have probably went deeper into that as the series progressed. This is the curse of good shows with only one season.
@@rangav248 Ah if only it was a good show.
@@sneezyrider1 i feel like the therapy session was so important to the show but it was such a small part.
The show has some nice ideas, but those ideas are far more interesting than the story told. Not surprised it was cancelled, a good textbook doesn’t make a good novel.
I'd say that's the reason it was actually cancelled, they (Netflix) wanted it to portray morality as an outdated concept that should be thrown aside for modern efficiency and the producers did the opposite.
@@gabrielclark1425 I just think it wasn’t that good and no one really cared lmao
@@riastradh I kind of agree with that. When watching the show I didn't think about the any of the moral code stuff. I watched good guys vs bad guys and the story line. I didn't think about the code stuff till I watched this breakdown. I liked the show. I thought the acting was far better than any of the B movies on NF. Maybe the budget just didn't work for the viewership.
@@reaperrac190 the flashbacks had me way more invested than any of the modern day segments and I kept wishing I was watching some old timey lovecraft show
@@riastradh "lmao im a dank zoomer lmao"
FEE's Out of Frame is as good as the content it covers.
It’s (often) better than the content it covers
Careful. That could be seen as a compliment or an insult depending on how much you value the content FEE OoF covers.
@@sagegeas9205 It's usually classic films and top-tier television covered, so definitely a compliment!
@@watchdealer11 It covered Falcon and Winter Soldier though...
@@enzossauroYT 😂 that's true
14:46 i swear this is the real reason the canceled the show, and they are gonna make a "sequel" from the villians perspective, we know what is the popuse of that . .
@@jellyfishi_ lol are you talking about some devil worshipping characters in the comic or are you one of those nuts who thinks all elite are devil worshippers?
The exact same purpose. To give more perspective. Not everyone is total evil. In fact most of the people in prison are not evil , they just did the wrong thing. That was like entire point of why dont kill rule is there. Humans have freedom to do good, and we have right to fix our mistakes. We can learn from “badguys’” perspective, what not to do. Many reasons.
@@De34thl1v3s sorry for not being that positive, considering they keep making not profitable series and movies only to fill an agenda, but we'll see
@@BlazingOwnager lol..you mean to say you are one of the nuts who keep their eyes closed?
A show full of white actors were the Utopian is basicly a middle American conservitve with the show explaining how such thinking is great..
It showed how BIM thinking etc.. Is bad..
It showed how even though his thinking was different than other he never thought about forcing them to his way of life..
I don't understand the hate for this show, I thought it was great. It's philosiphy, like you pointed out, was refreshing to see, especially since The Boys is basically the complete opposite of what The Utopian stands for. I'm all for shows being dark, but it's nice to see an original theme. Also, the writing was fucking hilarious. Like when the old man jumped off the building, and he said I'll see you at the bottom, or something to that effect, I laughed so hard! So in that regard, I liked the comedic level of darkness this show had.
The Bruce Timm-iverse tackled this subject with the Justice League animated series.
and it took him one hour, not one season for the setup and another season for the payoff. We've seen this story before many times in comics, so the idea isn't too novel.
@@queazy03
It was a cartoon, sdoesn't mean it wasn't talked about throughout the show. There's only so much time in a cartoon to devote to the discussion. In Jupiter's Legacy, its the Entire theme! "Does Might make Right?"
Jupiter's legacy : " my daddy will never love me I can never live up to my daddy's expectations. "
Invincible : " my daddy beat me like a rag doll telling me that my mother was nothing but a pet. And proceed to go to a subway station and stand in front of a subway train with him using me as a shield as bodies were splattered against me like a bug on the windshield. "
Jupiter's legacy : " that's rough buddy "
Can't wait for season 2 of invincible
And he STILL tried reaching out to his dad!
@@logantidwell7698 That's the only redeeming quality that made me not dislike him as a character.
invincible should have been done in the art style of baki or berserk to make it even more gruesome but i guess netflix made it super cartoony so the brain matter and blood and organ splatter wouldnt bother veiwers too much, such a missed opportunity
@@timetraveler0002 I think it was done for the opposite purpose, actually. To create a clear dichotomy and contrast between the bright/cartoony view Mark had about superheroes with the brutal and bloody reality. The saturday morning cartoon art style was meant to lull you into a false sense of comfort before the gore yanked you out of it.
I really love this channel because you actually make me see the "ideal" side of libertarianism and capitalism so that I can compare it to the ideal "socialism". Both ideals are sadly not present anywhere today.
There will never be an ideal socialism though, it's about centralisation, that only leeds to one thing, absolute Government control. Marxism isn't the only socialist theory, before Marxism it was Utopianism, Marxism evolved into Communism (which itself splintered into different thought schools) and after Marx it was Fascism alongside National Socialism. There is no ideal, even philosophically. The only one worth considering being an ideal is Star Trek's vision, because even if Gene didn't intend it, it is somewhat libertarian in the aspect of self improvement where you still have individual freedom (Plus, DS9 added very insightful and realistic critique thus not letting the ideal get away with being idealistic, it needs to have levels of pragmatism). But even then, we are nowhere near technologically close to post-scarcity, so it's just too unrealistic. In any "ideal" where you centralize and freedom, privacy and liberty all become at risk, then it is no longer an ideal, at least in my belief.
@@Garry_Combine That's not what socialism actually is. In fact, socialism, actual socialism, has no government involvement whatsoever. Socialism is a workplace democracy, where you, the worker, vote on who your leader is, instead of having a boss who owns the factory where you work. Instead of selling your labor to another person and getting a small amount of monetary compensation, you partly own the place where you work, and are entitled to the fruits of your labor.
I'm not saying I support such a system. But your idea of what socialism is is very limited.
@@minutemansam1214 socialism is the group ownership of the means of production.
If I form clay with my hands what it is the means of production? I am. And this is always the failure of socialism.
Your description of socialism is called cooperative ownership and is completely achievable in a free capitalist society. Hence why co-ops exist. I recommend you do some research on your local businesses. I guarantee you will find some.
@@Garry_Combine .the ideal is that as long as everything is centralized, everything will be better. reality doesnt agree with that
@@thefool8224 It actually depends, because there are different renditions as I listed above. However there is one commonality and it's not economic centralisation. It's that their all collectivist, so no version is ideal because we are all individuals even if some wish to strip that away from us, that's the simple truth.
"the opposite of individualism"- Alexandre Vinet, the first person (that we know of) to use and define the term socialism (this was during the 1830s. It is inherently not ideal, I just made a really poor case before.
I do agree with you btw, I am just fleshing out my stuff for others that may read this. Economically and ethically it is not ideal.
I get how the wife stopped hero's from killing someone who was already down, but why do they care so much that the son hit someone hard enough to kill him when that man was strong enough to kill them?
Imagine if the cops never used their guns?
Could you see them trying to tackle a guy with a gun who already shot three of them?
I totally understand no murder, but pulling your punches with someone who has the power (and is trying) to kill you is just insane.
Because despite his self defense being justified, there is always a precedent set that can lead down some very dark roads without proper understanding of the circumstances.
Exactly!
This video achieved what all the Netflix advertising could not, it made me want to see the series.
I actually just watched this the other day, I really liked it, I'd never even heard of it before, just saw it on Netflix and thought I'd give it a watch. Shame it's not getting a continuation though...
This is the blueprint for how you make a Superman story.
This really makes me wish I still had a Netflix account so that I could watch this show. I was wondering why everyone was talking about this show in a negative context (media), and now I think I can see why. There are so many good Superman clone comics for various reasons and this really seems up my alley. Maybe I'll just invest in the comic books
TORRENT
@Domagoj Čović Yeah that's why I said I'd buy the comics
The original "Jupiter's Legacy " comics by Millar are amazing, I highly recommend them. But even with such rich source material, I was quite disappointed on the poor TV adaptation.
I think we also need to remember that the role of Government is to guarantee fair competition in the market: enforce that everyone is playing under the same rules and that your economic power won't undermine these rules.
I think it got canceled because it was rather inconsistent, and only got 2 chapters of the comic adapted in it's 8 episodes
That and it was just... bad
@@patrickchoque7720 With the source material it could've been really geat but well, tons of filler arcs
"its"
@@rolnesc2459 facts, comics are waayyy better
@@rolnesc2459 yeah I think there were some great ideas in there, but how it was handled was just awful in my opinion. Plus, they poured so much money into it and it still felt cheap!
I'm getting the feeling that this is the same reason why the Dark Crystal Age of Resistance was cancelled. It was about the different Gelfling clans uniting for their freedoms by fighting the hedonistic control freaks that are the Skeksis.
Me and my friends were watching this show together and we really enjoyed it. Everybody finished it thinking Utopian was in the wrong, but after talking about it, we realized that he is the voice of reason and that what people are demanding of him is just unreasonable. It is a shame that it was cancelled, I'm all for more superhero stories - the world can aways use some more hope and inspiration.
I'm pro-execution for villains... of course, I get to decide who's a villain.
People like you are literally why the code would exist lol
Every government ever. Yup.
@L 024 it's ok to execute him if we try him with appropriate legal ways that put him on trial for crimes and then have him publicly executed for valid reasons so that the society viewing it understands why the masses agreed to execute him. We can ofc talk about how functional the justice system is, as many find flaws in it and I see some too. But there should be a certain consistency with a reason behind it when it comes to the execution of highly evil criminals. Like joker from Batman. I think he should be arrested by Batman and Batman shouldn't kill, but when the joker is tried for his crimes, I don't see any outcome where he doesn't get the electric chair once the jury and masses judge him. And the reason of the trial would be to have a fair representation of his case for the public and jury to decide whether he should die, which is why I disagree with one man choosing who is called a villain or criminal who is so beyond humanitt that they deserve to die etc
@L 024 I fully disagree there. I believe every living being deserves the compassion of equality and thus the basic human rights given to members or progressive societies and all
That remembers me of Nietzsche: when you're fighting monsters, you have to be very careful in not becoming one.
It is also said "it takes a man in the guise of a monster to defeat a monster in the guise of a man."
@@techpriest6962 And is that from?
@@silverhawkscape2677
It's from a TV series called Hellsing Ultimate, though I feel as if the quote is worth considering.
Everyone has this idea that, if the world were in their vision, the world would be a better place. But as we’ve seen time and time again, most ideas we have don’t succeed the first, second, or even 15th try.
If a small businesses can’t get it right the first 4 tries, why do we allow the government to make such radical changes and decisions?
... what?
@@NicoleKisa Forcing visions (moral, economic, religious, etc.) onto other people is bad, not just because it’s tyranny but because most visions fail when the rubber meets the road.
Propaganda and insatisfaction lead to bad choices.Emotions over facts.
@@striderhiryu2 Do facts care about your feelings? No but so do the other way around for people who just want something to attack
I find the difference is whether or not you'd want to live _under_ your own vision than at the helm.
"kings and lords no longer have the power to steal your stuff"
Civil Asset Forfeiture. Imminent Domain.
The police and the governament have the power to take them but the tide is turning on civil asset forfeiture.
In the Golden Age of Comics, superheroes like Superman and Batman killed. The no-kill rule was censorship. When Batman could no longer kill, Bob Kane the creator Batman said, "he is no longer the dark knight." And let's not forget that every time Batman does not kill the Joker, knowing full well that the Joker escaping Arkham is not a matter of if but when, he is partly responsible for all the people the Joker kills.
That’s always been my problem with Batman’s no kill policy. Fine use that policy when you are taking out normal punks but when you are battling super villains kill them who knows how many lives your are saving (cough Jason Todd cough cough).
The problem with that stance is that who gets to determine whether a person needs to be stopped by killing? Do you want a police force who gets to decide which person to execute as a matter of course?
@@tomascorona71 I’m fine with any super humans (or non-human super villains) who step out of line being executed by Batman (or potentially his real life counterpart Elon Musk.) Doubly fine if they have already escaped prison once.
What’s ironic about your comment is that while Batman doesn’t kill there’s no reason to believe that the Gotham PD doesn’t. I’m not saying Batman should hunt down and execute these guys (although the Red Hood has some compelling arguments). If bad guys want to surrender peacefully they should have that option. But once the fight is on Bats should take them out permanently.
Gotham PD, at least under James Gordon, is required to follow the rules of engagement, as with any decent police force. This is part of the restraints to the punitive power given to them. Miranda is not a frippery, it is there because of previous unfortunate incidents.
Batman knows this and he has no official standing with Gotham PD, despite Adam West 😁
@@tomascorona71 I’m going to assume that even under “rules of engagement” Gotham PD can use deadly force. I don’t read the comics but I base this off the fact that Gotham PD carries guns, you don’t carry guns unless you are going to use them and if you use them, you are planning on killing someone with them. (Thus the reason Batman doesn’t carry a gun.) I am well aware that Batman isn’t a part of Gotham PD, that was kind of my point. I don’t want a police force who gets to decide who lives or dies but I am fine with a Batman who does, that said the police force does get to decide who lives or dies. Normal officers attempt to use deadly force against super villains all the time, they are just unsuccessful at it. I am basically advocating for Batman to use the same rules of engagement of the police, if a bad guy uses deadly force against him, he can use it against them. (My exception is if they’ve escaped prison, then I’m fine with having them be Wanted: Dead or Alive.)
Jupiter's Legacy has the commentary to be good but just lacks the acting, writing, and production. 😂 I'd rather watch the Out of Frame episode than the actual show!
I watched it and I found those things to be decent I like it better than I thought I would mostly because of the things FEE pointed out. One of the more new enjoyable shows I watched recently. I wish they would make more.
The CGI looks terrible
The writing and acting were perfectly fine, and the 1930s timeline was some of the best “superpower origin story” stuff I’ve seen in a long while. The effects were fine as well tbh. People just don’t have the patience to enjoy a slower paced story anymore
@@bemotivated8443 200 millions for that terrible CGI. Netflix gave everything to the makers. They must have stole most of the money.
Yet, I bet those weren't the reasons it got canceled.
“Good men don’t need rules. todays not the day you want to find out why I have so many.”
-Eleven
That's a Batman quote
No, it's a Doctor Who quote, episode name : A good man goes to war
@@the10thdoctor21 Oh, I remember. The one where he imprisons the family. I'm sorry, my bad. It does sound like a Batman quote, though.
@@mraaronludwig it was actually when he was questioning Colonel Runaway and whoever the eyepatch lady was to get Amy and her baby back.
Man I loved the comics but loved what the show went for which is freaking great would love an animated version of this show to be continued.
There is Super Crooks.
Excellent. I would add that in a self defense or defense of others situation, the goal is to stop the threat, not to kill. The killing of the attacker is a byproduct. In other words, the young hero's intent was to use enough force to stop the villain; it just so happened that he had to kill him. In a way it is similar to real life situations where someone has to, say, shoot a criminal who is attacking them. Their intent is to stop the attack. The criminal may die, or he may be incapacitated, but either is within the scope of the goal; it is not the intent to kill, simply to neutralize the immediate threat. This may seem to be splitting hairs, but since our entire justice system is based on the intent of an act, I think it is important to point out. In a superhero vs. common man situation it is very unlikely the hero would have to use such a level of force since he has the advantage, unlike a real life situation where the criminal usually is evenly matched with the good guy and may even have an advantage in strength, or be on drugs, or be more prepared to do harm due to lack of scruples; however in the Paragon's example, vs. a powerful super villain, it becomes much more likely the level of force needed may risk the attacker's life.
"When Clark and I founded the Justice League, we didn't govern people. We protected them." -- Batman, Injustice 2
Utopian is correct in most respects. One iota I would add is that deadly force is required to save lives, albeit your own or innocent civilians. Not to execute someone out of anger, but to kill in self defense. The Utopian is very powerful but if a villain is too strong, he would need to kill them. What I like is that he had the grace to consider adding these iotas to the code. He fired up his eyes to kill Blackstar in episode 8, but stopped when he didn’t need to. He also said, “I need to listen to the younger generation more so I can better understand them”. This ability to realize his small errors makes him a true hero. If season 2 happened he would probably amend the code and then he would have to kill Brainwave to save himself or his family. Walter is the ultimate villain because he represents everything Sheldon stands against. He is a scheming snake who is disguised as a close friend. He wants to rule with an iron fist and return America to its “glory days”, unified under one ruler (himself). His power, (mind control), even is an illustration of this. He pretends to be weak but his power actually rivals (if not surpasses) his brother’s. If Sheldon wasn’t immune to his control Walter would’ve killed him long ago. If Sheldon was killed, Walter would be unstoppable, being able to mind control even the strongest heroes (Grace, Brandon, George, Petra, Chloe, Sierra, and everyone else). Sheldon needs to find out who his brother really is fast before he succeeds in killing him.
It's kinda crazy to think that this story feels like what happens when you take Superman's ideals and turn it into a story concept that is up front and center. I had been trying to think of how I wanted to go about telling my own story that delves more into the dilemmas of a hero and such. Guess I didn't realize just how perfect this was as inspiration. I only just found this channel and I can tell you put a lot of effort into this video. You really know you stuff and I'll definitely be checking out more videos over time.
I think the code was "We do not kill..." in order to provide conflict in the name of narrative. A more realistic, and principled code would be "We do not murder..."
So it sounds like this show was basically an allegory about younger generations breaking away from traditional values, superimposed onto a superhero story. Probably interesting, but my goodness, just from these clips it would appear that the effects work wasn't quite up to par.
the idea of fighting (evil) without killing is the most unrealistic thing ever especially if that evil is some galactic powerful being
or even a normal human like the joker
This is one of the many reasons I cancelled my Netflix account, constantly cancelling good shows while pumping out a constant stream of hot garbage and then hiking monthly prices for the privilege.
I really enjoyed Messiah and wanted to find out where it was going, nope, cancelled, Travellers? Cancelled. The Dark Crystal? Cancelled.
Fuck Netflix.
Seeing as Messiah was based on Muslim texts would you want me to exp it?
@@kingmuizz708 Very interesting 😯
@@devlinX do you wanna hear it or?...
@@kingmuizz708 Yeah sure, sounds really interesting, I never realised it was firmly based on anything at all, I never knew how it would turn out 🖐️
@@devlinX haha it's okay.
So I haven't seen the show in and of itself (it wasn't my cup of tea) but from what I gather it left off on whether the Messiah was the antichrist or not. In Islam it is believed a individual will come who claims he is the Messiah (in the show he didn't directly claim this but he didn't dissuade the idea either) and he will perform miracles. Like the show he will also travel the world and be seen everywhere,people will follow him and hail him the next coming of Christ. It is revealed however he is just a powerful magician (whom God has sent to test mankind) and he has no intention of saving the world or its people. Rather,he wishes to lead them astray. Unlike the show,in Islam it is said he will have a marking on his forehead that says "Dajjal" in Arabic. The Dajjal means "false prophet"/Antichrist.
Now after Dajjal is revealed it is said a real Mehdi will surface and will take his people to safety (this not only being Muslims but anyone whom follows the Mehdi). With him comes the true coming of Jesus(who is believed to have not died in Islam). Jesus will be the one to kill the antichrist and resolve the sorrows he brings.
During the time it is believed that a single day will feel stretched as is if it's a month and a year as if it's 10. There will be death,sorrow and hate. There are many signs of this time but I can't list them all rn (if you want it then I'd be happy to 😊).
I hope this helped a bit(?) But I do hope they make a season 2 so you can enjoy the story.
Man, I really liked this show, this wasn’t the best way to find out it was cancelled, but at least there’s other people who saw good in the show and in both the message of and debate on Utopian’s code, and that’s at least some consolation.
What? It was cancelled?! Why, it's really good! 😥
It is almost certainly a cost issue, and unlike Netflix at the very height of its success and profitability before 50 gazillion other streaming services came onto the scene, they have to count their pennies now..
If "Jupiter's Legacy" had come out a few years ago, back when Netflix was smack dab in the middle of it say yes to anything no matter how much it cost phase, they probably would have gotten at least two or three seasons out of it.
I agree with you, it's not only very good (relatively speaking) given the standard fare in most superhero series, it also mostly avoided woke politics which would be a real problem for me to watch in cinema these days even if I were a left-winger.
Look at the world, violent riots are called peaceful protests, people on social media take joy in getting people fired and ruining future prospects.
People vote for politicians who promise privileges as rights and to crush people who disagree.
Combine ideology with costs and it was doomed from the start.
I think the code should be:
We do not govern.
We do not murder.
Murder has intent behind it, killing can happen by accident or occur as a result of self defense.
Still a good code though, and I'll be checking this show out.
This is more accurate. Even better would be that we do not engage in aggressive force. But that's a lot clunkier.
Actually, the code is good as it stands. Murder implies intent, and there will be a lot of splitting hairs over intent. Same with aggressive force.
@@tomascorona71 with some thought, I agree. It's impossible to know the intent without sufficient evidence and so forth. So it's best expressed as do not kill.
I enjoyed the show, was surprised it was cancelled so soon. Great episode!
Maybe Paragon should have just said “oops” afterward. I mean who knows what kind of lethal force it takes to take out a giant whatever he was? He just miscalculated.
I would really like to see this series continue!
With that said, you are raising good points and we should raise these questions. I do not agree with Sheldon’s code on one BIG part, though. A moral code that forbids killing in self defense is a code for the victims of murderers. A libertarian social order requires the use of force in response to force. It is not pacifism.
No it is the use of appropriate force.
And even then, only when other options are exausted.
@@silverhawkscape2677 what is the appropriate amount of force is the million dollar question.
A couple things I didn’t quite agree with, but the main one is at 20:00
The rise in inflation that we are experiencing is in large part due to economic, industrial, and innovative stagnation caused by government taxes, subsidization, and regulation.
Consumer electronics have become far more affordable while also providing us with things like the internet, while the cost of “education” has skyrocketed. The main factor in that dichotomy is government subsidization.
I actually really enjoyed the series for exactly the reasons highlighted in this video
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that change is a universal constant, and not anticipating it is dangerously naive. The Utopian's ideals are noble and should be upheld, but that being said, it is short-sighted to think that one can apply their rigid conduct across all instances.
To me, the problem all comes down to the fact that the Utopian is an Extremist. He may not be a God who decides who lives and who dies and control what people should and shouldn't do but he is still an extremist in the sense that he believes that he and his Union are powerful enough to overcome any challenge while adhering to their Code, and like any Extremist, he never anticipated, or even thinks to anticipate, that he would inevitably face a situation like Blackstar for which the only options are to compromise their beliefs or allow their loved ones to suffer.
As hard as it is to do the right thing, the right thing must be upheld whenever possible, but at the same time, you have to be open to the possibility that not every trial you face can be overcome without sacrificing something dear to you, be it an object, person, or an abstract belief.
The story of Jupiter's Legacy is best seen as a case study for why Extremism, regardless of intent, is a bad thing: on the one hand, you can have a Tyrant with a God-Complex who rules through fear and control; but on the other hand, you can have a well-intentioned, honourable, but inflexible person who believes that he can never face a moral dilemma in his life, and is frustrated when reality inevitably presents him with a scenario that puts his worldview into question and which reminds him that, no matter what, he cannot control or contain everything, superpowered or not.
Man, I love your channel. These videos are brilliantly well-made and ask all the right questions.
Mad respect for keeping the conversation balanced, level headed, and realistic while dabbling in politics and society. I was totally anticipating pandering and finger wagging towards an ideological leaning and left gleefully incorrect.
I liked this show and the comic. It’s sad to see that it won’t be able to continue. Oh well
I haven’t watched the show yet. Interesting that they have a round table and King Arthur’s philosophy was Might FOR Right.
Well I’m incredibly disappointed there won’t be a second season.
It's too bad the show was discontinued. It didn't have a great execution, but the questions it tackled with were far more interesting than many other hero shows.
The idea of checks and balances is rearely touched when it comes to power fantasies and I feel is extremely necessary when people's impatience and thirst for the power of the state is so high. Everyone wants to change the world, but no one thinks they could be wrong or misguided. They're just like the children of the old guard heroes.
this show has a great story, for me it looked like a slightly low budget show but as i kept watching i began liking it more and more
It's easy for Superman (and superman equivalents) to make these no kill rules when their own lives are rarely on the line. To force less resilient heroes to live by them as well is unfair. An interesting story arc would have been to have the Utopian become a lot more vulnerable, either due to age or some sort of accident. And then have him see how difficult things have been for the other heroes. Would he still stand by his no kill rule when villains could now realistically kill him?
The Code is essentially analogy for the American Constitution or any Rule of Law. This is why Netflix canceled it.
Maybe it was bad and you don't have good taste. Reminder the seadon was half flashbacks.
Gonna point out that the subtitles are just perfect, they change color as other characters talk to help identify better what is hapenning, what the narrator talks and that is in the text are the exact same thing and the timing don't fail a single frame. Also, great video and really make us think.
I loved the show! The moral dilemma presented in the series is definitely one of its best features. I truly hope they'll reconsider green lighting season 2.
This is a simple matter of boundary setting. In society, without boundary setting, nothing works as it's supposed to.
Simply put, if you break or cross someone's boundaries, you get punished accordingly.
Let's put it this way, you wouldn't execute a pick-pocket. However, if there's someone hell bent on killing everyone, then you will put them down with prejudice.
Both broke some sort of social boundaries. But one of them was a greater threat.
So, the greater the threat to that boundary, the greater the punishment for it.
No one is equal. And their actions make them even more different.
The reason those two different types of individuals would get different punishment is because of the levels of damage they would do with their actions.
So, in this case, being too idealistic, is what gets people killed, i.e. The under-enforcement of boundaries. But being too authoritarian also gets people killed, I.E. The over-enforcement of boundaries.
Basically, the balance lies in "punishment should fit the crime" idiom.
The moment someone chooses to violate the set boundaries of someone or a group of someones, is the moment they lose the right to ask anyone to respect or obey their own boundaries. And they will get what they wanted to impose on someone else, even if it is death.
The same concept of boundary setting applies to all. It's a very under-talked concept. So people don't even understand where it all stems from.
Boundaries are often determined by a common ground when individuals create a group and decide as a community what would and wouldn't be a violation. Boundaries are often not decided by individuals when we're talking about a society. Individual boundaries only extend to one individual. But often times, individual boundaries are also a commonality in a society. For example, not wanting to get hurt or robbed is a common boundary set by all.
They cancelled it already?? Rofl i was actually excited about this show. Given the origin was the most interesting, but i was looking forward to exploring the world and characters further.
Just stumbled upon your channel. Great analysis and commentary. Very refreshing perspective. You gained a subscriber today.
During the show I often found myself relating more to Sheldon’s Code. I could see how people would find him as tone deaf or out of touch. They are gravely mistaken. “If you don’t STAND for something, you will FALL for anything.” Sheldon stands for something and it made him unflinching in the face of his harshest critics, even if they were his own family. He refused to compromise on his values and ethics. Great character and ideal to aspire too.
Irony is the ultimate libertarian superhero being named ..."The Utopian".....lmao...
The utopia was here the whole time
A utopia is an imaginary society with favorable ideals. Focussing on equality, freedom, and justice....
How is that different that libertarian ideas?
It's not ironic at all.
@@chiefgully9353 Libertarians have always been, and will always be, at a disadvantage against the utopians of the Left and the utopians of the Right in that conservatives believe that it very often is the case that there is nothing to be done, or not much to be done, that most problems are to be managed rather than solved, that we should aim at mitigation rather than transformation, that we are better positioned to assuage than to conquer, that things are what they are and must be dealt which on that basis. DO try and keep up, yah?
@@johnvannewhouse keep up with what there budy.
The definition of a utopia in bases is independent of political veiw.
You can have a libertarian utopia, just as much as a progressive, conservative utopia.
The irony here is your condensention while being fundamentally off base.
Dont worry I'll wait, comming down of that horse might take you a bit.
@@chiefgully9353 Dude.... you need to proofread your shit. I get that English may be your second language...but you are borderline incoherent. Get your shit together. "Condensation"? I am laughing my ass off....
True Freedom requires responsibility - not only taking responsibility for one's self but taking responsibility for those who won't take care of themselves -> that is why "true freedom" is feared, because you would have to be responsible for your fellow man as well as your own actions (or inactions).
Thanks for introducing me to this awesome show today. I just binged the whole season directly after your video and I have to say it was so uplifting to have a "Good" Superhero show after SO LONG! I liked The Boys, but it was really nihilistic and I don't have Amazon Prime anymore. And don't get me started on the Marvel Shows. X(
What was so brilliant about our founding fathers and the way they wrote our constitution was that it was written as a limitation on government, not a granting of rights. The 1st amendment does not "grant" us the right to free speech, it restricts the government from making laws that would limit that freedom. You see that very same principle applied with "The Code", it is a deliberate restriction on what these superhumans are allowed to do because they are very easily capable of going too far. It's very much is a perfect allegory of the US constitution, where politicians, whether well intentioned or otherwise, will use the guise of "needing to modernize to address modern solutions". How often have you heard the tired and flawed argument against 2A that, "it only applied to muskets, no ARs", when that couldn't be further from the truth. 2A was never about the weapon, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is about restricting the government.
Wow a show asking real questions instead of pushing wokeness no wonder Netflix canned it🙄
Accurate. Netflix and the various oligarchs like them, belong at the end of a rope.
Sure but the quality of the show was poor and cant compete with the likes of Invincible and the Marvel lineup.
@@centipedekid9824 Invincible is the story of the proverbial HAPA. His father is an aryan ubermensch and his mother is a beautiful asian woman. He should have been taught better when he was young by Nolan to side with his own people. Imagine being the kid who abandoned a galactic empire because he was filled with neoliberal propaganda.
@@adolfwasrite7009 I think you might have missed the point of Invincible. Have you read the comics?
@@edwarddickson7026 The point (as always for modern garbage media) is an ode to post-enlightenment humanism. This "magical human spirit" nonsense is the basis for all forms of humanism, some how justifying all people being fundamentally equal and supporting (proven false) ideals of tabula raza. I do understand the point of the comics, the point is wrong. Mark should side with his ancestry, with Viltrum, with an obviously superior people.
Pacifism is only an option, when you hold the position of strength. If you're not strong enough to defend yourself, then you lose the privilege of deciding whether to get involved or not. I agree that the code should apply to fighting normal criminals, who don't have even a fraction of the power that the heroes do. But when you're facing a super powered threat, who is strong enough to threaten or even kill multiple heroes in combat, refusing to use lethal force is just blatant insanity.
It will be interesting to see your thoughts on AOT , especially the new season. It contains many important ideas , is extremely well made and has more than enough food for thought. You have already discussed some of the ideas and it will give you the chance to expand on them and other , that you still haven't examined , but probably should .
Looking forward to that as well.
Hey, if you haven't checked out Money Heist on Netflix, I think it could make a great topic for Out of Frame. Essentially it is where a group of robbers take the royal mint of Spain hostage and use it to print themselves billions of euros.
A theme throughout the show is that they aren't really stealing, since they are just printing new money instead of taking money that other people own. This really reveals how the average person just thinks there is no problem with just printing as much money as you like and don't understand the effect of money printing on everyone's savings and how the gov excessively printing money is effectively stealing money from people with savings.
Rebuttal to never killing: “Gohan, let it go. It is not a sin to fight for the right cause. There are those who words alone will not reach. Cell is such a being. You are gentle. You do not like to hurt. I know because I too have learned these feelings. But it is because you cherish life that you must protect it. Please drop your restraints. Protect the life I loved. You have the strength, my scanners sensed it. Just... let it go.”
Thank you for making this video,I would've never even heard of this show if it wasn't for this video. One of the best super hero shows I've seen in a while,Netflix is insane to cancel it.(and not properly advertise it!) It's not afraid to be serious, while also not being an edgelord fest. I really loved this show,and Sheldon is an amazing superhero with a wonderful story.
Jupiter's Legacy probably wasn't cancelled because of its message. It was probably cancelled because it under performed.
I mean both probably, it didn't do as well because it was so politically charged (yes it was, it was freedom toting pretty hard) and those who believe the government should have more power didn't like the show very much lol.
@@HiddenOcelot in the right network it would have made a killing being on Netflix meant the show had an expiration date as it railed against the authoritarian left. Hollywood hates American values,traditions, Americans.... I hope somebody else picks it up if Gina Carano could get uncancelled and get her own movie on daily wire hopefully jupiters legacy survives too
2 questions:
1. How do you do your subtitles for your videos? I do them manually and it takes a whole lot of time.
2. Where do you generally get movie scenes for your videos?
Neilson has it as the #1 show when it debuted? Cancel it! Yeah, that makes sense.
With all the money Netflix likes to spend, you would think they would have given the show the budget they said they needed.
The measurement of life's quality ought to take in consideration the prehistoric period too.
"We do not kill, we do not govern" - The (solely) Utopian's code that GOVERNS the other Supers! That's why Chloe was the most interesting character in the show, she did not bend to the Utopian's will. The only other storyline worth watching was the origin of their powers, which was dragged out (purposely) all the way to the final episode.
Good ideas, bad writing and production and action scenes? Must be Jupiters legacy
Bullshit, it was well made in those departments.
OK, I didn't see the show, but punching someone hard when they're in the process of trying to kill someone is not an execution, even if you know you are going to kill them, but given the super powers of the bad guy, I can't see how he'd have known the outcome. As for not ruling, I can see not seizing power by force, but I would not rule out running for office.
Netflix gave them 200million budget for Jupiter's Legacy and it looked like it was made for 2 million in total. And the show was boring af whenever they showed the current day life. Good riddance. The daughter Chloe looks like a ray of sunshine and everything that's joyful and good in the world and they turned her into a emo drug addict and nothing else. They should fire the casting directors and writers.
Don't know why they didn't finish volume 1 in the season. Was waiting for the climax to happen when you can see the brother is evil the whole time.
Never heard of your channel or seen it, and I know it means nothing, but my "like" and comment are given in true appreciation of your content on this video, not a mindless click. Very insightful!
😕 I enjoyed Jupiter’s Legacy.
Absolutely agree on the review.
Thought the flashback parts were fairly good, and some of the characters struggles with the code, but it was mostly just a poorly made show. Hence why it was canceled. Not saying that Netflix doesn't sometimes cancel a decent show, this show wasn't it. Definitely too groan-worthy in too many parts.
@@RS-ub3we Eh, I enjoyed it. 🙂
Plenty better than some of the other stuff Netflix kept on the air.
@@RS-ub3we Should of saved the flashbacks for season 2 and pushed the end of volume one.
Imagine if invincible didn't have the climax fight between Invincible and his dad. Same thing.
Mister Rogers gave graciousness for pride, returned generosity for greed, and Love for hate. Hero’s return Good for evil and Love to do it. We should take time and remember all the people who helped us along the way.
I see you missed the entire premise of why the utopian was ranting about the greatness of capitalism before he got his powers. He lost his father and saw his country suffer from capitalism (which he believed to be the greatest system ever devised), leading him to eventually question it when gaining his powers and then creating "The Code" to circumvent the selfishness he once believed in. He literally decided to believe in a greater ideal above capitalism once he gains his powers, which is why he's then called "The Utopian", which demonstrates how the desire to do better things with better ideals is worth more than just giving into a flawed system (capitalism) that cynically sneers at any attempt at "utopian" ideals. Just because you're trying to push libertarian economics and "classical liberalism" with this show (which is now just libertarian conservatism today), it doesn't mean capitalism is suddenly "vindicated" from all its excessive abuses and irrational functions.
What you call "excessive abuses and irrational functions" isn't capitalism. It's greed from bad people who are abusing a system, which can happen to any system. And while nothing is every perfect, that doesn't mean we can't improve it and make it better, nor that a system isn't good in the first place.
And every case of "evil capitalism" I've seen someone bring up, if you actually look under the surface level and get down to the details, it's more of a case of someone abusing a law or a careless person who didn't care to think. No system will ever be foolproof enough to protect these people.
Commonly, anti-capitalists operate under the assumption that the other 'isms' do away with commerce, leading humanity away from the evils of money and power.
But it never seems to strike that commerce exists in every '-ism,' and that some of them only accomplish a distancing of the individual from their own stake in commercial practice. Rather than empowerment by leveling the playing field, people experience subjugation at the hands of whoever is in charge of dispersing resources, while the executive decides for that individual what it is they need.
Commerce is what creates inequality, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system developed with the awareness that the evils of commerce cannot be eliminated, and as such must be contained within its domain, while the boons of commerce are allowed to express freely.
In short, anti-capitalists conflate commerce for capitalism, and that is why the discourse always follows, "You hate that, but that's not capitalism."
Under capitalism, exploitation can be committed by some people.
Under socialism, exploitation is prescribed to all people.
This is the key difference between the two systems. What you need to understand is that exploitation of others is an element of human nature. Capitalism doesn't stop human nature, and so it also doesn't stop exploitation. But socialism is much worse: it not only allows for exploitation, it not only incentivizes exploitation - it actually prescribes exploitation. Under socialism, exploitation is a basic requirement.
Free market capitalism is the only system in the history of mankind that has brought wealth to the masses.
A big force in the original story was how George became disillusioned by the team's blind acceptance of American corporatist policies when those policies were doing an incredible amount of damage to normal people. He tried to fight the system and ended up getting the shit kicked out of him by literally every other hero for it.
This also makes me wonder about "the Dark Crystal" Netflix series and how that series was willingly cancelled after SO MUCH praise and development! A Legit Amazing series....tossed to the wayside with No DVDs or any other access to it. What a Fucking piece of Sh*t Netflix has become.
Violence is the initiation of force, hence Vio, as in violation.
Defensive force is not an act of violence, even if that force has to be lethal to stop the aggressor..
it hurts knowing the left can twist definitions so far in their favor. your comment is exactly right.
I think the real reason it was cancelled was Netflix's double whammy that ensures their series go unnoticed: it was released in one shot, and without marketing. If each episode was released weekly, with some marketing behind it, people might have noticed.
Choosing not to do something is still choosing. Seriously, what would the code be if the fake Blackstar killed everyone on that hill that day? They have just become the judge, jury, and execution of everyone the villains victimize with impunity.
I actually enjoyed the show. wild that they already canceled it.
I didn’t understand the thing where the code has served us well through all those crisis. Who exactly follows the code? And who is trying to subvert it?
This was a great series. I was really looking forward to it. Of course something good couldn’t last.
I full notifications turned on for your channel and I have missed several videos. I'm not sure why RUclips would throttle this content. The content in Your videos is never sensationalized or vulgar. Your points are always stated in a calm logical manner.