HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- JonCJG - / joncjgvideo
Metal Commander - / metalcommander
Fringy - / thefringy123
Rags - / @rags
Second Channel (EFAP Archive) - / @everyframeapause
A Fansite that's all about EFAP - efap.me/
A Community to discuss EFAP - / mauler
Audio versions of the podcast - / user-624219017
We have RUclips members enabled - Use the link and choose "Join" to subscribe monthly and receive emotes for the stream. - / themauleryt
If you want to join my silly community on Discord, use this link - discordapp.com...
If you want to donate towards the channel you can use Superchats or Streamlabs:
This essentially uses PayPal instead of going through RUclips - streamlabs.com...
MauLer's Patreon - www.patreon.co...
Rags' Patreon - / yourpalrags
MauLer's Merch Store - teespring.com/...
MauLer's Subscribestar - www.subscribes...
Rags' SubscribeStar - www.subscribes...
I don’t think Gaile Simone actually read the Green Lantern issue in question. Kyle voices the idea that secret identities are stupid, treats it like a joke, fights a big league villain he isn’t able to contain, then comes home to find his normal life destroyed in the most monstrous way imaginable.
Wow, Gail Simone only using something to score political points???
😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
You are correct.
Simone has likely not read any comics except the ones she wrote.
Wow, that legitimately changes everything about the situation, why am I only hearing this now?
So everything about this trope is based on a false premise. The only thing this connects to between the orgin and Reds example is that a woman was killed. So Rags is right, in the end.
One of the biggest annoyances I have with this term and the way this RUclipsr explains it, as it pertains to its origins, is that for Kyle Rayner, his girlfriend doesn't just die and then he moves on. He has to move to an entirely different city to help cope with his grief because he can't be in the same apartment that they lived in together, let alone the same city. The grief is so strong that into his next relationship with Donna Troy, it gets to her and they break up because she feels he's trying to make her be more like Alex (his "fridged" girlfriend's name). He CLEARLY grieves over her, and her death is NOT unimportant at all the shallowly dealt with.
EDIT: also, to give context as to why Alex was killed, Hal Jordan had just gone off the rails and killed the entire Green Lantern Corp, and Kyle Rayner was chosen at random to be the last Green Lantern. the government heard about Hal's death, and then about a new Green Lantern and wanted to test his abilities as a lantern to see if he was a threat, because Government. they sent Major Force to do this task because he was a superpowered psychopath that they controlled. Major Force did kill Alex just to get Kyle's goat, but her death wasn't shallowly handled. not to mentionm much later, Kyle runs into Major Force again, and Major Force constantly taunts Kyle about Alex's death, going so far as to revel in it and recount it as they're fighting.
I'm caught between this sounds stupid and this sounds interesting.
@@CMCAdvanced I mean, I'd recommend his origins if you're curious. I stopped reading around the time his girlfriend's kid died
@@CMCAdvanced That's comic books. Anytime they mocked Crisis on Infinite Earths I was like, "Welcome to comic books."
@@Samm815 I read comic books, they aren't strictly retarded haha
I mean, the problem is that Alex was killed only 6 issues after her introduction, for basically shock value. And maybe later issues retconned Donna's issues with Kyle, but initially, the reasons she broke up with Kyle twice were first because she was dealing with the aftermath of her divorce and then because her ex-husband and son had died in a car accident. So yeah, Kyle did "get over" Alex's death relatively quickly to other dramatic comic book deaths. And it's not like the comics ever put major emphasis on Kyle grieving and moving past Alex's death outside that initial shock value. At best, it's a reoccuring but inconsistent plot point that pops up whenever the writers want to use it for drama or angst.
Also, the issue isn't that a character's death didn't affect the characters meaningfully, it's that those characters exist purely to be killed off and give the main character and only the main character extra depth, angst and motivations. They lack relevance outside of the main protagonist and thus, have no agency. This is why mentors are rarely fridged because with or without their student, they still would have agency and motivations outside just teaching their student. Kyle's girlfriend Alex had very little agency and motivation outside being Kyle's supportive ex-girlfriend and then actual girlfriend. This also ties into Kyle's angst, in which primarily blames himself and his carelessness towards superheroism for her death, but he never dwells on how her death might affect the other people in her life or who she was outside of her being his girlfriend. The story is inadvertedly saying that the biggest impact of Alex's death is how it hurts Kyle. Not that she actually died.
This is why Castlevania doesn't fall into the same fridging category despite having the similar situation of a love interest being killed off to further a main character's depth and motivation. One, Lisa's death was due to her own decisions and motivations. The church kills her, not because she's Dracula's wife, but because of the church's dogmaticism, fanaticism and ignorance towards the modern science that she chose to pursue. Two, her influence on both Dracula and Alucard remains consistent long after the event and remains consistent during the first 2 seasons. It isn't an on or off thing like Alex's death.
Don't take this as a defence of the video though, I still think this is one of Red's worst takes. She just really dislikes Thanos for some reason. While I do think Black Widow's death was a waste of potential, especially without her own movie or exploration of her past, I don't classify it as fridging considering that she made the choice to sacrifice herself and thus, still had her agency. Though, the fact that her death isn't even mentioned despite Iron Man having a huge funeral was a definite misstep. And I think Gamora's death was fine. Tragic, sure, but again, they only reach the Soulstone because Gamora couldn't bear Nebula being tortured and because Gamora didn't realize how fucked up Thanos was.
The ultimate in off screen, impactful fridging of a non-female character:
" Hello!, My name is Inigo Montoya, You killed my father. prepare to die!"
Uncle Ben died off panel.
In the book, we’re actually shown Inigo’s father’s death in a flashback
Remember, the reason Alice finally snapped and killed Creepy Skin Mom was because she found her mom's head in a literal fridge.
HOLY FUCK I JUST REALIZED XD
No, she killed her because THEY WERE OUT OF CREAM!!
@@scottski02 FOR ELEVEN YEARS!
Deep Batwoman lore..
As opposed to a metaphorical fridge 😁
Wait so was Cruella's mom fridged? by dalmatians?
Cruella is like Disney version of Alice, both of their mothers were killed, they adopted new criminal personas that are "quirky"and both want to make accessories out of living creatures skin. They are also "sympathetic characters"
She could have became a Dalmatian Themed superhero but NOOOOOOO
I would like this comment but it would be a crime to change that number
yeahp. not to mention the entire aspect of it was totally retarded.
Fair point
“What do you get when you put a Mary Sue in a fridge, in a mystery box, and drop it into a plot hole?”
What is ‘The sequel trilogy’?
Alice form the resident evil movies?
The protagonist girl from the divergent movies.
What's his face from the new mortal combat.
She _might_ even survive a nuclear blast..
@𒃲𒊊 I'm pretty sure she's already done that at least twice
@@pirig-gal Nuking the fridge?
Oh my god, entire eight and a half hours of hating on whamens. How could you Longman! This is way too short.
Agreed. They couldn't even do the full 11 hours like they did for Jebby Nicholls
Can I please go home to my family, ma’am?
Thinking on it, the whole video reminds me of xtra credit's orc one.
"We're not saying orcs are bad because of racism, we're just saying that it's absolutely bad writing to portray them in a way we don't like."
"We're not saying "fridging" is bad because of sexism, we're just saying that it's absolutely bad writing to do these things we don't like."
Same vibe for sure. Both a result of motivated reasoning due to ridiculous ideologies.
I disagree, some of Red's examples are bad but this nowhere near as bad of xtra's orc episode and "fridging" is a thing and I'd define it as if character dies within an episode then after 2 episodes it's never brought up again, they probably got fridged. For example, there was an episode of Gundam Seed Destiny (Full disclosure, I hated Gundam Seed) introduced a new character in a new unique Mobile Suit, made him seem really cool and likable, then blew up his suit and killed him off within an episode and after a bit of angst, this is never brought up again for the rest of the series.
To borrow a term from pro-wrestling, it's cheap heat or a quick way to evoke an emotional response that's overall pointless.
@@majordbag2 Something never being mentioned again does not denote a lack of impact on the character who experienced them. The death of James Bond's wife, for instance, effected him deeply and motivated him to hunt down and kill Blofeld. It is not mentioned three films later. Does this mean that the impact it had was not genuine, or that the character who was killed did have proper characterization? No.
Further, the premise of "fridging" a character is that the event is inherently a bad thing. This isn't true. Is the death of Uncle Ben bad writing? What about Jonathan Kent? What about Thomas and Martha Wayne? What about Hamlet's father? What about Oliver Twist's parents? What about Philip 'Pip' Pirrip parents and five siblings?
Do you see the point? Characters dying off screen or serving to motivate the protagonists or influence their lives via their loss or absence is not bad writing. Execution is the primary factor in deciding whether or not something is an example of flawed writing. After all, everything is a "plot device" and everything in a story is contrived. It is being invented and it all serves a greater narrative, after all.
@@TomHardy-kl4ze
To clarify, if a character is killed off, never mentioned again, and would have no impact on the plot even if removed from the story entirely, then character was probably fridged. A lot of anime filler-arcs do this with the extra characters they introduce, as keeping them around would fuck with the plot. A common way this happens if a main character gets a love interest at the start of a filler-arc, that love interest will likely be dead by the time the filler-arc is finished.
Those are also really bad counterexamples, all the characters mentioned had deaths that severely impacted the plot. in the case of Uncle Ben and Waynes, their deaths get brought up constantly and are literally the main reason why both Batman, get mentioned constantly, and Spiderman are superheroes.
Also piss off for reminding me they killed off my favorite South Park character and replaced with that lame gaywad Butters; Pip was way better than Butters!
This whole video just reminds me of the feminist "subject-object dichotomy" nonsense. The arguments OSP presents against fridging in this video aren't so much "killing off underdeveloped characters as a plot device is bad writing because it's cheap" which I can at least get behind to some degree, but rather "any character that is victimized needs to be the center of attention or it's bad writing because you're trivializing their experience". It's all so tiresome.
The thing she can’t seem to grasp is that stories are often about certain characters, and those characters won’t always be the ones with the hardest life. Sometimes a character whom the story isn’t about will have a harder life or worse experiences than the main character, but that doesn’t mean that you should be telling the side character’s story instead of the main character. Just because their reactions aren’t shown on screen doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t have any, just that the story is choosing not to focus on them. The only time it becomes bad is if they’re a poorly written character and either don’t fulfill what the story needs them to or they are actually contradictory.
They're 100% intersectional types, if this video wasn't evidence enough of their ideology. Their channel is littered with similar videos trying to pass feminism off as media analysis.
@@aaronmueller1560 Theyre purposefully "failing" to grasp it, because they're trying to push an ideology rather than honestly analyze media, hence why they make moral judgements.
She probably thought she had something by saying that if you could replace a person with an item for this and if the reaction is the same then it's bad. She ignored that people can be very attached to certain items, especially if memories are attached to them.
@@CptnCardboard didn't they complain about how people use "Mary Sue" because that means productions would be less inclined to have female main characters or something?
As a long time fan of Overly Sarcastic Productions, I really don’t understand how Red dropped the ball so hard with this video. She’s made a handful of bad statements in her other videos (she said Rey wasn’t a Mary Sue and she made a handful of weird statements about robots intentionally being analogies for asexual and neuro-divergent people, which honestly felt similar to the whole “Orcs are analogous to black people” crap) and some of her videos are questionable, like the Mary Sue video, but they were never this bad.
Part of me does feel as though it comes down to some kind of feminist thing, because there’s a decent example of “fridging” that’s actually bad, and from the MCU: Quicksilver. He’s killed unceremoniously by some bullets, we get one reaction shot from Wanda who somehow felt it happening, then a one-liner as she kills Ultron about how it felt to lose him, and then, for the rest of the movie and the MCU, they never bring up Quicksilver or act like he even existed. He’s a far better example of fridging and how it’s bad, so why didn’t Red bring him up? Well, he’s a dude, and that would hurt the argument that this is a sexist trope.
Also, 5:11:12
That would be my comment that MauLer’s reading. I really should have said those things about Black Widow when the video came out, because then there would have been a higher chance that Red would have seen it. But now it’ll probably drown in the positive comments about what Red’s saying being brilliant
She _really_ dislikes Thanos because she legitimately thinks he’s a badly written character
I actually remember in one of her trope videos that she ACTUALLY considers Endgame Thanos to be _way_ better, an improvement
And if I remember correctly, it was because he was “more straightforwardly evil..?.??”
Fellow fan of OSP. I was really surprised that she didn't use Quicksilver as an example, especially considering that she previously criticized it in her "Plot Twists" video.
@@catendway4754 Really? She said that about Thanos? I don’t hate Endgame Thanos as much as everyone else does, but even I can admit that he was done way better in the previous Avengers film.
@@catendway4754 it would seem her criteria for what makes a good bad guy is how stereotypically evil they are.
@@catendway4754 Why do I have a feeling she thinks Killmonger is a well written villain and unironically agrees with magneto? (though I could be wrong)
Fun fact, Jason Todd (one of the various Robins that worked with Batman) was beaten and killed, BRUTALLY by the Joker. He was conically dead for years. Despite this, I have never seen this as an example of Fridging
Meanwhile, Barbara Gordon gets shot and paralyzed, not beaten or killed, and is considered Fridged
Both of these characters were hurt due to their connections to batman/Jim, but Barbara is bad while Jason is seen as good storytelling...
And nobody who complains about fridging knows what happened with Alexandra DeWitt in Green Lantern. You can tell just by how many time Red emphasized "off screen" when Alex died on panel. They also don't ever bring up Mace Gardener who died much more unceremoniously six issues later to motivate Guy Gardener.
I think it is because of how they come back. Barbara gets paralyzed and Todd becomes more chad like.
And to add, Jason was killed by a literal comity.
@@pauloshooter4213
Barbara still retained a very important role though, and I think her time as Oracle showed that Barbara was far more than her ability to fight. Jason was villainous until he became popular enough to be made into a mainstay.
Not the same. Jason did a lot prior to that in that story. Notably, he wanted to find his lost mom and he did so for a while, in a way that adds to the tragedy of the situation. Barbara didn't get to do shit in that story, +got stripped naked, taken pictures off, and you could argue more than that left to the imagination. The shock is bigger in part bc she is a woman.
In that sense, the argument that it's easier to do this to a woman has some weight. Which is not to say "they shouldn't do this" from my part.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone call Thanos and narcissist, and I still don’t get it. I would think the best argument toward this reading is that Thanos thinks he knows what’s best for everyone and doesn’t care how insane anyone else thinks his plans are. But that doesn’t exactly sound like “having an undue fascination with oneself,” to me. I think words like “arrogant,” or “opinionated,” or “stubborn,” would be more appropriate. It feels like “narcissist” just gets thrown out because it’s the cool word to use.
The words your looking for are consequentialist, utopian, and headstrong
I think another argument in favour of the Narcissist interpretation is that he says that, when he's finished his plan, he will look upon "a grateful universe" and in Endgame, his alternate-timeline self completely loses it and changes his whole plan from "kill half" to "kill everyone" when he discovers that no one was "grateful" for his actions.
He expects gratitude for his actions and loses it when he doesn't get any gratitude, and some of his other actions suggest that he's more out simply to prove that he was right about how to save his planet and not actually to save the universe.
@@matthewmuir8884 him going “kill the all seemed less due to not being given honors but a realization so long as some people were left they would try to undo his work for the sake of their personal attachments
Dogmatic, maybe?
Thanos is fixated on the idea that he knows what must be done and only he has the will to do it. Infinity War is structured as though Thanos is the hero, because in his insane mind he is. Its quite clever. I can see where the narcissist idea comes from, then, given how committed he is to the absolute idea that he is right and he alone is able to do the necessary thing, but I think that's a misuse of the term. Not narcissistic, but I get what people are reaching for.
In terms of the morality robot, I Robot actually has an answer.
Will Smith hates robots, because when faced with a moral quandary, "Do I save the little girl that's drowning, or should I save the adult that is drowning?" The robot goes for the person with highest statistical probability of survival, the adult.
As Will Smith states, "any human would know that saving the kid is more important."
Why would you program a robot to seve the people that need help the least?
That just sounds like a scandal waiting to happen
@@happynihilist2573it's not about survivability, it's about potential. An adult is less important than a child in a human's eye. Like if you've seen the trolley problem and people going through them.
@@akumasstorytime3910 fair enough,
O will now change my question to:
"Why would you program a robot to not save the lives we value the most"
genuine question I have not seen the movie
@@happynihilist2573 because it's AI. No human is programming the robots, It's an AI that gives them the orders and an AI doesn't really consider things like potential, it would consider Survivability, the child had like a 52% chance of survival while Will Smith-Detective had a 96% chance of survival. Both ideas are correct it's just that a human would choose one avenue while an AI would choose another. I, Robot is based on a book by Isaac Asimov, one of the greatest Sci-fi/Robot fiction writers.
@@akumasstorytime3910 i'm still curious
How the AI made, how did it get it's moral standers?
Values aren't something you can develop on your own, they need a preexisting framework to be build on top of, instincts for humans and programming for AI
Again not familiar with this movie but I tend to find most AI stories wouldn't work if the programmers put thought a bit harder about how their particular machine's brains should work
I think it would be better to say that thanos has a messiah complex as opposed to being a narcissist.
Messiah Complex is a form of Narcissism.
I disagree with Fringy's reasoning for why tropes exist.
Tropes don't exist because we have consumed past stories, they exist because they are functions of a limited and grounded reality and our shared experience of that.
For example, You generally do not start a story in the 3rd act because you've read lots of stories structured conventionally before. You do it because that's how our brains like to process information and stories. Tropes don't emerge from writing they emerge from the inescapable reality we write both in and about.
Mostly agree, but it is a combination of both factors. People write stories with tropes they like to see in stories all the time.
Well, tropes are basically just things that are commonly seen in fiction. They exist in much the same way colours do, in that they are dependent on our impressions of a real thing, it is possible to agree on some objective standards for them, we might enjoy some of them better than others, people might disagree on edge cases, and they aren't material objects but rather they are properties of material objects. We might agree that a certain sequence of words, or a certain wavelength of light, constitutes an example of a certain trope or colour, but they must necessarily be understood intuitively. Understanding tropes can help you write a book in much the same way as understanding colours can help you create a painting. Painting with colours we enjoy *might* make for a pleasing picture, but ultimately it's a matter of execution.
"You generally do not start a story in the 3rd act because you've read lots of stories structured conventionally before."
Oh, but I do. So now what?
I'd say tropes exist, because they're things that have worked in the past, and repeated and refined, and now commonly used because theyre easy to understand and utilize in your writing. Tropes aren't bad to use, they're just not executed well.
@@guyinyourmom Well, I wouldn't say worked in the past.
Tropes can exist cause they work in the past, but then there are other tropes that happen that just don't work at all and happen because of the genre for example.
Like I'd consider a Mary sue a trope, but it's not really worked in the past from what I see and originates from people's fantasies
Today in this episode we will learn that Narcissist cannot give love. The inverse of an orphan, one that cannot recibe love.
wait dose that mean Narcissists have better or worse bone density?
@@dumbino7745 they steal their bone density from others. That is the reason why they cannot love. They would lose their bone density.
@@dumbino7745 to answer the question with more accuracy. They steal bone density to appear as they have the normal amount. But in a normal state they have the same of an orphan.
I typically don't leave any comments on the videos I watch. After watching the initial stream on Mauler's channel, though, I took some time to mull over what was discussed, and I want to share a thought.
First, I want to form my response like a response video from Shadiversity. When Shad makes a response video to creators like Game Theory or SciShow, it's not out of malicious intent. Even if a creator makes a bad video, it can serve as a jumping off point to discuss the topic at hand. In addition, those who respond can offer constructive criticism to the creator.
In that same vein, I do enjoy OSP's content from time to time; however, this Trope Talk video was poorly done. So this comment doesn't get too broad, I'll only focus on one point that I had a major issue with: Red's comment on how Luke doesn't appear to be bummed out about Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru (as if to imply he doesn't care about them anymore).
Before Luke arrives to the burnt homestead, he and Obi-wan investigated a sandcrawler that was attacked by stormtroopers. Luke puts together that the Empire was looking for C3P0 and R2, and he says that would lead them home. There is even distress in his voice when he says this. He rushes to his speeder despite Obi-wan saying it's too dangerous. At the homestead, it is a slow and dramatic moment as Luke surveys the damage and calls out to his foster parents, only to find them burnt and dead. You can see Luke look down in anguish before raising his head in determination. The Empire has committed an atrocity. He will stop them.
To apply what Rags said between 2:20:49 and 2:21:09, Luke is merely channeling his grief and turning it towards a goal of stopping the Empire.
In addition to all of this, I want to argue that Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were well characterized.
During the scene where Luke sits down to eat with them, Luke talks about leaving, yet Owen says he needs him to stay to help out for one more season. Although Luke disagrees with this idea since he thinks the droids will be enough to help out, Owen argues it'll only be for a year and adds he can go to the Academy next year. When Luke leaves to clean the droids, Beru says that Luke's friends have already gone and the Academy means much to him. Owen replies he'll make it up to him next year. Beru also adds that Luke isn't a farmer and is similar to his father, Anakin, yet this makes Owen afraid.
It's clear that both Owen and Beru care about Luke and what to see him happy. At the same time, they want to keep him safe. Owen's comment about being scared of Luke being like his father suggests he doesn't want Luke to act rashly or too emotionally like his father. (Then again, maybe Owen knew about Anakin's fall and didn't want Luke to go down that same path. However, I'm not sure if this is the case. Someone more knowledgable in Star Wars lore may know.)
Overall, I don't believe Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru were fridged for Luke. It's strange that Red would chose them as a case of fridging when there is (I feel) a better example from Star Wars: Rey's Parents.
Rey's parentage is a bit of a messy topic considering how it's treated like a ping-pong ball between JJ and Rian. First, JJ said Rey's parents aren't relevant to the story and Rey would find meaning with Luke. Then, as a response to the meta, Rian added they were nobody. Finally, JJ had the last laugh by saying Rey is a Palpatine through them. By looking at how Rey's parentage is treated, it seems Rey's parents don't even matter at all in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that matters is how Rey is ultimately defined by them. You could replace Rey's parents with a document or a birth certificate saying that Rey is a Palpatine and get the same effect.
I will be fair though. Unlike a birth certificate, Rey's parents did care about Rey and tried to protect her. (However, I don't see how selling her off and leaving her on a hostile, desert world like Jakku is safe. They could've left her with a nice family on Naboo or something. Then again, maybe they were desperate or running out of time. You know, any port in a storm.)
The big problem I have, though, is that the death of Rey's parents do act as a motivation for Rey in The Rise of Skywalker. When on the Falcon, after she learns about her heritage, she says this:
"He [Palpatine] killed my mother and my father. I'm going to find Palpatine and destroy him."
However, this feels unnecessary since she should have enough motivation to stop Palpatine. At the beginning of the film, Palpatine pretty much says he's back and he plans to unleash the Final Order to conquer the galaxy. This propels our heroes into action, and they go on a journey to find a McMuffin so they can reach Exegol and stop Palpatine. (Stuff happens, though, so I recommend you check out a breakdown video like Mauler's Unbridled Rage or the one EFAP made.)
To put it simply, the death of Rey's parents isn't the inciting incident that propels Rey into wanting to stop Palpatine and fight the bad guys. It was Palpatine not keeping his mouth shut.
While you can have multiple motivations in a story (for instance, a hero wanting to stop a bad guy from taking over the world and the bad guy just so happens to have killed the hero's uncle so the hero wants revenge, too), I think Rey's parents were a crumpled sticky note attached to a crumpled script. JJ could've kept Rian's vision about Rey's parents being truly nobody. Instead, he brought them back only to throw 'em in a fridge.
At the end of the day, Rey's parents aren't characters like Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru. Like I said, Rey's parents did care about Rey and wanted to protect her, but that is all we essentially get out of them when I feel there's more to Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru than meets the eye. If good stories are capable of coming close to reality, then The Rise of Skywalker fails in regards to Rey's parents. They don't feel like real people. They're only sentient props. (They don't even have names like Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru for crying out loud. And even if they did, I probably wouldn't remember them because I don't care about them. Why should I after how they were handled by JJ and Rian?)
Sorry for this long (and rambling) comment. I also apologize for any errors, lack of information, or logical fallacies. I just wanted to share a thought that I had. I have no ill-intent towards OSP and Red. Perhaps as a sign of being fair, I will present a small criticism of Rags. Don't worry, I watched the Mandolorian minis, so I will be specific and not vague.
Around 4:02:00, Rags says "sacrificing yourself to save another person is like a free ticket into Heaven." Based on passages like John 3:16-18, God, out of love for the world, sent his son, Jesus, so He may die for us. And those who believe in Him, will have everlasting life. So it's not necessarily sacrificing yourself that gets you into Heaven.
However, I can see where Rags was coming from since laying one's life down for another among other good works is a way Christians can be Christ-like (or good) as they interact with others. It's also just a good mentality to have in general. To care about others and respect them as you would yourself. (As a disclaimer, I'm a Christian who was raised in a Southern Baptist church, so there might be some bias. I just wanted to add my knowledge to the discussion, and I hope this helps.)
Feel free to discuss and reply to what I said. I probably won't reply back or add anything, but I hope this can be a jumping off point for a larger discussion.
Farewell and take care everyone. Also Hi Rags :)
I think you could post this comment under the OSP’s video. I argued it would be more useful for them than for us. You really only need to cut the rags parts and it goes for an interesting perspective for that point.
Pd: I am trying to tell you to eliminate this comment from this efap, but post the version with only the uncles part in the OSP video.
@@Reshyon Yeah, I probably should post an edited comment to OSP just so it's there on their video as well. I watched the original video (referring to OSP's video) when it first came out. I picked up that something seemed wonky, but I was still digesting what was said and researching the topic a bit more on my own. I didn't want to post something off the top of my head and make a bad impression.
Once the EFAP panel shared their thoughts, the cogwheels went into overdrive, and I decided to post something, which is something I normally don't do. I just thought this topic was interesting to discuss since a character's death is often times used as something that moves a protagonist/hero to action. I'm even working on a story where such a scenario happens.
I don't know if Red or anybody else will see the comment though. The original video has been out for about two weeks now, and, last I looked, there's about 5,600 comments already. I can perfectly understand if it gets buried in the comment section or straight up ignored because of the content within. I have no problem with that.
That being said, though, I would like to keep the original comment posted here if that's alright. I understand that the comment may not be all that useful for the panel or for the EFAP community in general. However, I still think everyone could potentially benefit from it even if it is only a tiny thing to chew on. Plus, if I delete the comment here, I'm scared any viewer (new or returning) who watches this EFAP and not the original OSP video may not see the comment.
Now, if the original comment does get numerous replies or suggestions stating I should delete the post and just keep the edited post on the OSP video, I'll happily oblige and take it down from here. (By that point, though, someone may take a snapshot and/or the original comment will make its way around the internet given how it functions. "No one's ever really gone" right?)
Thanks for the input.
@@thecolliecrusader I don’t see a reason to take it down from here. Everyone likes food for thought.
Star Wars was meant to be a standalone movie, so Uncle Owen most likely feared Luke becoming reckless.
However, it was a success and they planned for the sequel which would add the twist about Vader.
Fortunately, it wouldn't contradict the scene you described, as it could be interpreted both ways.
In fact, you can think of it as the twist adding even more to thay conversation, since it made you rethink what he was talking about at the time.
@@thecolliecrusader I would definitely keep the comment up. There isn’t a reason to take it down, especially with the religious bit at the end. Regarding that, I’m pretty sure that in the past Rags has said that he was raised catholic, which is work’s based, so that could be what they believe. The issue is the general conflation of Catholicism with Christianity. The catholic church adds a lot of rules, and facts that are either no where to be found in the Bible or contradict what the bible says, such as seven sins being worse than the rest when all sins are detestable to God, and Mary being arguably idolized. For this reason I personally think Catholicism should be seen similar to how Mormonism is seen, Christianity plus another book.
I can't believe she said that a character's death means they can no longer influence the story. As if the absence and or loss of a good influence can't turn good characters bad, the loss or absence of bad influence turn bad characters good or the absence of influential characters create drama. Seriously, death is one of the most ubiquitous writing tools because it can make characters more influential or highlight their influence.
Yeah. Heroic martyr isn't a thing anymore I guess.
In all seriousness, death is a very useful tool when writing because the character that dies is all the more important to those who no longer have them in their lives.
A character's *death* can influence the story, with others wanting to carry on that character's legacy or avenge them or whatever, but the character themselves can't influence the story anymore (usually -- sometimes they have dead man triggers or whatever). After all, they're dead -- unless you've got Force Ghosts or some equivalent, those characters by definition can't take actions, which means they can't influence anything.
@@SirMonday Isn't it a bit pedantic to differentiate a characters influence due to their choices and a character's influence due to a lack of choices due to their death?
Both functionally do the same thing for the story. All that is different is that a character lacks agency. Which is not the issue I would like to talk about or what she meant. Which is influence on the story.
She means that they can't influence the story BEYOND their death. Like, a character's death can do a lot of things: Turn the tide of a big fight, cause another character to switch sides, all sorts. But that character's impact on the plot still ends at their death. What they did before their death may have ripple effects, but that's not the same as a character actively engaging in the plot.
The only ways to work around that are to bring the character back to life in some way (WandaVision and Loki) or to reveal new information about that character that the other characters didn't know before they died (Black Widow).
@@miep3934 I mean, granted, one person's pedantry is another person's important detail, but I personally think that the presence or absence of a character's agency is a pretty big deal, and I don't think necessitating agency to describe it as "that character's influence" is all that pedantic.
To put it another way, between "the legacy of George Washington influences American politics to this day" and "George Washington influences American politics to this day", which would you be more likely to read/write? The latter isn't, strictly speaking, wrong -- it communicates basically the same idea -- but the former is what you tend to see more often because its more precise.
Red's tantrum of "Bad people can't love people" is so amusing to me.
go to the vids comments and see people arguing the same thing.
Someone told me he cant possible love her because he sacrifices her. Because people have never sacrificed loved ones before...
@@redbearington3345
Lefties tend to be psychos so makes sense
Although it's usually better with OSP, bad takes once in a while tho. But that's what I expect from anyone
Not and excuse
I feel like these people have never heard of stalkers, abusive relationships, or Yanderes.
Yeah, its a really simplistic way of looking at humanity
@@commisaryarreck3974 I vehemently disagree with Red’s take. To me it’s obvious that her gripes just stem from what she incorrectly thinks is sexist writing. But i’m just a psycho leftie so what the hell do i know
Did anyone else's eyebrow raise when Red started using the "villain/antagonist" and the "author" almost interchangeably? If an antagonist does a bad thing it suddenly means that the author is the same as the villain.
Also, that whole "morality test" thing, as pointed out in the chat there are stories where evil characters kill the person they love for power. It's not always JUST a morality test, it's also used to show how willing a character is to see their plans through.
Tolkien is pure evil if she's right...
Sauron ain't no pure spring ingenue.
@@amanibob1416 he was waicist, so of course /s
@@denkerbosu3551
What..?
Honest, I don't get it.
@@amanibob1416 "/s" means "sarcasm."
@@Bl4ck-Fr057
Kay thanks, just wanted to be sure. 😅
Bambi's mum definitely ended up in someone's fridge lol. I like to think it could possibly be Joe Rogans haha
The problem with that is I don’t think joe rogan wasn’t born in before 1942
@@Keegan006 ok you got me. Maybe it was John Wayne's fridge lol
@@soyuzdavillan721 mabey
Edit he was born in 1907 so it is possible
There’s a fan theory that it was Gaston from Beauty in the Beast
I like a lot of her videos, but this one... Her video failed to convince me that "fridging" is anything other than a term used to describe a death the critic doesn't like. Not helped by the fact that this supposedly always bad trope actually contains examples that I actually really like, such as in Dragon Quest 4, where Elisa/Eliza uses her morph spell to disguise herself as Solo/Sophia after realizing they were too weak to stop the monster invasion (which had started after Psaro The Manslayer disguised himself as a bard to gather intel), so her death helped save the hero and the rest of humanity.
Someone should make a mod for a video game were whenever the player kills an enemy a fridge just spawns in their place
Only for female characters.
In regards to Pandora’s Box, Zeus wanted her to open it. He wanted to punish Prometheus for going against his wishes and teaching Man how to create fire. So he created Pandora and the box (which was actually a jar. It was called a box due to a mistranslation in the old Latin) and told her to never open it, knowing that she would.
In other words, Zeus was a petty turd.
You’re missing two points that make the story more interesting and sympathetic to Zeus.
One, that by giving us fire, Prometheus disrupted our innocent natural (and all male for some reason) state, which Zeus didn’t like because it presents the possibility of the Fourth Age turning and making the gods irrelevant.
Two, she was the first woman and fell for/given to Prometheus’ (he who thinks before) brother Epimetheus (he who thinks after), who was himself a walking disaster up to this point, but would here nothing of Prometheus telling his woman what to do. Torture by not being able to interfere in that train wreck.
I’ve kinda got the sense the jar just contained women and something to stop the ground spitting out more autochthonous men; human nature took care of the rest.
What I wouldn’t call it is petty though. Dude didn’t get the message at an eternity of having his liver eaten…
@@Mulletmanalive I'd still view it as petty to am extent, as humanity's introduction to fire allowed them to honour the gods through much grander animal sacrifices.
Prometheus wanted man to progress. Zeus was too close minded to see that.
If I recall the contents were just things that were bad for humans. Famine, disease, mistrust, etc. The only thing left in the jar was hope. But Pandora closed it before hope could get out.
Sigma Zeus
Based
@@Skulduggery_TV ehhh, in some variations of the story I've heard, mostly told in RE class for kids, she opens the box (jar) again to let hope out after she hears it whispering to her.
Dunno if there's any record of such a spinoff being spread at the time but it's the version anyone taught in schools over here would've been taught, assuming the curriculum hasn't gotten far worse these days.
@@Raptorworld22 You're right she does. She closes it initially, which seals hope inside. But eventually hope is let out.
Hercules also saves Prometheus from his fate on the rock being pecked by crows before going on to fight Zues.
The problem I have with this argument is that if this Trope is truly that bad then Se7en would be a bad. The antagonist kills a person just to anger one of the protagonists. Hence he creates Wrath it's literally the whole point.
As a long-time OSP watcher, I wanna clarify a few things for you guys since you're not familiar with their content:
1) Red and Blue _both_ make content for the channel: Red does her Trope Talks along with summaries of various myths and classic literature, whereas Blue does videos talking about history and architecture.
2) Red is the one who makes the doodles, not Blue; it originally started as a work-around for her summary of _The Illiad_ because she kept getting Content-IDed for using clips of _Troy,_ and they just stuck as part of the channel's brand.
3) The channel seems to have started as the two of them sharing the stuff they learned in college/university _as_ they learn it (there are early videos talking about how to survive college, and one of the early Subscriber Milestone videos was Red spoofing "Modern Major General" to show off/complain about how many philosophers she's read about), so it seems that much of Red's (and presumably Blue's, as well) air of authority on their subjects is mainly self-appointed on the grounds of "I went to college, therefore I'm an expert on what I studied!"
4) That detail about the bookshelf not being up against the wall seems to have been unintentional, but has been kept around as a sort of in-joke: for the Trope Talk about "the Hero's Journey", they switched it up by having Blue discuss the trope with Red literally popping in at the end from behind the bookcase after going off on some adventure just so she can end the video by pointing out the fact that there's space behind the bookcase and how weird that is.
5) As much as I'd love to see Red and/or Blue appear as guests on EFAP since Blue has collaborated with Shadiversity in the past, I'm _very_ doubtful that either of them have the stones to do it, _especially_ these days of Cancel Culture and hyper-polarization: Red in particular regularly mocks criticism as "Comment Kaiju" whenever she does a Trope Talk on something controversial; in her _Frankenstein_ summary, she demonized people who oppose Left-wing indoctrination in secondary education as "that weird, ignorant, crazy uncle you only ever see or interact with at family get-togethers"; and she seems to have a habit of projecting her modern views and identity as a feminist and an asexual onto some of the ancient myths she covers (see her videos on Pandora, Endymion, Orion, and Ares's abduction for examples).
She also is a lesbian, which colors ALOT of her views on women.
@@Gumblethebear Well then she wouldn’t be asexual.
@@Gumblethebear um no shes not
@@Gumblethebear what?
It sucks since Blue is actually a pretty chill dude and is one of the better content creators in the history community
1:40:00 I think something was missed in the hole in her logic.
"Secondary characters are disposable."
"Female characters are often secondary characters."
Except that's the converse, not the actual statement necessary. In order to draw a conclusion you need "Secondary characters are often female" to proceed. And that would be a flat out lie, everyone knows that. Secondary characters are often men, as pointed out that a bunch of thugs or mooks could get their faces slashed open in a movie or video game and nobody cares.
By this logic, men are fridged, *way more* than women, and if this becomes a gendered thing, God forbid, we would have to actually discuss that men really are considered disposable in society.
The trope was coined because some feminist got upset that a female character in a Green Lantern comic got killed and stuffed into a fridge. It was always gendered from the start and due to it being made up by feminists, the amount of men who fit this alleged trope are completely glossed over if not outright denied
I know I am very late to this video but I would like to point out that her argument is not that most secondary characters are female rather than male but rather that female characters are much more likely to be secondary than not. This means that most characters who are female are secondary characters not that there are more female secondary characters than male secondary characters. Of course this is an empirical matter and she could be wrong but I do think the statement rings true if you look at most fiction.
It seems to be that most people are misunderstanding what she meant. Of course most secondary characters are men, this just means that the overwhelming majority of characters in fiction are male and so reinforces her argument that it is dissapointing that on the rare instance of an important female character she is used as a prop for male developement rather than for her own development.
The primary example I would use is Casca in Berserk. She was raped by Griffin in front of Guts and used as a prop in the former's hatred for the latter. This is not necessarily bad writing. If anything, it shows how deranged Griffin has become to use her this way. The issue is that she then proceeds to not be given any development until the end (?) of the series. She is mostly used as something to motivate Guts rather than have her own story. Her own rape becomes a prop in someone else's story rather than an essential event in her own. Part of why this is so dissapointing is that she is one of the few important female characters in the series.
@@Aldossar8 I'm going to stop you at the first sentence.
All characters, male or female, are much more likely not going to be primary or main characters. So there's really no point in going down that line of reasoning.
I had a feeling this video was going to be covered. OSP occasionally show a bias in some of their trope talks. I know that many tropes can be interpreted on a personal level but it still stands that a trope has to be defined by objective analysis if it is to be useful information for story writing/ world building.
Especially when they say themselves something is "fundamentally bad writing"
Can't believe they went and fridged Uncle Ben, smh my head.
Well, what else are you supposed do with left over rice?
@@geminia999 Serve them to Hassan to eat with his nuggies.
Joker Fridged himself, but he was able to come out.
or did he......
Thomas and Martha Wayne gets fridges so much that they could be considered spoiled by 2005.
Bruh they fridged obi wan! The better Uncle Ben!
Nine times out of ten, whenever I've seen someone bring up "fridging" it's only ever used as the precursor to, "Boy, women sure are treated poorly in fictional media, huh? Like a sexisms or somethin'." Because obviously a poorly written story is poorly written purely to treat a birthing-person in a bad way.
In general, these people think that a female character, regardless of their place in the story, should be given as much attention and depth as the main characters. Anything less is bad, and you're treating her as an object for the man character. Of course, there are times where a woman's entire role is, "I love you.... wife..." but that has nothing to do with gender, just bad writing. World War Z was brought up, and I'd hardly consider Brad Pitt's character any more defined than his family.
A good example would be Killing Joke, where Joker paralyzes Barbara and strips her naked. He doesn't do it to hurt her specifically, but to drive Gordan crazy. A complaint I've seen about the comic is that, despite what happens to her, she's barely in the story, but she's not the focus. Gordan as well as Batman's relationship with Joker is. Although, I'm pretty sure those complaints are what led to the animated movie having that shitty Bat-girl segment in it. (Also, funnily enough, there was a time when DC wanted to release a cover to one of their comics that referenced Killing Joke, but SJWs screeched about it and they scrapped it.)
There's also the stupidity of, "Killing off characters is bad, because there's more you can do with them," as if that's not part of the tragedy. Death isn't certain, cutting a characters story or arc short has far more impact instead of, "I've done all I've wanted out of life, I'm content with death!" then the antagonist shows up and stabs them.
Did they mention DeWitt's death (Green Lantern/Kyle Rayner's girlfriend)?
I'd say the killing joke has a problem of showing torture of female character on screen, only to relegate it to the side like a piece of a prop.
This is despite the fact that, A. This is an established character, whose whole Status Quo got changed with one scene and B. They brought her into focus in the first place.
The thing is, yes, she isn't the main focus, which is why making her a focus of couple of panels was the wrong idea. A good comparison is how the Last of Us 2 killed Joel, or "fridged" if you will. Because we got focus on him, the death scene felt far more unfair, even though it was structurally necessary for the story, they wanted to make it as brutal as possible. All it did was piss people off, and even worse, left a distaste due to not following it up with proper revenge story. Basically, main focus or not, the better choice would've been following through with the plot thread of her, and not just leaving it as "and she got fucked up".
As for the death...cutting it off even though their story isn't done is a case of something way too many writers use when they want to appear subversive or edgy. Killing someone early is impactful, but it is also lazy because you just made it easier on yourself by getting rid of one more branch there to follow through.
Hell, the problem with fridging isn't that the person isn't given a full on backstop and funeral, but that grieving isn't considered there at all. Jojo Bizarre Adventure (yes, I know, but hear me out *SPOILERS*) has characters killed in the most unexpected of ways, some due to nothing more than a whim of the bad guys. However, it was less fridging because it actually focuses on how these people cope with grief, whereas badly done one just focuses on it as a motivation.
To put the same comparison to real life, when a person you know dies, you don't treat it as a random event, it actually affects you quite a bit.
PfffFfffff "birthing person".
Would the other be called "Fucking Person"?
@Purple Emerald the weird thing with that is, if a character was meant to die, you can get end up with either:
1. Character who was obviously gonna die, is too flat due to that and people are just looking at the clock instead of caring about them.
2. They care way too much and get prissy once you decided to take em away, since they felt actual interesting and fleshed out.
It really is a delicate dance to kill character off, cause it needs to be someone will care enough that their death will affect them. And even then, when you have cases of characters who are so unimportant to the plot, that they just fall first on that elimination table and their death makes too much sense, that everyone kinda accepts and it loses that impact. Even though they are interesting.
Speaking personally, I'd rather go classic and kill someone off cause it fits the story and just focus on how I approach death itself.
I always love when EFAP has Jon on, loved the in depth convo.
I like OSP, but I've always seen moments where they tended towards a certain... bias. When they came out with this one I knew it wasn't worth touching with a ten foot pole, and boy was I right. A shame since early on I thought they had good guest potential. They still might depending on how they take this.
When they’re talking about mythology, literature, and folklore they’re fun
Everything else I wouldn’t touch with a 10 with pole
Red's being pretty cool about it on Twitter.
This has to be one of the more focused EFAPs on content critique that I've sat through, so I'd hope so. It's not like they were comidically nasty or roasting of the person like with a lot of whackjob characters they cover, rather just the presentation and ideas of Red.
@@cokeMONSTERps3 Did we watch the same stream? At the very least they called her an absolute idiot that should never be asked for writing advice, multiple times.
@@vadandrumist1670 as they should
"There is a suspicious amount of dead women" -R
I propose that the opposite of a Hot Take (a take that is very uncommon but has some sort of basis to it) be named a *Fridged Take* (a take that is both common and has zero basis, the equivalent of “I liked it”) in honor of this episode and the awful takes from the video.
Then what’s a cold take?
@@TheKpa11 just uncontroversial takes in general, if it has any basis or nit us what separates a cold take and a fridge one
@@gabricaroasabedoria7867 that, or this term could just replace cold take. Either one is fine to me
Edit: As a minor clarification, for hot or cold takes the basis doesn’t have to be accurate, it just has to be more than subjective stuff
i propose non-fridged characters to be microwaved Cs
@@Redditaurus that would be a character that gets fake killed for impact on a main character and then is revealed to be alive. A good example would be Pepper Potts in Iron Man 3, she gets Microwaved
>"all we ask on EFAP is that you have a basic understanding of the material"
>"in Christianity sacrificing yourself for someone else is a free ticket to heaven"
>"Jesus just had a bad weekend so he could go back to ruling the cosmos"
Irony
I love you guys, but damn your Reddit Athiest sides shine through hard sometimes.
Jay could be desrbibed as mlre an "antitheist"
I agree I also thought that was stupid.
I am so glad I'm not required to explain how "fridge ing" was _intended_ to be about disposable females in stories to serve male righteous rage but completely falls flat when you consider the sheer number of men who have died in the background of these stories. I mean, the shock value of hurting the "woman" important to you while you climb over fields of dead men to reach her is beyond parody. Someone seriously tried to complain about disposable females while ignoring disposable males by utilizing the sacrosanctity of 'woman' in a female centric society.
In other words: we value women _so much_ its a trope that hurting them is the fastest way to show what a bad guy is... but hey, pay no attention to the mountain of dead men behind the curtain we need to protect women more *because they aren't valued enough.*
"I mean, the shock value of hurting the "woman" important to you while you climb over fields of dead men to reach her is beyond parody."
Actually i'd love to see someone do that as a joke.
Uncle Ben is killed off panel on the 9th page of the first Spider-Man comic. What a waste since apparently he can have no further impact on future Spider-Man stories.
Was Martha Wayne fridged while Thomas Wayne was not?
@@bad-people6510 well Martha was just that hot compared to Thomas, if you know what I mean...
Barbara was used to torment her father in The Killing Joke, yes, but James himself was just a lure to motivate Batman. Surely that would mean that he was fridged too, right?
Oh, but he isn't a woman so I guess it doesn't count 🙄
Would anyone say Gordon and Barbra don’t get development in those comics? If they do how can it be fridging
Except during the actual part where James Gordon is being tormented as a lure for Batman, the focus is on James Gordon and how he doesn't break.
Well she did say Uncle Owen was fridged, and he's a man.
@@Edax_Royeaux well if you say that aunt Beru (sp) was fridged, you can't really say Owen wasn't.
There was a focus put on Gordon, and him not going insane was the whole point of the comic, to show that it doesn’t just take one bad day, that joker was just weaker than Jim. He was a lot more important to the story than Barbara
1:44:00 People nowadays have a weird mentality
They want to see as many characters as possible have their own story, their own character arc, they want them to have a memorable personality, "look how cool they are", "look all the cool things he can do", "This one should be the protagonist", "This one enters my Top 10 Villains", "This one is Best Waifu", "I can't believe that character got killed, how could the author do that to us?", they see them as collectable figures, or as a team to root for.
They want the story to be a source of characters (as happens in all those superhero worlds) instead of wanting the characters to exist for the story's purpose.
"They want the story to be a source of characters [...] instead of wanting the characters to exist for the story's purpose."
I think anime is partly to blame for this. Broadly speaking: in Western stories (e.g. The Iliad), the characters serve the plot/setting; in Eastern stories (e.g. Journey to the West), the plot/setting serves the characters. Literature Devil has a great video going into a lot more detail on this subject.
@@ManiacalForeigner I don't think that's so much an East/West thing (I mean, it might partially be that) but how things are changing in general, even in western media. Media here in the west has gradually become increasingly character-driven rather than plot-driven over the centuries. Stories like the Iliad, Arthurian literature, etc., are all very plot-driven, while modern media is typically a lot more character-driven. I recently took a course on Arthurian literature, and the type of storytelling really is far more plot-driven than modern writing.
This is a problem I currently face with my own shelf'd work. Too many active characters. Not enough passive ones to aid the story.
@@ManiacalForeigner I 70% blame battle shonens for this and 20% blame western interconnected universes.
@@federicoarmada8775 and 10%?
I do have to say that Red does have some issues when it comes to understanding personal/romantic connections so some of the issues with her argument might just be blind spots there
Ah yeah, she’s an aro/ace. Idk why she’d cover this trope if she can’t understand it on a romantic level like that
@@Stynkrat does that mean she’s autistic
Sorry to say this, but as Rags said; maybe this shouldn’t be your job then?
Considering how many writers in the last few years have explicitly said they based a charecter off of Trump, I would imagine OSP would have to do a Trump trope video. It would be an interesting video.
It's Mr Crabs but he's got a comb over
@Purple Emerald I find it hilarious that Trump is now a famous political figure.
@Purple Emerald that's the beauty of it, if they didn't, he wouldn't be as big. I think it's great actually, hilarious stuff
Oh god, no. It would basically be how it’s always justified to portray the most evil jackass as trump Because reasons.
@@CMCAdvanced What's even more hilarious is how much of a boogieman he was made by The Corporate Press.... He's like a late 90's Democrat.... and a simple RUclips Search will show you a gazillion Democrats saying the same things..... Even Bernie....
"If a character die, all the possibility of their story i discarded" mate, if you want to hear the story of a secondary character more than the protagonist's, there's smt called fanfic
@Purple Emerald "yeah but if they're dead characters, all that is for nothing"
Edit: quotes added
Eh...
Kamina from gurren lagann
I could've watched him alone for another season or 2
You cut off possibilities and add even more
@@commisaryarreck3974 I'm joke quoting her...
@Purple Emerald Yes, that was the joke
Didn't they do that for Black Widow? Just curious.
Trope= hero beats villain. Cliche= changing red head characters into black people.
There are exceptions to that. Morgan Freeman playing Red in Shawshank worked out pretty well
The "bury your gays" thing is a good example of how a lot of people have superficial responses to situations and miss the nuances. The original trope describes how, in situations where people were still uncomfortable with homosexuality, that prejudice would manifest through quickly "shooing out" such characters. It was a valid observation. However, some people now just see a homosexual character being killed off and assume that this is an example of the trope. They see the superficial dressing and make an identification.
How do you determine that the motivation to kill off a character in the past was determined by prejudice? If they truly were uncomfortable with homosexual characters in the past then why would they have been included to begin with? I don't think this trope has ever been legitimate.
@@ian-op5fv The Hayes Code is kind of proof that a lot of depictions were determined by prejudice. The Hayes code basically required films to meet certain standards. One of those standards was the depiction of 'sexual perversion' (homosexuality). So films were required to present non-hetero relationships in a negative light or to have the character seen to have been 'punished' for their perversion (in a lot of cases killed). As to why the filmmakers decided to include such characters I suspect it was a case of an easy target (at the time) similar to how you can always make Nazis the bad guys and noone bats an eye. So if you want a evil or perverted character a simple trope at the time was to use non hetero characters.
@@KoaWaylander what exacrlt is this Hayes code? Where did it come from?
They way you present it, sounds like its a sort of executive directive to allow a film to be produced.
Similar with how they treat diversity nowdays.
@@denkerbosu3551 I would suggest looking it up because I am by no means an expert. But it was essentially a set of standards from the 1930s which dictated what was not allowed in films produced in America. They were pretty restrictive and they kind of 'promoted' a certain set of values which are not very accepting.
@@KoaWaylander The Hayes code expired in '68, and only applied to major film studios. It forbade the depiction of homosexuality, in any context. There weren't any gays to bury.
Somehow not surprised OSP is getting covered for this episode, this is probably the most arbitrary of the tropes they've ever covered.
Agreed
Yeah, I love OSP and especially Trope Talks, but even watching this originally I felt that it wasn't entirely filled with airtight arguments, and found myself kind of countering them as I was watching more than agreeing.
It's a pretty popular one, I think.
@@iainmcdonalds4018 Lol? "Entirely filled with airtight arguments." Not a single argument they made was airtight. So much of the argumentation relies on them literally not understanding storytelling, not understanding the characters they are covering, and putting political spins on shit, demanding that a character has to be important to the audience to be killed off, and they can only be killed off in a way she likes or else it's bad writing.
If this is even a hint at the quality this chick produces, how in the fucking world can anyone like her besides ideologues.
@@mikoi7472 Reading comprehension. "...I felt that it *wasn't* entirely filled...."
Honestly I finished the Great Ace Attorney 2 recently, and it has an incredibly impactful offscreen death for an important side character. It has someone close to the side character run to the player in tears, instilling a sense of dread until the gut punch confirmation of their death. Whole thing would have been worse if we saw it onscreen
Mia got friged
The fact that Red brings up Castlevania, a show they undoubtedly love, as "except for this time, this is good" shows the only difference between this trope being bad or good is whether they like it. I've seen a few of their other videos, and the personal politics leak in a hell of a lot in these videos. Hope the video gets better from its rocky start.
Listening to the part about "item thats loss would be more impactful that a person" not many losses i can think of more devastating than Wilson the volleyball.
My original thought of Castlevania, seems true, as we get finished with the Thanos part.
Except Red didn't bring it up as a case of "except for this time, this is good"; she brought it up as a direct comparison for contrast: Dracula's wife dies 2 minutes in, but her impact is felt throughout the whole first two seasons through Dracula and Alucard. She was highlighting that it is *_not_* an example of fridging because the impact it has on the character and story is more than surface-level.
@@matthewmuir8884 and then that is completely contradicted with her bit of the video on Thanos. Watch the OG video or more of this one.
@@saintlucus2359 I've seen both her video and this one. Her criteria overall is consistent; the issue comes from, among other things, certain examples (the Thanos ones) not meeting her criteria when held under scrutiny.
@@matthewmuir8884 thus her criteria is at best inconsistent, at worse completely arbitrary, and only based on if she liked it or not
Yeah, Rags wrote it off as "it's okay because it's anime" but I think it's less that and more "it's bad for Gamora and Black Widow because they're MCU"
So, disregarding Red’s inability to cite good examples of fridging, I think her main point is that she doesn’t like it when the author invents a character who’s only purpose is to facilitate another character’s arc through their own misfortune. She thinks it is dehumanizing to the fridged character to write them such that dying is the only significant thing they do. OK, I can understand feeling like that’s unfair, but isn’t every character ultimately written to fulfill a purpose in the story? What of the mentor who exist just to get the hero started on his journey and then usually gets killed once he’s fulfilled that purpose? What of the nameless mooks who exist just to give the heroes an obstacle to overcome, who usually get killed without a moment’s thought paid to them? Surely that’s worse than fridging; at least the murdered girlfriend is given name.
Maybe the thing that sets fridging apart is how the significance of the deceased to the main character doesn’t match their significance to the story. Red doesn’t like that our point-of-view character just lost the most important person in his life, yet we barely know her. I think she doesn’t care about a character being out-of-focus in general because then there’s always potential to add to their story in the future, but when their story is ended before they get to do anything, she feels cheated. Which, again I understand that feeling, but isn’t that just how life is? Death isn’t fair. Sometimes people die before they get to do much. Sometimes people you barely know die unexpectedly. And sometimes an author writes a character to play a particular role and doesn’t spend a lot of time on them beyond that role because the story isn’t about them. Why is the text obligated to give the same amount of care to every character? (I say “text” not “author” here because the author may have a lot of thoughts about a character that aren’t conveyed in the work.)
Also, the Warriors Three in “Thor Ragnarök” are a better example than anything Red cites that I’m familiar with. I do think this is a trope that is talked about because of the perception that it mostly happens to females and so - perhaps subconsciously - Red is slower to think of male examples and quicker to excuse the ones she does think of. The real issue here is that people feel like female characters don’t have enough agency and only exist to facilitate the stories of male characters. The fridge is a bit of a distraction really.
I'm surprised that she didn't use Quicksilver's death from Age of Ultron as an example, since she previously criticized it in another video, and it seems to meet her criteria: within Age of Ultron itself, all the death does is make Scarlet Witch momentarily angry enough to abandon the area and pursue the main Ultron bot, enabling another Ultron bot to reach the button that makes the city fall. No one, not even Scarlet Witch, is shown mourning him afterwards or even mentions him.
That's my main objection to this trope -- the people complaining about it aren't necessarily *wrong*, they just never seem to understand that their perspective is just one of many potential angles. They tend to ignore anything that doesn't fit their ideology and focus on that which does. As you sort of note here, if you're talking "disposable" characters, one of the first thing to come to mind would be the male footsoldiers/guards etc., who are meaningless other than threats or collateral, and unlike the fridged girlfriend don't receive any human investment or recognition. Which isn't me saying "we should moan about the male guards" (picking apart common tropes has its place, but simply enjoying entertainment isn't it), it's just that the complaint of fridging usually seems rooted in a very narrow and specific response, where only certain stimuli matter.
Good thing these are fictional characters whose experiences CANT be trivialized because they never actually happened
Describing the issue as a distraction feels spot on
You are 100% right here. I really think this is totallly irrational. Having characters existing with the sole purpose of pushing the main character foward is a ancient trope, because It WORKS. I can see how sometimes this can be badly written, but saying this is bad writing alt right doesn't make sense. What do you expect, that every minor character should have the same Focus and urgency as your protagonist? That's not how It Works.
The real reason people were pissed at Pennywise eating a gay is because of the meme where he and the Babadook were Gay Icons.
I swear everyone now a days are trying something a gay icon.
I mean that’s equally stupid
Maybe there's something to be said that their "gay" icons are monstrous villains, but don't they have better icons that represent them? Help me because I can't think of one.
@@wangusbeef86 Not even with the villains, any character that just so happens to be a bit feminine in personality or is cute it's suddenly becomes "Omg this character is a gay icon! I don't make the rules!"
A monstrous entity that feeds on children is a gay icon?
Of course! It sounds just like the g-[This comment has been censored for hate-speech]
Listening to Red go back and forth on what fridging is, based entirely on whether or not she like the way it turned out, is like watching a Chinese Ping Pong tournament finale at double speed with a strobe effect on.
I mean, good lord, I'm getting whiplash over here.
I'm surprised that with all the talk of "Fridging", no one has mentioned or suggested "Fringy-ing".
🤔
"Fringy-ing" is when you don't tell people what your goo is.
Someone on chat did lol
"Bury your gays" is not a legitimate trope. It is only a political weaponization of the 'trope' concept. Its purpose is to prevent bad things from happening to characters who are part of a group that a certain political ideology considers to be oppressed. Because this group is "oppressed" they need to be collectively treated differently than everyone else regardless of context in any situation.
There is no objective reason to single out the death of a homosexual character as a specific storytelling device. You could generate a "Bury your X" for any characteristic you can identify.
Couldn't have said it better. It's for purely propagandistic purposes
Word
Whats a "legitimate trope". Both with fridgeing and gays the conversation was about characters whose soul role is that. MC has a GF but she has no traits beyond being a nice gf for him to cry about once she is dead, she might have total screen time of 1 minute. Same with gays, it was not about horror movies, it was about regular tv shows/sitcomes/etc where someone's distant relative would roll into town to tell us they are gay and promptly die by the end of the episode in a car crash or something similar. If death is not normal in a setting and recently introduced gay person dies then that raises an eyebrow. There is a perception that they are being "divinely punished for their gayness"
@@charnel8435 The most Succinct definition of 'bury your gays' on tvtropes:
1 "the problem is the tendency that gay characters are killed off in a story full of mostly straight characters..."
2 "...or when the characters are killed off because they are gay."
1: Most characters in a story are going to be straight, so this first definition is just a complaint about killing gay characters. There's nothing remotely specific about how this "troupe" is determined to apply to a work. It can be applied to any instance where a gay character is killed in a story.
2: This second part is ascribing an author's motivation for killing a character, which can only be verified by the author explicitly stating his motivation. The author's motivation is not used as proof for any of these definitions. It's an assertion without evidence, also known as bullshit.
@@ian-op5fv "This trope is the presentation of deaths of LGBT characters where these characters are nominally able to be viewed as more expendable than their heterosexual counterparts. In this way, the death is treated as exceptional in its circumstances."
"However, sometimes gay characters die in fiction because, well, sometimes people die. There are many Anyone Can Die stories: barring explicit differences in the treatments of the gay and straight deaths in these, it's not necessarily odd that the gay characters are dying."
If you want to know the "subtle"; difference then read the whole thing, its not that long.
2. you might know because the author does not shut up in their socials but even if you dont, does that mean death of the author is not a thing?
This is why I don't care for Red's Trope Talk. Her political lens obscures any form of objective criticism thanks to her bedroom feminist mindset. She can make good arguments and talking points, don't get me wrong, I just knew from the title that Red was going to be triggered upon talking about this Trope.
Academic Feminism. This is what's taught in college English that isn't Grammar. I explicitly heard this term when I took a comics course. Basically, all forms of literary critique in Academia subscribes to some kind of politics whether it's post-colonialism, feminism, marxist, or Reader Response. This video is a lot like Just Write because they both use the same kind of critique that doesn't actually reflect what regular people or creators use.
Yeah her videos can be entertaining and she does have a unique perspective on a lot of stuff but unfortunately this is one example where her own ideas/politics just skew her views to one thing. Another example was a video she did for pride month that shows off all the “gay” gods and myths from the past and some of them were legit but most were obvious stretches to reach her own political ideas
@@dragonknightleader1 there's many forms of literary criticism that aren't inherently political. The critical lens are just tools to evaluate works in various ways beyond the standard. Feminism in the form of literary criticism isn't even typical 3rd wave Feminism, it's much more focused on just looking at works from female authors or female perspectives
@@PabloOlbapPablo Feminism is super politicized and the main reason why Anita Sarkeesian even has a career in Academia and virtue signalling circles.
@@dragonknightleader1 Yeah, of course feminism is super politicized, it stemmed from the suffrage movement. In literary criticism, it doesn't just refer to the suffrage movement or the political movement in general. Idk what "career" Anita Sarkeesian has in Academia or why that's relevant to the conversation tho, since I don't think she's a literary critic beyond being a grifter.
Apollonia got fridged in “The Godfather” so Micheal Corleone could learn the stakes, many stories have disposable characters that are designed to forge the central protagonist and elevate them to center stage (like that idiot brother in “Life is Strange: True Colors”).
Or the dad in LiS 2.
I only know this series from Louis Le Vau laughing at it.
@@dragonknightleader1 may the lord bless E;R.
Truly the coverage that shitstain deserved.
"Gotta blame somebody. Otherwise its all my fault. Fuck that!"
Hmm, a critique/trope coined by a feminist is incredibly inconsistent and utterly meaningless? I'm just so shocked that could be the case. It's not a real trope, it's only used by feminists to point out women being killed in stories to claim men hate women in real life. Yes, this video by osp is incredibly bad, but when they talk about actual tropes and such, they are fairly entertaining.
I remember seeing her video on "The Lancer" and didn't mind it. This video, however, is just bad. The fact they're capable of making good content makes putting this video out detrimental to their own credibility. I'd already decided I wasn't interested enough in the channel to care to check out other videos. Seeing this makes me doubly confident in that decision.
I don't believe it's possible for a human being to be "pure good" or "pure evil" but after listening to OSP talk about Black Widow I now do believe it's possible for a person to be pure wrong....
3:00:00 These people think that it's narcisistic to believe you are right when most people disagree with you
Peope complain superhero movies are childish but when they give them something different that doesn't agree with their own childish worldview they agree it's a mistake.
Yeah, there is a difference between believing that you are right because you are "right" and believing that you are right because you are you.
I had written a comment on the unlisted stream about how OSP, in a video about Kaijus, argues that King Kong is an allegory for black people (their words, not mine, 8:42 for context in that video). That was one of the first red flags that they follow a particular ideology, with strike 2 being a video they made about Urban Fantasy where they make the basic "cultural appropriation is bad" argument. This video about fridging is strike 3. Their political lens is definitely poisoning their media analysis. I mean, anyone that talks about Gail Simone in a positive light is clearly a radical feminist ideologue...so it's unsurprising that their analysis of tropes is so tainted.
“Their political lens is definitely poisoning their media analysis. I mean, anyone that talks about Gail Simone in a positive light is clearly a radical feminist ideologue”
Not saying you’re wrong about their media analysis being tainted, but it kinda seems like you’re doing some of the same from this statement lmao
@@aaronmueller1560 Not at all? I would judge a piece of media created by Gail Simone by the same standards, free of my ideology. Gail Simone's book about women in fridges is awful. Like, a lot of what OSP says is informed by that book.
@@CptnCardboard oh I see, didn’t realize she wrote a book on fridging, so to me it sounded like a random name drop and political assumption because of it. That’s my bad, I got confused
I mean... when King Kong first came onto the scene there may have been some racial stuff behind it(I honestly don’t know, it’s a giant monkey) but I’d flat reject any claims that modern uses of King Kong are suppose to be some dig at black people.
@@aaronmueller1560 S'all good, it's mentioned in passing in the video itself, so I can see how it could be missed. The video is a condensed version of the book, with a poor analysis of the MCU as well lol
Edit: Sorry, not a book, a website. Got confused lol. She is a comic book writer and YaBoiZack has roasted her more than once so I had some crossed wires.
I still hate it when characters I like die. However, that doesn't change my opinion on whether a story is good or not, depending on how the story treats the character. I like watching happy things typically
Gotta say, isn’t a thing with Jesus is that while on the cross he felt the sins and pain that anyone has ever and will ever commit? I would say that’s some pretty sacrificial stuff right there rags
He didn't lose anything though.
@@guanglaikangyi6054 Not only did he lose nothing, he literally gained EVERYTHING. Also none of the scripture i have seen says he actually suffered the pain of every sin ever was or will be. doesn't really make sense that he could feel pain of every sin that would be committed as this would have absolved all future sin and completely undermined the second coming and the entirety of revelations.
[Citation needed]
This sounds like a heretical modern-day asspull invented to sorta kinda almost counter the obvious problem with Jesus's "sacrifice."
Don’t expect rags to ever be objective on this sort of thing. He’ll always go to the worst faith interpretation and will use awful logic like the old “but god no move big big rock” argument. The whole existence of Jesus is sacrifice as it’s an aspect of our creator lowering himself to our level and then sacrifices himself as a symbol of his love. Rags refuses to even go to the theological level of any argument retaining to religion and tries to bind higher powers with the logic of man
@@Schlumbuo You don't need human sacrifice to do that.
Where did you learn how to fridge?
IN A FRIDGE?!
"I will fridge him.........I WILL FRIDGE HIM!"
I actually learned how to do it on a farm, I know rather _tropey_
Where did you learn how to farm? IN A FRIDGE?!
@@jeffyager4244
_Where did you learn to fly_
The whole discussion around fridging seems very Kafkaesque. They can't tell you exactly what fridging is because then you would be able to find things that are both clearly fridging, and are clearly well written. Instead, when you present something that meets a person's definition of fridging and is also good, you will get a long series of rationalizations about how it either isn't really fridging (because it's good) or how it isn't really good (because it's fridging).
Basically, peer pressure causes people to accept that fridging is both real, and bad writing. Because of this, when they encounter something that seems like fridging and is also good, they experience cognitive dissonance and have to rationalize that it isn't "really" fridging. All the while these people think that someone out there actually understands what fridging is, when in reality no one does, because if fridging had a definition, you would have to admit that it isn't always bad.
It goes back to what John said. It'd all be well and good if the girl in the video was more open... But that's not the case. She presents everything like its the truth and she's sure of it and there can be no different position or answers or perspectives and hence "the author doesn't care about a character if they kill them" and "its just bad writing...and morally wrong...and lazy". What?
I'm a guy. I'm sick and tired of watching men get kicked in the nuts by women in media now. It was a 90s gag that went through a public debate, everyone agreed it wasn't funny and the trope went away. Now its back, as a sign of showing a woman's power over a man. Oh its still sold as a laugh because the writers can't be as pathetic and just demonstrate their opinions of a gender that blatantly, right?
I think it IS gendered violence, kicking a man in the crotch.
And yet, I would never make a stupid video essay calling the action in fiction "morally wrong" and proposing how "its a sign of bad writing" and that "no man should get kicked in the nuts in fiction ever from this day on."
@@zogwort1522 In this context the phrase 'these people' means: "The group of people outlined above". That group is: "People who, like Red, are emotionally attached to the belief that fridging is inescapably bad writing, and who, when presented with something that both meets the definition of fridging and is well written, will rationalize how it isn't 'really' fridging, rather than admit that fridging can be done well." That definition is a bit of a mouthful, so I used 'these people' as a stand in.
I think you need a break from the internet. You're seeing coded language where there is none.
@@scienceviking4490 So basically, a pronoun.
@@thomastoolis5301 Yeah, pretty much.
Tropes are not something to be avoided. They are just tools, they are not inherently good or bad. The problem is if the story beat functions *only* as a trope. Because then it's not a natural feeling part of the story. It's just bare bones scaffolding.
People said Red dropped the ball on this, but the other trope talks aren't much better anyway
In the Killing Joke (which wasn't initially supposed to be canon by the way, but was so well received it was made canon retroactively) the point literally is to upset Batman and Commissioner Gordon. That's not a meta thing. That's literally the Joker's, in story GOAL. *AND IT DOESN'T WORK!*
And Alan Moore's "regret" for crippling Barbra is because he wrote it with the assumption that this would remain non-canon. Context she's not providing.
I’m honestly curious who has been suggesting Red would be a good guest for the show? I admit, I haven’t seen a lot of her work, but the stuff I have seen usually involves her decrying something or someone is sexist or bigoted.
Probably because it’d be funny to watch it unfold.
Probably because she's pulling "It's just my opinion" while presenting it as a fact when it comes to her Trope Talks.
@@wingedyaga2914 just like the good ole Early EFAP days.
I have been suggesting it; a lot of her videos are really good. Some good trope talk videos would include "Not so different", "reformed villains" and "superpowered evil sides" among other good ones.
I also thought it would be neat because they're friends with Shadiversity.
@@Party_Almsivi Nothing will ever top the Lord of the Rings one.
Another thing is that red basically shot to the majority of murder mysteries and classified as bad. (Even thou, with her examples almost all death is bad.)
Right, Se7en is badly written now cause of the What's in the box scene
And don't even get Red started on war movies. All those extras getting mowed down by machine guns will no backstory or characterization? Terrible writing!
Just, please ignore the fact that's what happens in actual wars.
Yeah, I think it was this episode of their's that set off red flags for me when I was subbed.
"Fridge you fools..."
Gandalf Skywalker
"A BalFridge. A demon of the ancient world.
This fridge is beyond any of you.
Run!"
-Gandalf Fridgemaker.
"It is no bad thing to celebrate a simple fridge..."
-Chillbo Baggins
@@GRUUUUUVY
"Especially one with bacon"
-SamFridge Fridgeee"
@@yetanotherspuart3993
"Like too much fridge, spread over too little of Fr🐸ngy's goo..."
Longus Welshing
@@amanibob1416
Poor Fringy, losing all his Goo because Sargon is bad at killing Vampires.
And Mootal just had to to have Salim the Chad of Fridges destroy it.
How will fring-daddy-G's ever recover???
This channel is hilarious when She comments on ancient Myth trying to apply current year progressivism to ancient societies.....
Yes, historical revisionism is what typically happens in Academia these days. Hence why a lot of these college grads act like they drank the kool-aid.
@@dragonknightleader1 Yeah.... I agree with that sentiment... In this case, this chick likes to do the usual "OMG this 1500 year old culture is not progressive... LOL".....
I still feel mad about her underworld video where she left out the Izanami/Izanagi rant at the "I will kill 1000 people everyday, well I will bring life to 1500 people everyday." Or how she changed that oracle character from Intersex to "gender non-bianary".
@@Samm815 Ha!..... Yeah I noticed that all the "commentators" arbitrarily change their stances all the time....
@@dragonknightleader1 Commenting on the morality of another time period based on our morality isn't revisionism though :|
"X people did messed up things by our standards" can be entirely true.
Often is too but that's another topic.
Calling Thanos "pure evil" is missing the obvious point of his entire character, one that most 8 year olds could see.
OSP just have sticks up each of their asses when it comes to Thanos, it seems.
"pure evil" is a subjective thing. titan who wants to kill half of existence because of his mental illness is pretty evil and "pure evil" characters can have pets too. pure evil does not mean chaotic killer who cant stop murdering for 2 seconds.
@@charnel8435 If it's subjective then why correct me on the meaning? It kind of does suggest that anyway, or at least someone whose only trait is hurting others for the sake of it, or hurting others solely for personal gain. Thanos is willing to sacrifice everything he loves and his own life because he genuinely believes that in the end he will be saving more lives than he is ending. That's what you call a bit more than a hint of good, which by definition a "pure evil" character cannot have.
@@4u5t Im not correcting you, Im saying because its subjective another might have a valid interpretation even if it does not line up with yours. There is no good in thanos, someone thinking they are bad for greater good does not make them good. I like your qualifier of "pure evil" being someone motivated by self interest even in their own head but thats where the subjective comes in, for example you can have a religious fanatic using mind control and doing "unspeakable" things to people to "save" them, are they evil or pure evil? Is it dictated by their motivation, their action or objective reality?
@@charnel8435 There are generally two fundamental aspects to humanity and to life in general: actions and thoughts. If both are utterly focused on what can be best classified as evil, then there is no good in them. Hence, pure evil. Palpatine is a near-perfect example of this. Your examples don't really work for this, alas; the religious fanatic is evil in action, but not in his mind. Palpatine, meanwhile, does evil actions (duh) and he KNOWS its evil to other people. He just doesn't fucking care, because his only goal is power and the prompt acquisition of more of it.
In other news. The great Me High Cheek Send Me High finally reached the end of the middle. I hope he find hope in the impenetrable forest with rhino milk.
Normally OSP’s trope videos are about how to use tropes well but she flat out says “this trope is just bad writing” in this video. I think she went overboard on this one because she has a strong progressive political bias and this trope is often used as a feminist talking point so she isn’t being as critical as she normally would be. Also she has a really big ego that’s not an insult. OSP knows she has a big ego.
So Nemo's mom was fridged. And that's bad writing.
Luke's aunt and uncle.
Nemo's mom definitely was not fridged; the impact of her death is felt throughout almost the whole movie, as it's the source of the dad's overprotectiveness towards Nemo, as well as his pessimism overall.
@@matthewmuir8884 I agree with you. But based on the criteria Red lays out, Coral was fridged. If Red is consistent, she should have problems with Finding Nemo.
@@DuneStone6816 I don't think so, because one of her main criteria for fridging seems to be that, if the impact of the death is more than surface-level, it is not an example of fridging. She even referenced Lisa's death in Castlevania as an example of a death that _isn't_ fridging because of the far-reaching impact Lisa and her death had on the plot and on Dracula and Alucard.
I feel the word “prop” is more accurate than “fridge” because we never get to learn that much about Coral
On items having significance:
Cast Away when our protagonist loses his volleyball. It impacts him extremely significantly. He has almost a bigger reaction to losing that volleyball than he does realizing he will never have his old life back.
Fridging originally was a trend to kill characters offscreen, usually who also developed offscreen, in order for their death to be an emotional push to central characters of the story. It's not even really that she explained it badly, it's just that she sees it like a bad thing, then goes on a Thanos rant. Tropes aren't inherently bad. They're tropes because they work. As you explained, fridging is a very good method to set up inciting incidents, so long as you can convince the audience that the characters actually care, and that the fridging itself would incite the characters to act as they do. If you fail at either of those, it's generally bad because it messes up the inciting incident of the story. What she explains about fridged characters being dehumanized is that generally, like in the game of thrones example, the reason you care about a character that is fridged is not because of their development (It's an inciting incident at the beginning of a story, after all.) Rather, you care because of their title, from girlfriend to prince, or because of how they died. Often, both. Fridging is a trope like 'death of the mentor' is, where it acts as a pivotal moment in the story. My understanding is that it's generally split up from other character deaths by abruptness. You aren't really introduced to the character first, and their death is used to incite the main character to a course of action. The purpose of their life was to illustrate how the main character feels now that they've died. Like all trope sub-categories, what divides it from another character death is pretty wishy-washy. It's different enough to deserve a trope title at least.
So I wanted to put in my two cents on the Cliche/Trope discussion. I see Tropes to be a more fundamental/macro part of writing like archetypes, while cliches are more about the minutiae. It is a Trope to have a Dark Lord figure, his motivations can be cliche. It is a Trope to give your protagonist a love interest, their relationship can be cliche. Having Tropes are unavoidable while having cliches can be avoided by being more original. That doesnt mean the originality will be good nor is it inheritly bad to play into cliches.
Thing is, "minutiae" are also tropes now.
Evil Lords' motivations have all been written already, so you can't really "avoid it by being original"
Thanos is a "benevolent big picture driven genocide"
Non of these are original, but they work in the story.
Nothing can be "original" hence I hate when people say "but this is good because its so different!" for stuff like The Last of Us Part 2.
No, nothing there is original, on top of being bad.
@@denkerbosu3551 I think its too soon to say that its impossible to be original because everything has been done already. There could be things no one has thought about yet, or things that cant be thought of yet due to the period of time we live in. That doesnt mean those ideas will be good just that no one has thought about them yet.
The way i look at it is Tropes are building blocks and Cliches are buildings.
@@Samm815 I feel like that puts them together too much. I would see it more like a trope is a hot dog and the cliches are the condiments.
Funny enough, the Jessica Gardner character's whole motive in the Alias show happens because her husband was executed and left in a bathtub to bleed out. Was he fridged or was it a good character death?
He was tubbed.
Can't fridge men.
They mean nothi g to feminists except a source of income.
John Wick was kicked off by Fridging his dog. The dog died and that is the specific motivation that sends Wick on his spree. The dog was not responsible for the situation that got him killed.
Fullmetal Alchemist: Maes Hughes is not fridged, because his death is a direct result of his meddling/investigations. He's a side character, and his death is a major plot point for several characters, but he was directly responsible for the conditions that led to his own death.
True. In both cases, it's not proof of bad writing anyways, which is the point of the fridging criticism.
Red used the latter as example of good, saying that "its not true fridging" because it felt right or whatever.
I wonder what she would say about the latter, since the movie starts with the wofe dead, leaving a good voiced last message and the dog.
Was the wife fridged but not the dog? Or was the dog an extension of the character and neither were fridged?
Is a normal dog a character to begin wkth?
@@denkerbosu3551
The wife was dead beforehand. Death as Backstory. The dog was killed specifically to get to Wick, which is the entire point of "Fridging a character".
Being killed specifically to mess with the protagonist. Not because the dead person crossed the killer, but just because the fridged character was important to the main character.
She says multiple times: "The audience this, the audience that", what authority she has to speak for the audience?
She's a feminist, so...
@@thuglifebear5256 And a hard leftist, soooo...
@@Guciom a legitimate communist, if you’ve watched her Robin Hood video
6:51:09 I like happy endings. The part that I hate are forced happy endings. You see it every now and then where the story builds towards a bittersweet ending, but then it does a sudden 180-degree turn in order to have a happy ending instead. Every time it gives me whiplash and then I start thinking about all the story threads that just got tangled and fucked up.
Happy endings are good, but we need to stop forcing them in. It's fine to have a bitter or even sad end if that's the best fit for the story.
If you want a happy ending... just write the story with that in mind from the beginning! Don't just Deus ex machina the story just to force it in the end...if I ever get to finish any of my writing projects, I'd like it to be happy ending, because I prefer it, but that's also why I would rather just start with that in mind when writing it.
"Fridging" is such a dumb subject to talk about. It came from superheroes and it's overused...HOWEVER, it works more times than it doesn't, it usually comes down to how rest of the story comes together at the end. Fridging hyper focuses on one thing and one thing only, one grain of sand in a vast desert that is the story, it's useless term to hyper focus on.
it's worth mentioning that padme has a lot of scenes including an entire arc that ended up on the cutting room floor
Fridges have changed. It's no longer about food, drinks, or electricity. It's an endless series of poor characterizations, brought on by bad writers and probably sexist audiences.
Fridge-ing, and it’s consumption of characters, has become a well oiled machine.
Oh yeah, forgot this: ruclips.net/video/DNqAbcVlaBc/видео.html
MGS4 reference is a rare sight. Or, "a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one."
I can hear The Norm Macdonald influence on Rags. I’ve heard him use several norm isms. Keep on barking Rags
He copies Jay from RedLetterMedia a lot too.....
Wow. Just... ...wow. The video under scrutiny is the first one I've heard of that brings up the concept of "I'm not even PART of the plot" armor.
At some point, avoiding tropes to "subvert excpectations" becomes another trope.
“Let me praise Hughes from FMAB for not being fridged. Yes the same one with Trisha Elric. Yes, Im completely unselfaware.”
>2:09:40
Hold up. "A story that continues past the death of Character B focuses more on Character A."
Yes, congratulations. You have successfully described reality and linear time. Not an argument.
Talking about movies that end with a not-really-happy ending, I was watching the Youjo Senki movie yesterday and that probably does what they're after, by and large.
Short version is Youjo Senki is an anime/manga/book series that follows a character called Tanya Degurechaff in an alternate reality steampunk europe (in the sense that there's magic, but the magic is used to power technology) circa early 20th century during an increasingly widespread continental war that is a little bit WW1 and a little bit WW2. War breaks out between literally-communist-russia-but-called-the-federation and the protag's country of germany-but-we'll-call-it-the-empire, and revolves around a mission to defend a city cut off by the federation advance but which serves as a key railroad hub.
Ultimately the empire wins and holds the city, but they do so with staggering casualities on both sides and with an increasing recognition by the main characters that the war isn't winnable and will only spread destruction as more and more countries get drawn into it. And Tanya herself isn't actually a good person, repeatedly commiting atrocities that are only not war crimes by technicality while relishing the destruction and loss of life that she causes, something she claims to abhor but willingly does anyway for her own satisfaction and career advancement. Hell, the central antagonist of the movie is a girl who is portrayed as brave, compassionate and self sacrificing but who wants revenge against the empire for the death of her father and against Tanya specifically after realising that she was personally responsible for it. Nobody comes out of the movie having gotten what they wanted, the world is worse off for the events having taken place and will only continue to get worse now that the empire and federation are at war with virtually no chance of a peaceful resolution in large part due to Tanya's actions.
It's anime though so naturally it's shit.
I like the series and movie as well. Lot of really interesting ideas, reasonably well executed.
@Purple Emerald yeah, it's pretty anime. But I will say, having 'god' make the change to punish the protagonist is a decent enough reason to justify it, for me at least.
@Purple Emerald 1 by the point of the story party’s of the military career he’d be an old man 2 his knowledge of WW 1 and 2 is what gives him an advantage and an ability to relatively efficiently predict enemy actions.
What made me laugh so hard at the start was how God somehow got so offended at the MC being a cynical jackass, edgelord atheist.
He was petty enough to make them reincarnate in an undeveloped world, as a poor and very thin (out of hunger) young girl.
The series is basically MC trying to climb the ranks for his oen success, while being forced to openly praise god to use its blessing as a weapon, all while thid petty God keeps throwing difficulties at him to make him despair and genuinely ask for His help.
Concept is hilarious, ehile the whole war aspect is neat. MC is indifferent to it, while his platoon do a good work showing the more normal reaction at how you have to kill civies and such to win a war.
I really dislike when people dismiss Anime Cartoons or any media and assume all of it is shit
Honestly whenever EFAP talk about anime they are such twats for dismissing a media as shit
It’s almost cringe worthy as Fighting game players who dismiss anime fighting games and scream ANIMEEEEEEE
"Representation" means that the ""represented"" group will take personal offense to any character flaw, making the "representation" inhuman tokens where surface traits are their entire character.
They aren't allowed the struggle, not with threatening villains nor inner thoughts. They aren't allowed to be more than cardboard imitations of that which came before.
Yet they don't respect the giants who's shoulders they so proudly sh!t on. So petty. Sorry excuses of "characters" written by bitter narcissists living in cramped echo chambers.
Bingo. Comedy makes your point better than any other medium. It all comes back to either all topics are ok or none of them are - because the limiting factors are almost always subjective and/or reductive
This trope was created specifically as a feminist point, and then later expanded to try and be applied to a wider range of characters (not just women, basically) although it still hammers that point in, mostly women (while ignoring the millions of men who just die in the background for the purpose of the story but w/e), which means you shouldnt seek much sense out of this. Its purely political, has little grasp on reality or sense.
Grasping at anything to make a point, and try to deconstruct it. This is pseudo-religions, senseless. Laugh and move on.
Ps: Quite like her mythology series tho!
Edit: removed comment on thanos also being part of the dice roll for being snapped as pointed out doesnt make sense as he has to ensure its not undone
But if Thanos dies, someone can just collect the stones and undo it, he needs to escape and destroy the stones to guarantee that his mission is successful.
@@ian-op5fv Yeah what you say is true!
@@ian-op5fv You mean that Thanos may not have had the best plan? There were possible flaws? Huh.
@@SquallLionhart409 Who could have guessed, within the entire universe, that a human being creates a fucking time machine.
Biggest BS, tripe crap to pull out of their asses ive ever seen.
Things like the hero’a journey aren’t just a “trope”. That archetype is deep inside all of us. It mirrors human psychological development. See Jordan Peterson’s courses on Disney movies for reference.
Or cut out the middleman and just read Hero with a Thousand Faces.
@@dragonknightleader1 Sure, but that doesn't give you access to Jung and other references he makes as well.
This is basically a long podcast where the EFAP crew discovers that OSP fundamentally misdunderstands what a trope is. Tropes are tools, they are shorthand for situations, devices, scenarios and so on. "Truth in Television" is a trope that describes instances where a work of fiction, often surprisingly, accurately reflects reality, but I'd love to hear people claim this is a problem. Tropes aren't usually an indicator of quality, although there are exceptions. "Jumping the Shark" is the description of a big change in a long running series where an effort to stay fresh and interesting has made the series worse, instead. "Stuffed in a Fridge" is a super-trope, and there are many specific sub-tropes, like "Disposable Woman" where a friend or love interest is indeed established and killed off for motivation and has no further impact on the story, or "The Lost Lenore", where the death of a love interest early in or before the story remains relevant to the main character. Jesse in BtVS is pretty much a platonic example of the former, while John Wick's wife is a good example of the latter.
Also, the effect the life and death of a character has on other characters past their own passing is pretty much the extent of the effect a character CAN have on a story past that point, unless they are resurrected in some fashion.
That's the weird thing though, Red has said this herself before.
@@Umcarasemvideo yeah this is one of the few episodes of trope talk where she actually says something is inherently bad, and those other few times it is also a bad take (such as her take on grimdark) The closest that I remember to her saying a trope was bad and it not being a bad take was when she did a video on time travel; and even then the conclusion was that while you can make good stories involving time travel, they’re very difficult to get right and you probably shouldn’t use time travel if you’re a newer writer. If I remember the episode correctly at least, it’s been awhile since that came out.
@@Lyth13 Yeah, I remember her episode on Lovecraft too which was... interesting to put it nicely.
@@Umcarasemvideo Dude's cat really messed her up that much
@@respectedsalmon9390 But he's just a kitty-cat!
For someone who pretends to have learned about the Illiads and general Greek mythology, I guess Red was asleep during Agamemnon sacrificing Iphigenia, one of his beloved daughters, to satisfy the gods and be able to sail to Troy.
And asleep even harder when Clytemnestra 's motivation for killing Agamemnon when he returned was HER DEAD DAUGHTER.
Oh……I’ve misunderstood ’fridging’ for years. I thought it was putting a character away, in stasis essentially, until the plot needed them, then returned to the fridge until the next time. Thanks EFAP! To be fair to myself, I’ve not used the term even once in my life. So it’s basically a long forgotten term that Efap just mentioned.
The term "Fridging" is an attempt by a lesser writer to try and apply a negative "academic" label onto a superior writers work, thus tainting it for personal gain.
It does not follow logic or set term, because that would defeat the purpose. The purpose is not to make a story arc better, it is to complain without having an argument.
It was coined by female writers riding on the feminist wave of exposure and quotation hires of the early 2000.
So when ever it is brought up it should be mocked and pissed upon.
Just like the Bechdel test.
"The term "Fridging" is an attempt by a lesser writer to try and apply a negative "academic" label onto a superior writers work, thus tainting it for personal gain."
I could kiss you. *Mwah*
Also, quota hires of the early 2000s. quotation just becomes a completely different thing.
“Well written character deaths almost always upset everyone else too.” Wow yeah I know she said ALMOST but that is SOOO contextual. What if every character hates the person that dies? Maybe if she said it IMPACTS the other characters almost every time, that would be more agreeable. But even then that’s obviously not a guarantee.
Well written character deaths can cause all sorts of reactions from characters, anger, joy, sadness, humor, gallows humor, pleasure etc.
Or you could get a mixture of reactions.
That’s what makes good character deaths so good, they don’t have to invoke any one emotion or reaction.
@Sir Apple - Exactly. It’s such a dumb statement.
JohnSoko
It’s a statement that only focuses on a single direction for a storybeat.
That alone says how silly it is to make the statement, there’s no storybeat that can only go one way.
I use to dislike fringy alot but then he sang and now I know the meaning to life.
How could you ever feel that way about the only moral member of the EFAP crew??
EFAP can't just get along with one another anymore, can they? Always those fights and aggression towards Fringy who is best out of everyone. - smugross-
@@CptnCardboard but metal is my favorite.
@@mrrselfdestruction1077 metal is the only non awful efap member
This might be a hot take from me, so...
Way to go OSP (Red), your argument is basically an elaborate Poisoning of the Well for all fictional, literary endeavors. By pushing the moral condemnation of a scene in fiction from the antagonist onto the writer, you are condemning any author that would ever attempt to write such scenes (as well as possibly condemning yourself through projection). This is... maybe an over-reaction from me tho.
I don't think it's an overreaction. Calling any writing decision 'morally wrong' is something that mustn't be done lightly. In Red's case, she calls something morally wrong without even being able to properly define it
@@scienceviking4490 Yeah, big agree.
Here's the key to understanding fridging. It's bullshit. The concept was invented because Gail Simone wanted to push the agenda that comics are sexist so she took an event that doesn't match her claim and tried to hammer her agenda into it. The death of Alexandra Dewitt serves the same purpose as Uncle Bens, except she had more time to develop. It was Kyle Rayner's fault because he didn't take his responsibility seriously. he didn't consider the consequences of the thing he was doing and it got her killed. It was also a justification of the broader superhero trope of maintaining a secret identity.
My Make and Model is not important. What is important is what I’m going to do...
I just fridging hate this world, and the Cooler worms feasting on its carcass. My whole life is just cold, bitter refrigeration. And I always wanted to break down violently. This is the time of fridge-ance, and no leftover is worth reheating. And I will put on-ice as many as I can. It’s time for me to fridge, and it’s time for me to freeze. My Fridge-ocidal Crusade begins here.
Is this from something
@@Winter-ck7ux I messed around with the intro to the infamous 2.5D isometric shooter “Hatred”. You should look it up if you haven’t seen it before. Very edgy.
Hey man, any updates on that ATLA review you're working on?
Here's my update:
Since this was my first time critically analyzing a piece of media, I've discovered that I wasn't happy with my notes. So I've decided, maybe I should make a critique of Batwoman first so I can figure out what my standards are before making a critique of every episode of ATLA.
@@MrAWulff
Oh god, you’re going to do every episode? That’s a Brobdingnagian undertaking.
I wish you the best on that.
Unfortunately for me, work has been very busy and demanding of time and energy for the last few months, so setting aside time to trudge through a show, paying close attention, and taking coherent notes? Yeah... But I have been doing a lot thinking about how I want structure the thing, what points I want to hit on, and what to focus on. And whether to do a simpler opening video to start with.
I also rewatched northern air temple a month ago, which, if I’m honest, had been making me procrastinate a bit from the dread of what I’d find in its accursed animation frames.
It was as bad as I thought.
That Tianjin-sized explosion at the end was pretty funny though, given how the temple wasn’t reduced to dust in wind, and none of the good guys were dead or deafened.
Aang going out of his way to wipe a few dozen fire nation soldiers off a cliff was surprising, and infuriating.
Hopefully I’ll be able to set aside more time soon.
@@Party_Almsivi Good to know, Thank You. I forgot to mention, I'm also practicing my editing skills where I would like to do what MauLer does where my words will sync with a characters reaction on screen.