One Punch Man: Do Heroes Save Us From Boredom?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Today's episode has been sponsored by Squarespace. For more information, visit www.squarespace...
One Punch Man makes us question our heroes.
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Saitama, the ‘One Punch Man,’ is the most powerful hero that ever existed… but does that make him the best? The civilians in the OPM world would say no, but they may be judging their heroes on the wrong qualities. Even though Saitama is easily the most effective at defeating the bad guys, he doesn’t act like a hero; he speaks simply, fights with little enthusiasm, and admits that he is only doing it all for the fun of it. This seems to draw an interesting parallel with our own interpretations of real-life heroes. Are we worshiping celebrity over actual skill? Do we place too much emphasis on showmanship rather than accomplishment? Let us know in the comments below!
------------------------------------------------------------------
TWEET OF THE WEEK:
/ 709914761408815104
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Talk About Gender Talk?
www.tc.columbia...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Chords Podcast:
crashchords.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSET LINKS:
All asset links can be viewed here in this fun Google doc!
docs.google.co...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out our awesome T-Shirts!!
bit.ly/1U8fS1B
Designed by:
artsparrow.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Written and hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
(who also has a podcast! Reasonably Sound: bit.ly/1sCn0BF)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
I absolutely loved it when Mumen Rider wrote a thank you letter to Saitama. Really enforces his character.
I wish you touched a little more on the subplot that Saitama purposely painted himself as the bad guy, despite his wish for glory and fame.
Lastly, I don't know if this changes anything, but in the OPM verse it's heavily implied that people "transform" when they wish to be something bad enough, and gain enough of their qualities. Officially, it's been revealed that everyone has a "limit" that sets the strongest someone can become; Saitama, however, is the only one who has broken his "limit."
+Richie Demo I mostly agree with you, except I don't think Saitama ever wanted fame or glory, as he still is just a hero for fun. He only registered because Genos convinced him to. Also, I do think Saitama has a limit. He jsut hasn't reached it yet, so hopefully we'll be able to see when the time comes fro Saitama to really push himself.
+maxwell simon But he was pissed at how some people didn't recognize him. He wants fame, but he refused it after he killed Deep Sea King because then the other heroes who tried to kill him would go unrecognized. That's why he told the crowd to "tend to the hurt" or whatever. He wants fame, but not like that.
Doppelganger1262
Pk true, he does want recognition for things he's clearly done, but he doesn't desire FAME in the same way Amie(spelling) Mask did.
+Richie Demo garou got close, and it's possible that blast man broke his limit too
YOU MISSED OUT ON THE BIGGEST THING. THE MORAL HERO. The thing about Saitama and Mumen Rider is that they are just that. Remember when Saitama was being insulted he just took the insults and said he was doing this for fun and not for show. Why for fun? Because he wants a challenge. Yeah. And because he believes that saving others is also fun. And Remeber the scene in the ramen shop? The only one to send saitama a good letter was who? Mumen Rider. They are both moral heroes that compliment each other. One isn't useless and both are useful for different reasons.
+SaceedAbul yas! to the top comment, you go
SaceedAbul if you want moral you should read civilization book, psycologi book not anime.lol.
Harryasus2 Laser
Okay.
It's worth noting that another way OPM satirizes the shounen genre is, after he beats the biggest big bad (being vague in case someone hasn't finished the show yet) he doesn't feel happy or excited like, for example, Goku would. He's upset because he's still the strongest. He STILL has no peer. He doesn't revel in his amazingness, but is depressed by it.
One scene I find very interesting regarding Saitama was when he had pretended that he stole the credit of killing the Sea King, where he had said to the public that it was the other heroes that defeated the Sea King and he just took the final blow. But we all know very well that the Heroes were powerless to stop him and it was Saitama that did the work. Saitama just said all this so that the public would respect the other heroes that risked themselves to stop the menace. That, is something that I think is kinda overlooked and an aspect I find quite heroic
+Pyrofruit Yes, but it is heroic to an outsider. He lets others claim the celebrity of being involved in the incident. It is heroic to us because he is sacrificing praise to help other save face. For everyone else in the universe of OPM he remains a nobody with no heroism. I loved dramatic scene when I watched it. He realized his outward appearance makes it unable for him to get credit so he gives it to others. He is so strong, such a good hero, he does not need anyone to acknowledge him for it. In the end this undermines his effectiveness and he is underutilized by the Hero Association. It is actually better for that society that they do not have him instantly winning every fight. The Association needs public support so they need heroes that are noticed more than heroes that are effective.
+Pyrofruit Yeah that's cemented when he gets his fan letters. He doesn't really care about the hate mail, but the one letter of appreciation from Mumen Rider seemed to have stuck with him, and he met Mumen Rider for a drink later.
I continue to read it because I like to see the world accept him as a hero little by little.
That stuck with me as well.
For me the whole anime is a critique of the shallow image people have of hero's. Especially how they seem to think they should serve them.
Covering up how powerless and fearful most people are.
And then taking out that as aggression towards their hero's when they don't feel safe any more
That may be OPM's problem. He does not make anyone feel safe or particularly cared for. He brings people safety, but only because it is a whim.
Quite interestingly, the moments when Saitama acts more like a hero are the moments in which he CONFRONTS the idea of a hero, or when he outright pretends to act like a JERK. He is willing to take a path on low popularity, being hated by all, if HE can save the day while all the other heroes give the people something more important - INSPIRATION, IDEALS.
Also related, Saitama slowly finds the spark in his life not in deeds, things or stats, but in his friends. By being completely ordinary and 'chill' despite his tremendous power, he inspires heroes to be humble; By doing what he likes for a living even if other people shun him, he inspires heroes around him to be sincere and seek the life they desire. In a way, he is the perfect hero for OTHER heroes - because he inspires them to seek things for the world and themselves that they fail to perceive as important at first, being so swallowed and drowned in the politics and life of "Hero".
Now that, is an idea I can support!
Indeed, Saitama is the Functional Hero:
he does "THE JOB", and doesn't focus on anything that doesn't involve doing or are consequences of "THE JOB".
I personally consider Saitama to be very interesting. Partly because he does ignore the showmanship that others in the Hero Association seem to obsess over and prioritize in their actions.
But he's also partly fascinating to me because he is essentially a Superman of their universe but invisible in plain-sight. He is (as far as one can tell) an unstoppable force. Both in his ability to take damage and give damage. Yet he remains an unknown to all but a very perceptive few (namely Genos, Bang/Silverfang, and a few of the people behind the scenes at the Hero's Association). I love this aspect of his character.
For where Superman becomes JUST an ultra-known ultra-power, Saitama remains an ultra-unknown ultra-power. Which allows him to be more of an individual, and thus allows him more opportunities to interact and operate within society without limits or expectations. This allows a much larger variety of situations and scenarios for his character to exist in and play around with... which is quite the opposite of boring.
I consider this first and foremost with him being a hero, though.
The fact is that he has seemingly immeasurable power. Yet he remains a normal, ethically strong individual who appreciates and understands people ; no matter who they are or what they do. Which means that - to me - his superpower isn't physical strength and invulnerability. His superpower is remaining empathetic ; kind and understanding, despite being the most powerful. His unflappable nature is his greatest attribute. That's why I consider him to be a true hero and not simply "a hero". Because he values his humanity, and upholding that humanity. More than he values being rich, or famous, or loved.
+dracosfire7 I've read a little ways ahead in manga. But didn't get past the filler that started up after the Deep Sea King arc...
I just got a really good impression of the character and universe, I guess.
+Jessey Bowman Genos : "I have never met any person as incredible as you, Master Saitama. Even if the public doesn't appreciate you, I will still follow you."
Genos says this not because of Saitama's physical power, but because he sees the strength BENEATH the strength. The desire for fairness and understanding without caring whether someone is strong enough or powerful enough to do something for him, or do something for other people. He doesn't see an obligation to do good or right. He simply WANTS to do good and right, and tries to get other people to want that too.
He uses his ultimate power to love and forgive. Even with those who are "bad" or "evil", he tries to level with or understand first before fighting them to the death (usually, though I guess the mantis-man who crashed through his roof and got his head punched off caught him in a bad mood. :V)
It's sort of like a divine apathy, actually...
He doesn't care in the right ways which lets him care in the right ways. It's really quite interesting to me. :V
+Jessey Bowman Thats a really good point that I feel could use more attention. The fact that saitama is the most physically adept person ever, but also kind of the everymans hero. Even his origin he saves the kid from the monster purely to save the kid, he wasnt thinking about what he'd earn or if he could even defeat the crab man(kinda like mumen rider with the seaking). he just acted to save the child.
And that carry's on throughout the show, he shows mercy at every turn and saves countless people just because he physically can endure to do so. And sometimes even shows that it doesnt both him all that much that people dont recognize those actions. Especially with the meteor episode where it was implied that the public would have been more pleased had genos and metal knight tried and failed than had saitama succede and save thousands.
One Punch Man also does a great job conveying the sorta unsavory reality that we prefer conflict over resolution. The status quo of fighting monsters with no end in sight, while horribly dystopian, is portrayed as ironically favorable to Caped Baldy's strightforward, rather permanent solution to the problem. Civilians celebrate his successes only in the selfish sense that they can go back to their lives, but refuse to call on him the next time, preferring heroes who are more likely to struggle and put on that theatrical display.
The resistance to him isn't just institutional, it's societal. WE don't want him. We want the *idea* of him, sure, in the form of the Hero Association, or the Avengers, Justice League, whatever...the same way we strive for peace in the real world. Yet we would deeply dislike those entities were they correctly and responsibly applied, the same way we constantly undermine real-world peace whenever we achieve it.
+z beeblebrox I'd almost wonder if our ceaseless pursuit of conflict, often over resolution and lasting stability, is an evolutionary trait as opposed to a societal one. Most animals on earth lives in some state or other of constant conflict with their environment, and have inevitably had to grow accustomed to existing in that conflict.
And conflict is reflected in every facet of human life... can you name a decent or memorable novel that contains no conflict? Not necessarily violence, but even class and responsibility conflict, as in Pride and Prejudice, for example. What about conflict in television and movies? News? Politics? We can't escape it.
As we currently stand, I don't think humans can live without at least inventing some form of conflict, even if it seems minor to us now. If nothing else, conflict does tend to help us move towards growth and advancement as we work out ways to resolve conflicts. Though I would wonder if one day we could actually physically evolve beyond the need for conflict at all... and what would that make us?
Saitama also stands out for his lack of 'idealism'-that's not to say he does not have strong opinions, but he does not force his ideals or motivations on other people. Genos, for instance, has a clear tragic backstory which spurs his heroism, a similar mindset which he recognizes in Amai Mask. There is perhaps a troubling undertone to the motivated violence and 'justice'. All of the S class heroes have similar egocentric traits, but Saitama really lacks this, and as a result in general behaves in a way that is more noble and, ironically, more professional. He does not act in malice or single-mindedness, but merely recognizes problems and resolves them. Genos notices this influence that his master has upon him.
Saitama is allowed to be human, and makes mistakes, and we see these as mistakes, rather than 'tragic flaws' which make his character more dark. He's a true idiot-and he's very self-conscious about it. Rarely do you get to see a hero with such palpable anxiety.
Mumen Rider is not powerless - he has the Mumen Crash where he throws the bike at the enemy.
That's Justice Crash, actually.
I think you've been slightly disingenuous to saitama as at the end of one of the battles he takes the fall in the eyes of the public as being a cheat in order to save the image of the other heroes. he knows full well who and what he his and strives to maintain a sense of respect for those around him. Also, he's by no means 'bucking the status quo' of heroism, he actively WANTS to be recognized and to be popular. Several times genos is talking about fan clubs and brushes it off like its not important but saitama is craving that kind of attention. The whole reason saitama is part of the hero association is to get paid and be famous (although he doesn't appear outwardly motivated)
+ColdSiris i agree. great comment
He wants heroes, in all forms, to be treated like the heroes they are, and is willing to sacrifice his image to do so. He does not respect the famous, nor has any desire to be famous. He wants to be recognized for who he is and not how he looks.
+ColdSiris He is quite a complex character. There is one episode, (I think it's the one where he defeats the kind of the sea?) where he actively talks himself down so the public don't lose faith in heroes, so he seems willing to sacrifice that goal if he sees the need.
+ColdSiris HE gives up what he wants to help people, that does make him a hero of one kind at least
+ColdSiris Hmm, I would argue that Saitama's struggle is much more one in which he seeks recognition, not popularity. Saitama always seems to have wondered why no one recognized him, and his not knowing about the Hero Association really indicates how his idea of heroism is closer to what we would think - someone who simply works for the greater good. His pretending to be a cheat is more indicative of this than anything - any disrespect he feels is outweighed by the good he did. Through his mutual respect with Mumen Rider, he realizes a recognition of a truer quality of heroism than the public is willing to see, while still embodying the struggle to recognize heroism beyond the behavior that makes one a "popular hero".
Hero test:
Q1: aliens invade what do you do?... Punch them
Q2: demons from hell with water weakness invade how do you defeat them?... Punch them
Q3: A city is now under siege by zombie lord with an army of undead wanting your money what is your response?... Punch them.
Final Question:
You are in charge of 6 hero's with S rank facing 2 dragon level monster's or threat, but one of them wants to destroy the city while the other one is looking for a fight, the question IS how will you save the city without getting tangled in a death match with monster NO2..?...punch them..
Test result :.... (F)
LOL maybe that was the actual reason why Saitama screwed up his written exams.
***** that's what I theorized lol.
This was a great video. One Punch Man has been one of my favorite series since it looked like it was drawn on a napkin and then it got its badass manga and I waited years for it to be animated :) and low and behold 2015 made it come true. Personally I love any series with a hero who trains to get stronger rather than magically becoming that way and then outclasses the bad guys. It always motivates me to stay consistent with my Training since i used to be bullied for being a chubby nerd as a kid.
+JaxBlade Knew I'd see you here :3 Love your channel by the way. That Korra workout killed me
Well I think a lot of the appeal of superheroes is vicarious entertainment. The more a character struggles, the more reason we have to root for them because we see our own humanity in that, and by seeing the hero overcome it, it becomes cathartic. That's really what any good story needs: catharsis. Thesis + Antithesis = synthesis.
To talk about shonen heroes, we need to talk about shonen villains. Why are boss-level villains so much stronger than henchmen? Well... the currency of shonen manga is 'punches', so a boss-level villain needs to be worth a LOT of punches to stick around. A high punch-value villain is going to have an intimidating character design, an interesting backstory and a huge amount of foreshadowing; i.e., a ton of creative labour, all invested into a single character that is supposed to shape the narrative arc of the story for a significant amount of time. It's like playing a long game of Jenga - the longer the game, the taller the block tower and the more exciting it is to anticipate the fall...
... And then there's Saitama, who will inevitably end any Jenga game in a single turn because he is the world's worst Jenga player. You can take all that effort that went into building that villain up and kiss it goodbye, because Saitama's REAL superpower is to change every single villain's punch-value to 1.
The joke of Saitama isn't JUST that he's bad at performing heroism, but that he ruins the narrative integrity of every fight he walks into. It isn't just the hero who is performing for entertainment, but also the villain and the entire setting as well. Saitama is dead bored of his life because he subconsciously understands the metagame of his genre. Is being a hero in real life worth it even if it's boring? Yes. But is a shonen series worth READING if every single villain can be destroyed without effort? Well... only if it's funny.
(Also: the wasted-buildup effect is even funnier due to the slick production values of the anime and the manga it was based on (an *adaptation* of the original webcomic, drawn by the freakishly skilled Yusuke Murata), because Saitama is casually undermining the blood, sweat and tears of an incredible art team SIMPLY BY EXISTING.)
I think one major purpose of a hero is not necessarily to save us from danger, but to save us from fear. A boring but efficient hero might get the job done, but in the middle of crisis, the job itself isn't what we want to think about. We want to keep our minds off it for as long as it takes to become acclimated to this new state of things. In the same way that art and comedy arise to distract us in times of economic hardship, heroes exist to distract us when we are faced with danger. If we looked our mortality right in the eye with no buffer, most of us couldn't handle it. It's truly terrifying.
I think a vital component to this also comes from giving the average person a feeling of agency in their fate during a crisis. When a hero rises up and then struggles, it gives people a sense that they are needed. But when you hand someone their safety on a silver platter the way Saitama does, sure they're legitimately safe, but they still feel helpless and powerless. You give them no agency by swooping in, making them safe and then leaving. And when you get down to it, that's what fear is. It's the sense that you have no power over your future. Whether the future is good or bad, most people would prefer that it be by their own actions rather than some random act of fate. Given a specific points A and B, whether either of those points happen to be good or bad, we would rather get there by our own decisions. And so when a hero struggles in a time of crisis, they give us that agency. They give us the option to choose our future. In the end it probably makes no difference, but emotionally, we were given the choice.
I prefer "Heroes are those that inspire others to greatness." How many heroes fail to save the day yet still are heroes? If a Hero cannot inspire others, they are not heroes, just victors, successful, efficient, etc.
I was waiting for him to say that and was disappointed when he didn't. You don't need to be successful every time to be a hero, just be successful in inspiring others to follow your path. This is what I feel is a core part of society as the second generation builds on the first and the subsequent generations do the same. This applies to both success and failures...Yes even mistakes are handed down as in the saying "sins of the Father".
+Idgarad Lyracant in that regard, id say saitama does fit the bill... he inspires his side kick to become stronger, and inspires mumen rider to become great. he may not be inspirational to many, but he does inspire a few who acknowledge him as the real deal
+Michael Mann I have to agree with you there. In the manga there is a scene where a newly promoted B-class hero is worried about his future prospects and struggles to advance while being a part of the Blizzard group.
The group faces a powerful fan monster that the B-class rank 1 Blizzard can't defeat, so the person who helps is S-class rank 2 Tatsumaki. This left our young hero feeling that he cannot compete with the naturally gifted as they grow much faster.
As everyone is leaving, Saitama shows up and see the fan regenerating. This Young hero sees Saitama pulverize the newly restored fan and then rush off for a bargain sale.
The event makes him feel that he doesn't have to be a part of a larger collective to be great, even an ordinary person can be great if he tries hard enough.
Me too, that's why I like Saitama as a hero 😊
Didn't think I'd enjoy OPM as much as I did. Not into anime really but this one was a rare exception. Also, great video as always.
Digibro?! The king of analysis?! Referenced on this channel?! My two favorite things combined!!!
+Nikolas Powell
PBSIC x Digibro. The cross-over that'll save the anime industry.
GUNxSPECTRE I was a big digi/curious shipper back in the day. They're so cute together. They have gone their separate ways though.
orig10.deviantart.net/ac51/f/2013/227/0/4/digicurious_by_bloody__mascarade-d6i9r8t.jpg
I watched this episode because i as bored..........................................
stupid
+Jared Hicks ok
why am i stupid for being bored
+Jared Hicks Me too.
I watched it because it had Saitama on the thumbnail.
In my eyes, being a hero is simple:
You just have to help someone.
You can be all flashy about it and save someone from certain death by defeating the giant monster that is trying to kill them, or be modest and throw back the ball that landed over the fence or stop the car that was driving away with a carton of eggs on the roof. And the more big the is length you go through to help someone is, the better hero it makes you.
According to my deffenition of a hero, Saitama barely classifies as one because he doesn't really go through any lengths to help people, he just stands up and does it.
That level of heroism is similar if not equal to someone dropping their eraser in class and you telling them about it.
Mumen Rider is a great example because he tries really hard to the point he risks his life to save other people which, in my eyes, gives him a hero lvl over 9000.
Atleast, that's what I think.
+Danté DeViant_ Agreed, by that definition he clearly isn'T much of a hero but there are many different definitions you could use which turns stuff around. For example yould define a hero purely by how many people he helps. Then he would clearly be a good hero as he helps many people even if it's hardly a challenge for him. This would be what this episode proposed: level of effectiveness. It might not be chellenging but at least he is effective in his work.
It kinda reminds me on me and my sister (no we are not heroes nor is this story about heroism) So we both went to the same school most our lives. My sis is gifted with an excellent memory. She reads a text once and will know the content for AGES, plus she is smart to actually get the meaning and not just the "learning by hard" part. Thus she excelled easily at school without too much effort. I on the other hand was smart but not gifted with that memory. So though I could grasp the meaning of texts I often times had to repeat the contents over and over and, because I have limits and as you know in school you have to remember stuff for a dozen subjects, I still didn't rank as high.
Still in society (gladly not by my mother, she is great;) my sister is respected more for her grades and gift than I for my hard work. She was more effective in her learning and thus gets the appreciation. She actually was mad when I got appreciation for a 2/B grade or weven worse a 3/C because she felt it wasn't earned (although it might have been a subject I'm particularly bad at and struggle with, thus even a 3 would be a triumph in my eyes!)
I've been thinking a lot about this with the recent explosion in popularity for super heroes in our globalized culture. While I haven't read many alternate interpretations, I tend to be attracted to one potential explanation that I think applies well to this question.
With the increasing amount of doom & gloom that we receive on a daily basis from media as a whole, we are on the urgent lookout for solutions. Super heroes act as the personification of those solutions, and the more relatable/human they are, the more we feel that following their examples can solve our dire problems. An almost effortless, one-size-fits all solution just doesn't make sense, we all know things are far more complex, and it's almost an insult to our individual & collective efforts to suggest that an OPM could even exist.
+Jared Janes I really like this explanation and totally agree. Simply saying "we are bored so we watch celebreties/ superheroes" is such a pessimistic view. And at least I know that I enjoy seeing the good in people and I like how super heroes stand for the good in humanity. Sure most have some amyzing power, or are filthy rich etc, still it's their world view, their hope, they courage and sense of justive that enables them do their work, and that is something everyone can do and take as an example!
89taklung
Isn't this an American thing, a sort of example of a culture value perpetuated by globalization. Super-Heroism as a model of American individualism laid large, the one man/woman whose Unique Special Traits are harnessed for the social good. The scholar Jess Nevins would disagree, as pulp heroes have always existed whenever there was mass media, but the particular take on this in the post 9/11 world could be seen as a comfort narrative providing as you suggest, easy moral solutions to a complex problem.
+Jared Janes Superheroes deal with things that can't be punched away all the time. Almost all superhero comic series have one or more issues about that kinda stuff.
Poverty, sickness, death, mental trauma or illness, etc. are things they talk about a lot specially because, even being so powerful, they can't do anything about them.
And not only that. Lots (but not as many) series include superpowered characters that decide not to become "heroes" in the traditional sense, but take up some activity, like science, research, raising a family, social work, law, etc. to be happy.
Sadly, those stories only sometimes show up in TV shows, and never do in movies or video games.
I know OPM is more about manga, but I think you are talking about the rise of western heroes too, like the Avengers.
+Jared Janes There was a time when people weren't interested in superheroes.
It was called World War 2. During that period, people were more interested in reading War stories, and war comics, than in superhero comics. After all, there was a comic, written just before the eve of WW2, where Superman was depicted as preventing the outbreak of war by apprehending Stalin & Hitler. However, reality is harsh: we don't have a man who can fly, wears his underwear on the outside, and can go anywhere to apprehend any dictator. In a way, Superman is a one-size-fits all solution, and he still is. Its a problem that has, imho, plagued superhero universes, esp. DC's. Where Marvel can get away with showing the failings and limitations of their lower superheroes, like Spiderman, DC always seems to have a power struggle between Batman's increasingly unmatched intelligence, Flash's speedforce, Green Lanterns "my will can create anything", and Superman's "I'm pretty much a God". Its not a wonder that superheroes may not have seemed interesting, following the war.
~
OPM is interesting because of ( a) the culture he was meant to parody and ( b), the culture that he ends up being more like. Despite all the obvious superhero analogies, OPM was meant to be a deconstruction of the shounen story. That means, a reversal of what we see in stories like Naruto, Dragonball, Bleace, One Piece, Attack on Titan, your average Tatsunoko series and even Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. But, by becoming that subversion, he inadvertedly became a pastiche of a very Western character - the Superman. In fact, I'd say Saitama is closely to Superman than some other examples used (like Goku)
The recent explosion of Superheroes in the West, imho, has more to do with the success of Marvel finally making use of the movie industry to make a cohesive cinematic universe, a dream people who read comics have had for a long time. A child in the 80s would talk about Marvel's Secret War, or the Infinity Gaunlet, and Dc's Crisis on Infinite Earths and Kingdom Come, but it was not until the noughties that we had access to technology that could make properly adapt and render stories and comics like LotR and 300 to life. In this way, what was previously a niche following (superheroes and their comics) is now a lot more accessible, and people can finally see the live action adaptations of what they had dreamed of before.
But why superheroes specifically? I think Kingdom Come explained it best: superheroes are the modern mythology. Superheroes have always existed - as long as someone had talked about a normal human being doing unimaginable things, that is literally superhuman, and while I would contend that people would lose interest in superheroes when a particular era renders their myth ineffective - in a somewhat nihilist way - as long as people have a want to do the impossible, the superhero, the mtyhological titan, would exist.
A final thought to consider: Nick Fury originally started off a World War 2 veteran. He was Sgt. Fury. After World War 2 ended, and with the regaining interest in superheroes, he was promoted to colonel, and made into the superspy Nick Fury we all know (and kind of love)
A hero is just a man who knows he is free.
yoooooo
preach it brother
3deep5me
you got me like sir take it
I really feel bad for Mumen-Rider
*Here's a hug for you bro*
Certainly the argument that struggle and hard work is more interesting than natural power in heroes, is borne out between Batman and Superman.
I think an important scene in the series you should have talked about a little was when the Sea king was defeated and Saitama purposely lied to save face for all of the Heroes who displayed heroism despite their inability to defeat the Sea king. (like Mumen Rider and Genos)
yea,I really like that part
Petition for Mike to go one video without using the word: "Conflating"
It seems to me that the dichotomy presented is much older than consumer culture. In fact, it dates to the Middle Ages or earlier. Looking at what knights, even as Heroic as King Arthur and his Round Table, actually do serves to explain.
Far more of the text of Le Morte D'Arthur (the most detailed Arthurian account) is spent describing how the knights fight each other in duels and in tournaments than is spent telling of monster killing and heroic exploits. And, those that are respected greater and continue to appear are those knights who perform well in these tournaments, and earn the respect of the other knights. If a knight in Arthuriana is an effective fighter, but shuns the spotlight, Malory barely mentions him. The best example is Sir Gareth, Gawain's younger brother. He's stronger and a better fighter than Gawain, but also gentler. Gawain has a better story to tell, and continues to get into trouble in various ways, so has a lot of poems dedicated to him. (Lancelot is a bit of an exception, as he is actually the best fighter and the best showman).
This is supported by actual records. There weren't that many major wars in the Middle Ages, so it was possible that a knight could spend his entire career (about 15-20 years tops) seeing little to no action. So, they engaged in tournaments for spectacle, making them more akin to Pro Wrestlers than the Army. Knights still managed to get a (mostly) Heroic reputation in period, despite not doing a whole lot.
"Consuming" Heroism doesn't seem right, as a lot of the legends are recorded to a mostly illiterate population. Instead, I think it speaks to a desire to have Heroes be "more" than average, both physically and biographically.
That's a pretty interesting case example... But I think you can boil it down even further. For example... Sir Gareth vs. Sir Gawain. Gawain was at the center of more conflict than Gareth. He got in trouble more. It's not just that Gawain was a better showman... and therefore got more 'shows.' But I think a better description would be that Gawain was more 'showable' or perhaps a more modern word... more 'marketable.'
OPM is a perfect example of this... Saitama is arguably more thought provoking than ANY other hero in the story... except maybe Fubuki.... but she kind of acts as a philosophical catalyst for Saitama anyway.
But like the video says... he isn't 'interesting.' He's designed from the ground up to be 'anti-interesting.' *CONSECUTIVE NORMAL PUNCHES*
This is because for the most part, he doesn't struggle. To reference the Knight example... he's more Gareth than Gawain.
People are presented with Saitama's extraordinary sense of normalcy, where no matter how incredible the event... it just ends up being boring in relation to Saitama...
Versus say... Mumen Riders extra-normal sense of the extraordinary. We see someone who can't win and are urged by the story itself to cheer for him. We aren't just urged to cheer for him... but in a sense to demean Saitama's accomplishments in the process simply because 'it wasn't hard' for him.
Two men accomplish the same goal. One struggles and barely passes, the other passes with ease. Almost without exception... people are more interested in the one that struggles.
Fiction tends to tell us that the one who struggles and wins is better... but reality, or atleast our perception of it, wants us to be the one who accomplishes with ease. It's an interesting paradox.
your "brand" of heroism says more about you than your hero. Whether you want a Salt of the Earth hero, a larger than life hero, a tragic hero or even an anti-hero, all these say something about what you relate to and what you aspire to. As for celebrity, does it surprise anyone that in the business of media people aspire to popularity?
QED. I feel I have wrapped up this issue
Perhaps intentionally, the discussion of "real solutions to our real problems being too boring for the public" reminds me a great deal of political discourse generally but also specifically of this election. For example, the solution to our economic problems may be, unexcitingly, hiring a bunch of economists in a room and taking their advice to pass laws and redistribute governmental income. You know what's exciting, though? BUILDING A WALL AND MAKING MEXICO PAY FOR IT!!!
Fair point.
Not exactly related to the topic but I like how the webcomic kinda parallels One's career.
Legend goes he was doing his webcomic for fun, then he gathered a bunch of money and decided to quit his job and use all his time with the comic. Some time after that, his reserves were going dry and he posted somewhere that he would have to go back to work and halt the comic. Luckly Yusuke Murata (Eyeshield 21's author) had fallen in love with his work and contacted him to find a way to keep the webcomic going. And that's why we have "godly drawn" version and the good old "crapply drawn" version.
To me, One punch man is tale of someone lonely and introverted making friends. I think this is the message that the author want to share : your skill, your public recognition is only satisfying to a point, friend and family is what should drive you.
One Punch Man, OPM, OP Man, Over Powered Man
+Juil Every time he said "OPM", I was thinking opium. And then Other People's Money.
I think the purpose of heroes is to inspire us. That's why we celebrate them. The underdog hero who works hard and strives for the common good is a more relatable character because it's something that everyone can achieve. Hero worship was a big deal in the Soviet Union, where they would publish (obviously fabricated) achievements of workers in various fields, like shoveling numerous tons of coal in a single day, as a way to motivate other workers to do their best. Heroes like Saitama or Superman are boring because nobody can aspire to be them in the way that we can aspire to be firefighters, cops, astronauts, John McClane, or Mumen Rider.
Superman is less boring because Superman has personal issues and other threats that can actually challenge him
Digi getting a nod was cool, he most definitely deserves it
+Alla Maz Lost my shit when I heard that, IIRC he watches Idea Channel too
WAAANNNNN PUUUUUUNCHAAAAAA?
I've always felt that being the best at something is the end of the thing for you. That the act of striving to be the best without having achieved it is far more desirable than reaching the bestness of it. After all once you've become the top, you cease to have a reason to improve at it.
+Minngarm Exactly, the journey is always the important part, the destination, no matter how glorious, never maters in the grand scheme of personal development. After all, the proverbial masters in classical stories always seem to remove themselves from people by living alone in the mountains to meditate, as no more training can be done.
Well, when there is no selection pressure for survival, yes, achievement counts to nothing. When we move into a culture of equal outcome, effort becomes cheap and useless, a hurdle that can be avoided. This certainly helps us in finding new solutions to old problems, but it can leave us in a state where we take those things for granted and they lose their value. Rarity demands effort and engagement, the latter two which are essential to human progress.
Additionally, as Finn said in the Disney movie Tangled, "well that's the good part I guess; you get to go find a new dream."
LuiKang043 Rarity is neither something to be admired or strived for. It simply use the concept of something being beyond uncommon. A cannibal is rare, but it is of no value. Diamonds are common, but they are of high value. Rarity only matters in the measure of a item/acts ease of being obtained.
The most un-heroic aspect of Saitama is his negligence for his surroundings, and his responsibility to those living in them. Consider when he knocked out the giant brother, when he blew the asteroid into shrapnel, and when he destroyed the power source on Boros' ship. Entire cities were destroyed because of his attempts at heroism, leaving one to wonder if he isn't a greater danger than the problems he solved. To flip my proposal on its head, perhaps the most heroic thing Saitama does, is to welcome the ire of the survivors, and to give abundant and even excessive credit to heroes who were completely ineffective.
+umbraemilitos isn't this just the batman issue?
+Twitchi
The Batman issue, at least if I remember correctly, is "Why doesn't the Batman kill joker? And is Batman responsible for the people Joker kills after a certain amount of letting him live?"
Which at least in my opinion is an entirely different issue than: Saitama is powerful enough to defeat this giant person without issue. He could do it in any number of ways. Some of those ways don't cause any civilian deaths (or at least minimize them). Saitama isn't letting this guy live either way so he's not turning the villain over to the police for a trial and real justice.
"With great power comes great responsibility" or something. I heard that somewhere once. And if your "great power" results in you casually murdering a few thousand people because you made a very slight and almost forgivable "mistake" then maybe you aren't a hero. There's also some consideration to be made that Saitama is a criminal. We certainly wouldn't forgive some giant corporation that produces things that we love if they slipped up and accidentally got half a city destroyed.
I think Saitama is interesting because he can also interpreted as a Superman pastiche within a deconstructive story.
Which means that Saitama can be compared to the likes of The Sentry (from Marvel), the Plutonian (from Irredeemable), Dr Manhattan (from Wathcmen) and even Superman himself, as an old man (from Kingdom Come). OPM is meant to be seen as a reversal of the typical shounen story, where the hero starts low, and slowly improves so that he gets better through various trials and techniques but, by making Saitama the literal one punch man, he is practically a Superman analogy by western standards. (though not a reality warper, but thats a different subject)
I think Saitama's is unique because where Dr. Manhattan would show how the natural presence of the superhero would drastically effect the world he/she lives in, both the Sentry and the Plutonian show the darker side of the hero mythos and the need for a hero to have a "villain", Saitama shares a lot with the KC Superman on the grounds that he is hidden, and forgotten. (those of us who saw the show know that it was Saitama's own heroic actions that cause for the rise of superheroes in his universe), but at the same time, they represent the primordial myth, that forgotten cornerstone that created the superhero movement. I remembered a friend of mine suggest that, while DBZ's Son Goku was a direct reference to Journey to the West story, he was also somewhat inspired by Superman (theyr mythologies are similar). By being a reverse of Goku, Saitama, however, comes closer to Kal-El.
A little note to end this comment, and to further discussion: this is not to leave out the contrasts of the other Superman pastiches. Unlike Kal, Saitama shares more in common with Bob Reynolds (the Sentry) and Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan), on the grounds that he was, and still is, a very normal human being who somehow attained godlike abilities. OPM's story is still young, but who knows what could happen if ( a) more people eventually do find out Saitama is the strong man in existence or ( b) he does eventually find his match.(Superman had Doomsday, Dr. Manhattan was manipulated by Adrian Veidt, the Plutonian went rogue after years of torment and for the Sentry.... you cannot escape the Void)
Can I just praise Mike for his pronounciation??? Like often there is a few blatant mispronounciation in videos like this but he got a lot of the name pretty spot on. Good job sir!!!!
Yeah I'd really agree with the statement that characters who are more "interesting" like Mumen Rider sort of take the role of, as you said it, Saving Humanity, but as I see it, the struggle doesn't just save *us* from boredom, but it literally acts to save the very concept of humanity. Like, the choice of Batman to never kill despite what he's lost, the choice of Deadpool to keep jubilant despite a pretty awful life, and the choice of Superman to do good despite having the power to do great evil all I think are sort of representations of these character's struggles to preserve the positive ideals of "humanity" which we value so much (restraint, positivity, kindness, etc.). These stories are not only about the hero saving and preserving the human world, but also about saving and preserving the human spirit.
What makes a hero? The ability to inspire people to be better than they are as human beings.
I think ultimately, the object (not the idea) of heroism is tied to varying levels and conditions of both what we want to be, and what we already are. Fantasy and empathy.
For example, take Saitama himself. OPM's public are not privy to the Caped Baldy's thoughts and motivations, and so Saitama is just a supremely powerful being without an identity we can latch on to. But we, as the audience, know what he thinks, feels, and is going through, and we can identify with his ennui, boredom, and delight in simple pleasures, while also fantasizing about what it's like to defeat a kaijin with a single blow.
A lot of the discussions about what is or isn't a hero in pop cultural circles I feel comes down to different people having different kinds of fantasies and empathies. To many, Tony Stark is the greatest hero because he is supremely flawed in his pride, arrogance, and foolishness, but because they also fantasize about his intelligence, charm, power armor, and lifestyle.
Whereas I look at Tony Stark as a neverending ongoing tragedy in hubris and defeat (something I also can empathize with), but place most of my own fantasies and empathies with Superman. Superman is kind, compassionate, and always tries to do the right thing, which is my moral fantasy, and he can also fly, which is my power fantasy. But I also empathize with being alone in strange lands, the struggle in trying to do the right thing and benefit the most people, and the difficulty in striking a balance between two spheres that must remain separate.
Or look at outlaws like Ned Kelly for less comic book heroic figures. To someone who values law, order, and public ownership, Ned Kelly was no hero. But to someone who despises governments, economic hegemony, and knows how difficult it is to provide for oneself and one's family, Ned Kelly was a figure to be cheered on.
The better analogy for being a hero, I think, is one of self sacrifice.
A hero doesn't have great power, or great ability to change the world, but is a role model we all are to look up to, and aspire to be.
Superman, the common everyday man who saves people in situations, who is powerful and stands fast against all danger.
Not "The man who is powerful"
Hero means sacrifice, it is the way for society to tell us "do what's good for us all" and to give us examples of people sacrificing their own self for the good of the whole, for true and righteous values, and it shows these people being successful, well liked, and honored for the sacrifices they have made.
The sad part is that it's often a fictional story, and there are many who are heroes, who sacrifice for society, and do not become what they see in fiction.
LOL Karl Pilkington at 1:57 Head like a fucking orange!
+Doy Owan And his super hero? Bullshit man!
+Gantz2810 And his sidekicks are ManMoth and the 3 legged juggler.
Hahahahahahahha :D
Thumbs up for that Hunter Hunter gramps being S class
So glad you mentioned Venture Brothers.
You are my hero for wearing that awesome GWAR shirt.
I think the theme of One Punch Man is that we all want to escape our mundane daily lives. Satima became a hero because that what he always wanted to be. But it became mundane to him since he was so powerful and the only fight that really got his heart pumping was actually a dream. We are all like that, we have these fantasies and things like games, movies, book, etc as a mean of escape for our daily lives. We all have these goals in our mind that we want to achieve that we probably won't but if we do achieve then it will eventually became mundane like everything else.
I'm waiting until Mike discovers the wonderful world of pro-wrestling. Its a great medium for telling stories and making interesting characters. Lucha Underground is basically Tella Novella version of Mortal Kombat
This was such a good episode. It really captured what Superheroes are all about, in itself, the need for heroes to struggle in an act of heroism has lead to one of the problems that a lot of people have with them. Superheroes in the need for ever greater obstacles eventually succumb to ridiculous story arcs where they are killed, and eventually resurrected to vanquish an opponent, with the need to overcome ever more serious threats.
The pursuit of perpetual heroics also leads to a form or "ridiculous boredom" where the heroism itself eventually creates boredom either by its monotony or by being elevated to such absurd levels. I think this is probably why most superheroes eventually require a reboot, not only to reset the setting to a more presently relevant one, but also to start the heroic struggles from zero again.
That Digibro mention tho
+Corbin Harper fkn right?? didnt notice till the third time watchin
i like your thoughts on OPM, but i feel as though it raises a different question as well. if you do not define heroes strictly by how interesting they are, and instead by the individuals intentions going into their actions, then in that regard, saitama may be considered the BEST hero, simply because he states, multiple times, and proves, that while he may be saving people and protecting those around him... he does not do it for the admiration of others, he instead does it to challenge himself. maybe that's not the most ideal of reasoning's, but it is far better on a moral level than.... for money... or fame.... or to be liked.... or specifically to prove that you are better than others. in that regard, saitama is the biggest hero, because he doesn't care about how others view him... he just does what he does, specifically because its what he WANTS to do, even going so far as to darken his image in the eyes of the public so that other heroes who have gained his respect can maintain their own images,
[SPOILERS]
i.e. the battle against the sea king when one on looker says that the 3 'heroes' who came before saitama must not really be heroes at all and the sea king was actually very weak since he was beaten in one blow. in response to this, saitama starts laughing loudly, pretending he didn't hear the onlooker, and claims loud enough for all watchers to hear, that he plans to take all the credit for the other heroes work, and how lucky he was to show up after they had weakened the sea king so much that he could beat it so easily. in doing this he saves face for the other heroes, redirecting the scorn of the onlookers onto himself. he plays the villain to spare those around him, because he knows people already hate him, and he doesn't really care, but for the other heroes, their reputation is all they have.
[END SPOILER]
+Michael Mann i said this in a comment before i noticed yours but . i think he does 'want' admiration to a degree the episode where he fought the two wannabe heroes , who were antagonizing him. he did to a degree seem like he 'wanted' to be admired on atleast some level to be acknowledged.
Lioseia Nishina did he? It seemed more like he didn't care until they decided to fight him.
+Michael Mann The whole reason he wanted to join the Heroes association was to at least be recognized. Otherwise, he doesn't really care. Saitama is pure Neutral Good while most of the other heroes are Lawful Good (like always killing the monster even if they're no longer a threat).
Being a hero comes so easily to him that he constantly bored, there is just no challenge. It may be a comentary on modern culture everything is so easy and accesible that many people find themselfs constantly bored in spite of having multiple things they could be doing.
Also the ignoring of people who make actual positive changes in the world, like scientists, filantropists, educators, etc in favor of more flashy characters that produce no actual benefit like celebrities or sport people
Oh hey they referenced Digibro, neat
I would argue that the reason why people in the One-Punch Man universe don't really like Saitama isn't based on looks, but is rather based in how convinced he is. Saitama has stated that he's only a hero for fun, while Mumen Rider always acts from a sense of duty.
People know that, because his only doing it for fun, Saitama might simply quit one day, because it was no longer entertaining him. Mumen Rider, in the other hand, feels the necesity to protect the citizens, therefore he is more trustworthy, regardless of his accomplishments.
+StrangerGameMaster you mean convicted or comitted, not convinced.
+StrangerGameMaster Well no one knows that he is only a hero "for fun". Also why can there only be one reason for people disliking him?
Hurp Derp Well, yeah, exactly. English isn't my first language, so things like that might happen. Thanks for the correction.
Gibbet Well, I was just giving a reason, not necesarily thinking that it's the only one. Besides, Saitama has stated that he's only a hero for fun, as well as the way he acts, so it would be weird if the people didn't know that.
I'm not actually a fan of One-Punch Man, anyway, I just have friends who like it and have told me about it, but I personally do not like it, so maybe my argument doesn't any water.
StrangerGameMaster Yeah he kina just says it to the villains he's fighting as an introduction. And since he doesn't get very much attention not many people could've heard about it.
What don't you like about it btw? (first time hearing someone dislike OPM :p)
I am reminded of the incredibly funny "The Tick" comics, cartoon and even TV series, and its own commentary on the superhero genre and its unique perspective on the society. As someone in the place I think the main character is in, due not to enui so much as chronic depression, I get the whole trying on life for fun since nothing seems to really matter. Finding meaning is the story being told, and those who, like Rider, are actualized by their energetic belief and faith in their path are the ones who are succeeding in the journey. In real life I see this all over the place in those who find meaning in their faith, their family, their friends or their profession, and like Baldy, I envy them their knowledge of their place in their lives.
I think that the measure of a heroism is bravery, which is to say the overcoming of fear to perform action (regardless of success), augmented by altruism (the motivation for said bravery being altruistic rather than selfish).
I also think the currency of heroism isn't popularity but respect - i LIKE deadpool but i RESPECT captain america, and similarly i'd argue that deadpool (like Saitama) is less heroic by virtue that for him the risk is diminished, and his motivations are frequently non-altruistic.
To me though, Saitama fulfuls the same role as Hulk and heroes like him - the character is overpowered so that the character can get on with some other internal struggle or metaphor (Hulk has rage, Saitama has ennui, Green lantern has fear/bad cgi...)
As to the purpose of Heroes, in the outfits/capes/fighting bad guys capital H heroes, to me their purpose is to inspire heroism in us/the masses. Anti-heroes heroes often do a better job of saving us from boredom, they are (to me, anyway) more entertaining (Deadpool, Vegeta, Punisher) but real heroes (Cap, Goku) are intended to inspire (even when they fail).
Digibro shout out. 4:22
I made the gif at 9:06! That's pretty cool.
"Routine, repetition, tedium, monotony, ephemeracy, inconsequence, abstraction, disorder, boredom, angst, ennui - these are the true hero's enemies, and make no mistake, they are fearsome indeed. For they are real." - David Wallace: 'the pale king'
OPM = Opium
I need a hero. I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night . . .
Digibro is quoted.... awesome..
+Marianne Crews (SpaceKinder) I KNOW, RIGHT? I got pretty excited to hear that he was, considering he's one of the best analysis guys PERIOD, even though he specializes in Anime.
+Marianne Crews (SpaceKinder) I KNOW, RIGHT? I got pretty excited to hear that he was, considering he's one of the best analysis guys PERIOD, even though he specializes in Anime.
Hero is someone who make sacrifice for the good of others. Simply saving someone doesn't automatically make one a Hero if there's no sacrifice involved. For example, a homeless man spend his last 5$ to feed a starving kid makes him a Hero. While a rich guy giving his left over meal to a starving kid, doesn't make him a hero.
I think another connection can be made in that Saitama is representative of a class of people with capability or skill that is not "marketable". Saitama is incredibly powerful and no doubt the most effective at saving the day but his strength doesn't make him "the best" and I think that's one of the core messages of the parody aspect of OPM. When he destroys the meteor bearing down on the city and threatening to destroy earth (predictably with a punch) it causes absolute and tremendous damage to the city because of the rubble raining down. Another more mundane example is him trying to swat the mosquito but becoming frustrated in the process and failing. Trying to "market" Saitama's ridiculous strength is like trying to sell a bulldozer for use in a sandbox. Practicality goes out the window and even though he can shovel every single grain of sand in that sandbox that's not what anyone requires.
I absolutely LOVE Saitama and his story. It is so interesting to see him deal with his problems and existential issues. His identity, he believes at the beginning, is to be recognized for his deeds. However, once his deeds are a point of question, he begins to see that his heroism is now simply his duty, and not to be done for affection. This arc of coming to terms with his role as a hero puts to question the other characters in the series. If it is duty, then in my mind Mumen Rider and Saitama are of equal stature, both fighting for the sole purpose of duty. In comparison, many of the other heroes in the series respond to threats only to test their new strengths or weapons. In their mind, this is a game to be played, rather than a world to save. Saitama became a hero because he couldn't stand and watch a child get hurt, so he trained and trained until he was able to be the hero he wanted to be. It is then his story of dealing with the fact that the public does not desire a hero like him that makes his story interesting.
Here's an idea: Mass Effect universe is an allegory to mental illness.
+Kinos141 That sounds interesting, though I don't know how you mean that. Could you elaborate further on what you mean by that?
+Robert Lee “Rokobex” Lorengel I would point you to a video, "Mass Effect 3 - Shepard's Indoctrination" on the small channel ACAVYOS. it was made after the bad ending controversy and before they patched the game to "Fix" the ending. it talks about how through out the Mass Effect series the reapers have been brainwashing Shepard.
Robert Lee Lorengel I watched a series of videos about the indoctrination by the Reapers and how they slowly degrade one's sanity and mind until the victim completely believes in the Reapers cause.
Or something about that.
A true hero.
Story time.
Once I saw a VW bug swerve off the road and in to a little ditch and vanish .
Before I knew it I was on top of the door of the bug trying to get it open. Some one pulled me off and open the door.
My girlfriend said I threw my skate and backpack to the ground and darted threw traffic so fast she could barely fallow me.
I never even thought of myself.
I just remember being afraid they were hurt and I had to do something fast. They were fine.
I don't think it was a big deal but I bet people in war and stuff get that.
You leave yourself behind and act.
I never even thought of my own safety.
I was shocked, proud and embarrassed all at the same time.
Shounen is not a genre, but I'll forgive you since even most anime fans don't get it right. In terms of Japanese media, "shounen" refers to the target demographic consisting primarily of teenage boys. However, this has been generalized, or dare I say bastardized into being the bombastic, melodramatic, "battle" genre that you described. There are many shounen manga that don't even involve fighting. I know, I know, it's all semantics at this point, but I thought I'd at least mention the discrepancy.
+kunairuto So basically, it IS a genre.
+Ryan Doty smh it is a genre
+kunairuto
So... definition of Shonen Manga is....
A genre of comic book that mainly focus on getting young male readers.
I guess I'll elaborate then.
A demographic doesn't really tell you anything concrete about the work. The target demographic [kodomo, shounen, shoujo, seinen, and josei] only tells you which magazine the manga is serialized in. Even as a "target demographic" indicator this is inefficient, because manga frequently change which magazine they're serialized in. For instance, in Japan, OPM runs in Young Jump Web Comics, a seinen serialization [so it's "intended" for men 18-40+]. However, in North America it runs in Weekly Shounen Jump, which I suppose is for adolescent boys, but there's sort of a cultural dissonance going on there.
Most cases occur specifically IN Japan though, like manga that were once classified as shoujo eventually running in a seinen magazine. As you can imagine, this is particularly useless in the fact that ANYONE can read whatever they want, and oftentimes the target demo doesn't even match the majority who actually reads it. I wanted to simplify the distinguishment by saying that the target demographic could be a fair indicator of the "intellectual quality" or "literary depth" of a work, but even that's not true, seeing how many shounen and shoujo manga have far more literary value than some of their seinen and josei counterparts.
While writing this I remembered seeing a lengthy reddit post on this very topic by user Spiranix. Although I have not read it [yet], it appears to go much more in depth than I'm willing to, so check it out!
www.reddit.com/r/anime/comments/4bdnyy/understanding_demographics_what_they_are_and_what/
+kunairuto I pretty much agree with this: Alone, as you said, it doesn't tell you anything concrete about a work.
I would say that using demographics in genre listings is generally FINE, but you shouldn't really think of them as genre's themselves, as much as just a discriptor for the other genres. For example: If i see [ Shounen, Action, Super Power ] I'm going to assume that its a battle show focused towards male teens. If i see [ Shounen, Romance, Comedy, School ] I'm going to assume that its a romance comedy set in a highschool directed towards male teens. Not to say that within these "demographics" you don't have your own subset of tropes, which could easily lead people to assume that its a "genre", but the fact of the matter is while sometimes it can certainly feel like a genre, its not.
I think that when Saitama says he's just a hero for fun, he's either lying or underestimating himself. If he were really just trying to alleviate his boredom by fighting, he could challenge one of his fellow heroes to a fight, but he only takes on opponents that are obvious threats to public safety. When he sparred with Genos (the only other time we see him fight a fellow hero iirc), it was because Genos had asked him for help getting stronger, and it was even Saitama who cut the duel short to go get lunch.
In my view, the thing that really separates Saitama and Mumen Rider from the other heroes is humility. Saitama will actively reject credit for his own actions in order to benefit another hero. He's a good guy, but he doesn't seek glory or honor. He doesn't make any particular effort to increase his rank in the Hero Association.
That's the difference between Saitama and Genos: Genos is prideful. He wants revenge, which is all about proving you're better than the person who hurt you. Also, as the fandom has noticed, he absolutely refuses to cover his shiny metal arms. Genos is a good guy, and he's trying to be more like his teacher, but much like the other professional heroes he loves feeling like a badass.
I think that that genos (Saitama sidekick/disciple) is actually the main character of the series but we (the audience) are actually looking at it from the perspective of the overly powerful teacher or side charaters which the character is meant to meet in his journey.
if we look at shouen character, genos does have all the making to be the main a character of the series (tragic backstory, super cool ability and the potential to get better). however One (the author) actually flips this and give us from the perspective of the powerful side character that helps or atleast guide the character in this case ironically.
saitama is like master roshi to child goku, kuybbi to naruto, shanks to his luffy. And one punch man could be given us view on to how there their 'character' life must be like. they are just powerful because the story needs them to be powerful and if that so what do they do with all that power.
Heroism, I feel is much like how we project an action to go through between two opposite forces which have varying power levels and thusly create a conflict of their ideals, more often than not one to protect and one to destroy.
One of the reasonings behind why I believe Saitama is viewed as a terrible hero or person, in general is because of the abruptness in which the conflict is ended and there is no time to process what has occurred despite the 'threat' being eliminated for the time. There is no time for a build up of tension and rooting for the hero's fight to protect the people whom are watching. And because of this the public will lash out and try to make sense of what had happened with very little to go on besides Saitama's ranking thereof.
I think you're seriously overthinking this.
I think that the definition of a hero is anyone other people want to be more like. People want to be famous, powerful, determined, and talented. Therefore, heroes have some combination of these traits in excess. There is something leading from this definition which makes famous people more likely to be heroes is that heroes need to be known for other people to want to be like them.
Only a Great Man (Woman) can recognize another one.
What makes a true hero? Lots of DETERMINATION.
I want a hero to be someone who helps people not for money or fame, but for the good it makes the world around us.
Is PBS idea channel a hero then?
I really wish you had touched on King as well, and the fact that he's grown famous as a hero by being credited for many of Saitama's accomplishments. And though he's terrified (both of fighting and being found out) he still plays along and tries to live up to what's been thrust upon him. As well as Metal Bat's appeal to the fanbase as the almost leveled up version of Mumen Rider, who fights and wins with his sense of righteousness and willpower, but actually is powerful enough to accomplish things. Also worth discussing would have been Genos, and the fact that he's awesome looking, and the perfect badass cool angry hero type. He's seen as powerful, is ranked as powerful, has an instant appeal with the fans in the world but is actually equally effective as Mumen Rider in combat. We have yet to see him actually achieve anything, for all his showboating and awesome flashy power usage, and that is obviously a very intentional choice by the writer (and seems to be known by Genos himself, thus his worship and following of Saitama as a master).
Also a key point is Saitama's own sense of self and unwillingness to play the hero game, case in point the instances where he's being yelled at by people after the meteor, and where he allows the other heroes to take credit for defeating Sea King and making himself look like the bad guy.
He seems to understand that there is a difference between heroes made to inspire, and heroes made to do work, and realizes that he's a functional hero, but still sees the importance in heroes that inspire. This sense of self-awareness I believe is a key part of the character, and speaks to hero worship in general of people who excel at something, if that be sports, music, actors etc. It's an internal discussion within the show itself as to the relative value of achievement vs. setting an example, and attempts to show that there is value to both, but that people shouldn't be required to do either.
+KahlevN I wish I could thumb this up more than once...I was waiting for him to talk about King...he's the odd one out of everyone...cuz he was forced (maybe not...i can't really remember) into being a super hero.
I'm just a guy who watches youtube videos for fun.
i think its less about solving existential boredom, or even inspiring the audience into being 'heros', but more so about the value of working hard and sincerely towards doing what we believe in. Depending on what you choose- that is what makes a person 'Heroic', or 'Villainous'.
Saitama is 'boring' because in some ways, he has already achieved his goal in a sense, he wanted to be strong enough to fight and do heroing 'for fun'. That's exactly what he does, and with comedic affect to boot. Mumen rider and the vast majority of the cast , including'villain' (i.e. the guy from house of evolution, Garou) have not achieved their 'goals'. In the manga, there are often short chapters dedicated from other people's perspective, be it regular police officers losing faith in doing their job in a constant-monster-disaster occurring world. To side character- like a guy from Bilzzard's posse who gave up pursuing a 'hero career' because they felt they were too weak and inadequate to achieve something. Even 'King', who is a top-S class hero only in name with has no actual wins against monster, lives in a sort of constant fear of being discovered and disappointing everyone. Egg head's job in that perspective [at least the part that he seems to find important] is to help these people realize that they have value and potential worth pursuing, regardless of what external forces dictate. In the case of Mumen rider or other lower ranking/unacknowledged heroes, he acts as support for what they already are doing, and push those external forces [i.e. the public, the prevailing system] to offer the same. Being heroic is not about achieving some end goal, but rather reaching for what most people already want to go for- to become better people with-in their own lives. Even if the process is nothing to tout about, or if the goal at the end of the day is intangible and not completely attainable, the fact that people try to with _sincerity_ is what's meaningful, *Heroic* and worthy of respect.
At least, Imo it's certainly one of the best message to tell within Superhero narratives. Bizarrely enough, that aspect is actually what's missing in most of the big superhero movies recently, [i.e. Civil war, batman V. Superman, Deadpool]. It doesn't necessarily dictate that those stories are less enjoyable to fans or general public. Perhaps the fact that popular mass media can't seem to capture the sentiment without onerous delivery in the form of origin stories, internal squabbling or trite, dogmatic, and/or cheesy speeches, is what's slightly disappointing.
Kinda reminds me of the episode of kill la kill where mako because a club leader and her family becomes rich and they get bored
I think Saitama can also be a representation the idea that once you become the best at something your goal is no longer to continue to be the best but to find something to challenge your skill. This could relate to how he can be interpreted as a bad hero. Saitama's actions, even though they ultimately save people, may not be what his goal is.. As we see in the first episode, which is the only real time we really see him get truly excited and invested in a fight, we see him going up against the dream subterraneans and even after hearing that 70% of the humans in the world are dead he doesn't show concern for them or their families and barely even notices that they are gone. All he cares about is that he found some strong opponents so the rest of the world could literally burn for all he cares. What his real goal is isn't to save lives or even improve on other things in peoples lives, as we can see by his nonchalant attitude towards everything, the collateral damage he causes, and the fact that he makes active decisions like taking a ride with Mumen Rider rather than using his super speed to go save people that show he doesn't care much for the people around him. No what he wants someone to be as strong or stronger than he is. Someone who can take everything hes got and dish it back. That's why when he was done fighting Boros he was so upset. This was someone who could kick him to the moon, someone who is lauded as the strongest in the universe, someone who could level the planet if he so wished and if even they couldn't challenge him then how the hell else is anything ever going to. He's not a hero, at least in the traditional sense, he's a master looking for a rival.
I love the idea that One Punch Man shows that being the best is boring if you have nothing to challenge you anymore (I also love how it gives shit to DBZ lol)
Honestly, after re-watching OPM again, I realized that the reason I liked his heroism, is the fact that he doesn't care about his 'Good Name' so much as he wants to be liked. I think that his desire for normalcy is the driving factor for why he is an amazing hero. He, despite his overwhelming desire to be liked, actively chooses to save people though, as it is his moral duty.
*spoiler alert*
-He didn't try to destroy the Deep Sea King for notoriety, for the challenge, or even because the king deserved it. Saitama destroyed him because he had done damage, and hurt others. Even when people tried to defend him, saying that the creature had defeated the other heroes, and that Saitama must be super strong, He retorts by giving up all credit, giving up his fandom, and letting everyone know 'I did nothing, they made it possible' when nothing could be less true.
-He didn't destroy Boros because he desired to exert himself, He ended up just trying to protect the people. 'How can I stop the ship?' - 'You must defeat me, otherwise it will keep going' is probably the only reason Saitama killed him. Otherwise, he would have kept him around, to spar with, to have 'fun' with, to be a mentor to.
This video was very interesting, can't believe I've never heard of this. Great video guys!
Wow, this was a great video! I'm a member of the real-life superhero community. Like you've seen on HBO and in the news occasionally. And I plan on showing this video To New guys to give them some perspective. This was very well done and thanks for posting
I know he say OPM, but I hear Opium...
***** To anime/manga viewer maybe, but no to the people in his "universe".
+Trevor Marvell he is religion
That is completely the first thing I thought when watching one punch man. 'Karl Pilkington is the most powerful man in the universe', the manga.
This might just be because I'm a college student who's about to graduate, and therefore this stuff is fairly present in my mind, but I kind of viewed Saitama's Hero Dilemma as a metaphor for the Job Market.
Because of the massive influx of college grads in recent years, employers take measures that exclude people from a position quickly, usually by just glancing at a resume, or only taking people with certain GPAs. If you don't already know someone, you have to be an expert at selling yourself.
Saitama fails in the Hero market for the same reason he fails in the Job Market before the series begins: He's terrible at promoting his own brand. This is a guy whose resume is a one page .txt file that says, "Give me something to do and I'll do it, if I feel like it." No one is going to think twice about that guy, even if he is absolutely right.
Going a bit further, you can think of all the monsters that he and other heroes fight in the series as projects or tasks that you pick up on the job. When Saitama first meets Genos he could be a kid fresh out of a well-endowed private school, where he was "built" to take on massive problems and is quickly overwhelmed by this overconfidence. Mumen Rider is the guy who will take on ANY problem in front of him with a good attitude and determination, but falls apart easily because of that.
The show becomes more interesting when you think of it this way, but I doubt it's intentional. More likely than not the themes are meant to be universally human, but damn is it a good series if it manages to pull that off without you really noticing.
Kinda like Saitama.
(Side thought, three years training=Japanese High School Academic Term?)
+ZalaDa3rd Actually, the fact that Saitama starts the anime as an unsuccessful job seeker is a pretty compelling clue for your theory, given Japan's notoriously dismal job market. With so many young people stuck on a soul-sucking treadmill of dull temp jobs that don't result in career advancement, it's not surprising that Saitama reacts to the flat difficulty curve of his hero career with similar ennui.
I think what makes Saitama interesting is that the audience itself is given mixed signals about him. There are times where he seems truly admirable: he does things without regard for his own self-promotion and takes actions that really help people. That idea of anonymous charity, where it's clear that he's acting altruistically because he suffers harm (to his reputation, since physical harm is out of the question).
On the other hand, Saitama really isn't dedicated sometimes. He doesn't always take the action that would prevent the greatest loss of life, nor is he always timely and available. He doesn't step forward and make his skills known to the people that could be deploying him either and seems content to be lazy a lot of the time, which is typically seen as a deplorable quality.
The combination makes it very hard to decide what to think about Saitama. Mumen Rider is admirable because you know exactly how he feels and everyone agrees that his feelings and how he acts on them are good things. But Saitama, there's some profound good and a bunch of bad all mixed together. He asks us as the audience to decide if we think someone who can do something important is worth respect if he's irreverent and lazy the rest of the time. In so doing, it asks of as well if we're using the right qualities to judge people in the real world too.
I don't find Mumen rider to be particularly more "interesting" when compared to Saitama. The other S class heroes fit that role a lot better IMO, because they have fancy looks and placative super powers. Mumen is to me the derpy sidekick of the show, a character devoid of super power so as to serve as contrast to all the other powerful heroes. He represents the duty-driven Asian stereotype of a hard, selfless worker, the average guy who tries but often fails. I believe Saitama connects with him, because Mumen is like an early version of Saitama: he just hasn't made it (yet).
In answering 'what makes a true hero' what we are really asking is 'what do we look for in a hero'? A hero is someone who is larger than life in a particular way. However this trait is also often the cause of their tragic flaw.
Perhaps what is a little more revealing question is to ask 'what do we then consider to be truly heroic?' The answer would appear to me to be that, just as a hero is someone larger than life, what we consider heroic are actions that make someone something more than themselves ; or perhaps something more than we - the ordinary - are.
So, I had never seen OPM before today and I watched it because of this video.
People point to the tragic flaw(s) and adversity as their criteria for a compelling hero but I found myself stuck on Saitama more than all the other more "typical" characters. Maybe he was more human by being a regular guy with superhero powers?
+Ben McCaulley One of my favorite things about Saitama is he's such an interesting character, in ways this video doesn't explore because it's kind of outside the scope. Not only is he very much an everyman sort of character, but he has an arc that the series never calls much attention to but is undoubtedly there, where he begins to alleviate his loneliness at the start and come to terms with the fact that chasing his original perception of heroism wasn't the whole picture. I like how it's told through moments where we don't get to hear Saitama's inner thoughts, too. I could go on all day about the way ONE writes the characters in OPM, because so many of them completely destroy conventions of the genre and even the ones that are mostly exactly what you'd expect are fun and interesting.
Just wanted to say that I love the fact that you and Digi are fans of each other. Something about that is just too perfect.
A true hero not only saves the victims, but also saves the oppressors.
What can Saitama do? :T His lightest punch would blow through their meat
Saitama isn't a true hero. He is the Saikou Hero.
+-CFW. Magic- so much tru, the real hero is mumen rider
Jay Snake no, he doesn't save anyone.
The true hero is SaveFile-sama.
+-CFW. Magic- rly nigguh?
Wow. Great episode ! I believe it correlates with a modern definition of an entertainment-product-hero. Either as a fictional character or a real-life "local news" small town hero. One could argue that our consensus on the definition of "Hero" has changed throughout the years/centuries. Ancient Greece heroes or Renaissance heroes whether real-life or fictitious were mostly : martyrs. The question : Did you have to die to become a hero in those eras ? is, I believe, a valid one. Although the point brought up in the video still applies, once dead, it's their stories that elevated them to the Heroic state amongst regular people. PS : Some great comments down here as well !
+Simon Bonami Ben Carruth had an interesting take on it in his video "Power and Ridicule" where he says that dominant cultures value wisdom and self-sacrifice in their heroes. Extra History's series on Admiral Yi highlighted his Confucian values in this way.
Whereas slave/underdog cultures celebrate the Trickster hero, who uses their cunning to "stick it to the man" and basically do as much damage as they can to the status quo. Like revolutionaries, hacker culture, etc.
Actually the whole Hero association start because saitama.
And in fact, it only existed for four years, yet has this amazing reputation and a lot of control throughout the world. I think there's some sort of parody or joke involved here too that I'm missing, but I see it as more of a statement on just how bad the world must've been that a superhero organization took the world by storm and became the most important thing in people's daily lives.
To quote the Great Bambino in a movie where he's a ghost (or a figment of Benny's dream?):
"Heroes get remembered, Legends never die. Follow your heart and you'll know what's right."
quoting Digi; just earned yourself a sub ;)
Lars Svendsen was my lecturer in introduction to Philosophy - it was really wild to see him mentioned in the same series, if not in the same breath, as the great thinkers of history. He is a really nice guy, and an inspiring lecturer - and used his cats as illustrative examples of nearly every well-known concept in philosophy.