Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[TGLS]

Locarno fell on his sword to protect other people after being found out. Paris confessed after after getting away with it.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

Locarno fell on his sword to protect other people after being found out. Paris confessed after after getting away with it.

Robert Duncan McNeil himself seems to be in the "Locarno is irredeemable" crowd, basically saying Paris is a good person with an asshole facade wile Locarno is an asshole with a good person facade.

[planescaped]

Robert Duncan McNeil himself seems to be in the "Locarno is irredeemable" crowd, basically saying Paris is a good person with an asshole facade wile Locarno is an asshole with a good person facade.

I always felt irredeemable was wayyy too strong a word for it. An irredeemable person would've denied everything and turned the blame back on them, whereas a douche would've just asked for a lawyer. What he did was just simple human mistake.

but as Chuck said, it was all about royalties really.

[Thebestoftherest]

On the Abraham Lincoln day I felt he should have gotten more into the episode before going on a tangent like that.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

not sure I agree with Chuck whenever he talks about how arrogant the United Federation of Planets is outside of episodes like "The Neutral Zone". when did they ever say or imply their society was perfect anyone who doesn't agree with them on every little thing is uncivilized outside of the first two seasons of TNG?

and I am still not sold on whenever he talks about how anyone can be evil. like in "Jetrel" from Voyager. sure, the bombings of Japan was a morally gray thing but that was the exception. if stuff like that was always morally gray, killing civilians wouldn't be considered a war crime.

wile I'd advocate certain things I would normally think were wrong but unless it's a situation similar to the bombings of Japan, which again was a unique circumstance, killing civilians can only ever be considered evil, end of discussion.

and again, I get very upset whenever someone says anyone can become evil. as I have said before, I actually get physically ill at the mere thought of causing unjustified harm to other people, or even animals and plants for that matter. unless it is objectively justified, I am completely and utterly incapable of acting against my conscience.

I can believe someone doing evil things for anobjective greater good but one who does evil things for merely a perceived greater good is just a monster using an excuse. to use fictional examples, it's the difference between Magneto from the X-Men and Zamasu from Dragon Ball Super.

[Thebestoftherest]

That actually a fair point.

[Thebestoftherest]

Locarno fell on his sword to protect other people after being found out. Paris confessed after after getting away with it.

Robert Duncan McNeil himself seems to be in the "Locarno is irredeemable" crowd, basically saying Paris is a good person with an asshole facade wile Locarno is an asshole with a good person facade.

And the fact they would have to pay for Locarno appearance had nothing to do with their decision.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

[Thebestoftherest]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

Frieza is charming and charismatic to make up for it. Plus Micheal Myer is more of a force of nature than a regular character.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

and I'm sure Chuck never intended the second implication I got with this but I'm also annoyed with his insistence that writing a villain who is just pure evil is objectively bad writing and that it's juvenile to enjoy stories with them. what about one dimensional villains like Frieza from the Dragon Ball series or Micheal Myers from the Halloween film series who are universally loved by the fans of those respective franchises and any attempt to humanize them is controversial at best?

and Chuck has praised villains in his own reviews that TV Tropes lists on their "Complete Monster" page such as Davros and Kevis Fajo. and having a perceived greater good as a motivation doesn't stop a villain from being a Complete Monster, the previously mentioned Zamasu is a Complete Monster.

Frieza is charming and charismatic to make up for it. Plus Micheal Myer is more of a force of nature than a regular character.

is that really an argument against my point?