4 ms·

The majority of comments here seem to be critical of the author's thesis, with one even questioning the cultural-political motives behind this media outlet. FW

The majority of comments here seem to be critical of the author's thesis, with one even questioning the cultural-political motives behind this media outlet. FWIW, I agree with the author. I found myself thinking about this last night as I finished the first 10-episode season of Netflix's Cowboy Bebop live-adaptation[0]. There were many changes to the original story in the live adaptation, and I feel that part of these changes involves building up a rubber-ducky story for a plot twist at the end. I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity. SPOILER ALERT In the original, the protagonist Spike seeks justice in the final episode for the death of his loyal love interest Julia, who dies at the hands of Spike's arch-nemesis and evil syndicate leader Viscous. With the Netflix live-action, in addition to a number of story changes that allegedly made it more appealing to modern audiences, the love interest Julia lives, exacts her revenge on Viscous after years of abuse, becomes the leader of the evil syndicate, and also... shoots the protagonist? The old Julia was perfect in the original story, but the new one cares more about power than anything else. The new version's plot twist for Julia was built up to, with a rubber ducky explanation gradually developed as a side story in each of the new episodes. The director wanted you to see Julia getting her revenge after years of abuse and then cheer for her as she becomes the girl-boss[0] of the most evil crime organization in the galaxy. This ending was... disgusting. An overwhelming volume of contemporary media sends the message that you can be a bad person if you have sufficient justification, and that coincides with OP's concern of the overused rubber ducky device. When I was very young and impressionable, I always liked the villains the most. In kids TV shows, villains could never be shown doing anything truly heinous, and so my sense of them was that they were the only ones who actually felt free to do what they wanted. It was the "good guys" who always ruined the party. Like Nietzsche's ubermensch, villains were great because they were not imprisoned by morality. I thought villains were amazing until I matured some. I needed to realize the value of morality and understand what real-life villains were actually capable of. More and more, contemporary entertainment seeks to deconstruct that idea, which seems like a shame to me. Every rubber ducky story strengthens some real-life narcissist's ego - who wants to live is a society where people like that feel empowered? [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267295/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267295/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200127-the-advert-that-triggered-a-debate-about-girl-boss https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200127-the-advert-tha...

woodruffw 5y ago
> I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity. I haven't watched the live adaptation, but I find this complaint strange given that the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity: it's a neo-noir-cum-cowboy space opera about bounty hunters! They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! And Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend! Cowboy Bebop is all about the thing you're aping as a flaw in "contemporary entertainment": a collection of figures who do seem to have sufficient justification to do all of the morally ambiguous things we see them do throughout the show. That's what gives it it's appeal, instead of just being a crime procedural that's inexplicably in space.
- 1MachineElf 5y ago
  >Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend! Thanks for the spelling correction, but I have to disagree with the moral ambiguity here. The guy's name is literally Vicious. He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia. >They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! Most of the people with bounties are actually doing bad things, and bounty hunting itself isn't illegal in the setting. >the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity Spike was a bad person, but then he turned his back on that old way of life, then started a new one where he uses his skills in a legitimate way. This is a common trope told in shonen-oriented manga and anime. Ruroni Kenshin is very similar - the Battosai was an expert killer like Fearless, but then he switched from evil to good and became Kenshin like Fearless became Spike. They then go on to fight the good fight, and things get dicey when their past catches up with them. Similarly, there's Inuyasha, who was destined to become a terrible demon until his commitment to Kikyo/Kagome made him change. They fight the good fight, and sometimes you wonder if they are going to revert to their old ways, but they keep making the right choice. Even if Spike wants to seem careless, he still knows what's right and wrong. This trope appears repeatedly in these kinds of shows. The original Cowboy Bebop has it, but it's less pronounced in the Netflix live-action.

woodruffw 5y ago

> I'm opposed to it not just because it's a change to the source material, but also because it created a needless sense of moral ambiguity. I haven't watched the live adaptation, but I find this complaint strange given that the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity: it's a neo-noir-cum-cowboy space opera about bounty hunters! They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! And Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend! Cowboy Bebop is all about the thing you're aping as a flaw in "contemporary entertainment": a collection of figures who do seem to have sufficient justification to do all of the morally ambiguous things we see them do throughout the show. That's what gives it it's appeal, instead of just being a crime procedural that's inexplicably in space.

1MachineElf 5y ago
>Vicious (not his syrupy brother Viscous), the villain, was Spike's friend and partner in crime! He kills his friend! Thanks for the spelling correction, but I have to disagree with the moral ambiguity here. The guy's name is literally Vicious. He kills innocent people indiscriminately, like Julia. >They hunt down and kill people across the galaxy, sometimes solely for the crime of being rival criminals! Most of the people with bounties are actually doing bad things, and bounty hunting itself isn't illegal in the setting. >the original series is drenched in moral ambiguity Spike was a bad person, but then he turned his back on that old way of life, then started a new one where he uses his skills in a legitimate way. This is a common trope told in shonen-oriented manga and anime. Ruroni Kenshin is very similar - the Battosai was an expert killer like Fearless, but then he switched from evil to good and became Kenshin like Fearless became Spike. They then go on to fight the good fight, and things get dicey when their past catches up with them. Similarly, there's Inuyasha, who was destined to become a terrible demon until his commitment to Kikyo/Kagome made him change. They fight the good fight, and sometimes you wonder if they are going to revert to their old ways, but they keep making the right choice. Even if Spike wants to seem careless, he still knows what's right and wrong. This trope appears repeatedly in these kinds of shows. The original Cowboy Bebop has it, but it's less pronounced in the Netflix live-action.