Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Yup, the joke is that he's in a serious series but everything about Saitama is half-assed, even the artwork for him is lazily done and doesn't match the rest of the art.

Another show which I'm enjoying is Teekyu. (2 minutes per episode), it has a similar sloppy-art gag in which the OP animation was made much more sloppily than the show itself (but still cramming in all the dancing and action you get in a normal OP). It's clearly a joke about the normal priorities in production values.

[Putnam]

Yup, the joke is that he's in a serious series but everything about Saitama is half-assed

the first few chapters were absolutely hilarious

it's even better because i basically immediately recognized saitama as Every Shonen Protagonist Ever distilled into the purest form: bland and unbeatable

[Neonivek]

One Punch Man is confusing me.  The anime I mean, I've heard the manga is much better.

Anyway, the premise of One Punch Man doesn't work as a serious show for a similar reason that, for me, super man doesn't: he's invincible.  Like, we all know that the episode/plotline is going to end with Saitaman punching the bad guy.  Its in the name.

I'm pretty sure the boring invincibility was part of the joke.  The first few episodes were comedy gold, but now it... seems to be trying to be a serious action show?  Like... why?  Maybe when I'm finished the season the direction they're going will make more sense...

Right now they are playing it straight. Yet are giving EVERYONE but him a real reason to do what they are doing. Some of the jokes aren't as good just because of the format (I am sure the Rider's big dumb moment was meant to be an anti-climax... but watching the anime... what were you going to expect?)

Yet the odd thing is...

One Punch Man himself... is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better written then the vast majority of Shonen protagonists.

It is sad that the character MADE to be bland and uninteresting... is far more flavorful and interesting then the characters he is a parody of.

It helps because he has actual flaws and motivations that aren't necessarily pure. So his sacrifices are all the more genuine. He doesn't know everything so his insight is all the more impressive. The plot knows he is superfluous so his insertion isn't aggravating. He is Invincible but no one pretends he isn't (unlike say... Bleach)

It also works because One Punch Man's fights... Aren't the point. He isn't a manga/anime being held up by fights because the characters and plot is dull. His world, characters, and frankly even himself are very interesting... AND YET... they are still more interesting then a lot of Shonen Fight scenes.

Honestly One Punch Man does what a lot of comedies fail at... It is a great show even beyond the comedy.

----

Also seriously people stop using Superman as an example...

It is like saying Goku doesn't work as a protagonist because he is invincible. Your status as "Invincible" only goes as far as the plot allows it.

Take One Punch Man and give him villains on par with him... and BOOM is he still invincible?

[Reelya]

Saitama is an anti-hero since he has traits such as being lazy and unmotivated which conflict with his hero role. That's a straight-up Anti-Hero in terms of the original literary meaning]actual literary definition, which just means any protagonist who lacks the traits normally associated with a traditional literary protagonist.

Modern people often use Anti-Hero to mean something completely different to its original meaning - i.e. anti-hero = a hero with villain traits (i.e. kills innocent people), which has nothing to do with the meaning it held for the last 300 years (first usage appears in 1714). But that's kind of ironic since people now want to pigeonhole an "Anti Hero" as only a specific type of character with it's own set of required traits rather than its meaning in literature of a protagonist who couldn't be pigeonholed.

[Neonivek]

Saitama is an anti-hero since he has traits such as being lazy and unmotivated which conflict with his hero role.

No, I think he is an unlikely hero. A Hero dressed up as a anti-hero.

He talks a big talk... but when you get down to it... it is just talk. Mind you, he drinks his own water... but still.

In fact it is kind of a big part of his character IMO.

[Reelya]

You just completely ignored what I wrote and the point of the link i gave. Which ironically proved my point that people misuse the term Anti-Hero and don't know the actual definition.

An Anti-Hero never meant someone who was bad. It means a hero who is flawed.

[Neonivek]

um, that was my point about the term anti-hero. It never meant that you were bad guy until only very recently in pop culture.

No anti-hero kind of means your not really a hero or rather you aren't a "heroic hero" so to speak... not a villain.

What I mean is... well for example:

He wants to be popular, he cares about what people think about him, heck he joins the super hero group in order to gain fans.

But he gives it all up to make other people feel better.

A proper anti-hero wouldn't do that sort of sacrifice.

He is a hero... he just THINKS he is an anti-hero. is what I am getting at. He "acts" like an anti-hero, but his "actions" are that of a hero.

He doesn't "act" like a hero... but his "actions" are that of an anti-hero.

[Orange Wizard]

It is like saying Goku doesn't work as a protagonist because he is invincible. Your status as "Invincible" only goes as far as the plot allows it.

I dunno, I don't like Goku as a protagonist because of the ridiculous power escalation. I mean, there's only so many universes you can annihilate by sneezing before it becomes passé.

Although admittedly that's more of a gripe with the story's structure overall.

[Reelya]

You're still missing the point. Look up the meaning in reputable sources. I already covered all this but you're just ignoring everything I wrote and all sources on the meaning.

Anti-Hero means any hero who lacks all the traditional traits. It doesn't mean you are "not really a hero".

A proper anti-hero wouldn't do that sort of sacrifice.

... which is a complete load of bullshit based on your personal definition of "proper" anti-hero, which does not exist in any literary usage of the term, which is my point. Being an amoral bastard might qualify you as an anti-hero, but it's not a required trait or part of the definition. Anti-hero and flawed-hero are synonyms in literary usage. What that flaw is, is not part of the definition.

[Neonivek]

You're still missing the point. Look up the meaning in reputable sources.

Anti-Hero means any hero who lacks all the traditional traits. It doesn't mean you are "not really a hero".

He has the traditional traits is what I am getting at. He just hides them.

He is to me a "Unlikely hero" someone who 'to the audience' seems like he isn't a hero.

It to me is a bigger part of his character then "he isn't a white knight"

A proper anti-hero wouldn't do that sort of sacrifice.

... which is a complete load of bullshit based on your personal definition of "proper" anti-hero, which does not exist in any literary usage of the term, which is my point. Being an amoral bastard might qualify you as an anti-hero, but it's not a required trait or part of the definition.

Not a Amoral bastard...

I'll put it like this... he is a FAKE Anti-hero... a Fake Traditional Anti-hero.

He is like a coach in a movie who says he doesn't care about anyone and has given up on life while taking a shot of whisky... but shows up to work every morning and trains those kids because he doesn't know why.

I don't really mind if you disagree Reelya... But I just want to make sure you understand what I am saying. That you are disagreeing to what I am saying rather then to me being unable to communicate my message. Because I do care what you think about my and my thoughts and the way you are responding suggests you don't get my point because of my own ineptitude.

---

Another example is Dirtbag from "Uncle Grandpa" (though FAR more extreme then One Punch Man)

Who is an old Biker Punk with an attitude who... reads to children at the hospital, helps old ladies across the street, and works in a soup kitchen.

Yet calls himself a dirtbag and considers himself one. (mostly because someone calls it him... because of his looks and the fact that he was choking on a fly that flew into his mouth)

There is a stark contrast between what One Punch Man presents himself as, and what his actions usually end up as.

[Reelya]

idk, for example your argument about him sacrificing his reputation. The whole "the true hero gets no credit" itself evolved as part of the anti-hero thing in literature. A traditional hero saves the day and then gets the credit, happy ending. Not getting the deserved earned credit or being scorned is itself part of the deconstruction of the traditional hero tropes.

As for "unlikely hero" all the examples of that in tvtropes are also straight-up examples you could use for the anti-hero (literary meaning). So there's no actual semantic difference there we're arguing about. My whole point was about how anti-hero was coined as a term that applied to all such characters in literature, not a specific subset with other 'approved' traits.

[Neonivek]

The difference in my mind is sort of a "At the end of the day" sort of thing.

Are you a hero who isn't very heroic? either for having muddled motivations, being a weenie, or being somewhat villainous.

Or are you someone who appears to lack certain heroic qualities but is in fact a true hero? You say your a coward, you describe your fear of the main villain, but when he comes to the village to burn it to the ground you stand and fight.

Because you don't want to over-qualify Anti-hero because otherwise all heroes who aren't pure right and true heroes and anti-heroes... such as Luke Skywalker.

---

I'll try to think of a difference to illustrate it without thinking of "villainous anti-heroes"

[Reelya]

Well I wouldn't say that Luke shows any of those characteristics. He never shows cowardice or vice, and remains idealistic. "Humble Origins" is very common in myth and legend, and doesn't make someone an anti-hero, because it's a traditional part of heroic stories. He's young and hotheaded which are his only real flaws, but those are also common in traditional heroic stories.

Wheras Saitama is shown as lazy and uniterested and saves the day without really knowing what is going on most of the time. He challenges the idea of the hero being proactive in moving the plot along: it's a deconstruction since he's like "yeah yeah whatever" until the moment he saves the day, since it's a given conclusion that the protagonist saves the day at the very end.

[Neonivek]

Which to me is part of why I think Saitama is sort of a "Fake Anti-hero" (a term I am using to best describe it)

He is shown as lazy... even though he works very hard.

He is shown as uninterested... when he cares, just not for trite (even showing to remember a bit more then he lets on)

It makes me honestly wonder if he would have put off fighting the villains for a sale at the super market... or if that was just a convenient excuse for him.

He is dumb... but that is a traditional hero trait.

[Reelya]

IDK if "dumb" was true of traditional hero literature. Perhaps only of 20th century literature, e.g. Conan. But he's clearly an anti-hero. And another example might be Don Quixote, but he's also clearly seen as an anti-hero. In superhero comics I can only think of heroes such as Hulk and The Thing, but those are clearly not meant to be traditional-type heroes either.