A little worry/concern I have for the story overall (Anime-only perspective.)

tAb0 said:
Without spoiling too much, the author actually did this deliberately so that future villains (aka not demons) can shine more

Don't worry, the story has enough antagonistic figures/situations to ease that worry, we just haven't been introduced to them yet.

Daoolp said:
@Yosakusan

So, by your logic Marvel movies do not have a single villain that is not "cartoonishly evil". Okay.

Modernoir said:
@Janethan23
I am fine with evil villains. What I find boring is the idea that the ENTIRE SPECIES of Demons is just one-dimensional evil characters. At that point, it's just purely repetitive! The concept is refreshing on the surface level, my fear is that we've seen all the Demons have to offer for the rest of the story in these last few episodes. I ADORE a great morally-black evil-for-evil villain, DIO stands at the top for that. If every villain after DIO was just DIO but in different coats of paints, JoJo would lose so much luster as a series though due to repetition. Do you get what I'm saying?

Cellider said:

that's what i am saying. People like to keep justifying evil because "oh I suffered, so you should as well grrrrrr", similar example would be the Puss in Boots 2 (i forgor the name) main antagonist, he is evil because that's what he is, and that what makes him great

Yosakusan said:

It's quite the opposite. Most villains are just cartoonishly evil for the sake of being evil. Just look at the most popular movies like marvel movies. Even the demons in Frieren actually have some nuance to them and are not just evil. Like the small demon Himmel killed who merked the village chief because they thought they'd be able to live in peace if they did so. Demons are just entrapped by their own mind and there are some later on that will try to understand humans in their own fucked up ways.

Modernoir said:
My fear is that these Demons will offer nothing overall

Janethan23 said:
@Yosakusan I disagree with you wholeheartedly on this.
Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings original trilogies are epic and timeless masterpieces that never ever attempted to humanize or make them relatable in any shape or form because they are villains throughand through. The authors have completely made it clear that Sauron and the Sith are just evil. Nothing more, nothing less. Traditionally, it's been about good vs evil and a vast majority want to see the good guys triumph over evil and the simple lesson we take from it to teach children is: don't be bad like them.
The villains these days have to have some sort of justifiable backstory that has become forced and predictable nobody is surprised anymore when it's revealed that the 'good guys' were actually the 'bad guys'...gasp

StarZone1 said:

Evil people can't stand evil for evils sake because they want to remove the negative of being evil. Thus they always have to justify why they are evil. In reality, evil is evil and what led you to evil is irrelevant.

Yosakusan said:

1. Ur wrong. Palpatine might have been just evll but he was never the main villain. Vader was the main focus and he definetly had layers to him, especially in the last 2 films. Same thing with Sauron who has an entire backstory in the books I believe which shows how power and temptation corrupted him.
2. Well written villains have always had layers to them since Shakespere and even ancient greek plays. The problem is that after WW2 there was massive push by the government to always make the bad guys lose and be completely evil for no reason.I'm putting it all in simple terms but that's basically what happened.
3. A villain with no motivations, depth or charisma is not a good villain in my eyes. The more of those 3 things they have the better. It's not about justifying their actions, it's about being able to understand them as a reader and know that the author also understands the characters they've crafted and are not just throwing action figures against each other in a fight because it looks cool.

Cellider said:

hmm, I kinda see your point, but at the same time it just confused me more. Could you explain better, please?

StarZone1 said:

So you have good and bad, most religions and cultures create a pretty black and white caracture of this for their stories, especially when it comes to folk tales and fairy tales.

In this black and white they also give these characters traits and characteristics which map incredibly consistently spaning the cultural gaps. Beauty is good, ugly is bad (Cinderella). When a character becomes bad they turn ugly (Beauty and the Beast) but then turn beautiful when they return to the good. Sneeky and manipulative characters have a hunched back and long nose.

I think it is well known that Hollywood is full of corruption, immorality, self-obsessed people and debauchery. The people who write the films today see aspects of themselves in the historical villans on screen and not the heros but they don't want the association of evil is always evil because nobody wants to see themselves as evil. This is why they create villains who are just misunderstood or who were betrayed in their past and that is why they are the way they are. They're recreating themselves who are morally grey in the villans because then they aren't really a "bad guy".

Ultimately they are attempting to disassociate the act if being evil with the perpetrator of the act. It's just passing the buck on, "oh it's not my fault I crashed the car the guy in front slammed the breaks", "It's not my fault I cheated on my partner, they made me unhappy".

Where as historically the evil act and the perpetrator were intrinsically linked. If you do an evil act then you are evil, it's not you're still a good guy even though you did an evil thing. What led old villans to evil didn't matter because ultimately they had the free will to make their choice, that's why when they make the bad one it's not something to sympathise with as they've freely chosen that path.

I hole this explained it batter? I think it's a bit of a poor job? The last two paragraphs arw probably the best but it's late, I'm tired and can't sleep. Haha

StarZone1 said:

1. Except Palpatine was the main villain. In the origional trilogy The Empire was the main villain and Palpatine was the Empire. From the first film Vader was shown to just be a pawn in the game, he was never shown to be the big bad. Just as Sauron was never the big bad in LotR, he's just a Lieutenant the same as Vader. They're shown to be fallen but also that they're not sympathised with because the evil is the evil. You seem to fundamentally take the wrong thing from these films. Tolkien is known to not like ambiguities in good and bad, what was bad is bad and whatbis good is good.
2. They've already given them back story, they've explained the motivating factor behind the demons, why they act as they do and what their goal is. Yes the CIA may have influenced Hollywood and culture since the war but this is Japanese magna and anime whixh as far as I'm aware has been left fairly independent on that front.
3. They've already done this for the demons. They're using the traditional demon being the absence of good. This isn't difficult to understand.

Huntee1999 said:
In my opinion, the best part of the story so far involves the demons. Won’t happen in season 1 but one of the best characters is a demon and is explored really well. Even recently the demons are having some good nuance to their characters. So I would say don’t worry the best is yet to come with demons in the anime.

Rayane-47 said:

Aw...Now U Really Peaked My Interest, Are U Sure It Won't Happen In Season 1, I Mean...This Season Is 25 Episodes Or...Is It Introduced Way Later In The Manga?

Huntee1999 said:

Yeah at the rate the anime is going it will end around chapter 60 or so which is where the next major arc ends. What I was talking about is in the 80s. If season 2 gets as many episodes as this one it will cover it but I don’t think they’re getting to it this season.