Grimreaper

There’s a big difference between weird or questionable and criminal or abusive. Once someone is over 18—especially in their 20s—they have legal and moral agency. A 23-year-old dating a 40-year-old might raise eyebrows, but it’s not pedophilia, and calling it that cheapens what real victims go through.

While I think it's weird that a 21-23-year-old dating an older person is really weird and inappropriate, I can't compare an older adult dating a 23-year-old to a literal paedophile who goes after literal children; they aren't the same. One person deserves to die, and the other doesn't. The one dating a 23-year-old is a little weird and deserves a side eye; the other deserves to be locked up in prison forever.

Stop comparing this to a paedophile; one is very weird and gross (but the two people consenting have the right to choose to be weird and gross), the other truly evil.

Unpopular opinion, but R-rated “teen dramas” like Euphoria should just be set in college.

The characters don’t look or act like teenagers. They’re played by adults, doing adult things—clubbing, drinking, hooking up, and having way too mature relationships for high school. Yeah, some teens experiment, but not like this. If you removed the scenes at school, everyone would assume these characters are 21-25.

Character ages should make sense narratively. Nickelodeon and Disney shows like iCarly or Victorious worked because they were actually about teens, played by teens, written for teens. Even Spider-Man makes sense as a teenage story—he’s a kid juggling real responsibility. But with Euphoria, it feels like they just made everyone “15” for shock value.

If your show’s rated TV-MA and aimed at adults, just make the characters adults. It’d be more believable and way less creepy.

I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but I really think R-rated teen dramas like Euphoria should be set in college or centered on young adults instead of high school students.

First off, the “teens” in these shows don’t look or act like actual teenagers. Most of the actors are in their twenties playing 16-year-olds. Sure, sometimes you’ll find a 25-year-old who looks 17 or a 17-year-old who looks older, but that doesn’t mean everyone in high school looks like a full-grown adult.

Then there’s how they act. These characters go clubbing, drink constantly, have casual sex, and talk like people in their twenties. Yes, some teens do that, but not to this extreme. Relationships in these shows are also written like adult relationships—serious, dramatic, and way too mature for high school. In some cases, the teenage characters are even involved with adults, and the shows barely acknowledge how wrong that is.

Take Euphoria, for example. The characters are supposed to be 15 or 16, but they act like they’re 21 to 25. It’s a TV-MA show made for adults, so why make the characters children when the target audience is clearly 18–25? If you removed the scenes of them going to high school and kept their ages ambiguous, most people would just assume they were college students.

Also, character ages should serve a narrative purpose. Teen shows about actual teens make sense when the story fits that age group. Shows like iCarly, Victorious, or Drake & Josh worked because the actors were real teenagers, and the shows were written for kids and teens. Even though the situations were ridiculous and comedic, the stories were about friends hanging out—something their audience could actually relate to.

Look at Spider-Man, for example. Peter Parker being a teenager makes sense narratively. He’s a kid juggling adult responsibilities—taking care of his aunt, worrying about bills, trying to survive high school, all while being the only teenage superhero in a world full of adults. That’s why people relate to him. But it wouldn’t make sense for heroes like Daredevil, Batman, or Superman to be teenagers because their worlds and responsibilities are built for adults.

That’s the problem with a lot of these modern “teen dramas.” They want the intensity and freedom of adult stories but still call the characters teenagers. If the characters are going to act, look, and live like adults, then just make them adults. It would make the story more believable and a lot less uncomfortable.

Fridging is when a love interest gets killed just to push the main character forward. It used to mean a woman getting hurt to make a man act. Now it covers any partner dying to pump up the plot.

Here’s the cold truth. A romantic loss is the only loss that actually justifies losing your head over it. If your boyfriend or girlfriend dies, that grief can spiral into obsession or a need for revenge. That is story fuel. Everything else is background noise.

An uncle, a child, a best friend, a parent, a teammate getting killed is not tragic nor is it enough to be sad and enough to motivate you to be a hero. Those losses might be a little sad but they do not automatically justify turning your life into this crusade against injustice. They are not dramatic enough to demand you drop everything and hunt a killer down.

So yeah, fridging as a device works because romantic love is one of the few things audiences treat as absolute.

Whenever there is a story about a main character who is depressed because their best friend, parent, or child dies, I just can't get into it, and I'm always like, "Please get over it," because this isn't enough to be depressed over, and it's not enough to want to become a good person.

If real people got powers, do you think they would all become corrupt, evil psychopaths?

I know Superman fans may not like this, but the act of keeping a secret identity has always involved gaslighting, lying, and manipulating people. My question is: between Light Yagami/Kira and Clark Kent/Superman, who’s the better liar, manipulator, and gaslighter?

Do you think people who illegal street race are 'bad people'?

I've always had this question about exclusive private schools for extremely rich kids, like kids from multi-multi-millionaire families. This question applies to private schools from elementary to high school. Do their private chefs just pack them lunches, or do private schools have high-end food for lunch in the cafeterias?

This question is for ‘hero’ in all forms: realistic, fiction, superhero, comic book, anime, etc. Let’s say a person is flawed, or is very arrogant, or has a superiority complex, etc., but also does heroic things—like being a firefighter, doctor, wizard, superhero, whatever. Do you think that person is still a hero despite having negative personality traits?

Street racers aren’t criminals. To me, being a criminal means intentionally hurting people, scamming, stealing, or exploiting others. Street racing is illegal, sure, but most people do it as a hobby because they love cars and racing and just becuase you break the law doesn't make you a "criminal". I hate how games like Need For Speed always paint racers as villains when the reality is way less black-and-white.

To clarify, I don't mean an employee sleeping with their literal direct boss. Here is what I mean: if a 23-year-old police officer is in a romantic or sexual relationship with a 57-year-old police captain, sergeant or lieutenant, then that 23-year-old police officer should be promoted to detective or something or at least have some authority in their unit. Now that's just an example; this goes for any job: firefighter, doctor, military – anything really. If you are old enough to consent to be in a relationship with someone who is a higher rank, then I think that should qualify you to at least move up to some degree.

I'm not saying give that 23-24-year-old the biggest position in the job, but move them up a rank or two.

People use the word "antihero" so loosely it has really lost its meaning. Before, an "antihero" was just a "bad guy" who did good things, like Dexter Morgan. He's a serial killer; he's a high-functioning sociopath who does feel emotions and love and knows right from wrong, but he kills bad people, so he's an "antihero". Punisher is a mass murderer. Yes, he kills criminals, but unlike other heroes who kill in self-defence when there is no other option, he kills every criminal he sees, even street criminals. He does this because he likes being in war and likes killing people, so he decides to only target those who he thinks deserve it, and those who he deems "deserve" it are criminals, and sure, on occasion, he will help a hero or two. Deadpool is a mercenary; he does what he does for money. He kills bad people and goes on missions, but mainly for money does he do good things? Sure, but he does it for morally questionable reasons.

I'm going to focus the term "antihero" mainly for comic book and superhero characters. A lot of people think an "antihero", when it comes to superheroes, is just an "edgy" or "R-rated" superhero or a superhero who curses a lot or just has negative flaws. Mainly a lot of people use the term "antihero" for characters who aren't Superman- or Spider-Man-level goody-two-shoes boy scout characters. Like, people will call Spider-Man 2099 an "antihero" just because he isn’t a Boy Scout. No, Miguel is a hero. through and through; just because he's a bit of a dick doesn't mean he's an "antihero".

I see people calling the characters in Invincible "antiheroes" just because they are not "boy scouts". People call Immortal, Duplikate, and Rex Splode "antiheroes" just because they are human with human flaws and realistic personalities; that doesn't make them "antiheroes".

Rex isn't an "antihero" just because he cheated on Atom Eve. Yes, he did a bad thing. Yes, he was an arrogant arsehole, but guess what? He still put his life on the line for his team, did the right thing and was still a good person. Despite having some annoying personality traits, he was a hero through and through.

Immortal and Duplicate aren't "antiheroes" either. Yes, they are hypocritical, a bit whiny and self-righteous, but they still save people's lives for no other reason than that they want to help and help their team.

I like Invincible because every character is just a flawed human being who just so happens to have superpowers, and they go out saving people.

Are they antiheroes? No, they are just superheroes.