Wait, is this gonna be a deconstruction?

Imagine
>Flintstones gets cancelled
>Final issue comes out, the cover is the family, there's a variant with the whole cast, and one with Fred riding a log bomb down Dr Strangelove style
>The previews made it look like it's going to satirize climate change
>In the issue itself a nearby volcano is going active, but no one does anything for years
>While bedrock evacuates, Slate volunteers his workers to try and dam the lava flow.
>The veterans stick with Fred to help out, no one really cares about them, but protecting everyone is what they do.
>Something goes wrong and they get cut off from being able to escape
>Fred goes back to his house, and takes a trip down memory lane
>Wilma managed to get back into bedrock (Pebbles is married at this point, she doesn't need her) and finds Fred.
> Wilma, you shouldn't be here
> I told you a long time ago, as long as we have each other, nothing else really matters
>They embrace, and Fred looks out the window (family portrait from #3 is there) at the approaching ash storm.
>Yabba dabba Doo as it fades to black
> Fin

yeah, in the latest issue the black guy was deconstructed

Reminds me of the ending to Dinosaurs. Kinda.

is satire deconstruction?

Is this better than Prez?

They can't do that, that's racist.

In my opinion, yes.

No.

Its the "modern" stone age family. Just more modern than a Honeymooners knockoff.

No. OP presumably doesn't know what deconstruction means and just used it in place of "making a good comic that defied expectations" which seems to happen pretty often around here.

I love this, didn't feel strongly either way about Prez.

Both are too amazing to choose.
Idk which is best I just know I want more of both.

I blame Evangelion. Evangelion was a deconstruction of mech anime, but because it was also lauded as one of the best anime, people started thinking that deconstruction just meant really good.

You could say the same for Watchmen.

RIP

Good point. In fact that probably has more relevancy here.

You could say the same for Tim Burton's Batman.

Yeah, deconstructions are stuff like The Tick, Venture Brothers, some Robot Chicken sketches, The Boys, and the Cornetto Trilogy.

How?

Not really. It just took its source material seriously.

I really want a crossover with Barracuda and The Flinstones now.

>Not really
>My Word is absolute
understood.

I like how you skipped the part of the post that actually offered up an explanation. And that you didn't make any argument of your own.

>deconstruction
I can't wait for this word to fucking die. Venture Bros, The Tick and Robot Chicken are fucking parodies, Evangelion is just a fucking Psychological Drama and The Flintsones is satire.

You can't just attach the word to anything that's remotely subversive just to try and pretend you're consuming something with far more depth that it actually has.

What exactly is deconstruction anyways? Like what exactly makes a work deconstruction? Is it simply enough that it subverts the expected cliches that it alludes to or does there need to be more?

Kongou sisters (and Kashima for that matter) are shit yet I still want to fuck them.

>the source material
it's a cartoon sitcom from the 60s, what's there to "analyze"

It's a deconstruction of the source material, not a satire of the source material. It's satire relative to SOCIETY. Similarly Evangelion isn't a satire or parody of the mech genre and neither is Watchmen of the cape genre. They are both deconstructions. They add depth or realism to IPs or genres that lacked it and in so doing subvert them.

>Deconstruction is a philosophical theory of textual criticism.
>Deconstruction is a critical outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology introduced the majority of ideas influential within deconstruction.[1] In the 1980s, the Postmodernism era, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences,[2] including law[3][4][5] anthropology,[6] historiography,[7] linguistics,[8] sociolinguistics,[9] psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies.
>There have been problems defining deconstruction. Derrida claimed that all of his essays were attempts to define what deconstruction is,[38] and that deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticises the very language needed to explain it.

>a theory used in the study of literature or philosophy which says that a piece of writing does not have just one meaning and that the meaning depends on the reader

>a philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings, metaphysical constructs, and hierarchical oppositions (as between key terms in a philosophical or literary work) are always rendered unstable by their dependence on ultimately arbitrary signifiers; also : an instance of the use of this method

IMHO, the culprits are Evangelion and Watchmen, who popularized the "take lighthearted thing and make it dark" trope and caused it to become synonymous with the word "deconstruction", even though a deconstruction isn't necessarily like that.

This. You could argue the Flintstones is deconstructionist because it's taking elements of the original show and unraveling them in a critical light but it's not really wanting to take shots at the show or the content of the times, it's wanting to take shots at our society right now - or sometimes, our society as it has always been, through the eyes of an imaginary nascent society.

>Is it simply enough that it subverts the expected cliches that it alludes to
That's not what it means.

Then what does it mean?

I'm literally asking what it means because I don't understand. When I look at popular works described as deconstructions that's all I really see as a tying theme

Deconstruction is a form of critical thinking, it was originally used as a form of literary analysis, nowadays people think it's a writing method used by authors that are trying to disassemble entire genres.

of course they're shit but they' have top-tier reaction images

Watchmen is the only one that could be argued to be a deconstruction but you could say the same for The Boys. People really don't seem to understand that all the merits Evangelion had came from a technical point of view and all the impact it had in most anime nowadays, it's why it draws parallels to Citizen Kane, Citizen Kane wasn't famous becasue the story was deep.

Could you say that in english, doc

This.

What really gets me about this shit is that the things people are willing to call "deconstruction" are just material that usually expands on concepts or takes a genre on the road less traveled. And it gets worse when people correctly call something a deconstruction yet gets the incorrect genre or theme.

These people get too impressed by any basic 3-dimensionality.

So much actual conversation going on a flintstones thread of all things. Guess I'm checking out the book if it's as good as y'all are saying.

On a related note I actually didn't know Fred was a Vet that actually adds an interesting dynamic I missed growing up

You are ignoring the very important bit about Evangelion dealing with how fucked up it is to put a teenager in a giant robot and then expect them to save the world. That is the Anno taking a step back and subverting the genre by dealing with things previous mech animes didn't deal with.

Excuse me idiot, read

There's multiple definitions basically.

Its a critique using the same medium you are critiquing. The guy who invented the term outright said its hard to do, and hard to define.

It relies heavily on interpretation by the audience, and uses symbolism as well as allusion. You don't spell out what your point is, you try to show it and bring the audiance to the intended conclusion.

Its structured to show the fault in something by removing something else it relies on to make sense, such as the suspension of disbelief or an assumption of morality.

>Take thing that is entertaining because it's impossible
>Make grim fucked up cartoon to explain that it's impossible
That's why I was never really a fan of this kind of stuff. It's useful to inspire new works when the genre becomes stale, but that's it.

>unraveling them in a critical light but it's not really wanting to take shots at the show or the content of the times
While I don't want to shut down your argument completely, I would argue this panel is a soft counter-example of your statement.

>"deconstruction" are just material that usually expands on concepts or takes a genre on the road less traveled.
Yes, and?

Genres are defined by conformity. One IP is popular, others imitate it. "It doesn't have to make sense, it's a cape comic, that's just the genre" and such. Eventually someone takes a step back and analyzes it, what would it REALLY be like if someone had super powers or piloted a mech? What would drive someone to do what these character tropes do? At that point it stops conforming to the tropes that define the genre but it is nonetheless part of the genre. It is a deconstruction.

I mean as far as I know Fred was from a period where everyone was a Vet. I think the interesting dynamic is probably more trying to think that the Flintstones is a parody of modern living for its day and age. We're just so separated from that time period that it's just the Flintstones to us. Like how Bugs Bunny is just Bugs Bunny but in his day and age he was a Clark Gable parody and Looney Tunes were full of relevant referential humor that flies totally over our heads because it's irrelevant to us.

He wasn't the first person to do that, there have been countless mecha pilots that didn't want to get into the fucking robot becasue they didn't want to deal with the horrors of war and murder. "Evangelion is a deconstruction of the mecha genre" is a staple statement of people that have only consumed Evangelion and one or two more in the same Genre.

That's like you telling me Madoka is a deconstruction of Magical Girl Genre just because it injected suffering into the plot when there have been a bunch of anime beforehand that did the same thing.

Fuck those panels and fuck everything about them.
That hit too close to home.

>because it's impossible
But that's not right.

>deconstruction
Go back to TVTropes.
If you'd actually studied hte concept in question, you'd realize that fictional works simply can't be 'Deconstruction'.

You are my main user.

It was a deconstruction of Mami's head lmao

How does it feel to be so ebin?

I think Bokurano did "I don't want to pilot it!" better than Eva

>cave nigger in a room full of white cavemen
>not getting his skull caved in
lol

>He wasn't the first person to do that
And Wright brothers weren't the first men to get off the ground. That doesn't make it not a deconstruction.

On a side note, I'd say part of being a deconstruction is how the creator approaches the genre. There is incidental deviation from the genre and then there is intentional subversion. The lien can be grey at times but I think saying deconstructions don't exist is silly.

Your spoiler text is flat out wrong. Issue 3 reveals It's a mantra the psychologist taught them to use when they start having PTSD flashbacks to calm them down

The Royal Order Of The Water Buffalos is based on veterans groups from the post World War eras.

See, in WW1 PTSD was just "went crazy, throw him in the asylum or let him be a begger" so to cope the gentlemen's clubs became less about a social club based on status frequented by single well to do men as a place to drink, swap stories, and bring strippers back to, and more about men who saw too much shit supporting each other because society tolerated no weakness while the men who didn't go to war joined to be close to these great heroes.

After WW2 PTSD was recognized and the older vets helped the younger ones, causing groups like the Elks Club and the Fraternal Order Of Eagles to explode in membership as vets sought each other out. Vets outnumbered non-vers, and the VA started funding those groups in places. They were still gentlemen's clubs technically, causing controversy when the VA would give money for a new building and they'd just build an indoor pool to screw prostitutes in or a grand hall for elaborate banquets, but after Korea (which created the culture The Flintstones originally was based on) the clubs really became mostly for vets.

There was issues with Vietnam. The older vets REALLY disliked the younger ones because a lot tended to become hippies before or after, had far worse PTSD than most of the previous guys had, and some actually blamed the Vietnam guys for "losing the war" but generally the clubs aggressively recruited them just to say they had the numbers even if few ever actually showed up.

The clubs today are mostly full of old-timers and the Vietnam guys. Gulf War and War On Terror vets rarely joined.

>There's multiple definitions basically.
No, there are not, you can check any accredited dictionary.
In essence, you're simply using the wrong word, but you've been doing it so long, and seen and heard other ignorant persons do the same, so you assume, incorrectly, that you are right.

Pretty good.

A lot of things do a lot of things "NGE did" better than NGE.

>That doesn't make it not a deconstruction.
No, the fact that deconstruction doesn't mean what you believe it to, does.
>On a side note, I'd say part of being a deconstruction is how the creator approaches the genre
You're ascribing meaning to terminology. Satire, homage, and pastiche are the words you want.

I mean if you're going to deconstruct Flintstones it would be more about the mythology gags and shit while this book's main point is about being too real

Fred behaves like, but was never confirmed as, basically a Korean War veteran. Since there's an episode where the Army accidently mistakes him for a soldier and he claims "But I was never in the army!" he is most likely a Marine or Navy. Unless Flintstones have an airforce.

George Jetson on the other hand was a Cold War Army Reserve officer. He had a full episode on it.

>deconstruct
Analyze, the word you're looking for is analyze, or perhaps better yet, dissect.

user that's not what deconstruction means, Eva has it's own merits why do people that love it cling so fucking desperately to "deconstruction" as a way to inject depth into it? Is it because if you don't have that word you can't fall back into the same old copy pasted medals other people have ascribed to it?

I think the problem is that the lines are hard to see when you start thinking about it. Is satire not just deconstruction of reality? Certainly different from deconstructing something fictional but I can see that similarity giving someone the wrong idea.

You don't know the definition, a deconstruction has to be a fictional work. Reminder that early Caucasians bred with every group they met. Meanderthal breeding was almost entirely Caucasian, and the only group that got as much non-human homo pusspuss was south Asians who fucked Hobbits AKA Denisovans.

Deconstruction is a buzzword at this point, they don't know what it is they jut want to flail it around as a badge of well-writing.

You're fucking wrong.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deconstruction

Two different versions of deconstruction, both of which disagree with wikipedia and the guy who coined the term in the first place.

it's FOR fictional works, it's not A fictional work. It's a form of critical analysis.

>Wait, is this gonna be a deconstruction?

Well technically Fred and Barney work at a construction site (a rock pit where they make houses out of the rocks), so you could say that it always was.

Why are you insisting on your definition being right when people posted the definitions from dictionaries that contradict you, and why are you posting weab shit in a Flintstones thread?

I love you boatslut poster.

>a deconstruction has to be a fictional work
No, in fact it CANNOT be.
If an attempted "deconstruction" was fiction it would have to use the language of "fiction" and become recursive.

He's not wrong though.

Here's the definition for anyone that thinks they know better:
>a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.

That's entirely in line with what I claim.

>why do people that love it cling so fucking desperately to "deconstruction"
What people you discussed this with before thought about Evangelion doesn't interest me.

>Satire, homage
Neither of which means deconstruciton. A deconstruction is something similar but not synonymous.

>pastiche
I'm not going to pretend to know what that means. I never learned about that in AP English way back when.

>Unless Flintstones have an airforce.
>Fred flying in on a pterodactyl dropping large pieces of flint rigged up to clash and ignite forests on impact
>his accurate drops for the best results earned him his name"flintstone" to which he made his last name so he wouldn't forget his atrocities

Why won't he post good girls like Germans though?

How does critical analysis prevent it from being a fictional work, when the Merriam-Webster example is a fictional work critiquing another fictional work?

what the fuck is that weapon? Looks like a rifle but is actually just a spear? Why???

>I've never seen a bayonet.

You're missing the slingshot.

yeah that what i thought first, but look at the "barrel" of the "gun"

okay, makes sense now. But i can't tell from that pic. autism successfully quelled.

That's exactly what I've been saying it describes it as a form of critical thinking whereas people are using it as a form of literally writing.

It says so right here that the simple definition is that a piece of writing doesn't have just one meaning. It has nothing to do with analysis a genre.

Nonco doesn't seem to fancy the germans and that's where most of my reaction images come from honestly

you have no idea what a panel of pundits is, don't you?

>what the fuck is that weapon?

Guns in Flintstones had the same basic shape as modern guns, but had slingshots attached to the tops. You can't see the slingshot from the angle on that panel.

They also have bayonets affixed to the "barrel", which is also a typical gun feature.

I fucking love this comic. It's such a simple concept yet so entertaining.

>what the stone age would look like if they saw what modernity looked like and then tried to imitate it without understanding why

>That's exactly what I've been saying it describes it as a form of critical thinking whereas people are using it as a form of literally writing.
It can be both however. They are bot mutually exclusive. A work can be a deconstruction by example, which is what Watchmen is and hiw people try to describe Eva.

Rather than deconstructing an existing work, the story is presented as being within the genre before the plot takes itself apart and analyzes itself.

> then tried to imitate it without understanding why

It's actually sadder then you think
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

>the analytic examination of something (as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? Deconstructions are about taking a step back, adding a dose of realism to the genre, and ultimately subverting its tropes (ie revealing inadequacies).

ITT: 1/2 of us talk about Flintstones, the other 1/2 rant about how anime and comics ruined anime and comics.

He's saying a deconstruction only has a single form, an essay.

()
You replied to the wrong guy.

I'm not the shipgirl dude.

You can look up pastiche on the internet, you've obviously been able to absorb *some* definition of Deconstruction from it.

Look, Deconstruction is a concept designed to parse another form of communicative expression. Fiction is so deeply entwined with preexisting forms of language that to use that same language to break it down for examination is circular.

>the Merriam-Webster example is a fictional work critiquing another fictional work?
It isn't.

Have you, or anyone else, looked at semiotics?

Holy fuck, guy.

A plot doesn't take itself apart. Nor does it analyze itself.

>Deconstructions are about taking a step back
You can't do that when you are using the same format as whatever it is you want to investigate. You are still in /it/, you haven't stepped back at all.
>subverting tropes
That's just satire.

Yes, I've actually used that term before in a Flintstones comic thread before.

They know what modernity is supposed to look like but they don't understand the essence of anything, so they are just stumbling through "modern living" while simultaneously figuring out why they are doing any of it.

All this semantics about deconstructions aside, this is a wonderful way of deconstructing the Flintstones while satirizing modernity.

Wouldn't mind a storytime...

000000.1/2 of us is talking about how much they want to fuck the personifications of ships.

It's a long-range slingshot with an arrowhead bayonette.

>decimal
>fractional
I mean, I know you can do that, but still, triggered.

Feel free to storytime it then.

I dont have it. Thus I wouldnt mind to read it.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

You're right, I'm wrong. It's hitting at the 60s stuff too. I just feel it's hitting more at the modern day.

I really, really want a Bedrock-wars prequel written by Garth Ennis. I mean they could get him for fucking Dastardly and Muttley...

>You can't do that when you are using the same format as whatever it is you want to investigate
Uh, what? It's the creator who is taking a step back and analyzing the genre. That seems like a necessary part of understanding the tropes and subverting them. The alternative non-desconstruction addition to a genre would be following those tropes for the sake of sticking to the genre.

What I'm saying is that you have to have some conception of what defines the genre before you can create a deconstruction. Simply stickign a different letter of the alphabet on Superman and then adding a new facet to the cape genre does not require analyzing the genre and doesn't produce a deconstruciton.

>That's just satire.
>"Satire - the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."
I'd say deconstruciton and sattire are sufficientlly different to warrant being two different words. Satire more applies to society and politics. That's been my conception of satire and the definitions I find fit into that conception pretty well. For example, Watchman is a deconstruction, not satire. Idiocracy is satire, not a deconstruction.

You COULD generalize the definition of satire to include deconstructions, but I don't see the point when both can be distinct and useful.

I don't think that is a good idea nor do I believe anyone would do it. I think most good stories are themselves preceded by stories that will never be told. If you tell them then it either won't be as good or itself will be preceded by a story that will never be told. Eventually you have to draw a line. Since the source material is the Flintstones, I think the line is best kept where the Flintstones family dynamic still applies.

I don't think it's a deconstruction or anything. It's a re-imagining of the original cartoon with a more modern sense of humor. Modern humor is just very cynical. The core of the series, the ridiculousness of cavemen doing modern people things, is still untouched.

It's NOT a deconstruction, I spent over 1/2 my time elaborating WHY! READ MONGOLOID!!

Underrated post

>I don't think it's a deconstruction or anything
I've been arguing for the concept of deconstructions but you're right. If this is a deconstruction then it is only tenuously so.

>all this semantics aside
>still blows up about semantics
Jesus Christ, user. There are plenty of people in this thread still talking about that point. Link to them. Argue with them. You understand what I was getting at so why are you dragging me into it?

Did the Jestons leave Elroy behind in the stone age after the crossover movie?

Damn I'm gonna go back and watch some old episodes, see if I pick up that type of stuff. Honestly I was like 4 when I first saw the flintstones and even then it was considered an old classic cartoon

There really is a point where we have to face that a discussion is heading nowhere regardless of how frustrating it might be. It might be better to just let the thread die unless there's a storytime.

I thought a deconstruction was breaking down the genre into it's core elements, and then examining them to see how they'd really work in the real world.

Ie for watchmen, only someone really screwed up would go into the superheroics.

Incidentally, why are they always gritty and super dark? In the real world, you'd have people having a blast if they got into a giant robot, even if they did have to battle giant monsters.

Some short story I read years ago had a group of deconstructionists. Think, like, literal building construction, but using classic literary deconstruction techniques to change landscapes.

One example the story used was the crew was going to reshape a bridge, by discussing said bridge using the literary deconstruction techniques. When they finished, the shape had changed, but it was as if it'd always been that way.

I wish I could remember the name. Deconstruction Gang, maybe?

>I control the thread
>Let the thread die, for I post anime grils

>The Posts keep coming

>It's the creator who is taking a step back and analyzing the genre
Deconstruction has ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL to do with genres.
And you seem to have missed something, because as I've said
>Deconstruction is a concept designed to parse another form of communicative expression. Fiction is so deeply entwined with preexisting forms of language that to use that same language to break it down for examination is circular.
If you're using literary language to dissect literary language, you've accomplished nothing.

>Satire more applies to society and politics.
It's not limited to those things, that's just what's closely associated.

>Watchmen is deconstruction
How? What does it deconstruct? Nothing. Now, what it did do was establish a new status quo, but nothing was deconstructed. Watchemen for all its stylistic flair, still used the same basics of communication and didn't make any profound discoveries about the nature of fictional expression.

There's no need to expand satire's definition because it is already adequate. Hell, there's bound to be an even more appropriate term than satire, I'll even admit that.

Has nothing to do with genres. At best that's just a fictional exploration.
> examining them to see how they'd really work in the real world.
Not sure how you got here.
The word has a definition, and this is very far from the mark.
>why are they always gritty and super dark?
Read more comics.
>In the real world, you'd have people having a blast if they got into a giant robot
Some do
>even if they did have to battle giant monsters.
Some have crippling anxiety because of that.

I have to start using it in Bendis storytimes.

it's not

I like the art more in Prez

>I thought a deconstruction was breaking down the genre into it's core elements, and then examining them to see how they'd really work in the real world.
That is my conception as well. Add a dose of realism instead of strictly following tropes and watch as the genre unravels.

>Incidentally, why are they always gritty and super dark?
The genres most in need of deconstruction are the ones with the strictest adherence to unrealistic tropes, such as genres usually for children where you can't usually show some things.

That said, I'm not condoning writers going full edge with messages like "if a human being got superman's powers he would become a mass murderer because the reality is that humans are shit. CRAWLING...". Granted I can't think of a deconstruction that actually is like that. I wouldn't really call Super God or Irredeemable deconstructions.

Point is, deconstructing something typically constrained by the target audience being young and impressionable usually entails a bit more grit and darkness.

You are losing me user. I suggest you don't link to many posts in one post. Some of the stuff you are directing at me wasn't something you previously said to me, despite you seemingly getting frustrated by me not reading it.

>Deconstruction has ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL to do with genres.
I disagree. If I'm not mistaken I've given you a sufficient definition of deconstruction that fits the popular usage and is not synonymous with any other word.

>deconstruction - the analytic examination of something (as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy
That's from a dictionary page linked itt and my definition more or less fits that definition. I don't see any practical reason to throw out the popular conception in this ccase. It's not like the popular conception is taking away meaning or creating a word for a concept that already has a word for it. It's expanding on a word into a different context in a way that it will add to discourse, not detract from it.

If you say something in anime or comics is a deconstruction everyone will know what you are talking about.

>in order to reveal its inadequacy
If you're using the same inadequate language, then you're artificially limiting yourself with the flaws of the same flawed thing you're trying to discover the flaws of.

I typed that as in-eloquently as I could on purpose.

Fwiw, I used to be on your side of the thought school.

>I don't see any practical reason to throw out the popular conception in this case.
Fair enough, but (obviously) I strongly disagree.
I have to go study now, but take care.

pfft

Well you know, from a stoneage perspective fifty odd years is pretty close.

Why is that, I wonder? With 1/3 of people coming out of the armed forces having shellshock I wonder why they aren't joining these kinds of orgs

It IS though.

It's holding up the concept from another perspective to make observations about both the original show and modernity. That is classic deconstructive method.

That was my fucking high school motto.

This series is way better than it has the right to be.
This is the first comic series I've actually loved in years.

They're probably pretty young dudes and think of them as something for old men

But beyond that the VA has been pretty systematically gutted over the past 30 years

Who knew they would make the Great Gazoo kind of cool.

>You are ignoring the very important bit about Evangelion dealing with how fucked up it is to put a teenager in a giant robot and then expect them to save the world. That is the Anno taking a step back and subverting the genre by dealing with things previous mech animes didn't deal with.
Dude, the original Gundam dealt with that exact thing in fucking 1979.

Issue 3 is one of the best comics I've read this year.

This is an argument that is infinitely reductionist though, isn't it? You can argue and language is inadequate to fully deconstruct a concept because the language being used to deconstruct is just as flawed as the language used to construct a narrative, and that words and meaning are too intricately intertwined for humanity to truly take apart a concept. That's a dead-end philosophically speaking.

VA is filled to the brim with corruption and misspent funds. That whole organization needs to be deconstructed (heh) and built back up from scratch.
Further, I think it points to society as a whole becoming more isolated, which might be why so many people get shellshock in the military to begin with. No social support.

Quality post here, nice

>You are ignoring the very important bit about Evangelion dealing with how fucked up it is to put a teenager in a giant robot and then expect them to save the world.
Yeah because that trope isn't seen a lot.
Hell Bokurano is about kids who were fighting to defend the planet from an unknown threat and originally being hesitant because of both the collateral damage and that it cost them their lives once they were done then they become hesitant because the pilots of the other mechs they were fighting are actually humans as well but from alternate realities who are going through the exact same thing as they are.

The lack of social support for veterans with PTSD is nothing new

It deal with how fucked up it is to force a teenager to get in a giant robot to save the world, or did it simply have an MC who didn't want to get in the fucking robot?

You can download it from the Win-o thread then storytime it. Don't worry, we'll wait.

>GAME WARDEN

Well at least they got together on their own back in the day. Now what do they have?

It had both.
Eva really wasn't as original as people make it out to be.

Online message boards?

POWERGOAT, BIZNATCH!

So, nothing.

I saw some Gundam but not the original. Evangelion went balls deep when it came to how fucked up Shinji was and how absurd it was for the entire fate of our species to be put in his hands. I'm finding it hard to imagine Gundam taking it as far. The only thing I can imagine is
>Kid, get in the fucking robot.
>No.
>Kid, get in the fucking robot or we are all going to die.
>I don't wanna.
>*friend dies due to protag's inaction*
>OMG, I am now resolved to pilot this mech and become the best that ever was so that none of my friends will die again!

>It deal with how fucked up it is to force a teenager to get in a giant robot to save the world
user, that's one of the most common tropes in just about anything really, especially when it comes to mecha.

Don't sell yourself short, user. I find you comforting. Remember that one time you said something nice to that one user? Or that other time where you and another user really related about something?

From someone who watched the original Gundam but only snippets of Eva it would seem the same to them as well especially since the the first time he gets in is as a stand in for Rei.

I don't. I am nothing but an embittered shell of a man using shitposting as a way to feel something, anything again.

You're forgetting

>also lol I'm a Newtype now

What the hell?
I came for "lol looks like Fred's gonna beat Welma again!" grimdark, not "All the work for the last 15 years to get ahead for myself and my family was pointless" nihilism...

I don't remember Gundam Wing doing it, or The 08th MS Team, or Vandread. Also Simon got over his fear before the halfway point unlike Evangelion where it was a big part of the story to the very end.

Also why do they call him See-mone? Can Japs not pronounce Simon (sigh-men)?

You lost me.

>lol looks like Fred's gonna beat Welma again!

Sounds like a shit story, a lazy, boring take on a series that was based on 1950s optimism.

>All the work for the last 15 years to get ahead for myself and my family was pointless

Sounds like a much more interesting perspective.

Pot?

Welcome to The Flintstones, here's your complimentary Too Big Sweatshirt of Despair and tub of ice cream

Amuro was a fucking mess during the events of the original show, and remained fucked up for the rest of his life.

Camille was a Shinji-class whiny little shit for most of Zeta's run. And though he DID eventually man up in this way at the very end of the show, his final battle resulted in him being a catatonic vegetable.

Sometimes they can get a doggo

Alcohol and suicide, to name two.

>I don't remember Gundam Wing doing it, or The 08th MS Team, or Vandread. Also Simon got over his fear before the halfway point unlike Evangelion where it was a big part of the story to the very end.
It being a common trope doesn't mean that every single show does it.

>Also why do they call him See-mone? Can Japs not pronounce Simon (sigh-men)?
It's just a different name. Simon in Gurren Lagann is シモン, while the usual name is サイモン. Pic related is an example of the latter in anime.

Why didn't they just give Shinji antidepressants?

Psychic powers you get from living in space. A next step in human evolution allowing for unparalleled empathy and understanding between humans beings. Became the basis for was what basically a space religion saying that these people would lead us to a new golden age.

Unfortunately every side in the One Year War, and in all the wars sense, looked at these people and all they saw was that it made you really good at killing people in a giant robot. So they stick them in giant robots so they can kill people real good.

>It being a common trope doesn't mean that every single show does it.
The funny thing is that those are my first and most notable experiences with the genre. Oh, those and Big-O, which also didn't deal with it. I'm going to assume you have watched one metric fucktonne of more anime than me so I'll believe you, but it's kind of funny that I watched all the mech animes that DIDN'T have this trope.

>Psychic powers you get from living in space. A next step in human evolution allowing for unparalleled empathy and understanding between humans beings. Became the basis for was what basically a space religion saying that these people would lead us to a new golden age.
Was it literally psychic or was it like the Blue Marble effect? A Blue Marble space religion actually sounds kind of cool.

Also are you implying that I was really close with my depiction of what happened to the protag in the original Gundam? Because I truly haven't seen it. I saw SEED which I think was supposed to be a lot like the original.

All of Amuro's friends and parents were shit, so I'm not surprised.

Honestly he should have joined Char or fucked off with Chan somewhere.

And actually Kamille got his happy ending, in the sequel ZZ he got his mind back and he and Fa left together, never to be heard of again in space conflicts.

And the movie version removed the catatonic state completely.

Seed and Destiny are shit shows that only have the best music in the franchise.

>Also are you implying that I was really close with my depiction of what happened to the protag in the original Gundam? Because I truly haven't seen it.
You weren't.

>but it's kind of funny that I watched all the mech animes that DIDN'T have this trope.
I'm not surprised. Most people go to mecha for the giant robots after all.

>All of Amuro's friends and parents were shit, so I'm not surprised.
>Honestly he should have joined Char or fucked off with Chan somewhere.
You're not going to get any disagreements from me.

>And the movie version removed the catatonic state completely.
Huh, I did not know that.

>tfw working through Early UC Gundam at this very moment

I probably shouldn't be reading this thread.

>You weren't.
Then I don't see the point of saying I left something out.

>Checkmate Atheists.

But wouldn't that mean Evangelion was still a deconstruction, if only a recent deconstruction?

I mean, it's not like a genre ends as soon as someone starts picking at the loose threads. There will probably be another comic like Watchman eventually, not including the actual new Watchman comic.

porn of our true and only God peaches when?

Literal psychic powers that do weird shit to you because you're a teenager. Near the end of the show Amuro meets this girl and falls for her because they're both Newtypes and, in something completely beyond their control, they connect and instantly develop a deep and intimate understanding of one another. Then later he feels her die while she's inside his head.

You got it mostly right with him. He runs off at one point when they get to Earth because he can't handle being responsible for everyone lives on board the ship around the mid point of the series. The captain, who was a ensign only to be made captain by necessity because he was the one of the only dudes left with any actual military training, famously slapped the shit out him because he didn't want to pilot the robot.

See the thing about the original Gundam is their ship is crewed by mostly teenage refugees because everybody else died and throughout the series you watch them become soldiers and it's kind of fucked.

Unseen Gods are better.

Praise Gerald.

>wanting porn of your lord and savior

Have you no shame filthy heathen

Gerald told me that you need to give me your shit.

>Praise Gerald

Newtypes are Space Autists and it's discovered that even with improved ways to communicate, it doesn't stop the fighting and killing.
Seed ended with Coordinators going extinct due to constantly doing the gene manipulation on their children and Naturals are basically subservient due to their own world government falling apart.

Can Gazoo decipher the Earth riddle that is "The Rump"?

So when someone takes an established old cartoon, like robot chicken does, and injects more background based on "you guys know it went down like this" logic, what is that called?

>not listening to the teaches of Peaches

...

trite

Condescension?

Headcanon.

Based Peaches.
PURGE THE HERETIC

Does anyone have that panel from morrison's animal man with bwana beast saying "We should never have left the forest."?

how?

>Ctrl+F through 200 replies
>no GRAND DAD spam

wow this comic really must be good

Not good enough to keep people who post pictures of Anime Girls with retarded expressions out.

Fucking Dropped.

You should have just asked!
But seriously, it's pretty interesting.

...

That's genius.

I wanna see what went on during this war.

>mammoth dips its trunk in a vat of napalm before spraying it into a group of soldiers hiding in the trees
>looks to the reader with a bunch of burning people in the background
>"Eh, it's a living."

I'm coming here from seeing this on the front page, I haven't read any comic books since the mid 90s.

I gather comics in general are just as dead as all other forms of popular media (music, movies, video games, etc.) then?

This seems like it's just blatant pandering to the average manchild stuck on his childrens characters and wants them updated (ah la "le serious business") to his current "maturity" level?

Am I wrong?

Fuck off faggot. Go read the book and form your own opinion about it. Or, here's a thought, read the fucking thread. Niggers are getting stupider by the day around here.

all three of those are nowhere near dead

but you're not wrong on thinking negatively about comics

>I gather comics in general are just as dead as all other forms of popular media (music, movies, video games, etc.) then?
Yeah, I mean, did you think comics were some special media that was amazingly resilient against commercialism?

Well, video games are dying but not in the way he implies.

Well its a pretty grand comic if I do say so myself

>all three of those are nowhere near dead
>detachment/delusion
Hmmm, I guess I should have known.
>commercialism
I'm not sure, would Cred Forums be reading this comic if it was a brand new comic with unfamiliar caveman characters?

...

Hannah-Barbara reused designs and aspects of designs all the time in their cartoons

Did someone story time the newest issue?

Last issue I remember reading was about when the aliens came for spring break in Bed Rock. A lot of people died (disintegrated) and nobody seemed to care.

Can we get a full storytime of all of it for those of us who missed it? That would be swell.

I think that was the last one, it's only a monthly book not every two weeks

I hope the same guy does Jetsons next.

It's Crap

Hell yeah, then they can do Rocky & Bullwinkle, Bugs Bunny, and then maybe Scooby-Doo.

I'm having trouble looking for a download for this, I'm really interested in checking this out.

nah the harley quinn writers are writing the jetsons book sadly

The bit with the vets reminds me of that theory that Shaggy from Scooby Doo might've been in the Korean war.

Best comic I've read in years.

Shaggy was not the Son of Sam.

Explain in greater detail

You can download it manually at your local comic book store.

I fucking love this comic. It's such a simple concept yet so entertaining.

>what the stone age would look like if they saw what modernity looked like and then tried to imitate it without understanding why

Like one big next level cargo cult.

It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's ill-advised because the circumstances that make it possible also make it extremely delicate and tenuous. The only reason a military would use inefficient giant robots to fight an enemy is if that enemy was beyond the capability of conventional weapons; an easy way to do that is to make them aliens that fuck with the laws of physics. Child soldiers tend to come from fucked-up situations that necessitate their use, and they usually end up even more screwed up by their child-soldiering. And so forth.

But the deeper point of Evangelion is why people are entertained by giant robot shows (in particular, the ones MOST entertained by them, NEETs), and it has to do with the way different aspects of those fulfill various psychological longings the viewers have: for power and courage in the face of a threat; for love, trust, and the admiration of others; for a meaning for our lives. Evangelion is a deconstruction because it uses an entry in the mecha genre to examine how we interact with the mecha genre.

Americans have always thought of themselves as rugged individualists, but that was not necessarily true for much of our history, at least in the way that we think of it now. People are a lot more alone than they used to be because technology makes it possible in some ways, and society makes it necessary in often different but often overlapping ways. Urban housing costs and white flight turned us into a country of commuters; the New Economy turned us into a country of nomads; the calculus of income vs expenses vs social friction often makes it easier to "live" alone. People who would have been persecuted can get away now, but on the flip-side, people who need help often can't find it.

What if Dinosaurs got a comic?

They're already doing Scooby-doo

...

>FLINTSTONESxDINOSAURS CROSS EPOCH
It's inevitable.

>That's just satire.
Not even fucking close, retard.

And it does it quite poorly.

>haha the stupid kid masturbated to a comatose girl in the hospital
>how deep and emotional

Am I supposed to find that entertaining?

What the fuck WAS the point of that scene? It came out of major left field, yet listening to the commentary for the movie, they're like "that's TOTALLY what Shinji would do". I know the show played around with the whole "pairing main character up with potential love interests" angle, but playing it straight in the movie seemed like a bizarre move.

>It came out of major left field, yet listening to the commentary for the movie, they're like "that's TOTALLY what Shinji would do"
Thing is, that ISN'T what he would do. He'd sit down and mull over doing it for ages with a blank expression on his face and miss his opportunity.

The more I look at this picture, the sadder I get.

I guess I just never thought of Fred and Barney as people who saw awful things and did awful things. I mean, they were just supposed to be two guys who were friends and so on, not Veterans who saw the darker side of war.

>And it does it quite poorly.
You keep saying that, but you don't really explain how.

Within the narrative, it's about Shinji's fear of being and unwillingness to be upfront and forthright about both his feelings and what he wants. He only steps up when it doesn't mean anything; when he's dealing with an inanimate object that can't react back.

The meta-significance again has to do with the relationship between mecha-fans and their objects of lust, whether it be the cartoon itself or the mecha or the loli, as things that only serve to be pyschological wank material. It works you the way you want to be, hits all the spots you know you have, and still leaves you unsatisfied and with no small amount of self-hatred because you know it isn't anything real. Mecha anime are boys' power fantasies in the same way masturbation is. With Shinji as audience stand in, you've got a wank over a perfect comatose anime waif(u) and the subsequent realization that the connection is nonexistent; it was just a weak replacement for a real thing you don't have the guts to pursue.

Is this the fucking Flinstones?

It's just a vacuum cleaner!

...

uh huh, yeah, and jesus was just a carpenter.

FLEENSTONES?

...

The problem with people who talk about deconstruction is that they're usually assholes who boil down a story to "See how it subverts everything! That's why it's good"

A story can be good whether it plays itself straight or twists at every turn. Before you type out an essay about why you like something, just think

"Will I look like a guy who huffs my own farts to people who read this" before writing it.

when I saw the threads for The Flintstones I ignored them cause they looked dumb, then I saw the artwork and how hot the chicks looked, so I gave it a read when someone did a story time here and I fell in love.
the Flintstones has to be the best comic I've read in the past few years.

>Worshiping a vacuum cleaner

I could get on board with Peaches.

AYY

Is this gonna become a *thing* on Cred Forums? Peaches worship?

They were always veterans, it was just never brought up what they were veterans of, as far as I know.

>that whole Joe story arc
Jesus...

Gundam Wing absolutely did it

Generally because the people who see a "deconstruction" as they call it as a net positive, are the ones who think that if a work is doing what's already been done a lot, it's bad, even if it's a good example of the formula.

I fucking know man. Joe deserved better.

Pretty much my only major complaint so far with this comic has been that the weapon designs just dont work.
Should have just gone with normal spears.

I was going to say madoka probably contributed to but thinking about it im not sure if I would really call it a deconstruction.

>"See how it subverts everything! That's why it's good"
And the problem is, the people who say this have often consumed very little of the actual source material that is supposedly being "subverted." People still trot out the "Eva was the first show to make the scientist dad an asshole or make being a young mech pilot seem like a bad deal" when that is very demonstrably false, even within the Gundam series Anno was a fan of. The difference is that it just happened to be the one to reach the mainstream audience.

On the Flintstones specifically, I would argue that the new comic is actually very faithful to the spirit of the original and not subverting it. Right in the opening theme song, they're described as the "modern stone-age family," which pretty clearly communicates it's going to be about then-modern life satirized using the caveman angle. That's why you get episodes focused on absurdities of the emerging suburbia, the obsession with new appliances (in the form of animals) etc. The new comic does exactly the same thing, just satirizing modern-day life instead of the post-war era. Just replacing the obsession with appliances with an obsession with phones would be valid but also be very superficial.

Gon from Hunter x Hunter is the only deconstruction I know from anime

Can you faggots storytime it instead of posting random panels?

>technically he was before but they didn't play with it
Shit, really?

It takes the themes of the genre and examines them in a realistic context.

I'd like to read it too, is there an archived thread?

Acording to the newsarama reviewer it was a jab at vetrens somehow.
I cant wait to see next issues newasarma review.

>t Evangelion dealing with how fucked up it is to put a teenager in a giant robot and then expect them to save the world

>With Mazinger Z you can either become a God or a Devil

...

The hatred of a new generation of stupid cyber flower children.

I'm a 35 year old parent who's never even been in the armed forces, and even I have that.

Congratulations, I'm a 23 year old man and I'm the devil.

If this is what the 60's were like then fuck that entire decade.

>Add a dose of realism instead of strictly following tropes and watch as the genre unravels.
>The genres most in need of deconstruction are the ones with the strictest adherence to unrealistic tropes
The thing is, the more you know about a genre the more you start to see there is actually a lot more variety in how a trope and stuff is used. And what seemed like an amazing deconstruction, is really just built up of ideas from a lot of old shows

Being a hippy wasn't even popular. It was a very loud minority. The same way the current BS is a loud minority. Granted, that's what makes it even more obnoxious, but it helps to keep that in mind.

Never really got why people call Eva "what would really happen if you put a normal teenager into a giant robot" when it's about putting a walking pile of mental issues in a giant god cyborg thing that he has to drown to pilot and makes him feel all the pain. It's not more realistic, it's just a really dark setup.

Yeah, Flintstones's concept has always been today but in the stone age and with more terrible rock puns. It's just that today back in the sixties was, well, the sixties. If you reboot it today and it's still about the sixties, then there would be an issue.

Then why did they have such a profound impact? Every day I see shit like free love, communism, drug legalization, etc that I thought we all agreed was a terrible idea fifty years ago.

Cause most people value concept over execution. When good execution is way more important to subverting something well but it is X but dark and has a train this time is way more easy to sell people on

Because you can't summary execution. Concept is something you can give in a sentence or two, with execution you can't do that beyond something really vague like "it's better than it sounds".

Because the only thing that matters is action and the result of that action. Thought, feeling, or even weight of the masses matters worth shit if you don't utilize them for the results you want. Even intent is a meaningless term. All that matters is the action itself.

They are passionate and willing to put their desires in to action. It is the very fact they are a loud minority that makes it so easy to do.

How do you drown them out?

I always hear the "WELL IT'S NOT HURTING ANYONE" thing and really, there's no counter. I could say that what they do negatively impacts the things that make societies work, that they set terrible examples and promote things that'll mess kids up.

But I'd just be called a racist, homophobic cis shitlord or some bullshit.

This is true, but it is also more than that.

Especially for more passive viewers, people really don't think that much about what they watch. Their preconceived notions don't really change while watching, many will even push what they want onto a show rather than what a show is saying (tumblr is especially bad for this). It is easiest to see this when a show is selling on being dark and gritty but really is just childish and stupid as fuck, yet people still act like it is realistic and down to earth.

Hippies were simply a counterculture element to late 60s youth culture that went mainstream. Actual, "tune in, turn on, drop out," hippies were rare, but people following some of the ethos and whatnot were pretty common.

On a personal level or a marcro level?

On a personal level; Words, opinions, and ideals don't exist. They are things people pretend exist. SJWs can claim water is wet because it has moist privileged, but that doesn't change anything intrinsic to water no matter what they say. People can call you shit all they like, but that doesn't make it mean anything. You can turn this system around on a personal day to day level. If they can make up their own perspective, so can you. You can shift your own perspective of anything to help yourself. It has just as much validity as anyone else's point of view.

On a macro level, you still have to live in whatever society the unconcious human collective mind decides on. No one can control it no matter how much they claim to. Shit just happens. What you do is aim to live your life the best you can in the circumstance provided. Don't try to control the situation itself. Look at what you do have and enjoy it. All other things that serve you no purpose and give you nothing of value you simply toss away like a dead rotting limb.

The Flintstones were a cartoon version of The Honeymooners.
Why would you think they were ever only just for kids.
Ah yeah that eps where Fred tries to get stuff ready for his wedding anniversary, gets mistaken as a wanted criminal, and gets chased around town by the police. These episodes are clearly made to relate to that child audience of theirs.

Former military with PTSD seems like pandering to manchildren to you?

Unless you can provide tangible proof of negative impacts you'll always just sound like you're just bitching. You've also got to remember that the most prominent examples of anything are that way because they're the most self-promoting, not because they're good examples. For instance, Milo Yiannopoulos.

Fifty years ago the War on Drugs hadn't even started yet, free love had only began to be a thing because of the birth of modern contraceptives, and it was the height of the Cold War. You're an idiot.

>motivation doesn't guide or shape action
>the act of thinking or feeling is not an action
>nihilism
>solpsisim
You're an idiot, too.

>free love had only began to be a thing because of the birth of modern contraceptives
I see someone doesn't know shit about the soviets

>Don't try to control the situation itself. Look at what you do have and enjoy it.
>thing I enjoy gets ruined

Now what?

Thought is meaningless if you only think it to yourself. That's why the loud minority has power. Merely thinking it doesn't do anything. You cannot argue this is false.

Nihilism is fine. It's a launching point for realizing you should be self determined rather than trusting your fate to some fuzzy definition of everything having a larger meaning or purpose or the whims of people you don't even know. Things not having inherent meaning is NOT a bad thing. It's a good thing. It means whatever is decided can be redecided as many times as needed and to suit any situation. Things having a 'true' meaning is the worst kind of hell that could happen.

No, it was more a jab of "How could they develop a character so much and then kill him off for a joke"

Find a new thing. Nothing lasts forever, user.

Not even your life.

Enjoy things you like while you can and while the feeling lasts without shame or regret. It'll be gone for one reason or another. Just don't torture yourself by latching on to nostalgia till your deathbed.

Control what you can. Don't worry about what you can't. Cast away useless shit in your life that doesn't help you no matter how 'fond' you've become of them.

Advocates for sexual liberation in the Soviet Union died out after the Great Turn, where traditional family life was emphasized (despite the traditional opposition to the 'bourgeois' family upheld by the Communist ideology) to encourage population growth. Yes these people existed, but these people have always bloody existed, and you're an idiot if you believe that people like Kollontai where ever prominent, even in the 20s, let alone in the Stalin era and beyond.

While the Eastern Bloc had a more liberal view on sexuality compared to pre-Pill western Europe, more 'liberated' in a certain sense, it still had fairly conservative constraints, and when the Sexual Revolution came it didn't hit as hard on the East as it did in the West. And the majority of Sexual "Revolutionaries" (performing 'radical' 'experiments' in reshaping the family) who were Communists were anarchists (or people with anarchistic leanings) who were almost entirely opposed to the USSR, and vice versa.

Denying reality might make you feel better about it, but it won't release you out of the shackles of reality. If we are to deal with both our own personal problems and broader larger social issues, we'll have to attempt to understand the reality that put us there in the first place. Deluding yourself as being wealthy when you're poor and have shit to eat won't change that fact. And upholding that truth 'exists' isn't the same as dogmatically accepting "Truth" (with a capital 'T').
>inb4 muh spooks!

>inb4 muh spooks!
If you are poor and want to be rich, it would likely be more beneficial to pursue wealth rather than accept the idea that poverty makes one "noble" (spook). Now, it may not be feasible for you to achieve all of your desires, but ridding yourself of spooks is an important first step towards working to at least a few of them.

>realistic context
This is thrown around a lot, but it's not really all that true. What it does is examine it in a logical context, one free of the usual barriers that prevents certain eventualities from occurring. Things like conventions that require characters, relationships, and plots to play out one way get analyzed to show how it's just as logical to assume people might behave otherwise, frequently underscoring the unstated assumptions in the conventions.

But they're rarely realistic. An organizations like Nerv ever operating like it does would be fucking laughable with the idiocy it gets up to. The Boys and Watchmen both feature almost absurdly melodramatic and hamfisted grimness to make their points (And some absurdity on the former's end too). These stories are crafted to make a point, and thus have conventions of their own, usually mirror images of the ones they're otherwise doing away with. Consistently assholish where they were expected to be traditionally heroic. Depressed and low on confidence where one might expect them to be emotional and bold. The worst case scenario instead of the best. All of these end up becoming predictable because they're just as narrative driven as the older stories they're building off of.

A Song of Ice and Fire is no more a realistic portrayal of medieval Europe than Lord of the Rings just because it has more gore and rape.

It's not about lying to yourself. Maybe an example would help.

Lets say you are walking by two people and they suddenly snicker about something as you walk past. What happened just then? Well, they could be laughing about you, feasibly. They could also not have noticed you and the laughter is incidental. You could probably engineer a scenario in your personal fantasy world why two people you don't know would do that, but what difference does any option make on your life? Nothing you choose to believe in the scenario impacts any real value. Only perceived values you hold yourself. At that point, why would you choose to believe an option that only serves to add personal grief to yourself rather than the other option? Even if they WERE laughing at you, it doesn't change anything. There's no reason to indulge the idea even if it ends up being true.

Also this.

Or you could just accept you aren't rich and don't want to be for whatever reason. You don't HAVE to be rich. If it's worth it to try is up to you. Not what society says about being rich nor what others say about being rich.

>Deconstruction has ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL to do with genres.
Um... No? Deconstructions frequently rely on addressing the conventions of a genre and exploring their implications.

>Watchmen is deconstruction
>How? What does it deconstruct? Nothing.
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

>Nothing lasts forever, user
Ahem, memes user. Memes.

>You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
You're using completely different definitions of "deconstruction." He'said trying to apply the actual literary criticism definition, and you are applying the TV Tropes definition.

Even memes die, summer poster. No one remembers memes from the first two years of Cred Forums, for example.

It should be noted that addressing the conventions of a genre and exploring their implications does not mean that the work is a deconstruction.

Hadn't heard of this.

Betty is still hotter. All is right with the world.

...

What's the qualifier, then?

I spent 30 minutes writing a response, but my computer fucked up so it's all gone now, so I had to rewrite it all and I feel miserable.

My point is that upholding that ascertaining what is 'truthful' in accordance to reality (meaning a la 'science' for lack of a better word) does not mean dogmatically assuming a pseudo-religious 'Truth' (meaning a la 'teleology').

You're assuming that the pursuit of wealth in case of impoverishment 'perhaps' may be beneficial, but this assumes first of all that it would be, abstracting away how and why you think as such, or the conditions and nature of your impoverishment (the same goes for wealth). But arguing against that kind of nihilist would be worthless because to do so would mean concede a criterion of truth and falseness.

I'm no philosopher, but if there's one thing I understand, it's that meaning spontaneously arises, and is inevitable. When we observe an object, we abstract from it certain details we concentrate on and ignore others. What nihilism does by reject meaning and its apprehension, is by replacing a refinement of how we understand the object with incoherent posturing. Since judgment (construction of 'meaning') is an inevitable condition of understanding, by rejecting meaning and therefore judgment, we're left with nothing but unconscious normative notions that are commonly accepted at face value. Skepticism of reality in its ultimate egotist forms ultimately is just another form of dogmatism in that it simply adopts normative prejudices of what is real at face value because of it's refusal to admit the existence of reality. When it comes to "spooks", we're back where we started - left with obfuscating abstractions.

Then it's satire

There really isn't a single qualifier and intent matters greatly. You can also have deconstructions within a work but not have the work itself be a deconstruction and vice versa.

Watchmen is a deconstruction, Chaykin's Twilight is not a deconstruction. Watchmen deconstructs superheroes by showing that mundane heroes barely have any impact due to the inherently limited nature of their ability to affect society while high-powered heroes fundamentally alter the nature of the world. That the superheroic universe cannot exist as a real world analogue with a couple of guys in tights running around as is the case with DC/Marvel. Twilight showed that the genre conventions of early-to-mid century sci-fi don't form an inherent contradiction when a more realistic approach is taken. The ignored or glossed over negative implications of the conventions become apparent, but the foundations remain sound.

all this from a fucking Flintstones thread

Yeah, I felt that Prez was too on the nose. Flintstones does stuff BESIDES tell us how horrible we are.

Too bad you get something better.

Cred Forums IS A BOARD FOR ANIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

@w@

Prez could have stood to be more even-handed with it's satire.

Holy shit, you got 5 stars out of 5, and I just have 2 stars and this shitty emote :(

Not gonna lie, I was hoping this discussion had died already. I still don't understand why people cling so hard to the term deconstruction. I guess it's one of those buzzwords people just refuse to let go.

>abstracting away how and why you think as such
If that is a valuable criterion to person X for determining whether or not they would like to pursue wealth or not, that does not necessarily hold true for person Y, who may simply accept that such is "their" desire. In this case, when Person Y pursues wealth they will genuinely enjoy it, whereas Person Xmay desire a lower-stress and simpler pursuit but not allow themselves to admit it because they are possessed by an external spook of "success."

>it's that meaning spontaneously arises,
It is not spontaneous, it only arises when perceived by an individual. Because various meanings are shared in similar circumstances, either genuinely or as the result of a shared spook, there is the illusion that meaning exists as some external, independent entity. But at best it can exist as a simplified description of the many similar meanings that exist within many individuals: if you were to remove the individuals the "meaning" would also be removed.

>admit the existence of reality
Reality is not a spook. If your body ceases to respire, you will die. Your will does not override this.
"Reality," as in the collective set of assumptions about lowercase-r-no-quotation-marks reality used to manipulate the desires of the individual, is. If your will contradicts the parts of "Reality" that are not shared with reality, you are free to attempt to ignore them, just as other individuals are free to be haunted by them, and to the victor go the spoils.

>yfw Flintstones was shoved down America's throats so hard that they started to love it, I mean magazine derided the first season as a "A pen and ink disaster"

Nothing against the current comic, but the truth is that the Flintstones were never good.

That looks interesting.

Because the animals as appliances makes so much sense.

WAHA DESU~

>It is not spontaneous, it only arises when perceived by an individual.
It's spontaneous in that it arises immediately. By "spontaneous" I mean rather the initial immediate arising conception, and I'm implying that it's universal. "Meaning" doesn't exit outside of our head, material reality does; which meaning is nothing but a refracted reflection of. And the construction of meaning is inevitable.

Let me restate something. Ascertaining reality ("lowercase-r-no-quotation-marks reality" that is), doesn't necessitate imposing a pseudo-religious telos on the movement of things. You're supplanting meaning a la empirical readings of a material reality with emotional imposing on how things are.

My point is that the criterion to separate "reality(no-quotation-marks)" to "Reality"(muh spooks) is incoherent because of the nature of nihilism rejects the existence of criterion for appropriate judgement. Ultimately, this means that any accepted notions that aren't considered 'spooks' are arbitrary and are bent towards 'common sense', meaning that we leave where we started - with 'common sense' normative prejudices taken at face value that exist as obfuscating abstractions.

Reducing broader social issues into individual personal experience is ultimately, well, a reduction, an abstraction. Refusal to evaluate because of the 'risk' (for lack of a better word). The fact of the matter is that if we don't directly face reality, unlike your example, we'll deal with dire consequences. Society isn't just three guys.

BREAD
R
E
A
D

*on how things should be

Well, for one thing, spooks aren't a nihilist concept, they're an egoist concept. The separation between reality and "Reality" is based on the will of each individual and the personal version of the spook that does or does not haunt them.

>it's not a deconstruction, it's a satire

It's a humorous deconstruction.

I've seen quite a few Stirnerites call themselves nihilists. It's not nihilism in general, just their kind.

And as I said, individualizing broader phenomena just reduces - abstracts - away essential conditions to why and how they function the way they do. What is necessary is to understand them as they really are to deal with them, and denying reality through denying objectivity just gets in the way of that.

As I said, skepticism in it's ultimate egotist forms is just another form of dogmatism. Being that there's no formal or objective standard (because solipsism) for assessing judgement over what constitutes a spook, how non-spooks are determined are arbitrary, and for the most part adheres to commonly accepted normative prejudices. And there's no point to argue over anything since nothing is truly objective anyways. Which again, leads us to where we began - with obfuscating abstractions (which 'de-spooking' is supposed to get rid of).

What's it deconstructing?

can someone storytime?

>Society isn't just three guys.
Small scales exist, and it is often the small scale that plagues daily life. People are so busy looking at the macro scale, in part thanks to our newly interconnected world society, they forget that everything is made up of it's original smaller parts still.

I'm also not a fan of believing there is one all knowing concept you can build your life around for every situation. Thus why I broke down my advice in to micro and macro scale previously. Small scale interpersonal relations are one thing. A society that ebbs and flows beyond the control of an individual is quite another.

If you can learn to manage the day to day life issues, the macro scale societal flow doesn't look so intimidating all of a sudden, either. You might even see how little of your daily life it can effect, too, as every big system is made of smaller ones that can be handled easier individually. You see a colossus. I see a bunch of midgets hiding in a colossus costume.

>What is necessary is to understand them as they really are to deal with them, and denying reality through denying objectivity just gets in the way of that.
Again, there is no denying objective reality, because any attempt to will quickly fail. Breathing is not a spook.

>which 'de-spooking' is supposed to get rid of
Acknowledging spooks as spooks isn't intended to reject obfuscation abstractions in general, only to free the individual to pursue their self-interest rather than serving the spook. If one takes possession of the abstraction, it ceases to be a spook and is just an idea. Getting rid of them wholesale is not prescribed (unless of course some individual wishes to do so.)

i'm not sure what's happened to this thread but i'm not gonna complain

>only to free the individual to pursue their self-interest rather than serving the spook.
I am the one that started this whole debate (by mistake) and have never heard of the term spook used like this. Still, this sound like what I was getting at exactly.

I think everyone needs to learn basic self interest even if it risks making them kind of an asshole. You can't function without it simply because certain things can't be provided by others. Particularly certain emotional needs. Certain things can only be given by the self to the self. To that point, yes, you need to learn how to ignore others so you can serve your own perspective.

This is the necessary foundation. Even someone who desperately just wants to help others or only live for others needs it. Else they will find they don't have the capability nor the willpower to carry through with their desire.

If you were truly a good person then you'll come back around to it after mastering self interest. If you weren't, well, at least you're no longer burdened even if you're a massive wailing cock.

Instead of "serving" the spook, you could also say that you were "possessed" by it, you became its property,.or whichever terminology. The point is that if someone gives up their agency to an idea that tells them how they "should" think or act, they're no longer acting according to their internal self-interest/desires.

It feels like this is being covered with a lot of BS terminology, but I agree with the idea. I'm just also saying self interest isn't wrong. It SHOULD be taught. You need to start with love of the self or else you're just a broken individual. No good to you, your family, your friends, and just a burden on society in general.

Not saying one must USE their self interest. However, they have to understand it to the point that they easily could. If they wanted to.

You've no idea how many personal friends I've talked through this concept and helped tremendously. SO many people raised with the "never consider the self" ideals that are 20somethings and unable to cope with day to day life because Mommy and Daddy and School and Mister TV told them that sparing a moment for their own needs was evil. Most of them ended up being kinder, more thoughtful, people afterwards.

I would be sickened by parenting, but that's a waste of energy. I'd rather reach out to whoever I can. Even if it's just a few personal friends.

>Vandread
You said, so I will.

Hibiki x Meia. Superior.
Hibiki x anyone else. Inferior.

Even Hibiki x Jotoro?

Dude the Water Buffalos were a literal parody of veteran's associations.

I mean the jab was at how we treat veterans so its ALMOST accurate.

Bedroom eyes: The comic

See:

I don't understand the hyperbolic praise for this comic. It's a heavy-handed political cartoon from some guy in Portland.

>I prefered it when Fred Beat Welma every day rather then once a week.

See

>Fred beat Wilma

That never happened, you numale faggot.

The thing that annoys me about hipsters who hate on Eva is that they invariably miss the nuance of the arguments people are making. Very rarely is it said that Eva was "the first to do x" narrative element. What Eva did was to use subversive elements to make a meta-argument about the nature of the genre. That's deconstruction. You people get so bogged down in nerd pablum of the premise and narrative and miss the overarching philosophical exploration (which, ironically, is one of the things Evangelion addresses, most superfically in the whole, "You idiots were so concerned about the aliens and the melodrama and the conspiracies and PSYCH the show is about human relationships.").

>What Eva did was to use subversive elements to make a meta-argument about the nature of the genre.

No it didn't. Eva wasn't the first mech show with a psychologically troubled protagonist.

What "subversive elements" was it employing, if you're acknowledging that other examples of the genre already had those elements? What was the meta-argument about the genre the genre itself had failed to supply? What was the coherent philosophy that other examples failed to explore?

...

It didn't burn. flint bursts when struck, in to a milion of shrapnel like little blades. It would be like droping bouncing razor blades. And if they diped those or the bag in human escrements pre drop, the wounds would fester.

>Putting words in other's mouths

Okay, Satan.

Nice Quads Lucifer.

>You idiots were so concerned about the aliens and the melodrama and the conspiracies and PSYCH the show is about human relationships.").

Sounds like a cop-out like what the producers of Lost always said.

9999 has nothing to do with Lucifer/

Dude...

yeah, he just can't beat the old 16-bit damage limits.

Nigger if you didn't understand what I wrote don't reply.

The guy I replied to mentioned one, the scientist father (common mecha element) that isn't there to help the protagonist (a subversion of the norm that several shows besides Eva use). In earlier shows, it was to subvert expectations and create a new element of drama (Amuro's father generally being ineffectual first as a father and then as an engineer serving to help explain Amuro's detachment and to add melodrama to his predicament). In keeping with what I said above, Gendo's actions, motivations, and relationship to Shinji stood in parallel to mecha fanboys' use of anime as a resource to mine false satisfaction as from a from a child from his father. The genre as a whole is more than eager to fulfill that role on its face, but Gendo reflects the reality of that dynamic, in that he does not really give a shit about Shinji in terms of his motivations and intent; the ShinjiViewer is just a means to an end.

I suppose a lot of people latch onto the subversive elements themselves, but they really aren't the point. The point is how they're used in service of Eva's overarching critique.

Lost's ending definitely played out like a cop-out JRPG ending. There weren't the same kinds of indications that it was coming earlier in the series like there was with Eva.

Has the Great Gazoo shown up yet, or too soon?

he actually showed up at the end of last issue

so basically your argument is not that Eva did those subversive elements first but rather than it did them better than all those before it?

Deconstruction literally means "this is what happens when your characters act like actual human beings" which inevitables means people will abuse superpowers

The only real deconstructions are arguably Watchmen and Madoka, however madoka trivialized it's deconstructionist elements by making it part of an evil keikaku

>imblign I don't have a folder specifically for old Cred Forums shit

Yeah, the lodge was meant to be like vet groups

Honestly, I doubt Madoka is a hard deconstruction, with the reason that, having the ability to grant any wish and offering this chance to young girls should result in more devastation.

Honestly, I would say it would take less than 3 wish grantings to fuck up the world, and it's implied that there were thousands of girls who took up that offer without permanently fucking up the universe(until Madoka comes along).

music, movies, video games, and comics are bigger now than they have ever been in the past and just get bigger every day

you're retarded

Do you ever find it hard to breath with your head stuck so far up your own ass?

>blah blah blah
anyone gonna fuckin upload the .cbr?

Sure user, got it right here.

_________ www.google.com _______

thank you friendo, that actually worked just great

holy shit I love it

>cockmongler
I...I haven't heard that name in years...

Yes, long before aliens were a meme, Flintstones had aliens.

Throughout the stars, alien civilizations will talk about the ancient Earth musician, Rump Springa