The Problem of Easy Healing

[Lord Raziere]

Throughout the Playground, I've heard people express the sentiment that whatever form of easy healing or some in cases, resurrection, the protagonist possesses in various shows kills the tension or whatever and such. I'm don't really remember the exact complaints, but I generally remember that people are expressing that they dislike the constant healing and can't really view anything dramatically in that show anymore and so on and so forth.

This is a problem.

Not with the show. The show is working as intended. The easy healing is apart of the design. It would not be included if it wasn't meant to be something that contributes to the show or media, and doesn't somehow establish what the show in question has in mind and what direction its going in. and the direction clearly isn't some dark, death is permanent kind of thing, but it still acknowledges that this sort of thing can still happen and can still be shocking. everyone knows that when we break an arm- it can be healed right up, once its set properly and you wait long enough. its still shocking when it happens though, because its still someone getting hurt, its still a major injury that poses a threat to their wellbeing and it just happened out of the blue.

No, the problem is with people watching the show.

No really, the show is not the problem, its you. your allowing the knowledge to drag you out of the moment and ruin the experience for you. your not intended to go "oh he has easy healing, he will be fine soon" thats not the point. the point is the uncertainty, that this MIGHT be the time he might NOT receive it. there is always a chance of it, in universe. your thinking thats it a certainty just because it happened time and time again.

furthermore, not everyone is ok with the characters only existing for a short period of time, some of us like having characters around to continue to exist and do things, even though they went through combat and got injured. some of us like them to live and to show up again so that they can be shown in a different situation, reveal more about them and so on.

that and….in such shows where there is easy healing, its not really about the peoples bodies that is at stake, again not the point. its often about other things, about wider things, about the character motives and emotions, about whether this town will be saved or not or whatever. Again, by focusing on the easy healing your missing the wider point, the easy healing is there to uphold something else. ok?

Because, the easy healing is less of a thing itself, and more like a part of the setting's foundation that upholds the show. its a background thing, not a foreground thing. the background might influence the foreground action, but its not apart of the foreground itself, you get what I am saying? focusing on the easy healing is shooting yourself in the foot to enjoying the show. because the easy healing is not a thing that is supposed to matter. I know, hard to wrap your head around. What matters is the fight, the conflict. the moment.

If you look at something with easy healing like RWBY, or Naruto, or Bleach, or Homestuck, or Dragonball Z, or Fairy Tail….and think of it having no tension or anything? sorry dude. thats not the shows problem. that is yours. Because I find all of these shows enjoyable, the easy healing doesn't detract from my experience of witnessing combat or death with ANY of them. at all. and if you find the easy healing a problem, such things are probably not the shows for you. thats the truth of it. Sorry, but its true. your the only problem here, don't like it, don't watch it.

I post this because I heard this complaint, way too many times on Giant in the Playground. I don't consider the problem generated by Easy healing to be easy healing itself, but the problem of people focusing too much on easy healing to the detriment of looking at the show. Thats my honest take on the problem.

Just getting it off my chest.

[Red_Boulder]

No, the problem is with people watching the show.

Oh, obviously. Whenever I watch a bad show/movie I have to remind myself the problems aren't with the work of fiction, it's with me and everyone else watching it. Really, that's the problem with most "bad" works. It's just the audience. Twilight, Manos: the Hands of Fate, and the Star Wars prequels are actually excellent works. It's just the audience that needs to stop complaining about it and blind love it without any logical objections.

And Lord Raziere, if anybody ever calls you stupid for voicing this, remember, the problem isn't with you. It's with everyone else.

:smallwink:

[Scowling Dragon]

Yeah what the above guy said.

This was incredibly patronizing and goes against basic laws of essentially anything.

Why did I stop caring about Adventure Times romance plots?

Because at any point in time the writers may (And the issue is more likely WILL pull) pull a "Reset button" so I have no reason too get invested at all into believing this will work.

Why did I stop Caring about Homestuck? Because there is no tension. Because nobody suffers any meaningful consequences and everybody diddles around for years on end.

[Lord Raziere]

Scowling dragon, your complaint is that medias/shows whatever have a formula.

y'know….like every show ever.

every show has a formula, consistencies, things that don't change. the return to status quo. its a tried and true part of storytelling. I can't think of a show that doesn't have its formulas or its default way of doing things, that it eventually returns to.

easy healing is apart of that. the purpose is so that things can continue and you can keep viewing it, which probably means you can enjoy it more, and if you don't enjoy it, your probably not viewing it either, so really, your disliking the show for its formula, which is kind of like just disliking the show.

your complaining about the show being what it is. you do realize that right? Adventure Time probably isn't supposed to be a serious romance show, and Homestuck is certainly not a death is permanent story or anything.

[Scowling Dragon]

Scowling dragon, your complaint is that medias/shows whatever have a formula.

No. By-gum you seem not to understand why people get upset over bad writing.


y'know….like every show ever.

A formula is sailor moons "High school related problems, monster exposed, fight monster".

Thats a formula.

"None of my characters suffer a consequence and I mutilated the pacing so hard that it breathes through a bus sized apparatus"

Is NOT a formula. Thats just bad writing.



your complaining about the show being what it is. you do realize that right? Adventure Time probably isn't supposed to be a serious romance show

So why present episodes that are based around purely romance if at the end it won't matter too anybody? Its then just wasting time that It could replace with a silly adventure episode.


Homestuck is certainly not a death is permanent story or anything.

And it suffers evermore for it. Because in any fight scene Im just looking at my watch hoping it goes by quickly since I lack investment in the characters.

Investment in the characters is the KEY too 99% of all stories. And its hard too get invested into the struggles of a character that will never suffer any consequences.

[Lord Raziere]

I get invested just fine and enjoy what I see. so…I don't see whats so objectively bad here if I can get invested and you can't. seems more like a subjective thing.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well outside of the fact that you kinda started it by saying "Its YOU who are all wrong! My enjoyment of this somehow makes it better!".

Why DO you find fight scenes that have no consequence interesting?

I don't like Homestuck because its just effin around and the characters act like emotionless robots (Except for unimportant bits).

Nobody expresses "Holy **** my fathers dead!". No emotion is treated seriously.

When the characters act like weirdos with emotions put either on the "Mute" or "Teen Romance Drama" settings, I don't feel for their plight. When I don't care for them, I can't really care for anything in the story.

[Aotrs Commander]

Easy healing, of course, means that you can afford to deal out far more damage.

In something like CSI, a dude gets shot, it has to be written in for yonks thereafter, so you can't do it very often.

It struck me in Charmed that access to their cleric (i.e. Leo) meant that the witches could be dealt far more delibertating damage, because it could be fixed afterwards. (See also Raise Dead et al in most RPGs.) In the same way a good DM doesn't screw your characters without some way of getting them back but waits until curative methods are at least available (if not always to hand), a writer needs to balance the damage meted out to characters with what they can recover from.

Unless of course you want to emulate real life as much as possible and make injuries permenant and end up with a high turn-over of characters (in which case, you can expect me personally not to give a crap about whatever it is you're producing). Also, in TV shows, this is usually not practical just on the basis that cast changes get expensive. So realistically, you are almost never going to get that, as either injury will be avoided if delibitating or patched up via some means if it is, just on the basis it is a show wherein people have to act and be paid...

So Lord Raziere has a point. Granted, it could have been put across a great deal better and less confrontationally, but still.

[Scowling Dragon]

There is a difference between levels of prefered endurance on a character, and the "no death by dues ex machina" of Homestuck.

Charmed IS a good example of this where the rules of what can be done are changed arbitrarily depending on the whims of the writers resulting in an oozing clustered mess of a plot.

[Aotrs Commander]

There is a difference between levels of prefered endurance on a character, and the "no death by dues ex machina" of Homestuck.

Can't speak to that, never having read or whatevered it.


Charmed IS a good example of this where the rules of what can be done are changed arbitrarily depending on the whims of the writers resulting in an oozing clustered mess of a plot.

Inconsistency is a whole seperate problem.

Perhaps a better example would be something like Star Trek - or Harry Potter - where the greater availability of healing allows the protagonists to suffer catastrophic injury that can be fixed up relatively easily. (Harry had the bones of his arm melted and it was fixed with, what, a night's bedrest?)

At the same time it's not perfect.

More extreme is D&D and by extension, OotS, where even death is not permenant and indeed it takes a bit of doing to even keep the heroes dead for a while!

[Xondoure]

Funny you mention Naruto… There was a certain fight where a certain ninja who was incredibly powerful deals unprecedented damage to Konoha. The only thing remotely comparable was Orochimaru's onslaught before the power level shot up like a sky rocket.

In this certain fight this certain ninja actually ends up killing people. And bringing even more to near death. This despite the efforts of the best healer we've seen in the show.

Keep in mind, up until this point people die. It doesn't happen often. But there's a whole plot line about murdering some of the most dangerous ninjas in the world. Kakashi is a good guy and he attempted to murder Zabuza and killed Haru instead. Which is pretty heavy stuff for Shonen.

Then at the end of the fight the person with possibly the most warped and twisted sense of morality (other villains don't claim to be acting for the common good) becomes a good guy because of a speech about hope and ressurects everyone he murdered.

That is not good storytelling. And though I kept on for a few months after that, that was pretty much the turning point into me disliking the series.

Edited for personal opinion: if Naruto had been a seinen, it would be one of the best mangas ever written.

[Jerthanis]

I think a better way of looking at this is that the limitations and abilities of powers need to be clearly established. If you want tension to be built in a conflict that has a healing power involved, you need to bring its limitations into play.

For instance, in Smallville, Clark could pretty much instantly heal from any damage he sustained while meteor rock was present if he was isolated from it, but until then, he was disabled entirely. So the conflict and tension wasn't in the rate of his recovery, but in the isolation of the kryptonite. If they had set up the scene to involve characters worrying about the wounds themselves, then you'd have the audience shouting at the screen telling them to just get rid of the kryptonite, since that's the actual source of the conflict.

So like, in Dragonball Z, where Senzu beans exist, you can't just establish the conflict as "X character is getting tired/injured and the tide is turning against them" because you're just going to think, "Well, just eat a Senzu and outlast your opponent!"... You could suggest they can't eat a Senzu in the middle of a fight, but they've done so multiple times. In this way, easy healing does detract from the tension because you can't help thinking that, given sufficient senzu, any of the main characters could've beaten any of their major antagonists. Arguably, the problem with DBZ in this respect is that the limitations of Senzu aren't clearly enough established.

[Aotrs Commander]

Or you force the fight to be such that they are REQUIRED to use the senzu beans (e.g. have both sides have senzu beans or fight using a huge amount of enemies that require a lot of killing with power-draining attacks) and/or go on long enough that they run out. (I mean it's DBZ, it's not like you couldn't done that with the length of their fights...)

(Note: I am not hugely familiar with DBZ, having seen it from Frieza, then from the tail-end of Cell to the Bhu arcs, so it might be there are occasions - like the fight with the androids they've reached in DBZ Abridged - where this happens.)

You have to balance damage dealt with recovery: if the former is too easy, you probably haven't scaled the threat right.

[Closet_Skeleton]

A formula is sailor moons "High school related problems, monster exposed, fight monster".

Thats a formula.

That's a structural formula. Other uses of the word are legitimate. 'Status quo is god' can be part of a formula.


Is NOT a formula. Thats just bad writing.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. You can choose a formula that just doesn't work, or is inappropriate. Slavish following of a formula can also be to the detriment. Even Sailor Moon and its successors break the formula when its a plot critical episode. The first few seasons of Pretty Cure copy Sailor Moon's formula exactly and have the problem that whenever the monster of the week battles actually get interesting they have to be cut short with a super attack because they're not allowed to be two parters or even to start until after the add-break so time is limited for them.


(Harry had the bones of his arm melted and it was fixed with, what, a night's bedrest?)

Several weeks actually, but its a novel with a year time-line so it can do that and not slow down the plot because it has a lot of time it needs to burn through without anything happening anyway.


Edited for personal opinion: if Naruto had been a seinen, it would be one of the best mangas ever written.

I'm not sure how much target audience would effect that. Its not like people get resurrected in Naruto because its audience isn't allowed to witness permanent death. People do die permanently in Naruto. There are as many gory terrible Seinen full of permanent death that just meander around and plenty of Seinen were characters get resurrected (eg Gantz).

At least resurrection spells had already been introduced before that point and the same limitation (killing the caster) was followed, even if the scale was bumped up beyond belief.

[Scowling Dragon]

That's a structural formula. Other uses of the word are legitimate. 'Status quo is god' can be part of a formula.

Wouldn't consider "Status quo" part of a formula, merely an effect of a formula.

Like where in ST Voyager they constantly discover super tech and throw it away next episode.

[Aotrs Commander]

Several weeks actually, but its a novel with a year time-line so it can do that and not slow down the plot because it has a lot of time it needs to burn through without anything happening anyway.

No, he had to spend the night in the hospital while it re-grew the bones. Just the night (he couldn't sleep because of the pins-and-needles).

(I'd give you an exact quote, but my sister moved out and took all the HP books with her.)



I'm not sure how much target audience would effect that. Its not like people get resurrected in Naruto because its audience isn't allowed to witness permanent death. People do die permanently in Naruto. There are as many gory terrible Seinen full of permanent death that just meander around and plenty of Seinen were characters get resurrected (eg Gantz).

At least resurrection spells had already been introduced before that point and the same limitation (killing the caster) was followed, even if the scale was bumped up beyond belief.

(You're quoting Xondoure, not me, there!)

[Xondoure]

What I mean is that Naruto would be fantastic if it didn't pull its punches. It was allowed to be edgy in the beginning. Then at some point it got popular and ever afterwards there was more and more pressure to make it mainstream.

When Kakashi died there was an absolute uproar. A few issues later they bring him back. The plot got so ridiculous and so watered down from where it had started it just fell apart for me. I can't name one arc post time skip I like better than before.

And even though one of the main villains goals is to live forever, death has been treated very cheap as the story continued.

So yes, they ramped up healing magic to ramp up the damage they can do. It became an epic level story. And in my opinion it did not help or add value to the plot in anyway. All of the moments that stand out in my mind are when the violence gets frighteningly real. (Rock Lee vs. Gaara stands out. The tension over Lee's longterm health would seem ridiculous at this stage in the story.)

[Forum Explorer]

The problem with easy healing isn't so much it's existence as much as the bull used by bad writers. Easy healing is used more as a handwave so the characters don't suffer any consequences of their actions.

Easy Healing is a good way to keep the pace of the story going fast, and is a good way to showcase the power of a new opponent. However easy healing needs some limitations or be well explained. And like many things if it's a one shot thing, it better bloody be a one shot thing (not a new one shot thing ever time the hero gets injured or killed)

[Kitten Champion]

Funny you mention Naruto… There was a certain fight where a certain ninja who was incredibly powerful deals unprecedented damage to Konoha. The only thing remotely comparable was Orochimaru's onslaught before the power level shot up like a sky rocket.

In this certain fight this certain ninja actually ends up killing people. And bringing even more to near death. This despite the efforts of the best healer we've seen in the show.

Keep in mind, up until this point people die. It doesn't happen often. But there's a whole plot line about murdering some of the most dangerous ninjas in the world. Kakashi is a good guy and he attempted to murder Zabuza and killed Haru instead. Which is pretty heavy stuff for Shonen.

Then at the end of the fight the person with possibly the most warped and twisted sense of morality (other villains don't claim to be acting for the common good) becomes a good guy because of a speech about hope and ressurects everyone he murdered.

That is not good storytelling. And though I kept on for a few months after that, that was pretty much the turning point into me disliking the series.

Edited for personal opinion: if Naruto had been a seinen, it would be one of the best mangas ever written.

While I agree, particularly with the easy escape button he'd installed for the end of the arc, I think it was effective in setting up a crucible for Naruto's nobility. While the deaths were eventually reversed from the wider continuity, at that moment they were real to Naruto and in that sense they held consequence, as Juliet's death-like coma was for Romeo.

It clearly could have been done better if the author was brave enough, but it did more than just mindlessly increase the tension to make the concluding battle more explosive.

I like when characters deal with the emotional consequences of death and injury. When, like Charmed, death and injury are flirted with constantly but are going to be immediately healed by the conclusion of that episode only to return the next week with boyfriend troubles, work problems, and silly cosplaying -- you stop giving a damn pretty hard. If it holds no lasting emotional impact for the characters why should it matter to you? It's part of why I like Iron Man 3 despite some basic logic problems and abusing the damsel in distress trope, it was a superhero movie which took a near-death-experience and the genuinely terrifying circumstances of an alien invasion and didn't shrug it off like it was last Tuesday's staff meeting.

These things should matter, because they would matter to all of us.

[Lord Raziere]

Yea um…..pardon me if I don't lend the accusations of "bad writing" much weight, cause I've heard people accuse almost every single thing I ever liked of it. I have reason to believe that "bad writing" isn't objective as you think it is.

there are entire fandoms devoted to supposedly bad writing. I myself don't get why Shakespeare is so great, cause he seems to be a bad writer. guy ripped off all his plots from other people or the Greeks and those plots weren't all that great in the first place to my perspective: "person makes a bunch of mistakes and then dies, we are all sad in an over-the-top manner" don't get that, or how that is good writing.

same thing with people who don't like Easy Healing: I understand, they sort of see things like I see Shakespeare but in reverse, but I still don't really get why. I'm thinking taste and preferences has more to do with it than you think.

[Scowling Dragon]

Yea um…..pardon me if I don't lend the accusations of "bad writing" much weight, cause I've heard people accuse almost every single thing I ever liked of it. I have reason to believe that "bad writing" isn't objective as you think it is.

It isn't. But I have a HUGE RED SIGNATURE for a reason.


there are entire fandoms devoted to supposedly bad writing.

Yes there are. There is more too fandoms then the work itself. Its often just being part of something big. A big part of what also sustains fandom is rejecting critical thought.


I myself don't get why Shakespeare is so great, cause he seems to be a bad writer.

His stories are cliche and over the top, but Its better seen performed then read. The worldplay sounds alot better performed than just read from a page.


I'm thinking taste and preferences has more to do with it than you think.

Yes it does, but you framed it like a fault, not as a opinion. That instantly skewed the conversation against you.

[Xondoure]

The quality of writing may be subjective. However there is a relationship between reader and writer. Betraying that relationship can have consequences. Sometimes these are a good thing, even the thing that makes them entertaining (ASoIaF comes to mind.) Other times it sucks all the drama out and leaves the corpse in a back alley.

Oh, and Shakespeare is not renowned because of his plots. It's more to do with how thouroughly his prose impacted english. Seriously, look up what words and phrases he added to the language. There's a lot.

[Forum Explorer]

Yea um…..pardon me if I don't lend the accusations of "bad writing" much weight, cause I've heard people accuse almost every single thing I ever liked of it. I have reason to believe that "bad writing" isn't objective as you think it is.

there are entire fandoms devoted to supposedly bad writing. I myself don't get why Shakespeare is so great, cause he seems to be a bad writer. guy ripped off all his plots from other people or the Greeks and those plots weren't all that great in the first place to my perspective: "person makes a bunch of mistakes and then dies, we are all sad in an over-the-top manner" don't get that, or how that is good writing.

same thing with people who don't like Easy Healing: I understand, they sort of see things like I see Shakespeare but in reverse, but I still don't really get why. I'm thinking taste and preferences has more to do with it than you think.

Well let me give you an example of some bad writing in my books

Bleach spoiler
In his fight against Uohara (#4) Ichigo dies. It makes perfect sense that he dies, because he is completely outmatched (though this does raise the question on why the top 3 struggled against the various captains)

Anyways he ends up transforming into a Hollow in what I thought was a pretty interesting twist. He then destroys Uohara effortlessly. Then he randomly breaks free of being a Hollow and transforms back to normal. The reason and consequences of this aren't mentioned at all! It just happens so Ichigo can win. Then it's never mentioned again and essentially ignored.

I think this is bad writing because it's a total ***pull so that the main character can win his 1v1 fight. It has no other effect then making Ichigo win that fight.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes there are. There is more too fandoms then the work itself. Its often just being part of something big. A big part of what also sustains fandom is rejecting critical thought.


Yes it does, but you framed it like a fault, not as a opinion. That instantly skewed the conversation against you.

1. as if you've never done that in your life

2. I did? huh. guess I still know nothing about not offending people unintentionally. oh well.

people probably view a lot of things I do as faults anyways, even if they couch it in polite opinion terms that I have no time for. what are you going to do? world is imperfect. *shrug*

[Tebryn]

Yea um…..pardon me if I don't lend the accusations of "bad writing" much weight, cause I've heard people accuse almost every single thing I ever liked of it. I have reason to believe that "bad writing" isn't objective as you think it is.

Maybe it's not us. Maybe it's just you.

[Scowling Dragon]

1. as if you've never done that in your life


Since I was 13 I'd say no. If I genuinely notice flaws in anything I will voice my true thoughts on the matter. I have had my judgement blinded at times yes, but I never disliked having a conversation on a topics flaws. And thats why I tend too avoid fandoms as NOBODY is allowed to be more negative than positive.

For every "Well that makes you sense, and this shows example of bad design", you have too say 100 "Man that was amazing slurp slurp* licks boot heel*".

In the end, your right. EVERYTHING in the universe is subjective as we are not a hive mind and the beholders view is the true one.

But there are general rules too narrative that are important.

[Lord Raziere]

Yea, I once thought that I was an all-seeing super-rational youth who was above it all too.

turns out you do it even if you don't know it, and even if you find out you do it, there are times when you won't care cause its a show that you like, and that to trash the show that you like would be to like kick the puppy of your soul because it speaks to you too much, and well, why ruin my enjoyment of something because of some flaws according to some standard of rationality and logic that wants to make me conform to something I don't want to?

we are talking about entertainment. to go around criticizing things because you can is not the point of such entertainment at all and only ruins it for everyone else. there are some things more important than constantly criticizing things, if you don't have anything to entertain you because you keep looking for the flaws and destroying it….I don't see that as a very fulfilling existence.

[Tanuki Tales]

@Forum Explorer:

I blew through Bleach to catch up (last read at the end of the Aizen fight and then caught up to the whole "Oh Mer Gersh, Ichigo has a new sword!!!!" bit) a few weeks ago, so my memory isn't completely solid on this, but I thought that the whole Vasto Lorde-esque transformation to beat Ulq was brought up as some emotional trauma for Ichigo at some point during the Fullbring or Quincy arcs.

Edit:

I mean, if you want to talk about bad and weird writing for Bleach, I think Unohana being the former Kenpachi and suddenly being this massive blood knight even worse than Kenpachi takes the cake.

Edit Edit:

Though I'd have loved to have seen the Bleach anime continue at least long enough to hit that continuity snarl. One of the filler villains' whole hang up was that Kenpachi had killed the former Kenpachi. And I'm pretty sure there was heavy insinuation the former Kenpachi was male to boot. :smalltongue:

[Forum Explorer]

@Forum Explorer:

I blew through Bleach to catch up (last read at the end of the Aizen fight and then caught up to the whole "Oh Mer Gersh, Ichigo has a new sword!!!!" bit) a few weeks ago, so my memory isn't completely solid on this, but I thought that the whole Vasto Lorde-esque transformation to beat Ulq was brought up as some emotional trauma for Ichigo at some point during the Fullbring or Quincy arcs.

Edit:

I mean, if you want to talk about bad and weird writing for Bleach, I think Unohana being the former Kenpachi and suddenly being this massive blood knight even worse than Kenpachi takes the cake.

Edit Edit:

Though I'd have loved to have seen the Bleach anime continue at least long enough to hit that continuity snarl. One of the filler villains' whole hang up was that Kenpachi had killed the former Kenpachi. And I'm pretty sure there was heavy insinuation the former Kenpachi was male to boot. :smalltongue:

I stopped watching after
Ichigo beat Aizen, sacrificing his powers to do so. It was a decent end and I don't think any story afterwards would be in any way good. Considering that arc wasn't that great either I feel fully justified in doing so.

[Scowling Dragon]

Dude its entertainment. We have a huge excess of it every day. I can afford too be picky, and I can afford too be harsh.

Technically everything thats not part of base survival is entertainment, but there is more too entertainment then just entertaining.

Art is entertainment, and entertainment is an art form. Without criticism they will NEVER be refined and improved.

If all it takes for your enjoyment of something to be ruined is a couple of comments at the expense of the whatever then what are you doing with it anyway?

We are living in the age of entertainment, you can afford to be picky, you can afford to have standards, and find something that you prefer.

Grow thicker skin. You have no reason too be offended at something that isn't trying too offend you.

In my opinion, if you truly like something allot, and TRULY like something in a way that stimulates your brain fully, no criticism will ever ruin it for you. As your right things are subjective and in your mind you find that subjectively BETTER.

If something is ruined for you the second somebody points out a flaw then you are deliberately trying to lie to yourself in order too enjoy it.

And I can afford NOT to lie to myself in order to entertain myself. I have too much of a variety in my selection of stuff.

And yes, I do even get enjoyment of being critical of something, as identifying why I like/ dislike something is part of my joy.

I don't get joy from others suffering.

Telling me that "Well since you dislike things, therefore you live a hateful life!" is once again just kinda rude.

[LaZodiac]

If you want some good examples of how "oh we can just heal" can still lead to tension, look at World Trigger or Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.

In World Trigger, no one actually DIES dies, because they fight using this magical macguffin that keeps them "dead" until the fight is over, after which their real body pops out without damage. But there is still tension because the FIGHT could be lost, even if their lives aren't. And when fighting monsters, being fatally wounded WILL lead to your death, cause you'll be as powerless as any other human.

In Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, the healing is complex (and painful) enough that it CANNOT be done in combat. So yes, they can just heal, but only if they survive. And the series is rather kill happy with characters, so that helps things.

[Mx.Silver]

Throughout the Playground, I've heard people express the sentiment that whatever form of easy healing or some in cases, resurrection, the protagonist possesses in various shows kills the tension or whatever and such. I'm don't really remember the exact complaints, but I generally remember that people are expressing that they dislike the constant healing and can't really view anything dramatically in that show anymore and so on and so forth.

I can elaborate on this a bit. Easy Healing is not in and of itself a problem, but it does become problematic in a work that is trying to use injury or death as a way to impart dramatic stakes. The reason for this is because it really limits the amount of consequence you can have in a violent situation. A fight where a liked protagonist risks serious long term-injury or death is more investing than one where any wound suffered can be healed with a flick of the wrist five minutes later, because there's no long term consequence. Sure, it'll hurt for a bit, but no more than that.



The easy healing is apart of the design. It would not be included if it wasn't meant to be something that contributes to the show or media, and doesn't somehow establish what the show in question has in mind and what direction its going in.
The problem here is that you're assuming all creators have a fairly high level of competence. This is not always the case.
Flaws are present in pretty much every show, and there an awful lot of works out there which have elements that don't contribute as well to the show as the creators probably wanted.



but it still acknowledges that this sort of thing can still happen and can still be shocking.
The problem with shock value is that it has diminishing returns. The first time someone loses a limb will be shocking, but the more often that happens the less effective it's going simply because it's already been seen and likely hasn't had much effect. Most of the audience will just get desensitized to it('Oh look, Wolverine got shot again. What a surprise.').




everyone knows that when we break an arm- it can be healed right up, once its set properly and you wait long enough. its still shocking when it happens though, because its still someone getting hurt, its still a major injury that poses a threat to their wellbeing and it just happened out of the blue.
You are seriously under-estimating the effects of breaking an arm. Do you know what happens if a broken limb isn't set properly? It's not pretty, and can result in the limb being essentially crippled. This 'enough time' is also generally measured in weeks-to-months, during which period said arm is going to be useless.

Sure, it's not fatal but depending on the show it'll probably be enough to keep a character off the front lines for the rest of the season. It is, therefore a longer-term consequence. If you have healing magic that can clear it up then it's not really much of a threat to their well-being, which is why, say, the Harry Potter books don't treat broken bones as if it was anything too serious.




No really, the show is not the problem, its you. your allowing the knowledge to drag you out of the moment and ruin the experience for you. your not intended to go "oh he has easy healing, he will be fine soon" thats not the point.
If the audience isn't getting there is uncertainty then the fault is with the creators for not communicating that. If the viewers have no reason to assume the healing that has worked up until now won't do so now than it is entirely rational to assume that it still functions as normal. If this time it doesn't then that will come as a surprise.


the point is the uncertainty, that this MIGHT be the time he might NOT receive it. there is always a chance of it, in universe. your thinking thats it a certainty just because it happened time and time again.
How certain are you that the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning?
You can't really fault someone for using inductive reasoning, Raz, it's basic rational thought. In fact it's the sort of thing good writing should take advantage of, rather than trying to ignore it.



furthermore, not everyone is ok with the characters only existing for a short period of time, some of us like having characters around to continue to exist and do things, even though they went through combat and got injured. some of us like them to live and to show up again so that they can be shown in a different situation, reveal more about them and so on.
This is a false dichotomy, I'm afraid. It is possible to have characters hang around and still keep death permanent.


that and….in such shows where there is easy healing, its not really about the peoples bodies that is at stake, again not the point. its often about other things, about wider things, about the character motives and emotions, about whether this town will be saved or not or whatever.
Ideally yes, but in practice this often leaves a bit to be desired. It's not that health isn't at stake, it's that it almost can't be what's at stake. And if violence itself has little-to-no stakes then the action becomes rather less important to the overall story in and-of-itself, in effect putting it on a level of a less or non-violent contest/confrontation (such as a card game or a sports match). Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it can work fine provided the creators realise this and know what they're doing. The problem, as I said above, is when the show doesn't acknowledge this and still spends large amounts of screen time on fights where the actual damage inflicted has little actual purpose (leading to situations like the 'nobody dies in Bleach' meme).



Again, by focusing on the easy healing your missing the wider point, the easy healing is there to uphold something else. ok?
But that's the thing, it doesn't 'uphold', it 'mitigates'. Easy healing reduces the stakes of violence; the lower the stakes the less weight it has and the less weight it has the less significant it is to the narrative. Maybe if you think massive blood-spatters, lost limbs etc. make for interesting visuals it could work, but that's still trading emotional engagement.



Because, the easy healing is less of a thing itself, and more like a part of the setting's foundation that upholds the show. its a background thing, not a foreground thing. the background might influence the foreground action, but its not apart of the foreground itself,
The problem though is when this background starts intruding on the foreground, which easy healing can often do if it's only there as an excuse to have more fights - rather than being fully taken into consideration on the writing front.


sorry dude. thats not the shows problem. that is yours. Because I find all of these shows enjoyable, the easy healing doesn't detract from my experience of witnessing combat or death with ANY of them. at all. and if you find the easy healing a problem, such things are probably not the shows for you. thats the truth of it. Sorry, but its true. your the only problem here,
In the interests of clarity, I'm going to lay out the above argument like so:
1: Some people consider this thing a problem with a show
2: You (Raz) do not personally consider it a problem with the show
3: Therefore it is not a problem with the show.
4: Therefore the problem is with the people in 1 and they shouldn't be complaining about it

This is argument in that paragraph. Hopefully you can see why people seem to be reacting less than favourably to your post.
If easy healing doesn't bother you then more power to you. Carry-on watching your shows. Just don't assume that the fact you're okay with it in any way invalidates the fact that other people aren't.

[paddyfool]

Personally, easy healing has become more and more of a turn-off as I've got older. Maybe I'm losing the ability to suspend disbelief... but it's always more interesting when a person's damage actually has a long-term consequence. Which doesn't have to mean people dying left, right and centre Game of Thrones style; Full Metal Alchemist is a good example of a cartoon which avoids easy healing nicely.

(Which is not to say that I'm against supernatural healing as part of a plot... it has a key role to play in a number of plots, from Hercules' attaining godhood in Greek myth to the ending of Princess Mononoke and doubtless a great many other examples before, in between, and since. But if it's too cheap and easy, it cheapens death and injury, and hence conflict, to the point that it divorces the characters entirely from such concerns.)

[Tanuki Tales]

Full Metal Alchemist is a good example of a cartoon which avoids easy healing nicely.


Unless you're a Homunculus and then it just lets certain characters get close to passing over the Moral Event Horizon. :smallwink:

[paddyfool]

Unless you're a Homunculus and then it just lets certain characters get close to passing over the Moral Event Horizon. :smallwink:

Fair point, but then it's also one of the things that divorces the homunculi from the actually human characters... also, even for them, dead is dead.

[Sith_Happens]

A few people have said this already, but giving characters access to easy, effective healing (or even resurrection) just means that there have to be other consequences for failure. For example, if Hero McImmortalson is trying to stop Bigbad Evilguy from reaching the switch to his doomsday device, then any injuries Hero himself sustains are rather beside the point. He loses, Bigbad pulls the switch, Bad Things happen.

Lack of tension happens when the stakes aren't high enough. What those stakes specifically are is entirely incidental to that.

[Tanuki Tales]

Fair point, but then it's also one of the things that divorces the homunculi from the actually human characters... also, even for them, dead is dead.

I was making a joke. :mitd:

[Closet_Skeleton]

there are entire fandoms devoted to supposedly bad writing. I myself don't get why Shakespeare is so great, cause he seems to be a bad writer. guy ripped off all his plots from other people or the Greeks and those plots weren't all that great in the first place to my perspective: "person makes a bunch of mistakes and then dies, we are all sad in an over-the-top manner" don't get that, or how that is good writing.

If Shakespeare ever ripped off plots' then so has everyone who ever made a movie based on a book or wrote a comic adaptation of a novel or wrote a novel with a historical setting. The Greeks you claim he ripped off used to have contests where plays and poems based off the same myths would compete with each other directly.

According to you, these paintings are all terrible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_%28Leonardo_da_Vinci%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Execution_of_Lady_Jane_Grey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Matejko-Astronomer_Copernicus-Conversation_with_God.jpg

because the idea of them was stolen. Despite the whole power of those paintings being derived from their references, they must be bad because they have references.

'Ripped off' is loaded and childish language. A story is only 'ripped off' if the author refuses to credit his inspiration or breaches copy write. Shakespeare writing a play based off a poem like Romeo and Juliet or a history book like Julius Caesar is just 'adaptation', just like making a film version of a Shakespeare story is.

Shakespeare's plays are not all equally good (Romeo and Juliet has a lot of flaws) and they cover multiple different genres. A lot of them don't even have death in them and/or aren't tragedies. Even the tragedies have humour and nuance (Romeo and Juliet has comic relief to the point that the first half of the play is pretty much a comedy). If you misrepresent Shakespeare down to an incorrect summary then off course he's going to come across as bad writing to you.



we are talking about entertainment. to go around criticizing things because you can is not the point of such entertainment at all and only ruins it for everyone else. there are some things more important than constantly criticizing things, if you don't have anything to entertain you because you keep looking for the flaws and destroying it….I don't see that as a very fulfilling existence.

Who are you to say what the 'point of entertainment' is to other people. Who are you to say that 'everyone else' will have their enjoyment ruined if one person speaks his mind.

If you don't enjoy discussing media, why are you on a media discussion forum?

I hope this isn't news for you, but 'criticism' doesn't even mean what you're using it to here. Criticism is just 'judging merits and faults' its not 'hating things with a souless passion'. People can talk about flaws in a work without wanting to 'destroy it', it doesn't mean that they hate the work or just want to upset people who like it. If you just want praise for things you like, I'm not sure there's really a place you can live and be happy. But a lot of people have different ways of enjoying things than you do and that's just something you have to accept. People can't just say nice things all the time because the world isn't nice all the time and to have a proper understanding of anything you have to look at it from multiple sides.

Is making speculations about the well being of someone you don't know 'fulfilling existence' to you? You're talking about some kind of mythical 'hater' who isn't really relevant to critical discussion and thankfully almost no one on this forum approximates.

I too used to judge people who I had only passing contact with just because they annoyed me. Then I learned that everyone else is just as complicated as I am (and also that while some people were complete scum that's a lot harder to tell than you'd think).

[Lord Raziere]

so what I can be critical of things made by people, but not people themselves? how is that consistent? especially when your all criticizing me.

I get where Scowling Dragon is coming from with the fandom thing, but really he thinks of things too narrowly. the whole criticize-to-bootlicking ratio extends not just to fandoms but to communities and cultures in general.

just like whats happening right now. I was never confrontational, arrogant or anything like that. people just keep ascribing things because of their own perception, and their perception is that anything that is more negative than positive is something they don't want to hear, and therefore trash the guy who actually speaks out against what is commonly accepted. because telling the truth is apparently defined as being a jerk, and is therefore unacceptable.

and acting like the caricature that you believe me to be in some attempt at echoing my words back at me, isn't really persuading me of anything. thats just being a jerk to the person you think is a jerk.

so yeah. lots of weird perceptual distortions, and they will never stop, because even if I try to explain, you will just misinterpret it again and draw the wrong conclusion anyways, because yes people are complex. and thats is what makes them so annoying. all a bunch of a little worlds, colliding and never quite actually understanding.

[Xondoure]

While confirmation bias is a very real thing, it remains on the speaker to do their best to communicate their intentions to the listener.

I struggle with this all the time. I've had people tell me they don't like me because I belittle them / make them feel stupid. I am (almost) never intentionally doing that. Usually I just expect people will join me in whatever conversation I'm having. But what actually happens is either they don't know enough about the topic (leading to the feeling stupid) think I assume they don't know enough about the topic (and thus have belittled them) or know more than I do / think they know more than I do about the topic (leading to them belittling me.)
These are all worst case scenarios. In the first case, sometimes people are willing to learn. In the second and third, they often actually contribute instead of dismissing the topic and thus everyone learns something.

The point is that if I was more conscious of phrasing; I'd probably get the better results more frequently. And this is something I'm working on. It's pretty much the same case here. When you start a conversation, especially when your argument is "everything comes down to subjective opinions," you cannot get upset when other people's opinions differ from yours. And whether or not you intended it, it came across rather harshly.

TL;DR: How you express your point can eclipse your point, and it's a fairly common problem. Doesn't make it the readers fault.

[Scowling Dragon]

Oh gods whatever :smallannoyed:.

Yes everybody else is wrong. You are right in your infinite wisdom oh lord of everything.

It is true, I live a hateful empty hollow life, and you have shown me the light.

It is all our faults for IMAGINING you are confrontational, and you are the true seeker of truth.


Im outa here. Raziere. Just think about how you are talking. Maybe then you will notice why its ticking people off.

[endoperez]

I've noticed that when I write my arguments in certain ways, people tend to react to them in a more positive fashion. I don't like being told I'm wrong, and I assume that's true for everyone else. When I want to change other people's opinions through arguments, I explain my own opinion and why I think it's the correct one. Because the focus is on MY opinion, and not the opinion I'm arguing against, people don't feel threatened.

avoid saying things like "people who do this are wrong", and instead say the same thing like this: "some people do this, but I prefer doing it my way, because X".

"I hear many people hate easy healing. I don't. I can enjoy Bleach, Naruto and RWBY, and the only thing I have to do is to do X, and ignore Y, and think like Z. I don't see why people think that a mindset that prevents them from enjoying shows is a good thing."

[Mx.Silver]

I was never confrontational, arrogant or anything like that.
Raz, Your main argument was: "I don't have a problem with this, so everyone else who disagrees is therefore wrong and should stop complaining because they're the ones with the problem."
You then effectively said that everyone else is at fault because they are bothered by things you aren't (i.e. a taste difference) and then you started making assertions about how the people who continued to disagree with were joyless, unsatisfiable people who were wrong for applying criticism to media.

You are right now in the process of trying to spin those who took issue with this as being antagonistic jerks who just can't handle to truth. The 'truth' here being defined as 'Raz's exact opinions and perspectives'.


All of this, by the way, tends to come across as being, well, 'arrogant and confrontational'. If that's not what you want to be, then you need to step back a bit and try approaching things from a different manner. Because right now, what you're actually saying isn't what you want to communicate. If everyone is coming away with a different meaning to what you intended (especially if of them are drawing the same meaning) then the fault is probably with your communication.


I mean good lord when you're saying things like:


Yea, I once thought that I was an all-seeing super-rational youth who was above it all too.

No, the problem is with people watching the show.

No really, the show is not the problem, its you.



people probably view a lot of things I do as faults anyways, even if they couch it in polite opinion terms that I have no time for. what are you going to do? world is imperfect. *shrug*


sorry dude. thats not the shows problem. that is yours. Because I find all of these shows enjoyable,


people just keep ascribing things because of their own perception, and their perception is that anything that is more negative than positive is something they don't want to hear, and therefore trash the guy who actually speaks out against what is commonly accepted. because telling the truth is apparently defined as being a jerk, and is therefore unacceptable.

I'm genuinely concerned that you can't see why people think you're being confrontational. Because a lot of posts are coming across as being highly passive-aggressive, to a degree that I shouldn't even have to remind you of this.

[Lord Raziere]

quote one:
more of a criticism of my past self and how I see the mistakes I made in others .

quote two:
how is this negative? I am merely stating that your perception might be skewed

quote three:
well yeah, there is always going to be people who think I'm bad for one reason or another, but never actually say it. I don't really like such people, I just tell things honestly.

quote four:
uh yeah? that is your perception, and my perception differs, and that it doesn't seem to objective as one thinks it is.

quote five:
seems to be a common pattern to humanity. people who tell the truth seem to be derided and hated for it for some reason I cannot fathom. I've pretty much given up trying to find out why.

[paddyfool]

so what I can be critical of things made by people, but not people themselves? how is that consistent?

It's a fundamental rule of debate. If you're going to argue the merits of something, you do it on its own strengths, or attack it on its own faults. If you instead personally attacking the people holding the opposing position, then you're committing a classic logical fallacy known as an ad hominem argument and it's a pretty fundamental no-no. It's a logical fallacy, because no matter the merits or otherwise of the people holding the opposing position, the position they're holding may still be either right or wrong (there is something of an association between being intelligent, or being honest, and advocating correct arguments, but it's by no means a sure thing). And ad hominem is also a no-no in debate because bringing personal attacks into a debate tends to just make things hostile, cloud people's judgement and distract from the debate itself.


especially when your all criticizing me.

Um... you might want to go back and read your opening post again. If you kick people, they tend to kick back.

[Nourjan]

I really can't understand the gist of this thread.Are we discussing the impact of easily available healing/repair /regeneration/resurrect on a story or the subjectivity in judging a work of fiction and the validity of the masses perception of its quality OR are some guys trying to settle grievances arising from intense debating in a previous thread(a link would be nice).

[Frozen_Feet]

In his fight against Ulquiorra (#4) Ichigo dies. It makes perfect sense that he dies, because he is completely outmatched (though this does raise the question on why the top 3 struggled against the various captains)

Anyways he ends up transforming into a Hollow in what I thought was a pretty interesting twist. He then destroys Ulquiorra effortlessly. Then he randomly breaks free of being a Hollow and transforms back to normal. The reason and consequences of this aren't mentioned at all! It just happens so Ichigo can win. Then it's never mentioned again and essentially ignored.

I disagree. First of all, the character who brought Ichigo back from the dead (Orihime) is present both times, is healing him both times, and Ichigo comes back from the dead to protect Orihime, something she was pleading him to do with eyes all teary.

Second, it is adressed later several times. First when Ichigo trains against Aizen, and a second time when he trains against Yhwach. There are plenty of bad scenes in Bleach, but that is not one of them.

---

Regarding Dragonball: First of all, in the original manga, the fight scenes are much shorter and faster-paced. Second, the absence and/or presence of Senju beans is adressed several times, they are stolen/destroyed several times, so on and so forth. This also applies to the titular dragon balls. The whole Namek arc was based on the fact that they couldn't bring back people from the dead again with just Earth dragon balls. In that arc alone, the dragon balls were rendered powerless or threatened with destruction multiple times, and those occasions were central plotpoints.

The Dragon Ball manga is actually a fairly good example of how to keep up tension despite the healing items being present. You simply throw into doubt whether those items can be used at all.

[Mx.Silver]

quote one:
more of a criticism of my past self and how I see the mistakes I made in others .
And yet it reads like a backhanded accusation of immature arrogance.



quote two:
how is this negative? I am merely stating that your perception might be skewed

No. Stating that someone's perception might be skewed might look more like "However, I think that this position might be skewed'.
What you're doing here is sating, that their view is wrong, and that they are at personal fault for taking issue with something they dislike. This is a theme that keeps cropping up in many of your posts, including when you start making assumptions about their own world-views.



quote three:
well yeah, there is always going to be people who think I'm bad for one reason or another, but never actually say it. I don't really like such people, I just tell things honestly.

It conveys the attitude that you consider yourself above criticism or disagreement. It's effectively dismissing anyone who wants to discuss this with you from another position as 'eh, haters gonna hate'.



quote four:
uh yeah? that is your perception, and my perception differs, and that it doesn't seem to objective as one thinks it is.
But the only way that works as an argument is if it includes the assumption that your equally subjective opinion is somehow worth more than theirs. That your opinion is in some way right, and theirs is wrong, but without anything to support that other than that it's the opinion you hold. Again, that comes across at best as being arrogant.


Incidentally, this is part of the reason why the 'well that's just your opinion' isn't a good course of argument. At best, it's a more aggressive way of saying 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. At worst it's just 'I'm never going to listen to anything you have to say, nor admit that this thing may have flaws even if they don't personally bother me'. It's pretty much directly opposed to having an actual discussion.



quote five:
seems to be a common pattern to humanity. people who tell the truth seem to be derided and hated for it for some reason I cannot fathom. I've pretty much given up trying to find out why.
The problem here is that by saying this you are, once again, implying that your own subjective tolerance for something is the 'correct' course of action.

Well, okay, that's actually the fairly minor problem. The real problem is that this statement reads like an attempt to play the victim. It says that you are being unfairly and unjustly attacked for no good reason, and that everyone who is doing so is a bad, weak or deluded person for doing it. That you're saying this after just about every post you've made in this thread so far has included some form of implied belittlement or insult (even if they weren't intentional) makes this statement look even worse, because it is misrepresenting the conversation up to this point.


I'm aware that this sort of thing may be a bit of a tricky subject, given what you've said about yourself in the atypical neurologies thread. As such, I'm not sure how helpful the maxim of 'try to imagine how this would sound if it was being said to you' will be. Unfortunately there's not much more specific advice I can give. There may be more luck in the aforementioned Neurologies thread, I don't know.

[Forum Explorer]

I really can't understand the gist of this thread.Are we discussing the impact of easily available healing/repair /regeneration/resurrect on a story or the subjectivity in judging a work of fiction and the validity of the masses perception of its quality OR are some guys trying to settle grievances arising from intense debating in a previous thread(a link would be nice).

Eh, kinda both. Some people are talking about the former, while others are talking about grievances created by the offensive sounding nature of the OP. As far as I know said grievances are entirely from this thread.


I disagree. First of all, the character who brought Ichigo back from the dead (Orihime) is present both times, is healing him both times, and Ichigo comes back from the dead to protect Orihime, something she was pleading him to do with eyes all teary.

Second, it is adressed later several times. First when Ichigo trains against Aizen, and a second time when he trains against Yhwach. There are plenty of bad scenes in Bleach, but that is not one of them.


It's been a while since I watched that episode, but if memory serves Orihime didn't actually heal Ichigo at all. He just hollowfied instead. And yeah I liked the hollowfication, Ichigo had unfinished business and that's one of the reasons people turn into hollows. It was the turning back into normal thing that annoyed me. Also I felt it was a missed opportunity for Onihime to showcase how 'infinite' her power was. Preferably by healing Ulqicorra into oblivion/back into a human why simultaneously resurrecting Ichigo.

For the training against Aizen I remember it being addressed with a sentence? Even then I can't remember it meaning much, as it was immediatly eclipsed by the sword fusing with the hollow. After Aizen I stopped watching the show because I felt that the story had pretty much been wrapped up conclusively. Anything else wouldn't be entertaining (and the series had dropped to a pretty low level of entertainment by the time Ichigo fought Aizen IMO anyways.)

I looked at the synopsis of later episodes, and none of them really appealed to me as well.

[Lord Raziere]

eh, fine whatever, Mr Silver. but I won't use whatever atypical neurology I have to excuse my behavior.

I know its a problem I have to work on. yet…still haven't solved it yet :smallannoyed:

just….ugh, threads like these always turn out like this. I don't know why I bothered. it hasn't gotten anywhere, it hasn't accomplished anything, and now people probably dislike me even more. I just wish it was closed so that I can move on with this, and save everyone any further trouble.

[SiuiS]

Scowling dragon, your complaint is that medias/shows whatever have a formula.

y'know….like every show ever.

every show has a formula, consistencies, things that don't change. the return to status quo. its a tried and true part of storytelling. I can't think of a show that doesn't have its formulas or its default way of doing things, that it eventually returns to.

Some shows have change as part of the formula, or the metaformula.

Regardless, the point isn't about formula. The point is that the medium's job is to convey information, develop emotion and cause tension regardless of formula. This means sometimes hiding that formula is part of the medium's job, and if it doesn't, it is...

Doing a bad job. Also known as being a bad show/story/whatever for failing in it's goal.

[Equinox]

I myself don't get why Shakespeare is so greatVeritably, thou must understand that this is not a problem with Shakespeare, but with you.

[Lorsa]

Easy Healing certainly doesn't have to be a problem. What is a problem is when the writers of a show don't really consider the implications of easy healing and how it affects the storylines. It's very hard to have easy healing and then treat injury in a fight as if it should matter.

And you certainly can expect a lot from writers, so critism is a very valid reponse from any viewer.

[warty goblin]

Easy Healing certainly doesn't have to be a problem. What is a problem is when the writers of a show don't really consider the implications of easy healing and how it affects the storylines. It's very hard to have easy healing and then treat injury in a fight as if it should matter.

And you certainly can expect a lot from writers, so critism is a very valid reponse from any viewer.

I've received a reasonable number of emergency room worthy injuries over the years. Nearly all of them were, with modern medical care, quite minor and easy to recover from. About the worst lasting damage I've suffered is the loss of some feeling in one toe, some scars on the lens of one eye, and a slightly weaker shoulder where the collarbone healed funny. For all reasonable purposes, I've taken no lasting harm from any of them, and none were remotely life threatening.

And all of them were really quite big deals at the time, even when I knew I was going to make a full recovery. Because they hurt. Often a lot. Pain is a big deal. Pain in characters I feel empathy for is a big deal.

Access to easy healing doesn't really make me more or less invested in a fight. If I care about the characters, I care about the characters getting injured because I already care about them. Suspense has nothing to do with it; because most of the time the outcome can be seen coming a mile off anyway.

[IronFist]

Veritably, thou must understand that this is not a problem with Shakespeare, but with you.

Brilliant!

[TuggyNE]

Veritably, thou must understand that this is not a problem with Shakespeare, but with you.

4/5, needs more Shakespearean dirty jokes. (I kid, I kid; I rather dislike Shakespeare's sense of humor, in fact. And I don't want you to break forum rules here!)