I guess he understood the House quote "work smart, not hard" backwards
Considering the majority of stories have protagonists with plot armor and that hasn't gotten old yet, I think they'll be fine doing the opposite. The cyberpunk genre has only just had a resurgence, I don't think we're at risk of overexposure just yet.
As long as there is meaning to the characters death then I see no problem, death and sacrifice is a part of life and something everyone can relate to. Heck, George RR Martin built his fame on killing important characters and the TV series that spanned from that appear to be thriving.
Post automatically merged:
Isn't this in many ways a "one-shot". Yes it's several episodes long but it's telling an isolated story and they can do many of these without the need to connect them.
My only problem with edgerunners was the overused anime tropes, so if they do decide to do more then I hope they get a studio that's willing to take the story a bit more seriously.
Last edited:
This is a cool idea. I like the concept of shorts that are heavily masked / surrealistic. Might be a cool way to unpack one of the characters being cyberpsycho.
I disagree. I think the most prominent examples have crushing, tragic endings. Blade Runner 1-2, I, Robot (the book, not the film), 2001, not to mention Neuromancer, which incepted the genre. By comparison, the stories with more positive endings largely don't read with audiences. There's an audience for everything, sure, but on that same token, it doesn't mean that most successful work will appeal to everyone.
But, in each of the stories above, there's still a fatalistic arc involved. I think the closest thing to a "happy-ending-cyberpunk" story that I can think of that was actually successful in a sweeping way would be Avatar...if you imagined replacing the Navi with "AI lifeforms". But, at the same time, I think the main reason that Avatar worked, despite the truly shallow plot and themes it explored, was because the Navi were "people" and not "things". (And because they looked so innocent with their pretty Disney eyes...)
I admit I didn't interpret 2001, Blade Runner or Neuromancer to have particularly tragic endings for the protagonists. 2001's I especially enjoyed as Bowman transcends (and later in 2010 merges with HAL, which sounds awfully similar to some other Cyberpunk stories like Ghost in the Shell), Blade Runner seemed to have a reasonably bittersweet ending for Deckard and Rachel (though later versions of the film made things way more ambiguous) and the same could be said for Neuromancer; Case is cured, Molly leaves and Wintermute is now a godlike AI; open-ended and ambiguous but not a downer, though I have read a few online theories that the whole finale is a bit of an Inception.
What did you make of District 9? I think it broadly approached similar subject matter to Avatar, but its aliens and protagonist's new body weren't so Disney.
I love half of Elysium; up until they jack William Fichtner's shuttle was preem. Also love how surgically invasive and ugly Max's exosuit is.
Looking back, it has a lot in common with 2077; dying protag etc.
Don't know that I see Avatar in that way since it's more of a utopia than a dystopian world. Something like Metropolis perhaps, that has a happier ending I think.
All in all, there needs to be variety. Yes the cyberpunk genre is on the darker, more mature side but that's a strength. It is a niche genre at the end of the day, there are plenty of stories particularly in anime with happy endings and no one dies. I don't think every genre needs to do the same, especially when it eliminates any real stake if you know the characters will be fine no matter what happens.
Last edited:
I interpreted:
Neuromancer's ending to mean that Case(? -- I honestly don't remember the characters that well now) has been played like a puppet and that there are other AIs (like the cyber-tyke himself) out there manipulating other civilizations. Terrifying.
For 2001, HAL is a continuation of the obelisk affecting the apes at the beginning -- that he force-evolves Bowman to some ethereal form of life, basically cutting him off from his humanity. The inevitability of it, the fact that we've been manipulated by some technology and our advancement as a species is a farce, or meant for some other purpose. (Granted, it's presented in way that creates "awe" at the idea, but it's still devaluing everything that we would call "human".)
And, technically, in Ghost in the Shell, the Major and the Puppet Master merge into something new. Neither completely human nor completely AI. But what we can say is that the Major's internal conflicts over her humanity are resolved, as what remains of her quasi-human-spirit-consciousness adopts the form of her own completely synthetic, human-AI hybrid child. So her existential crisis is over...oh...wait...
While I wouldn't necessarily call any of these necessarily "tragic" endings, as they're much more thriller type endings, I'd still say their themes are strongly based in innevitability, loss of humanity, and fatalism.
Blade Runner, 1 and 2, I will call directly tragic. Deckard "dies" at the end of the first film along with Batty. Batty's arc was 100% tragic, but the final scene, with the "You've done a man's job, son! I guess you're done?" lines...the total lack of human concern coming from Gaff in that moment...I felt it nailed it home and just quietly confirmed what we had been suspecting all along. As for Blade Runner 2049, the revelation about K not being the child is wrenching. Followed by the realization that he'll just do what needs to be done, like a machine.
Loved it. I feel they did a wonderful job staying in the emotional uncanny valley the entire time. I also liked the pacing of the piece. I feel like it really captures the borderline panic sensation realistically.
I did an absolutely horrible job explaining my connection...or not explaining it, more to the point.
Obviously, Avatar is not a "cyberpunk" film in any way. The avatars themselves, though, are an analog for cybernetics. Hence, it would be easy to "replace" the Navi with robots. A race of AI, and humans could link to robots to go live among them. A story of person choosing to permanently upload their consciousness to a machine, as they realize the machines are actually better than what humanity had become. I could see that as a way of developing a cyberpunk arc that ends "well" instead of tragically, while still honoring most of the themes that define the genre.
This. My favorite so far is blade runner. Yes ppl die. Yes it is all horrible but in the end when the story is told and everything (well not really) was said and done you can leave with a sense of hope. Not all is lost and gone. It is not a "happy ending" and it is neither a "abandon all hope" ending. It is more like reality which can be awesome but also gut kicking cruel at the same time.
Yet you can enjoy this and not feel like it is overused or you can tell how the entire thing is going 10 minutes in. I knew in cyberpunk 2077 the moment V gets told by viktor what is going to happen that there will be no cure, no hope, no nothing. Just V chasing whatever fantasy or dream she/him still have and hold on to that to the very last moment.
Everything from that point on forward was meaningless to me. On edgerunners the moment David installed the "how to get insane cyberware" i knew that this show will not end in a way i like. Thats like watching a drug addict dying from a overdose and go "that looks awesome let's try that".
No one would do that. Yet david does it instantly without a second thought.
I am not against dark endings or in which everyone dies or similar horrible scenarios for everyone involved. Hell i even consider games like "Black Mirror" one of the best ever made cause it manages to tell a story how people slowly but steady turning completely insane for you to observe.
But the cyberpunk genre is more than just that. Cause if this continues we just tell the same story with different characters and only change the outcome slightly. At which point the stories would become something like the fallout 3 and 4 ones. Predictable from miles away.
And i know that CDPR is way better in storytelling than alot of other dev studios combined. Even Cyberpunk shows that they can tell awesome stories despite all the flaws the game still has.
Hell, now I want not only an anime written by CDPR, I'd want freaking Arcane having that quality of writing.
A main character dying doesn't mean no hope. That would be like watching Cowboy Bebop and suggesting it's not a story about hope and redemption because Spike knew he would die or dies in the end. Or Breaking Bad because Walter was dying and does die in the end. I think what you have trouble with is understanding the legacy of these characters. Some of the most notable names in history are men and women who gave their life for a cause greater than themselves. That is something that gives others hope so I disagree with your definition of what hope is supposed to be.
V wasn't doing anything with his/her life when we met them, just a corporate lacky. By the end night city was changed forever and it was by your hand. Even if V doesn't survive, the ppl you helped along the way have and they can build on that in future games.
As for telling the same story and only slightly changing the outcome. That's how change happens, if that's what V's legacy leads to and he's a martyr for the movement that eventually takes down Arasaka then I'll be happy.
A quote from one of the best written shows in the past decade...Black Sails
"no one changes the world all at once"
You'd probably hate the way that series ends as well lol
Last edited:
Black Sails was a hell of a show, but I did like the first half of it much better than the last 2 seasons. I though Flint leaving piracy was not a good ending for him. He should have let James McGraw die and accept his new identity. If anything, that ending was way too hopeful for my taste.
To add to this, some stories are not about the destination either. This is the case with CP2077. The destination isn't the point. The journey is what counts (and the legacy V creates at the same time, as you say). Everything that happens in between the starting point and the end. Throughout this journey there is plenty of hope and joy. Sure, it ends badly for V but it doesn't mean things are hopeless in CP2077's world.
The same can be said of David. Sure, you can stop at the fact David dies and Lucy doesn't get her happy ending and blah blah blah. Or, you can look at the underlying morals that aren't as "in your face". Yes, Night City is a cesspool of human greed and cruelty but in the end, the city and the corpos didn't "win". David lived, fought and died for the people he cared about. The city and it's overlords didn't manage to change him. It's cliche as fuck as far as story morals go but if "there are good people with strong morals fighting against the system" isn't at least a little hopeful then I don't know what is.
Well I fall in the camp of ppl who believe Silver killed Flint. It's like you said, I don't think Flint would just walk away especially not after that speech at the end. Silver knows how to spin a believable story but even Madi didn't believe him.
Besides that, the show is a prequel to treasure island so there must be a reason why Silver is later tormented and haunted by something from his past. The writers have said they intentionally left it open for interpretation with that gunshot after Flint gave his speech.
Last edited:
I def would prefer that that was the true ending to the story (Silver shooting Flint). Flint surviving only to leave piracy and go back with that English lord in a madhouse is a fucking terrible ending for such a fearsome pirate in my honest opinion. Better that Flint dies being Flint.
Post automatically merged:
The "male protagonist dies to save his lady love" is also an old as all fuck trope. I do think that everything positive I've said about this show was me just thirsting for Lucy, but the truth is the writing is pretty damn terrible. The show is entertaining and nothing else. The game, all its flaws notwithstanding, is the true rendition to Mike Pondsmith's creation.
Last edited:
Absolutley! I very much think that in most of the endings, V is supposed to be viewed as a sort of martyr. Maybe even a continuation of the "good fight" that Johnny was fighting...just less insane in its execution.
This is another trope I dislike strongly: that the people fighting an oppressive system have to be "insane". It's present in works such as Mr Robot and Arcane, and it's tiresome as hell. It's like they're saying that the only sane and good thing to do is turning the other cheek and let the powerful have their way. We can't have a righteous and intelligent person with a fully-functional brain like Captain Flint fighting the good fight according to some.
Maybe insane wasn't the best word, "extreme" perhaps. Either way I don't think it's intended as a trope. It just highlights the lengths average ppl have to go and the great cost it requires to make change.
Not sure why you think it's a trope or that the characters aren't presented as intelligent. Whether it's Silverhand, Mr Robot or Black Sails, all those characters are intelligent. Righteousness on the other hand is subjective.
On one hand, it's kind of a nasty trope some writers adopt whenever they make a villain with a sympathetic cause and then make him a batshit insane psycho, so that viewer wouldn't relate to him, or at least wouldn't relate to him too much. This is one of the reasons I think The Dark Knight Rises is a wasted potential - they made Bane give this passionate revolutionary persona with speeches about inequality and class, only for it to be a decoy for his real plan to blow the city, because he is evil.
I don't think it's an intentional vilification, rather then "radical with a just cause but undignified means" is a good way to write compelling antagonist with him still being the antagonist.
And on the other hand, you somewhat have to be a little insane in order to start an uprising.