Except on the last point:
Agree to disagree.
.
Believe it or not, not EVERYONE dies in a war. Indeed, in some elite companies or groups, sometimes, NO ONE at all dies. People can also reach low points without literally everyone dying (or close to it) dying around them. Hope isn't "when things are dark and everyone has died, I press on", that's stoicism. And that's not even the only form of stoicism.
The story wasn't about the end and loss and despair. It was about how it WASN'T the end, how triumph prevented (most) loss, and about hope. It wasn't about a war-torn world and death, it as about building a future and life. The story was about the opposite of everything you seem to think it was about.
I don't care for deaths. There's enough death in reality, and there are LOTS of substitutes for death that make a compelling story. Indeed, death is arguably the cheapest and most pathetic way to try to score cheap heartstring points with people. It requires little effort other than killing someone, so much so, many things kill off a side character that no one even cares about but make all the characters in the story react as if we should (Avengers did this with Coulson's death, and while his character came into his own in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., when he died, everyone around me was like "Who is this character and why are we supposed to care about him?"). It's just such a cheap and lazy method of writing, I'm constantly shocked by people that think it's somehow the most masterful way to write drama.
Hell, someone being injured, especially if you don't know but suspect it may be permanent - Iggy being blinded in FFXV, for example - is much more of a gutpunch. Because the character is still there. You still see them, interact with them, etc, in their compromised state, and you know they were harmed (probably) by the bad guy but there's nothing you can do but press on despite that.
"no substitute for it"? ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is a substitute for it, and almost always BETTER than it, imo.



Reply With Quote

