Mortal Kombat

I'm assuming you're talking about during Armageddon in which a lot of things were happening in that battle so it was very hard to follow. I still don't know how Shao Kahn manage to defeat Onaga but hey why not?

For the record, Raiden has always been the leader for Earth-Realms' forces. Liu Kang is it's champion as your said in your last sentence.

I never said Liu was the leader. I was pointing out that Johnny failed as the leader in response to what unknowing said.

The winner of a battle royale is not generally the most powerful person, but the one best capable of managing how threatening he is until an opportune moment presents itself.

Onaga's the big fish. That's actually really good for Shao Kahn because without him, Kahn himself would be the big fish. The one that everyone immediately recognizes as the main threat and works together to neutralize. Ditto for Shinnok.

Battle royales have tactical politics mixed into their violence. Temporary alliances form when multiple combatants agree, "Oh, f*ck THAT guy!" Tenuous loyalties have to be managed, where there's an unspoken agreement that we're going to be fighting each other before this is done but right now we need each other to survive some of the other shit that's happening.

All of this is basically candyland for Shao Kahn. Business as usual for the Emperor of Outworld. He doesn't need to be able to beat Onaga; he just needs to be the more appealing option for weaker fighters to rally around under the nebulous and, if played correctly, ultimately futile hope that they'll be able to finish off the weakened Kahn once Onaga's dealt with.

edited 21st Nov '17 5:01:11 AM by TobiasDrake

You know it occurs to me just how much this franchises falls into Good Is Dumb. None of the heroes have ever been shown as remotely this savy or cunning. They just rely on whoever is their most powerful fighter. First it was Liu, then Johnny and now Cassie. No wonder almost all of them died. They suck at strategy even Sonya and Jax.

It's a common occurrence in media. Being able to managed and leverage loyalties is considered an evil trait because Ambition Is Evil.

There's a general assumption that Good recruits ideologically and Evil recruits intelligently. People sign onto the Good Guy's cause because they like what it's about, and they sign onto the Bad Guy's cause because he's smart and knows how to seem appealing in the moment.

Shit, being smart is in and of itself often considered an evil trait. Villains are usually smarter than heroes, but ultimately fall victim to the hero's talents in the field of righteous violence.

edited 21st Nov '17 5:19:12 AM by TobiasDrake

It doesn't help that a lot of the time, the hero is someone who has no business fighting the villain in the first place. You don't send Bruce Lee, Jean Claude Van Damme, Oddjob and Princess Peach to deal with the Mandarin. You send the Men in Black, GI Joe, Overwatch, Seal Team Six, you get my point, people trained to protect the world.

There's a line in Harry Potter that sums up a very popular idea in fiction:

“It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.”

It could be Idealism or it could be Escapism. Maybe it's both. Untrained farm boys are the real heroes. Idiots are the real saints. If you wanted power, if you trained all your life for something, there's something wrong with you.

But as it relates to MK, I think it's as simple as Rule of Cool. There was no logic in the first few MK games.

You know it occurs to me that Dumbledoore was kind of an idiot.

Dumbledore's the only reason Harry ever succeeded at anything. Him and Hermione both saved The Boy Who Lived from being dead as shit.

But apparently cleverness and planning is bad.

He's totally an idiot. A person who has never sought power is a person who has never been passionate enough about anything to seek change. This is only a positive trait if you consider the preservation of the status quo to be the highest priority; if you believe that the world as it exists today is perfect, and that the purpose of leadership is to preserve it exactly as-is.

More often than not, people who have never sought power are terribly ill-equipped to handle it, because they've never had to obtain the discipline that comes through earning power the slow and difficult way. Whether by being born into it or spontaneously receiving it, people who fall ass-backward into power aren't heroes and noble souls, they're typically idiots who wind up squandering if not outright abusing it.

Dumbledore's philosophy says that the lottery winner is the ideal model of wealth; the person who suddenly receives millions of dollars and proceeds to spend it all within months before ultimately being forced to file bankruptcy.

How the fuck is it wrong to work for something your whole life?

That how people function, they have a dream since childhood & then work towards that dream spending years of effort to achieve that role or power.

Its how things go.

Bringing this back around to the topic, we have Liu Kang. Liu Kang did not defeat Shao Kahn by falling ass-backwards into awesomeness and then just rolling with it. His entire life was devoted to training for the Mortal Kombat Tournament. He worked hard to earn his power, the power of a kung fu master, and then put that power to the purpose he had developed it for: defending Earthrealm from Shao Kahn's ambitions.

Liu became passionate about a cause, spent years cultivating the power to support that cause, and then used that power for the good of many. That is what heroes do.

Ambition is Evil is a belief many hold. Take a look at Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Obi-Wan was humble and never really wanted to be a Jedi Master or anything. Anakin wanted..well, everything. Power, love, prestige. The individuals bes tsuited for resisting the One Ring are those who lack any type of ambition at all, be it for good or evil.

And for MK talk, look how the movies made Liu Kang actually an interesting character worth rooting for. He walked out on everything and was dragged back into it by a twist of fate. He becomes a master and saves the day n no time.

My point was not to shit on Dumbledore or Harry Potter. I was pointing out a very popular trend because it highlights what people IRL believe. Tobias, you yourself brought up how Good is argued on emotional grounds and Evil on intellectual grounds. This is no different.

edited 21st Nov '17 12:00:33 PM by Nikkolas

Well its a stupid belief. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious. Its literally you just you wanting more for yourself, should you be ashamed for having ambitions? Fuck no.

Same with intelligence. Its better to be a smart person than a dumbass.

Wasn't he already a warrior in the movie? Even then he did have help.

edited 21st Nov '17 12:02:12 PM by slimcoder

Did they? I honestly found Johnny and Raiden more interesting. And the way they tried to repeat it in the second movie more or less showed hoe tedious it was.

Hell they had to borrow elements from Kung Loa's character to beef up his role.

Ambition itself shouldn't be bad. What should be bad is being ambitious to the point of pursuing your goal above all else, even the welfare of others.

If you can only think of how to use this guy, or getting rid of this dude because he's in the way, then maybe you're a bit too ambitious.

As for the entire thing about those who don't seek power being the best ones to wield it, I admit, the way some of you have described the flaws in that way of thinking have made me wonder why I never noticed that before, but maybe we should look at it as those who don't want power just for their own sakes and only their own sakes are the best to wield it.

But I'm probably just talking out my butt to be honest.

In regards to how the heroes are portrayed and smartness being evil...that's stupid. That's really stupid, and writers need to stop that.

Think is, in fiction bad people have ambitions but good people have IDEALS, that means bad guys work for a plan that benefit them alone and can(and will) throw everything under the bus for archive, in MK once Raiden is defeat Tsung and Quan chi dosent take long to fight, even when sharing the power will be enought.

On the other hand when a good guy have a goal is usually and ideal, he want to make the world better, improve or something like that.

Johnny was way more interesting. Mainly because he wanted things. Characters who want things are always more interesting than characters who just react to plot points tossed their way. This is why people often wind up relating to and even sympathizing with villains: because villains are interesting characters who want stuff and go out of their way to try and obtain them.

edited 21st Nov '17 12:30:42 PM by TobiasDrake

A few of the ends in deadly alliance also had them backstabbing each other under the suspicion that the other would stab them in the back first . One of said endings leading to lui kang being in the body of Kano. That certainly would have made for an interesting conversation with his comrades if that ending had become canon.

Speaking of the movie, can someone tell me which game has Lui Kang stated as the descendant of the Great Kung Loa? I know this was a thing in the movies but I don't recall it ever being in the games.

I like both goody good liu Kang and fallen hero Liu Kang. Zombie Kiu Kang was terrible though and better not ever happen again. I mean I guess current Liu Kang is sort of that in a way but he's a better take on it.

Just want to say that while, yes, Movie Johnny Cage > Movie Liu Kang, that's because Johnny is just plain likable. Liu is...hero guy. We've been over this. They tried to soften that by giving him character development and an arc in the movie but he's still ultimately just Main Protagonist Man.

The best thing Liu does all movie is take Johnny's money and then drop Cage's bags in the water.

So is Liu a descendant of the Great Kung Lao in the games? I know that was the case in the movie but I don't recall if this was the case in the games too.

Yes, both Liu Kang and Kung Lao are descended from the Great Kung Lao. It's just that Kung Lao makes more of a thing about it.

Speaking of whom, I'm embarrassed it took me as long as it did to realize that Liu Kang and Kung Lao's names are formatted [Surname] [Given Name] as is appropriate for their region of origin. They are Kang and Lao of the Liu and Kung families, respectively.

It was the introduction of Kung Jin in X that suddenly made this click for me.

edited 28th Nov '17 7:34:44 AM by TobiasDrake

x3 It doesn’t help that Liu’s whole arc in the movie is lifted wholesale from Bruce Lee’s arc in Enter the Dragon. The only difference was that they split Williams into Sonya and Dead Black Guy.