Does Dark = Good?

[Abedeus]

Grimdark McAngsty is popular now.

 

[VeryOddGamer]

Dark does not instantly equal good. Dark can equal good, though. Also, dark stories are not more mature automatically either. I prefer somewhere in between, not all happy, not all grim. Why? Well, a good story can't be too light, because then it loses a lot of the drama. But it can't be too dark either, because then it's just depressing. I mean, life is pretty depressing. Do we have to make our fiction depressing as well?

 

[Vausch]

Not really. A good story well told is a good story, be it light-hearted or dark in tone. Batman is dark but often well written and has great character moments and arcs that make it enjoyable (Silver age and some very stupid comics not withstanding).

By contrast, Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes pre-reboot) was light-hearted and colourful while still retaining and elements mature enough to create characters relatable to anybody and had some situations that would be consider silly but were well written and were just fun. Paco fought off aliens with nothing but a big stick and Jaime fought off a sentient tornado, that was fun and wonderful.

It's all in the writing and the mood desired by the audience. You don't play Silent Hill when you want to feel happy and you probably aren't going to view a game like Rayman: Origins as a way to deal with a dark feeling (unless it's a mood lifter).

 

[orangeban]

I do tend to get a little frustrated with "dark" stories, or at least how they are usually done.

I've no problem with a story that is grim, a little hopeless, and a "bad" ending can be entertaining in it's own way.

However, when people write dark stories, they have this tendency to make the characters angsty douchebags. And people, angsty douchebags are unlikeable!

Textbook examples: Harry Potter in the later books, Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the later seasons.

I can't stand books with a dislikeable protagnist, and that is probably the most common reason I'll abandon a book. The main character drives the plot, so we've got to have a reason to be invested in them!

It seems writers writing "dark" stories think that the character must be constantly miserable, broody, depressing and stuff like that.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

The point, in my opinion, was nailed early on. Dark doesn't mean wannabe emo and it's not necessarily about making things just bleaker. I prefer mature stories, I hate the "and they lived happily ever after" stories because life isn't like that. When a man falls from a building he dies, love isn't always reciprocated, hate can burn a hole through you and life is god damned hard.

So I prefer the stories with the hope in them, with that little aspect of light but with a more realistic (within its context) and more mature story to tell.

I'd rather have a happy butterflies, lollipops and rainbows tale than one trying to be angsty for no good reason though, those are the worst. "OMG my boyfriend of two weeks left me." *Slit wrists and die*. Yeah no.
But generally speaking yeah, more mature stories are better. They make connections easier for me personally and in general raise the stakes.

For Harry Potter in the books she treated the characters more tenderly than in the film iirc? Regardless it helps hammer home the point which is this is a war and people die. If everyone walked out all happy and smiley I'd be pissed the hell off, wouldn't you? It's not a happy fantasy yay story, it's one about friendship and love sure but it's set in a world in turmoil and spiralling down.

 

[Stalydan]

Recently I've been noticing a trend of things to becoming dark.

You can see this in a lot of recent media - the last of the Star Wars prequels, the later Harry Potter films, and of course the ending of Mass Effect 3. You can often converse with someone and ask about how good something is, and they'll be like "Well it was the darkest of the films." Is Dark equated with good though?

The later Harry Potter films were darker, but I definitely preferred the older ones with their childlike charm. Give me A New Hope over Revenge of the Sith anyday!

You can see this in videogames too - Dragon Age: Origins was a fairly standard save-the-world fantasy game which was great (and not particularly dark, had difficult decisions though), and then Dragon Age 2 went all dark with torture and slavery and necrophilia and stuff, but it was definitely not the better game. Same with Mass Effect, the first two games were standard space opera, but then the third shoves out an out-of-place "dark" ending down our throats.

Lord of the Rings wasn't dark but its a timeless classic and the films are great - I doubt it would have improved by an ending where Sauron wins and murders everyone, and the last film consisted of rape of Elven women by Orcs and a brooding suicidal Legolas.

Not saying "dark" isn't bad, The Witcher 2 was a great game but it was handled in a mature fashion, as opposed to just shoving in blood and darkness and sex and stuff - it was mature which meant it could handle the "dark" subject matter easily. This runs parallel to 40k which is so grimdark that it's pretty much a self parody of itself, the lack of seriousness in 40k makes the grimdark better.

So yeah, do you think there's a tendency in media to equate dark with good, and therefore make everything dark? Do you even think dark is good?Do you enjoy dark stories or less dark ones?

I think dark doesn't mean good but neither does it mean bad. Dark can be used to show the flipside of a situation as much as comedy can be used to make light of it. Though sometimes, mature is mistaken for dark which makes a lot people start throwing around the term.

I do like dark things though; they're usually very good with the way they present drama on a subject. It can make certain emotions more present than others which may help or hinder the film depending on how it's handled.

 

[endtherapture]

You can see this in a lot of recent media - the last of the Star Wars prequels, the later Harry Potter films, and of course the ending of Mass Effect 3. You can often converse with someone and ask about how good something is, and they'll be like "Well it was the darkest of the films." Is Dark equated with good though?

Let's not forget about Empire Strikes Back, often considered the BEST out of the original trilogy (and by extension out of all 6 Star Wars films) is also the darkest of the three, but that might also have something to do with the fact that George Lucas didn't direct it. My personal favorite has always been Return of the Jedi though (where weirdly enough Luke becomes grim dark but then in come the Ewoks).

Empire was great because it was dark enough to be considered dark and have conflict but it wasn't grimdark. Cloud City was not destroyed, Lando didn't rape Leia and Han Solo didn't die or get his eyes stabbed out with lightsabers or anything.

 

[roushutsu]

I don't mind if a story is dark or has some darker elements thrown in here and there as long as it's handled well. To your point, it is kinda getting a tad annoying that "dark" is becoming the norm to the point where I'm becoming desensitized to some of those dark elements that I would otherwise enjoy in a story.

 

[dragonswarrior]

Dark and light mean nothing if the story is done well.

And if the story is truly done well it should have both "dark" and "light" elements. Since stories (the best ones that is) are things that could actually happen, and since life itself is entirely comprised of nothing but good stuff and bad stuff, the best stories have good stuff and bad stuff.

Whether the ending is dark or light again means nothing as long as it is done well.

WARNING: SPOILERS

Example of poor light ending? Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series. A BRILLIANT book series that I cannot praise enough... But in the end, despite an incredibly catastrophic war, all the main characters live, all of them are happy, and one even gets her barren womb randomly cured by a magical mcguffin mushroom. It just... felt incredibly unrealistic to me. And that ruined somewhat the ending itself, which had been awesome.

Example of a good almost completely light ending? Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy. Because it felt realistic. People died, but they ended up happy in wherever their death place was. So despite the deaths it was pretty light. The whole world got fixed, but the people who died in the ending cataclysm don't come back to life, and they have to completely rebuild civilization and everything. But everything was fixed!! Happiness and hope for all!! And it was still awesome.

 

[RJ 17]

Really it's just one of the current trends in media these days. "Dark" is seen as being "Edgy". Take the reboot of the Batman series with Christian Psychopath Bale, they were/are hailed as "A dark take on the Batman story." >.> personally I always thought Batman's story was dark to begin with...kinda thought that was the entire frickin' point.

The point is that "darkness" is being seen as "gritty" and "real" these days because, looking at the world around us, it's becoming pretty dark and depressing.

Media reflects the times that its in, and at the moment it seems - at least to various forms of media - that we're in some dark times.

 

[Substitute Troll]

For me, every proper story ends with the death of the main cast/character. It's a definitive ending. That's why I enjoyed the finale of Lost so much.

And I'd rather watch something "darker" than having a happy ending ala Legend of the Seeker's season two finale.

"Oh wait, there was never a problem to begin with! HAPPY ENDING*!"

*not taht kind

 

[Darkmantle]

dark is usually done poorly. Like warhammer 40k, it's gotten so GRIMDARK GRIMDARK it's dissolved into self parody.

dark done RIGHT on the other hand can have a powerful effect. Example, "watchmen"

 

[ThreeWords]

Dark is fucking good, because it's fucking mature. There's too much fucking shit that's fucking light out there, and it fucking needs to stop with that shit. I mean, fuck.

A bit of serious fucking language really ups the fucking quality of the shit, in my bastard opinion. If it offends the fucking ears of childish little shits, it must be fucking mature, shit?

*chuckles*

Why am I suddenly thinking of the Boondock Saints?

Shaddup, you mother- Jesus -fucking Christ!

 

[Atmos Duality]

Shaddup, you mother- Jesus -fucking Christ!

"Hey 'fuck-ass'! Get me a beer!"

Yeah, a bit of restraint on the profanity would have elevated that movie considerably in my eyes; not because I'm a prude (quite the opposite) but because it comes across as being immature and distracting. The bar-scene, well it's a bar full of men on St. Patrick's Day profanity is half the vocabulary.

But everything after that...it's distracting and annoying. Not really funny or edgy.

It's like when a young adult realizes that nobody is going to tell on them if s/he curses and can't help but feel free to liberally exercise their new-found privilege.

 

[Waffle_Man]

"Dark" isn't necessarily good so much as it's conducive to grounding something, which in turn makes it easier to believe. However, there is a big problem of people trying to mash it together with heavy stylizations that cause thematic contradictions, making it all feel forced and blase.

Truth be told, making things "dark" doesn't necessarily make something either mature or grounded. All it does is widen the number of possible events that can happen.

 

[Terramax]

I miss all the colourful, innocent Sega games. Sure they make the odd colourful titles now, but 10 years ago even their 'mature' action games like Panzer Dragoon Orta and Gun Valkyrie were beautiful despite their deeper stories, but now we have stuff like Bayonetta and Yakuza.

Studio Ghibli films often had rather dark plots, but were still beautifully vibrant and colourful to watch, and it's never done them any harm. I don't see why everything should have to look like Resident Evil to be taken seriously.

 

[Theron Julius]

Well don't you know? True art is angsty. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsAngsty] How could it possible be good if it's not dark?

 

[Torrasque]

I haven't really noticed this trend. I think you may be mistaking serious for dark?
Take Harry Potter for instance. The books and films were serious because Voldemort came back and was in power, so of course it is going to be dark. So it isn't dark because it is leaning towards being dark and brooding, but because it was a serious problem. In Harry Potter's case, it was the 'darkness before the sun rises' kind of thing that people will always be suckers for, it is a part of good writing: make things REALLY shitty so things get tense, then make them positive to contrast them with how shitty things were.

As some have said, that "dark" motif that you seem to understand as a trend, is likely there as a way to gather a larger audience and possibly to distinguish the setting as a serious setting rather than a childish or "light" setting. I don't like specifically dark/serious settings in movies/books/anime, because I like silly and light-hearted stuff more. No matter what it is, zombies, war, post-apocalypse, I prefer light-hearted stuff more. Maybe because I like comedies more, maybe because I don't like taking anything too seriously. /shrug

 

[Nieroshai]

To be fair to Mass Effect, they hinted from game 1 that the Reapers would wreak havok on a galactic scale once they arrived, and 1 and 2 were about trying to stop them from arriving. Couple that with one death of your choice in the first game, and from 0 to your full squad dying depending on how completionist you were, I think a dark tone was the entire point. The third game faithfully took the exact tone that the Reapers arriving would cause: darker tone, panicking citizens, casualties, and more just made sense. And the feel of hopelessness at the end between being hit by the Reaper laser and watching the earth burn and slumping down in despair because the conduit wasn't working felt very necessary to me. Sure, it would've been cool to see Shepard walk out alive, but this was the culmination of setting Shepard up as a sacrificial lamb from the beginning. Getting the mission done no matter what is what Shepard's paradigm has been for the whole series.

EDIT: I also hate the new ad-captchas. Seriously?

 

[Ieyke]

Warhammer 40k is a good example of ways 'dark' can go. Dan Abnett can write a dark story well while some other authors just aren't good writers and just make it "dark"

Abnett actually improves on the 40K formula by not making everything excessively dark. Back before Games Workshop got their heads stuck so far up their asses, the insane darkness of 40K was used as parody not unlike the Judge Dredd comics. Nowadays, they take their darkness way too seriously without any hint of irony.

Dan Abnett sidesteps this by lightening the mood. It's still a depressing situation to be sure, but he remembers the most important part of a dark storyline: Hope.

There is a reason that 28 Days Later is my favorite horror film. By all means, the events that happen in the film are terrifying and tragic, but the characters are so endearing because they believe that they can and will overcome the disaster. And when they do, it is so satisfying. The Imperium actually functions in Abnett's 40K. It gives humanity a reason to fight, even if it is misguided.

The hope that they can overcome the challenges that humanity faces is a driving theme that keeps you invested in the characters. That despite the horrific nature of the universe, good people can and still do exist.

Thant is the same reason mass effect is compelling along with the characters. Despite the reapers being unstoppable, there is a glimmer of hope, no matter how bad the situation is.

Indeed. To go back to the 40K example: Ollanius Pius. Back before Games Workshop got their pauldron fetish on, Ollanius Pius was the most badass figure in all of 40K. Who was he? A single human who stood up to Horus in the darkest hour.

He has armor the equivalent or cardboard and a glorified laser pointer. And he fearlessly stood between the Emperor and Horus, two literal GODS, to stand up for what was right. He was obliterated instantly, but his sacrifice gave the Emperor clarity for two things.

#1: Horus was so far gone that he would be petty enough to stomp on someone who wasn't even a threat.
#2: Ollanius represented the hope of humanity. That someone so small and insignificant would lay down his life for what he believed in, standing against impossible odds and facing total annihilation was proof that humanity deserved its place in the galaxy.

The point of Ollanius's sacrifice was that it gave the Emperor the resolve to keep fighting.

All of that was thrown out by Games Workshop when they replaced Pius with a Terminator and then a Custodes, changing the Emperor's attack from resolve to getting a second wind while the Supersoldier kepts Horus busy. Completely missing the point of what Pius's sacrifice meant.

Dan Abnett brought Ollanius Pius back. He's back in the canon as of the latest Horus Heresy book, and I hope he gets to do his original sacrifice once again.

You've missed it entirely.
Oll may have been a hero to the humans, but in his original format he meant nothing to The Emperor. His death at the hands of Horus would've been the death of just one more human. A psychotically brave human, but just some human no less. Beyond that though, Oll's death made no sense since his very presence aboard the Vengeful Spirit was inexplicable. There was simply no reason whatsoever for him to be there.

The death of an Imperial Fists Terminator made sense in the fact that Rogal Dorn's Terminators had joined The Emperor, Sanguinius, and Dorn in teleporting aboard the Vengeful Spirit, but his death would have been basically equally meaningless to The Emperor as Oll's.

The death of an Adeptus Custode Terminator is the ideal version of the story. The Custodes go everywhere The Emperor goes, and thus it makes perfect sense for him to be aboard the Vengeful Spirit.
The Emperor was reluctant to believe that the Horus he knew and loved, his son, his most trusted general, was gone and irrecoverable, DESPITE Horus attacking him and Sanguinius laying dead at his feet, because The Emperor had only seen the effects of Horus' corruption and never saw the corrupt and twisted thing Horus had become in action for himself. He allowed Horus to swat him around, trying to find a way to get through to him.
The Custode Terminator one of The Emperor's constant and fiercely loyal companions for decades or even centuries, enters the room. One of the few beings in the galaxy who The Emperor might truly call a friend. This warrior enters the chamber with the Warmaster and fearlessly attacks the Arch-Traitor, only for Horus to instantly obliterate him from existence with a quick attack and maniacal glee. That Horus, his son, could so callously and unhesitatingly slaughter such a loyal and noble warrior, his bodyguard, his friend...THAT is what snapped The Emperor out of it and made him realize that the Horus he knew was truly lost to him. THAT is what made him annihilate the Warmaster's soul and cause the Chaos Gods that were possessing him to flee in terror.

It wasn't a matter of Horus being petty enough to destroy someone who was no threat, it was Horus' willingness to destroy someone whose worth The Emperor was personally familiar with. It was just a stone's throw away from being the same exact thing as if The Emperor had actually personally witnessed Horus murder Sanguinius. The Primarchs may be his sons and generals out leading his armies in the galaxy, but the Custodes are his constant companions and friends.
With the exception of maybe Horus and Dorn, The Emperor probably wasn't nearly so familiar with his Primarchs as he was with The Companions.

Ollanius Pius' new place in the fluff may actually earn him a reason for his death to matter to The Emperor, should he find himself aboard Horus' bridge somehow.
If he is, as some of us suspect, one of the handful of remaining Shamans (along with John Grammaticus and Malcador the Sigillite), then he may be among both the truest family and oldest friends of The Emperor in all of history. THAT would mean his death aboard the Vengeful Spirit would be significant to The Emperor, but it still doesn't explain his presence there.