No Right Answer: Worst Father Ever

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Ozai definately I mean look at how Azula turns out.../shudder.

The man is a horrible, horrible father. I doubt he even cares he has kids.

Obviously Dan both wins the argument and at life. Because ANIME IS DUMB.

Its Dan's Father for instilling hatred of anime in him.

Daystar Clarion:
Dude, it's got to be Goku.

Ozai is evil, evil guys are expected to be dicks.

Goku doesn't even realise that he's giving his son abandonment issues.

I agree!
Goku is the poster-child for deadbeat dads everywhere.

***/*You are all wrong, unless someone mentioned him before now. The absolute worst father in all of
/anime, quite possibly in all of fiction itself is... *drumroll*...*

Gendo Ikari from Neon Genisis Evangelion

No doubt hands down the most low-down SOB to ever have a kid. Where do I begin? First he just abandons his 5(I believe) year old son at some old dudes house thats not even a relation to Shinji at all. Telling Shinji "I dont need you." Then while Shinji's gone he, for reasons Gendo only knows, creates a artifically engineered child. So he abandons his son just to create a little girl? Either he has some sick fetish's or its like I suspect and he made her to remind him of his wife. I think he made Rei out of material from his wife Yuri, change her hair from a purplish white to brown and I can see it.

Next he drives one of his researchers that he's sleeping with to suicide, then a few years later starts to put the moves on her daughter. In the Manga it shows Gendo and her making out over her mothers grave. I know that not "bad father" material just saying he's jerk.

On top of all that when Gendo finally calls his son to Tokyo to see him the first thing he tell him is basically "Yeah I only brought you here because I need you. Get in that giant robot thing and go fight." Not "Oh I missed you so much" or "Oh Shinji Im so sorry" not even so much as a "Hi nice to see ya." After all that he refuses to be in the same room with Shinji much less speak to him with the rare exception. He forces Shinji to move in with a alcoholic slob, (We all love Misato but facts are facts) even though they live in the same city and work together he goes out of his way to ignore him much less raise his teenage son. Thats right most of this crap happens to Shinji when he's only 14.

I was a emotional roller-coaster when I was 14, I can only imagine what it must have been like for Shinji who was already emotionally scared. Gendo completly and utterly mind screwed Shinji to the point where even Sigmund Freud would say "I give up"

*rant over*

Sorry I been thinking bout this alot lately becuase of my own miserable father, and I know alot of people that are super cool but are emotionally unbalanced because of how they where raised. I Try and help them as best I can.

Once again, the damn video won't load. No Right Answer is the only video on the Escapist that won't load for me. What are you doing different with this video, Escapist? And would you please stop doing it?

Edit: Also, Avatar is not an anime; it only wishes it was.

RJ Dalton:
Once again, the damn video won't load. No Right Answer is the only video on the Escapist that won't load for me. What are you doing different with this video, Escapist? And would you please stop doing it?

Edit: Also, Avatar is not an anime; it only wishes it was.

No. Anime wishes it could be what Avatar is.

minuialear:

DarkRyter:
Also, Avatar ain't Japanese. Not anime. Not like it matters, though.

restoshammyman:
"anime is dumb". sorry to break it to ya. avatar is not anime. it was made by Nickelodeon

Eabus:
1. Anime is from Japan, avatar is not from Japan so it is anime-ish

GoWithDAFro:
1. Avatar is not anime. seriously.

http://www.answers.com/topic/anime

Anime is a style. Thus the country a show was made in makes no difference in whether it can be considered anime or not; what matters is whether the style of the show is consistent with the anime style (which Avatar is fairly consistent with).

Anime is a medium. Though there are stylistic consistencies amongst many anime, there is no universal style that can be ascribed. Anime can be and often is as wide and as varied in its aesthetics as any comparative animation of another country.

If anime is truly defined by the stylistic inclinations people think of when people think "anime", then such famed works like Redline, or Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, or even anything by Studio Ghibli would no longer qualify. Or, at the very least, become debatable.

And that's the issue with a style based definition. It becomes subjective. Country of origin leaves no room for personal interpretation. It's a rock solid classification, that avoids going into the wishy-washy world of artistic interpretation.

I think the worst father award would have to go to Ozai in this case. Yes, Goku spent much of his time away from his son trying to save worlds, but Gohan was always in his heart. Think about the absence more like a separation situation where Goku didn't get custody of his kid but is allowed occasional visitation rights. Ozai, on the other hand, permanently scars his son because he cannot use Zuko in his plans for world domination. He can, however, use his daughter for those means, and coddles her up until she is of no use to him any longer so he shuns her. I hear what everyone is saying about him being a dick and that's what dicks do, but at least Goku gave a damn about Gohan and Goten, teaching them that strength is about more than just brawn and that its ok to fight when the cause is right.

Oh, now it works. After waiting twenty minutes.

So . . .

Dan, I had no idea you were a teenaged chick in a skimpy chain mail bikini.

DarkRyter:
Anime is a medium. Though there are stylistic consistencies amongst many anime, there is no universal style that can be ascribed. Anime can be and often is as wide and as varied in its aesthetics as any comparative animation of another country.

If anime is truly defined by the stylistic inclinations people think of when people think "anime", then such famed works like Redline, or Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, or even anything by Studio Ghibli would no longer qualify. Or, at the very least, become debatable.

And that's the issue with a style based definition. It becomes subjective. Country of origin leaves no room for personal interpretation. It's a rock solid classification, that avoids going into the wishy-washy world of artistic interpretation.

You're misusing the word "medium"; maybe you meant genre? If anime were a medium that would mean it'd be completely separate from animation as a medium, which is false.

There is a universal style, as there are several characteristics, taken in combination or separately, which distinguish anime from other forms of animation, including but not limited to characteristics such as how hair is stylized, facial/body proportions, and how motion is animated, etc.

Sure, the style has evolved to incorporate more variety, but you will always find some combination of the various core characteristics, to the point where the work will be distinguishable from, say, Batman TAS.

And so what if it's subjective? ART (which all animation is) is subjective. Art is also complex, and just because you classify something as being of one style doesn't mean it can't also borrow from various other styles in order to maintain its own voice, nor does it mean it must be exactly like every other body of work of that style. Go read an art book and hopefully you'll see what I mean.

minuialear:
You're misusing the word "medium"; maybe you meant genre? If anime were a medium that would mean it'd be completely separate from animation as a medium, which is false.

Medium might not be the best descriptive word to describe what anime is, but it's a better descriptor than "genre". Genre carries more of a connotation that implies a similarity of content, and since any kind of narrative can be told in anime, there's no uniformity of content (no matter what some people would have you believe). So anime isn't a genre in the same way that black and white film isn't a genre. "Style" is probably the best word to use for anime, but in my experience, it's not specific enough to really satisfy what people are trying to say in most conversations. So yeah, I think "medium" is a good word to use.

Goku

its the obvious choice.

1. lets chi chi raise gohan alone while he spends the day out in the woods.
2. Allows his once mortal enemy, Piccolo, to raise gohan (green dude more of a father)
3. Dies and doesn't come back because he needs to train
4. On Gohan's marriage day party, he spends protecting bird eggs at the exclusion of EVERYTHING ELSE including natural selection.
5. Abandons family to train a stranger who is the reincarnation of the ultimate evil in the universe.

Ozai is just an evil dude, he is a bad father by his nature!

Goku is a boyscout who completely neglects his family, he is a bad father because he takes no responsiblity!

to be willfully negligent is worst than just being evil.

The fact Chi Chi puts up with him can only mean he is a tripod and EXTREMELY good in bed <.< cause for the life of me i cant think of a reason she has been so faithful XD

minuialear:

DarkRyter:
Anime is a medium. Though there are stylistic consistencies amongst many anime, there is no universal style that can be ascribed. Anime can be and often is as wide and as varied in its aesthetics as any comparative animation of another country.

If anime is truly defined by the stylistic inclinations people think of when people think "anime", then such famed works like Redline, or Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, or even anything by Studio Ghibli would no longer qualify. Or, at the very least, become debatable.

And that's the issue with a style based definition. It becomes subjective. Country of origin leaves no room for personal interpretation. It's a rock solid classification, that avoids going into the wishy-washy world of artistic interpretation.

You're misusing the word "medium"; maybe you meant genre? If anime were a medium that would mean it'd be completely separate from animation as a medium, which is false.

There is a universal style, as there are several characteristics, taken in combination or separately, which distinguish anime from other forms of animation, including but not limited to characteristics such as how hair is stylized, facial/body proportions, and how motion is animated, etc.

Sure, the style has evolved to incorporate more variety, but you will always find some combination of the various core characteristics, to the point where the work will be distinguishable from, say, Batman TAS.

And so what if it's subjective? ART (which all animation is) is subjective. Art is also complex, and just because you classify something as being of one style doesn't mean it can't also borrow from various other styles in order to maintain its own voice, nor does it mean it must be exactly like every other body of work of that style. Go read an art book and hopefully you'll see what I mean.

Animation is a medium. Anime means Japanese animation. Thus, Anime is a medium.

You can't look at CLANNAD and Shin-Chan and say there is universal style to anime. You wouldn't be able to say there are amongst Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony, would you?

There's more to art then just how it looks. At least, when it comes to classification. Say you painted something. And it happened to be heavily inspired by Renaissance art. In fact, it looks as if Leonardo himself just hopped up from his grave and tag-teamed with Michelangelo to make the most "Renaissance-y" painting in the entirety of human creation. But this ain't 15th century Italy. And it is not a renaissance painting.

Yeah, you could say there's alot of anime inspiration in Avatar (though, honestly, it still looks wildly different from most anime I've seen. Yeah, there's more FLCL in there than there is The Simpsons, but it's still especially distinct). But that doesn't make it anime. That doesn't make Teen Titans anime. That doesn't make The Boondocks(this one's kinda funky) or Kappa Mikey anime.

Anime is Japanese. That's what comes to mind before all else. It's what defines the term.

Goku of course

Yeah, I get that the whole hero schtick probably gets him some slack cut, but you have to remember these.

1. The first time he gets K.O.d he leaves Gohan in the hands of piccolo.
2. Then while goku is recovering from the battle against vegeta, chichi is left to take care of gohan, who's been taught to fight pretty much 24/7 for the past year.
3.Goku goes to namek without the slightest notice.
4.When he finds out gohan has been tagging along with vegeta this doesn't bother him in the slightest.( though the circumstances probably had something to do with this)
5. Later, he makes Gohan be the one to fight cell
6.Later still he misses the first few years of Gotens (his second son) life because he doesn't feel like being alive.
7. To top it all off, once these shenanigans are over his next course of action is to train some kid he met at a tournament.

DarkRyter:
Animation is a medium. Anime means Japanese animation. Thus, Anime is a medium.

Anime means "cartoon/animation"; only people who don't know Japanese attach the Japanese qualifier onto it. So in actuality, the only thing that actually separates anime from Spongebob/etc is the fact that anime shares a common style that is absent in most if not all non-anime animation.

You can't look at CLANNAD and Shin-Chan and say there is universal style to anime. You wouldn't be able to say there are amongst Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony, would you?

I haven't watched either show, but from a two-second trip to Google Images I can tell that both convey emotion using similar techniques common to anime, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were other characteristics they both shared (though obviously, having never watched either, I'm not going to waste time arguing it).

I wouldn't say Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony share the same style, because I never claimed those two shows are of the same style....?

There's more to art then just how it looks. At least, when it comes to classification. Say you painted something. And it happened to be heavily inspired by Renaissance art. In fact, it looks as if Leonardo himself just hopped up from his grave and tag-teamed with Michelangelo to make the most "Renaissance-y" painting in the entirety of human creation. But this ain't 15th century Italy. And it is not a renaissance painting.

It would be considered a painting of the Renaissance style. What else would it be classified as?

Yeah, you could say there's alot of anime inspiration in Avatar (though, honestly, it still looks wildly different from most anime I've seen. Yeah, there's more FLCL in there than there is The Simpsons, but it's still especially distinct). But that doesn't make it anime. That doesn't make Teen Titans anime. That doesn't make The Boondocks(this one's kinda funky) or Kappa Mikey anime.

Anime is Japanese. That's what comes to mind before all else. It's what defines the term.

In your opinion. That's not how it's actually defined, in an official or logical sense.

minuialear:

Anime means "cartoon/animation"; only people who don't know Japanese attach the Japanese qualifier onto it. So in actuality, the only thing that actually separates anime from Spongebob/etc is the fact that anime shares a common style that is absent in most if not all non-anime animation.

The word anime, in Japanese, means "animation". No specification beyond that, referring to any style or technique. Merely, "animation". It makes the most logical sense that the English loanword, refer to "Japanese animation".

I haven't watched either show, but from a two-second trip to Google Images I can tell that both convey emotion using similar techniques common to anime, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were other characteristics they both shared (though obviously, having never watched either, I'm not going to waste time arguing it).

No one technique, no one style is universal in anime. Animators on either side of the pacific are never so idiotically rigid. You'll find the tricks and techniques that are used in alot of anime, but they can easily be used (and often are) in western animation, so there's no real point in associating said techniques with anime in the first place.

Anime can be any style. It can be all style. It can have no style at all. But it doesn't add anything to the definition.

It would be considered a painting of the Renaissance style. What else would it be classified as?

Yeah, you could say it looks like a Renaissance painting. You could say Avatar looks like an anime(which I still affirm, it does not). But that doesn't make it a Renaissance painting. The word Renaissance specifically references a period of history for a specific geographic area. Just as "Anime"(The English loanword for Japanese animation)specifically outlines a national origin.

In your opinion. That's not how it's actually defined, in an official or logical sense.

All lexicography is opinion. What I'm trying to argue is that "Japanese animation" is a superior working definition for anime, rather than vaguely defining it as a supposed "style" that it doesn't even have.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is that Avatar should be next to Atomic Betty on a DVD shelf, not Azumanga Daioh. Unless you're grouping your shelf in a different way.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take Dan's side with this. Neither win, but they both lose. They both lose horribly on the account of them being animé fathers.

minuialear:

DarkRyter:
Animation is a medium. Anime means Japanese animation. Thus, Anime is a medium.

Anime means "cartoon/animation"; only people who don't know Japanese attach the Japanese qualifier onto it. So in actuality, the only thing that actually separates anime from Spongebob/etc is the fact that anime shares a common style that is absent in most if not all non-anime animation.

You can't look at CLANNAD and Shin-Chan and say there is universal style to anime. You wouldn't be able to say there are amongst Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony, would you?

I haven't watched either show, but from a two-second trip to Google Images I can tell that both convey emotion using similar techniques common to anime, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were other characteristics they both shared (though obviously, having never watched either, I'm not going to waste time arguing it).

I wouldn't say Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony share the same style, because I never claimed those two shows are of the same style....?

There's more to art then just how it looks. At least, when it comes to classification. Say you painted something. And it happened to be heavily inspired by Renaissance art. In fact, it looks as if Leonardo himself just hopped up from his grave and tag-teamed with Michelangelo to make the most "Renaissance-y" painting in the entirety of human creation. But this ain't 15th century Italy. And it is not a renaissance painting.

It would be considered a painting of the Renaissance style. What else would it be classified as?

Yeah, you could say there's alot of anime inspiration in Avatar (though, honestly, it still looks wildly different from most anime I've seen. Yeah, there's more FLCL in there than there is The Simpsons, but it's still especially distinct). But that doesn't make it anime. That doesn't make Teen Titans anime. That doesn't make The Boondocks(this one's kinda funky) or Kappa Mikey anime.

Anime is Japanese. That's what comes to mind before all else. It's what defines the term.

In your opinion. That's not how it's actually defined, in an official or logical sense.

According to a documentary on Anime done by the STARZ TV channel anime DOES need to be from Japan to qualify as anime..... In this they interviewed key figures in the industry and chronicled its start in WW2 to today.

Worst day ever: Bruce Wayne's dad

-M

DarkRyter:
The word anime, in Japanese, means "animation". No specification beyond that, referring to any style or technique. Merely, "animation". It makes the most logical sense that the English loanword, refer to "Japanese animation".

Considering we don't universally categorize cartoons depending on the countries they come from, your logic seems to be inconsistent and again is ignoring the impact of style on the distinction. When the word was first borrowed, it was because anime used a style so distinct from Western animation that the entire body of work coming from Japan (which at the time was mostly consistent with this style) was noted as being separate from that in the West.

Had the cartoons been as different in style as South Park is from The Simpsons, it's arguable (and extremely doubtful) that the same overarching classification would have arised.

No one technique, no one style is universal in anime. Animators on either side of the pacific are never so idiotically rigid. You'll find the tricks and techniques that are used in alot of anime, but they can easily be used (and often are) in western animation, so there's no real point in associating said techniques with anime in the first place.

There is, because those "tricks and techniques" are used in with more consistency in the anime style than they are in western animation. THAT IS WHAT STYLE IS. Being of the same style doesn't mean everything of that style needs to look exactly the same, nor does it mean everything of one style needs to be completely different from works of another style. In order to be of a certain style, a body of work simply needs to, at its core, utilize techniques and characteristics common to other works of the style.

Yeah, you could say it looks like a Renaissance painting. You could say Avatar looks like an anime(which I still affirm, it does not). But that doesn't make it a Renaissance painting. The word Renaissance specifically references a period of history for a specific geographic area. Just as "Anime"(The English loanword for Japanese animation)specifically outlines a national origin. different way.

Actually Renaissance can also refer to a style of art that originated from the time--not simply the time period itself. So it could be accurate to say it's a Renaissance painting, so long as you're referring to the style and not to the actual time period.

There are a lot of time periods in which people didn't actually name their style (because it was so widespread at the time that there was no point), and so there is no other name for the style other than the time period from which it originated. So historians, rather than make up a new name, often group together all works from the time (most if not all of which share a common style and thematic nature), and characterize the style based on the entire time period. This doesn't mean that one has to have painted at that time in that place in order to have painted something in the same style; it just means they don't have a separate name to attribute the style of their painting to. It also doesn't mean that people who didn't paint in this particular style were still considered Renaissance painters as opposed to other-style painters, in terms of STYLE: if someone in the Renaissance has still painted like artists in the Middle Ages, their work would have been classified accordingly.

In other words, painters of that time period weren't lumped together just because they lived during the same time period, but because of the widepread consistency of the style that they all used. So while "Renaissance" refers to a time period, "Renaissance art/style" refers to the style of their work, and does not exclude people who did not fit into that time frame (nor does it include people of that time frame who otherwise did not draw inspiration from the style).

The same applies to anime; Japanese cartoons, when they first gained ground in the West, were grouped together mostly because they shared a style and themes that were distinctly different from Western cartoons. ESPECIALLY way back when anime first became popular in the West, and when a lot of anime actually did look almost exactly the same. The classification only references Japan in order to indicate this, and frankly is outdated.

And again (since you didn't actually answer the question): assuming that a painting in the style of Renaissance paintings can't be classified as a Renaissance-style painting, then what do you classify it as?

MorganL4:
According to a documentary on Anime done by the STARZ TV channel anime DOES need to be from Japan to qualify as anime..... In this they interviewed key figures in the industry and chronicled its start in WW2 to today.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Japanese_anime#Terminology

In regards to what a percentage of people in Japan's industry say about it (because that mindset is definitely not held by everyone in the industry), I'm inclined to think that it comes from some of the older figures, due to feelings of nationalism ("It's our style and we don't like people using it"/"We consider our art done in our style to be most authentic"/etc). It's more of a dislike of people enroaching on their territory, so to speak (a viewpoint common in Japanese culture throughout its history), and not so much an objective standpoint.

I've never seen Dragon Ball,
so Ozai

Wow.

Hmmm, well I'd have to give this one to Ozai to be honest. While he did "properly" raise one of his children to become an equally evil twit, he did undergo some epic fail with Zuko despite Zuko's own arrogance issues.

Goku at least believes he's leaving his kids with capable surrogate parents most of the time, he's no worse than say parents who work all the time and hire professional nannies, that's not good, but it's not entirely evil either.

Ozai on the other hand exiled his son, expecting him to die. Really Zuko only got by because his enemies really weren't all that bad, and because the crazy old man he was with, wasn't really a lunatic. If things went the way Ozai expected Zuko would have died a horrible, humiliating death.

See, I haven't seen all of Avatar (or much DBZ at all) but I know the basics. With "Avatar" I used to think that Ozai exiled his son, intending the experience to toughen him up, show him wisdom and humility, etc... when Ozai finally started to appear though what I saw pretty much fell into the "total douche" catagory on this issue at least. If there was anything redeeming about his relationship with Zuko, I don't remember ever seeing it.

Goku at least has good intentions, and leaves Gohan with people that he generally believes should be able to support him. Ozai does not.

worst father?, Ozai natch (say what you will about Goku, at least he didn't try to actively murder his own flesh & blood kid)

oh boy! after getting through the thread, I have to still say Ozai.

lets go down the list, yes?

first of all, keep in mind Goku's own parenting. he was essentially a semi-wild child when Dragon ball started, after his care giver Gohan died. even if you ignore the fact his race was known for sending their own children off on planet obliteration missions (circa DBZ), you have to allow for his lack of common social knowledge. being a father wasn't one of them. Being a good PERSON was.

as for his "abandoning" of gohan to piccolo: no. Goku was dead, Piccolo was there, saw the kids power, wanted to train it. NOBODY could have stopped him from doing so, since he was the strongest person left there. Piccolo eventually becomes gohan's second father, yes, but I think the excuse of "I died to help save everyone, INCLUDING my son" gets goku off the hook there.

as for the other times by series Gohan was abandoned by Goku, (that i remember) we have the end of the namek saga, and if you count it, the ending of the cell and majin sagas. no, we do not bother to count GT.

admitted, the majin saga is a ??? moment, and the namek saga ending almost caused trouble, but even then Goku had instant trasmission and was intending to stop the starting events when trunks stepped in. but the Cell saga I got. remember, ever since DBZ started every villain character that came to earth was to seek Goku out. raditz, Nappa, Vegeta,Freeza (after his saga ended), and ALL of the androids including cell all had a bone to pick with goku. he figured that if he stayed around he'd cause even more trouble on earth, so he stayed dead at the end of the cell saga thinking it would save everyone trouble. at least, until executive meddling and the majin into GT...

Gohan went to Namek to save piccolo who he respected, and when Goku did have time with Gohan he still wasn't a bad father in any respect. if memory serves Goku and Chichi also got along well despite all the mess they had, and goku did agree to let gohan become a scholar once all the mess of the androids was averted. if occasional abandonment's is all there is on his list, considering he may as well be the Japanese superman for the amount of punishment he took and lives he tried to save, then Ozai... Ozai wins.

Goku may be an idiot at times, but his hearts in the right place. Ozai? oh boy, lets see...

multiple attempts to kill Zuko, banishing Zuko for backtalk, scarring his face and forcing him to go hunt for a person that's been missing for 100 years... and yet whenever Zuko has the chance in the early seasons, he tried to get back in his fathers good graces. never mind what happened to his mother so Ozai could get on the throne in the first place.

Ozai was a maniac who used his kids as chips to get what he wanted. he prepped Azula into what we first saw her as, and she turned out to be JUST a trip herself. She threatened and manipulated people, and would have killed Zuko to, but she knew how much he wanted to be back in dear ol dads good graces, and used that almost as often as fire bending on him. when all that back-drafted on her.. it literally gave me chills. yeah. while you can argue Goten didn't get anything from Goku, I'm pretty sure we've got Ozais full range of parenting issues at hand here.

the kid he hates gets scarred for life and multiple murder attempts put on his head, and the one he favors goes bonkers. that's 0 for 2, Ozai. at least when Goku put Gohan in harms way, he had a reason of proving gohan was stronger then him at the time, and was able to save the world, despite the craziness of the move.

People here are giving Ozai a pass because he was already a bad guy. y'know what? Goku may not be a good father by any stretch, but ill take a self-sacrificing father that keeps the planet I live on from destruction even if i don't get to see him, versus being beaten around by a king who doesn't want anything to do with me unless I can be a political chip somehow. oh, and intended to incinerate everyone to fulfill his aims of global conquest.

But really, both fathers are busy busy folks. still though, even though Ozai wins this round, he would lose to Charles Zi Britannia (Ozai 3.0) and Gendo Ikari (mindscrew case #1) in this one.

ho boy. addenda (TLDR): Ozai by landslide, even accounting for Goku's parental stupidity. remember, who'd you'd rather have, an abusive dad, or a well meaning one that has to leave for years to do things that are for the good of everyone else?

still, neither compared to Gendo Ikari or Charles zi Britannia.

Goku is supposed to be a good guy but he is even more absent and unhelpful to his child then Ozai was. I think that makes it worse.

So Goku is the worst.

I also vote Dan for worst judge ever.

Firefilm:
Just to get your attention.

Shouldn't this thread have a poll? It would make things a hell of a lot easier on you guys than having to read through all of this.

My vote goes to Ozai, I've never seen the show but I know that Goku pretty much did everything with the best of intentions and just made a few too many stupid mistakes. Ozai, as others who have watched the show have pointed out, is just a dick throughout.

Worse father is Sparda from Devil May Cry, fo' srs.

CK76:
Goku

He is a child. He was never fit to be a parent and the responsibilities that come with it. It is one thing to abandon your family in time of tumult, but often it is just to train and fight. The only time he can connect at all with his children is with violence in molding them into warriors. He is a bad father and lacks the capacity to feel a hint of guilt for what he has put his children through.

This exactly. Couldn't say it better.

Based on what I know from the two shows and what the two said about the fathers. I will side with Goku being the worst father of the two.

Ozai. Why? Because for as much as he abandoned his son, Goku DID show up and defend. Ozai basically said, "get out and don't come back unless you show up with this mystical dude who may not exist anymore," which was his nice way of saying, "you're weak and a failure and I don't want to see you ever again ever."

Also, Ozai is evil. Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

Ozai is definitely worse.

Friggin Goku.

I remember in the Cel saga, he sends Gohan in to fight. At this point, Gohan is about 8-10 years old. And he's being sent to fight a weird bug guy whose been killing everyone. Not only that, just before the fight, Goku gives Cel a senzou bean, curing him of all his past injuries and making him fresh as a daisy.

To make the fight fair.

Okay, no matter how terrible a father Goku is and believe me he's an awful dad he's got nothing on the Fire Lord. While Goku is stupid and neglectful of Gohan, Ozai is downright malicious towards Zuko. You only need look at Zuko to see the results of Ozai's cruelty. Then of course we get to the point of Zuko being thrown out of the fire nation on what equates to the hunt for a unicorn. Can you just imagine having everything you cherish and hold dear taken away by a man who you believed must love you at least a bit?

Nope, I'll take a neglectful father over a downright abuser any day of the week. Ozai's got this one hand's down.

For the kind of person Goku is supposed to represent (the good guy) he has to be the worst father. Ozai is expected to be a dick to his son on account of being an evil dick. Goku is a guy who protects people, saves lives, and fights off evil. Yet he cannot have a working relationship with his son or family. It's the kind of thing I'd like DC to try with Superman if the Lois Lane relationship is ever brought back. Then it'd be a bit more realistic.

And anime is pretty awesome if you find the right ones. Just like any TV/cartoon show.

The argument seems to boil down to "Is it worse to be neglectful to a child or abusive?". How does one measure one success of a father? I would assume that it would be based on how well a kid turns out based on the specific parenting style of the parent. Which would presumably be abusive and mean Ozai is the worse father. Although, i think it would awesome to have an actually psychologist weigh in on the issue, maybe escapists resident psychologist Dr. Mark?

A popular reason why Goku is nominated as the worse father is because he is a hypocrite. Personally, i fail to see how this would make him a worse father. Does being neglectful to your child but not the rest of the world cause your child to turn out any worse than if the father is neglectful to everyone?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here