Character Discussion Who is a better character Sanji or Mihawk?
- Thread starter Ganjin
- Start date
Sanji is better written no doubt.. some of the best written ones
Mihawk is one of those valuable characters that barely get screen time but when they do they do it in fashion.
I'd say for climatic revelations Mihawk but general Sanji for his usual shticks that don't involve simping.
If i compare solo endeavors on panel of both of these.. Mihawk has more narrative weight to his character when he's on screen.. but Sanji is more admirable in his solo ventures.. they tend to be discreet, mysterious and step above the rest but overall for his caliber and character they are spectacular
Mihawk is one of those valuable characters that barely get screen time but when they do they do it in fashion.
I'd say for climatic revelations Mihawk but general Sanji for his usual shticks that don't involve simping.
If i compare solo endeavors on panel of both of these.. Mihawk has more narrative weight to his character when he's on screen.. but Sanji is more admirable in his solo ventures.. they tend to be discreet, mysterious and step above the rest but overall for his caliber and character they are spectacular
Mihawk>Macbeth.....and that's on mama. When he was talking about swallowing pride and shit I was shaking, like legit shaking, it was some of the most deep (pause), hard (double pause) and awe inspiring words I've ever read, changed my life no cap. This Sanji dude, what is he really?, some guy that wants to find a pond?.....pffftt.
Mihawk when he's on screen performs his role flawlessly. His style, demeanour, choice of words all paint a clear picture of what kind of person he is.
Simplicity is often better than pseudo complexity/depth.
We haven't forgotten the travesty that was WCI. Pre Timeskip Sanji I'll give you was a great character.
My only critique of Mihawk is Oda keeps him out of the loop like he's on pause until he's not. There should have been more references to him, more relevant characters trying to challenge him etc. This would add some much needed lore for him. He's almost completely irrelevant to the world of One Piece, just an extension of Zoro waiting to apparently lose. All of this is off screen though, when he's shown he does no wrong, he's a great character in that sense.
Simplicity is often better than pseudo complexity/depth.
We haven't forgotten the travesty that was WCI. Pre Timeskip Sanji I'll give you was a great character.
My only critique of Mihawk is Oda keeps him out of the loop like he's on pause until he's not. There should have been more references to him, more relevant characters trying to challenge him etc. This would add some much needed lore for him. He's almost completely irrelevant to the world of One Piece, just an extension of Zoro waiting to apparently lose. All of this is off screen though, when he's shown he does no wrong, he's a great character in that sense.
I don't even think Sanji is that complex but at least he has SOME form of depth to his character, Mihawk doesn't have much going for him beyond being Zoros last stop. If we're talking about whose better written then it's objectively Sanji, but the second question is completely subjective, if you enjoy Mihawk more then that's fine but I'm not going to say a character who barely even appears in a 1000 plus chapter story is better written than a core main character with two dedicated character arcs because I like the cut of his jib .
But what if the writing around that character is contradictory or just overall poor?
You can spend a lot of time on a character doesn't make him/her well written, there's some trash tier characters out there like Sakura who I wouldn't consider better written than someone like Deidara from the same verse, despite her having much more exposure.
Now I'm not saying Sanji is Sakura tier, but boy does post skip Sanji (especially WCI) do a lot to diminish his character.
You can spend a lot of time on a character doesn't make him/her well written, there's some trash tier characters out there like Sakura who I wouldn't consider better written than someone like Deidara from the same verse, despite her having much more exposure.
Now I'm not saying Sanji is Sakura tier, but boy does post skip Sanji (especially WCI) do a lot to diminish his character.
Well contradictory writing of a character also doesn't imply a character is poorly written overall; a simple way to know which character is better written is to ask the following; between Sanji and Mihawk list clearly defined goals, motives, flaws, strengths, weaknesses, internal conflicts, external conflicts and level of relatability.....if you think Mihawk meets more of these than Sanji does then we can begin to have a proper debate about which character is better written. But make no mistake I do believe that Mihawk has the potential to be a well written character, but Oda needs to be a bit more comfortable with his writing of him and stop thinking he needs to protect his image.
But wouldn't Sakura check off more of these boxes than let's say Kakuzu for example?
But she does most of them wrong or poorly? Do we still have to reluctantly say Sakura is better written because of more content? And what if a character isn't meant to be relatable? Like say a psychopath (or did you mean relatable as in realistic?)?
But she does most of them wrong or poorly? Do we still have to reluctantly say Sakura is better written because of more content? And what if a character isn't meant to be relatable? Like say a psychopath (or did you mean relatable as in realistic?)?
Well lets use a more modern example, two villains, Tony Soprano and Walter White......wouldn't you say these characters have some relatable aspects to them?, after all we wouldn't even follow the show if there wasn't something to those characters that we latched onto as psychopathic as they may be a major part of why they work is that they function in a realm of relatability where the audience can sympathies and empathies with them throughout their journeys. And yes generally the character that checks off more boxes is considered better written, but of course I agree that the quality in which these aspects are written carry the most importance; though wouldn't you agree that a lacking in the majority of these categories would be a more serious case of poor character writing than the former?. After all I would rather have something than almost nothing and in the case of Sanji I wouldn't say that Oda dropped the ball THAT hard to the point where I would put him below a character who barely checks off any of the listed categories.