Oroku Nagi, "pointless" or just removed for the kids?

[neatoman]

I have seen Oroku Nagi described as "pointless" before, mostly because he's really only in Mirage and there he is dead, I'm just not sure that's really accurate and the adaptations might be missing something by removing him. Saying that he is "pointless" is kind of like saying the Burglar in Spider-Man is pointless if some adaptation chose to make Uncle Ben's killer the Sandman instead... Ahem...

Anyway, the way I see it, Oroku Nagi has not really been removed because he doesn't serve a purpose, rather to make Shredder seem more like a clear cut villain and Splinter/Yoshi as more heroic. It's not hard to see why that would be the case, Yoshi actually commiting manslaughter does give Shredder genuine reason to hate him and it might be kind of hard to explain why Shredder ruins other lives in children's cartoons. I just don't think that really equates to better, just arguably more appropriate for children?

Let's just go over how it's tackled in the adaptations:

1. The Fred Wolf cartoon obviously avoids the concept of death as much as possible, that's probably the reason why not just Nagi is removed but also why we never see Tang Shen and Yoshi gets a nonsensical combination with Splinter. It's pretty obvious why Archie retconned the origin to feature an actual murder, it's just generally concerned with making a bloodless origin at the cost of sense.
2. The 1990 movie combines Nagi and Shredder. Here we have the most clear cut case of Shredder being made as evil as possible and Splinter being as good as possible. Yoshi never kills anyone, Shredder murders Tang Shen for fleeing from him and Splinter only trains the Turtles to defend themselves.
3. In the 4Kids cartoon, we probably get the closest thing to keeping Nagi. He's not named Nagi and obviously isn't Shredder's brother. He is however clearly meant to be Nagi in all other regards, he murders Tang Shen and Yoshi kills him. On the other hand Yoshi's moral character is relatively intact, as he kills him in a duel. Shredder obviously doesn't really care about this guy either, so his death just wasn't a motivating factor.
4. IDW also doesn't have Nagi... Sort of... If Splinter being Hamato Yoshi's reincarnation is used as a round about way of somehow both making him Hamato Yoshi as well as still having Yoshi be a murder victim, then we can argue something similar with Shredder. He is the reincarnation of Takeshi Tatsuo and upon finding out how he died, he chose to avenge him. So that would give Takeshi Tatsuo the basic role of Oroku Nagi.
5. The Nickelodeon cartoon is a bit weird. It mostly copies the movie backstory but decides to give Shredder some sympathy points by making the murder of Tang Shen an accident he blamed Yoshi for. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, it kind of seemed like they wanted Shredder to still be a clear cut villain but also wanted him to have some sympathy points, and the solution was to make him delusional? The point still stands, Splinter did not kill anyone and Shredder is still to blame.
6. In the PD movies we straight up don't know that much his backstory. What we do know is that Shredder just wanted to poison people for money, he had no personal connection to April's dad (who kind of took on Yoshi's role) or anyone other than Sacks. He's pretty much just a generic bad guy.
7. In Rise he's not even really evil, he was just driven mad by a cursed armor. Which I guess means the armor is the true villain?

None of these reasons seems to really make it actually work better in terms of making Shredder, Splinter or Yoshi better characters. For the most part they only seem to exist to make Shredder more evil. If not they're just kind of weird, like avenging your own death or being a corrupted ghost in demonic armor. The only one of these that kind of seem as if it's meant to make him more sympathetic without the legitimate reason just relies on delusion, which is hardly elegant.

[Zachatello00]

If Nagi is "irrelevant" it's only because we haven't seen him appear in any sort of Turtles media beyond the first issue of the comic. I personally like him being part of the "legend" of NT lore, but don't know that I find him altogether "necessary" in stories moving forward - for reasons that find themselves aligning with the arguments you've made. The idea of making Saki a more or less "clearly evil" character depending on how his backstory is handled is interesting to see. Personally, I like my villains black and white as opposed to a more relatable gray, but I digress. Is he pointless? I don't think so. Is he necessary? I'm not sure of that either. Looking forward to seeing how the thread shakes out as more opinions are shared.

[Zog The Magnificent]

I think he's redundant. It makes for stronger story and stronger connection between the characters if the rivalry is directly between them. Oroku Nagi is just a glorified middleman who could be removed from the story and change nothing, as shown by the fact that literally every adaptation leaves him behind. I just think that in general, the rivalry is stronger and more personal if it's more directly between Shredder and Splinter.

[AquaParade]

Nice summation. I'll have to think about this one. It sort of gets your imagination going.

[FrederikWolferson]

He's not really needed,and every adaptation trimmed him out. He's fine in the Mirage continuity since a cycle of vengence is kind of a theme there. He did haunt a house in one Tales issue,and that's about all we get.

Afaik,the original cartoon is the only other version where Shredder actually has a brother.

[frank_one]

I guess the family murder/revenge was a common theme in the plot of many Hong Kong movies in the 70s. If I'm not wrong Laird was a fan of Bruce Lee and martial art flicks like many other young Americans in that period so it is possible that the assasination of Nagi is a nod to those films.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Zog The Magnificent

I think he's redundant. It makes for stronger story and stronger connection between the characters if the rivalry is directly between them. Oroku Nagi is just a glorified middleman who could be removed from the story and change nothing, as shown by the fact that literally every adaptation leaves him behind. I just think that in general, the rivalry is stronger and more personal if it's more directly between Shredder and Splinter.

But how exactly do you remove Nagi without stripping Saki of reasonable motives and sympathy points??

1. If Saki just betrays Yoshi for power, he's just power hungry.
2. If he kills Yoshi and Shen out of envy, he's just a psycho.
3. If he kills them because they're traitors to the Clan, he's just following duty.
4. If he kills Shen and blames Yoshi, he's a delusional tool.
5. If he kills Yoshi because he failed to interrogate him, Yoshi is just a casualty of Shredder thinking tactically.

These cases either negate any sympathy for Shredder or it removes his emotional involvement almost entirely. Again, these changes were not in place to make a better character dynamic, they were made to make Shredder seem more evil. That is the entire point of the opening post, remove Nagi and you remove what little makes you feel sorry for Shredder.

"You killed my brother" is a very common trope but it is effective. And I'm not sure why you don't think that is especially personal, kill someone's family member and they're going to take it personally.

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by neatoman

But how exactly do you remove Nagi without stripping Saki of reasonable motives and sympathy points??

1. If Saki just betrays Yoshi for power, he's just power hungry.
2. If he kills Yoshi and Shen out of envy, he's just a psycho.
3. If he kills them because they're traitors to the Clan, he's just following duty.
4. If he kills Shen and blames Yoshi, he's a delusional tool.
5. If he kills Yoshi because he failed to interrogate him, Yoshi is just a casualty of Shredder thinking tactically.

These cases either negate any sympathy for Shredder or it removes his emotional involvement almost entirely. Again, these changes were not in place to make a better character dynamic, they were made to make Shredder seem more evil. That is the entire point of the opening post, remove Nagi and you remove what little makes you feel sorry for Shredder.

"You killed my brother" is a very common trope but it is effective. And I'm not sure why you don't think that is especially personal, kill someone's family member and they're going to take it personally.

I don't actually think that making him more evil is necessarily a bad thing. In some ways, I'm actually pretty tired of the general tendency that every villain has to be sympathetic or have some sort of elaborate tragic backstory. I miss the days of classic villains. Sometimes, I think it's okay to have a villain who is just evil because he's an a**hole. There are plenty of people like that in real life, and the point of a villain is to serve as the focal point and driving force behind the conflict. While it can result in a shallower villain, in the hands of a good writer there can still be a good story. I think a good example of this is Avatar: The Last Airbender. At the end of the day, Ozai is not a super deep character. He's evil because he's a douche and he wants power. The deeper characterization is afforded to Zuko and Azula. Even in Star Wars, Palpatine is not a super deep chracter in terms of his motivation, but he works great as a villain and as a consequence is one of the best parts about the franchise.

Regardless of that, and to answer your question, I think we can look at the IDW Shredder. Here is a case wherein Oroku Nagi is removed and the rivalry is between Splinter and Shredder. Shredder himself is just as evil as he always is, but he still has honorable qualties and is in part driven by outside forces that corrupted him, best shown in the contrast of his first death wherein he took the chance to accept seppuku as opposed to his Mirage counterpart. Beyond that, the character is sympathetic enough to the point that he got a bona fide redemption arc and is now on the side of the heroes. Without Oroku Nagi, he still managed to be just as evil, as well as ultimately sympathetic and a fully realized character.

As a separate point, I will also cite the 2012 Shredder, though I realize I may lose some points as it seems that show is not held in as high regard here. I will admit that the 2012 cartoon is my favorite of the cartoons, and despite the fact that the Shredder is less sympathetic, I think it still works really well. In this case, he is driven by rage and delusion, an inabilty to take responsibility for his part in things. This consumes him over the course of the show, as he gradually loses it and comes to sacrifice everything he has for the sake of a singular goal that he doesn't even have the right to be angry about in the first place, until it eventually gets him killed. It works because the story was never about him; it was about the turtles and Splinter. The story doesn't need us to root for him or even sympathize with him because he at the end of the day serves as an antagonist for our heroes, with the story being about how they react and deal with it. In that role, he serves very well as a villain and pushes the narrative forward, and in doing so pushes forward the development of our heroes. As a villain, he's quite good. In both cases Oroku Nagi was not present, and it didn't make the Shredder any less interesting of a chracter, because he played his role in the story well, and in the context of that story served it. It's sort of like the Utrom Shredder in that regard. I liked him for who he was within the context of the 2003 show, but I wouldn't want to see him in other shows because I don't think he'd work for other shows. For these reasons, I believe that Oroku Nagi is redundant, and that this doesn't necessarily have to affect the quality of the character of Shredder, as well as the idea that being more evil is necessarily a bad thing depending on the context of the new universe.

(edit): I should add, because I don't think I actually addressed it, but it's not that one's brother being killed isn't personal, it's that it makes it slightly less personal by adding a second step to the rivalry that could be just between the two men. From TMNT Entity, "I mean, I can see why most adaptations (such as the movies and the current IDW comic) cut him out; it makes for just as strong a revenge theme to have Oroku Saki be the one to menace Tang Shen from the get-go than to create an older brother character to menace her, then have Yoshi kill him, then have Saki swear vengeance, then have Saki kill them both" (Pellegrini, 2012). In addition, it further dilutes the origin because it never comes up agagin. Shredder never brings up Oroku Nagi, and it seems by all accounts that he had no impact on his life. You get the sense that this is the sort of thing he would be doing anyways and that he didn't really need the "excuse" of his brother getting killed to act. The fact that it never informs any part of his character afterward is also what I feel makes the case for his exclusion, as he isn't much more than a prop to get the plot going. You could have replaced it with another event and it would ultimately have had the same impact both from a narrative and character standpoint.

[Leo656]

I don't think "pointless" is an apt word. But I can see "extraneous" or even "redundant" being valid.

When he's there, it does play more into the whole "cycle of vengeance" theme that's so recurring in Mirage. But for one thing, not every iteration of TMNT relies as heavily or at all on that theme. In cases such as that, his existence becomes less of a necessity.

I'm with those who say that Saki doesn't especially NEED to be sympathetic. He ends up becoming a pretty big sh*theel in most versions anyway, so whatever "honor" he originally had he willingly gave up long ago. He's probably killed lots of people's family members, so being all hung up on vengeance for one of his own just seems a little hypocritical anyway, even if it was Before All That.

I think you can cut to the actual chase a bit quicker if you leave Nagi out of it (notice how many of them also leave Tang Shen out of things, too, making the Shredder/Splinter rivalry more directly between just the two of them). So while it's fine if he's there I understand and agree that, depending on what kind of story they're ultimately telling, he doesn't explicitly HAVE to be. I mean in some cases they're definitely going to want to streamline things with regard to the backstory, and if you're in that position stuff like Nagi (and Tang Shen to a lesser degree) are definitely where you start trimming. Anything not directly related to the present day Here and Now generally is up for clipping, because the distance from what's going on Right Now makes it less relevant.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm with those who say that Saki doesn't especially NEED to be sympathetic. He ends up becoming a pretty big sh*theel in most versions anyway

That's exactly the reason Nagi is so essential. Without Nagi and swearing vengeance as an innocent little boy, that sympathetic kernel and reasoning for what shaped his life... then he just becomes cardboard. Maybe a lot of people like their villains just cardboard and "evil for evil's sake" (like the 4Kids Shredder, and so on) but that's dumb.

Ironically, the only universe to make Saki sympathetic like that (Mirage) is the one that barely even used him at all. So like, Mirage was the one place where maybe it wouldn't have even mattered if he was multi-dimensional, yet he was.

[FrederikWolferson]

These days every villain has to be sympathetic and have a tragic backstory,so actually seeing villains who are just evil is refreshing.
Does swearing a blood vengence really makes him more heroic? He still kills Tang Shen and is still a drug lord and Kingpin of New York.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by FrederikWolferson

These days every villain has to be sympathetic and have a tragic backstory,so actually seeing villains who are just evil is refreshing.

Seeing villains who are just evil is not refreshing in the slightest and has been a thing in most, well, children's television since forever.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by FrederikWolferson

Does swearing a blood vengence really makes him more heroic? He still kills Tang Shen and is still a drug lord and Kingpin of New York.

Not heroic but more real, three-dimensional. The death of his brother was a trauma that pushed him toward evil. No one is born evil, that's just a stupid assumption of the worst writers.

[FrederikWolferson]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Seeing villains who are just evil is not refreshing in the slightest and has been a thing in most, well, children's television since forever.

Again not everyone needs a tragic backstory where their father beat them or something so they ended up a villain. And its been overdone in the last 10-15 years.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by FrederikWolferson

Again not everyone needs a tragic backstory where their father beat them or something so they ended up a villain. And its been overdone in the last 10-15 years.

I'd agree that of late a LOT of films and movies and stuff are going out of their way to -- largely retroactively, but not just that -- make a lot of villains super, SUPER sympathetic to a point we're supposed to ask, "Wait, who is the bad guy again?" I have been seeing that and I think that particular predilection is wearing a bit thin. "Maleficent," "Joker," the upcoming "Cruella" and so on. Like, why?

But that's not what we're talking about here. You need a baseline of motivation for "evil" deeds from Big Bads and that means... you know, you need to do something. It doesn't even need to be much. It just can't be nothing. At least, in fare that is for audiences other than 5-12 year olds.

Yes, I love a lot of 80s and 90s cheese movies that maybe don't have fully formed bad guy villains... but I think we can look back at those in the same way we might look at villains in spaghetti westerns and the like. That was the thing.

[FrederikWolferson]

If you are saying that it made Shredder more proactive... that's fair. But for the story to start- he needs to kill Hamato Yoshi (sometimes not even that) and Shredder older brother just feels like an extra step.

[Leo656]

See, my problem in the whole "evil for evil's sake is Boring/Cardboard" is that, in my life I've been "blessed" to know a LOT of bad people. And most of the time they ARE just Bad People. Like yeah, some people had a "tragic" backstory, but not all or even most. And very few ever gave any inkling that they would have ever been Good People, "Were it not for this One Thing" in their backstory.

Most of those people didn't steal because they were in need or had ever gone without, they stole because they could. They did or sold drugs because it was easy and fun. They abused women and children because women and children are weaker. And so on.

Statistically, some people are "perpetuating a cycle", sure. But definitely not all and I'd argue not even most.

Maybe "they were just plain Bad People" is a little less "interesting" to read, but in my experience the whole "They weren't Bad until something MADE them that way" has nothing to do with Real Life.

Some people are just plain born with a strong sociopathic streak. The want/"need" for villains to have some sort of "It wasn't their fault!" backstory openly ignores the fact that some people are just plain rotten. And a lot of them DO come out of the box like that.

I guess maybe it depends on who you know. Personally, the "tragic backstory" villain trope has always rubbed me the wrong way because in my experience that is NOT how it really works.

[FrederikWolferson]

To kinda get back to the topic- Nagi wasn't removed to make Shredder more evil,he gets removed just to simplify things. Shredder killed Hamato Yoshi,turtles want revenge,bum,lets go.

Maybe I would have cared more if we actually saw more of Nagi(he haunts a house once) or the Oroku family in general. Elder Oroku was supposed to be one of the leaders of the Foot IIRC.

[Andrew NDB]

Simplified so it is simpler to just go, "Shredder bad because nothing or just the 1 thing and not 2, good guys good because good guys good. Whatever gets us faster to that is best."

And that's just inherently dumb.

[FrederikWolferson]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Simplified so it is simpler to just go, "Shredder bad because nothing or just the 1 thing and not 2, good guys good because good guys good. Whatever gets us faster to that is best."

And that's just inherently dumb.

I feel like we are going in circles...he wasn't heroic anyway. He was running all of organized crime in NY. But thats okay,because he avenged his brother,I guess?