#dio talk

I think two things are happening here: 1) Araki definitely wanted to explore a different aspect to DIO in Part 6 while at the same time 2) we see DIO in Part 6 at his most at ease, in the company of an actual friend. I think it's easy to reconcile what we know about DIO from Part 3 with how he acts in Part 6, rather than needing to retcon new traits onto the character. Everything DIO does in Part 6 could have taken place during Part 3 without changing the character.

Also keep in mind that DIO's acts in Part 3 are performative: as an example, remember how he manipulated Hol in 'Shooting DIO?' DIO is theatrical: the shadow over his face for most of Part 3 visually indicates that he's withholding, that he's presenting only the parts of himself he wants to show in order to manipulate others. In Part 6 DIO has no shadow (except for his first reveal and that's for the sake of the reader: DIO then leans forward toward Pucci with his face shown fully for the rest of Stone Ocean). The shadow or, in Part 6, the lack thereof becomes a visual metaphor: in Part 6 we're getting to see sides to DIO we didn't get to see as much if at all in Part 3. (It's also interesting to view DIO's "openness" with Pucci and the vulnerability it implies as another form of manipulation, if you want to go down that path).

Just a disclaimer: this is really opinionated but I don't like to drag media for its own sake. There were lots of things to like in the Phantom Blood musical, just ... Dio wasn't one of them. Also, Mamoru Miyano threw himself into the performance he was asked for, so it's hardly his fault. It's just always amazing to me that people feel the need to rewrite Dio into someone else when the way Araki's written him is already perfect, complete and a lot of fun.

So, where to start? Basically, the Phantom Blood musical re-writes Dio, giving him a different personality and different motivations through OOC stage direction along with a bunch of original dialog and scenes. What results is a version of Phantom Blood where "Dio" is just a normal guy without charisma who had a bad childhood and spends most of the story being miserable. Dio as he's written in canon has an uncommon charisma and appeal that's allowed him to remain relevant as one of those 'all-time great' villains. Scene after scene in the musical prove that its creative team either didn't read the manga or just really didn't like Dio.

fwiw Araki wrote Dio as thoroughly fleshed-out, with consistent traits and behaviors and consistent motivations behind his actions. He also left a paper trail of interviews and author's commentaries that develop Dio even more fully beyond the manga. So there's really no excuse for media that treat Dio as some sort of empty vessel waiting to be filled by narrative cliches we already know and expect.

It's annoying too, because, along with its OOC content, the musical is peppered with occasional manga-consistent moments. It's like the musical is camouflaging its Very Bad Take on Dio by having Mamoru Miyano periodically re-enact the canon character's most famous panels. The musical wants simultaneously to take credit for bringing Araki's vision to life on the stage, while at the same time completely undermining its most important element: a capital V "Villain" who, according to Araki, "accepts and embraces his evil nature, and follows his dark path without hesitation." This is the biggest change the musical makes to Dio: musical!Dio has none of the confidence that allows canon Dio him to move so decisively and destructively through the narrative.

Musical Dio is introduced by a scene where he's bullied on his way home, before breaking into a song about how terrible his life is, where "everything is always taken from [him]" ("it's hell …I feel nauseated …[I'm] under a cloudy sky.") The song is alternately tearful and hopeful. "I'm going crazy from being robbed!" he laments and then pollyannaishly muses, "hey, Joestar, can you turn my [cloudy] skies to blue?"

If Dio being introduced as a sad sap and self-described perennial loser hoping for any break sounds attitudinally unfamiliar that's because it is. Araki went in the opposite direction: he started his story by subverting the cliche - wide-eyed poor boy victimized by circumstance leaves his sorrow-filled life hoping for a new start - and instead gave us a kid with surprising, even sinister agency. Dio is not just given a hero's upward narrative arc (something Araki crafted very deliberately), he's introduced improbably in his first scene from a position of control. This fact is important because in the manga it's a position he won't lose until four chapters and nearly 100 pages in, when Jonathan finally fights back. From the time young Dio is introduced - reading a book with his back turned to his bed-ridden father who he's secretly poisoning -

- to the time he's systematically broken down his adoptive brother's spirit by alienating him from his friends, taking Erina's first kiss, and of course kicking his dog, Dio is shown as being in control and on top (Erina drinking the muddy water is the only exception). It's OOC to imagine 12-year old Dio feeling sorry for himself because at the time he's introduced, he's already made a habit of getting what he wants. By the time he sets off for the Joestars after killing his first dad, he's already developed full confidence in his abilities and the inevitability of his rise to riches (something Araki has him explicitly state and then underscores with a panel illustration of a steam train signaling the rise of Modernity).

But the writers and director of the musical don't find this characterization interesting enough or something. So they lose the canon entirely and in its place they invent a version of Dio who's despondent. And they didn't get Araki's steam train memo so they miss the Modernity theme (even though Araki's tied Dio so tightly conceptually to the idea of the Modern that he has him "use a 20th century boxing technique in the 19th century"); instead they double down on class difference being determinative. It never occurs to them that Dio is written specifically by Araki with the freedom to move outside of his social status because he sees it as artificial (the "evil elite" monologue later reveals Dio thinks of the whole social contract thing is arbitrary and voluntary).

Throughout the musical, Dio (although it's not fair to Mamoru Miyano since he isn't responsible for writing this mess, let's use mamoDio from now on because it's easier) seems to idolize the Joestars for what he calls their "beautiful blood." Not "beautiful" because usable calories for the vampire he will become but "beautiful" because noble. The Joestars' noble status and the honor that's apparently behind that status become the shining "star" toward which mud-bound mamoDio flailingly, failingly reaches. I don't need to tell you that in canon Dio doesn't have respect for nobility.

"Mud and stars" is heavy-handedly introduced as a dominant theme of the musical. According to the play, Jonathan, noble and bright, looks to the stars while human Dio, pathetic, conflicted and even confused, can only see life as a mud-soaked prison.

Now, the mud and stars thing was only used in Part 1 as a single text element on a Volume 1 illustration but, in spite of its marginality, it's becomes a liturgical text for some fans looking for an explanation for Dio's actions beyond what Araki gives them in the actual narrative. To this sort of fan, a guy who embraces his inner talent for evil and never had the misfortune of developing a moral compass isn't the right type of villain because he's unapologetic. If the villain doesn't have excuses how can you apologize for him? So they need Dio and by extension Araki to give them a "good enough" reason to accept Dio's ever-escalating atrocities. If the reasons Dio has for doing the things he does lie outside of what's considered good or acceptable, they are simply rejected and new reasons are invented in the hope of making Dio much less objectionable.

Now, like I said earlier, Araki's repeatedly told us in his writings that Dio has an upward narrative trajectory, not a downward, "mud"-bound one. The mud and stars duality fails to describe the narrative journey of the two main characters: both look upward to transcend their circumstances and travel along a shonen manga hero's rising path. (In fact, it's Jonathan who needs a good push to realize his potential, something Dio happily provides). And it's Jonathan, not Dio, who Araki first gives a downward arc, being handed defeat after defeat for those first four chapters before gaining his footing and progressively rising to Dio's challenges. "Mud and stars" isn't just a bad choice of metaphor, it's a misleading one.

Back to the musical, mamoDio is the exact opposite. An air of sadness and insecurity haunts his performance. An original scene where George presents the mud and stars dilemma as a lesson highlights Dio's lack of confidence and the depression that lurks behind it, as Dio bemoans how people doomed to "struggle and die" cannot possibly summon the hope it takes to look up to the stars (he's talking of course about himself).

Likewise, and here's where mamoDio's failure as a character really comes into full relief, seven years after this, when Dio's machinations are revealed and he's about to be arrested, before he uses the stone mask, mamoDio drops to the floor and spends the better part of a musical number in tears, bemoaning his sorry life ("I'm trapped in a prison covered in mud… no matter how hard I struggle I'm crushed…") and his lack of noble blood.

(btw this is after the manga scene where Dio fake cries; here, mamoDio is genuinely distraught).

Contrast this to the actual scene in the manga. His expressions in these panels are memorable because of how assured Araki draws him. Dio's entire world - his poisoning scheme, his grab at what one can assume would have been the entirety of the Joestar estate - is about to end but instead of despairing, he launches into a philosophical soliloquy. His body language is haughty: this isn't mamoDio crawling on the ground and decrying his upbringing and lack of noble blood, instead this is a man who apparently, almost irrationally, perceives himself as noble. When he uses the mask, Dio is smiling widely. Metaphorically speaking, he's looking at the stars.

When mamoDio uses the mask? He's on his knees. He's in tears. On one night he interjects, "Mother…" In short, he's conflicted.

One of these depicts Dio. The other does not.

Now obviously the writers and director of the musical must think making these seismic changes adds something to Dio's character. But (and I feel like this is a theme whenever I write these things) I'd argue it only makes him more basic. It makes him predictable and formulaic, someone we've seen in countless other stories.

(Oh! and did I mention mamoDio repeatedly calls himself "useless"!! Because he does this.)

Now, because mamoDio has no confidence and as a human acts out of desperation, when he becomes a vampire he still isn't Dio. Mamoru tries to make his vampire Dio evil and scary by expending a lot of energy, running about the stage and sticking out his tongue ad nauseum. When you look at how Araki has Dio move physically throughout the manga, it's the opposite of kinetic. Dio is a point of fixity who's charisma draws others toward him (ask me for more on this if you want because there's enough here for its own post).

Now for the worst of the worst: at the very end of the production, after the manga ending that features Jonathan's death and Dio's (presumed) defeat as a head imprisoned in Jonathan's arms, the musical takes an original twist in which, following a finale number featuring most of the cast, mamoDio is lead offstage by Jonathan. You read that right. mamoDio is hunched over, resigned, and Jonathan seems to take on a paternal role. Although the lyrics would have you believe this has something to do with "two fates becoming one," it's clear from the stage direction that any embers of Dio's ambition are being tamed and extinguished as Jonathan takes Dio's grasping hand, subdues him, and leads him docilely into the darkness.

It turns out Dio's vampire arc was just a phase, a hurt and lonely child lashing out and making a mess for attention.

His body language here is obscenely out of character. Consider the following because, as I said in the opening, in spite of what all these re-writes of Dio would have you believe, Araki crafted Dio with specificity and consistency: Araki only draws Dio (with very few exceptions) 1) standing tall, looking down at you; 2) back turned, looking back and down at you; or simply 3) back turned, (performatively?) ignoring you. Dio is never on the ground except when he's knocked down (think, young Jonathan finally fighting back in the Joestar home or, much later, Jotaro stopping time and landing those punches). By constrast, mamoDio has spent an incessant amount of time of the ground, crouching, kneeling,, bowing, hunched down. Who is this guy? So his hunched-down exit in the final moments of the production, literally being led by Jonathan (controlled??), is so amazingly stupid that if I didn't have a gif as proof, you might think I'm just making this stuff up:

There's plenty more to unpack that I won't address here: ghost Dario. The lack of grave-spitting. The complete absence of true joy or leisure expressed by Dio especially during his vampire era: no woman eating her baby, no owlcats, no Poco's sister. No chaise lounge. No roses(!). No fun. Not for Dio. That would be too manga-consistent. That might mean Araki wasn't giving us the appropriate message that bad guys are actually just sad guys.

I've received a lot of asks for my take on how the "plan for Heaven" in Part 6 relates back to Dio as a character. Some of these included theories and asked whether I agreed with their points. The best way to for me reply is to walk through some misconceptions I've seen repeated about the Heaven plan and at the same time give my own views on how the Stand ability that Pucci enacts in Part 6 can be reconciled with what we know about Dio in canon. Spoiler: IMO the form that the Heaven ability ultimately takes - a universal reset that grants all of humanity knowledge of their preordained fate in advance and down to the micro-level of individual occurances - is not necessarily the outcome that Dio predicted or even desired.

1) The "Heaven" that Pucci enacted in Part 6 is not derived from a subconscious psychological need for security or safety on Dio's part.

This seems basic but I've seen this in comments: the belief that the Stand ability Pucci unlocks through Dio's "heaven" formula relates back to Dio's own need for security and peace of mind. This panel specifically gets talked about, in both discussions regarding Heaven and of Dio's larger worldview:

Of course here Dio is describing "human" needs. Dio doesn't consider himself human and doesn't include himself among those seeking these comforts. Importantly, neither does Araki:

"From perspective of the world in which living creatures naturally prey upon the weak, what DIO is doing is the correct thing. It's out of line with society's norms though, which were created to make it easier for humans to survive. Considered from the worldview of the "Law of the Jungle" [弱肉強食], DIO is acting normally. …People might say I'm anti-social when I say this, but, in a sense, DIO is someone I admire (lol)." (Jump Remix Vol.11 (March 2002), my translation).

Asked to describe his feelings on Dio, Araki heads straight into setting up a direct opposition between "society" - which provides the security, comfort and safety for its participants that Dio describes in the above panel - and Dio, who lives by what Araki calls an "anti-social" code unconcerned with these comforts. It's central enough of a character trait for Araki to say all this unprompted in response to a general ask about DIO.

So anyone claiming that Dio's Heaven plan came out of a need, conscious or not, to allay his own insecurities and for his own peace of mind ignores the fact that Araki wrote Dio with an entirely contrary mindset.

It's also worth considering the context of the panel, since it will relate to a discussion of whether Dio even wants a world where people know outcomes in advance. Dio is describing humankind's need for comfort and security in an attempt to convince Polnareff to submit and to continue to serve him. Araki ties all of this to fear: Polnareff must either give into his fear and resign himself to a comfortable life of submission or he must overcome his fear and reject those comforts.

ofc Dio is playing a game with Polnareff at the same time, using time-stop assisted sleight-of-hand to convince Polnareff that his own body is physically submitting, unconsciously descending the same two stairs. This game, where fear and submission are directly tied to the promise of comfort and security, presents choosing the comforts of society as the weaker, non-heroic path. tl;dr, accepting the security that Dio describes in that panel is a bad thing. Keep this fact in the back of your mind.

If Dio isn't motivated by a need for security, and instead lives according to rules of the natural world, maybe Dio wanted a universe where all of humanity knows its fate in advance for practical reasons, i.e., it would make humans resigned to their fates and simple to rule over?

Again, we need to consider what, exactly, this would mean for Dio.

2) Dio did not intend to create a world where all of humanity became resigned to its fate as a means of ruling over mankind, because this would remove all the pleasure of accumulating and exerting power.

I've discussed this before: Dio actually likes people who take the most arduous path, seemingly rebelling against their own security and comfort. While it is possible that Dio wanted humans to be more docile, this would definitely take away one of Dio's favorite hobbies: subjecting humans to extreme psychological pressure to see how they react, something Dio indulges in regularly. The Heaven achieved by Pucci (a universe where everything is known in advance by its participants) would mean that everything - from that lady sacrificing herself so her baby could be spared in Part 1 to Hol Horse trying to shoot Dio in the back - would be robbed of all dramatic tension. A knowable universe is a boring one. Dio as an immortal would be highly aware of this. And we know that Dio loves a good fight (Araki draws Dio at his most alive and expressive during direct physical confrontation) and loves an opponent who fights back (it's the reason he moves from disdain to respect for Jonathan over the course of Part 1 and the reason he "realizes he likes" Hol after Hol's rebellion). A known universe changes the very nature of "fighting back." When opponents know the outcome of a fight before it starts, combat is reduced to simply going through the motions.

In short, Pucci's universe makes it too easy for a guy who is all about the drama of testing and transcending limits. It would take all the pleasure out of being Dio.

This is where the value judgment I discussed earlier comes in, the one where the comfortable path is also the easy one, and where choosing security means choosing resignation and cowardace. How is it possible then to assert that Dio wants a universe, an eternity, where everything is resignation? It isn't, and he doesn't.

(Here I should point out the obvious fact that the Dio and Pucci flashbacks in Part 6 take place, from a timeline perspective, concurrent with Part 3. While it's surprisingly often that people attribute what they perceive as a difference in Dio between Parts 3 and Part 6 as an easing or maturing in Dio's outlook over time and reflection, there can be no evolution or softening in Dio's thinking between Parts 3 and 6 because there is no time gap. Dio's words in Part 3, if we take them at face value (since sometimes he lies), reflect what he's thinking at the same time he's devising his plan for "Heaven.")

Instead, there's a telling scene early in Part 3 where Dio discusses that "standing at the top of the World" means overcoming fear:

Now consider the Heaven ability that Pucci unlocks at the end of Stone Ocean within the context of this monologue as well as the Polnareff stairway scene. Knowing your fate - the ultimate goal of the universal reset - isn't overcoming fear, it's having the hardship of fear removed. "Fear" in the above passage results from the experience of failure and the reflexive bodily reaction during future struggles to the possibility that one will fail again. When all is known in advance, this fear is removed. The possibility for "conquering" fear that Dio describes to Enya is likewise removed altogether.

Additionally, in Part 6 and while discussing "Heaven" with Pucci, Dio directly states that "true happiness cannot be attained… by being the ruler of the human race," contrasting this with the true victory of "getting to see Heaven." This dialog yet again gives the lie to an assertion that Dio wants universal precognition as a practical means to easily dominate all of humanity.

3) IMO Dio did not know what form the "Heaven" ability would take, just that it would be an OP, transcendent power.

I've talked about this before too but one of the coolest elements to the Heaven formula is how gnostic it is. Some people just ignore this fact, but it's critically important to look at how Araki chose to characterize the "formula for Heaven." 14 cryptic words, the "souls of 36 sinners," a specific latitude and longitude, the phases of the moon. This is esoteric, occult-type stuff. Add to this Dio's own description of how the destruction of his stand will "give birth to something entirely new":

This language is extremely important. It seems the critical detail that's missing from the formula of heaven is what shape exactly the "heaven" ability will take. The outcome of Dio's heaven plan is missing from the formula because that outcome - "whatever is born" - will be revealed through the process. This is precisely why "courage" is needed: this is a leap of faith into the unknown.

It stands to reason that Dio himself would be uncertain what power would be unlocked through the formula. After all, this theme is a throughline throughout Dio's life: Dio constantly does stuff where the outcome is both unknown and radical. Using the stone mask, taking and assimilating Jonathan's body, powering up on Joseph's blood: Dio's pursuit of power consistently leads him to make "leaps" where the outcome is knowable only as "something new" and something transcendent. So it's not just plausible that Dio didn't know what new ability would emerge with the destruction of his Stand, it's in character. And of course, unknowability and the need for "courage" in the face of an unforeseen outcome directly mirrors Dio's assertion in Part 3 that "the one to stand at the top of the World" is the one who "conquers Fear."

4) Pucci has as much a role as Dio in shaping the form that the "Heaven" ability ultimately takes.

If you ignore all of the above and instead assert that Dio had his plan fully mapped out and specifically envisioned a future where he and all of humanity were disavowed of the illusion of free will - comforted by going through the motions of a fate they had already lived through - then Pucci himself becomes unimportant. The character gets reduced to a simple cog or a lackey, carrying out the gruntwork of an absent master architect.

Instead, imo the specific backstory and worldview that Pucci brings to his and Dio's relationship is the key element that shapes the form that "Heaven" eventually takes. After all - this point is not debatable - it's Pucci himself, not Dio, who seems most in need of the comfort, the certainty and security, that a universe in which all know their fate would provide. Pucci's entire backstory is built around the trauma of unforeseen consequence. The reset universe really is, then, the realization of Pucci's own personal "Heaven."

Please keep in mind that Dio did not expect to die and fully expected to be the one to enact the Heaven formula himself. Of course Jotaro had something to say about this, so instead we get Dio's disciple and "trusted friend" executing the formula.

(Add to that the obvious, meta fact that Araki developed the "plan for Heaven" specifically for Part 6. The plan (or even the notion of "getting to Heaven") isn't mentioned in any prior part, and isn't part of Dio's story anywhere prior. In the true "meta" sense (e.g., the real-life production conditions surrounding the fictional work), the Heaven plan is written by Araki for Part 6 and as the major driver of Pucci's story, inseparable from the character. Araki tightly tailored Pucci's backstory around the idea that bad twists of fate sow profound misery and that knowledge of what fate has in store can allay inevitable suffering, the premise of the universal reset. Even Pucci being a priest has obvious synergy with the concept of "Heaven." Without Part 6, without Pucci, the heaven storyline never gets written. And within the story itself, without Pucci the formula to get to "Heaven" is never enacted.)

I never thought I'd see the day Dio of all characters got butchered to fit into a "tragic villain" archetype.

The writers seriously missed the point of his character.

This is the fourth time I've heard of adaptations mishandling their villains in this specific way. Is there a name for this phenomenon?

Excellent post, but if you allow me, i am very curious about what one of my main problems is with the Over Heaven Stand. Like, from what i am reading, it doesn't seem like something Araki would write. I don't have the game, so maybe you can clear me out, but it seems like it has poorly constructed powers. Unlike Araki, who tightly explains and displays them. So, i hope you don't mind if i personally prefer at least an ambiguous result to what that game gave into. (Like, did Dio had to punch EVERYONE on Earth to conquer it? Punch the ground and it became a shockwave of brainwashing? It feels wishy washy and not what Araki would have done)

Just so we're on the same page, some facts: according to CC2's Hiroshi Matsuyama, Araki supervised Story Mode in Eyes of Heaven, and it wasn't just a case of him signing off on what CC2's staff came up with. Instead Araki was very involved. Like very. Not only did Araki edit and reorganize their original story script but he suggested DIO as the final boss. Araki supervised Heaven DIO's design in every detail - skin color, hairstyle, etc - and paid particular attention to his expressions and attack techniques.

Even though it was a collaborative effort, Araki definitely did "write" Heaven DIO and his stand powers.

Re: what you're pointing out, I think The World Over Heaven isn't a stand power Araki would write for a manga's main antagonist; it's written for a story mode boss. Heaven DIO's short in-game screentime limits how well you can develop the character. As it stands, Heaven DIO's abilities expand on OG DIO's powers: he's got time stop and he punches stuff, it's just that punching stuff rewrites reality and erases people from existence.

When I say I like heaven-ascended Dio's powers in EoH better as a realization of the Heaven Plan had DIO been the one to carry it out than I do Made in Heaven's universal reset, I mean this from the standpoint that the universal reset doesn't feel like a thing Dio would want (fully explained). But I do agree that the ideal realization of "heaven" by Dio himself would best be written by Araki not for the sake of a story mode bad guy but in longer manga form. Had Araki written a version of Heaven Dio for his manga, he would have developed Dio's storyline and abilities differently and more fully. This leads back to the unknowability factor: we don't know what form Dio's own heaven ability would have taken had Dio lived on to carry out the formula himself because Araki didn't take the canon in this direction. However, the existence of The World Over Heaven (which I'm not suggesting is canon) shows a different realization for the heaven formula's potentiality, and that fact alone creates room to think that Dio's own "heaven" really would have looked radically different than the one that Pucci enacted.

lol dw it's not annoying, it is exactly the kind of thing I'd love. I don't own the magazine and haven't found scans through search yet (if you've got access to the DIO pages feel free to send them).

Jojo Magazine's twitter teased a partial photo of one of those pages so I was able to read a little from it ... but it seems thin contentwise, like filler text meant to add interest to glossy Dio illustrations instead of the other way around. Here's some of it, translated:

Methodical: Dio is meticulous in writing down things that are important to him. On the other hand, he almost forgets Avdol and Polnareff's names. He doesn't devote mental resources to things that don't matter, and this arrogance and rationality make him extremely appealing.

Another caption reads,

Maybe it was to avoid panic in an emergency, or maybe it was his desire to show off, but he also wrote his name on the coffin.

And I don't even know if I fully buy either of these things. I always liked Dio pretending to not remember someone's name as a very Dio-like insult, identical in tone to his back-turned posture when addressing others. Does he really not remember Avdol's name? Really?? He's just too busy with important things??? And I took Araki adding DIO's name to the coffin in SDC as him tipping off the reader what the crew had dredged from the depths of the Atlantic, rather than it having any in-universe rationalization. That second caption especially feels like the feature might just be magazine staff summarizing stuff from the series rather than revealing insight into Araki's writing process or Dio's character. But feel free to follow up if you find more from the article, it's always good to see new official Dio stuff.

(Also, there's an article earlier in the same Jojo mag volume where Araki talks more about writing villains which might be worth your time tracking down.)

Dio's building a model ship in the middle of a wreck??? Fanon takes can take on a life of their own and, in Dio's case, so many people know his character through the caricature constructed around and outside of the canon instead of through how Araki actually wrote and drew him. So I'm going to break down the actual Part 6 scene to examine how we wound up so far from the truth of what's actually going on in it.

1. The first thing we need to get clear is whether Dio's model even resembles the ship he killed Jonathan on in Part 1, and the short answer is no, it doesn't. For reference here's the model:

and here's the ship from Part 1:

Both are hybrid sail/steam (implied on the model by the paddle wheels even though there's no smokestacks) but the ill-fated ocean liner that took Jonathan and Erina 1/2 way across the Atlantic is a lot bigger and grander. The OVA adaptation's helpful because it’s spot-on faithful to the manga:

It's gigantic, you can see three full decks and two large smokestacks, along with elaborate baroque-looking detailing all over the stern end. Dio's model ship looks entirely different. It's simple by comparison and, were it scaled up to full size, it'd still be a lot smaller (check out the model rowboats and their oars around it for size reference).

So it's not clear that the model Dio's building is even a callback to Part 1 or some sort of easter egg on Araki's part (after looking at the two ships side-by-side my gut tells me it’s not). Keep that in mind as we step through how much the scene's gotten mangled in fanon.

Like I said, the model-building panels form the basis for an oft-repeated bad take you see a lot online, where people say it's a "shipwreck" scene (I guess because there's rowboats around it?) and, therefore, a re-enactment of trauma. Ofc that's bogus. The ship's fine, and rowboats are how crew come ashore whenever a tall ship drops anchor. There's even a lighthouse and the ship is resting in a tranquil harbor. The anime version of the scene shows these details clearly:

Hopefully it's easy to see the scene for what it is: Dio engaged in the most mundane hobby you can think of, while having a leisurely conversation with his BFF. As Pucci explains it, they're talking like children ranking their favorite action heroes by how strong they are. It's a very chill little scene, remarkable for how unremarkable it would be if this wasn't DIO and Pucci.

It's worth including the official digital color version here too because, apparently, they forgot DIO was a vampire and gave the scene a cheery sunlit mood by making the sky outside the windows as blue as day:

It's a mistake ofc but it also underscores the relaxed feel to the scene: out of context, the day-lit color choice feels natural because the scene's got such a comfy vibe.

So how do we get from a chill guy chilling (canon) to a guy re-living a trauma (fanon)? Answer is, ofc, projection.

It's a fandom thing to need a villain's evilness to be justified - explained (excused?) in a way - through past trauma, say, or a series of unavoidable circumstances (or maybe some valid ideology they hold). A villain's villainy is only legitimized, validated, or complex enough *if* they've earned it by having a "good enough" reason to act bad. In Dio's case, where 'bad' is a wild understatement, some fans simply need him to be hurt, traumatized, or otherwise sufficiently suffering in ways that Araki just never intended. And this need is so strong it can override what's in front of their own eyes, even where the author and the text suggest the exact opposite.

In this way the Survivor scene acts as a Rorschach test where some people see the traces of trauma where there are none - in fact, it's the one scene where DIO seems most at ease, relaxed and unguarded (and ofc without his "shadow"). As such the scene and its misreading encompasses a lot of that's wrong about how fanon can sometimes view Dio and a lot of what's right about how Araki wrote him.

_____________________________________________________

Thanks to the anime there's an additional coda to all this. The Survivor scene in the Stone Ocean anime is faithful to the manga, but there's a twist: DavidPro gives us a sort of 'easter egg in reverse.' Remember the grand multi-deck ship Jonathan and Erina left for their honeymoon on? Here's the anime version, from all the way back in Season 1:

It looks a lot like Dio's model.

So here we have something from the manga that's likely not originally a callback getting turned into part of a callback, but in reverse order since the callback gets shown four seasons prior.

Of course, none of that negates the fact that the Stone Ocean anime scene is remains one of safety and comfort. The model ship isn't wrecked and DIO and Pucci are at their most relaxed and conversational. The scene hasn't been reshaped into any indice of trauma. What you have then is a fun little callback for the observant, and with it a wicked re-contextualization of this panel:

Now it’s become Dio towering over a model of the ship he killed everyone on. And somehow this feels appropriate: Dio's got a gift for casually being a jackass when referring back to some of the worst things that he's done. Aside from the obvious comparing human lives to slices of bread, a good example is this panel where he refers to Zeppeli's horrific death in the most deliberately offhand way: