Four Ways The Legend of Korra Respected Its Younger Viewers

[walsfeo]

Sooo.. I just watched TLA and LoK during christmas, finishing today.. Do we have official confirmation that there 100% won't be another Avatar series after this one?

..'cause, I would probably watch that.

Heck, I'd like an Avatar mini series or animated move. Perhaps one focusing on an earlier avatar.

I'm watching TLOC now, and it's good if not great. But the world changes in the time between the first series and this one are a bit unsettling. It feels like they keep referring to the previous show just to keep us believing it is in the same world.

 

[katsabas]

I would be more on board with the whole Korrasami thing if it was better cultivated. I may have seen one, maybe two scenes where something was headed somewhere but other than that, nothing major. And I have watched each episode at least three times. Also, noone dying due to the spirit ray blast is a bit far-fetched, even in a world where people are made of iron.

That said, the ending was ok, I liked it, hope they continue the series via comics or something.

Good grief, both Korra and The Hobbit are done. I feel a bit empty now.

 

[KazeAizen]

I find it hilarious that I the very first thing I said about the sexuality is that anyone who dares criticize it is blamed on hating gays... Only to be already blamed hating gays by two people.

Keep it classy guys. And yes, you do need to establish the relationship exist because the one time they hang out does not make me think that they must be gay. Show, don't tell.

Dude. You are just grasping at straws at this point. I was going to respond to your previous posts but LifeCharacter pretty much said everything I was going to say as well.

They showed plenty. Korra and Asami initially hanging out in season 1. Throughout season 3 they had the best on screen chemistry out of any two characters. Their friendly relationship existed long before the end of the series. I mean in season 3 when Mako is super awkward around both of them because ex's and both of them just mess with him for the laughs that's a pretty healthy relationship they have there. Let's also not forget that Korra only exchanged letters with Asami over the course of 3 years. That's a long time.

I don't ship characters. At all. However throughout season 3 the chemistry between the two as they went on their adventures made me actually want them to be together. They showed plenty. You just had a blindfold on the whole time.

 

[katsabas]

Yes, never established.

Do they have to finger each other while having a wedding ceremony to make it clear that they're an item? It certainly requires a lot less being implied for everybody to assume that something is going on between two characters who could form a heterosexual pairing. Whats different those relationships, and this one. HMMMMMMMMMMMM...

Seen out of context, I could throw the same amount of images regarding Bolin and Mako and turn em into a gay couple. Season 1 and 2 saw them as rivals and Korra was dealing with her own problems in season 3. Season 4 took a different turn, however and had an ending that was predictable for some and not so much for others. The minute I saw the title image for the review on IGN I went 'yup, they are a couple now'.

Maybe the cues for girls liking girls and guys liking guys are different than when girls like boys or boys like girls, I don't know. But I just didn't see it. With all that, seeing as Asami was the person that Korra had the most alone time with, the ending is starting to grow on me, even though I saw it coming.

CAPTCHA: she's a witch. The fuck ???

 

[direkiller]

I think the main one people felt was resolved too neatly was the Equalist revolution, but this is actually what happened in the west in real life, a lot of people during the 19th and early 20th century thought Western Europe's lower class would overthrow their governments in violent revolutions, and while some did happen, they were quickly beaten down and then things sort of just resolved themselves as small concessions were made and the lives of the poor in the west started to improve

Problby because it was adapted from a planed mini-series.
The only change I would have liked is for them to anonce the elections and the Disbanding of the Council at the end of season 1. Rather then Raiko just showing up at the start of season 2.

 

[SNCommand]

I think the main one people felt was resolved too neatly was the Equalist revolution, but this is actually what happened in the west in real life, a lot of people during the 19th and early 20th century thought Western Europe's lower class would overthrow their governments in violent revolutions, and while some did happen, they were quickly beaten down and then things sort of just resolved themselves as small concessions were made and the lives of the poor in the west started to improve

Problby because it was adapted from a planed mini-series.
The only change I would have liked is for them to anonce the elections and the Disbanding of the Council at the end of season 1. Rather then Raiko just showing up at the start of season 2.

Oh that's almost certainly the effect of having Book 1 initially planned as the only one, and the rest of the books being ordered after Book 1 was finished

 

[Winthrop]

Okay, so I haven't gotten around to Korra yet, but I just watched the original series a few months ago for the first time, and this article states that The Last Airbender didn't have a sympathetic villain and everyone seems to be agreeing with this notion and just debating whether or not Korra's are deeper than that, and they are right that Ozai wasn't sympathetic. But maybe people are forgetting that for a large part of the series Zuko and Iroh are villains and they are incredibly sympathetic and relatable. Sure I wouldn't call them evil, but they ARE working for an evil nation and trying to complete unfinished genocide and kill the world's only hope for personal gain. I could see where someone would argue that they aren't the main villain because Ozai is the one responsible for all the destruction and because they eventually become good, but in a sense those same comments could be made about Darth Vader. While they aren't the greatest evil in the world or Aang's greatest enemy, they get by far the most screen time and have the more direct and personal conflict with Aang.

Even if you want to bar those two on the ground that eventually they become good guys, Azulla is still a bit sympathetic once she goes nuts. Shes still behaving in an evil way, but the fact that the realization that even her own closest friends didn't love her clearly troubled her in a very human way. I think that saying the Last Airbender had unsympathetic villains without considering those characters and looking at Ozai is silly, because Ozai essentially has no personality and was just a force of nature in the background for most of the series.

Zuko and Iroh are not villains, they are antagonists. A villain is someone the protagonists actively oppose and try to hinder/stop, an antagonist is someone who actively opposes the protagonists and tries to hinder/stop them. Most of the time the two are the same, but not necessarily.

For example, in the ATLA series, Zuko and Iroh are antagonists in Season One and even Two. They try to apprehend Aang (well, technically only Zuko wants to, but that's beside the point) but the protagonists don't try to stop them. Then they turn protagonists in Season Three.

Ozai on the other hand is a villain who tries to remake the world in his image and thus the Avatar and gang actively opposes him from Season One, by collecting information, training and collecting allies. However he is not an antagonist until the last few episodes, since he doesn't oppose the protagonists directly, only by proxy and influence.

Then there is Azula, who starts out as an antagonist that wants to take down the protagonists directly and then becomes a villain by the end of Season Three when Zuko and Katara personally have to oppose her and take her down.

I'm just telling you this because correct usage of this terminology is kind of important when we are talking about fiction.

[Edit]: Actually, villainy and protagonism-antagonism work on two separate scales, but I don't have the time to get into that in detail right now. Maybe once I'm home from work...

While I understand the difference between villainy and antagonism, I believe that trying to kill someone who as I understand it is the literal incarnation of peace and goodness (although I admit I have mostly a second hand knowledge of avatar lore from my girlfriend and occasionally looking at wikis) for your own personal gain qualifies as evil. Additionally, the definition of villain you use differs from the common definition used in many dictionaries and English textbooks. For example, Oxford uses the following definition

A character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot

Your definition of antagonist is the same as mine and Oxfords though.
As I have stated, Zuko's actions are evil, and I'd argue that by aiding him Iroh's are as well (although less so) and the action's Zuko takes are incredibly important to the plot. So by the common definition and Oxford's definition, I'd say Zuko is definitely a villain and I would argue that Iroh is as well, but I can see where Iroh could be seen as not acting evilly as he often tries to convince Zuko to give up the chase.

Furthermore, even using your definition of villain, I'd say Zuko still is a villain, at least in many episodes. For example, Aang and friends oppose him when he tries to destroy Kyoshi island and is repelled by Aang and friends, or in the siege of the North when Katara fights him off. The definition you use seems flawed to me, and perhaps you are remembering it wrong, as nearly any opposition will be met with opposition in kind. Furthermore, many iconic villains are not villains under that definition, such as Scar from the Lion King, the Witches from Macbeth, or even the devil in the story of Adam and Eve. Likewise, your definition of villain would capture many people not considered villains, such as Banquo from Macbeth (or honestly ANY of the morally correct characters in Macbeth) and Laertes from Hamlet. Actually that definition falls apart any time an antihero is present.

If you have specific knowledge of literature and oxford dictionary is wrong (such as with the common usage of theory vs. the scientific of theory) I retract my statement. I will admit that I am not particularly versed in literary jargon and haven't had much education in literature beyond an introductory college course I took last spring, but using the common definitions and the definitions from the Oxford dictionary, I would still consider Zuko a villain, and possibly Iroh although I am somewhat on the fence on him.

 

[wulf3n]

I find it hilarious that I the very first thing I said about the sexuality is that anyone who dares criticize it is blamed on hating gays... Only to be already blamed hating gays by two people.

It helps that, when you're criticizing the sexuality, you don't actually make your criticism revolve around that sexuality existing and how that violates the canon for no other reason than you having a problem with it.

It helps when people are looking to be offended over understanding and analysing another's point of view.

 

[wulf3n]

And what makes you think I didn't understand and analyze his point of view and then find it offensive, rather than look to be offended and forgo trying to understand it?

Your first response to the post in question

And how did they violate the series canon to make Korra and Asami form a relationship? Are gay people existing against the "canon" of Avatar now?

It starts out all right but then immediately jumps to an over the top accusation.

It doesn't scream "I'm looking to understand what you mean"

 

[wulf3n]

Well, for one it's in the form of a question which tend to have the point of trying to understand or seek answers. It also helpfully relays my understanding of what he had just said so he could respond to it. Considering he was going on about "the canon," there doesn't seem to be much else to conclude other than "gay people are against the canon" since, if they aren't, two characters being gay wouldn't be violating it.

But go on, your post just scream "I'm looking to understand what you mean" so loudly.

And it couldn't possibly be that he was referring to the fact that "relationships" in the first season were ham fisted telegraphed affairs, and that a more subtle development of a relationship was unexpected to the point of feeling tacked on at the end?

But go on, your post just screams "I'm looking to understand what you mean" so loudly.

 

[wulf3n]

And it couldn't possibly be that he was referring to the fact that "relationships" in the first season were ham fisted telegraphed affairs, and that a more subtle development of a relationship was unexpected to the point of feeling tacked on at the end?

It certainly could have, if you squint and pretend really hard, because that's generally not what "violating the canon" means. "They wrote the relationship buildup differently" is quite a bit different than canon violation, as you can no doubt tell by the words being used.

Violating the canon in the sense, Season 1 shows how characters display affection towards one-another. Earlier season Korra/Asami don't perform these same "rituals" ergo they're not affectionate towards each other. Series ends oh wait they are.

The same would be true if either Korra or Asami were a man.