|
DrSunshine posted:Actually, why don't they just make the Avatar the ruler of the world? With the Avatar cycle, you basically never have any question regarding the succession, since new Avatars are literally reincarnated with the memories and experience of their past selves. The Avatar is also able to tap into mystical, reality-altering powers and commune with forces from beyond the physical plane of existence. Why not simply worship the Avatar as the living incarnation of Divine power that they literally, actually are, and instate him or her as their immortal God-King? In fact, I am surprised that an "Avatar cult" had not already arisen and established itself in the world long ago! I always loved this fan-interpretation of Kyoshi. Giant lady with fabulous make-up skills and A THIRST FOR THE BLOOD OF HER FOES. Always gotta ask Kyoshi. blurry! posted:What I hope to see with season four is the writers deconstruct Korra's superhero complex. She's acted for the most part with this viewpoint that the Avatar swoops in, beats up the bad guy, solves the problem, and BAM balance. The very first thing she does as Avatar is capture some common ne'er-do-wells. Just like a superhero! But that doesn't really help. She spends the next few seasons reacting to threats and problems like she's a comic book hero. Speak boldly, fight bravely. Be loud, throw some punches. But she didn't fix anything, not really. She didn't truly help anybody. Now this is absolutely wrong. Korra set out in Season 3 to restore the Air Nomads. Her ENTIRE FOCUS during the season was that - she only went after Zaheer when he threatened her mission by attempting to kidnap her. A comic-book hero, upon learning a bunch of super-powered crimers had escaped prison, would have gone looking for them. She decided to keep on doing what she knew was actually important: the restoration of Air Nomad culture and population.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
While Korra showed surprising initiative early in season 3, pretty soon she was doing what she always ends up doing: reacting to the bad guys. I don't think you can intelligibly praise or criticize her response to Zaheer because it pretty much always consisted, at each point, of the only defensible response to the cards she was being dealt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:While Korra showed surprising initiative early in season 3, pretty soon she was doing what she always ends up doing: reacting to the bad guys. I don't think you can intelligibly praise or criticize her response to Zaheer because it pretty much always consisted, at each point, of the only defensible response to the cards she was being dealt. This time the bad guys came looking for her. She didn't act like a cop like in Season 1, she didn't get suckered by a spiritual deceiver like Season 2, she was willing to let others handle them until they became a threat to what she considered crucially important. Heck, look at how she dealt with the Earth Queen in comparison to Zaheer: Once she got the airbenders out, she was content to ignore her since she wasn't a world-endangering threat. Zaheer, on the other hand, threatened the new Air Nomads, and her response to him showed how much she was willing to sacrifice to ensure that didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Right, it was just also planned each step of the way by Zaheer. I think blurry! is wrong to claim that Korra has a superhero complex, both because the apparent pointlessness and inanity of Korra's actions is a fault of the plotting/world setup rather than of Korra's decision making, and also because the Avatar is legitimately meant to be a sort of sacred, mythic superhero. Tremendous bending and spiritual power is what sets the Avatar apart from mere mortals, and it's that power that allows the Avatar to exert change. Blasting down from the sky and laying waste to evil is what the Avatar does - it's why each and every machination of each and every villain has, thus far, revolved around never allowing Korra to start and finish a clean, honest fight against one of her enemies. The noteworthy thing about Aang, and the genius of Last Airbender, is that Aang achieved a triumph above and beyond fulfilling his ordained, superheroic role. He was able to stay his own hand and achieve a greater and more humane solution to the problem of the Firelord than any of his past lives could have managed. The thing is, that requires first accepting that the superhero bit - the Avatar glowing and lifting into the air and just completely loving shredding everything - is going to happen. LoK's plotting has been absolutely stuck on just never letting things build to that point at all, so it's unable to take the kind of interesting, philosophical next step that TLA did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
I think it's not a superhero complex when you're literally a superhero
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The noteworthy thing about Aang, and the genius of Last Airbender, is that Aang achieved a triumph above and beyond fulfilling his ordained, superheroic role. He was able to stay his own hand and achieve a greater and more humane solution to the problem of the Firelord than any of his past lives could have managed. One of the most common and cliche tropes of superheroes is that they find a way to avoid having to make a hard decision (usually involving killing) through a combination of their own abilities and deus ex machinas. Aang's ending is 100% a superhero ending. Like "can this superhero stop the villain without killing them and thus retain his morality" is like 90% of Batman stories these days and like 50% of Superman ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:One of the most common and cliche tropes of superheroes is that they find a way to avoid having to make a hard decision (usually involving killing) through a combination of their own abilities and deus ex machinas. Aang's ending is 100% a superhero ending. Like "can this superhero stop the villain without killing them and thus retain his morality" is like 90% of Batman stories these days and like 50% of Superman ones. And it's usually in some ironic fashion too (i.e., Batman didn't kill the dude but he still beats up poor people so he's not really "moral"). Aang's story doesn't have that but that's only because it's a much more traditional happy kid's ending.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:One of the most common and cliche tropes of superheroes is that they find a way to avoid having to make a hard decision (usually involving killing) through a combination of their own abilities and deus ex machinas. Aang's ending is 100% a superhero ending. Like "can this superhero stop the villain without killing them and thus retain his morality" is like 90% of Batman stories these days and like 50% of Superman ones. The reason endings like those tend to evince eye-rolling is that they're generally written to ensure that whatever series you're reading or watching can hypothetically run into perpetuity and that the villain can just come back for a round 2 whenever future writers want to. Aang deliberately leaving the avatar state and performing older, deeper magic that no other avatar'd been worthy to learn was a miraculous event. Not killing someone in a war-torn fantasy world is very different from not killing someone in a modern-day city or whatever! Of course, in Legend of Korra we learn that future Aang just pulled out the power-nullifying facegrab on anyone who proved particularly troublesome, because, well, it was just one of his powers now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The reason endings like those tend to evince eye-rolling is that they're generally written to ensure that whatever series you're reading or watching can hypothetically run into perpetuity and that the villain can just come back for a round 2 whenever future writers want to. It really isn't. It has become that but there are countless examples of it in other forms of media. Even in kids media where the protagonist is willing to kill (like Harry Potter), the plot contrives itself to take that decision away from them and offer them a chance to retain their morality by avoiding killing. Aang's version completely makes sense and is (somewhat) well-written but it isn't unique or unsuperheroic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It really isn't. It has become that but there are countless examples of it in other forms of media. Even in kids media where the protagonist is willing to kill (like Harry Potter), the plot contrives itself to take that decision away from them and offer them a chance to retain their morality by avoiding killing. Voldemort being the one to actually strike the final blow on himself (spoilers..!) made thematic sense there, is the thing. Whether or not the decision not to kill and/or the ability to resolve a conflict without killing anyone is a big deal depends on the rest of the story. In Avatar, Aang not killing the Firelord had a lot of narrative weight, because so much of the story had shown us that the Avatar, by default, was a sort of holy monster who'd descend on evildoers in an unstoppable range and just completely loving snuff them out. This is why the single strongest element of season 4 thus far, I think, is Korra's quasi-hallucinatory Avatar State half, with the badass shuffling-zombie-but-suddenly-blurring-forward fighting style. It's a real, if faint, reminder that the Avatar was once something fearsome and awe-inspiring, not just, like, one of the premises of a science fiction story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Reading the responses, I reconsidered my own viewpoint. The superhero thing was somewhat off-base, true. But there's some stuff going on re: expectations versus results. But I still believe that Korra's main challenge is proving to the world that the Avatar can offer real, long-term solutions. That it's a relevant office, not some relic of a world outgrowing spirituality. If she beats up Kuvira, what then? Kuvira, unlike the other villains, doesn't have a House-of-Cards that is built upon deception. Will her followers just pack up and go home like Amon's if Korra hits Kuvira hard enough? Korra needs to make some decisions, pull rank on the world. She's the avatar, and here's how it's gonna be. They're really setting it up to play out with some third option Korra is going to provide in lieu of two really lovely choices. The set-up is that the Third Solution is going to be pretty important, and not to be brushed over like they did with the establishment of the RC presidency (we get Amon's defeat, the Equalists dissolve, and then there's a President all in the course of a sentence). We're not even sure that Korra had anything to do with that, and it just sorta happened on its own with other people deciding that stuff. The current conflict is one of a lack of balance. The world is on the edge of war. There's no good, internal solution to be found, which is why the Avatar has a dog in this fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Whether or not the decision not to kill and/or the ability to resolve a conflict without killing anyone is a big deal depends on the rest of the story. In Avatar, Aang not killing the Firelord had a lot of narrative weight, because so much of the story had shown us that the Avatar, by default, was a sort of holy monster who'd descend on evildoers in an unstoppable range and just completely loving snuff them out.. But you can just as easily argue that it is a hollow ending because while it makes sense, it also allows Aang to circumvent a difficult personal problem. This isn't a bad thing in that it is an optimistic and hopeful ending but it is incredibly superheroic in almost all ways. The fact that it makes sense makes it well written for the kind of show it was trying to be. The Avatar universe is about magical kung-fu, friendship and optimism even when it touches on PG-rated serious subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:But you can just as easily argue that it is a hollow ending because while it makes sense, it also allows Aang to circumvent a difficult personal problem. This isn't a bad thing in that it is an optimistic and hopeful ending but it is incredibly superheroic in almost all ways. The fact that it makes sense makes it well written for the kind of show it was trying to be. The Avatar universe is about magical kung-fu, friendship and optimism even when it touches on PG-rated serious subject matter. No, you can't just as easily argue that. The context isn't there. This isn't a continuing comic series or a story in which none of the good guys kill anyone or in which Aang's ultimate solution isn't set up ahead of time or whatever. Aang didn't circumvent a difficult personal problem - he solved one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, you can't just as easily argue that. The context isn't there. This isn't a continuing comic series or a story in which none of the good guys kill anyone or in which Aang's ultimate solution isn't set up ahead of time or whatever. Aang didn't circumvent a difficult personal problem - he solved one. Sure you can. Aang faced the problem of putting his role in the world or his personal ideals first in what seemed to be an insurmountable problem. Aang began the series literally running away from his duties and in doing so he doomed the world to 100 years of war and suffering. The problem he seemed to face at the end was that he still wanted to run from his duties with how it conflicted with his self. His solution meant he didn't have to compromise. This is an optimistic and cheerful viewpoint but it is one which arguably allowed him to sidestep an issue without making a choice. The solution was given to him by a third source. It makes thematic sense but you can argue the opposite direction too. (And people did when the final aired.) The opposite viewpoint is also a valid story, just not an optimistic one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Sure you can. Aang faced the problem of putting his role in the world or his personal ideals first in what seemed to be an insurmountable problem. His solution meant he didn't have to compromise, yes. Not compromising morals, but instead cleaving to them, is a thing people do. It's stupid to pretend that it's somehow more honest or realistic for difficult struggles to avoid moral compromise to fail rather than succeed. Aang clearly overcame his personal flaws - cowardice, inability to stand his ground, unwillingness to genuinely fight rather than simply evade, etc - but none of those flaws are the same as "is unwilling to kill". The lesson of TLA is that you can resist evil without being evil. You can disagree, but you can't pretend that it's somehow a cheat or copout - certainly not the way it was actually plotted or portrayed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Aang finding Another Way, despite a lot of people's insistence on Deus Ex Machina, is actually a very valid and thematically sound event. Hayden Childs of the Onion's A.V. Club sums it up in his watch-through Hayden Childs posted:In the final battle, Ozai is portrayed as huge and muscular, towering over the tiny Aang. At the turning point, he throws everything he has at Aang, who is wrapped up in an egg-shaped rock. Here the iconography of the show is at its finest. We are all shaped by our beliefs and our experiences. Someone who has been brought up to be an egomaniacal monster may have power, but that power will be transient. Massive Ozai calls himself the Phoenix King, but it is little Aang who emerges from the fiery shell and is transformed. It is Aang, trained in all of the types of bending, who enters the Avatar State (yip yip) and becomes a nucleus of elemental power. It is Aang, brought up to believe in the sanctity of life in all of its forms, who puts aside the power of the Avatar State to neutralize Ozai with some quick earthbending moves on his own steam. It is Aang who risks his own life to spare Ozai’s, all on the centennial of his people’s genocide. That’s why this ending is a great one. The answer to Aang’s problem may pop out of a deus ex machina, but the question itself, late starter though it may be, is built on solid characterization. Aang is a recognizable human being, a gentle and sweet child. Having him murder Ozai would betray everything we know about him. It is consistent with Aang's characterization and the theme of the sanctity of all living beings that he find Another Way in the finale. The show spending all these episodes with Aang standing by his principles, those of love, respect for life, brotherhood and unity, then forcing him to sacrifice those would be a cynical and nihilistic sucker punch. The lesson here is not the pragmatic "Well, children, if you find yourself in a situation where you must kill a motherfucker, you best do it." Most children are not going to find themselves in that situation all the way into adulthood. The confrontation with Ozai is one where the main character has everything tested by everything he seeks to avoid. It's really about Aang, not about the world. Ozai is a power mad dictator, lording over the globe, killing as he sees fit in the pursuit of personal glory. That's why Ozai has very little characterization of his own. He's one of the view characters in the entire show that works as a symbol. He's symbolic of the Imperial Machine of the Fire Nation. He's symbolic of the corrupting influence that power without measure can have. He's symbolic of what Aang would become had he used his powers to take the Firelord's life, convinced of his own moral superiority in doing so. Aang killing the Fire Lord would tell children "Well, your beliefs and principles are all well and good, but when it comes down to it, they don't really matter." That's the Easy Way put in very dramatic terms the show centers around. Killing the Fire Lord is the easiest way to stop him, and would go against everything Aang stands for as a person. Just like giving into your darker nature is the easiest way to get through life. The show beseeches us to find a way to hold onto our moral centers against the onslaught of the world, of everything and everyone telling us that we our values are meaningless. Though its hidden, Aang is able to uncover another option, one that lets him solve his issue, his personal crisis of principle, without sacrificing himself. Korra hasn't even found what her principles are yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:You can disagree, but you can't pretend that it's somehow a cheat or copout - certainly not the way it was actually plotted or portrayed. Sure you can. I don't agree that it is the intended ending (and I agree with you on how the ending is meant to be read) but it's very easy to argue that allowing someone to stick to their morals without having to pay a personal cost for doing so devalues the difficulty of sticking to their morals. Not just because it is 'realistic' but because the strength of morals is strongest in the face of loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
quote:Not just because it is 'realistic' but because the strength of morals is strongest in the face of loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Sure you can. I don't agree that it is the intended ending (and I agree with you on how the ending is meant to be read) but it's very easy to argue that allowing someone to stick to their morals without having to pay a personal cost for doing so devalues the difficulty of sticking to their morals. The risk of paying a huge personal cost isn't enough? thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Oracle posted:But he had lost. He lost his entire race/culture to the same guy who he had ample justification to kill, who everyone was telling him to kill, who he had every right to kill, some would argue (and did both in show and out) had a responsibility to kill. And he didn't. That's the strength of his beliefs right there. He lost his entire race and culture because of his fear, not his morals. He never actually suffered any long-term consequences for his refusal to kill. Korra did, when Aang's energybending of Amon's father lead him to craft two monsters out of his children, but Aang didn't. thexerox123 posted:The risk of paying a huge personal cost isn't enough? Arguably no. It's very easy to write "this is super risky" and then have that risky element never matter. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Arguably no. It's very easy to write "this is super risky" and then have that risky element never matter. It does matter, he comes this close to losing: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Aang knew more loss than anyone in the story. The Fire Nation committed genocide on people he personally knew less than a year ago (in his context). He'd already sacrificed plenty over the course of the story. He'd paid for his flaws (running away, denial of his nature) by sacrificing his entire culture. Making him pay further during the climax with a further sacrifice of self (all he had left of his entire nation) would be needlessly gratuitous, cynical, and belaboring the point. Aang only had himself, really, left from the trauma the Fire Nation put him through. Any more and it'd be approaching misery-porn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
The Korra game comes out tomorrow! I'm so excited! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:It does matter, he comes this close to losing: It doesn't because "he comes this close to losing" has no long-term or serious impact on him within the confines of the show. There are countless shows which write the protagonist's power as having a serious risk or a dangerous cost or "you could lose if you're not careful." Avatar itself does that with the Avatar State even. I don't agree that Aang's energybending falls into this category but others have argued it and it isn't an incorrect opinion that it skews towards optimism and hope. I like Avatar for being that way but it is a show that, by its nature as a show that aired on Nick, has to shy away from certain things and it embraces that to create a certain kind of story. It is what makes it frustrating when people approach Korra as treat it like it should do things like advocate anarchy, encourage violent social upheaval or so-on. They approach the show like it should be something very different than what it ever tried to be. It's gross and disgusting and borders on Brony-style behavior where they watch a show and want to make it something else. hiddenriverninja posted:The Korra game comes out tomorrow! I'm so excited! I hope it doesn't suck. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It doesn't because "he comes this close to losing" has no long-term or serious impact on him within the confines of the show. Well you don't generally introduce "long-term impacts" within the last 10 minutes of a series. Nor does everything have to have/examine a long-term impact. When your main character is already willing to risk their entire being to stop an enemy without using violence, having worked towards that moment for the whole series, that already says plenty. You don't need to directly see how it effected his psyche afterwards to understand that he's risking everything for his beliefs. thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It is what makes it frustrating when people approach Korra as treat it like it should do things like advocate anarchy, encourage violent social upheaval or so-on. They approach the show like it should be something very different than what it ever tried to be. It's gross and disgusting and borders on Brony-style behavior where they watch a show and want to make it something else. What? You had a villain literally advocate anarchy last season. It was kind of his main deal! Korra actually does touch on politics - usually not more than a PoliSci 101 level, but it does. Personally I think the Avatar being relevant as a spiritual mediator in an era where spirits are so common that they befriend random homeless dudes and can appear in the middle of a small town in dog form is an unspoken problem. Why not call Bumi or Jinora or homeless dude rather than the Avatar? They have spirit buddies, surely they'd make good mediators and can see both sides.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I think it's safe to consider the Avatar a "happy accident". An accident that gave itself the responsibility of making sure the world doesn't go to pot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:
It's rather rich that you just got done spending several posts criticizing the finale of ATLA for not choosing a traumatic choice that compromises to some degree Aang's ideals/morals, and then examining the long-term psychological effects, then comparing people with similar ideas on Korra to bronies and saying it's disgusting behavior. Take the log out of your eye, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:What? You had a villain literally advocate anarchy last season. It was kind of his main deal! Korra actually does touch on politics - usually not more than a PoliSci 101 level, but it does. No you didn't. You have a villain advocating not just the destruction of state but of all leadership with an emphasis on freedom above all else, with a undercurrent of the fact that freedom means 'the people who are strong dominate the weak." That is why he was literally defeated by the weak banding together to stop him. blurry! posted:It's rather rich that you just got done spending several posts criticizing the finale of ATLA for not choosing a traumatic choice that compromises to some degree Aang's ideals/morals, and then examining the long-term psychological effects, then comparing people with similar ideas on Korra to bronies and saying it's disgusting behavior. It's rather rich that you ignored the fact that I said repeatedly that wasn't my interpretation of the ending. In fact in the very post you're responding to I said that I liked Avatar because it didn't go in that direction. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's rather rich that you ignored the fact that I said repeatedly that wasn't my interpretation of the ending. In fact in the very post you're responding to I said that I liked Avatar because it didn't go in that direction. Then why are you spending so much time defending and talking about singe viewpoint you neither hold nor agree with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
blurry! posted:Then why are you spending so much time defending and talking about singe viewpoint you neither hold nor agree with? Because I'm pointing out that people in this thread are doing exactly that with regards to Korra and that people did the same thing with TLA. I mean this argument started with the whole "Korra is acting too superheroic" thing. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Because I'm pointing out that people in this thread are doing exactly that with regards to Korra and that people did the same thing with TLA. I mean this argument started with the whole "Korra is acting too superheroic" thing. I see. Thank you for your services.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No you didn't. You have a villain advocating not just the destruction of state but of all leadership with an emphasis on freedom above all else, with a undercurrent of the fact that freedom means 'the people who are strong dominate the weak." That is why he was literally defeated by the weak banding together to stop him. Oh, ok. Now I get your point. However I have to say considering it 'laughable' to discuss the politics of a show where political struggle is part of the plot is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Sure you can. I don't agree that it is the intended ending (and I agree with you on how the ending is meant to be read) but it's very easy to argue that allowing someone to stick to their morals without having to pay a personal cost for doing so devalues the difficulty of sticking to their morals. Not just because it is 'realistic' but because the strength of morals is strongest in the face of loss. That's stupid, though. Morals aren't proven worthy by the pain they exact on those who live by them. TLA asks the question: Must the avatar kill? It answers the question: no. It doesn't actually claim that no one, ever, anywhere, can kill. Like... the battle of Aang and Ozai is set against the backdrop of a massive war. We only ever see people tossing tanks around and cutting the ends off halberds, but to claim that there weren't casualties, or that the only casualties happened on the side of the resistance forces, would be absurd. The world of Avatar is cartoony and stylized enough that no one ever really dies by accident, and no one really dies onscreen, but people do die. Sokka and Toph and so on have body counts. But does the Avatar have to have a body count? Does the singular manifestation of all the world's peoples and all the world's spirits have to kill to get their way? The answer is... no. They don't. They're better than that, and they have the power to avoid it. It's pure ideology to claim that the only legitimate way to underscore that point is with buckets of blood and tears. Also I don't care at all what the "intent" of the ending is and how the ending is "meant" to be read. I'm talking about what's actually there. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Well, that was an enjoyable slapfight I've been wondering about how they'd handle a final fight between Kuvira and Korra if Kuvira does end up as the final antagonist, and that Iron Man armor from midway through season 3 with it's magnetism makes me think Kuvira will wind up suiting up for the last fight if it does go down that way. Metalbending armor sounds like there could be some fun applications somewhere in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Korra's status as "the first metalbending Avatar" better come up in the finale, or so help me, I'm done with this series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Korra's status as "the first metalbending Avatar" better come up in the finale, or so help me, I'm done with this series. So will everyone else
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Oh, ok. Now I get your point. However I have to say considering it 'laughable' to discuss the politics of a show where political struggle is part of the plot is pretty dumb. I don't consider it laughable, I'm sorry if I implied that. I just think it's worth remembering the context and concept. It's absolutely worthwhile to discuss the politics but also worth remembering the kind of show it is. Bongo Bill posted:Korra's status as "the first metalbending Avatar" better come up in the finale, or so help me, I'm done with this series. Toph straight-up said that she needs to bend the metal out of herself so it probably will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Toph straight-up said that she needs to bend the metal out of herself so it probably will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Jackard posted:Also that a metalbending novice is supposed to achieve a level of expertise that her own daughters never did. Also she's the avatar so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 23:42
|
|
