"It feels like it was blatantly tacked onto the end to calm people down. It would have felt more natural if she did it during the next episode--if ever. Sometimes, people just get over things. Zuko yells at a lot of people in Season 3, he never apologizes for it, & it all works out, because he makes his feelings known with ACTIONS, not with WORDS. I liked this approach to his character, it made him feel more genuine."
Except words are the most effective and realistic means of communicating apologies. Actions can certainly work, too, of course, and be more powerful, but Zuko did apologize to the main character he hurt the most: Iroh. And he also apologized to the Gaang. And he did this with both words and actions.
Just not apologizing at all? Just expecting people to "get over it?" That's kind of selfish and a little self-righteous depending on the situation. It's that thinking that leads to crap like the love drama nonsense in Book 1, expecting others to put up with your own immaturity, to not talk about problems...it's an issue I'd argue that a lot of the younger generation has these days: we're collectively too cowardly and immature to face the music when we make a mistake that we run away from it instead and expect everyone else to "get over it." That is sometimes realistic, but it's not character growth, and it promotes immature messages.
Effective communication requires give and take from both sides, not just one.
So yes, her apologize to Mako was actual character development because it showed that hey, Korra actually cares about Mako enough to stop and think (something she's not prone to doing much of) and take someone else's feelings into consideration instead of just her own. It's ironic that she's so self-important and self-absorbed yet the actual writing/plot continues to throw her aside time and again.
"Training with Unalaq was a smart decision."
But completely dismissing Tenzin was not. She made a rash choice fueled by emotion that Unalaw manipulated into her by bringing up past events so he could use her toward his own gains. And did she even train with Unalaq? Oh, right. She did not. Unalaq led her to the woods and told her to open a portal. That's not training. Korra thinks like she's in an RPG game, where beating stuff up gets her experience points, but that's not exactly how life works, and it's not how being the Avatar or bending the elements works, either. I cite as my evidence her feeling that 'defeating Amon' means she has mastered airbending. Which is pretty silly for multiple reasons.
It's implied that Unalaq maybe started showing her that waterbending technique to relax spirits, since she tried (and failed) to do it. And I did like that she tried that, but we don't even know if that was something that was trained or just her trying to mimic what she saw earlier.
In ATLA Aang actually trained and disciplined himself. Korra is having none of that, and while that can make for an interesting story in the short term, it also can lead to problems in the long run. Which, again, is totally fine and I actually like that dynamic a lot, as long as it leads to actual character development this time, unlike Book 1's ending.
"Except words are the most effective and realistic means of communicating apologies. Actions can certainly work, too, of course, and be more powerful, but Zuko did apologize to the main character he hurt the most: Iroh. And he also apologized to the Gaang. And he did this with both words and actions."
And those worked FOR THOSE SCENES. But anymore, I feel like people want instant emotional gratification, burn on subtlety. I didn't believe that Korra was delivering a sincere apology, I felt that her actress was giving us the moral of the story. It's such a small thing, a complaint I wouldn't even normally make, were it not for the fact that I can almost smell Bryke trying to guard against another tidal wave of rage. This is clearly something that's gotten to them, I'm told that most of their commentary on Book 1 was defending Mako, Mike put out a blog post asking what people thought about the new setting, & Bryan put one out retorting to the angry Tumblr people ranting about racebending the characters. I don't like that things are getting to the point where they feel the need to carefully measure their words so as to not raise the ire of the fans.
"Unalaq led her to the woods and told her to open a portal. That's not training."
It actually is, it's field work, but whatever.
" It's such a small thing, a complaint I wouldn't even normally make, were it not for the fact that I can almost smell Bryke trying to guard against another tidal wave of rage."
Except that as far as we're aware, all of the writing AND voice acting for Book 2 had to have been done BEFORE the 'tidal wave of rage' on Book 1, just because of how long animation takes -- and they've already said that the voice acting happens before animation even starts. So even if it got to them, its impact on Book 2 would have been minimal to the point where I don't think it applies. So you shouldn't get so defensive on their behalf about this, because it's not actually a factor given what they've said about the production of this series.
And no, I don't want "instant gratification." I'm sure there are some who do. But I don't. What I want is in fact subtlety -- something LoK handled very well with adult characters, I felt, like Lin and Tenzin and Tarrlok. But with the teenage characters they shove stuff in our face too much.
As for the "moral of the story," if the story doesn't HAVE a moral or a message, then what is the point in telling it at all? There's nothing wrong with having a "moral" to the story -- in fact, stories that don't have one sometimes don't hold up very well. Korra apologized to Mako, and they had a cute little moment of healthy communciation. We saw her have a similar moment with Tenzin in Book 1, and at least another one with Bolin. That's healthy communication, that fosters trust and friendaship. If they had spent more time dwelling on it then yea, that would've been annoying. But they didn't. Communication, man: it's important to relationships. I want subltey, too, but I still want to see what the characters are feeling, thinking, and see them making decisions for themselves. And if they're learning nothing at all in their story, then it begs the question what the story is even about to me.
"Field work," you say? Hm, where have I had that one before? Oh, right, that's what Tarrlok took her on. And once again, where did that go for Korra? =P Seems like she maybe didn't learn too much from that experience. So I'm just confused as what she learned from this "training" Unalaq took her on. Anything she learned is theoretical at this point, because we still don't know if everything Unalaq said is true, nor do we know if Korra's actions will benefit her people or not -- they might actually hurt the Southern Tribe, for all we know.
"So you shouldn't get so defensive on their behalf about this, because it's not actually a factor given what they've said about the production of this series."
I don't know how you figure this, the rage started very early on, & it spent a huge time in development.
"And no, I don't want "instant gratification." I'm sure there are some who do. But I don't. What I want is in fact subtlety -- something LoK handled very well with adult characters, I felt, like Lin and Tenzin and Tarrlok. But with the teenage characters they shove stuff in our face too much."
Agreed. And "I'm sorry I'm just under so much stress because being the Avatar is hard" is part of that. I know that, because I wasn't asleep. Reconcile emotionally without summarizing what I just watched.
"As for the "moral of the story," if the story doesn't HAVE a moral or a message, then what is the point in telling it at all?"
Entertainment. To make the audience think. Trying to force an obvious moral just for the sake of having one is not a good thing.
"There's nothing wrong with having a "moral" to the story -- in fact, stories that don't have one sometimes don't hold up very well."
I've noticed that continuity & development often get sacrificed for the sake of the "moral."
"Anything she learned is theoretical at this point, because we still don't know if everything Unalaq said is true, nor do we know if Korra's actions will benefit her people or not -- they might actually hurt the Southern Tribe, for all we know."
What point are you even trying to make, here? First you said that Korra's decision wasn't smart, then you conceded that going with Unalaq was but rejecting Tenzin wasn't, then you said that Unalaq didn't train her, now you're saying that the outcomes of this venture might hurt the Southern Water Tribe.
"I don't know how you figure this, the rage started very early on, & it spent a huge time in development."
Because animatiomn takes freaking long. The writing had to have been finished before Book 1 even started airing if they wanted to produce Book 2 even now. Pretty sure Bryan even said while Book 1 was airing about how they were already working on Book 2's production before Book 1 even finished airing. Which would mean the first two episodes writing would quite certainly have already been written by that point. As I said, Book 4 was already being worked on before Book 2 even started airing. Production cycles on Korra seem longer than other animated shows, which is apparent in how lovely the presentation is.
Bryan and Michael didn't even seem aware of fan backlash toward Mako until after Book 1 was done. The Book 1 disc commentary was recorded like, last winter, as I recall, so by then they would've been aware of the backlash, and they seemed highly defensive about Mako for some reason. They generally don't look toward the fanbase for opinions when forming their stories, from what I can tell. And Book 2 has other writers on the team now, so I'd figure that if anyone was concerned about making Mako out to be more calm and less crazy, it was one of the other writers.
"Reconcile emotionally without summarizing what I just watched."
There's a symbol in the top left of each Korra episode that pops up when an episode starts up: Y-7. Need I say more? Unfortunately, maybe, for older fans, but so it is. I get you, though.
What's more baffling to me is how they seem to want to tell more adult-oriented stories but can't quite commit. I think balance is the key with resolving issues with the characters. Not being too blunt, and not ignoring the problem, either. What you were suggesting implied that you think the characters should just magically forget when they have problems and never exercise healthy communication. Just be immature and let their negative emotions build up inside them over time and make things worse. That sort of idea is one I completely disagree with. Yes, as you said, it can be more realistic, and it can definitely be good storytelling, as long as there's a point besides it just being angsty. I do agree that they don't need to overstay the apologies -- which they certainly did not in Korra's apology to Mako. It lasted all of thirty seconds after like two or three scenes of her being a jerk to him.
I'd be curious to know how you interpret the phrase "character development" because to me, part of that entails conveying to the audience, through a character's words and actions, that development has actually taken place. Otherwise it's just theoretical.
"Entertainment. To make the audience think. Trying to force an obvious moral just for the sake of having one is not a good thing."
I agree with the last sentence. But entertainment and making an audience think don't go hand-in-hand. They can, but that is not their nature when put together. This is exactly why Book 1's ending was so thematically dissonant, why The Search is upsetting people: Michael himself even confirmed it. They just want 'to surprise' people, essentially. To paraphrase how Mike put it, 'People want surprises, right? If there's no surprises, it's boring!' Sure, that's entertaining -- but not rewarding, and doesn't necessarily make people think past the initial shock value moment. The original Avatar series usually did pretty well and making its plot points, its entertainment, weave around a thoughtful narrative, a worthwhile set of "morals" that were indeed shown through action rather than blurted out by the characters. I'm more interested in theming, character development, and plot that supports those two things, rather than artifiace and short-term shock value.
So I'm with you in showing is better than telling here, but with interpersonal relationships, telling is PART of showing because talking is a big part of how people communicate.
A story often won't make an audience think it there is no underlying message. Now, mind, sometimes the underlying message is a question, rather than a statement. But a story without a message doesn't invite much thought.
"I've noticed that continuity & development often get sacrificed for the sake of the "moral.""
And I've seen continuity and development get sacrified for the sake of ditching a moral or message that was built up toward. (See: Legend of Korra Book 1) Without some message, theme, statement, or question at the base of a story, it loses weight. It loses meaning. I just don't want to see Legend of Korra give in to those cheap thrills too much, because ATLA wouldn't be what it is if it had done that.
What point are you even trying to make, here? First you said that Korra's decision wasn't smart, then you conceded that going with Unalaq was but rejecting Tenzin wasn't, then you said that Unalaq didn't train her, now you're saying that the outcomes of this venture might hurt the Southern Water Tribe.
I didn't actually 'concede' that going with Unalaq was a smart decision. I just said that her dismissing Tenzin was a bad one -- I didn't make a comment one way or the other because I don't really know if trusting Unalaq was a smart decision, but I'm leaning on "no." I definitely don't think it was 'smart' but I'd be interested to see your argument as to why you do. Especially given that I have a funny feeling within the next couple of episodes it will be proven to have been about as "smart" as when Korra worked with Tarrlok.
So the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see what Korra learned from Unalaq in these two episodes. I don't see how he "trained" her at all. All I see so far is her making "Korra Choices" (in Janet Varney's words), making decisions out of a desire to punch things rather than a desire to learn or grow. Which is expected -- that's her character. That's her personality. And she is trying. I agree with Mako that her heart is in the right place, and I love her as a character. But she needs no fan's defense, because her making unhealthy decisions at this point in the story is not only in-character but the means to which she will most likely learn, as Korra is the sort who seems to learn only through facing consequences for her mistakes -- which didn't happen in Book 1, ergo, she didn't retain much from its events.
Anyway, this has been fun. Thank you for the discussion (everyone)! I will have to unfollow this post now, however, as I have story writing of my own I should be doing. ^_^;
"I'd be curious to know how you interpret the phrase "character development" because to me, part of that entails conveying to the audience, through a character's words and actions, that development has actually taken place. Otherwise it's just theoretical."
It has to not be contrived. This didn't sound like dialogue to me, it sounded like a scripted response. And suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I'm right, & this was only put in there to hedge potential backlash. That would mean that it's not going to be korralated with any future developments--in subsequent episodes, Korra will be brash, or she will be humble, completely independent of this scene.
"A story often won't make an audience think it there is no underlying message. Now, mind, sometimes the underlying message is a question, rather than a statement. But a story without a message doesn't invite much thought."
Let me give you an example: Death Note. It's such a thoughtful story about everything from what's ethical to what is love & family to the role of religion, right? In fact, that's completely wrong. In the guidebook, it's stated that there is no moral to Death Note, it was never intended for fans to debate these subjects, & until being asked about it, the author & illustrator never really thought about which characters were "good" & which were "bad." It was pure entertainment. But it was so clever, & good at what it did, that it made people think regardless.
"I've noticed that continuity & development often get sacrificed for the sake of the "moral.""
"And I've seen continuity and development get sacrified for the sake of ditching a moral or message that was built up toward. (See: Legend of Korra Book 1)"
That's reaching. How do we know that the moral was ditched? We were consistently told that Amon was an extremist. In the end, he turns out to be an extremist.
"specially given that I have a funny feeling within the next couple of episodes it will be proven to have been about as "smart" as when Korra worked with Tarrlok."
The future outcomes are totally irrelevant to whether or not it was an intelligent decision. She is not a prophet. By that logic, you shouldn't criticize her actions in the Book 1 finale, because they worked, & were therefore smart.
they said they were going to make TLOK a more mature show but, in honestly seems much less mature than the first series. it is actually feeling like a kid's show now.
TheAvatarNate wrote: they said they were going to make TLOK a more mature show but, in honestly seems much less mature than the first series. it is actually feeling like a kid's show now.
I see LoK as being much more morally ambiguous than the first series, & much more willing to focus on its adult characters, though certain aspects I did feel were amazingly immature, as though they felt that they had to "balance it out" somehow.