(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] semioticity.livejournal.com at 02:55pm on 25/08/2008
They are certainly limited by the constraints of ostensibly being a show for children: no one can die, no can be killed, and most "mature" themes (i.e. sex and violence) are off limits. In many ways, I surprised they got away with as much as they did.

Ultimately, I think they wanted to wrap up the storylines, so they made very definitive choices to further that goal. Toph got backgrounded, Sokka's relationship with Suki solidified, and Azula went down the only path that didn't involve compromising her character or killing her off.

I kinda compare the series to the original Star Wars trilogy: solid first season (New Hope), bad setbacks at the end of season 2 (Empire), and sweetness and light ending (Return of the Jedi). Minus the Ewoks, thankfully.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 05:20pm on 25/08/2008
Azula went down the only path that didn't involve compromising her character or killing her off.

Hahhahahahahahahahahahah!

So, did I just miss the place where she backstabbed her incompetent father and took over as the primary villain?

How about where she expressed all the human emotion clearly bubbling up inside of her? Did I miss that, too?

yrs--
--Ben
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] semioticity.livejournal.com at 05:40pm on 25/08/2008
I think you expected too much from a show airing on Nickolodeon, regardless of what you think about the creators' awareness of their audience.

I will admit, I had hoped that season three would open with Azula using her command of the Earth Kingdom to give dad a run for his money, but that was too much to ask. As for "incompetent father," where are you seeing that?

And I think you got all the "human" emotion you were going to get out of Azula in "The Beach." Frankly, I found her later dissolution believable and beautiful.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 05:55pm on 25/08/2008
This has crap-all to do with the audience. Compare to season one of the same show.

Season one: Humanized and intelligent villains, no pornographic focus on confronting them in one-on-one duels, villains fighting vying for power, sometimes violently, among themselves, actual tragedy, actual choices and conflicts.

Season three: Dehumanized and stupid villains, pornographic focus on confronting them in one-on-one duels, villains inexplicably cooperative and obedient within hierarchies, moral choices of only the "I have my cake and eat it too" variety.

Basically, see: this (http://lumpley.com/creatingtheme.html)

And if you tell me, again, that I'm "expecting too much out of a kid's show" you seriously need to watch seasons one and two again.

yrs--
--Ben
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] semioticity.livejournal.com at 08:49pm on 25/08/2008
The gap between second and third season was when the creators seemed to realize that their audience was mostly adults.

I was responding to this comment of yours, below.

I think the creators set the bar very high with seasons one and two and fell short of it in season three. The first two seasons established an unrealistic expectation that the show's ending failed to attain. They took the easy way out, several times.

Your link to Vincent's essay is well-taken; I'm filing that away for my current design, because it's damned useful. But I'm willing to live with the Avatar ending I've got, rather than choosing an arbitrary point in the show to stop watching. Yes, it dilutes the whole somewhat, but I'm willing to trade that for a "complete" story. I freely admit I'm a lot more forgiving than many people when it comes to animation.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] icecreamemperor.livejournal.com at 07:05pm on 25/08/2008
They are certainly limited by the constraints of ostensibly being a show for children: no one can die, no can be killed, and most "mature" themes (i.e. sex and violence) are off limits.

Yeah, that's not really what I meant, though. Adding 'adult topics' does not result in an adult treatment of character, and I didn't feel like the show lacked at all in terms of needing more people killing and dying. It just felt like, as with so much entertainment aimed at children or otherwise, the show felt that it always had to spell out exactly what was going on at any moment -- there wasn't much ambiguity or doubt, and when push came to shove problems turned out to have easy solutions.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] semioticity.livejournal.com at 08:53pm on 25/08/2008
Fair enough, and I'm never one to assume that the presence of child protagonists automatically relegates something to the confines of "young adult fiction," for example. (Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy is not young adult fiction, to my mind.) But published fiction and television broadcasts have different standards, and I think that's where Avatar ran afoul. I think Avatar as published fiction could have done what needed to be done, but broadcast Avatar could not.

Third season definitely pulls its punches. I would be curious to read how you (or Ben) might have executed the ending differently. Where does it come off the rails for you, and why?
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
1
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31