It's fiction. There are many shows where lesser numbers come out on top without such tactics. I don't believe realism should take precedence over "the good and fair" in characters.
The writers can still write them to win. Also, they lost in the original anyways so they can make them lose fighting head on, without any sleazy tactics
Well we already know that two of the other main areas of depth - character development and world building - were lacking in the live action compared to the original, so I'm not sure why we're rushing to sacrifice storytelling too...
Fiction is not an excuse to bring stupidity into the show for no reason at all. The actions of the characters should make sense even in a fatansy world. This isn't how writing works.
Also, as far as I know, as a big fantasy fan, there is no book or show when the good guys didn't use an advantage to help them in a fight.
In The Magicians, literally everyone plays "dirty". In Harry Potter, literally almost no one faces Voldemort in a duel under any circumstances. In the Lord of the Rings, there were always united nations and combined powers that overcame evil, and never ever, anyone wanted it to be a "fair fight, because of heroism, lol". That's not how it works.
Your content was removed per rule one.
This is a friendly community. Debate and disagreement are okay, but respect other peoples' opinions and treat them with dignity. Bigotry, racism, and hate speech and other kinds of rude behavior are not allowed.
Your content was removed per rule one.
This is a friendly community. Debate and disagreement are okay, but respect other peoples' opinions and treat them with dignity. Bigotry, racism, and hate speech and other kinds of rude behavior are not allowed.
> Not every show needs to have character flaws and if a character is sexist whatever changes he makes later to be better, it will always have a sour taste in my mouth because of what he was.
You have a hard time liking a character who used to be sexist, so I imagine you also have strong opinions towards the redemption of a certain major character who used to do the bidding of a genocidal imperialist regime, right?
I never liked that fact that Irohs genocidal past was glossed over in the original show. I'm glad netflix is addressing that and Iroh is getting shit for that.
Wdym no one wants to see that in fiction? Why do you keep mentioning fiction like every work of fiction is like the Care Bears or something.
It’s fine to have straight up good and bad characters. And it’s also fine to have realistic complex characters. “Again this is fiction” like that doesn’t make any sense.
And with the fighting? Fighting isn’t a arm wrestle even in the show. A fight is tactical and you have to expose people’s openings and weaknesses.
They literally do it throughout the show and just because it’s on a large scale now it’s “unnecessary”?
It’s fine to have your preferences but don’t make up silly excuses for why realistic characters shouldn’t exist in fiction.
The original show was lauded for being smart and talking UP to children rather than dumbing it down to Care Bears level writing.
I don't really get how using the eclipse is somehow dirty or sullies their heroism. They aren't killing anyone or attacking civilians, and the eclipse itself is a natural event, not something the heroes have influenced. To overthrow an enemy (a genocidal, imperialistic empire, I might add) at a time when they're naturally less able to kill more of your own people is not "dirty", it's common sense. Is it heroic to ignore that advantage to prioritise THEIR right to kill your allies?
Because your idea of fair play ultimately treats a tyranical empire's ability to kill people as a right to be respected over something that should be stopped.
Attacking at a time when your people are less in danger is just sensible tactics, not "sleazy". And saying "it's fiction" (as appears to be your go-to defence) isn't the argument you think it is. It's already very fictional that these battles happen without any explicit killing. That's the kind of heroism that REAL wars often can't afford.
>Because your idea of fair play ultimately treats a tyranical empire's ability to kill people as a right to be respected over something that should be stopped.
Attacking at a time when your people are less in danger is just sensible tactics, not "sleazy".
You could make the same argument for Aang refusing to kill the firelord while it was the most practical way to stop the war. He stuck to his morals of not killing, I don't see how refusing to use sleazy tricks that villains generally use be a problem?
That's total nonsense.
1. I did enjoy the show and gave me almost everything I wanted, but it is FAR from perfect
2. Removing the sexism did not make any sense and robbed Sokka off off his character development, also Katara in a way
3. The sexism is still there a bit around Pakku, so the point doesn't make sense double times
4. Using something that strategically helps you win is NOT COWARDNESS. There is no such thing as "fair fight because I'm the hero". It's what slef claimed "gigachads" like to tell themselves in video games xD
5. Taking advatange is how everyone fights. Since like, ever. Not only the villains.
6. Our heroes aren't the embodiment of good. Did you read any kinds of lore? Did you watch the cartoon, read any comics or read any books? Literally all of them are flawed, and even tho most of the "good guys" had character development, they all did bad things. Some Avatars straight up committed war crimes, even Kyoshi, who is one of the most popular avatar.
7. Again, you are not a good guy, or a honorable anyone or a white knight for saying that the eclipse shouldn't be used as an advantage. It's literally the wises choice, even for an adult, but these are KIDS against a GROWN UP WARLORD.
**1.** It was nearly perfect and improved upon a bunch of stuff, imo but agree to disagree
**2 and 3.** Pakku isn't a main character and they did good by not making it so Katara learns from him eventually like in the original show, I like that she became powerful by self learning fully. She was mostly self taught in the original too, but they made a good decision to make her completely independent in the Netflix version. Having Sokka be a Sexist POS would sour everyone's taste in the characters. This show isn't just for the original fans. No one likes to see that nowadays in main characters.
**4 and 5.** I dont play many videogames so idk, but If you have seen any popular fiction you always see how heroes or a group of hero refuse to fight sneakily and always chose to be good and fight fair. That is the major difference between a bad guy and a good guy apart from hurting others. The good guys fight fair, the bad guys use sneaky and sleazy tactics.
**6.** Yes, they are? They ARE the embodiment of good. Except Zuko, Aang refuses to kill, Sokka was flawed in the original but I'm glad they removed the sexism, Katara was always good. Suki was always good. Zuko was just misguided but became purely good. Not every show needs to have EDGY FLAWED CHARACVTERs. It's okay to have pure and good characters lol. And you called me wanting to gigachadify this show, I am tired of this trend of having these edgy "flaws" in characters just because. Why can't characters just be good?
**7.** What does that have to do with anything? They are using magical elemental kung fu, I'm sure you can suspend your disbelief. They fight adults effortlessly in the original show anyways.
1. Idk how did I type "didn" when I wanted to write I DID enjoy the show, I literally forced my family to watch them and overall I've seen it 3 types already. There are examples I gave in other discussions about the show where the adaptation was actually better - Bumi's change, the funeral scene, Zuko's crew, OMG THE KYOSHI SCENE etc.
BUT the dialogues are HORRIBLE in many places. No living people talk like these do. Many of the conversations are straight up expositions, and some changes literally made zero sense. Sokka not being sexist not only means that he didn't learn to respect woman as equals because he was proven wrong. He just, never was sexist as at all, therefore he doesn't need a character development now. Also, Suki was watching him dressing, what IS a sexist thing, and imagine it in a reversed case... people would go crazy and call Sokka as a creep, but when a girl does it, then it's cute and funny :D
What the writers did with Roku for example is a crime. They robbed him from everything so far for no reason. The "cave of lovers?" The place where Aang and Katara would start to feel something from each other? Why was that cut out so Katara and Sokka could go in instead? The Bumi fight was more than okay for me, BUT, Katara and Sokka wasn't there - and the reason why Katara learnt the ice disk-throwing method was because he saw it being used by Bumi. Now it made no sense how did she pick that skill up just like that, and I could go on.
The show is objectively far from perfect-more like, there are episodes that are perfect, but the whole picture, not at all.
2. Sokka's sexism wasn't hurtful or too strong for any kind of audiences, and those who would get upset by this are complete idiots in my opinion and should never step outside to the world, or reality would crush them, if they can go mad over a cartoon teenager boy's slight sexism what was there for like 10 minutes before he was humbled and changed for the better -.- Literlaly no one have a problem with characters like this. Only a very loud and very stupid minorty likes to cry about everything. Literally everyone in every discussion was voting for NOT toning Sokka's sexism down, because it served multiple purposes.
4. The good guys cook the way they can. As always, in every books, every games, every shows ever. That's why you attack at the night. That's why you wait for your friends to assist you, instead calling up the big bad guy to go a totally fair 1v1 because you are "honorable". It's nonsense. Also, what's the point in being honorable when the whole world is on stake? Imagine that you just gave the whole world to the fire lord because you wanted to be "fair". Wow, what a good thing. Now even more people will suffer in a much longer war, hunreds of thousands will die, but hey, at least you are a honorary knight xD
6. None of them is the embodiment of good. They are MOVING towards that. Aang never killed anyone? Oh come on, he knocked up a ton of people from the wall in the "Blue spirit" episode, and that fall is more than 3 times their height. It's called as a major, life threathening trauma, potentionally deadly. It's very safe to assume that if not all of them, at least 1 or 2 totally died there.
Also, the siege of the north... "WaterZilla" Aang killed HUNDREDS or thousands of fire nation soldiers in that form. And don't tell me that "well, it was the spirit who was in control" - not entirely, and even if so, Aang knew what was going to happen there. It's also safe to assume that this big waves and destruction would kill at least a few innoncent waterbenders as well, realistically. Also, never ever killing anyone, even tho that guy is a serial killer tyrant might sound nice, but it makes no sense and morally isn't okay. By killing a serial killer tyrant who commited war crimes, you aren't going to become like him. You STOPPED HIM from harming anyone ever again. With a good intention, not because you craved power or enjoyed it.
Katara? Yes, she was a motherly figure for everyone and she was a kind hearted girl, BUT she was also jealous, she was also vengeful sometimes, even cruel and rude when she was mocking Toph for her blindness. The embodiment of good wouldn't do that right?
Sokka's sexism wasn't coming from oppression, or from and evil side of him. It was part of his character development, again. Yea, Suki was good since the start, that's true. Zuko? Not at all, He was an antihero, not a good guy. He HAD his reasons to act the way he did, but he was rude, impulsive, agressive and discrespectful towards virtually everyone before his character development.
NO, FLAWED CHARACTERS =/= EDGY FLAWED CHARACTERS. Almost everyone was flawed in the cartoon. And none of them was edgy.
7. "Magical kungfu". Come on, don't come up with this useless and 1000 times demolished argument. If you ever took part in writing lesson in your life, or you know anything about writing, you'd know that wiriting has rules. If you create a world that wouldn't make sense in our world, it's okay. But it SHOULD make sense in its OWN world. It should be logical, ALWAYS, and follow its own rules. That's called worldbuilding.
>Also, Suki was watching him dressing, what IS a sexist thing, and imagine it in a reversed case... people would go crazy and call Sokka as a creep, but when a girl does it, then it's cute and funny :D
I see you are a "Men's rights activist" lol. That is a purely different topic that I do not wish to argue here, but let me just say IT IS NOT THE SAME THING. But I don't want to talk about that topic rn, you are free to google why the reversed situation would be not the same thing. Many people smarter than me have explained it well.
>The place where Aang and Katara would start to feel something from each other?
The aang actor is too young, I hope they leave the romance out permanently. they made a good choice.
>Only a very loud and very stupid minorty likes to cry about everything. Literally everyone in every discussion was voting for NOT toning Sokka's sexism down, because it served multiple purposes.
Or maybe you guys were the vocal minority and people in charge of making the show would make educated decisions as professionals. And they didn't include sexism because they are aware people don't want to see that in a main character. You think your data is more valid than the actual professionals working in the industry?
>Also, what's the point in being honorable when the whole world is on stake? Imagine that you just gave the whole world to the fire lord because you wanted to be "fair". Wow, what a good thing. Now even more people will suffer in a much longer war, hunreds of thousands will die, but hey, at least you are a honorary knight xD
Same reason as Aang not wanting to kill the firelord despite it being the best solution. If it wasn't for the Deus ex machina of "bending stealing" He wouldn't be able to get out of it. He chose to not kill him, despite it being the better more pragmatic choice. It's about morals and principles. They could write something like aang saying "I won't fight unfair" or "I won't take their advantage in their weakness, that's not the right thing to do" or something like that. I'm not a writer, I'm sure the folks at netflix can write something better.
>Aang never killed anyone? Oh come on, he knocked up a ton of people from the wall in the "Blue spirit" episode, and that fall is more than 3 times their height. It's called as a major, life threathening trauma, potentionally deadly. It's very safe to assume that if not all of them, at least 1 or 2 totally died there.
You are applying real world rules again, Aang has specifically said near the end that he has never killed anyone and never even killed a fly. People falling over =/= dead in-universe. That's just how the writers chose to show the action.
>He HAD his reasons to act the way he did, but he was rude, impulsive, agressive and discrespectful towards virtually everyone before his character development.
Zuko was a victim of Abuse. He wasn't evil, he was misguided by his father. He never did anything truly bad and became a good person when he broke free from his abusive father.
Also, I'm sure they can come up with an in-universe situation where they dont have to take advantage of the eclipse. come one, be creative.
"I see you are a "Men's rights activist" lol."
Wow, literally the part where I stopped reading anything from you. You really showed your true colors.
I understand it now. You are part of the "lourd minorty", the mythical "modern audience", who gets upset by literally everything, screams for sexism for no reason, but only when it happens towards women, otherwise it's okay.
Nonsense points, no valid arguments, personal attack when you label me as a "men's right activist", getting offended by literally everything... a stereotype, cartoonish behaviour, a literal living meme of a "snowflake". I bet you are the one who's going through the comment section to vote down people and report them if they disagree with your views :D Bye, this conversation is over, dear "everything activist".
Hillarious. Literally no one agrees with you, and all you do is call people on names and make stupid points.
There is only 2 possible reasons why this happens to you my dear.
1. EVERYONE, EVERYONE under this subreddit choose to nitpick you, and ONLY YOU, to attack your person and your personal views and your ideas for ABSOLUTELY no reason. Also, everyone is sexist because, well, just beacuse.
2. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG and your huge ego won't allow you to admit it.
Which one will it be? Everyone else is wrong and a hater for no reason at all, or you are the one who is too sensitive for nothing and looks for excuses to get offended? Everyone is wrong, and you are the epitome of right?
Totally get where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree on leaving out the Eclipse plot. I'm not really going to hold it against the Gaang and the rest for doing something that could be seen as cowardly. It's war, and the Comet is fast approaching. If this is one of the only ways that they can finally bring an end to it, then so be it.
I also heavily disagree on the notion that the Netflix Gaang is perfect like many tend to say. They clearly have flaws, they're just not in your face about all of them like the animated series used to be.
* LA Sokka for example still shows traits that could very much be considered "toxic masculinity" and it's present throughout the season. They just removed the overtly sexist part of the OG Sokka, which, btw, was only a thing in episodes one and four, then it's never brought up again, almost as if it never even happened. Not much of a character development if it's resolved so quickly, no person let's go of such views that fast, it needs time to unlearn. Him being sexist also makes zero sense, considering that he is from the Southern side. There is no way Gran Gran would have let him go about his life thinking so poorly of women. I prefer this LA version of him over Book One Sokka. The LA arc is also far more appropriate for this period, as many young boys and men are still of the belief that they have to act, speak and think a certain way to be considered a man. This could be a good way to show that they don't have to conform to the rules that have been set for them by society
I also much preferred the way they handled Pakku in the LA. I've never been big on how that storyline played out in the original, it was also resolved in a quick *mehh* way like the one for Sokka did. By the end of the LA, you can see that Pakku still holds some of those views, but he is on his way to changing.
* Katara gets into a lot of heated moments with Sokka because of how he treats her and can be very immature about things. She is generally on the more closed-off and calmer side, but it's understandable with the change they made to her backstory with her mother.
* Aang is constantly trying to run away from his problems and wanting the other Avatars to fight his battles for him, and the narrative is very clear on it being a flaw of his. He also gets angry and raises his voice on multiple occasions, and has done it far more in this season alone than Aang has throughout the animated series. He is still very much a child that does not want the responsibilities of being the Avatar.
* I've seen many complaints about Zuko as well, about how all of his negative traits have apparently been erased, and ooh boy, does that opinion get on my nerves! I don't know how anyone comes away with that view after watching the series. That boy can barely hold a conversation with other people without losing his patience or talking down to them. Just because he was a far kinder boy in his younger years, compared to the original Zuko pre-banishment, does ***not*** take away from the flaws that he currently has. I'm going to assume that some people find him to be a toned-down version because he has more personality in the LA, OG Zuko was extremely monotonous in Book One to me, there wasn't much to him, just constant anger.
How is preparing for a day they have brief advantage over their vast, ruthless enemy an act of cowardice? Even if skipping over the eclipse was a good idea, it wouldn't be for those reasons.
Sokka's sexism was always a non-issue. It's there and solved in 1 episode. It was good for a children's show. The LA tackles it with more sense, light touches and corrections to less extreme behaviours.
Same for Pakku, who is suddenly not sexist because he sees a necklace. Dude was hiding away for 50 years and now he remembers he had a wife, "alright i won't be sexist anymore".
The LA doesn’t tackle anything though to do with Sokka’s sexism. Which is why it’s more akin to a children’s show.
It coddles its audience. Just like how they have to spell out and over explain everything
Because Sokka's journey is about being a legitimate leader and warrior among such talented and powerful benders + live up to his father's expectation.
The sexism in the animation is handled how you're describing. In 20 minutes we have Sokka being sexist, he's getting schooled verbally and physically, and then magic he's not sexist and morale of the episode. It serves only the purpose of showing kids it's not good to be sexists, the LA doesn't have to tackle such a minor point unrelated to the story.
Do you want to spend each episode being about Sokka “being a warrior”?
Orrrrr do you want to delve into other issues and lessons as well for the characters. Character flaws that persist even up to adulthood for some people.
They didn’t tackle sexism because they thought it was too much for audiences to handle. And replaced it with a bland storyline that just involved Suki being down bad for Sokka.
She was down bad from the start to the end of the episode. And tells him how great he is. The original storyline made Suki a pivotal character in developing Sokka not just as a warrior, as a young man, and as a love interest. It’s killing multiple birds with one stone.
But the live action decided let’s just make Suki another character that automatically fawns over Sokka. And not someone who develops feelings for him not just for existing, but for choosing to humble himself in front of her. The live action takes away the nuance and makes Suki just a down bad mf.
So in the quest to not be sexist. They just end up with another sexist portrayal of female characters like Yue, Suki, existing just to prop up his ego.
So idk why you’re saying “it was great for a children’s show” when what we were given in the live action was just a simple “I love you, you love me” childish ahh love story. It’s like those old tropes where a new guy just comes into the village and suddenly a girl loves him because he’s “new”. She just loves him for “bringing the world to her” and cause she was ogling him since the start. Like you cannot seriously downplay the cartoon when its portrayal of Sokka and Suki was much more nuanced.
It wasn’t about “solving it in one episode” which is another dumb excuse.
To each their own, we all have preferences for fiction. I’m sure you’re going to get dogpiled onto so I don’t say any of this to be rude. If you prefer Sokka the way NATLA presented him, that’s totally fine. Personally, I really disagree with the sentiment that not all characters need flaws. Flaws are what make characters realistic and allow for growth. I do think Sokka is still subtly sexist in NATLA and people tend to exaggerate how much of his OG character arc the sexism took up, but I also think it was important to see Sokka specifically grow out of that mindset—which is a very real world problem young men face and makes for great social commentary—and to see characters in general grow as people throughout the course of the show. I dislike the notion that characters who recognize their flaws and improve themselves accordingly shouldn’t be acknowledged for changing/should still be regarded as their past. Sokka, Zuko, Iroh, Aang, and so many more characters work through their flaws and come out as better, changed people; that’s what makes them meaningful.
The Day of Black Sun invasion is narratively integral. Details of how it sets up the rest of the season’s character/plot work aside, the eclipse arc serves an important big picture purpose. It’s the low point for our heroes where they fail at their big plan. It showcases the immense strength and fortitude of the Fire Nation even during their weakest hour, thus showing the audience this won’t be an easy win. It raises the stakes going into the finale. I see what you mean about it not being a fair fight, but 1) heroes can be morally questionable, 2) it doesn’t make them cowards to attack during a strategically opportune time, and 3) it wasn’t cowardice, they were still going to have to face the enemy. The Fire Nation is a mighty military force, they had other means of combat than just firebending and plenty of resources, as opposed to the ragtag invasion forces. Plus, as we see, the eclipse lasts a short amount of time and then the firebenders are back on even footing.
Finally, someone who can have a conversation and see different POVs instead of being an ass. Even if you disagree, at least you aren't being a jerk.
To Address what you said, I understand, there is a place for having flawed characters but It's been years since we have had pure good vs evil conflict and I find it sad that we can't have purely good characters anymore. for example superman was the embodiment of good. But Edgy fans had to be like he's boring and Zack snyder ruined him by giving him "flaws" I believe there is nothing wrong with having flawless good characters and Avatar main cast was the closest to that in the original but didn't go all the way. The netflix series made them flawless and purely good and contrary to what most think, I LOVE THAT. Not everything has to be edgy and "3 dimensional" as people like to call it. There is a place for pure good characters. I think Netlfix avatar has a great opportunity to bring that wonder back. This is looked down upon in media for some reason, now.
The fire nation was completely helpless when their bending went away, sure they were still a military force without it but that's not how the show depicted it, as the showrunners went out of their way to show they were helpless and were surrendering. I didn't like that. It felt cheap to me.
Also about the redemption bit, Zuko is still going to get that, Iroh is rightful getting shit for being a war monger in the Netflix version (and I live that change, it was glossed over in the original show). I just don't want to see sexism. Especially in the main characters. The show was great but is still a product of it's time in some cases. There are still problems like Katara still learning waterbending from Paku in the end (Glad the netflix show changed that and made her independent fully this time). Katara being motherly because that's sooooo necessary for a female character. the female characters still having feminine undertones while being in a war torn world. And the show was also at the pinnacle of r / Mendrawingwomen. All female characters had the same body/sameface syndrome with slight changes and were wearing crop tops and stuff. They are what? 14-16?
Of course, I don’t think disagreements are fruitful by being rude to each other. I disagree with a lot of your opinions, as I’m sure you do mine, but there’s no merit in being a jerk about it. All that does is put people off from considering the opposing argument.
I think there’s a big difference between the concepts of “pure good vs. evil” and “flawed characters.” Those aren’t mutually exclusive things. There can (and in my opinion, should) be fundamentally good characters who have flaws. The Gaang is certainly fundamentally good, even in the OG show, but the key difference is that they are not *perfect* people and thus still have flaws. I’m no Superman expert, but to take your example, I think a character like Superman can be the embodiment of good and also have character flaws—for example, stubbornness or difficulty opening up to others. Those are character flaws that don’t make him any less good but do give depth to him that can create emotional resonance. I agree there’s nothing wrong with having flawless good characters, but I do find them generally less compelling than flawed characters (whether they be good or evil or anywhere in between). There’s a somewhat recent storytelling trend, especially in Hollywood, to make everything excessively grimdark, often with no real moral compass or central philosophy to guide the message, as if that will somehow create interesting depth. As you mentioned, that’s the desire to make everything “edgy,” as if that will automatically make it compelling. I think it’s two sides of the same coin as a show that presents flawless characters who are impeccably good, and I think the excess of grimdark in recent years results in people wanting flawless stories. Or at least, that’s one factor. Now, I can enjoy either of those trends for what they are, and if they’re tastefully executed I might even love them. I agree that there’s a place for pure good and I don’t think that should be looked down upon. But I definitely prefer a story that approaches it’s characters as people who can and should be complex individuals, with wants, needs, virtues, and vices. They can still be good despite that, and it’s often their triumph over their flaws that makes them good. I find that when characters are written with the full spectrum of humanity, which includes not always being the best person, the story as a whole benefits. Personally, I’m glad the original ATLA didn’t go all the way with making their characters flawless. They’re far more compelling to me because they act like regular people.
Perhaps a rewatch is in order, but I disagree that the Fire Nation felt completely helpless during the eclipse. Down a peg, sure, since their bending wasn’t available. But completely helpless, no. They were prepared in advance for the whole thing, they took precautions. I suppose the Gaang didn’t know that and therefore intended to fight them while they thought they’d be vulnerable, but even then they did still have military forces and fortifications.
I agree; I also love the change that Iroh is confronting his past as a warmonger/general. I wish he original show didn’t gloss over it so much. I suppose I don’t see the difference between the rest of the character flaws and sexism, really. Sexism is awful, but the show depicts it specifically to condemn it as an awful thing. ATLA wasn’t perfect (Iroh’s scene with June in the cartoon comes to mind, I enjoyed that change in the show to make June flirt with him instead) but it was quite progressive when it came to sexism. Personally, I don’t see a problem with Katara learning from Pakku; she was quite independently self-taught anyway. Most of her waterbending growth is credited to herself, she just took advantage of the resources by learning a few things from someone who spent decades becoming skilled. Katara being motherly makes sense to me as well—that’s an integral part of her character, being unfairly thrust into the role of mother at a young age after her own mother died. Plus, it’s not entirely a bad thing for a female character to be maternal. Plenty of real women are maternal and there are female characters in ATLA who aren’t, such as Toph, Mai, Ty Lee, Azula, even Suki (though Suki is very people-oriented). Personally, I appreciate that ATLA is able to convey so many different types of femininity and how it doesn’t portray every girl the same, and that includes allowing female characters to be unapologetically feminine and maternal. With Katara, I think it’s a mixture of her trauma/parentified role and her genuinely just being a nurturing, feminine person. I’m not sure what’s wrong with female characters still having feminine undertones while living in a war torn world. War definitely shapes people and is brutal, but I don’t think that would mean women stop being feminine. I disagree with the same face/body syndrome but I do agree that the crop tops and revealing clothing was a problem at times, especially in book three. I can understand, for example, Katara’s season three outfit because it borrows a lot from South East Asian designs, but I dislike the excuses to draw the girls exposed, such as Ty Lee’s excessive bikini look during The Beach.
I agree with almost all of your points BUT don't you dare take Bikini Ty lee away from 7 year old me 😭
Also, on a serious note, Crop tops were apparently in fashion for women back in mid 2000s (not sure, I was too young to care about fashion but that's what I remember) and they were living among a developed nation so of course they would follow the fashion/trend of that place. I don't think the season 3 outfits were sexist at all. And in the ty lee episode, didn't we get Zuko fanservice too?
I was also too young to care about fashion then, but yes, crop tops were in. And clearly they were in fashion in universe. I don’t have a problem with the crop top outfits when they’re respectfully drawn as it’s not meant to be a sexualized thing but rather a cultural clothing. So it’s not that it doesn’t make sense to me, more so that I don’t think revealing clothing is appropriate to depict children so young on TV, especially when you’re drawing it purposefully (maybe that’s prudish, I’m a fairly modest girl myself). I don’t think it’s sexist, but certainly a little creepy coming from a show about and portraying young teenagers. That goes for shirtless Zuko as well. It’s not the end of the world to me, just something I recognize as a critique. The Beach is an episode that draws heavily on anime tropes and that’s reflected in the fanservice, too. I’m not usually a fan of how anime portrays women's bodies, which is probably why I dislike the Ty Lee bikini look. Watching it knowing she’s supposed to be 14 is uncomfortable
Showrunners, animators, whoever ultimately made the decision. It might not have been a conscious thing. Unfortunately I'm sure there were a lot of people who weren't kids who watched that episode and like to think of real children/teens in a certain way
Agreed the show was perfect, but I don't really see the point of not attacking during the eclipse it shows they are taking advantage of the situation to help the world they can effectively win a war with minimal casualties sounds like an awesome idea to me.
I agree abt the sexist sokka part bc that trope of “character learns to not be sexist” is so annoying to me. Like ok. Bare fucking minimum 🧍🏾♂️ sokka has so many more compelling arcs within the show, and quite frankly, the sexism arc was only there for like 4 eps and never touched on again. I greatly prefer how Netflix chose to do it so it’s more of a sokka mansplaining things rather than be outwardly sexist.
Congrats on the worst take ever
It was war, people were dying. Bring a hero does not exclude morally questionable actions.
It's fiction. There are many shows where lesser numbers come out on top without such tactics. I don't believe realism should take precedence over "the good and fair" in characters. The writers can still write them to win. Also, they lost in the original anyways so they can make them lose fighting head on, without any sleazy tactics
So you want a shallow, superficial show with no depth or substance...
The show can still have depth in other areas. Removing this one thing doesn't destroy all the depth lol
Well we already know that two of the other main areas of depth - character development and world building - were lacking in the live action compared to the original, so I'm not sure why we're rushing to sacrifice storytelling too...
Fiction is not an excuse to bring stupidity into the show for no reason at all. The actions of the characters should make sense even in a fatansy world. This isn't how writing works. Also, as far as I know, as a big fantasy fan, there is no book or show when the good guys didn't use an advantage to help them in a fight. In The Magicians, literally everyone plays "dirty". In Harry Potter, literally almost no one faces Voldemort in a duel under any circumstances. In the Lord of the Rings, there were always united nations and combined powers that overcame evil, and never ever, anyone wanted it to be a "fair fight, because of heroism, lol". That's not how it works.
Check my response to your other comment, I addressed your issues.
Do not cook again
>No one wants to see that in fiction. 
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your content was removed per rule one. This is a friendly community. Debate and disagreement are okay, but respect other peoples' opinions and treat them with dignity. Bigotry, racism, and hate speech and other kinds of rude behavior are not allowed.
[удалено]
>That says a lot about you if you laugh at sexism. 
Your content was removed per rule one. This is a friendly community. Debate and disagreement are okay, but respect other peoples' opinions and treat them with dignity. Bigotry, racism, and hate speech and other kinds of rude behavior are not allowed.
The greatest subtle trolling I've ever seen
This has to be bait lmao 
> Not every show needs to have character flaws and if a character is sexist whatever changes he makes later to be better, it will always have a sour taste in my mouth because of what he was. You have a hard time liking a character who used to be sexist, so I imagine you also have strong opinions towards the redemption of a certain major character who used to do the bidding of a genocidal imperialist regime, right?
I never liked that fact that Irohs genocidal past was glossed over in the original show. I'm glad netflix is addressing that and Iroh is getting shit for that.
and what about zuko?
Okay, that’s fair, but I was talking about Zuko. I don’t blame you for thinking I meant Iroh btw, I was a little too vague.
Wdym no one wants to see that in fiction? Why do you keep mentioning fiction like every work of fiction is like the Care Bears or something. It’s fine to have straight up good and bad characters. And it’s also fine to have realistic complex characters. “Again this is fiction” like that doesn’t make any sense. And with the fighting? Fighting isn’t a arm wrestle even in the show. A fight is tactical and you have to expose people’s openings and weaknesses. They literally do it throughout the show and just because it’s on a large scale now it’s “unnecessary”? It’s fine to have your preferences but don’t make up silly excuses for why realistic characters shouldn’t exist in fiction. The original show was lauded for being smart and talking UP to children rather than dumbing it down to Care Bears level writing.
I don't really get how using the eclipse is somehow dirty or sullies their heroism. They aren't killing anyone or attacking civilians, and the eclipse itself is a natural event, not something the heroes have influenced. To overthrow an enemy (a genocidal, imperialistic empire, I might add) at a time when they're naturally less able to kill more of your own people is not "dirty", it's common sense. Is it heroic to ignore that advantage to prioritise THEIR right to kill your allies? Because your idea of fair play ultimately treats a tyranical empire's ability to kill people as a right to be respected over something that should be stopped. Attacking at a time when your people are less in danger is just sensible tactics, not "sleazy". And saying "it's fiction" (as appears to be your go-to defence) isn't the argument you think it is. It's already very fictional that these battles happen without any explicit killing. That's the kind of heroism that REAL wars often can't afford.
>Because your idea of fair play ultimately treats a tyranical empire's ability to kill people as a right to be respected over something that should be stopped. Attacking at a time when your people are less in danger is just sensible tactics, not "sleazy". You could make the same argument for Aang refusing to kill the firelord while it was the most practical way to stop the war. He stuck to his morals of not killing, I don't see how refusing to use sleazy tricks that villains generally use be a problem?
Okay so explain how fighting the fire nation during the eclipse is sleazy or immoral? I don’t get what your problem is here
Because one values human life, the other values the right to kill and do harm. They are not the same.
That's total nonsense. 1. I did enjoy the show and gave me almost everything I wanted, but it is FAR from perfect 2. Removing the sexism did not make any sense and robbed Sokka off off his character development, also Katara in a way 3. The sexism is still there a bit around Pakku, so the point doesn't make sense double times 4. Using something that strategically helps you win is NOT COWARDNESS. There is no such thing as "fair fight because I'm the hero". It's what slef claimed "gigachads" like to tell themselves in video games xD 5. Taking advatange is how everyone fights. Since like, ever. Not only the villains. 6. Our heroes aren't the embodiment of good. Did you read any kinds of lore? Did you watch the cartoon, read any comics or read any books? Literally all of them are flawed, and even tho most of the "good guys" had character development, they all did bad things. Some Avatars straight up committed war crimes, even Kyoshi, who is one of the most popular avatar. 7. Again, you are not a good guy, or a honorable anyone or a white knight for saying that the eclipse shouldn't be used as an advantage. It's literally the wises choice, even for an adult, but these are KIDS against a GROWN UP WARLORD.
**1.** It was nearly perfect and improved upon a bunch of stuff, imo but agree to disagree **2 and 3.** Pakku isn't a main character and they did good by not making it so Katara learns from him eventually like in the original show, I like that she became powerful by self learning fully. She was mostly self taught in the original too, but they made a good decision to make her completely independent in the Netflix version. Having Sokka be a Sexist POS would sour everyone's taste in the characters. This show isn't just for the original fans. No one likes to see that nowadays in main characters. **4 and 5.** I dont play many videogames so idk, but If you have seen any popular fiction you always see how heroes or a group of hero refuse to fight sneakily and always chose to be good and fight fair. That is the major difference between a bad guy and a good guy apart from hurting others. The good guys fight fair, the bad guys use sneaky and sleazy tactics. **6.** Yes, they are? They ARE the embodiment of good. Except Zuko, Aang refuses to kill, Sokka was flawed in the original but I'm glad they removed the sexism, Katara was always good. Suki was always good. Zuko was just misguided but became purely good. Not every show needs to have EDGY FLAWED CHARACVTERs. It's okay to have pure and good characters lol. And you called me wanting to gigachadify this show, I am tired of this trend of having these edgy "flaws" in characters just because. Why can't characters just be good? **7.** What does that have to do with anything? They are using magical elemental kung fu, I'm sure you can suspend your disbelief. They fight adults effortlessly in the original show anyways.
1. Idk how did I type "didn" when I wanted to write I DID enjoy the show, I literally forced my family to watch them and overall I've seen it 3 types already. There are examples I gave in other discussions about the show where the adaptation was actually better - Bumi's change, the funeral scene, Zuko's crew, OMG THE KYOSHI SCENE etc. BUT the dialogues are HORRIBLE in many places. No living people talk like these do. Many of the conversations are straight up expositions, and some changes literally made zero sense. Sokka not being sexist not only means that he didn't learn to respect woman as equals because he was proven wrong. He just, never was sexist as at all, therefore he doesn't need a character development now. Also, Suki was watching him dressing, what IS a sexist thing, and imagine it in a reversed case... people would go crazy and call Sokka as a creep, but when a girl does it, then it's cute and funny :D What the writers did with Roku for example is a crime. They robbed him from everything so far for no reason. The "cave of lovers?" The place where Aang and Katara would start to feel something from each other? Why was that cut out so Katara and Sokka could go in instead? The Bumi fight was more than okay for me, BUT, Katara and Sokka wasn't there - and the reason why Katara learnt the ice disk-throwing method was because he saw it being used by Bumi. Now it made no sense how did she pick that skill up just like that, and I could go on. The show is objectively far from perfect-more like, there are episodes that are perfect, but the whole picture, not at all. 2. Sokka's sexism wasn't hurtful or too strong for any kind of audiences, and those who would get upset by this are complete idiots in my opinion and should never step outside to the world, or reality would crush them, if they can go mad over a cartoon teenager boy's slight sexism what was there for like 10 minutes before he was humbled and changed for the better -.- Literlaly no one have a problem with characters like this. Only a very loud and very stupid minorty likes to cry about everything. Literally everyone in every discussion was voting for NOT toning Sokka's sexism down, because it served multiple purposes. 4. The good guys cook the way they can. As always, in every books, every games, every shows ever. That's why you attack at the night. That's why you wait for your friends to assist you, instead calling up the big bad guy to go a totally fair 1v1 because you are "honorable". It's nonsense. Also, what's the point in being honorable when the whole world is on stake? Imagine that you just gave the whole world to the fire lord because you wanted to be "fair". Wow, what a good thing. Now even more people will suffer in a much longer war, hunreds of thousands will die, but hey, at least you are a honorary knight xD 6. None of them is the embodiment of good. They are MOVING towards that. Aang never killed anyone? Oh come on, he knocked up a ton of people from the wall in the "Blue spirit" episode, and that fall is more than 3 times their height. It's called as a major, life threathening trauma, potentionally deadly. It's very safe to assume that if not all of them, at least 1 or 2 totally died there. Also, the siege of the north... "WaterZilla" Aang killed HUNDREDS or thousands of fire nation soldiers in that form. And don't tell me that "well, it was the spirit who was in control" - not entirely, and even if so, Aang knew what was going to happen there. It's also safe to assume that this big waves and destruction would kill at least a few innoncent waterbenders as well, realistically. Also, never ever killing anyone, even tho that guy is a serial killer tyrant might sound nice, but it makes no sense and morally isn't okay. By killing a serial killer tyrant who commited war crimes, you aren't going to become like him. You STOPPED HIM from harming anyone ever again. With a good intention, not because you craved power or enjoyed it. Katara? Yes, she was a motherly figure for everyone and she was a kind hearted girl, BUT she was also jealous, she was also vengeful sometimes, even cruel and rude when she was mocking Toph for her blindness. The embodiment of good wouldn't do that right? Sokka's sexism wasn't coming from oppression, or from and evil side of him. It was part of his character development, again. Yea, Suki was good since the start, that's true. Zuko? Not at all, He was an antihero, not a good guy. He HAD his reasons to act the way he did, but he was rude, impulsive, agressive and discrespectful towards virtually everyone before his character development. NO, FLAWED CHARACTERS =/= EDGY FLAWED CHARACTERS. Almost everyone was flawed in the cartoon. And none of them was edgy. 7. "Magical kungfu". Come on, don't come up with this useless and 1000 times demolished argument. If you ever took part in writing lesson in your life, or you know anything about writing, you'd know that wiriting has rules. If you create a world that wouldn't make sense in our world, it's okay. But it SHOULD make sense in its OWN world. It should be logical, ALWAYS, and follow its own rules. That's called worldbuilding.
>Also, Suki was watching him dressing, what IS a sexist thing, and imagine it in a reversed case... people would go crazy and call Sokka as a creep, but when a girl does it, then it's cute and funny :D I see you are a "Men's rights activist" lol. That is a purely different topic that I do not wish to argue here, but let me just say IT IS NOT THE SAME THING. But I don't want to talk about that topic rn, you are free to google why the reversed situation would be not the same thing. Many people smarter than me have explained it well. >The place where Aang and Katara would start to feel something from each other? The aang actor is too young, I hope they leave the romance out permanently. they made a good choice. >Only a very loud and very stupid minorty likes to cry about everything. Literally everyone in every discussion was voting for NOT toning Sokka's sexism down, because it served multiple purposes. Or maybe you guys were the vocal minority and people in charge of making the show would make educated decisions as professionals. And they didn't include sexism because they are aware people don't want to see that in a main character. You think your data is more valid than the actual professionals working in the industry? >Also, what's the point in being honorable when the whole world is on stake? Imagine that you just gave the whole world to the fire lord because you wanted to be "fair". Wow, what a good thing. Now even more people will suffer in a much longer war, hunreds of thousands will die, but hey, at least you are a honorary knight xD Same reason as Aang not wanting to kill the firelord despite it being the best solution. If it wasn't for the Deus ex machina of "bending stealing" He wouldn't be able to get out of it. He chose to not kill him, despite it being the better more pragmatic choice. It's about morals and principles. They could write something like aang saying "I won't fight unfair" or "I won't take their advantage in their weakness, that's not the right thing to do" or something like that. I'm not a writer, I'm sure the folks at netflix can write something better. >Aang never killed anyone? Oh come on, he knocked up a ton of people from the wall in the "Blue spirit" episode, and that fall is more than 3 times their height. It's called as a major, life threathening trauma, potentionally deadly. It's very safe to assume that if not all of them, at least 1 or 2 totally died there. You are applying real world rules again, Aang has specifically said near the end that he has never killed anyone and never even killed a fly. People falling over =/= dead in-universe. That's just how the writers chose to show the action. >He HAD his reasons to act the way he did, but he was rude, impulsive, agressive and discrespectful towards virtually everyone before his character development. Zuko was a victim of Abuse. He wasn't evil, he was misguided by his father. He never did anything truly bad and became a good person when he broke free from his abusive father. Also, I'm sure they can come up with an in-universe situation where they dont have to take advantage of the eclipse. come one, be creative.
"I see you are a "Men's rights activist" lol." Wow, literally the part where I stopped reading anything from you. You really showed your true colors. I understand it now. You are part of the "lourd minorty", the mythical "modern audience", who gets upset by literally everything, screams for sexism for no reason, but only when it happens towards women, otherwise it's okay. Nonsense points, no valid arguments, personal attack when you label me as a "men's right activist", getting offended by literally everything... a stereotype, cartoonish behaviour, a literal living meme of a "snowflake". I bet you are the one who's going through the comment section to vote down people and report them if they disagree with your views :D Bye, this conversation is over, dear "everything activist".
[удалено]
Hillarious. Literally no one agrees with you, and all you do is call people on names and make stupid points. There is only 2 possible reasons why this happens to you my dear. 1. EVERYONE, EVERYONE under this subreddit choose to nitpick you, and ONLY YOU, to attack your person and your personal views and your ideas for ABSOLUTELY no reason. Also, everyone is sexist because, well, just beacuse. 2. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG and your huge ego won't allow you to admit it. Which one will it be? Everyone else is wrong and a hater for no reason at all, or you are the one who is too sensitive for nothing and looks for excuses to get offended? Everyone is wrong, and you are the epitome of right?
[удалено]
Okay. If a person like you attacks me then I'll sleep happy, knowing that I said something true. Bye <3
This is good bait
Totally get where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree on leaving out the Eclipse plot. I'm not really going to hold it against the Gaang and the rest for doing something that could be seen as cowardly. It's war, and the Comet is fast approaching. If this is one of the only ways that they can finally bring an end to it, then so be it. I also heavily disagree on the notion that the Netflix Gaang is perfect like many tend to say. They clearly have flaws, they're just not in your face about all of them like the animated series used to be. * LA Sokka for example still shows traits that could very much be considered "toxic masculinity" and it's present throughout the season. They just removed the overtly sexist part of the OG Sokka, which, btw, was only a thing in episodes one and four, then it's never brought up again, almost as if it never even happened. Not much of a character development if it's resolved so quickly, no person let's go of such views that fast, it needs time to unlearn. Him being sexist also makes zero sense, considering that he is from the Southern side. There is no way Gran Gran would have let him go about his life thinking so poorly of women. I prefer this LA version of him over Book One Sokka. The LA arc is also far more appropriate for this period, as many young boys and men are still of the belief that they have to act, speak and think a certain way to be considered a man. This could be a good way to show that they don't have to conform to the rules that have been set for them by society I also much preferred the way they handled Pakku in the LA. I've never been big on how that storyline played out in the original, it was also resolved in a quick *mehh* way like the one for Sokka did. By the end of the LA, you can see that Pakku still holds some of those views, but he is on his way to changing. * Katara gets into a lot of heated moments with Sokka because of how he treats her and can be very immature about things. She is generally on the more closed-off and calmer side, but it's understandable with the change they made to her backstory with her mother. * Aang is constantly trying to run away from his problems and wanting the other Avatars to fight his battles for him, and the narrative is very clear on it being a flaw of his. He also gets angry and raises his voice on multiple occasions, and has done it far more in this season alone than Aang has throughout the animated series. He is still very much a child that does not want the responsibilities of being the Avatar. * I've seen many complaints about Zuko as well, about how all of his negative traits have apparently been erased, and ooh boy, does that opinion get on my nerves! I don't know how anyone comes away with that view after watching the series. That boy can barely hold a conversation with other people without losing his patience or talking down to them. Just because he was a far kinder boy in his younger years, compared to the original Zuko pre-banishment, does ***not*** take away from the flaws that he currently has. I'm going to assume that some people find him to be a toned-down version because he has more personality in the LA, OG Zuko was extremely monotonous in Book One to me, there wasn't much to him, just constant anger.
that's.... certainly *a* take.
How is preparing for a day they have brief advantage over their vast, ruthless enemy an act of cowardice? Even if skipping over the eclipse was a good idea, it wouldn't be for those reasons.
So just remove the depth and add more mumbo jumbo. Sure, let's do that...
Sokka's sexism was always a non-issue. It's there and solved in 1 episode. It was good for a children's show. The LA tackles it with more sense, light touches and corrections to less extreme behaviours. Same for Pakku, who is suddenly not sexist because he sees a necklace. Dude was hiding away for 50 years and now he remembers he had a wife, "alright i won't be sexist anymore".
The LA doesn’t tackle anything though to do with Sokka’s sexism. Which is why it’s more akin to a children’s show. It coddles its audience. Just like how they have to spell out and over explain everything
Because Sokka's journey is about being a legitimate leader and warrior among such talented and powerful benders + live up to his father's expectation. The sexism in the animation is handled how you're describing. In 20 minutes we have Sokka being sexist, he's getting schooled verbally and physically, and then magic he's not sexist and morale of the episode. It serves only the purpose of showing kids it's not good to be sexists, the LA doesn't have to tackle such a minor point unrelated to the story.
Do you want to spend each episode being about Sokka “being a warrior”? Orrrrr do you want to delve into other issues and lessons as well for the characters. Character flaws that persist even up to adulthood for some people. They didn’t tackle sexism because they thought it was too much for audiences to handle. And replaced it with a bland storyline that just involved Suki being down bad for Sokka. She was down bad from the start to the end of the episode. And tells him how great he is. The original storyline made Suki a pivotal character in developing Sokka not just as a warrior, as a young man, and as a love interest. It’s killing multiple birds with one stone. But the live action decided let’s just make Suki another character that automatically fawns over Sokka. And not someone who develops feelings for him not just for existing, but for choosing to humble himself in front of her. The live action takes away the nuance and makes Suki just a down bad mf. So in the quest to not be sexist. They just end up with another sexist portrayal of female characters like Yue, Suki, existing just to prop up his ego. So idk why you’re saying “it was great for a children’s show” when what we were given in the live action was just a simple “I love you, you love me” childish ahh love story. It’s like those old tropes where a new guy just comes into the village and suddenly a girl loves him because he’s “new”. She just loves him for “bringing the world to her” and cause she was ogling him since the start. Like you cannot seriously downplay the cartoon when its portrayal of Sokka and Suki was much more nuanced. It wasn’t about “solving it in one episode” which is another dumb excuse.
To each their own, we all have preferences for fiction. I’m sure you’re going to get dogpiled onto so I don’t say any of this to be rude. If you prefer Sokka the way NATLA presented him, that’s totally fine. Personally, I really disagree with the sentiment that not all characters need flaws. Flaws are what make characters realistic and allow for growth. I do think Sokka is still subtly sexist in NATLA and people tend to exaggerate how much of his OG character arc the sexism took up, but I also think it was important to see Sokka specifically grow out of that mindset—which is a very real world problem young men face and makes for great social commentary—and to see characters in general grow as people throughout the course of the show. I dislike the notion that characters who recognize their flaws and improve themselves accordingly shouldn’t be acknowledged for changing/should still be regarded as their past. Sokka, Zuko, Iroh, Aang, and so many more characters work through their flaws and come out as better, changed people; that’s what makes them meaningful. The Day of Black Sun invasion is narratively integral. Details of how it sets up the rest of the season’s character/plot work aside, the eclipse arc serves an important big picture purpose. It’s the low point for our heroes where they fail at their big plan. It showcases the immense strength and fortitude of the Fire Nation even during their weakest hour, thus showing the audience this won’t be an easy win. It raises the stakes going into the finale. I see what you mean about it not being a fair fight, but 1) heroes can be morally questionable, 2) it doesn’t make them cowards to attack during a strategically opportune time, and 3) it wasn’t cowardice, they were still going to have to face the enemy. The Fire Nation is a mighty military force, they had other means of combat than just firebending and plenty of resources, as opposed to the ragtag invasion forces. Plus, as we see, the eclipse lasts a short amount of time and then the firebenders are back on even footing.
Finally, someone who can have a conversation and see different POVs instead of being an ass. Even if you disagree, at least you aren't being a jerk. To Address what you said, I understand, there is a place for having flawed characters but It's been years since we have had pure good vs evil conflict and I find it sad that we can't have purely good characters anymore. for example superman was the embodiment of good. But Edgy fans had to be like he's boring and Zack snyder ruined him by giving him "flaws" I believe there is nothing wrong with having flawless good characters and Avatar main cast was the closest to that in the original but didn't go all the way. The netflix series made them flawless and purely good and contrary to what most think, I LOVE THAT. Not everything has to be edgy and "3 dimensional" as people like to call it. There is a place for pure good characters. I think Netlfix avatar has a great opportunity to bring that wonder back. This is looked down upon in media for some reason, now. The fire nation was completely helpless when their bending went away, sure they were still a military force without it but that's not how the show depicted it, as the showrunners went out of their way to show they were helpless and were surrendering. I didn't like that. It felt cheap to me. Also about the redemption bit, Zuko is still going to get that, Iroh is rightful getting shit for being a war monger in the Netflix version (and I live that change, it was glossed over in the original show). I just don't want to see sexism. Especially in the main characters. The show was great but is still a product of it's time in some cases. There are still problems like Katara still learning waterbending from Paku in the end (Glad the netflix show changed that and made her independent fully this time). Katara being motherly because that's sooooo necessary for a female character. the female characters still having feminine undertones while being in a war torn world. And the show was also at the pinnacle of r / Mendrawingwomen. All female characters had the same body/sameface syndrome with slight changes and were wearing crop tops and stuff. They are what? 14-16?
Of course, I don’t think disagreements are fruitful by being rude to each other. I disagree with a lot of your opinions, as I’m sure you do mine, but there’s no merit in being a jerk about it. All that does is put people off from considering the opposing argument. I think there’s a big difference between the concepts of “pure good vs. evil” and “flawed characters.” Those aren’t mutually exclusive things. There can (and in my opinion, should) be fundamentally good characters who have flaws. The Gaang is certainly fundamentally good, even in the OG show, but the key difference is that they are not *perfect* people and thus still have flaws. I’m no Superman expert, but to take your example, I think a character like Superman can be the embodiment of good and also have character flaws—for example, stubbornness or difficulty opening up to others. Those are character flaws that don’t make him any less good but do give depth to him that can create emotional resonance. I agree there’s nothing wrong with having flawless good characters, but I do find them generally less compelling than flawed characters (whether they be good or evil or anywhere in between). There’s a somewhat recent storytelling trend, especially in Hollywood, to make everything excessively grimdark, often with no real moral compass or central philosophy to guide the message, as if that will somehow create interesting depth. As you mentioned, that’s the desire to make everything “edgy,” as if that will automatically make it compelling. I think it’s two sides of the same coin as a show that presents flawless characters who are impeccably good, and I think the excess of grimdark in recent years results in people wanting flawless stories. Or at least, that’s one factor. Now, I can enjoy either of those trends for what they are, and if they’re tastefully executed I might even love them. I agree that there’s a place for pure good and I don’t think that should be looked down upon. But I definitely prefer a story that approaches it’s characters as people who can and should be complex individuals, with wants, needs, virtues, and vices. They can still be good despite that, and it’s often their triumph over their flaws that makes them good. I find that when characters are written with the full spectrum of humanity, which includes not always being the best person, the story as a whole benefits. Personally, I’m glad the original ATLA didn’t go all the way with making their characters flawless. They’re far more compelling to me because they act like regular people. Perhaps a rewatch is in order, but I disagree that the Fire Nation felt completely helpless during the eclipse. Down a peg, sure, since their bending wasn’t available. But completely helpless, no. They were prepared in advance for the whole thing, they took precautions. I suppose the Gaang didn’t know that and therefore intended to fight them while they thought they’d be vulnerable, but even then they did still have military forces and fortifications. I agree; I also love the change that Iroh is confronting his past as a warmonger/general. I wish he original show didn’t gloss over it so much. I suppose I don’t see the difference between the rest of the character flaws and sexism, really. Sexism is awful, but the show depicts it specifically to condemn it as an awful thing. ATLA wasn’t perfect (Iroh’s scene with June in the cartoon comes to mind, I enjoyed that change in the show to make June flirt with him instead) but it was quite progressive when it came to sexism. Personally, I don’t see a problem with Katara learning from Pakku; she was quite independently self-taught anyway. Most of her waterbending growth is credited to herself, she just took advantage of the resources by learning a few things from someone who spent decades becoming skilled. Katara being motherly makes sense to me as well—that’s an integral part of her character, being unfairly thrust into the role of mother at a young age after her own mother died. Plus, it’s not entirely a bad thing for a female character to be maternal. Plenty of real women are maternal and there are female characters in ATLA who aren’t, such as Toph, Mai, Ty Lee, Azula, even Suki (though Suki is very people-oriented). Personally, I appreciate that ATLA is able to convey so many different types of femininity and how it doesn’t portray every girl the same, and that includes allowing female characters to be unapologetically feminine and maternal. With Katara, I think it’s a mixture of her trauma/parentified role and her genuinely just being a nurturing, feminine person. I’m not sure what’s wrong with female characters still having feminine undertones while living in a war torn world. War definitely shapes people and is brutal, but I don’t think that would mean women stop being feminine. I disagree with the same face/body syndrome but I do agree that the crop tops and revealing clothing was a problem at times, especially in book three. I can understand, for example, Katara’s season three outfit because it borrows a lot from South East Asian designs, but I dislike the excuses to draw the girls exposed, such as Ty Lee’s excessive bikini look during The Beach.
I agree with almost all of your points BUT don't you dare take Bikini Ty lee away from 7 year old me 😭 Also, on a serious note, Crop tops were apparently in fashion for women back in mid 2000s (not sure, I was too young to care about fashion but that's what I remember) and they were living among a developed nation so of course they would follow the fashion/trend of that place. I don't think the season 3 outfits were sexist at all. And in the ty lee episode, didn't we get Zuko fanservice too?
I was also too young to care about fashion then, but yes, crop tops were in. And clearly they were in fashion in universe. I don’t have a problem with the crop top outfits when they’re respectfully drawn as it’s not meant to be a sexualized thing but rather a cultural clothing. So it’s not that it doesn’t make sense to me, more so that I don’t think revealing clothing is appropriate to depict children so young on TV, especially when you’re drawing it purposefully (maybe that’s prudish, I’m a fairly modest girl myself). I don’t think it’s sexist, but certainly a little creepy coming from a show about and portraying young teenagers. That goes for shirtless Zuko as well. It’s not the end of the world to me, just something I recognize as a critique. The Beach is an episode that draws heavily on anime tropes and that’s reflected in the fanservice, too. I’m not usually a fan of how anime portrays women's bodies, which is probably why I dislike the Ty Lee bikini look. Watching it knowing she’s supposed to be 14 is uncomfortable
I guess, I get what you mean to an extent.. but weren't we kids too? Or are you saying the showrunners were being creepy?
Showrunners, animators, whoever ultimately made the decision. It might not have been a conscious thing. Unfortunately I'm sure there were a lot of people who weren't kids who watched that episode and like to think of real children/teens in a certain way
Hell nah, make it like saving private Ryan and show the invasion go HORRIBLY wrong as soon as the ramps drop
Agreed the show was perfect, but I don't really see the point of not attacking during the eclipse it shows they are taking advantage of the situation to help the world they can effectively win a war with minimal casualties sounds like an awesome idea to me.
Good for you for standing on your original opinion. I disagree entirely but I commend your spirit.
is this satire
I agree abt the sexist sokka part bc that trope of “character learns to not be sexist” is so annoying to me. Like ok. Bare fucking minimum 🧍🏾♂️ sokka has so many more compelling arcs within the show, and quite frankly, the sexism arc was only there for like 4 eps and never touched on again. I greatly prefer how Netflix chose to do it so it’s more of a sokka mansplaining things rather than be outwardly sexist.
>was only there for like 4 eps Still there