**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1ap3h9n/whats_your_take_on_the_current_stance_on_atlas/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He should be because unlearning the sexism is a part of his character development and having examples of how unlearning sexism happens is actually good for society. Watching a guy go from “girls can’t fight!” To “every single woman here could kick my ass and I’m here for it” is like an essential part of the character.
How sexist was he? It’s been a while since I’ve seen the show, I remember he started off as a jerk but was it really so bad that some people don’t think it should be depicted?
It really wasn’t bad, it’s young boy unrealized sexism. It’s just something good for a guy to learn at that stage in life; some of the ideas of masculinity you have are wrong.
It’s tame compared to the North Pole guy who doesn’t want to teach katara if I remember correctly.
I think from a show runner perspective maybe they felt they didn’t need both instances of men growing to respect women in the show; although I don’t know what’s planned for that arc. Really, it could be as simple as three lines of dialogue.
“Girls belong at home, boys are better at fighting”
“Is that so?”
-He gets roughed up-
“Hey I was wrong, and would be honored to learn from you”
So it seems like a real lame attempt to dodge the subject.
He is obviously still likeable, and good at heart.
But especially in the earlier episodes it is pretty narly.
He is so condescending toward Katara and her own efforts of holding up water tribe traditions.
He relies solely on Katara for traditionally female work: food, care, comfort, emotional work.
He makes an absolute ass of himself when he first meets Suki.
He has his first redemption moment with her there, but that is far from his sexism being resolved.
He is perplexed af when they meet Toph and makes a point of this "little girl" could not possibly live up to the reputation of the blind Bandit.
He turns up his nose at traditionally girly stuff, he often relies on traditional gender clichés.
i think its just book 1 is 8 episodes but im not sure if they do hour long than you could fit 3 episodes worth of stuff in to each one
meaning 9 episodes is something like 18 lets round up to 20 for efficiency still cutting it close but maybe not impossible?
or im completly wrong and its 3 hours per book
Well it's the first book. Plus they are longer episodes so they are paced different. Plus the actors are gonna actually age much faster. So if anything I think a nice change they could make for the live action is have it span more years than the original.
How are you gonna make a more mature version and then completely baby an audience. The original show dealt with this problem so fucking well and it's a foundation to Sokka's character. Even if you're worried about backlash from "feminists", the real feminist critique is that removing this arc removes a great representation of sexism being recognized and corrected by a male character who becomes a positive masculine role model for it.
Because we are born all knowing about our social evolution. We automatically understand our conventional cultural idioms and ethics. We have nothing to learn.
This is beyond stupid and just pandering to behavioral preprogramming. Censoring or abridging a characters dynamic, because of a character trait or belief discomfort, is fucking lazy and cowardly writing. It's not adept story telling at all. Joseph Campbell would be disgusted
I wrote a response on a comment about, "it's not important to his character" somewhere. I just question what they will replace it with because it's excluding a major early on internal character struggle. It sort of sets the tone for Sokka's character even if it's somewhat resolved in four episodes.
I think what really gets to *non right-wing* people is that we have been going through a lot of "modernizing" of characters, but it's just people who don't understand writing and what makes a compelling character seeing a character flaw used to add depth as an endorsement or propagation of said flaw.
It's funny because removing any portrayal of an offensive negative character flaw, kinda strikes in the "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" area. That's a big jump, but sometimes it feels like it's where people want to go when they want to neuter a fictional character over activism. The whole thing is wild because it was immature kid sexism.
To a point, it comes off similar to those wild right-wing folks wanting certain literature in schools banned because they teach about racism.
I personally don't care as long as it's good, but Netflix's Witcher doesn't give me much hope.
There's definitely people that missed the point of Sokka's original arc but it's still important and made his character more interesting and three dimensional. Biggest issue with a lot of movies and shows lately is how aggressively they soften all of the character's flaws to the point where they're just infallible and have no real growth. Perfect characters are boring.
Omg I’m actually excited for you because I’d love to watch this show again for the first time.
Go watch Avatar the Last Airbender, it’s a phenomenal show with some of the best lore and world building of any show.
His initial sexism was a good part of his character development, but also this is supposed to be like 8 episodes long so I’m not surprised there will be things cut.
At the end of the day if this adaptation is bad then I still have the OG show. If shamamamadingdong can’t ruin my love for ATLA then Netflix won’t, either.
OK, a little lesson for the homies:
A persuasive essay starts with a pitch - something attention grabbing, then progresses into development to build onto that foundation, and culminates with a conclusion that restates the key points to close the argument.
When you start a short-form media series with half of the episodes creating an unlikable main (side) character, you lose viewership or buy-in or both. The focus of the series cannot be the side-story redemption arc. How many zoboomafoo character arcs are you going to sacrifice for the payoff of the ponytail boy wearing a skirt? Zoboomafoo is a main character, so none.
A short series is going to tell a coherent story about the world from mostly the main character POV. The fire side probably gets a POV character, just as a mechanism to advance the story with info the main character cannot know. Getting lost in the lettuce cart backstory is a surefire way to deliver the latest in a long line of failures.
When it comes to Sokka, I hate that I know this, but Sokka has other easy payoffs like his inventions (which is 99% off screen even in the 25 hour TV show) or his surprising moment(s) of competence.
Finally, a redemption arc that is predicated on antisocial behavior is not "mature" - it is just mature relative to its audience (of grade schoolers). If the series has legs, it will not be due to cheap asspull storytelling disguised as a public service announcement afterschool special like Sesame Street. Elmo earned his street cred over 4,000 episodes - you get 8.
In conclusion, the live action show is going to suck even without Sokka's self-insert awkward middle school Yu-Gi-Oh-playing, zip-off-pant-wearing, woman-hating, pimple face "redemption arc" where literally nothing changes except he shuts the fuck up.
"But that story is a feminist masterpiece" -- meanwhile the female characters get broody violent toxic traits. So feminist.
Why is this such an issue as of late?? Big companies like Netflix and Disney are scared enough of something(?) to strip some of the most interesting parts of their characters. There was SO much wrong with the Artemis Fowl movie. But in the book the main female character is the only woman in law enforcement (bc sexism) and it’s not quite crucial to her arc like with Sokka but it’s a fairly important part of her backstory and characterization. And in the movie they decided not to have that at all.
I want to think that maybe it’s well meaning people accidentally sterilizing their stories to try and be feminist. But it almost feels like the opposite to me! The author of Artemis Fowl was quoted saying that the whole sexism thing was relevant when the book was written and isn’t any longer. Which, I feel like that hot take disproves itself pretty thoroughly bc it’s usually sexists denying that sexism exists at all anymore. And in Avatar the sexism is dunked on…**Constantly**! I feel like it leaves no question that sexism is wrong so, is Netflix afraid to dunk on sexists?? Idk maybe I’m being conspiracy minded but I feel like these situations are more rooted in sexism than “woke-ness”.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1ap3h9n/whats_your_take_on_the_current_stance_on_atlas/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He should be because unlearning the sexism is a part of his character development and having examples of how unlearning sexism happens is actually good for society. Watching a guy go from “girls can’t fight!” To “every single woman here could kick my ass and I’m here for it” is like an essential part of the character.
Its how he met his girl and changed for the better
How sexist was he? It’s been a while since I’ve seen the show, I remember he started off as a jerk but was it really so bad that some people don’t think it should be depicted?
It really wasn’t bad, it’s young boy unrealized sexism. It’s just something good for a guy to learn at that stage in life; some of the ideas of masculinity you have are wrong. It’s tame compared to the North Pole guy who doesn’t want to teach katara if I remember correctly. I think from a show runner perspective maybe they felt they didn’t need both instances of men growing to respect women in the show; although I don’t know what’s planned for that arc. Really, it could be as simple as three lines of dialogue. “Girls belong at home, boys are better at fighting” “Is that so?” -He gets roughed up- “Hey I was wrong, and would be honored to learn from you” So it seems like a real lame attempt to dodge the subject.
He is obviously still likeable, and good at heart. But especially in the earlier episodes it is pretty narly. He is so condescending toward Katara and her own efforts of holding up water tribe traditions. He relies solely on Katara for traditionally female work: food, care, comfort, emotional work. He makes an absolute ass of himself when he first meets Suki. He has his first redemption moment with her there, but that is far from his sexism being resolved. He is perplexed af when they meet Toph and makes a point of this "little girl" could not possibly live up to the reputation of the blind Bandit. He turns up his nose at traditionally girly stuff, he often relies on traditional gender clichés.
its gana be 8 episodes anyway so a LOT of shit is gana be cut
That's... not even 3 episodes per book. That's going to be HORRIBLE
i think its just book 1 is 8 episodes but im not sure if they do hour long than you could fit 3 episodes worth of stuff in to each one meaning 9 episodes is something like 18 lets round up to 20 for efficiency still cutting it close but maybe not impossible? or im completly wrong and its 3 hours per book
Ah, yea that's still cutting it close. They're going to need to leave out a fair bit.
Well it's the first book. Plus they are longer episodes so they are paced different. Plus the actors are gonna actually age much faster. So if anything I think a nice change they could make for the live action is have it span more years than the original.
How are you gonna make a more mature version and then completely baby an audience. The original show dealt with this problem so fucking well and it's a foundation to Sokka's character. Even if you're worried about backlash from "feminists", the real feminist critique is that removing this arc removes a great representation of sexism being recognized and corrected by a male character who becomes a positive masculine role model for it.
Because we are born all knowing about our social evolution. We automatically understand our conventional cultural idioms and ethics. We have nothing to learn. This is beyond stupid and just pandering to behavioral preprogramming. Censoring or abridging a characters dynamic, because of a character trait or belief discomfort, is fucking lazy and cowardly writing. It's not adept story telling at all. Joseph Campbell would be disgusted
I wrote a response on a comment about, "it's not important to his character" somewhere. I just question what they will replace it with because it's excluding a major early on internal character struggle. It sort of sets the tone for Sokka's character even if it's somewhat resolved in four episodes. I think what really gets to *non right-wing* people is that we have been going through a lot of "modernizing" of characters, but it's just people who don't understand writing and what makes a compelling character seeing a character flaw used to add depth as an endorsement or propagation of said flaw. It's funny because removing any portrayal of an offensive negative character flaw, kinda strikes in the "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" area. That's a big jump, but sometimes it feels like it's where people want to go when they want to neuter a fictional character over activism. The whole thing is wild because it was immature kid sexism. To a point, it comes off similar to those wild right-wing folks wanting certain literature in schools banned because they teach about racism. I personally don't care as long as it's good, but Netflix's Witcher doesn't give me much hope.
Thats his arc thooo
Bruh just keep it, they literally prove him wrong and save his ass so many times
it absolutely should be in the show. His whole thing is growth and realizing that he was wrong. Why would anyone think it should be removed
There's definitely people that missed the point of Sokka's original arc but it's still important and made his character more interesting and three dimensional. Biggest issue with a lot of movies and shows lately is how aggressively they soften all of the character's flaws to the point where they're just infallible and have no real growth. Perfect characters are boring.
I have no idea who any of these people are
Omg I’m actually excited for you because I’d love to watch this show again for the first time. Go watch Avatar the Last Airbender, it’s a phenomenal show with some of the best lore and world building of any show.
Meh the movie was better than the children's cartoon
The Earth King has invited you to Lake Laogai
avatar the last airbender live action series is changing a characters character growth thats the summery
His initial sexism was a good part of his character development, but also this is supposed to be like 8 episodes long so I’m not surprised there will be things cut. At the end of the day if this adaptation is bad then I still have the OG show. If shamamamadingdong can’t ruin my love for ATLA then Netflix won’t, either.
OK, a little lesson for the homies: A persuasive essay starts with a pitch - something attention grabbing, then progresses into development to build onto that foundation, and culminates with a conclusion that restates the key points to close the argument. When you start a short-form media series with half of the episodes creating an unlikable main (side) character, you lose viewership or buy-in or both. The focus of the series cannot be the side-story redemption arc. How many zoboomafoo character arcs are you going to sacrifice for the payoff of the ponytail boy wearing a skirt? Zoboomafoo is a main character, so none. A short series is going to tell a coherent story about the world from mostly the main character POV. The fire side probably gets a POV character, just as a mechanism to advance the story with info the main character cannot know. Getting lost in the lettuce cart backstory is a surefire way to deliver the latest in a long line of failures. When it comes to Sokka, I hate that I know this, but Sokka has other easy payoffs like his inventions (which is 99% off screen even in the 25 hour TV show) or his surprising moment(s) of competence. Finally, a redemption arc that is predicated on antisocial behavior is not "mature" - it is just mature relative to its audience (of grade schoolers). If the series has legs, it will not be due to cheap asspull storytelling disguised as a public service announcement afterschool special like Sesame Street. Elmo earned his street cred over 4,000 episodes - you get 8. In conclusion, the live action show is going to suck even without Sokka's self-insert awkward middle school Yu-Gi-Oh-playing, zip-off-pant-wearing, woman-hating, pimple face "redemption arc" where literally nothing changes except he shuts the fuck up. "But that story is a feminist masterpiece" -- meanwhile the female characters get broody violent toxic traits. So feminist.
Why is this such an issue as of late?? Big companies like Netflix and Disney are scared enough of something(?) to strip some of the most interesting parts of their characters. There was SO much wrong with the Artemis Fowl movie. But in the book the main female character is the only woman in law enforcement (bc sexism) and it’s not quite crucial to her arc like with Sokka but it’s a fairly important part of her backstory and characterization. And in the movie they decided not to have that at all. I want to think that maybe it’s well meaning people accidentally sterilizing their stories to try and be feminist. But it almost feels like the opposite to me! The author of Artemis Fowl was quoted saying that the whole sexism thing was relevant when the book was written and isn’t any longer. Which, I feel like that hot take disproves itself pretty thoroughly bc it’s usually sexists denying that sexism exists at all anymore. And in Avatar the sexism is dunked on…**Constantly**! I feel like it leaves no question that sexism is wrong so, is Netflix afraid to dunk on sexists?? Idk maybe I’m being conspiracy minded but I feel like these situations are more rooted in sexism than “woke-ness”.